1: The “T” in the TULIP, “TOTAL DEPRAVITY”:
2. The “U” in the TULIP, “UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION”
3. The “L” in the TULIP, “LIMITED ATONEMENT”
4: The “I” in the TULIP, “IRRESISTIBLE GRACE”
5: The conclusion of the TULIP series – “THE PERSEVERANCE (PRESERVATION) OF THE SAINTS”:
Article: Hermeneutics: New Testament Priority by Tom Hicks
Source: https://founders.org/2016/05/26/hermeneutics-new-testament-priority/
One important aspect of biblical hermeneutics (the theory of biblical interpretation) is the principle of “New Testament priority.” At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) expressed New Testament priority with the phrase, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” Augustine meant that the Old Testament contains shadowy types and figures that are only clearly revealed in the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament explains the Old Testament. The Protestant Reformers and Puritans also looked to the New Testament to govern their interpretation of the Old. An early confessional Particular Baptist, Nehemiah Coxe, agreed with the Reformed interpretive principle when he wrote, “…the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new.” [1]
The interpretive principle of New Testament priority is derived from an examination of the Scriptures themselves. As we read the Bible, we notice that earlier texts never explicitly interpret later texts. Earlier texts provide the interpretive context for later texts, but earlier texts never cite later texts and explain them directly. Rather, what we find is that later texts make explicit reference to earlier texts and provide explanations of them. Moreover, the later portion of any book always makes clear the earlier portion. When you just begin to read a novel, for example, you’re still learning the characters, the setting, the context, etc., but later on, as the story progresses, things that happened earlier in the book make more sense and take on new meaning. Mysteries are resolved. Earlier conversations between characters gain new significance as the novel unfolds. Later parts of the story have primary explanatory power over the earlier parts.
The hermeneutical principle of New Testament priority simply recognizes these facts. Following the Bible’s own example, interpreters should allow later revelation in the Bible to explain earlier revelation, rather than insisting on their own uninspired interpretations of earlier revelation without reference to the authoritative explanations of later revelation.
Over and against New Testament priority, John MacArthur claims that to make “the New Testament the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity of the Old Testament as a perfect revelation in itself.” [2] Of course, MacArthur’s claim is easily reversed. One might argue that to suggest that the New Testament is not the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity (which means “clarity”) of the New Testament as perfect revelation in itself. Moreover, MacArthur doesn’t account for the fact that the Old Testament teaches that its own prophecies can be hard to understand because they are given in riddles (Numbers 12:6-8). The New Testament too acknowledges that the Old Testament is not always clear. It tells us of “mysteries” in the Old Testament yet to be revealed (Colossians 1:26). The meaning of the Old Testament “shadows” (Hebrews 10:1) and “types” (Galatians 4:24) only become clear after Christ comes. Historic Baptists understood this. The Second London Baptist Confession 1.7 accurately declares, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves.” That is, all of Scripture is not equally perspicuous, contrary to John MacArthur. Thus, MacArthur’s critique of New Testament priority is not consistent with what the Bible teaches about the Old Testament’s “shadowy” character. [3]
To illustrate how this principle of New Testament priority effects our theology, consider the example of Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists. Both Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists wrongly allow the Old Testament to have priority over the New Testament. Both systems of interpretation read the promise of a seed in Genesis 17:7 as a promise of a large number of physical offspring from Abraham. In Genesis 17:7, God says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you.”
Dispensationalists think Genesis 17:7 establishes an everlasting promise to national Israel, and they read their interpretation into the New Testament, convinced that God has future plans for national Israel. Paedobaptists, on the other hand, think the promise in Genesis 17:7 is the covenant of grace with Abraham and all his physical children, which leads to the baptism of infants in the New Testament and to churches intentionally mixed with believers and unbelievers. [4]
If, however, we allow the New Testament to interpret Genesis 17:7, then we will avoid the error committed by Dispensationalism and Paedobaptism. Galatians 3:16 says, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” Note well that Galatians 3:16 explicitly denies a plural offspring. The promise is to one Offspring only, not to many. “It does not say ‘And to offsprings’” (Galatians 3:16).
