0:00
0:00
Part 3
Furthermore, the qualifying words here, to be testified in due time, must be taken into consideration. If Christ gave himself a ransom for the whole human race, in what sense will this be testified in due time? Seeing that multitudes of men will certainly be eternally lost. But if our text means that Christ gave himself a ransom for God's elect, for all, without distinction, without distinction of nationality, social prestige, moral character, age, or sex, then the meaning of these qualifying words is quite intelligible.
For in due time, this will be testified in the actual and accomplished salvation of every one of them. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. Hebrews 2, 9. This passage need not detain us long.
A false doctrine has been erected here on a false translation. There is no word whatever in the Greek corresponding to man in our English version. In the Greek, it is left in the abstract.
He tasted death for every. The revised version has correctly omitted man from the text, but has wrongly inserted it in italics. Others suppose the word thing should be supplied.
He tasted death for every thing. But this too we deem a mistake. It seems to us that the words which immediately follow explain our text.
For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. It is of sons the apostle is here writing, and we suggest an ellipsis of son. Thus, he tasted death for every, and supplies son in italics.
Thus, instead of teaching the unlimited design of Christ's death, Hebrews 2, 9 and 10 is in perfect accord with the other scriptures we have quoted, which set for the restricted purpose in the atonement. It was for the sons, and not the human race our Lord tasted death. In closing this section of the chapter, let us say that the only limitation in the atonement we have contended for arises from pure sovereignty.
It is a limitation, not of value or virtue, but of design and application. We turn now to consider three, the sovereignty of God, the Holy Spirit in salvation. Since the Holy Spirit is one of the three persons in the Blessed Trinity, it necessarily follows that He is in full sympathy with the will and design of the other persons of the Godhead, the eternal purpose of the Father in election, the limited design in the death of the Son, and the restricted scope of the Holy Spirit's operations are in perfect accord.
If the Father chose certain ones before the foundation of the world and gave them to His Son, and if it was for them that Christ gave Himself a ransom, then the Holy Spirit is not now working to bring the world to Christ. The mission of the Holy Spirit in the world today is to apply the benefits of Christ's redemptive sacrifice. The question which is now to engage us is not the extent of the Holy Spirit's power.
On that point, there can be no doubt. It is infinite. But what we shall seek to show is that His power and operations are directed by divine wisdom and sovereignty.
We have just said that the power and operations of the Holy Spirit are directed by divine wisdom and indisputable sovereignty. In proof of this assertion, we appeal first to our Lord's words to Nicodemus in John 3, 8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
A comparison here drawn between the wind and the Spirit. The comparison is a double one. First, both are sovereign in their actions, and second, both are mysterious in their operations.
The comparison is pointed out in the word so. The first point of analogy is seen in the words where it listeth or pleaseth. The second is found in the words canst not tell.
With the second point of analogy, we are not now concerned, but upon the first, we would comment further. The wind bloweth where it pleaseth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The wind is an element which man can neither harness nor hinder. The wind neither consults man's pleasure, nor can it be regulated by his devices. So it is with the Spirit.
The wind blows when it pleases, where it pleases, as it pleases. So it is with the Spirit. The wind is regulated by divine wisdom, yet, so far as man is concerned, it is absolutely sovereign in its operations.
So it is with the Spirit. Sometimes the wind blows so softly it scarcely rustles a leaf. At other times it blows so loudly that its roar can be heard for miles.
So it is in the matter of the new birth. With some, the Holy Spirit deals so gently that His work is imperceptible to human onlookers. With others, His action is so powerful, radical, revolutionary, that His operations are patent to many.
Sometimes the wind is purely vocal and its reach at other times widespread in its scope. So it is with the Spirit. Today He acts on one or two souls.
Tomorrow He may, as at Pentecost, prick in the heart a whole multitude. But whether He works on few or many, He consults not man. He acts as He pleases.
The new birth is due to the sovereign will of the Spirit. Each of the three persons in the Blessed Trinity is concerned with our salvation. With the Father, it is predestination.
With the Son, propitiation. With the Spirit, regeneration. The Father chose us.
The Son died for us. The Spirit quickens us. The Father was concerned about us.
The Son shed His blood for us. The Spirit performs His work within us. What the one did was eternal.
What the other did was external. What the Spirit does is internal. It is with the work of the Spirit we are now concerned with His work in the new birth, and particularly His sovereign operations in the new birth.
The Father purposed our new birth. The Son has made possible by His prevail the new birth. But it is the Spirit who effects the new birth, born of the Spirit.
John 3, 6 The new birth is solely the work of God, the Spirit, and man has no part or lot in it. This from the very nature of the case. Birth altogether excludes the idea of any effort or work on the part of the one who is born.
Personally, we have no more to do with our spiritual birth than we had with our natural birth. The new birth is a spiritual resurrection, a passing from death unto life. John 5, 24 And clearly, resurrection is altogether outside of man's province.
No corpse can reanimate itself, hence it is written, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. John 6, 63 But the Spirit does not quicken everybody. Why? The usual answer returned to this question is because everybody does not trust in Christ.
It is supposed that the Holy Spirit quickens only those who believe, but this is to put the cart before the horse. Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it. This ought not to need arguing.
