Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord
God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn
from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die,
O house of Israel? (Ezek. 33:11)
(I)
[Source: Ready
to Give and Answer: A Catechism of Reformed Distinctives (Grandville, MI: RFPA,
1997), pp. 87-88.]
Q. “But do not Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 teach that God is gracious in the preaching of the gospel to the reprobate wicked?”
This
is surely the interpretation of the Synod of 1924, as well as of Professor L.
Berkhof in his booklet written in defense of the Three Points. But notice, with
regard to these two texts, which are essentially the same in meaning:
a.
That in neither of these passages is there any offer of grace or salvation at
all, as far as the form of the texts is concerned. In both passages we have a
direct statement by the Lord, the God of Israel, that He hath no pleasure in
the death of the wicked, but therein that he turn and live. In the text from
chapter 33 this statement stands in the form of an oath. It is, therefore, no
offer, but a most emphatic divine assertion.
b.
That in both the texts it is the house of Israel that is addressed. The Lord,
therefore, through His prophet, does not address the wicked in general, but the
church, those who are called His people, those whom He chooses, but who have
departed from the way of the covenant of the Lord. This certainly does not
plead in favor of the interpretation that would apply this text to the
reprobate wicked, or to elect and reprobate alike. It is His people whom the Lord assures of His forgiving mercy.
c.
This is corroborated by the context, especially of the text in chapter 33:11.
There the assertion of forgiving grace by the Lord is an answer to the
complaint of the people of God: “If our transgressions and our sins be upon us,
and we pine away in them, how should we then live?” They were conscious of
their sin. They felt that they were worthy of condemnation and death because of
their transgressions. And they did not see a way out. They did not understand
that the Lord is abundant in tender mercy and forgiving grace. They pined away
in their sin, and they must surely die. To these people the Lord answers that
there is abundant hope. For He hath no pleasure in the death of His people,
even when they have departed from His ways. He will have mercy on them and
forgive. Therefore, let them turn, and He will pardon, and they shall live.
d.
Finally, notice that the Lord has no pleasure in the death of the wicked that
turns and lives. Scripture elsewhere frequently testifies that the Lord does
have a holy pleasure in the destruction of the wicked [Prov. 16:4]. For He
hates all the workers of iniquity [Ps. 5:5; 11:5], and He shall laugh in their
destruction and hold them in derision [Ps. 2:4; 37:13; Prov. 1:26-27]. But the
Lord does have pleasure that the wicked turn from their evil way. And when they
turn from their wicked way and are wicked no more, He delights in their life,
and gives it unto them abundantly by His grace.
From
all these elements it ought to be very evident that the texts cannot be applied
to the reprobate wicked; and, surely, that there is no general offer of grace
in these passages from Ezekiel.
----------------------------------------
(II)
(II)
In these verses
[Ezek. 18:23 and 33:11] God speaks and swears by himself, and his word is
absolutely true and unchangeable. The content of God’s oath is that he has no
pleasure in the death of the wicked and that he has pleasure in the conversion
and life of the ungodly. It is unnecessary to add anything more. Although it
might be answered from the context, the question whether the verses refer to
elect or reprobate can be left out of the discussion. God has pleasure in
conversion and life. No one denies this. He has no pleasure in impenitence and
death and is terribly displeased with the impenitent state of the wicked. No
one objects to this. In the same sense that God has no pleasure in the
impenitence of the wicked, he has no pleasure in his death. Conversion and life
are inseparably connected.
These passages do
not speak of the preaching of the gospel at all. They surely contain no offer
of salvation nor declare the purpose of God in the preaching of the gospel with
respect to elect and reprobate. That it is God’s purpose, through the preaching
of the gospel, to bestow the grace of conversion on all who hear is certainly
not implied in the passages. If synod imagines that a general offer of grace is
in these passages, it is most certainly mistaken, for there is no offer
whatever.
----------------------------------------
(III)
“An Interpretation of Ezekiel 33:11”
(III)
“An Interpretation of Ezekiel 33:11”
[Source:
The Gospel, or, The Most Recent Attack
Against the Truth of Sovereign Grace]
Foreword
One of the texts often appealed to in support of
the teaching of a common grace of God and a sincere desire of God that every
human be saved is Ezekiel 33:11 (Ezekiel 18:23, 32 is a similar passage). Rev.
