|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 18:57:56 GMT -5
6/1/1944
The Value of O.T. Revelation for the New Dispensation
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
Article
Home / Archive / Volume 20/1944 / Vol 20 Issue 17
SHARE IT
In our former essay on this subject (See April 1 issue) we attempted to define the terms in our subject. In so doing we noticed the following:
In the first place, that “Old Testament” is not to be identified or confused with O.T. Scriptures. For “Testament” in our subject means covenant and refers to the relationship established between God and His people, while the “Scriptures” are the infallible record of this covenant.
Secondly, we observed, that “Testament” and “Dispensation” are also not identical. “Dispensation” in Holy Writ is the all-wise government and control of God the Father over all things in heaven and earth unto the realization of the plan of redemption and of His Covenant (testament) with man.
Thirdly, it was pointed out, that “old” is an epithet applicable to the all-wise and merciful dispensation of God before the coming of God’s Son in the flesh. From the viewpoint of the present dispensation of God the former is “old,” it has lost its force.
The above recapitulation will be sufficient to recall the trend of our former article.
We now stand before the question of the “value” of the Old Covenant ordinances for the believers after Pentecost. To this we would call your attention in this concluding article on this subject. We will strive for brevity and clarity. In doing so the following matters will need to be considered. 1. The Value that the “Old Testament Revelation’’ had in the Old Dispensation. 2. Thus see by way of contrast the points in which this old’ Covenant still has value for us today.
Value of the Old Testament for the Old Dispensation
After careful and lengthy consideration of this question of the “present value” of the Old Covenant, we are convinced that the correct understanding of this matter hinges on the understanding of the relationship of “the Law” to “the Promise”. These are two different yet mutually related entities in the Bible. Paul often discourses on this subject, the matter being an actual, burning question in his day. To understand this question, again we are called upon to define: 1. What Scripture understands by the “Promise.” 2. What the Word of God understands by the “Law.” 3. And then see how these two matters under the all-wise control and guidance and plan of God are mutually related and wherein they differ.
Just a word about the correctness of this approach may be in order here. However, those remarks could be reserved till after the discussion of the three propositions of the former paragraph too. But for pedagogical reasons permit me to make them here.
As shall, we trust, become evident presently in our discussion on the “Promise”, the Promise is that which is the controlling factor in both the Old and New Dispensations. On Pentecost Peter preaches: For to you is the promise and to your children and to as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39. Now if the promise is the same in the New Dispensation as it is in the Old Dispensation, then by seeing the value that the “law,” “the old testament revelation” had for the “Promise” at once indicates its value for us today who are the “heirs of the promise.” This reasoning and presupposition underlies the method of our treatment. Let the reader judge as to the correctness of this approach.
We believe that this is the method of reasoning followed by Paul in Galatians 3, and the one, which, upon due reflection all will concede, is necessitated by the fact that Christ is the end of the Law in being the fulfillment of the Promise.
Let us attend to this matter somewhat more in detail.
As stated before we must first of all call attention to the Scriptural idea and implication of the “Promise.” We will here consider two matters.
First of all we ask: What is the scope and perspective of the Promise. We believe that it is plain teaching of Scripture that the Promise extends from the Protevangel in Gen. 3:15 to the final descent of the holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem from God, adorned as a bride to meet her husband. Rev. 21:2, 3. The Promise extends all the way. It is given to Abram in Ur of the Chaldees. Gen. 12:1-3. The perspective opens here even to the dim future. It foresees that God shall justify the heathen-world through faith. Gal. 3:8. The numberless throng John may see in the vision as recorded in Rev. 7:9-17. Hence the promise extends all the way from Alpha to Omega. It finds its terminus ad quern in the Consummation of all things! Rev. 22.