Therefore, in light of the clear teaching of the New Testament, we must conclude that both Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists misinterpret the Old Testament because they fail to allow the New Testament to have priority of interpretation. Both systems conclude that the promise to Abraham’s seed is a promise to physical descendants, rather than to Christ. This error leads Paedobaptists to over-emphasize a visible church propagated by natural generation in their reading of Scripture, and it leads Dispensationalists to over-emphasize Israel, when the New Testament clearly teaches us to emphasize Christ. The promise to “seed” is a promise to Christ, not to men. [5] This is not a denial of any collective aspect to seed; rather, it recognizes that the seed is Christ and that by saving union with Him, the elect are also seed in Him (Galatians 3:7, 14, 29). Thus, all the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 17:7 were made to Christ and to all who are savingly united to Him, Jew and Gentile alike. The promise is, therefore, Christ-centered, not man-centered, which is what historic Baptists have always taught.
1. Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ, ed. Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, and Fransisco Orozco (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 36.
2. John MacArthur, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist,” a sermon delivered at the Shepherd’s Conference in 2007.
3. For an extensive treatment of John MacArthur’s dispensationalism, see Samuel E. Waldron, MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response (Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008). For a short critique of Dispensationalism’s hermeneutic in general, see Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 33-40.
4. For an excellent critique of Reformed paedobaptism, see Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2003, revised and expanded, 2007).
5. To see this argument worked out more thoroughly, see Fred A. Malone, “Biblical Hermeneutics & Covenant Theology” in Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, ed. Earl M. Blackburn (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 63-87.
3 Articles:
I Will Surely Tell of the Decree of the Lord
In numerous passages throughout the Bible, there are places where Scripture speaks of God’s “purpose” (Acts 4:28), His “plan” (Ps 33:11; Acts 2:23), His “counsel” (Eph 1:11), “good pleasure” (Isa 46:10), or “will” (Eph 1:5). In one way or another, each of these designations refer to what theologians call God’s decree. The Westminster Confession famously characterizes describes God’s decree as follows: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
So in those instances where Scripture speaks of God’s purpose, plan, counsel, pleasure, or will, these passages are referring to the divine decree by which God, before the creation of time, determined to bring about all things that were to happen in time. John Piper, summarizing God’s decree, says, “He has designed from all eternity, and is infallibly forming, with every event, a magnificent mosaic of redemptive history” (Desiring God, 40). This helpful summary presents three characteristics of God’s decree that succinctly encapsulate the teaching of Scripture: God’s decree is eternal, immutable, and exhaustive.
God’s Decree is Eternal and Unconditional
First, Scripture presents God’s decree as having been determined before the creation of time, and thus it is said to be eternal.
What these passages are teaching us is that all of God’s providential actions in time conform to a fixed purpose which precedes time. And this “fixed purpose” is none other than God’s eternal decree.
A very important implication of the eternality of God’s decree is that it is entirely unconditional. That is to say, nothing external to God moved Him to decide to do one thing as opposed to another thing. Edwards said, “His will is supreme, underived, and independent on any thing without himself; being in every thing determined by His own counsel, having no other rule but his own wisdom.” In fact, not only is that not the case: it’s impossible. Because God, who is the only self-existent, eternal Being, was the only entity present in eternity past (Col 1:17). To put it simply, God’s decree wasn’t influenced by anything external to Him because there was nothing external to Him (Gen 1:1; John 1:1–3).
The consequence of this reality is that every one of God’s decisions that make up His decree—down to the minutest of events and actions—was an entirely free decision according to His own will. This is why Scripture so often refers to God’s decree as His “good pleasure,” or that which pleases Him (Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; 48:14; Phil 2:13). So far from teaching that any part of God’s decree was based on an external influence, Scripture proclaims: “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven” (Dan 4:35).
God’s Decree is Immutable
“OK. So maybe God’s decree is unconditional because it was formed in eternity past. But what if the decree could be changed now that we’re in time? After all, God can do what He wants, right? You wouldn’t dare put God in a box, now would you?”
To such an objection (one that is unfortunately all too common), Scripture replies that God’s decree is not only eternal and thus unconditional, but also unchangeable.
