Have I any pleasure at all that
the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from
his ways, and live? (Ezek. 18:23)
For I have no pleasure in the
death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and
live ye (Ezek. 18:32).
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: “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review,” in The Blue Banner newsletter, vol. 9, issue
10–12, (October/December
2000), pp. 16-18.]
Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11
Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11, with particular regard
to the words, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” are the passages
next seized upon by the report. The covenantal context of these passages is
clear from such addresses as “Hear now, O house of Israel” (18:25), and “Why
will ye die, O house of Israel” (33:11). Thus, the dependence of the report
upon these passages might be summarily dismissed by referring the reader to the
previous comments regarding God’s word not being made ineffectual because it
has reference to Israel as elect. Yet, this can be demonstrated to be true with
regard to the teaching of the Ezekiel passages themselves, and so it might
serve as a more thorough rebuttal to the report if these were investigated in their
own right.
The report’s exegesis of these passages bore the
burden of showing that it is not in the least justifiable “to limit the
reference of these passages to any one class of wicked persons,”43 that
is, to the elect who do not die in their sins. The first consideration in
support of this conclusion was the assertion that in Ezekiel 33:4-9, “the
wicked who actually die in their iniquity are contemplated.”44 This
is not correct. The wording is conditional: “When ... if ... then ...” The Lord
is showing wherein blame will lie in certain hypothetical situations. a) If
Ezekiel fails to warn the wicked of their danger, and if the wicked die in
their iniquity, their blood shall be required at the prophet’s hand. Or, b) if
Ezekiel does warn the wicked of their danger, his soul shall be delivered whether
the wicked dies in their iniquity or not. Thus, what is being contemplated is
entirely hypothetical and solely for the benefit of the prophet, that he might
not shun to declare the whole counsel of God in his ministry. The house of
Israel is not contemplated until verse 10 when the Lord entrusts His oracle to
the prophet that he might warn the covenant people of their danger. Thus, the
report’s first consideration fails to support its conclusion.
The second consideration is that the phrase, “I
have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” according to the report, “admits
of no limitation or qualification; it applies to the wicked who actually die in
their iniquity.”45 The difficulty of answering the report’s defence
of this statement is the fact that it has pounced upon the general wording of
the text, separated it from its context, and proceeded to feed upon it to its
own delight. Such a method ignores a fundamental hermeneutical principle. “That
indefinite and general expressions are to be interpreted in answerable
proportion to the things whereof they are affirmed.”46 By noting the
words in their context it may readily be seen that the words are not a general
assertion at all, because the word wicked is a certain class
of wicked person who is being referred to in the surrounding verses.
In the first passage, the prophet is speaking
against those who claimed that their punishment was because of their fathers’
iniquities. This idea is renounced with the assertion that the wicked dies for
his own wickedness, and concrete cases of that generation’s wickedness are
subsequently provided (verses 1-18). Then, in verses 19-22, the prophet states
that if the wicked will turn from all his sins, his
transgressions shall not be mentioned unto him, but he shall live in his
righteousness. The hypothetical nature of the case and the conditional nature
of the conclusion are noteworthy.
The significant words are subsequently spoken in
the context of this hypothetical situation: “Have I any pleasure at all that
the wicked should die? (verse 23). The reference is to the wicked if he
will turn from his wickedness. God is saying, hypothetically, if the wicked
will turn from his wickedness, I will have no pleasure in his perishing on
account of either his father’s or his own former sins. And this is borne out by
the second half of the verse: “and not that he should return from his ways, and
live.” That is, God shall be pleased, if the wicked meets the
condition and turns from his sins, to grant life to him on account of his
righteousness, rather than to leave him to perish on account of his own and his
father’s sins.
Verse 24 obversely presses this same point. The
prophet asks that if the righteous turns from his
righteousness and commits iniquity, should he be permitted to live? We should
note the interrogative corresponding to the question of verse 23. It has the
effect of asking, Does God have any pleasure at all that the righteous should
live? That is, given the condition that the righteous one has turned to
committing iniquity, he ought not to think that the Lord will reward him on
account of either his father’s or his own former righteousness.