Secondly there is the element of the certain realization of the Promise. This also is given in both Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 12:1-3. It is emphasized that God will do it. And again: That He will do what is impossible with man! Hence the Promise always implies the Miraculous! Foresoothe, not the miraculous in the sense of the merely philosophically conceived supernatural, but as the wonder, the miracle of redemption. Hence the Promise always presupposes two factors: Sin and grace! God would lead many sons to glory. But in doing so He cannot deny Himself. He would bless all nations in Abraham. But who is Abraham? He is as far as the Seed is concerned dead. But God by the Wonder of Grace raises the dead to life and calls the things that are not as though they were. Rom. 4:13-25. For this Seed (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 22:18; 24:7; Gal. 3:16) is the Christ of God. In this Christ the Promise is fulfilled, being delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. Rom. 4:23-25. For all God’s promises are in Him yea, and, therefore also in Him Amen unto the glory of God. Such is the certainty of the Promises which spans the ages!
This is not an exhaustive treatment, for that would mean an exposition of the whole bible! For Scripture shows us the unfolding of God’s council and the realization of the Promise in Christ. We merely wish to draw the line!
Now, what is the “Law?” Also here we must be clear in our conception. There are three laws of which the bible speaks. 1. The moral law, the ten commandments. 2. The civil law regulating the civil affairs in Israel. 3. The Ceremonial laws regulating the temple worship.
We here have in mind the laws of the ceremonial ordinances. These were the laws that regulated the life of Israel to the minutest details. It designated the place of worship, (John 4:20) the time when to worship (the entire lunar calendar regulating the feast) the distinction of clean and unclean, of foreigner and sons, circumcision and uncircumcision. It prescribed what might be eaten and what avoided. And in this all it said: Do this and thou shalt live.
As such the law pointed in two directions. It pointed on the one hand to the moral law in connection with the dead and guilty sinner. It came specifically to man as the guilty one. On the other hand it pointed toward redemption. It pointed toward the Christ of the Promise! It was not something to supersede the promise. It indeed came later by the space of four hundred and thirty years. Gal. 3:17; Ex. 12:40.
Yet this law was weak. The miracle of redeeming love and grace it did not bring. It did the very opposite. It brought about a great burden which none of the fathers were able to carry. Matt. 11:28; Acts 15:6-11. It proclaimed the sinfulness of man without lifting the burden and carrying away the sin of the people. John 1:29. If it had done so, it would have nullified the Promise. Gal. 3:21. But the Promise would bring salvation in the Seed, and not the law.
We are now in a position to see the relationship of the law to the Promise, as we stated earlier in this essay we would do. (Let us notice two points in particular—points that have bearing on and are relevant to our subject.
The first point of importance is to see what the “Promise” and the “law” had in common. The following matters of agreement may be observed.
They both presuppose the sin and guilt of man. They both proclaim, although each in his own way, that man is dead, impotent and rebellious. Neither one of them is conceivable without a world of sin. To remove a possible objection to speak of “conceivability,” I wish to state that I take the position that revelation is not irrational, even though it is not the product of human reason.
Both also point to the need of salvation. The specific form of the temple, its architecture, symbolism, sacrifices, altar, candlestick, holy of holies emphasize and reveal the way unto God. As such it may be said to complement the promise. It was something added to it also in revelational clarity. Moses in the desert saw the outline of the Promise to Abraham. Both “Law” and “Promise” therefore deal with the same subject.
Yet there is a vast difference between these two. We call attention to the following:
The “law” pointed to sin, pointed it out emphatically, and even appended the malediction to it, without being able to take sin away. The Promise also sees the full reality of sin and death and takes it away.
The Promise by taking away sin and bringing satisfaction removes the guilt and the ground of condemnation, and, that on the accursed tree in Jesus. And so it removes the curse of the law. And the function of the law as taskmaster to Christ is ended. Therefore the temple-veil is rent from top to bottom in the giving of the Ghost by Christ. Matt. 27:51.
Value of the Old Testament Revelation for the New Dispensation
To the underlying connection between the two dispensations we have called attention above. We need therefore not tarry and call attention to this once more.