God’s Decree is Exhaustive
Finally, God’s eternal and immutable decree is also exhaustive. God is said to work all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). The psalmist repeats that the Lord does whatever He pleases (Ps 115:3; 135:6). He Himself declares that He will accomplish all His good pleasure (Isa 46:10).
However, such exhaustiveness is not merely a general control; rather, God’s control over creation is specific and meticulous. In his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem provides a helpful survey (318–21).
Perhaps the greatest summary statement comes in Paul’s great doxology in Romans 11:36: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.”
Conclusion: God is the Ultimate Cause
In light of the Scriptural teaching concerning God’s decree—(a) that it is eternal, and thus uninfluenced by anything external to God, (b) that it is unchangeable and cannot be frustrated, and (c) that it includes absolutely everything that occurs in time and space and beyond—the only reasonable conclusion for the student of Scripture to come to is that God may be properly said to be the ultimate cause of all things. As John Frame says, reflecting on the Biblical evidence, “Through the centuries of redemptive history, everything has come from God. He has planned and done it all. He has not merely set boundaries for creaturely action, but has actually made everything happen” (Doctrine of God, 58).
The exhaustiveness and meticulousness of God’s sovereign decree raises a significant question: How can God be the cause of actions and events that are evil and sinful—things which God Himself prescribes against—and yet not be rightly charged with unrighteousness? That’s a question that needs to be answered, and we’ll take a look at it in a future post. But for now, let us at least acknowledge that, based on the biblical doctrine of God’s decree summarized above, Scripture gives us no other option but that God is indeed the Sovereign Lord who works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11).
God Meant it for Good: Evaluating Divine Permission
source: https://thecripplegate.com/god-meant-it-for-good-evaluating-divine-permission/
In my last post, I outlined some foundational biblical/theological teaching on the decree of God. We looked at passages of Scripture that speak of God’s decree as eternal, unconditional, unchangeable, and exhaustive. As a result, we concluded that God is properly said to be the ultimate cause of all things.
Immediately, this raises the question: How can God be the cause of actions and events that are evil and sinful—things which God Himself prescribes against—and yet not be rightly charged with unrighteousness? Some people answer this question by appealing to the notion of divine “permission.” In other words, though God is ultimately in control, He doesn’t ordain evil; He merely allows it. I don’t find this kind of explanation convincing for two reasons.
God’s Decree and Divine “Permission”
The first is: I find the concept of divine permission to be inconsistent with the biblical teaching of God’s decree outlined in the previous post. The fundamental meaning of “permission” is “not to hinder what has, or appears to have, a tendency to take place” (Edwards, Concerning the Divine Decrees). The concept of permission is used this way in Scripture (e.g., Mark 10:14), and even the etymology of the English word testifies that it has the idea of “to allow to pass through.” In fact, Arminian theologians treat the concept of permission according to its actual definition. Jack Cottrell, an Arminian, puts it this way: “God simply allows these agents to produce what they will. This is true permission, i.e., not efficaciousness but noninterference.” Cottrell is actually using the concept of permission according to its true sense: a response to a future plan or intention known in advance.
But the idea of noninterference, or not hindering what has a tendency to take place, makes no sense in light of God’s eternal and unconditional decree, because in eternity past at the moment of God’s decree there was nothing external to Him. There was no antecedent tendency for anything, no agent on a trajectory asking permission to pass through to its desired end. In eternity past, there wasn’t any evil agent that made an appeal to the divine will to be included in His decree, at which point God, though recognizing it was contrary to His nature, nevertheless granted permission. To put it simply, there was nothing for God to refrain from interfering with, nothing outside of Himself to which to “acquiesce,” as one theologian put it. Indeed, as Gordon Clark says,
The idea of permission is possible only where there is an independent force. . . . But this is not the situation in the case of the God of the universe. Nothing in the universe can be independent of the Omnipotent Creator, for in him we live and move and have our being. Therefore, the idea of permission makes no sense when applied to God. (Religion Reason, and Revelation [P&R, 1961], 205)
Such reasoning has led many to conclude that the distinction between a permissive will and a decretive will is “desperately artificial” (Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility [Wipf & Stock, 2002], 214). At the very least, those who hold to a Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty have no desire to communicate what’s actually implied by the use of permissive language (as outlined above). In fact, John Frame goes so far as to say, “we should not assume . . . that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination” (Doctrine of God, 178). And I agree. But if we don’t intend to communicate what is actually denoted by “permission,” yet we do intend to communicate nothing less than sovereign ordination, of what meaningful use is permissive language? Why not simply speak of God’s “ordaining” or “decreeing” or “bringing about” all things?