Faith in God is an exotic, something that is not native to the human heart. If faith were a natural product of the human heart, the exercise of a principle common to human nature, it would never have been written, all men have not faith. 2 Thessalonians 3, 2 Faith is a spiritual grace, the fruit of the spiritual nature, and because the unregenerate are spiritually dead, dead in trespasses and sins, then it follows that faith from them is impossible, for a dead man cannot believe anything.
So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8, 8 But they could, if it were possible for the flesh to believe, compare with this last quoted scripture, Hebrews 11, 6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him. Can God be pleased or satisfied with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? That the work of the Holy Spirit precedes our believing is unequivocally established by 2 Thessalonians 2, 13 God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
Note that sanctification of the Spirit comes before and makes possible belief of the truth. What then is the sanctification of the Spirit? We answer, the new birth. In scripture, sanctification always means separation, separation for something and unto something or someone.
Let us now amplify our assertion that the sanctification of the Spirit corresponds to the new birth and points to the positional effect of it. Here is a servant of God who preaches the gospel to a congregation in which are an hundred unsaved people. He brings before them the teaching of scripture concerning their ruined and lost condition.
He speaks of God, His character and righteous demands. He tells of Christ meeting God's demands and dying the just for the unjust and declares that through this man is now preached the forgiveness of sins. He closes by urging the lost to believe what God has said in His word and receive His Son as their Lord and Savior.
The meeting is over. The congregation disperses. Ninety-nine of the unsaved have refused to come to Christ that they might have life and go out into the night having no hope and without God in the world.
But the hundredth heard the word of life. The seed sown fell into ground which had been prepared by God. He believed the good news and goes home rejoicing that His name is written in heaven.
He has been born again and just as a newly born babe in the natural world begins life by clinging instinctively in its helplessness to its mother so this newborn soul has clung to Christ. Just as we read, the Lord opened the heart of Lydia that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. Acts 16.14 So in the case supposed above the Holy Spirit quickened that one before he believed the gospel message.
Here then is the sanctification of the Spirit. This one soul who has been born again and has by virtue of his new birth been separated from the other 99. Those born again are by the Spirit set apart from those who are dead in trespasses and sin.
A beautiful type of the operations of the Holy Spirit antecedent to the sinner's belief of the truth is found in the first chapter of Genesis. We read in verse 2 And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The original Hebrew here might be literally rendered thus And the earth had become a desolate ruin and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
In the beginning the earth was not created in the condition described in verse 2 Between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some awful catastrophe had occurred possibly the fall of Satan and as the consequence the earth had been blasted and blighted and had become a desolate ruin lying beneath a pall of darkness. Such also is the history of man. Today man is not in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator.
Therefore an awful catastrophe has happened and now man is a desolate ruin and in total darkness concerning spiritual things. Next we read in Genesis 1 how God refashioned the ruined earth and created new beings to inhabit it. First we read And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.
Next we are told And God said Let there be light and there was light. The order is the same in the new creation. There is the first the action of the Spirit and then the Word of God giving light.
Before the Word found entrance into the scene of desolation and darkness bringing with it the light the Spirit of God moved. So it is in the new creation. The entrance of Thy Word giveth light.
Psalm 119, 130 But before it can enter the darkened human heart the Spirit of God must operate upon it. The priority contended for above is rather in order of nature than of time just as the effect must ever be preceded by the cause A blind man must have his eyes open before he can see and yet there is no interval of time between the one and the other as soon as his eyes are opened he sees so a man must be born again before he can see the Kingdom of God. John 3, 3 Seeing the Son is necessary to believing in Him.
Unbelief is attributed to spiritual blindness. Those who believed not the report of the Gospel saw no beauty in Christ that they should desire Him. The work of the Spirit in quickening the one dead in sins precedes faith in Christ just as cause ever precedes effect.
But no sooner is the heart turned toward Christ by the Spirit than the Savior is embraced by the sinner. To return to 2 Thessalonians 2, 13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of God because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. The order of thought here is most important and instructive.
First, God's eternal choice. Second, the sanctification of the Spirit. Third, belief of the truth.
Precisely the same order is found in 1 Peter 1, 2. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. We take it that the obedience here is the obedience to the faith Romans 1, 5 which appropriates the virtues of the sprinkled blood of the Lord Jesus. So then, before the obedience of faith compare Hebrews 5, 9 there is the work of the Spirit setting us apart.
And behind that is the election of God the Father. The ones sanctified of the Spirit then are they whom God has from the beginning chosen to salvation. 2 Thessalonians 2, 13 those who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.
1 Peter 1, 2 But it may be said is not the present mission of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin? And we answer, it is not. The mission of the Spirit is threefold to glorify Christ to vivify the elect to edify the saints. John 16, 8-11 does not describe the mission of the Spirit but sets forth the significance of His presence here in the world.
It treats not of His subjective work in sinners showing them their need of Christ by searching their consciences and striking terror to their hearts. What we have there is entirely objective. To illustrate, suppose I saw a man hanging on the callous.
Of what would that convince me? Why, that he was a murderer. How would I thus be convinced? By reading the record of his trial? By hearing a confession from his own lips? No, but by the fact that he was hanging there. So the fact that the Holy Spirit is here furnishes proof of the world's guilt, of God's righteousness and of the devil's judgment.
The Holy Spirit ought not to be here at all. That is a startling statement but we make it deliberately. Christ is the one who ought to be here.