However, we must now face the question: What is the value of the “Law” this O.T. Revelation today? In attempting to answer this question we wish to point out two matters. The first is possibly the easier of the two. This first matter is to state in how far the “law” has no value for us today. After having eliminated the elements which have no value, we will be in a better position to state the value that the “Old Testament revelation” does have.
In compliance with the requisites that we have set ourselves we would answer to the former of these matters as follows: 1. We have stated in this essay that the law pointed toward the irrevocable demands of God’s holiness in connection with the guilty sinner, and damning him to deepest hell. This element is still in the law. But it now can no longer touch the heirs of the promise because their guilt has been removed. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Rom. 8:1. Its value as the actual taskmaster to Christ is ended. Gal. 4:1-7. Jerusalem, Sarah and her children are free. Gal. 4:21-31. 2. The value of pointing to the Christ as the one to come is also gone. God has rent it. Melchisedec’s priesthood is of a higher order than that of Aaron. When Christ said “It is finished,” forevermore the “old Testament Revelation” of the Christ must make room for the reality. The fulfillment of the Promise is the abrogation of the Laws contained in ordinances. Eph. 2:13-17. In Him the handwriting that was against us is nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13, 14. The law can no longer point out the “one that is to come.”
But what is now left? A dead relic? Merely some information of historic (?) interest? This is the impression that one sometimes receives in hearing men speak about the “value” of O.T. Revelation. But this is far from the truth.
As I understand the matter there are two points of “value” in the O.T. Revelation for us today.
The first of these is that it still has “revelational Value”! It has this because it contributed something to the unfolding idea of the Promise. The very terms, symbols, phraseology employed in the O.T. law are employed in the N.T. Revelation and without them we cannot possibly form N.T. conceptions of the work of redemption. Witness to this is the entire book of Hebrews. Read it and assure yourself. Or think of the book of Revelation. The O.T. revelation contains the vocabulary of the Spirit of Truth, plus His symbols in numbers, colors, figures etc. The scenes cast upon the screen before John on Patmos are all taken from the “Mileau” of the O.T. revelation under the law as related to the Promise. They all form the men’s imagination must fail.
It also has spiritual-pedagogical value. This should be evident to us when we read the practical admonitions directed to the believers in the book of Hebrews. This is also true of other books, but emphatically this is the case there. Read such passages as Heb. 2:1-5; 4:1, 2; 10:26-31; 12:29. And lest men should use their new testament liberty as an occasion for the flesh (Gal. 5:13) Paul cites the examples of Israel’s unbelief and what happened to them under the law in the desert. I Cor. 10:1-13. These things were written as examples for us upon whom the ends of the ages have come, and that for our admonition lest we be led away by our desires. The most powerful motives for holy conduct even now are elicited by the apostles from the Old Testament revelation!
We do well to heed this truth. To the law and prophets lest there be no dawn for us.
One remark in conclusion. The writer would welcome a discussion on some theological club meeting on this subject. Possibly there is much in this essay that is not clear. For this the writer makes no apology. The subject is indeed as involved as it is important to Christian thinking and life!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 19:14:58 GMT -5
10/1/1938
World Friendship—God Enmity
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
Article
Home / Archive / Vol 15 Issue 01
SHARE IT
Man is always standing in the Crisis. He is evermore in the critical moment in which, as a moral-rational creature, he has been placed by the Holy One!
And man, the image-bearer of the thrice holy God, can never escape this divine crisis. He always, in all his thoughts, words and deeds must respond to God. He always assumes a certain definite, spiritual, conscious attitude toward God.
Man is never neutral!
He is never neither nor, but always he is either or. He is either for God, or against Him.
More still.
Man is also never both for and against God at the same time. This is just as impossible for man, God’s image-bearer, as it is for him to be neutral.
Man can never be neutral!
He can never truly be double-minded!
“For the friendship of this world is enmity with God,” James 4:4.
It is for this reason that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. For no man is able to serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other; or else cling to the one and despise the other.