Biblical Examples of God’s Agency in Evil
Well, the answer to that is because it seems to suggest that God is somehow the author of sin, and thus the chargeable cause of evil. We want to avoid speaking of God’s involvement in ordaining evil or sinful events, because we don’t want people to think that we’re saying sin is God’s fault. And of course, that is a noble desire. But I don’t think that permissive language accomplishes that end, because Scripture itself doesn’t mind speaking of God’s agency in evil in very active terms.
In fact, Scripture plainly teaches both (a) that God is unquestionably righteous and (b) that He indeed ordains sinful events and actions. And if that’s what Scripture teaches (and it is), it is not our place to sit in judgment upon and question the consistency of those declarations. Rather it falls to us to receive both as true on the authority of God’s infallible and inerrant Word. That brings me to my second reason for rejecting the concept of divine permission: Scripture.
Consider the overwhelming amount of Scripture that speaks of God’s role in bringing about evil in ways much more positively and actively than we are often comfortable with.
In Amos’s prophecy of punishment to Israel, God asks, “If a calamity occurs in a city has not Yahweh done it?” (Amos 3:6). He does not ask who has allowed the calamity, but who has actively done it (Heb. ‘assah).
Similarly, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, in his lamentations Jeremiah nevertheless understands from whom such destruction comes. He asks, “Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it (Heb. tsawah)? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill (ra‘ah & tov) go forth?” (Lam 3:37–38).
Indeed, it’s worth noting the active language used throughout the entire book of Lamentations: God has “caused [Judah] grief” (1:5), “inflicted” this pain (1:12); knit together this yoke and given her into the hands of her enemies (1:14); and trodden her as in a winepress (1:15). God is actively accomplishing that which He had purposed to do (2:17; 3:43–44; 4:11).
In Isaiah’s prophecy, God declares that it is He who forms light and creates darkness, and it is He who brings about peace and creates calamity (Isa 45:5–7; Heb. bara’ ra‘; literally, “creates evil”). Such statements do not discriminate. God does not distance Himself from evil in distinction to good; rather, He sharply makes the point that He is the one, and not another, who accomplishes (bara’)—and not merely permits—all things (Isa 45:7).
This kind of language that speaks of God’s active involvement is not limited to general evils. His positive agency in sin and evil extends to personal situations.
Perhaps the classic illustration for this is the story of Joseph. Some theologians actually appeal to God’s dealings with Joseph to support permissive language, saying that God “permits some sins to occur [but] nonetheless directs them in such a way that good comes out of them” (Erickson, 425). But this plainly misses the mark of the text. The narrative makes plain that God didn’t just make the best out of a bad situation, as if Joseph had merely said, “You meant evil against me, but God worked it out for good.” You know, Joseph’s brothers had dealt God a rather bad hand, but He did with it what He could and worked it out for good. No, the text says that God meant it for good (Gen 50:20). God’s intentions in Joseph being unjustly sold into slavery were just as active as Joseph’s brothers’ were. He was as sovereignly involved on the front end of Joseph’s trials as He was on the back end of his prosperity. In fact, the text says that God actively sent Joseph to Egypt with His own purpose to preserve life (Gen 45:5, 7). Joseph even says that it is not his brothers who sent him there, but God (Gen 45:8). Neither the language nor the idea of permission is anywhere to be found in this narrative.
Other examples can be multiplied:
The obstinacy and disobedience of Eli’s sons is attributed to God’s desire to put them to death. 1 Samuel 2:25 says, “But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for Yahweh desired to put them to death.” Scripture causally links Hophni’s and Phineas’ disobedience to God’s desire to put them to death. As difficult as it is for our theology, Scripture seems to inescapably declare that God ordained their disobedience in order that He might justly carry out a death sentence upon them.