He was sent here by the Father but the world did not want Him would not have Him, hated Him and cast Him out. And the presence of the Spirit here instead evidences its guilt. The coming of the Spirit was a proof to demonstration of the resurrection, ascension and glory of the Lord Jesus.
His presence on earth reverses the world's verdict showing that God has set aside the blasphemous judgment in the palace of Israel's high priest and in the hall of the Roman governor. The reproof of the Spirit abides and abides altogether irrespective of the world's reception or rejection of His testimony. Had our Lord been referring here to the gracious work which the Spirit would perform in those who should be brought to feel their need of Him, He had said that the Spirit would convict men of their unrighteousness, their lack of righteousness.
But this is not the thought here at all. The descent of the Spirit from heaven establishes God's righteousness, Christ's righteousness. The proof of that is Christ has gone to the Father.
Had Christ been an imposter as the religious world insisted when they cast Him out, the Father had not received Him. The fact that the Father did exalt Him to His own right hand demonstrates that He was innocent of the charges laid against Him. And the proof that the Father has received Him is the presence now of the Holy Spirit on earth for Christ has sent Him from the Father.
John 16, 7. The world was unrighteous in casting Him out. The Father righteous in glorifying Him. And this is what the Spirit's presence here establishes.
Of judgment, because the Prince of this world is judged. Verse 11. This is the logical and inevitable climax.
The world is brought in guilty for their rejection of, for their refusal to receive Christ. Its condemnation is exhibited by the Father's exaltation of the spurned one. Therefore nothing awaits the world and its Prince but judgment.
The judgment of Satan is already established by the Spirit's presence here for Christ through death said it not Him who had the power of death that is the devil. Hebrews 2, 14. When God's time comes for the Spirit to depart from the earth, when His sentence will be executed both on the world and its Prince.
In the light of this unspeakably solemn passage, we need not be surprised to find Christ saying the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him. No, the world wants Him not. He condemns the world.
And when He is come, He will reproof or better, convict, bring in guilty the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. Of sin, because they believe not on me. Of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye see me no more.
Of judgment, because the Prince of this world is judged. John 16, 8-11. Three things, then, the presence of the Holy Spirit on earth demonstrates to the world.
First, it's sin, because the world refused to believe on Christ. Second, God's righteousness in exalting to His own right hand the One cast out and now no more seen by the world. Third, judgment, because Satan, the world's Prince, is already judged, though execution of His judgment is yet future.
Thus, the Holy Spirit's presence here displays things as they really are. We repeat, John 16, 8-11 makes no reference to the mission of the Spirit of God in the world, for during this dispensation the Spirit has no mission and ministry worldward. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in His operations and His mission is confined to God's elect.
They are the ones He comforts, seals, guides into all truth, shows things to come, etc. The work of the Spirit is necessary in order to the complete accomplishment of the Father's eternal purpose. Speaking hypothetically, but reverently, be it said, that if God had done nothing more than given Christ to die for sinners, not a single sinner would ever have been saved.
In order for any sinner to see His need of a Savior and be willing to receive the Savior, He needs the work of the Holy Spirit upon and within Him as imperatively required. Had God done nothing more than given Christ to die for sinners and then sent forth His servants to proclaim salvation through Jesus Christ, thus leaving sinners entirely to themselves to accept or reject as they pleased, then every sinner would have rejected because at heart every man hates God and is at enmity with Him. Therefore, the work of the Holy Spirit was needed to bring the sinner to Christ, to overcome his innate opposition and compel him to accept the provision God has made.
We say, compel the sinner for this is precisely what the Holy Spirit does, has to do, and this leads us to consider at some length, though as briefly as possible, the parable of the marriage supper. In Luke 14.16 we read, A certain man made a great supper and bade many. By comparing carefully what follows here with Matthew 22.2-10, several important distinctions will be observed.
We take it that these passages are two independent accounts of the same parable, differing in detail according to the distinctive purpose and design of the Holy Spirit in each gospel. Matthew's account, in harmony with the Spirit's presentation there of Christ as the King, says, A certain king made a marriage for his son. Luke's account, where the Spirit presents Christ as the Son of Man, says, A certain man made a great supper and bade many.
Matthew 22.3 says, And sent forth his servants. Luke 14.17 says, And sent his servant. Now what we wish particularly to call attention to is that all through Matthew's account it is servants, whereas in Luke it is always servant.
The class of readers for whom we are writing are those that believe unreservedly in the verbal inspiration of these scriptures, and such will readily acknowledge there must be some reason for this change from the plural number in Matthew to the singular number in Luke. We believe the reason is a weighty one, and that attention to this variation reveals an important truth. We believe that the servants in Matthew, speaking generally, are all who go forth preaching the gospel, but that the servant in Luke 14 is the Holy Spirit, for God the Son in the days of His earthly ministry was the servant of Jehovah, Isaiah 42.1. It will be observed that in Matthew 22 the servants are sent forth to do three things.
First, to call to the wedding, verse 3. Second, to tell those which are bidden all things are ready, come unto the marriage, verse 4. Third, to bid to the marriage, verse 9. And these three are the things which those who minister the gospel today are now doing. In Luke 14, the servant is also sent forth to do three things. First, he is to say to them that were bidden, come, for all things are now ready, verse 17.