God or Mammon. Either or. Never both. For God is the eternal antithetical God. He is the Holy One, Who is eternally dedicated unto Himself as the Summum Ronum, the Highest Good. And as Summum Ronum He is the eternal I AM THAT I AM.
Therefore He is the Unchangeable, Self-sufficient God in Himself. The norm of all moral-rational action, the divine criterion of every inward thought of man, is God!
It cannot be without profit to call one another’s attention to these matters. And indeed it is necessary to do so. Especially in the age in which we live.
Godlessness is becoming more and more pronounced on every hand. The Serpent is lifting up his vile head, and seeks the dethronement of God.
And God’s heritage is beginning to clamor for the dainties, and the friendship of this present world. The children of God are in grave danger of falling in with the world; of not being true and faithful to God; not being of His party in the midst of this world. So that we go a whoring after the world, becoming spiritual adulterers and adulteresses, rather than being the faithful spouse of God our Husband.
For this reason man is either a “friend of this World” and then he is an “enemy of God,” or he is a “friend of God” and an “enemy of this world.”
This is the unchangeable, adorable ordinance of God for man the image-bearer.
To be a friend of this world, presupposes the highest possible likeness to the world. Not the world to be sure in the sense of the creation of God. That is not the significance of world in Holy Writ, when it speaks of the Friendship of the World. The “world” is the creation of God as it now stands under the spiritual domain of the Prince of this world. He has access to the hearts of men. They do his bidding. They seek the things below. And all under the dominion of sin and ethical darkness, stand as one great machine, standing in reverse. They seek not the Living God! They live in vanity, emptiness, and they miss the mark. They hate the truth and love the lie; love the darkness rather than the Light. Always the world keeps the truth of God under in unrighteousness!
And so the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness!
And they gather themselves treasures of wrath in the day of wrath and of the just judgment of God.
For He shall reward every man according to his own lies!
He who is a friend of the “world” must be like unto her. He must love what the world loves, seek and strive as the powers of darkness only desire to, must live as the world dictates, must in every sense of the world fall in line, must be conformed to the world. He never must be out of step, but must march in line.
The friend of the world feels at home in the courts of wickedness, rather than in the congregation of the saints. And thus it must be, for God is GOD!
But he who will be a friend of this “world” is an enemy of God. Him he hates. God is not in all his thoughts, he can not rest except he has done evil.
He despises God’s law and tramples it under foot with his whole heart and mind and strength. He is rebellious, for he cannot subject himself to the law of God.
And that not merely in the abstract. It is not merely so that this is theoretically so, but in reality, in practice not. Man has received a “reasonable service.” God has placed him in this world, with all its relations, ties, laws, and content. It is the capital, the material with which he must work, act, and live. In and through all things man must serve the Lord, his Maker. He can never serve God in any other way.
Man is a part of the human race. From this race each individual is born. And when man wills, desires, acts, he always does so standing in the reasonable service, in the “workshop of God.”
And in this place of God’s appointment he is either God’s friend or enemy. He is either obedient or disobedient. He either loves God or hates Him. He cannot do both. He is either or, never neither nor!
And so the friend of this world seeks the dethronement of God. God must be cast out of his heart and thoughts in all his pursuits. God must not have a place, the supreme commanding position in his life.
When he goes to work in the morning, he intends to work for a living. What! is it so wrong to work for a living, an honorable living? No, it is not wrong in itself. But the friend of this world does not go to work for a living for God’s sake. He does not live for God. He does not end in Him, “out of whom, through whom and unto whom are all things.”
He does not go to work with “Soli Deo Gloria” as the guiding purpose and motive of his heart.
And thus he manifests himself to be of a reprobate mind. He walks in the vanity of his mind, because of the hardness of his heart.
God is not in all his thoughts!
Is the above description of the friendship of this world too dark?
The Christian Reformed Churches in whose midst we formerly had our abode, but from whose midst we were cast out, will answer in the affirmative.