Later, Yahweh sends an evil spirit upon Saul to torment him. 1 Samuel 16:14 says, “Now the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh terrorized him.” An evil spirit. From Yahweh. It blows my theological circuits too, but it’s in the text. It’s not an option for me to accuse the author of 1 Samuel of making God to be the author of sin!
Though Absalom’s incest is an abomination before Yahweh (2 Sam 16:21–23), Yahweh Himself had already declared to David that He will bring such abominations about as punishment for David’s sin: “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun’” (2 Sam 12:11–12).
Paul tells us that in the great eschatological apostasy, “God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false” (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
And of course, the chief of these examples is God’s agency in the greatest of all evils: the crucifixion of Christ. Can anyone dispute that the sham trial, unjust condemnation, and murder of the innocent Son of God was the greatest evil ever accomplished in history? And yet, the Apostle Peter says Christ was “delivered over by the predetermined plan . . . of God” (Acts 2:23). And again: “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27–28). There can be no more explicit affirmation of God’s sovereign ordination and of the cross—the greatest evil in history.
Considering the weight of this Scriptural testimony, we must conclude along with Calvin:
The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. . . . Recourse is had to the evasion that [evil] is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. (Institutes, I.18.1)
And with Frame:
God does bring about sinful human actions. To deny this, or to charge God with wickedness on account of it, is not open to a Bible-believing Christian. Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless. (Doctrine of God, 175)
And we don’t need permissive language to make this confession.
But is there any way to understand how it can be that God is not the chargeable cause of sin, even though He ordains that it be? I’ll try to address that in the next post.
God and Evil: Why the Ultimate Cause is not the Chargeable Cause
source: https://thecripplegate.com/god-and-evil-why-the-ultimate-cause-is-not-the-chargeable-cause/
Several weeks ago, I began a series of posts by outlining some foundational biblical teaching about God’s decree. We examined numerous passages of Scripture that speak of God’s decree as eternal, unconditional, unchangeable, and exhaustive. As a result, we concluded that God is properly said to be the ultimate cause of all things. As the Westminster Confession states, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF, 3.1).
Whenever you say something like that in a theological discussion, immediately the question is raised: How can God be the ultimate cause of whatsoever comes to pass—even actions and events that are evil and sinful, things which God Himself prescribes against—and yet not be rightly charged with unrighteousness. Perhaps the most common answer to that question is an appeal to the notion of divine “permission.” In other words, though God is ultimately in control, He doesn’t ordain evil; He merely allows it. In a second post, I demonstrated why such a solution is unsatisfactory, both theologically and biblically. After considering a number of passages that don’t shy away from attributing to God a very active role in the bringing about of evil events, we concluded with John Frame: “God does bring about sinful human actions. To deny this, or to charge God with wickedness on account of it, is not open to a Bible-believing Christian. Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless” (Doctrine of God). That post demonstrated that Scripture plainly teaches both (a) that God is unquestionably righteous and (b) that He indeed ordains sinful events and actions. And if that’s what Scripture teaches (and it is), it is not our place to sit in judgment upon and question the consistency of those declarations. That only breeds the worst of biblical and theological mischief. To argue that God is unrighteous for ordaining evil is to sit in judgment upon both the Word of God and the Judge of all the world. Instead, it falls to us to receive both propositions as true on the authority of God’s infallible and inerrant Word.
But is there any way to understand how it can be that God is not the chargeable cause of sin, even though He ordains that it be? There is a way for the worshiper of God to ask that question submissively, not because we demand that God give an account of His understanding of justice that satisfies our sensibilities, but simply because we desire to know Him and worship Him for what He has revealed of Himself. And there is a way to answer that question that remains faithful to sound biblical interpretation and theological reflection.
The answer that Scripture seems to give can be boiled down to two propositions. First, though God is the ultimate cause of all things—even evil—He is never the proximate, or efficient, cause of evil. Second, Scripture regards only the efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party. Let’s look to a sample of texts that bears this out.