Second, he is to bring in the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind, verse 21. Third, he is to compel them to come in, verse 23. And the last two of these, the Holy Spirit alone can do.
In the above scripture, we see that the servant, the Holy Spirit, compels certain ones to come in to the supper, and herein is seen his sovereignty, his omnipotency, his divine sufficiency, the clear implication from this word compel is that those whom the Holy Spirit does bring in are not willing of themselves to come. This is exactly what we have sought to show in previous paragraphs. By nature, God's elect are children of wrath, even as others, Ephesians 2, 3, and as such, their hearts are at enmity with God.
But this enmity of theirs is overcome by the Spirit, and He compels them to come in. Is it not clear then that the reason why others are left outside is not only because they are unwilling to go in, but also because the Holy Spirit does not compel them to come in? Is it not manifest that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the exercise of His power, that as the wind bloweth where it pleaseth, so the Holy Spirit operates where He pleases? And now to sum up, we have sought to show the perfect consistency of God's ways, that each person in the Godhead acts in sympathy and harmony with the others. God the Father elected certain ones to salvation.
God the Son died for the elect, and God the Spirit quickens the elect. Well may we sing. Praise God, from whom all blessings flow.
Praise Him, all creatures here below. Praise Him above, ye heavenly host. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Chapter 5 The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God. Romans 11, 22 In the last chapter, When Treating of the Sovereignty of God, The Father in Salvation, we examine seven passages which represents Him as making a choice from among the children of men, and predestinating certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son. The thoughtful reader will naturally ask, and what of those who are not ordained to eternal life? The answer which is usually returned to this question, even by those who profess to believe what the Scriptures teach concerning God's sovereignty, is that God passes by the non-elite, leaves them alone to go their own way, and in the end casts them into the lake of fire because they refused His way, and rejected the Savior of His providing.
But this is only a part of the truth. The other part, that which is most offensive to the carnal mind, is either ignored or denied. In view of the awful solemnity of the subject here before us, in view of the fact that today almost all, even those who profess to be Calvinists, reject and repudiate this doctrine, and in view of the fact that this is one of the points in our book which is likely to raise the most controversy, we feel that an extended inquiry into this aspect of God's truth is demanded, that this branch of the subject of God's sovereignty is profoundly mysterious.
We freely allow, yet that is no reason why we should reject it. The trouble is that nowadays there are so many who receive the testimony of God only so far as they can satisfactorily account for all the reasons and grounds of His conduct, which means they will accept nothing but that which can be measured in the petty scales of their own limited capacities. Stating it in its baldest form, the point now to be considered is, has God foreordained certain ones to damnation? That many will be eternally damned is clear from Scripture, that each one will be judged according to his works and reap as he is sown, and that in consequence his damnation is just.
Romans 3, 8 is equally sure, and that God decreed that the non-elect should choose the course they follow, we now undertake to prove. From what has been before us in the previous chapter concerning the election of some to salvation, it would unavoidably follow, even if Scripture had been silent upon it, that there must be a rejection of others. Every choice evidently and necessarily implies a refusal for where there is no leaving out, there can be no choice.
If there be some whom God has elected unto salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2.13, there must be others who are not elected unto salvation. If there are some that the Father gave to Christ, John 6.37, there must be others whom he did not give unto Christ. If there be some whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, Revelation 21.27, there must be others whose names are not written there.
That this is the case we shall fully prove below. Now we'll acknowledge that from the foundation of the world God certainly foreknew and foresaw who would and who would not receive Christ as their Savior. Therefore in giving being and birth to those he knew would reject Christ, he necessarily created them unto damnation.
All that can be said in reply to this is no. While God did foreknow these would reject Christ, yet he did not decree that they should. But this is a begging of the real question at issue.
God had a definite reason why he created men, a specific purpose, why he created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of his creatures, he purposed either that this one should spend eternity in heaven, or that this one should spend eternity in the lake of fire. If then he foresaw that in creating a certain person that that person would despise and reject the Savior, yet knowing this beforehand he nevertheless brought that person into existence, then it is clear he designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again, faith is God's gift, and the purpose to give it only to some involves the purpose not to give it to others.
Without faith there is no salvation. He that believeth not shall be damned. Hence, if there were some of Adam's descendants to whom he purposed not to give faith, it must be because he ordained that they should be damned.
Not only is there no escape from these conclusions, but history confirms them. Before the divine incarnation, for almost two thousand years, the vast majority of mankind were left destitute of even the external means of grace, being favored with no preaching of God's word, and with no written revelation of his will. For many long centuries Israel was the only nation to whom the deity vouchsafed any special discovery of himself, who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
Acts 14, 16 You only, Israel, have I known of all the families of the earth. Amos 3, 2 Consequently, as all other nations were deprived of the preaching of God's word, they were strangers to the faith that cometh thereby. Romans 10, 17 These nations were not only ignorant of God himself, but of the way to please him, of the true manner of acceptance with him, and the means of arriving at the everlasting enjoyment of himself.
