Rev. Herman Hoeksema
[Originally published in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 2, no. 1 (December, 1968), pp. 19–45.]
Among
the personal papers of the late Rev. Herman Hoeksema, I discovered two essays
on common grace. The essay here presented is the second. As far as I know,
neither paper has been published previously. The first paper would also have
made interesting reading, but it was not feasible to publish because the last
couple of pages were missing, and it was impossible to fill in the missing
section editorially except by guesswork. Besides, the second essay is in more
than one way the more valuable, especially because of the exegetical material
contained in it.
Perhaps
the reader wonders why an essay on this subject is published, especially since
the author’s views on the subject have been thoroughly and frequently expounded
in various other publications. The answer to this question is twofold.
The
first essay is historical. The contents of both essays make clear that they
were written before 1924, probably during the very early period of the common
grace controversy in the Christian Reformed Church. I do not know the exact
time and occasion when they were delivered. Since the author works with the
Hebrew and Greek, the occasion was almost certainly some kind of ministers’
gathering, either an area minister’s conference or possibly a meeting of the
group of ministers who wrote in the Witness.
Obviously the subject of common grace had already been discussed. Yet the time
was such that supporters and opponents of the theory of common grace were still
meeting and engaging in face-to-face discussions. It seems therefore that these
essays were delivered in the early 1920s, before the controversy had reached
the stage of ecclesiastical polemics.
The
second reason for publishing is that this essay demonstrates that from the
outset Hoeksema dealt with this subject in a thoroughly exegetical manner and
that over the years, apart from some refinements and clarifications, he did not
deviate from his original exegetical approach and position. The question he
insisted on asking and to which he gave answer throughout the year was, in the
light of Scripture, what grace do the wicked receive?
This
is interesting, because it explains the author’s approach at that time. His
approach is found in the introductory section of the first essay:
For more than one reason I have looked forward to
this occasion with eager anticipation, and I am glad that it has come. First,
it gives me pleasure to think that the interest in matters of such a purely
doctrinal nature as common grace is still alive in our circles. It cannot be
called a characteristic of our age in general that it is deeply interested in
doctrinal and theological questions. It rather busies itself with the practical
problems in the world. It is, however, a sad delusion that the practical side
of life can be divorced from its doctrinal foundation. For that reason I am
glad to notice, in the midst of much unrest in our churches these days, that
there still is a lively interest in questions pertaining to our Reformed
doctrine and Calvinistic life view.
Second, I like nothing better than a public and
open discussion. When I say this, I mean on subjects extra-confessional,
concerning which there is room for difference of opinion. I consider common
grace to be such a subject. If it were otherwise, I would not speak to you
tonight. If I intend to make propaganda for any ideas that run contrary to our
Reformed standards, my place would not be here tonight. But this I do not
intend to do. From beginning to end, I will remain foursquare on the basis of
the Reformed standards. The subject on which I speak to you this evening is
plainly extra-confessional, as I will show presently. On such subjects I like
public discussions. That is why I am here this evening. I invite discussion. If
you wish, I invite debate and contradiction. I have only one condition: tackle
the subject, not the person. Not because I am so over-anxious about my person,
but I am about my subject.
Third, I think the subject we will discuss tonight
is of grave importance. Not, of course, as long as it remains a mere question
of rain and sunshine. A person asked me the other day whether I could not see
that the Lord sent his rain also upon the wicked. I told him in my opinion
there would be very few umbrellas and raincoats sold if he didn’t. That is not
the question tonight. But if the question is asked, not whether the wicked
receive rain and sunshine and whether they develop, but whether they receive grace—grace they have in
common with the righteous—I think it is a significant one. To my mind, as you
answer this question, you will answer the question of the antithesis. The
reporter on the speech of Volbeda in Onze
Toekomst [Our Future] saw this clearly, I think.
But—and after this
“but” I will plunge headlong into subject—I realize that I have a difficult
task before me tonight, and I kindly beg you to realize this with me. My view,
which I will propose, differs from the general opinion among our people on this
subject. The general opinion has been trained to believe in common grace. If
this were all, my position tonight would not be so precarious. But it is not
all. Great theologians for whom I too have the highest esteem, men like Abraham
Kuyper, have taken a stand for this view and developed it. Over against such a
giant I am but a small man. Yet I do not agree with him. It is almost
inconceivable that such a little man as I could possibly be right on any
subject on which Kuyper differs with him. It even makes some people smile
piteously to think of the very idea. Therefore, I will ask you to grant at
least the possibility—let us say, it’s a very small, a faint one—that my view
is after all correct, and Kuyper’s is misleading in this case.