Verses 25-30 press this point home in answer to the
accusation that God was not acting equally towards them. The prophet concludes,
in verse 30, that the Lord will judge every one according to his ways.
Consequently, the house of Israel are exhorted to make for themselves a new
heart and a new spirit (such as God promises to give them at the restoration,
ch. 36), and not to perish on account of a foolish notion that God has acted
inequitably towards them and shall make them perish for their fathers’ sins.
For God has “no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.” As
with the word wicked in verse 23, the word him is
qualified by the context. It is he that makes for himself a new heart and a new
spirit; God will not inflict punishment upon him on account of past sins.
Rather, if he turns, it will be a repentance unto life, for
God shall reward him according to his righteous standing before Him.
The second passage in Ezek. 33 is to much the same
effect, but the question of the fathers’ sins appears to be left out of view.
That might be because this prophecy is spoken in anticipation of the
announcement that Jerusalem has been destroyed in verses 21ff. In this context,
the “death” referred to in the intervening verses of 10-20 is best understood
as a departure of this life before the blessed restoration, while “life” is
with reference to seeing and enjoying the blessings of a reconstituted kingdom,
such as is presented in chaps. 40ff. Hence, Ezekiel’s ministry is to take on a
whole new orientation and he receives a new commission in verses 1-9 to that
end. His calls of repentance are necessary if Israel is not going to “pine
away” under the punishment of their transgressions (verse 10), but become a
partaker again in the promised land.
In this context the words of verse 11 need to be
understood: “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.” That
is, it does not please the Lord to continue punishing the wicked for past
sins if he will turn from his wicked ways. Rather, He is
pleased to grant life to the turning sinner. Verses 12-13 then reproduce the
same reasoning of chapter 18 with regard to the hypothetical case of the
righteous turning to wickedness and dying on account of that wickedness.
Similarly, verses 14-16 repeat the hypothetical case of the wicked turning to
righteousness and living. The importance of this section is the way in which it
restates the case of verse 11 with regard to God having no pleasure in the
death of the wicked. “When I say to the wicked that he shall surely die, if he
turn from his sin ... he shall surely live.” The if is conditional,
and the case is hypothetical. As God lives, He has no pleasure in the death of
that wicked person whom He has condemned to death if that
wicked person will turn from his wickedness. The conclusion is only
realised when the condition is met. The reformer, John Knox,
in his treatise On Predestination, has related this sense of the
passage well:
The minde of the
Prophete was to stirre such as had declined from God, to returne unto him by
true repentance. And because their iniquities were so many, and offenses so
great, that justly they might have despaired of remission, mercie, and grace,
therefore doth the Prophet, for the better assurance of those that should
repent, affirme, ‘That God deliteth not, neither willeth the death of the
wicked.’ But of which wicked? Of him, no doubte, that truely should repent, in
his death did not, nor never shall God delyte. But he deliteth to be knowen a
God that sheweth mercye, grace, and favour to such as unfeinedly call for the
same, how grevous so ever their former offenses have been.47
In this light, the report’s disjointed exegesis of
the Ezekiel passages misses the mark. The statement, I have no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, does admit of a qualification. It is the qualification
imposed by the context that the wicked are being hypothetically considered as
turning from their wicked ways. It does not apply “to the wicked who actually
die in their iniquity.” It applies, hypothetically, to any within the house of
Israel who would be of a mind to turn from wickedness and cease from charging
God with injustice because of His judgements. Hence, the report’s second
consideration also fails to support its conclusion. It is justifiable, then, to
limit the reference of these passages to one class of wicked persons.
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
43. Collected Writings of John Murray, vol.
4 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), p. 121.
44. Ibid., p. 122.
45. Ibid.
46. John Owen, Works, Volume 10, p. 348.
47. John Knox, Works, Volume 5, p. 410.
No comments:
Post a Comment