Now if God had willed their salvation, would he not have vouchsafed them the means of salvation? Would he not have given them all things necessary to that end? But it is an undeniable matter of fact that he did not. If then deity can consistently with his justice, mercy, and benevolence deny to some the means of grace, and shut them up in gross darkness and unbelief because of the sins of their forefathers generations before, why should it be deemed incompatible with his perfections to exclude some persons, many from grace itself, and from that eternal life which is connected with it, seeing that he is Lord and sovereign disposer, both of the end to which the means lead, and the means which lead to that end? Coming down to our own day, and to those in our own country, leaving out the almost innumerable crowds of un-evangelized heathen, is it not evident that there are many living in lands where the gospel is preached, lands which are full of churches who die strangers to God and his holiness? True, the means of grace were close to their hand, but many of them knew it not. Thousands are born into homes where they are taught from infancy to regard all Christians as hypocrites and preachers as arch-humbugs.
Others are instructed from the cradle in Roman Catholicism and are trained to regard evangelical Christianity as deadly heresy, and the Bible as a book highly dangerous for them to read. Others reared in Christian science families know no more of the true gospel of Christ than do the un-evangelized heathen. The great majority of these die in utter ignorance of the way of peace.
Now are we not obliged to conclude that it was not God's will to communicate grace to them? Had His will been otherwise, would He not have actually communicated His grace to them? If then it was the will of God, in time, to refuse to them His grace, it must have been His will from all eternity, since His will is as Himself, the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Let it not be forgotten that God's providences are but the manifestations of His decrees. What God does in time is only what He purposed in eternity, His own will being the alone cause of all His acts and works.
Therefore, from His actually leaving some men in final impenitency and unbelief, we assuredly gather it was His everlasting determination so to do, and consequently, that He reprobated some from before, the foundation of the world. In the Westminster Confession, it is said, God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. The late Mr. F. W. Grant, a most careful and cautious student and writer, commenting on these words, said, It is perfectly, divinely true that God hath ordained for His own glory whatsoever comes to pass.
Now if these statements are true, is not the doctrine of reprobation established by them? What in human history is the one thing which does come to pass every day? What, but that men and women die, pass out of this world into a hopeless eternity, an eternity of suffering and woe. If then God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved, to suffer eternally in the lake of fire. Admitting the general premise is not the specific conclusion inevitable.
In reply to the preceding paragraphs, the reader may say, All this is simply reasoning, logical, no doubt, but yet mere inferences. Very well. We will now point out that in addition to the above conclusions, there are many passages in Holy Writ which are most clear and definite in their teaching on this solemn subject, passages which are too plain to be misunderstood and too strong to be evaded.
The marvel is that so many good men have denied their undeniable affirmations. Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon.
All other they took in battle, for it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them as the Lord commanded Moses, Joshua 11, 18 through 20. What could be plainer than this? Here was a large number of Canaanites whose hearts the Lord hardened, whom he had purposed to utterly destroy, to whom he showed no favor. Granted that they were wicked, immoral, idolatrous, were they any worse than the immoral, idolatrous cannibals of the South Sea Islands and many other places to whom God gave the gospel through John G. Patton? Assuredly not.
Then why did not Jehovah command Israel to teach the Canaanites his laws and instruct them concerning sacrifices to the true God? Plainly, because he had marked them out for destruction, and if so, that from all eternity. The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil, Proverbs 16, 4. That the Lord made all, perhaps every reader of this book will allow, that he made all for himself is not so widely believed. That God made us, not for our own sex, but for himself, not for our own happiness, but for his glory, is nevertheless repeatedly affirmed in Scripture, Revelation 4, 11.
But Proverbs 16, 4 goes even farther. It expressly declares that the Lord made the wicked for the day of evil. That was his design in giving them being.
But why does not Romans 9, 17 tell us? For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. God has made the wicked, that at the end he may demonstrate his power, demonstrate it by showing what an easy matter it is for him to subdue the stoutest rebel and to overthrow his mightiest enemy. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew 7, 23. In the previous chapter, it has been shown that the words know and foreknowledge, when applied to God in the Scriptures, have reference not simply to his prescience, that is his bare knowledge beforehand, but to his knowledge of approbation. When God said to Israel, you only have I known of all the families in the earth.
Amos 3, 2. It is evident that he meant, you only have I any favorable regard to. When we read in Romans 11, 2, God hath not cast away his people, Israel, which he foreknew. It is obvious that what was signified is, God has not finally rejected that people whom he has chosen as the objects of his love.
Compare Deuteronomy 7, 8. In the same way, and it is the only possible way, are we to understand Matthew 7, 23. In the day of judgment, the Lord will say unto many, I never knew you. Note, it is more than simply, I know you not.
His solemn declaration will be, I never knew you. You are never the objects of my approbation. Contrast this with I know love my sheep and am known loved of mine.
John 10, 14. The sheep, his elect, the few, he does know, but the reprobate, the non-elect, the many, he knows not. No, not even before the foundation of the world did he know them.
He never knew them. In Romans 9, the doctrine of God's sovereignty in its application to both the elect and the reprobate is treated of at length. A detailed exposition of this important chapter would be beyond our present scope.
All that we can say is to dwell upon the part of it which most clearly bears upon the aspect of the subject which we are now considering. Verse 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up that I might show my power in thee and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
These words refer us back to verses 13 and 14. In verse 13, God's love to Jacob and his hatred to Esau are declared. In verse 14, it is asked, is there unrighteousness with God? And here in verse 17, the apostle continues his reply to the objection.