The body of the first essay was then devoted to the
demonstration that the doctrine of common grace is not confessionally Reformed,
that is, not a truth that has been expressed or developed in the Three Forms of Unity; a brief exposition
of Kuyper’s theory of common grace; an exposition of the scriptural concept of grace; and a refutation of the idea that
both the righteous and the wicked, the elect and the reprobate, receive grace
from God in this present life.
In the last section of the first paper (the
incomplete section), the threefold conclusion mentioned in the introductory
part of the second essay was set forth. That second essay I now present in its
entirety.
—Homer
C. Hoeksema
* * * * * * * *
Introduction
The
conclusion reached in my last paper was threefold. First, I maintained that
there is only one grace operating through Jesus Christ as the mediator of
redemption, and that grace is based only on his atoning blood. Second, I
explained that although in this world the wicked are organically connected with
the righteous, live under the same external influences, both evil and good, and
develop in the same world, they receive no grace. All things are to them a
curse. Third, I developed the idea that there is no such thing as a check upon
sin. Sin, finding its root in the principal sin Adam committed in paradise,
develops as fast as possible along the organic line of the development of the
human race.
The
criticism passed on my paper was varied. Most of the brethren did not agree
with me, which was no more than I had expected. But I wish to state also that
there was not unanimity of thought among the brethren with regard to the
subject we are discussing. More than one expressed the opinion that the view of
the late Abraham Kuyper cannot be maintained as correct. I received the
impression that some of the brethren agreed that there is only one grace. Also
in regard to the idea of grace there were different opinions. I think there is
room after this essay for one more paper in which the brethren meet the
difficulties I raised and clearly set forth their views of this theory.
Some
of the difficulties connected with the theory of common grace were simply
passed by in silence. Especially I call attention to the very serious question,
how is it possible that the righteous and holy God can in any way assume an
attitude of loving-kindness to the wicked, whether you consider them as
reprobate, as unregenerate, or as actively wicked? The question is of great
importance, because it deals with our relation to the world, and is worthy of
our most serious consideration. Although I do not expect the brethren to agree
with me over against a man like Kuyper, I humbly submit my presentation of this
truth once more to you, begging at least to be heard with a certain measure of
sympathy.
If
I am not seriously mistaken, the question is an actual one even in the
Netherlands. It cannot escape our attention that Dr. Valentijn Hepp, of
Watergraafsmeer, one of the keenest minds in the Netherlands, who has disagreed
with Kuyper regarding the doctrine of common grace in his dissertation Testimonium Spiritus Sancti [Testimony
of the Holy Spirit], employs quotation marks whenever he writes common grace.
Dr. F. W. Grosheide, in a speech recently given in Leeuwarden, called attention
to the worldly mindedness especially among the youth and then mentioned as one
of the causes of this transformation to the likeness of the world a false
conception of the doctrine of common grace [een
verkeerd opvatten van het leerstuk der algemeene genade]. The problem
therefore is worth our most serious consideration.
The
chief criticism—or at least what I consider the chief element in
the brethren’s criticism—was that I had not based my paper on Scripture. This
was hardly correct. I reasoned throughout my paper from such fundamental
scriptural truths as the covenant, the image of God, total depravity, God’s
righteousness, and the organic development of the human race. I regard as a
scriptural basis not only the exegesis of a few or even of many passages, but
also the employment of and deduction from those fundamental conceptions that
are commonly accepted among us. Besides, I called your attention to three
passages from Scripture that, according to Kuyper, constitute the classical
passages for the doctrine of common grace. Naturally, time was lacking for more
detailed work. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity the brethren offered me
to present some of the passages from the word of God that may be quoted in
favor of my view, as well as to offer a more or less exegetical study of the
conception grace as revealed in Holy
Writ. This I propose to do in this paper, to which I ask that you give your
kind attention.
First, I will speak on the scriptural idea of grace. Second, I will refute the
passages offered for discussion by some of the brethren in support of common
grace. Third, I will call attention to a few passages in support of my view of
the matter.
The
Scriptural Idea of Grace
The difference regarding the scriptural use of the
term grace is that the Old Testament
uses several words to express approximately the same idea, while the New
Testament constantly uses one term, which for that very reason is broad and
elastic in meaning. The three words from the Old Testament that must be
considered are hesed (דסֶחֶ),
rason (ןוֹצרָ),
and chen (ןחֵ).
Of these, chen (ןחֵ) is the word the
Septuagint renders almost invariably by the New Testament charis (χάρις—grace). It is derived from the root chanan (ןנַחָ),
which signifies “to incline toward anyone or something,” denoting an attitude
of the body. Clearly the word could further denote an inclining of the mind and
heart toward anyone, being favourably disposed. It is used often in the most
general sense, as in Genesis 18:3: “My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy
sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.”