H. Hoeksema gave an explanation of this text in his book, Het
Evangelie, of de Jongste Aanval op de Warrheid der Souvereine Genade (The
Gospel, or the Most Recent Attack on the Truth of Sovereign Grace).
Because the text is still used in the Reformed
community to promote the doctrine of common grace, and because the book in which
Hoeksema’s explanation of the text appears has not been translated, I have
translated the section of Het Evangelie that contains the
explanation of Ezekiel 33:11 (pp. 206-212). It should be kept in mind that
Hoeksema’s interpretation of the passage was given in the context of
controversy with a Professor Heyns (of Calvin Seminary), who explained Ezekiel
33:11 as teaching a universal grace of God and a sincere desire of God that
every human be saved, i.e., a well-meant offer of salvation.
—David J.
Engelsma
*
* * * * * *
We can certainly agree with [Prof. Heyns] when he
says that we would be doing violence to the text, if we would read: “I have no
pleasure in the death of the elect
wicked, but I have pleasure in this, that the elect sinner turn and live. Turn ye, O elect sinner!” I do not believe that Heyns has ever heard of such
an interpretation. By writing this, he shows he correctly understands neither
the text nor the explanation of his opponents. At any rate, I will not believe
that he does not write about these things in all seriousness. And so, he makes
a straw man here, in order, then, in the following paragraph, to demolish it
with all seriousness.
Certainly, if someone would be found who would read
the text this way, not only would he do violence to the text, but he would also
rob the text of its power. This is so, not because there is in the text some
comfort for the reprobate (the sinner who does not turn), much less because the
text teaches that God loves the reprobate (the sinner who does not turn);
neither because there is a well-meant offer of grace for the reprobate wicked
here (the sinner who does not turn), for even such a one as this would not be
able to understand the text in this way.
Rather, the simple reason is that the viewpoint of
the text is not that of God’s sovereign predestination—neither of election nor
of reprobation. The viewpoint is ethical. The question is: how should we then
live, if we pine away in our sins? Is there hope for the sinner with God?
Therefore, the answer is this: Most certainly, in the way of turning! The sinner
will taste that God is merciful and gracious, that he abundantly pardons, if he
turns. The viewpoint is thoroughly ethical. Indeed, the sinner who turns is the
elect; and, indeed, the sinner who does not
turn is the reprobate; nevertheless, you would be doing violence to the text if
you were to substitute the terms of predestination for the words wicked and
converted.
The divine demand to turn does not come to the
elect only, but also to the reprobate; and it does not come to the elect and
reprobate as such, that is, viewed as the predestinated, but it comes to them
as rational-moral creatures. And viewed thus, it then remains eternally true
that the way of life for the sinner is the way of turning. Also Heyns should
have no trouble seeing this. We do not read the text in the way Heyns presents
it.
In the second place, it should not be difficult for Professor Heyns to see also that there is in this text not only no universal,
well-meant offer, but, in fact, no offer
at all. To be sure, Heyns asserts that there is, but he will never be able
to make this evident.
When you analyse the text closely in all its parts,
you arrive at the following: 1) God says something about Himself. He says that
He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; indeed, that He has pleasure in
his turning and living. 2) God swears to that which He says of Himself with an
oath: “as truly as I live”! 3) On the basis of this oath, in which God reveals
what pleases Him, He comes to the house of Israel with the demand and call to
turn. If God really has pleasure in the turning and the living of the wicked,
why should they then yet die? It is only because they hate God and love the way
of wickedness!
There is, therefore, absolutely no offer in the
text. Even if [it] were true that we were allowed to read the text thus: “I
have no pleasure in the death of a single wicked person,” Heyns would still not
make any headway in proving his notion of a universal offer. Also this, the professor himself will surely see.