We cannot do better now than quote from Calvin's comments upon this verse. There are here two things to be considered. The predestination of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past, and yet the hidden counsel of God.
And then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God. As many interpreters striving to modify this passage, pervert it, we must observe that for the word, I have raised thee up, or stirred up, in the Hebrew is, I have appointed, by which it appears, that God designing to show that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent him to deliver his people, not only affirms that his fury had been foreseen by him, and that he had prepared means for restraining it, but that he had also thus designedly ordained it, and indeed for this end, that he might exhibit a more illustrious evidence of his own power. It will be observed that Calvin gives as the force of the Hebrew word, which Paul renders for this cause, have I raised thee up, I have appointed, as this is the word, on which the doctrine and argument of the verse turns, we would further point out that in making this quotation from Exodus 9.16, the apostle significantly departs from the Septuagint, the version then in common use, and from which he most frequently quotes, and substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the Septuagint, instead of on this account, thou hast been preserved, he gives, for this very end have I raised thee up.
But we must now consider in more detail the case of Pharaoh, which sums up in concrete example the great controversy between man and his maker, for now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence, and thou shalt be cut off from the earth, and in every deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth, Exodus 9.15 and 16. Upon these words we offer the following comments. First we know from Exodus 14 and 15 that Pharaoh was cut off, that he was cut off by God, that he was cut off in the very midst of his wickedness, that he was cut off, not by sickness, nor by the infirmities which are incident to old age, nor by what men term an accident, but cut off by the immediate hand of God in judgment.
Second, it is clear that God raised up Pharaoh for this very end, to cut him off, which in the language of the New Testament means destroyed. God never does anything without a previous design. In giving him being, in preserving him through infancy and childhood, in raising him to the throne of Egypt, God had one end in view.
That such was God's purpose. It is clear from his words to Moses, before he went down to Egypt, to demand of Pharaoh that Jehovah's people should be allowed to go a three days journey into the wilderness to worship him. And the Lord said unto Moses, when thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all these wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in mine hand, but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Exodus 4 21. But not only so, God's design and purpose was declared long before this. 400 years previously God had said to Abraham, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them 400 years, and also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge.
Genesis 15 13 and 14. From these words it is evident a nation and its king being looked at as one in the Old Testament that God's purpose was formed long before he gave Pharaoh being. Third, an examination of God's dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt's king was indeed a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.
Placed on Egypt's throne with the reins of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation, which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy hype did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a divine axiom that pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Further, and this is deeply important to note and highly significant, God removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal influence and control. But besides this, God removed Moses from his presence and kingdom.
Had Moses, who not only was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, but also had been reared in Pharaoh's household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful check upon the king's wickedness and tyranny. This, though not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that Egypt's inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed by removing this restraint to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins and ripen himself for his fully deserved but predestined ruin.
Fourth, God hardened his heart as he declared he would. Exodus 4, 21. This is in full accord with the declarations of Holy Scripture.
The preparations of the heart in man and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. Proverbs 16, 1. The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water. He turneth it whithersoever he will.
Proverbs 21, 1. Like all other kings, Pharaoh's heart was in the hand of the Lord, and God had both the right and the power to turn it whithersoever he pleased. And it pleased him to turn it against all good. God determined to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request through Moses to let Israel go until he had fully prepared him for his final overthrow.
And because nothing short of this would fully fit him, God hardened his heart. Finally, it is worthy of careful consideration to note how the vindication of God in his dealings with Pharaoh has been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to discover that we have Pharaoh's own testimony in favor of God and against himself.
In Exodus 9, 15, and 16 we learn how God had told Pharaoh for what purpose he had raised him up, and in verse 27 in the same chapter we are told that Pharaoh said, I have sinned this time. The Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Mark that this was said by Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in order to cut him off, after his severe judgments had been sent upon him, after he had hardened his own heart.
By this time Pharaoh was fairly ripened for judgment, and fully prepared to decide whether God had injured him, or whether he had sought to injure God. And he fully acknowledged that he had sinned, and that God was righteous. Again, we have the witness of Moses, who was fully acquainted with God's conduct toward Pharaoh.
He had heard at the beginning what was God's design in connection with Pharaoh. He had witnessed God's dealings with him. He had observed his long sufferance toward this vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.
And at last he had beheld him cut off in divine judgment at the Red Sea. How then was Moses impressed? Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge God with unrighteousness? Far from it. Instead he says, Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee? Glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders.
Exodus 15 11. Was Moses moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw Israel's archenemy cut off by the waters of the Red Sea? Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon this score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in heaven, after they have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in singing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are they works, Lord God almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
Revelation 15 3. Here then is the climax and the full and final vindication of God's dealings with Pharaoh. Saints in heaven join in singing the song of Moses, in which the servant of God celebrated Jehovah's praise in overthrowing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that, in so acting, God was not unrighteous, but just and true. We must believe, therefore, that the judge of all the earth did right in creating and destroying this vessel of wrath, Pharaoh.
The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illustrates the doctrine of reprobation. If God actually reprobated Pharaoh, we may justly conclude that he reprobates all others whom he did not predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son. This inference the apostle Paul manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh.