This expression occurs frequently. Especially the
verb is used in cases where the opposite of God’s favor might be expected, as
in Psalm 6:2, where the poet, after having implored Jehovah that he might not
rebuke him in anger nor chasten him in sore displeasure, says, “Have mercy upon
me, O LORD.” Thus it is also in Psalm 51:1, where the poet, having fallen
deeply into sin, comes to Jehovah with the well-known prayer, “Have mercy upon
me, O God.” Thus chen (ןחֵ)
also denotes what God in his favor bestows on his people, in contrast with his
dealings with the wicked and scoffers. We read in Proverbs 3:34, “Surely he
scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.” Chen (ןחֵ) thus signifies
“favor, good will, loving-kindness.” It may denote an attitude of God, an
attitude of his favor, perhaps revealed to those who are unworthy. It is
employed to express what Jehovah in loving-kindness bestows on the objects of
his grace.
Rason
(ןוֹצרָ) comes from the
root rasah (הצָרָ),
which means “to delight in any person or object, to be pleased with one’s
presence, to be on good terms with anyone,” and hence, “to have friendly
association with someone.” Thus the substantive derivation also means “good
will, delight, favor, grace.” In this way the word is used in Isaiah 49:8: “In
the time of goodwill, delight, the time of grace, have I answered thee.” This
word is also used to denote concretely the benefits bestowed in good pleasure
and grace—gracious gifts or gifts of grace.
Hesed
(דסֶחֶ), often translated by eleos (ἔλεος—mercy) in
the Septuagint, comes from the root hasad
(דסַחָ).
Its fundamental meaning also seems to be that of loving-kindness and favor, but
with the connotation of zeal and fervor. When used with regard to Jehovah, it
expresses that he burns with zeal and eagerness to show his grace and favor to those
who fear him. In the King James hesed
(דסֶחֶ)
is frequently translated as “mercy.” Yet hesed (דסֶחֶ)
is very closely akin to chen (ןחֵ) and charis (χάρις) and is used sometimes in
the most general sense. Thus it is used in Daniel 1:9: “Now God had brought
Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs,” a passage
where the translation “mercy” would hardly fit. The same word is used by Isaiah
in chapter 55:3 when he speaks of the gracious gifts of God’s covenant bestowed
on David as “the sure [or faithful] mercies of David.” Hesed (דסֶחֶ)
is used to denote both an attitude of God toward men and a relation of
man to God. As an attitude of God it denotes zealous love, ardent favor, and
mercy. As a relation of man to God it expresses love, gratitude, and piety.
In the New Testament there is only one word (χάρις—charis) for grace that has a variety of meanings, yet with one fundamental
thought beneath it. That fundamental significance is always favor,
loving-kindness, friendship.
First, charis
(χάρις) is used with a connotation closely akin to that of rason (ןוֹצרָ);
then it means that which is delightful, charming, lovely, attractive. In this
way it is used in Luke 4:22, where the word clearly has the sense of pleasing
and charming: “And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which
proceeded out of his mouth.” The genitive, literally meaning “words of grace,”
is used here to denote the impression the words of Jesus made on his audience.
His words were charming and pleasing in their effect on the people’s minds. He
spoke gracefully.
Second, charis
(χάρις) is used to denote favor and goodwill in the most general sense,
with respect to God and man. Thus it is used in Luke 2:52: “Jesus increased in
wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” In Acts 7:46 we read of
David “who found favour before God,” where the word is evidently used in the
same sense as the Hebrew employs it, and it signifies favor in the most general
sense.
Third, charis
(χάρις) is used with the same fundamental meaning of favor and
loving-kindness, but directed toward those who are unworthy in themselves but
worthy in Christ. The definition given last month by some of the brethren, that
grace is love to the wicked or guilty, is a very imperfect one. It does not
consider the fundamental significance of the word with its variety of uses, and
it forgets that God does not and cannot show his favor to those who are
absolutely unworthy in every sense.
The cross of Christ is the plainest testimony of
this truth in history. If God could have shown his favor to the wicked, the
atonement would become a mystery. But his grace is revealed to those who have
not merited it themselves, but who are worthy because they belong to Christ
Jesus and are considered in him. In this sense, according to grace becomes the opposite of according to debt and according
to works. So it is in Romans 11:6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of
works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” Thus it is also in Romans 5:20: “But
where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” This grace is called the grace
of Jesus Christ for the evident reason that it reaches us only from Christ
Jesus as its source and meritorious basis. It is the grace of God as received
through faith.