Assyria, the Rod of My Anger
In Isaiah 10, God pronounces woe upon His people for their idolatry and injustice (Isa 10:1–2). He threatens that He is about to bring about a “day of punishment” and “devastation which will come from afar” (Isa 10:3). “Nothing remains but to crouch among the captives or fall among the slain” (Isa 10:4). In verse 6, we learn that God will carry out this punishment against wicked Israel by sending the nation of Assyria to destroy her. He says, “I send it [i.e., Assyria] against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets” (Isa 10:6). God will send Assyria to level devastation upon Israel to punish her for her idolatry.
And yet, in verse 5, God also pronounces woe upon Assyria! He says, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hands is My indignation” (Isa 10:5). He even goes so far as to liken Assyria to an inanimate object—the rod of Yahweh’s anger in His hand which He Himself wields. We might naturally ask, “How can it be just for God to sendAssyria to destroy Israel—indeed, to describe their involvement as so inactive as to liken them to an inanimate object in Yahweh’s hand—and then punish them for the evil of destroying Israel?” It simply won’t do to say that Yahweh merely “allowed” Assyria to punish Israel; the text is far too active for that: “I send it against a godless nation” (Isa 10:6). The answer seems to lie in the concept of ultimate versus efficient causation. Even though Yahweh is clearly the ultimate cause of Israel’s destruction and the Assyrians are merely the rod of anger in His hand, yet the Assyrians are the efficient cause of the evil.
Besides this, God’s sovereign ordination of Assyria’s destruction of Israel in no way coerced Assyria or forced them to do what they did not otherwise want to do. Assyria wasn’t sitting around minding its own business when God came and twisted their arms to mercilessly destroy a nation. No, they still acted according to their freedom of inclination; they were doing what they wanted to do. And yet, the reason they desired to destroy Israel was not the reason for which Yahweh wanted to. Yahweh wanted to righteously punish Israel for her idolatry and injustice. But Assyria had other intentions. Verse 7 says, “Yet it does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart.” In other words, Assyria does not intend to destroy Israel for the sake of punishing unrighteousness. No, “but rather it is its purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations. For it says, ‘Are not my princes all kings?’” (Isa 10:7–8). Assyria’s intention in destroying Israel was to arrogantly flex its military muscle and pridefully make a name for itself among the nations.
God ordains the evil of the destruction of Israel by Assyria. Yet while Assyria meant it for evil—to satisfy its own pride and bloodlust—God meant it for good: to punish unrighteousness and bring about repentance in His people. Assyria is the efficient cause, and because their desires were sinful, they are accountable for their sin. God is the ultimate cause, but because His desires and purposes for ordaining that evil were not evil but righteous—in other words, because He ordained the evil for goodness’ sake—He is not the chargeable cause of sin.
The Anger of the Lord Incited David
Something similar takes place in 2 Samuel 24. This chapter details David’s sin of taking a census among the people. We know it was sinful for a couple of reasons. First, David himself confesses it as such. He says, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Yahweh, please take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have acted very foolishly” (2 Sam 24:10). Apparently, numbering the people was a display of David’s pride. He was basking in the glory of the nation over which he was king. It was as if he was saying, “Look at how numerous is my people!” Second, we also know it was sinful because God responded by sending pestilence upon the nation, with the result that 70,000 men died (2 Sam 24:15)! If David was going to exalt himself and take pride in a nation of great numbers, God was pleased to humble the great king by taking 70,000 of that great number to the grave!
What makes this a surprising scene is the opening verse of the narrative. In 2 Samuel 24:1, the text says, “Now again the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” David confesses such an act as sin (2 Sam 24:10), and God punishes it as sin (2 Sam 24:15), and yet from the outset we’re told that it was Yahweh’s anger that incited David to take this census! More than that, in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1, the inspired text says, “Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” God and Satan are used entirely in parallel! The author of Samuel says God incited David to take the census, and the Chronicler says Satan incited David to take the census!
Now, unless one is ready to admit a contradiction in Scripture, we must understand that (a) God is the ultimate cause of this act, ultimately decreeing that it should be; (b) Satan is a proximate cause, the instrument Yahweh uses to stir up this evil in the heart of David; and (c) David is the efficient cause, having carried it out according to his own sinful inclination, and thus is culpable for the action.