In the third place, I believe also, that it will
not be difficult for me to convince Heyns that there is in the text no element
of a universal love for sinners. If
men in the Christian Reformed Churches had not, already for a long time, become
accustomed to such language, they would be astounded to read of the professor
in the Theological School that he believed in a universal love for sinners. Pray
tell, what is the difference, really, between a universal love for sinners and universal saving
grace? Everyone will agree that there is no difference here. Heyns himself
can see no difference. And what now is the difference between this notion and
that which our fathers at the Synod of Dordt have condemned as unscriptural
and unreformed? There is no difference. And yet Heyns proclaims this universal
love for sinners without shame, in the paragraphs quoted above. God wills the
salvation of all His creatures, writes the professor; that is, He wills the
salvation of all men. Therefore, the “wicked” of Ezekiel 33:11 may not be
limited. God loves all wicked men, with the desire to save them, with a great
love for sinners. And He swears to this with an oath!
And when Heyns writes all this, there seems to be no
one whose hair stands on end. At any rate, there seems to be no one any longer
in the Christian Reformed Churches who reaches for his pen. How is the gold
become dim!
And yet, it is not difficult to convince even Heyns
that the text in Ezekiel 33:11 by no means teaches this, teaches this so little
that even no wicked person could receive this impression from the text. I will
now not speak of “elect” and “reprobate” wicked, as Heyns supposes that I must
do in order to deny a universal offer. This is not the viewpoint of the text,
as we already noticed.
But I will indeed make the distinction between “wicked
who turn” and “wicked who do not turn.” This distinction is very plainly
grounded in the text itself. And then I dare say that also Heyns does not have
the courage to read the text this way: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,
whether he turn or not.” In the first place, this would stand in diametrical
opposition to Holy Scripture. For the sake of His own name, God has, in fact, a
holy pleasure, not in this, that the wicked does not turn, for that displeases
Him; but in this, that He casts the wicked who does not turn into eternal destruction.
God will even laugh at their destruction. To prove this, I could adduce a
hundred texts, but I proceed on the assumption that Heyns knows them as well as
I do.
In the second place, such an interpretation takes
no account of the second part of the text. It simply will not do, to make wicked in the first part refer to all
wicked men without distinction. Such an interpretation is also guilty of doing
violence to the text. For in the first part, the Lord declares wherein He has no pleasure; in the second part, He
declares wherein he does have
pleasure. We have to do, therefore, with a contrast. Now the Lord declares in
the second part, that He has pleasure in this: that the wicked turn and live.
He has pleasure, therefore, in the living of the wicked, only if he turns.
Turning and living are inseparably connected with each other. But from this, it
also follows that the wicked who do not
turn are excluded in the first part of the text.
Therefore, we may undoubtedly read the text this
way: "I have no pleasure in this ... that the wicked does not turn and dies, but in
this, that he turns and lives." Whoever does not turn is certainly killed by God
with eternal death, and God certainly has pleasure in this death as punishment
for sin, for it is a manifestation of His justice. But whoever turns shall
live, not because he turns, for that
would never be able to earn life for him, nor to blot out his former sins; but
because God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked who turns, and in His
eternal mercy has blotted out his unrighteousness. And so, Heyns will have to
agree with me that there is no universal love for sinners in the text, but a
love for the sinner who turns.
Thus, in the end, Heyns will also have to agree
with me, that, although there is here no mention of elect and reprobate as
such, the text is, according to its content, so obviously particular, that
there is absolutely no possibility that the reprobate wicked would be able to
receive the impression that God here promises or offers him anything. He has no
share in the matter here. For he never turns.
On the other hand, the text, also by virtue of its
context, is exactly intended as rich comfort for God’s elect people. For they are the wicked who, in fact turn—and Heyns will agree with me that this turning is a gift of God, a gift
of His grace, by His Spirit and Word. The professor will also agree with me,
that God bestows this gift of turning on whom He wills and that He bestows it
only out of pure, sovereign grace on His elect.
And if, then, those elect, those wicked who turn,
cannot understand that they shall receive life in the way of turning—since that
turning does not blot out their guilt or give any right to life—then God swears
by Himself that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but in this:
that they should receive life in the way of turning.
Turn ye, turn ye, then, O house of Israel (God
speaks here also to the church), for why should you die? If I had not been
merciful to you with eternal mercy, you would have to die in your sins; then no
turning would make any difference, nor would there even be a way of turning
open. But now it is otherwise. There is no reason that you should die. Turn ye
then to me and live!
----------------------------------------
(IV)
More to come! (DV)
(IV)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment