Chapter 11
DIFFICULTIES
AND OBJECTIONS
"Yet ye say, The way of
the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not My
way equal? are not your ways unequal?"
Ezekiel 18:25
A
convenient point has been reached when we may now examine, more definitely,
some of the difficulties encountered and the objections which might be advanced
against what we have written in previous pages. The author deemed it better to
reserve these for a separate consideration, rather than deal with them as he
went along, requiring as that would have done the breaking of the course of
thought and destroying the strict unity of each chapter, or
else cumbering our pages with numerous and lengthy footnotes.
That there are difficulties
involved in an attempt to set forth the truth of God’s sovereignty
is readily acknowledged. The hardest thing of all, perhaps, is to maintain the balance
of truth. It is largely a matter of perspective. That God is sovereign is
explicitly declared in Scripture: that man is a responsible creature is also
expressly affirmed in Holy Writ. To define the relationship of these two
truths, to fix the dividing line betwixt them, to show exactly where they meet,
to exhibit the perfect consistency of the one with the
other, is the weightiest task of all. Many have openly declared that it is
impossible for the finite mind to harmonize them. Others tell us it is not
necessary or even wise to attempt it. But, as we have remarked in an earlier
chapter, it seems to us more honoring to God to seek in His Word the solution
to every problem. What is impossible to man is possible with God, and while we grant that the finite mind is limited in its reach,
yet, we remember that the Scriptures are given to us that the man of God may be
"thoroughly furnished," and if we approach their study in the spirit
of humility and of expectancy, then, according unto our faith will it be unto
us.
As remarked
above, the hardest task in this connection is to preserve the balance of truth
while insisting on both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of the
creature. To some of our readers it may appear that in pressing the sovereignty
of God to the lengths we have, man is reduced to a mere puppet. Hence, to guard
against this, they would modify their definitions and statements relating to
God’s sovereignty, and thus seek to blunt the keen edge of
what is so offensive to the carnal mind. Others, while refusing to weigh the
evidence that we have adduced in support of our assertions, may raise
objections which to their minds are sufficient to dispose of the whole subject.
We would not waste time in the effort to refute objections made in a carping
and contentious spirit, but we are desirous of meeting fairly the difficulties experienced by those who are anxious to obtain a
fuller knowledge of the truth. Not that we deem ourselves able to give a
satisfactory and final answer to every question that might be asked. Like the
reader, the writer knows but "in part" and sees through a glass
"darkly." All that we can do is to examine these difficulties in the
light we now have, in dependence upon the Spirit of God that we may follow on to know the Lord better.
We propose now to retrace our
steps and pursue the same order of thought as that followed up to this point.
As a part of our "definition" of God’s sovereignty we affirmed:
"To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can
defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will. . . The
sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite."
To put it now in its strongest form, we insist that God does as He pleases,
only as He pleases, always as He pleases: that whatever takes place in time is
but the outworking of that which He decreed in eternity. In proof of this assertion we appeal to the following scriptures—"But
our God is in the heavens:
He hath done whatsoever He
hath pleased" (Ps. 115:3). "For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and
who shall disannul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isa. 14:27). "And all the inhabitants
of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the
army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His
hand or say unto Him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35). "For of Him, and
through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen"
(Rom. 11:36).
The above declarations are so
plain and positive that any comments of ours upon them would simply be
darkening counsel by words without knowledge. Such express statements as those
just quoted, are so sweeping and so dogmatic that all controversy concerning
the subject of which they treat ought for ever to be at an end.
Yet, rather than receive them at their face value, every device of carnal
ingenuity is resorted to so as to neutralize their force. For example, it has
been asked, If what we see in the world today is but the outworking of God’s
eternal purpose, if God’s counsel is NOW being accomplished, then why did our
Lord teach His disciples to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in
heaven"? Is it not a clear implication from these words
that God’s will is not now being done on earth? The answer is very simple. The
emphatic word in the above clause is "as." God’s will is being done
on earth today, if it is not, then our earth is not subject to God’s rule, and
if it is not subject to His rule then He is not, as Scripture proclaims Him to
be, "The Lord of all the earth" (Josh. 3:13). But God’s will is not
being done on earth as it is in heaven. How is God’s will
"done in heaven"?—consciously and joyfully. How is it "done on earth"?—for
the most part, unconsciously and sullenly. In heaven the angels perform the
bidding of their Creator intelligently and gladly, but on earth the unsaved
among men accomplish His will blindly and in ignorance. As we have said in
earlier pages, when Judas betrayed the Lord Jesus and when Pilate sentenced Him to be crucified, they had no conscious intention of
fulfilling God’s decrees yet, nevertheless, unknown to themselves they did do
so!
But again. It has been
objected: If everything that happens on earth is the fulfilling of the
Almighty’s pleasure, if God has fore-ordained—before the foundation of the world—everything which comes to pass in human history, then
why do we read in Genesis 6:6, "It repented the Lord that He had made man
on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart"? Does not this language
intimate that the antediluvians had followed a course which their Maker had not
marked out for them, and that in view of the fact they had
"corrupted" their way upon the earth, the Lord regretted that He had ever brought such a creature into existence? Ere
drawing such a conclusion let us note what is involved in such an inference. If
the words "It repented the Lord that He had made man" are regarded in
an absolute sense, then God’s omniscience would be denied, for in such a case
the course followed by man must have been unforeseen by God in the day that He
created him. Therefore it must be evident to every reverent
soul that this language bears some other meaning. We submit that the words,
"It repented the Lord" is an accommodation to our finite
intelligence, and in saying this we are not seeking to escape a difficulty or
cut a knot, but are advancing an interpretation which we shall seek to show is
in perfect accord with the general trend of Scripture.
The Word of God is addressed
to men, and therefore it speaks the language of men. Because we cannot rise to
God’s level He, in grace, comes down to ours and converses with us in our own
speech. The apostle Paul tells us of how he was "caught up into Paradise
and heard unspeakable words which it is not possible (margin)
to utter" (2 Cor. 12:4) Those on earth could not understand the vernacular
of heaven. The finite cannot comprehend the Infinite, hence the Almighty deigns
to couch His revelation in terms we may understand. It is for this reason the
Bible contains many anthropomorphisms—i.e., representations of God in the form
of man. God is Spirit, yet the Scriptures speak of Him as having eyes, ears,
nostrils, breath, hands etc., which is surely an accommodation
of terms brought down to the level of human comprehension.
Again; we read in Genesis
18:20, 21, "And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is
great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry
of it, which is come up unto Me; and if not, I will know." Now,
manifestly, this is an anthropologism—God, speaking in human language. God knew
the conditions which prevailed in Sodom, and His eyes had witnessed its fearful
sins, yet He is pleased to use terms here that are taken from our own
vocabulary.
Again; in Genesis 22:12 we
read, "And He (God) said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou
anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not
withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me." Here again, God is speaking in
the language of men, for He "knew" before He tested Abram exactly how the patriarch would act. So too the expression used of God
so often in Jeremiah (7:13 etc.), of Him "rising up early", is
manifestly an accommodation of terms.
Once more: in the parable of
the vineyard Christ Himself represents its Owner as saying, "Then said the
Lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send My beloved
Son: it may be they will reverence Him when they see Him" (Luke 20:13),
and yet, it is certain that God knew perfectly well that the
"husbandmen" of the vineyard—the Jews—would not "reverence His
Son" but, instead, would "despise and reject" Him, as His own
Word had declared!
In the
same way we understand the words in Genesis 6:6— "It repented the Lord
that He had made man on the earth"—as an accommodation of terms to human
comprehension. This verse does not teach that God was confronted with an
unforeseen contingency, and therefore regretted that He had made man, but it
expresses the abhorrence of a holy God at the awful wickedness and corruption
into which man had fallen. Should there be any doubt
remaining in the minds of our readers as to the legitimacy and soundness of our
interpretation, a direct appeal to Scripture should instantly and entirely
remove it—"The Strength of Israel (a Divine title) will not lie nor
repent: for He is not a man, that He should repent" (1 Sam. 15:29)!
"Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning" (James 1 :17)!
Careful attention to what we
have said above will throw light on numerous other passages which, if we ignore
their figurative character and fail to note that God applies
to Himself human modes of expression, will be obscure and perplexing. Having
commented at such length upon Genesis 6:6 there will be no need to give such a
detailed exposition of other passages which belong to the same class, yet, for
the benefit of those of our readers who may be anxious for us to examine
several other scriptures, we turn to one or two more.
One scripture which we often
find cited in order to overthrow the teaching advanced in this book is our
Lord’s lament over Jerusalem: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest
the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37). The question is asked,
Do not these words show that the Saviour acknowledged the defeat of His
mission, that as a people the Jews resisted all His gracious overtures toward
them? In replying to this question, it should first be pointed out that our
Lord is here referring not so much to His own mission, as He is upbraiding the
Jews for having in all ages rejected His grace—this is
clear from His reference to the "prophets." The Old Testament bears
full witness of how graciously and patiently Jehovah dealt with His people, and
with what extreme obstinacy, from first to last, they refused to be
"gathered" unto Him, and how in the end He (temporarily) abandoned
them to follow their own devices, yet, as the same Scriptures declare, the
counsel of God was not frustrated by their wickedness, for
it had been foretold (and therefore, decreed) by Him—see, for example, 1 Kings
8:33.
Matthew 23:37 may well be
compared with Isaiah 65:2 where the Lord says, "I have spread out My hands
all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that
was not good, after their own thoughts." But, it may be asked, Did God
seek to do that which was in opposition to His own eternal purpose? In words
borrowed from Calvin we reply, "Though to our apprehension the will of God
is manifold and various, yet He does not in Himself will things at variance
with each other, but astonishes our faculties with His various and ‘manifold’
wisdom, according to the expression of Paul, till we shall
be enabled to understand that He mysteriously wills what now seems contrary to
His will." As a further illustration of the same principle we would refer
the reader to Isaiah 5:1-4: "Now will I sing to my well Beloved a song of
my Beloved touching His vineyard. My well Beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful
hill: And He fenced it, and gethered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine and built a tower in the midst of
it, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that it should bring forth
grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, ) inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could
have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when
I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth
wild grapes?" Is it not plain from this language that God reckoned Himself
to have done enough for Israel to warrant an expectation—speaking after the
manner of men—of better returns? Yet, is it not equally evident when Jehovah
says here "He looked that it should bring forth grapes" that He is
accommodating Himself to a form of finite expression? And, so also when He says
"What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I
have not done in it ?" we need to take note that in the previous
enumeration of what He had done—the "fencing" etc.—He refers only to
external privileges, means, and opportunities, which had been bestowed upon
Israel, for, of course, He could even then have taken away from them their
stony heart and given them a new heart, even a heart of flesh, as
He will yet do, had He so pleased.
Perhaps we should link up with
Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37, His tears over the City,
recorded in Luke 19:41: "He beheld the city, and wept over it." In the
verses which immediately follow, we learn what it was that occasioned His tears: "Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least
in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid
from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall
cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every
side." It was the prospect of the fearful judgment which Christ knew was
impending. But did those tears make manifest a disappointed
God? Nay, verily. Instead, they displayed a perfect Man. The Man Christ Jesus
was no emotionless stoic, but One "filled with compassion." Those
tears expressed the sinless sympathies of His real and pure humanity. Had He
not "wept", He had been less than human. Those "tears" were
one of many proofs that "in all things it behooved Him to be made like
unto His brethren" (Heb. 2:17).
In chapter one we have
affirmed that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, and in saying this
we are fully aware that many will strongly resent the statement and that,
furthermore, what we have now to say will probably meet with more criticism
than anything else advanced in this book. Nevertheless, we must be true to our convictions of what we believe to be the teaching of Holy
Scripture, and we can only ask our readers to examine diligently in the light
of God’s Word what we here submit to their attention.
One of the most popular
beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody, and the very fact
that it is so popular with all classes ought to be enough to arouse the
suspicions of those who are subject to the Word of Truth. God’s Love toward all
His creatures is the fundamental and favorite tenet of Universalists,
Unitarians, Theosophists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, Russellites,
etc. No matter how a man may live—in open defiance of Heaven, with no concern
whatever for his soul’s eternal interests, still less for
God’s glory, dying, perhaps with an oath on his lips,—notwithstanding, God
loves him, we are told. So widely has this dogma been proclaimed, and so
comforting is it to the heart which is at enmity with God, we have little hope
of convincing many of their error. That God loves everybody, is, we may say,
quite a modern belief. The writings of the church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we believe) be searched in vain for any
such concept. Perhaps the late D. L. Moody—captivated by Drummond’s "The
Greatest Thing in the World"—did more than anyone else last century to
popularize this concept.
It has been customary to say
God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin. [1] But that
is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a sinner but sin? Is it not true
that his "whole head is sick", and his "whole heart faint",
and that "from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no
soundness" in him? (Isa. 1:5,6). Is it true that God loves the one who is
despising and rejecting His blessed Son? God is Light as well as Love, and
therefore His love must be a holy love. To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience, as well as
to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, that the love of
God, is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is
to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. With the exception of
John 3:16, not once in the four Gospels do we read of the Lord Jesus—the
perfect Teacher— telling sinners that God loved them! In the
book of Acts, which records the evangelistic labors and messages of the
apostles, God’s love is never referred to at all! But, when we come to the
Epistles, which are addressed to the saints, we have a full presentation of
this precious truth—God’s love for His own. Let us seek to rightly divide the
Word of God and then we shall not be found taking truths which are addressed to
believers and misapplying them to unbelievers. That which
sinners need to have brought before them is, the ineffable holiness, the
exacting righteousness, the inflexible justice and the terrible wrath of God.
Risking the danger of being mis-understood, let us say—and we wish we could say
it to every evangelist and preacher in the country—there is far too much
presenting of Christ to sinners today (by those sound in the faith), and far
too little showing sinners their need of Christ, i.e.,
their absolutely ruined and lost condition, their imminent and awful danger of
suffering the wrath to come, the fearful guilt resting upon them in the sight
of God—to present Christ to those who have never been shown their need of Him,
seems to us to be guilty of casting pearls before swine. [2]
If it be true that God loves
every member of the human family then why did our Lord tell His disciples,
"He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me:
and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father. . . . . If a man love Me, he
will keep My words: and My Father will love him" (John 14:21,23)? Why say "he that loveth Me shall be loved of My
Father" if the Father loves everybody? The same limitation is found in
Proverbs 8:17: "I love them that love Me." Again; we read, "Thou
hatest all workers of iniquity"—not merely the works of iniquity. Here,
then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves
the sinner; Scripture says, "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity"
(Ps. 5:5)! "God is angry with the wicked every
day." "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God"—not "shall abide," but even now—"abideth on
him" (Ps. 5:5; 7:11 John 3:36). Can God "love" the one on whom
His "wrath" abides? Again; is it not evident that the words "The
love of God which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both
in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not
plain from the words "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"
(Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? Again; it is written, "For
whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He
receiveth" (Heb. 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s love is
restricted to the members of His own family? If He loves all men without
exception, then the distinction and limitation here mentioned
is quite meaningless. Finally, we would ask, Is it conceivable that God will
love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so
then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is "without variableness or
shadow of turning"!
Turning
now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted, that this
verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. "God so loved
the world". Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But
"the entire human race," includes all mankind from Adam till the
close of the earth’s history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider,
then, the history of mankind before Christ was born.
Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Saviour came to the earth, lived
here "having no hope and without God in the world", and therefore
passed out into an eternity of woe. If God "loved" them, where is the
slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares, "Who (God) in times past
(from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in
their own ways" (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that,
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient" (Rom. 1:28). To Israel God said, "You only have I known
of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2). In view of these plain
passages, who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind!
The same applies with equal force to the future. Read
through the book of Revelation, noting especially chapters 8 to 19, where we
have described the judgments which will yet be poured out from heaven on this
earth. Read of the fearful woes, the frightful plagues, the vials of God’s
wrath, which shall be emptied on the wicked. Finally, read the 20th chapter of
the Revelation, the great white throne judgment, and see if you can discover there the slightest trace of love.
But the objector comes back to
John 3:16 and says, "World means world". True, but we have shown that
"the world" does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that
"the world" is used in a general way. When the brethren of Christ
said, "Shew Thyself to the world" (John 7:4), did
they mean "shew Thyself to all mankind"? When the Pharisees said,
"Behold, the world is gone after Him" (John 12:19), did they mean
that "all the human family" were flocking after Him? When the apostle
wrote, "Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom.
1:8), did he mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of
conversation by every man, woman, and child on the earth?
When Revelation 13:3 informs us that "all the world wondered after the
beast", are we to understand that there will be no exceptions? What of the
godly Jewish Remnant, who will be slain (Rev. 20:4) rather than submit? These,
and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term "the
world" often has a relative rather than an absolute force.
Now the first thing to note in
connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus—a
man who believed that God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ
there announced that God’s love in giving His Son had a larger object in view,
that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to
"regions beyond". In other words, this was Christ’s announcement that
God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. "God so loved
the world", then, signifies, God’s love is international in its scope. But
does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not
necessarily, for as we have seen, the term "world" is general rather
than specific, relative rather than absolute. The term "world"
in itself is not conclusive. To ascertain who are the objects of God’s love
other passages where His love is mentioned must be consulted.
In 2 Peter 2:5 we read of
"the world of the ungodly". If then, there is a world of the ungodly
there must also be a world of the godly. It is the latter who are in view in the passages we shall now briefly consider. "For the
bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the
world" (John 6:33). Now mark it well, Christ did not say, "offereth
life unto the world", but "giveth". What is the difference
between the two terms? This: a thing which is "offered" may be
refused, but a thing "given", necessarily implies its acceptance. If
it is not accepted, it is not "given", it is
simply proffered. Here, then, is a scripture that positively states Christ giveth
life (spiritual, eternal life) "unto the world." Now He does not give
eternal life to the "world of the ungodly" for they will not have it,
they do not want it. Hence, we are obliged to understand the reference in John
6:33 as being to "the world of the godly", i.e., God’s own people.
One more: in 2 Corinthians
5:19 we read, "To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
Himself". What is meant by this is clearly defined in the words
immediately following, "not imputing their trespasses unto them".
Here again, "the world" cannot mean "the world of the
ungodly", for their "trespasses" are
"imputed" to them, as the judgment of the Great White Throne will yet
show. But 2 Corinthians 5:19 plainly teaches there is a "world" which
are "reconciled", reconciled unto God, because their trespasses are
not reckoned to their account, having been borne by their Substitute. Who then
are they? Only one answer is fairly possible—the world of God’s people!
In like manner, the
"world" in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis, refer to the world
of God’s people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It
cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell
when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human
being now living, for every other passage in the New
Testament where God’s love is mentioned limits it to His own people—search and
see! The objects of God’s love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the
objects of Christ’s love in John 13:1: "Now before the Feast of the
Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that He should depart out of
this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the
world, He loved them unto the end". We may admit that our interpretation
of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by
the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them. [3]
Coming now to chapter
three—The Sovereignty of God in Salvation—innumerable are
the questions which might be raised here. It is strange, yet it is true, that
many who acknowledge the sovereign rule of God over material things, will cavil
and quibble when we insist that God is also sovereign in the spiritual realm.
But their quarrel is with God and not with us. We have given scripture in
support of everything advanced in these pages, and if that will not satisfy our
readers it is idle for us to seek to convince them. What we
write now is designed for those who do bow to the authority of Holy Writ, and
for their benefit we propose to examine several other scriptures which have
purposely been held over for this chapter.
Perhaps the one passage which
has presented the greatest difficulty to those who have
seen that passage after passage in Holy Writ plainly teaches the election of a
limited number unto salvation is 2 Peter 3:9: "not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance".
The first thing to be said
upon the above passage is that, like all other scripture, it must
be understood and interpreted in the light of its context. What we have quoted
in the preceding paragraph is only part of the verse, and the last part of it
at that! Surely it must be allowed by all that the first half of the verse
needs to be taken into consideration. In order to establish what these words
are supposed by many to mean, viz., that the words "any" and
"all" are to be received without any qualification,
it must be shown that the context is referring to the whole human race! If this
cannot be shown, if there is no premise to justify this, then the conclusion
also must be unwarranted. Let us then ponder the first part of the verse.
"The Lord is not slack
concerning His promise". Note "promise" in the singular number, not "promises." What promise is in view? The
promise of salvation? Where, in all Scripture, has God ever promised to save
the whole human race!! Where indeed? No, the "promise" here referred
to is not about salvation. What then is it? The context tells us.
"Knowing
this, first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after
their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?" (vv.
3,4). The context then refers to God’s promise to send back His beloved Son.
But many long centuries have passed, and this promise has not yet been
fulfilled. True, but long as the delay may seem to us, the interval is short in
the reckoning of God. As the proof of this we are reminded,
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (v. 8). In
God’s reckoning of time, less than two days have yet passed since He promised
to send back Christ.
But more,
the delay in the Father sending back His beloved Son is not only due to no
"slackness" on His part, but it is also occasioned by His
"longsuffering". His long-suffering to whom? The verse we are now
considering tells us: "but is longsuffering to usward". And whom are
the "usward"?—the human race, or God’s own people? In the light of the
context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The
opening verse of the chapter says, "This second Epistle, beloved, I now
write unto you". And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares,
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing etc.," (v. 8). The
"usward" then are the "beloved" of God. They to whom this
Epistle is addressed are "them that have obtained (not
"exercised", but "obtained" as God’s
sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11). Therefore we say there is no
room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument—the "usward" are the elect
of God.
Let us now quote the verse as
a whole: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise,
as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Could anything
be clearer? The "any" that God is not willing should perish, are the
"usward" to whom God is "longsuffering", the
"beloved" of the previous verses. 2 Peter 3:9 means, then, that God
will not send back His Son until "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25). God will not send back Christ
till that "people" whom He is now "taking out of the Gentiles"
(Acts 15:14) are gathered in. God will not send back His Son till the Body of
Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to
be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him. Thank God for His
"longsuffering to us-ward". Had Christ come back twenty
years ago the writer had been left behind to perish in His sins. But that could
not be, so God graciously delayed the Second Coming. For the same reason He is
still delaying His Advent. His decreed purpose is that all His elect will come
to repentance, and repent they shall. The present interval of grace will not
end until the last of the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are safely
folded,—then will Christ return,
In expounding the sovereignty
of God the Spirit in Salvation we have shown that His power is irresistible,
that, by His gracious operations upon and within them, He "compels"
God’s elect to come to Christ. The sovereignty of the Holy Spirit is set forth not only in John 3:8 where we are told "The wind
bloweth where it pleaseth. . . . . .so is every one that is born of the
Spirit," but is affirmed in other passages as well. In 1 Corinthians 12:11
we read, "But all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit,
dividing to every man severally as He will." And again; we read in Acts
16:6, 7— "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of
Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach
the Word in Asia. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go in to
Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not." Thus we see how the Holy
Spirit interposed His imperial will in opposition to the determination of the
apostles.
But, it is
objected against the assertion that the will and power of the Holy Spirit are
irresistible that there are two passages, one in the Old Testament and the
other in the New, which appear to militate against such a conclusion. God said
of old, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" (Gen. 6:3), and
to the Jews Stephen declared, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers
did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?"
(Acts 7:51, 52). If then the Jews "resisted" the Holy Spirit, how can
we say His power is irresistible? The answer is found in Nehemiah
9:30—"Many years didst Thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by
Thy Spirit in Thy Prophets: yet would they not give ear." It was the
external operations of the Spirit which Israel
"resisted." It was the Spirit speaking by and through the prophets to
which they "would not give ear." It was not anything which the Holy
Spirit wrought in them that they "resisted," but the motives
presented to them by the inspired messages of the prophets. Perhaps it will
help the reader to catch our thought better if we compare Matthew
11:20-24—"Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein
most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee
Chorazin!" etc. Our Lord here pronounces woe upon these cities for their
failure to repent because of the "mighty works" (miracles) which He
had done in their sight, and not because of any internal operations of His
grace! The same is true of Genesis 6:3. By comparing 1 Peter 3:18-20 it will be
seen that it was by and through Noah that God’s Spirit
"strove" with the antediluvians. The distinction noted above was ably
summarized by Andrew Fuller (another writer long deceased from whom our moderns
might learn much) thus: "There are two kinds of influences by which God
works on the minds of men. First, That which is common, and which is effected
by the ordinary use of motives presented to the mind for consideration;
Secondly, That which is special and supernatural. The one contains nothing
mysterious, anymore than the influence of our words and actions on each other;
the other is such a mystery that we know nothing of it but by its effects—The
former ought to be effectual; the latter is so." The work of the Holy
Spirit upon or towards men is always "resisted," by them; His work
within is always successful. What saith the scriptures?
This: "He which hath begun a good work IN you, will finish it" (Phil.
1:6)
The next question to be
considered is: Why preach the Gospel to every creature? If God the Father has
predestined only a limited number to be saved, if God the Son died
to effect the salvation of only those given to Him by the Father, and if God
the Spirit is seeking to quicken none save God’s elect, then what is the use of
giving the Gospel to the world at large, and where is the propriety of telling
sinners that "Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have
everlasting life"?
First; it
is of great importance that we should be clear upon the nature of the Gospel
itself. The Gospel is God’s good news concerning Christ and not concerning sinners,—
"Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto
the Gospel of God . . . . concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom.
1:1-3). God would have proclaimed far and wide the amazing fact that His own
blessed Son "became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross." A universal testimony must be borne to the matchless
worth of the person and work of Christ. Note the word "witness" in
Matthew 22:14. The Gospel is God’s "witness" unto the perfections of
His Son. Mark the words of the apostle: "For we are unto God a sweet savor
of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish" (2 Cor. 2:15)!
Concerning the character and
contents of the Gospel the utmost confusion prevails today. The Gospel is not
an "offer" to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The Gospel
is no mere invitation, but a proclamation, a proclamation concerning Christ; true, whether men believe it or no. No man is asked to
believe that Christ died for him in particular. The Gospel, in brief, is this:
Christ died for sinners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be
saved. In the Gospel, God simply announces the terms upon which men may be
saved (namely, repentance and faith) and, indiscriminately, all are commanded
to fulfill them.
Second; repentance and
remission of sins are to be preached in the name of the Lord Jesus "unto
all the nations" (Luke 24:47), because God’s elect are "scattered
abroad" (John 11:52) among all nations, and it is by the preaching and hearing
of the Gospel that they are called out of the world. The Gospel is the means
which God uses in the saving of His own chosen ones. By
nature God’s elect are children of wrath "even as others"; they are
lost sinners needing a Saviour, and apart from Christ there is no salvation for
them. Hence, the Gospel must be believed by them before they can rejoice in the
knowledge of sins forgiven. The Gospel is God’s winnowing fan: it separates the
chaff from the wheat, and gathers the latter into His garner.
Third; it is to be noted that
God has other purposes in the preaching of the Gospel than the salvation of His
own elect. The world exists for the elect’s sake, yet others have the benefit
of it. So the Word is preached for the elect’s sake, yet others have the benefit of an external call. The sun shines, though blind
men see it not. The rain falls upon rocky mountains and waste deserts, as well
as on the fruitful valleys; so also, God suffers the Gospel to fall on the ears
of the non-elect. The power of the Gospel is one of God’s agencies for holding
in check the wickedness of the world. Many who are never saved by it are
reformed, their lusts are bridled, and they are restrained
from becoming worse. Moreover, the preaching of the Gospel to the non-elect is
made an admirable test of their characters. It exhibits the inveteracy of their
sin: it demonstrates that their hearts are at enmity against God: it justifies
the declaration of Christ that "men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).
Finally; it is sufficient for
us to know that we are bidden to preach the Gospel to every creature. It is not
for us to reason about the consistency between this and the fact that "few
are chosen." It is for us to obey. It is a simple matter to ask questions
relating to the ways of God which no finite mind can fully fathom. We, too,
might turn and remind the objector that our Lord declared,
"Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,
and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme. But he that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness" (Mark 3:28, 29),
and there can be no doubt whatever but that certain of the Jews were guilty of
this very sin (see Matt. 12:24 etc.), and hence their destruction
was inevitable. Yet, notwithstanding, scarcely two months later, He commanded
His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature. When the objector can
show us the consistency of these two things—the fact that certain of the Jews
had committed the sin for which there is never forgiveness, and the fact that
to them the Gospel was to be preached—we will undertake to furnish a more
satisfactory solution than the one given above to the
harmony between a universal proclamation of the Gospel and a limitation of its
saving power to those only that God has predestined to be conformed to the
image of His Son.
Once more, we say, it is not
for us to reason about the Gospel; it is our business to preach
it. When God ordered Abraham to offer up his son as a burnt-offering, he might
have objected that this command was inconsistent with His promise "In
Isaac shall thy seed be called." But instead of arguing he obeyed, and
left God to harmonize His promise and His precept. Jeremiah might have argued
that God had bade him do that which was altogether unreasonable when He said,
"Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them;
but they will not hearken to thee; thou shalt also call unto them; but they
will not answer thee" (Jer. 7:27), but instead, the prophet obeyed.
Ezekiel, too, might have complained that the Lord was asking of him a hard
thing when He said, "Son of man, go, get thee unto the House of Israel,
and speak with My words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a
strange speech and of an hard language, but to the House of
Israel; Not to many people of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose
words thou cans’t not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would
have hearkened unto thee. But the House of Israel will not hearken unto thee;
for they will not hearken unto Me; for all the House of Israel are impudent and
hard hearted" (Ezek. 3:4-7).
"But, O my soul, if truth
so bright
Should dazzle and confound thy
sight,
Yet still His written Word
obey,
And wait the great decisive
day."—Watts.
It has been well said,
"The Gospel has lost none of its ancient power. It is, as much today as
when it was first preached, ‘the power of God unto salvation’. It needs no
pity, no help, and no handmaid. It can overcome all obstacles, and break down all
barriers. No human device need be tried to prepare the sinner to receive it,
for if God has sent it no power can hinder it; and if He
has not sent it, no power can make it effectual." (Dr. Bullinger).
This chapter might be extended
indefinitely, but it is already too long, so a word or two more must suffice. A
number of other questions will be dealt with in the pages yet
to follow, and those that we fail to touch upon the reader must take to the
Lord Himself who has said, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,
that giveth to all liberally, and upbraideth not" (James 1:5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
[1] Romans 5 :8 is addressed
to saints, and the “we” are the same ones as those spoken of
in 8:29, 30.
[2] Concerning the rich young
ruler of whom it is said Christ “loved him” (Mark 10:21), we fully believe that
he was one of God’s elect, and was “saved” sometime after his interview with
our Lord. Should it be said this is an arbitrary assumption and
assertion which lacks anything in the Gospel record to substantiate it, we
reply, It is written, “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out,” and
this man certainly did “come” to Him. Compare the case of Nicodemus. He, too,
came to Christ, yet there is nothing in John 3 which intimates he was a saved
man when the interview closed; nevertheless, we know from his later life that
he was not “cast out.”
[3] For a further discussion
of John 3:16 see Appendix 3.