And although God is clearly the ultimate cause for this evil (He does not merely “allow” Satan to do it; 2 Sam 24:1 will not allow that understanding), Scripture does not at all imply that God is to blame or that Satan and David are any less responsible. God’s motives in this action must be presumed entirely righteous even though we are not explicitly told what good God intended by ordaining this evil. After all, shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly (Gen 18:25)? There can be no unrighteousness with God, can there? May it never be (Rom 3:5–6)! And yet because Satan always desires to ruin God’s people, and because David’s motive was to pridefully exalt himself, they are the chargeable cause(s) of this evil.
Whatever Your Hand Predestined to Occur
The final illustration of these principles may be found in the greatest moral evil in history: the murder of the innocent Son of God. Two passages help us here:
Acts 2:22–23 – Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Acts 4:27–28 – For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
So there can be no question that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the peoples of Israel were to blame for the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:27). Peter openly indicts the men of Israel for their crime: “This Man . . . you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23; cf. 2:36). And yet, Peter also explicitly says that such evil was accomplished “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Indeed, Herod, Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles were those whom God “anointed . . . to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27–28).
Here again we see that (a) God is the ultimate cause of the crucifixion, predestining all of the events that led to the crucifixion, guaranteeing that it would occur; (b) the Jews were a proximate cause, seeing as how they incited Rome to crucify Christ; and (c) Herod, Pilate, and other godless men were the efficient cause, because the crucifixion was carried out by Roman authority. The Jews are held accountable as a proximate cause, as Peter says “you nailed [Jesus] to a cross by the hands of godless men.” That the Romans actually nailed Jesus to a cross made the Jews no less culpable for that crime. And yet God, by whose hand all of these things ultimately came about, is not the chargeable cause of any evil. Why? Because they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. Herod, Pilate, Judas, and the Jews conspired the crucifixion because they wanted to be rid of this Man who indicted them for their sin. But God ordained the evil of the cross for the good that it would bring; namely, the salvation of His people from their sin.
So the point is: God may be the ultimate cause of all that happens—even evil—and yet not incur the guilt that rightly belongs to the proximate and/or efficient cause(s), because: (1) He is never the efficient cause of evil, and (2) He always ordains evil for good. God does not will sin as sin, but for the good which He desires to bring from it. Edwards explains:
“[It is consistent to say] that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions; that he predetermines that they shall be in every respect as they afterwards are; that he determines that there shall be such actions, and just so sinful as they are; and yet that God does not decree the actions that are sinful, as sin, but decrees them as good. . . . By decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing it for the sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that they shall be sinful, for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof; whereas man decrees them for the sake of the evil that is in them.” (Concerning the Divine Decrees, Works, 2:527)
Unto Our Highest Happiness
And what is that good for which God ordains evil? Ultimately, we know the answer is always for His glory.
To those who would reproach God for holding accountable those who don’t have the ability to resist His decree (cf. Rom 9:19), God answers by reminding mere mortals that they’re above their pay grade: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?” (Rom 9:20–21).
But to the submissive, inquiring worshiper for whom the furthest thing from his mind is to find fault with God, who simply wants to know his God and worship Him for how He’s revealed Himself, God gives another answer. In Romans 9:22–23, Paul says,
What if God, willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And [what if] He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory?
God ordains sin and evil—He even ordains the eternal punishment of the wicked—to make known to His elect the riches of His glory. You can’t do better than Edwards here:
“It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .
“Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from.
“How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . . . So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.” (Concerning the Divine Decrees, Works, 2:528)
God ordains whatsoever comes to pass in order that His glory might ultimately displayed to the utmost. And far from a megalomaniacal narcissism, God’s pursuit of His own glory is “in order to the highest happiness of the creature . . . because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God.” And our knowledge of God would be imperfect if we didn’t see the full expression of His attributes: grace, mercy, forgiveness, justice, righteousness, and so on. And yet none of those attributes could be fully expressed if there was not sin to punish and to forgive, or sinners to whom to be gracious and merciful. God is not less glorious, but more glorious, because He ordains evil. And the more He magnifies His glory, the greater is His love to us. Surely God cannot be charged with unrighteousness for doing that which amounts to the greatest benefit for us who are His.
Oh, the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
For ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?’
Or ‘Who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again?’
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever. Amen.