Fourth, charis
(χάρις) is used to denote the operation, or action, of God’s favor, or
loving-kindness, on the minds and hearts of his people. God’s grace becomes an
active power through Jesus Christ: it regenerates, brings to faith, justifies,
sanctifies, and perfects. In this sense the word is used in Ephesians 2:8: “For
by grace are ye saved through faith” and in Acts 18:27: “Who, when he was come,
helped them much which had believed through grace.”
Fifth, charis
(χάρις) is used to denote the result, the effect, the fruit of the
operation of God’s grace. Then it is used in a twofold sense. Sometimes the
word is employed to denote the entire subjective spiritual condition of one
governed by the power of grace operative in his heart. Thus Scripture says in
Romans 5:2, “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we
stand.” In II Peter 3:18 the apostle admonishes, “But grow in grace, and in the
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The word is also used to
denote all the gifts of grace as we receive them, as mentioned most fully and
beautifully in John 1:16: “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace
for grace.”
Finally, charis
(χάρις) is used to signify thanks, or gratitude; that is, the
acknowledgment of God’s loving-kindness and favors as they are received by his
people. In this way Paul uses the word frequently, as in Romans 7:25: “I thank
[grace] God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
From this brief review of the uses of the word grace in the Scriptures it becomes
evident that the term is used with a great variety of meanings. It may mean an
attitude of God toward his people, the operation of that attitude, or the
result of God’s attitude upon and for the objects of the same. In both
testaments it is used to express man’s attitude of piety, love, and gratitude
to God.
Underneath all the uses of the word grace lies the always present and
fundamental meaning of favor and loving-kindness. This fundamental thought must
always constitute the chief element in the definition of grace. The objects, the manifestations, and the operations of this
favor may vary, but grace is always favor of God.
If this fundamental significance of grace is
connected with man’s creation in the image of God and, on the basis of God’s
image in man, is further connected with the idea of the covenant, you conclude
that the grace of God—his favor or loving-kindness—assumes the character of
friendship. Favor can be shown to an inferior, to one who stands far below us
and is by that favor not lifted from his inferior position. I can show favor to
a slave or a servant. But that servant never becomes my friend because of the
favor shown to him. I do not live on a level with him. I do not take him into
my counsels. I do not confide to him my secrets. I do not live with him in
friendly association.
Such is not the nature of God’s relation to man. He
wills that man would be the creature he could receive into his most intimate
communion. Although always remaining creature and servant of the Most High, he
would be a friend-servant. To that end God created man in his own image. There
is a creaturely likeness of God in man. In a creaturely way man lives on a
level with his God. If God reveals to that creature his favor, his grace, this
favor actually assumes the nature of friendship that results in friendly
association.
Thus we find that the saints are called the friends
of God. They walk with God and talk with God. God receives them into his
counsels and treats them as his friends. He has no secrets from them. Thus we
read in Psalm 25:14: “The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he
will shew them his covenant.” The original for “secret” (also translated as
“friendship”) makes us think of a symposium where God exercises friendly
association with his people, the people of his covenant. The passage is most
beautifully rendered in this versification: “The friendship of the Lord / Is
ever with his own / And unto those that fear his name / His faithfulness is
shown.”1
The same idea of confidential association, of a
dwelling in most intimate communion, is symbolically expressed in tabernacle
and temple; is tangibly realized in the incarnation of the Word, God’s dwelling
with man, Immanuel; is often expressed in the New Testament under the symbol of
supping together with God or dwelling under one roof with him; and will be
realized fully in the New Jerusalem when the temple will be no more and God
will spread his tabernacle over all his people. God’s loving-kindness, grace,
and favor, as shown and imparted to his people, created after his image and
received into his covenant, assumes the character of friendship. In grace God is
our friend; through grace he makes us his friends.
This relation of friendship, or grace, God assumes
and establishes only with those who are righteous before him. As long as man
stood in his original righteousness, grace flowed toward him directly. But he
sinned, and as a sinner he is cursed, condemned to bear the wrath of God
eternally, unless his state is changed. Not to the unworthy but to the worthy
God’s favor is shown. God’s incomprehensible grace is not that he reveals his
loving-kindness regardless of their sin and guilt and with the surrender and
abandonment of his righteousness, but he gave his only begotten Son—himself—to
the depths of death and hell in order to establish his covenant and to make his
people the objects of his grace.
The objects of God’s grace are unworthy in
themselves. It is not of works that they are the objects of God’s favor.
Nevertheless, they are worthy in Christ, through whom they are justified by
faith before God. Faith is reckoned to them for righteousness, and as righteous
in Christ Jesus they enter into God’s covenantal communion and are the objects
of his grace.
