Dr. C. Matthew McMahon on Matthew 5:44-45

 

 

[1] “[Matthew 5:45 and Luke 6:36] are often used out of context to prove common grace, or a duality in God’s will as one who decrees the salvation and reprobation of men, but desires all men to be saved because of the necessary applications which flow from the doctrine of common grace … [Unless these texts] are treated within their context of enemy love, then the theologian is simply proof-texting his work.34  [Footnote 34: ‘I believe such is the case with Murray’s exegesis on these passages in The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4, as well as Berkhof’s Systematic Theology sections on common grace’]” (The Two Wills of God: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2005], pp. 177, 179).

 

[2] “The first important note to make concerning this passage is that it speaks about God’s providence. How shall a man be perfect as God is perfect? He is to be indiscriminate with his love as God is indiscriminate with His preservation of the world in His general providence. It does not explain God’s immediate intention upon the just or the unjust in any sense of His decrees. Jesus simply makes the statement that God does this … God, in His providence, indiscriminately upholds the works of nature, and continually causes its seasonal cycles to work in the midst of men.  John Owen says this ‘is the outworking of God’s providence, and nothing more.’35  To carry the text any further than this is to miss the intention of the writer and the teaching of Christ …” (The Two Wills of God: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2005], p. 179).

 

[3] “If Jesus was advancing [the view advocated by proponents of common grace], the conclusion would lead us into absurdity. For instance, if we lean heavily to one side and say that ‘sunshine’ and ‘rain’ are examples of God’s special love and favor to the just and unjust, then we must also say, in the same breath, that famine, pestilence, earthquakes and hurricanes are God’s wrath and hatred of the just and unjust. This takes Matthew 5:45 and Jesus’ intention for the passage too far.37  We must be content to stay in the context of enemy love as it relates to disciples, and not to God. The point is to imitate God indiscriminately, but the action and motivation we have for our enemies is by no means the same as God’s … If we are interested in understanding God’s intention towards His enemies, we need to study passages such as Romans 9 …” (The Two Wills of God: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2005], p. 180).

 

[4] “The passage states nothing about the intention of God’s general providence towards the just and the unjust. To state that God’s indiscriminate providence in giving good gifts to the unjust is with the intention of ‘saving them’ or forming a doctrine of common grace is reading into the text far more than what is warranted by Christ. The same applies for reading into the text the opposite result: that God’s wrath and displeasure on the just because He has sent them famine, plague, sickness or the like is His hatred against them in either sense. God’s intentions toward men in and of Himself is not the point of Jesus’ teaching. God’s command to His people and their duty is the expression of the passage and Jesus’ teaching in the sermon for Kingdom children” (The Two Wills of God: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2005], p. 182).