For in Romans 9, after referring to God's purpose in raising up Pharaoh, he continues, therefore, the case of Pharaoh is introduced to prove the doctrine of reprobation as the counterpart of the doctrine of election. In conclusion, we would say that in forming Pharaoh, God displayed neither justice nor injustice, but only his bare sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming vessels, so God is sovereign in forming moral agents.
Verse 18, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. The therefore announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and specifically, it applies the principle exemplified in God's dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sovereign will of the Creator.
He loves one and hates another. He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, without reference to anything, save his own sovereign will. That which is most repulsive to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening.
Whom he will he hardeneth. And it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, that is, a forsaking by God, because these subjects of his displeasure had first rejected his truth and forsaken him.
Those who contend for this interpretation appeal to such scriptures as Romans 1, 19 through 26. God gave them up, that is, see context, those who knew God yet glorified him not as God, verse 21. Appeal is also made to 2 Thessalonians 2, 10 through 12.
But it is to be noted that the word hardened does not occur in either of these passages. But further we submit that Romans 9, 18 has no reference whatever to judicial hardening. The apostle is not there speaking to those who had already turned their back on God's truth, but instead he is dealing with God's sovereignty.
God's sovereignty is seen not only in showing mercy to whom he wills, but also in hardening whom he pleases. The exact words are whom he will. Not all who have rejected his truth.
He hardens it. And this, coming immediately after the mention of Pharaoh, clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is plain enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth.
Verse 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. This affirmation of God's sovereign hardening of sinners hearts in contradistinction from judicial hardening is not alone. Mark the language of John 12, 37 through 40.
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him that the saying of Esaias, Isaiah, the prophet, might be fulfilled which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe. Why? Because that Esaias said again, he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. Why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ.
This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. Now reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in his word. It is not a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a child-like spirit, which is needed in order to understand this doctrine.
Verse 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Is not this the very objection which is urged today? The force of the apostles' questions here seem to be this. Since everything is dependent on God's will, which is irreversible, and since this will of God according to which he can do everything as sovereign, since he can have mercy on whom he wills to have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment on whom he chooses to do so, why does he not will to have mercy on all, so as to make them obedient, and thus put finding of fault out of court? Now it should be particularly noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on which the objection rests. He does not say God does not find fault, nor does he say man may resist his will.
Furthermore, he does not explain away the objection by saying, You have all together misapprehended my meaning when I said whom he will he treats kindly, and whom he wills he treats severely. But he says, first this is an objection you have no right to make, and then this is an objection you have no reason to make. Vidi, Dr. Brown.
The objection was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying against God. It was to complain about, argue against what God had done. Verse 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? The language which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed that misunderstanding ought to be impossible.
Why doth he yet find fault? Now, reader, what can these words mean? Formulate your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle's question be any other than this? If it is true that God has mercy on whom he wills and also hardens whom he wills, then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case, men are nothing better than puppets, and if this be true, then it would be unjust for God to find fault with his helpless creatures. Mark the word then.
Thou wilt say then unto me, he states the false inference or conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And Mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated would raise this very objection. And unless what we have written throughout this book provokes in some, at least, all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine grace, the same objection then it must be either because we have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in Romans 9 or else because human nature has changed since the apostle's day.
Consider now the remainder of the verse 19. The apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different form. Repeats it so that this meaning may not be misunderstood, namely for who hath resisted his will.
It is clear then that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God's will, that is, his sovereign ways which confirms what we have said above upon verses 17 and 18, where we contended that it is not judicial hardening which is in view, that is, hardening because of previous rejection of the truth, but sovereign hardening, that is, the hardening of a fallen and sinful creature for no other reason than that which inheres in the sovereign will of God. And hence the question who hath resisted his will, what then does the apostle say in reply to these objections? Verse 20 Nay, but, O man, who art thou that replyest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? The apostle then did not say the objection was pointless and groundless, instead he rebukes the objector for his impiety. He reminds him that he is merely a man, a creature, and that as such it is most unseemly and impertinent for him to reply, argue, or reason against God.
Furthermore, he reminds him that he is nothing more than a thing formed, and therefore it is madness and blasphemy to rise up against the former himself. There, leaving this verse, it should be pointed out that its closing words, Why hast thou made me thus? helps us to determine unmistakably the precise subject under discussion in the light of the immediate context what can be the force of the thus. What but, as in the case of Esau, why hast thou made me an object of hatred? What but, as in the case of Pharaoh, why hast thou made me simply to harden me? What other meaning can fairly be assigned to it? It is highly important to keep clearly before us that the apostle's object throughout this passage is to treat of God's sovereignty in dealing with, on the one hand, those whom he loves, vessels unto honor and vessels of mercy, and also, on the other hand, with those whom he hates and hardens, vessels unto dishonor and vessels of wrath.
Verses 21 through 23 Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? What is God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had aforeprepared unto glory? In these verses the apostle furnishes a full and final reply to the objections raised in verse 19. First he asks, Hath not the potter power over the clay, etc.? It is to be noted the word here translated power is a different one in the Greek from the one rendered power in verse 22, where it can only signify his might. But here in verse 21, the power spoken of must refer to the creator's rights or sovereign prerogatives.