Therefore, I maintain that God’s grace is his
loving-kindness, or favor, assuming the character of friendship toward his
covenantal people who receive his favor on the basis of the merits of Christ
Jesus alone. Outside of Christ Jesus and his atonement there is no grace. The
wrath of God abides on those who do not believe in Jesus. It does not come on them
at some future time, but it abides on them forever. For this reason we must
preach a God of wrath and anger to all who refuse to believe in Christ Jesus
and who trample underfoot the blood of the covenant. For this same reason we
must preach to every man that all things are a curse to him as long as he will not
flee to the God of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus.
Refutation
of the Passages Quoted in Favor of Common Grace
How in the light of this clear and current
scriptural doctrine of grace one can speak of common grace, I confess is a
mystery to me. Never is the word employed with respect to the wicked, whether
they are designated as wicked, reprobate, unregenerate, or unbelievers. You may
take your starting point in God’s eternal counsel of peace, if you please; or
you may begin at the total depravity of the sinner, whose mind is always enmity
against God and the imaginations of whose heart are always evil. Or you may
take your ground in the covenantal idea. Never will you arrive at any other
conclusion than that grace is only for those who are in Christ Jesus.
I will turn to Scripture and maintain that the word
of God never uses the word grace as
imparted in any sense to the wicked outside of Christ. They may live under the
outward manifestation of grace. They may receive the good things of God’s grace
together with the righteous. They may receive the same sunshine and rain, the
same food and drink and shelter and protection; they may sit under the
influence of the same word of God, be baptized with the same baptism, and
partake of the same Lord’s supper. But the wicked, the unregenerate, the
totally depraved, receive no grace. The passages quoted in support of this
theory prove nothing else.
The one passage quoted where the word grace is used is Isaiah 26:10: “Let
favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the
land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of
the LORD.” Apart from the context the future clause means “favor is shown.” But
even a superficial reading of the entire text reveals very plainly that the
clause may not be translated in this manner. It is a hypothetical clause, the
protasis of a conditional sentence, the apodosis of which is “yet will he not
learn righteousness.” The meaning is that even if favor is shown to the wicked,
it will do him no good; he will not learn righteousness. The same construction
appears in Nehemiah 1:8, where the original reads literally, “Ye shall
trespass, and I will scatter you abroad among the peoples,” but where the
meaning is plainly that of a conditional sentence. Hence the text does not
present it as a fact that grace is shown to the wicked.
What is the meaning of Isaiah 26:10? Does Isaiah
mean to grant the possibility that the wicked man receives grace? The opposite
is true. He means to assert that the wicked man is not at all receptive to
grace. Even though he lives right in the midst of the manifestations of God’s
grace, yet he does not receive them. This is plain from what follows: “yet will
he not learn righteousness.” This is still more evident from the last part of
the text: “in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not
behold the majesty of the LORD.” The meaning is clear. The wicked man lives in
the land of uprightness. In that land God reveals the tokens of his grace, in
this instance the punishments of Jehovah. In verse 9 the prophet had said,
“When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn
righteousness.” But in verse 10 he singles out the wicked as an exception to
this rule. He does not learn righteousness, even though he lives under
Jehovah’s punishments and judgments. Although Jehovah’s majesty through these
judgments becomes very evident, he will not behold it.
The passage expresses that even though you place
the wicked in the midst of the outward manifestation of God’s grace, yet he
receives no grace—exactly what I contended in my last paper. I do not deny that
the wicked live in the land of uprightness. But I deny that they receive grace.
By not heeding the manifestations of grace in the land of uprightness, he is
cursed by these very manifestations.
A second illustration of common grace referred to
is Ahab. To all his wickedness Ahab had added the crime of shedding Naboth’s
innocent blood and depriving him of the inheritance of his fathers. Elijah is
sent to Ahab to announce God’s punishment upon him. What is the punishment
announced? Complete destruction, the extermination of Ahab and his house.
Jehovah threatens to make the house of Ahab like that of Jeroboam and Baasha.
The punishment threatened is final and therefore presupposes that the measure
of iniquity is full.
When this final punishment is announced, Ahab
humbles himself and wears sackcloth and ashes. He does not come to repentance;
it is not his sin that troubles him. No, the hard blow of Jehovah, as announced
in Elijah’s prophecy, simply crushes him. He is broken. This reveals that the
wickedness of Ahab and his house has not reached its culmination. It is not
fully ripe. He still fears Jehovah’s judgments. The sin of Ahab’s house would
become ripe in his son. For that reason the threatened extermination, the final
punishment of Ahab and his house, is postponed until the next generation. Then
the measure of iniquity will be full, and the time for final punishment will
have arrived.
In other words, the passage teaches what is taught
in all Scripture—that final punishment will be inflicted when the measure of
iniquity is full. Thus it was with the flood. Thus it was with Sodom and
Gomorrah. Thus it will be at the end of the world. The sign of the fullness of
this measure of iniquity will be that the world will not be frightened and
humbled anymore, even under the threats of severest punishment. Thus it was
with the prediluvian world. Thus it was with Sodom. Thus, according to the Lord
Jesus, it will be at the end of the world. People will continue to live
unconcernedly, marrying and giving in marriage, even though a thousand Noahs
are preachers of repentance and righteousness. Sin develops gradually and
ripens along the historical, organic line of the development of the human race,
and when it is fully ripe final punishment will be inflicted.
Another Illustration of the same truth is the
example of Nineveh. We must consider the incident of Nineveh as historical
fact. The chief significance of the book of Jonah is its prophetic character.
Nineveh is typical of the world to whom the gospel will be preached after
Christ has risen from the dead. Even as Jonah goes forth after his three days
in the fish’s belly to preach the word of God to a people outside of Israel, so
the risen Christ will go forth after a three day’s stay in the heart of the
earth to preach the glad evangel to every nation. But that is not our
consideration at present. We must view the matter as historical reality.
The wickedness of Nineveh is great, and because of
this Jonah is sent to preach its destruction. Also here final punishment is
preached: Jonah must announce extermination of Nineveh as a city. The question
also in this case is whether Nineveh, as Sodom of old, is ripe for destruction.
Jonah preaches, and Nineveh humbles itself. The announcement of punishment
still terrifies its inhabitants. As in Ahab’s case, this is a sign that the
time for final judgment is not yet ripe.
The destruction of the city is postponed for the
while. Surely, not long afterward Nineveh is destroyed. But when Jonah preached
against the city, the wickedness of its inhabitants had not reached its
culmination. Hence the Lord’s final sentence is not executed. Nineveh’s
example, like that of Ahab, assures us that final punishment will be inflicted
only when the measure of iniquity is full. This filling of the measure of
iniquity takes place only along the organic line of the development of the
race, and even of individual tribes and families.
Other
Supporting Passages
The significance of other passages of the word of
God can hardly be disputed. It would overturn the entire structure of theology
to maintain that God’s assumes an attitude of grace toward the wicked outside
of Christ Jesus. The word of God assures us in strong, indubitably clear
language that God hates the wicked, that his wrath is on them continually, and
that his curse dwells in their habitations.
We read in Psalm 11:5, “The LORD trieth the
righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.” Notice
the contrast in the text: “the righteous” is contrasted with “the wicked.” Over
against “his soul hateth” stands “trieth.” The idea is that Jehovah may send
afflictions to the righteous, but he does so in his grace, to prove, to try, to
sanctify them. Even apparently evil things are a manifestation of his grace to
the righteous.
It is different with the wicked. God’s constant
attitude toward them is hatred. His soul hates them. He is filled with enmity
against them. Whatever they may have in this life, the fact remains that
Jehovah’s soul hates them. How the idea that grace in any sense can be forced
into this text is a mystery to me.
The same idea is expressed in Proverbs 3:33: “The
curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation
of the just.” Again “the just” and “the wicked” are contrasted. Corresponding
to this contrast is “to bless” and “to curse.” The idea of the text is that
Jehovah’s curse, his damning power, dwells in the house of the wicked. No
matter how that house may appear, the curse of Jehovah dwells in it. But the
dwelling place of the righteous is the home of God’s blessing.
There is no exception to this text. Wherever you
have the house of the wicked, however right and abundant it may appear, there
you have the curse of Jehovah; and wherever the righteous dwell, in whatever
circumstances you may meet them, there is Jehovah’s blessing. Again I ask,
where is common grace?
The same antithesis is expressed in verse 34:
“Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.” Here one
who derides is a scoffer, a profane person, who mocks at sacred things and
tramples underfoot the things of God. God assumes precisely the same attitude
toward him that he assumes toward God and sacred things. God mocks him, derides
him, laughs at him, and makes him the object of his scorn. In contrast the text
speaks of the lowly, the meek, the righteous, as they suffer affliction and
bear it with the patience of faith. They receive grace. The implication is that
the scoffers receive no grace. God assumes an attitude of grace and bestows his
grace on the lowly, not on the wicked. There is no common grace. There is
always-present and ever-recurring antithesis.