That this is so appears from the fact that the same Greek word is employed in John 1.12. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, which, as is well known, means the right or privilege to become the sons of God. The RV employs right both in John 1.12 and Romans 9.21. Verse 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? That the potter here is God himself is certain from the previous verse, where the apostle asks, Who art thou that replyest against God? And then, speaking in the terms of the figure he was about to use, continues, Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, etc.? Some there are who would rob these words of their force, by arguing that while the human potter makes certain vessels to be used for less honorable purposes than others, nevertheless, they are designed to fill some useful place.
But the apostle does not here say, Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto an honorable use, and another to a less honorable use? But he speaks of some vessels being made unto dishonor. It is true, of course, that God's wisdom will yet be fully vindicated, inasmuch as the destruction of the reprobate will promote His glory, in what way? The next verse tells us. There passing to the next verse, let us summarize the teaching of this, and the two previous ones.
In verse 19, two questions are asked. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? To those questions a threefold answer is returned. First, in verse 20, the apostle denies the creature the right to sit in judgment upon the ways of the Creator.
Nay, but O man, who art thou that replyest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? The apostle insists that the rectitude of God's will must not be questioned. Whatever he does must be right. Second, in verse 21, the apostle declares that the Creator has the right to dispose of his creatures as he sees fit.
Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? It should be carefully noted that the word for power here is exousia, an entirely different word from the one translated power in the following verse, to make known his power where it is duated. In the words, hath not the potter power over the clay, it must be God's power justly exercised, which is in view. The exercise of God's rights consistently with his justice, because the mere assertion of his omnipotency would be no such answer as God would return to the questions asked in verse 19.
Third, in verses 22 and 23, the apostle gives the reasons why God proceeds differently with one of his creatures from another. On the one hand, it is to show his wrath, and to make his power known. On the other hand, it is to make known the riches of his glory.
Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Certainly God has the right to do this, because he is the creator. Does he exercise this right? Yes, as verses 13 and 17 clearly show us. For this same purpose have I raised thee, Pharaoh, up.
Verse 22, what if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction? Here the apostle tells us in the second place why God acts thus, that is, differently with different ones, having mercy on some, and hardening others, making one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Observe that here in verse 22 the apostle first mentions vessels of wrath before he refers in verse 23 to the vessels of mercy. Why is this? The answer to this question is of first importance, we reply, because it is the vessels of wrath who are the subjects in view before the objector. In verse 19, two reasons are given why God makes some vessels unto dishonor, first to show his wrath, and secondly, to make his power known, both of which were exemplified in the case of Pharaoh.
One point in the above verse requires separate consideration. Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. The usual explanation which is given of these words is that the vessels of wrath fit themselves to destruction, that is, fit themselves by virtue of their wickedness, and it is argued that there is no need for God to fit them to destruction because they are already fitted by their own depravity, and that this must be the real meaning of this expression.
Now, if by destruction we understand the punishment, it is perfectly true that the non-elected do fit themselves, for everyone will be judged according to his works, and further, we freely grant that subjectively, the non-elect do fit themselves for destruction. But the point to be decided is, is this what the apostle is here referring to? And without hesitation, we reply it is not. Go back to verses 11 through 13.
Did Esau fit himself to be an object of God's hatred, or was he not such before he was born? Again, did Pharaoh fit himself for destruction, or did not God harden his heart before the plagues were sent upon Egypt? See Exodus 4 21. Romans 9 22 is clearly a continuation in thought of verse 21. And verse 21 is part of the apostle's reply to the question raised in verse 20.
Therefore, to fairly follow out the figure, it must be God himself who fits unto destruction the vessels of wrath. Should it be asked how God does this, the answer necessarily is objectively. He fits the non-elect unto destruction by his four ordinating decrees.
Should it be asked why God does this, the answer must be to promote his own glory, that is, the glory of his justice, power, and wrath. The psalm of the apostle's answer here is that the grand object of God, both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of men, namely his own glory. Robert Haldane.
Verse 23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory. The only point in this verse which demands attention is the fact that the vessels of mercy are here said to be afore prepared unto glory.
Many have pointed out that the previous verse does not say the vessels of wrath were afore prepared unto destruction, and from this omission they have concluded that we must understand the reference there to the non-elect fitting themselves in time rather than God ordaining them for destruction from all eternity. But this conclusion by no means follows. We need to look back to verse 21 and note the figure which is there employed.
Clay is inanimate matter, corrupt, decomposed, and therefore a fit subject to represent fallen humanity. As then the apostle is contemplating God's sovereign dealings with humanity in view of the fall, he does not say the vessels of wrath were afore prepared unto destruction for the obvious and sufficient reason that it was not until after the fall that they became in themselves what is here symbolized by the clay. All that is necessary to refute the erroneous conclusion referred to above is to point out that what is said of the vessels of wrath is not that they are fit for destruction which is the word that would have been used if the reference had been to them fitting themselves by their own wickedness, but fitted to destruction, which in the light of the whole context must mean a sovereign ordination to destruction by the Creator.
We quote here the pointed words of Calvin on this passage. There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction. They are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end that they may be examples of God's vengeance and displeasure.
Though in the second clause the Apostle asserts more expressly that it is God who prepared the elect for glory as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said that the reprobate gave up or cast themselves into destruction, but he intimates here that before they are born they are destined to their lot. ...newsletter and a complimentary copy of our large discount mail-order Christian book catalog specializing in Reformation resources, contact Stillwater's Revival Books.
On the internet we are at