This same contrast is not foreign to the New
Testament. In I Peter 5:5 we read, “For God resisteth the proud, and giveth
grace to the humble.” God opposes, assumes an attitude of opposition toward,
sets himself against the high-minded, the haughty; but the lowly he gives
grace. The contrast of the text is self-evident. Over against the high-minded
stand the lowly. Only the lowly receive grace. The high-minded always meet with
God’s opposition. The implication is naturally that they receive no grace.
The same thought occurs in I Peter 3:12, where the
apostle quotes from Psalm 34:15–16. “The eyes of the LORD are upon the
righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the LORD is
against them that do evil.” These passages are sufficient to prove my contention
that Scripture teaches that the wicked receive no grace. Jehovah’s soul hates
the wicked; he mocks at them; he assumes an attitude of opposition against them;
he sets his countenance against them; he makes his curse dwell in their houses.
It would not be difficult to multiply the passages of the word of God
expressing this truth.
I wish, however, to substantiate one more thought
by passages from Holy Writ. I claimed that the outwardly good things the wicked
receive in common with the righteous in this world become a curse to the
wicked, and that through the good things sin and evil flourish and develop. In
proof of this contention I refer to Psalm 92:5–7. Here the poet sings of the
glory of God’s works and the depths of his thoughts. “O LORD, how great are thy
works! and thy thoughts are very deep. A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth
a fool understand this.” What is that glory of the works of God? Of what is the
poet thinking as a manifestation of the depth of God’s thoughts? This is
expressed in verse 7: “When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the
workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed forever.”
The niphal infinitive used here
denotes the purpose of their blossoming forth. This is God’s purpose, for the
poet has said in the preceding verses that in their blossoming forth he beheld
a work of God and the depth of his thoughts. Through those things by which the
wicked flourish as the green herb, God brings them to everlasting destruction.
Their prosperity is their curse from God!
The same truth is expressed in Psalm 73:18–19. We
are all acquainted with the general content and thought of this beautiful
psalm. The poet, considering things from a merely human viewpoint, is grieved
because the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. He cannot understand this.
Of this “common grace” the wicked receive much more than the righteous. This is
painful to the poet, and he sometimes wonders when he looks at everything
whether there is knowledge in the Most High of this state of affairs but when
the poet enters into God’s sanctuary, when he changes his viewpoint, when he
looks at the same phenomenon in the light of God’s dealings, all becomes plain
to him. He exclaims, “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou
castedst them down into destruction” (v. 18). The meaning is that prosperity to
the wicked becomes slippery places on which they slide and stumble and hasten
to final destruction. They prosper as wicked, develop in wickedness in the
midst of these good things, and with and through all this prosperity hasten to
utter ruin.
Notice
that the poet beholds all this as the work of God. God sets them on those
slippery places. God causes them (the causative hiphil form of the verb is used) to hasten to utter desolation. The
means God employs to this end is the prosperity they enjoy. They flourish, yes,
but as wicked, and as wicked they develop only for desolation and woe. If you
prefer to call this grace, I do not understand the meaning and power of grace.
In
this light I would also explain Hebrews 6:4–8, where the author speaks of
“those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and
were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God,
and the powers of the world to come.” We would almost think they were people
who had actually received the grace of God in their hearts, for here it is not
a matter of food and raiment, of rain and sunshine, but of the blessings of
grace on the church. They have been enlightened, they have tasted of the
heavenly gift, they have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and they have
tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. Yet they
received no grace, for they are described as those who have fallen away. They
have fallen so deeply that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.
They
are therefore people who live very near the central current of God’s grace.
They live in the church. They are under the influence of the good word of God.
They understand it; they even see its beauty. They live in the sphere where the
Spirit of grace operates, and they partake of the sacraments. They even taste
some of these things. They are sometimes enraptured by the view of the age to
come. They are very near the central stream of God’s grace. Yet the result for
them is hardening. They become worse than heathen. They cannot come to
repentance. They evidently commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, doing
despite to him, trampling underfoot the blood of the New Testament, and
crucifying Christ afresh.
The
author of the epistle explains this phenomenon by the illustration of a field:
“For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth
forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
but that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing;
whose end is to be burned” (vv. 7–8). Notice the significance of this
illustration. There is a field, and rain descends often on that field. There is
no question as to the quality of the rain; it is good. If under the influence
of rain the field brings forth good herbs, it receives blessing from God in
that rain. But if it bears thorns and thistles, the field is unable to stand
the test and is disapproved and rejected. It received the rain, but it brought
forth only thorns and thistles.
Through
the rain that came often upon it, the evil nature of the field was brought to
light and developed. Therefore, the rain is nigh unto a curse. Thus the author
explains that there are some upon whom the rain of God’s grace falls often, who
live under the continued influence of that rain, and who yet receive no
blessing.5 The accursed nature of their wickedness is brought out
and developed, and they fall so deeply that they cannot be brought to repentance.
I
have fulfilled my task. In my estimation it is not the best method to call
attention to individual texts. But it is very easy to do so regarding the
subject under discussion. Besides, most of the operations brought against my
former paper are answered at the same time.
Response to Criticism
I
confess that some of the criticism impressed me rather strangely. More than
once the remark was made that the unregenerate do good, that they subjectively
receive grace; otherwise they could not do despite to the Spirit of grace. I
confess that I do not understand this. How grace can do despite to the Spirit
of grace is to me incomprehensible.
It
was also said that the seeds of the doctrine of common grace are present in the
confessions, and reference was made to the Heidelberg
Catechism where it says that we are prone
to evil. The argument was that total depravity merely means an inclination to
all evil, while still the sinner may do good. This then is considered to be a
seed of common grace.
Perhaps
I understand neither the doctrine of total depravity nor the Heidelberg Catechism, but I nevertheless
call attention to the fact that the Catechism
is very explicit on this point. In Lord’s Day 3, the passage referred to by the
critic, the Catechism asks the question,
“Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and
inclined to all wickedness?” The answer is explicit: “Indeed we are, except we
are regenerated by the Spirit of God.”2 It seems to me that if there
are seeds of the doctrine of common grace in the confessions, they must be
sought elsewhere.
Someone
asked the question, do the unregenerate do nothing but evil? I answer with the
word of the apostle Paul, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23) and
with the word of the author of Hebrews: “Without faith it is impossible to
please [God]” (11:6). One of the brethren asked, can we say to the
unregenerate, to the wicked, “All things are a curse to you”? I answer, most
assuredly. I always preach that all things are a curse to them if they do not
repent.
Neither
can I understand the view expressed by someone that the proper receptivity for
grace is special grace, and all the rest is common grace. Perhaps some of those
remarks must be attributed to their being spur-of-the-moment questions. What
must we make of the counsel of election, of the sending of God’s Son, of his
humiliation and exaltation—in short, of the entire work of
God’s salvation, if the sphere of special grace were limited to the subjective?
There is one question about which a special paper
might well be written: do the elect ever occur as sinners? My brief answer
would be that they do. Nevertheless, from eternity they occur as sinners in
Christ Jesus, as the objects of God’s free grace. This brings us to the entire subjects
of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, which I cannot be expected to
discuss now.
Finally, regarding the rich young ruler, Edersheim
thinks that he was one of Jesus’ sheep according to election, that Jesus loved
him as one of his own, and that the young ruler, although turning away for the
moment and thereby proving that the rich enter the kingdom with difficulty,
later returned and became one of Jesus’ disciples. I admit that this is a
conjecture. But if you read the entire narrative carefully, there is much in
favor of this supposition.
The
Practical Significance of the Antithesis
The practical significance of my view is evident.
If you consistently develop the line of common grace, particularly as indicated
by Kuyper, you are bound to lose the antithesis between the people of God and
the world, between light and darkness. Everywhere there is an intermediate
sphere where the church and the world meet on common ground and live from a
common principle. The doctrine of common grace obliterates the antithesis. For
this reason it is easy to prove that there are two Kuypers. The one is the man
of the antithesis; the other of common grace. The latter will lead us right
into the world, as is already evident in the Netherlands and in our church.
Therefore, I will maintain the antithesis of light
and darkness, of sin and grace, of God and the devil, and of Christ and
antichrist. Christ and Belial have nothing in common, least of all grace. I
will continue to fight the battle against the forces of opposition. The antithesis
compels. It is an antithesis between God and the devil, Christ and antichrist,
and God’s people and the world; but it is an antithesis also found within my
being. The law of grace opposes the law in my members and wars against the
flesh. Fighting that battle, we live on earth as strangers and pilgrims, like
the saints throughout history, the witnesses and heroes of faith.
In principle we have the victory now. We look for
the city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. For the glory
that is set before us we are willing to suffer with Christ. For the crown that
is ours in Christ we gladly bear the cross behind him.
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
1. No. 62:2 in the
Psalter with Doctrinal Standards, Liturgy, Church Order, and added Choral
Section, reprinted and revised edition of the 1912 United Presbyterian Psalter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1927; rev, ed. 1995).
2. Heidelberg
Catechism Q&A 8, in The
Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches (Grandville,
MI: Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 2005), 86.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For free subscription to the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, simply send an
email to “Judi Doezema doezema@prca.org”
No comments:
Post a Comment