They will tell you that there is still much “good” in the world. And this “good” that the unregenerate sinner does is the result of the restraining influence of the “Common Grace” of God.
There still remain “the glimmerings of natural light” in man.
But what do the “erring brethren” who so tenaciously cling to the error of “Common Grace” forget?
This: “That the light of nature is so far from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God,” Canons of Dordt, Chapter III, IV, Article 4.
This article teaches as plainly as words are able to, that man is unable to use “the glimmerings of natural light” aright even in things natural and civil.
So, first of all, the erring brethren err, not having read the articles of the Canons of Dordt correctly.
But this is not all.
They also err because they have no eye for the truth, that “the friendship of this world is enmity with God”. The principal spiritual difference between the church and the world is no more seen.
The apostle James employs the figure of the wheel. He speaks of the “wheel of our birth.” The characteristic of a wheel is that it revolves. And, as it revolves, it turns in a certain direction. But, turning towards one pole, it revolves away from another. Never can a wheel revolve in two opposite directions at the same time. If this should happen, the wheel would break, or it would no longer be a wheel.
Thus also, the heart of man is easily to be compared with the revolving wheel. The heart of man, as the “wheel of our birth,” cannot seek two opposite objects at the same time. No one can serve two masters. Man cannot serve God and Mammon.
Now the heart of man, the “wheel of our birth,” is set on fire of hell! The heart of man always goes out unto sin, and thus away from the living God. The friend of this world always must be an enemy of God.
World-friendship is God enmity!
They are not two but one! They are two sides of the same matter.
They are like the revolving wheel.
Being a friend of the world implies being an enemy of God. Thus also, being a friend of God implies being an enemy of the world.
Thus “world-friendship and God enmity” is not a dualism, but the self-manifestation of the eternal thesis, the Holy One of Israel.
Thus man is always put by God on the “spot.” Man cannot escape. He must reveal who he is in the inmost recesses of his heart.
And he is either God’s covenant friend-servant, or he is the rebellious servant who through willful disobedience became the enemy of God.
He is either or!
And this always becomes manifest in his walk and life.
And therefore there is a twofold people, and a twofold manifested people in the midst of this world.
On the one hand there are the children of darkness, becoming manifest in their friendship of this world. Man may try to cover up his enmity for God. He may play the part of the hypocrite. And to a certain degree he may also succeed. He can deceive his fellow-men, who are not judges of the heart. But God Who tries the heart cannot be deceived. God also turns the hypocrite inside out, and searches him. Man cannot escape the searching eye of God. And God man must love or hate.
For God either hates or loves. God’s hatred is essentially His Self-love. God is His own party, His own friend! He gives His honor to none other. He is a jealous God.
And man must also become manifest as being either or.
This principle is also binding in the children of God. They are His people by sovereign, saving grace. God has called them out of darkness into His marvellous light, in order that they might be His friends in love and obedience, and that they might show forth His praises in the midst of the world.
He has not called this people because they had merited His consideration and love above others. They were “children of wrath even as the others.”
But God Who is rich in mercy, because of His great love, wherewith He sovereignly loved us, made us alive in Christ Jesus, and transported us out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His Son, Jesus Christ.
And thus we, by grace, through faith, may stand in God’s own friendship for Himself, and in His enmity for the world!
And thus also, the children of God cannot help but become infested in the midst of the world.
They cannot be neutral. They cannot be a friend of the world and of God. They are either or, for His seed remains in them.
True, we only have a small beginning of the true obedience. We are not yet what we ultimately shall be, when we shall serve God perfectly in covenant friendship. We shall always need to confess this.
But confess it we do. And that is the redeeming feature of it all. Therein we become manifest as God’s friends. We sorrow after the Living God. We cry and yearn for Him, more than the hart for the streams of living water. But always when we confess our longing after God in the consciousness of great imperfection and of our many sins, we have the indelible seal of being the friends of God and the enemies of this world.
In this consciousness the child of God will not be conformed to this world, but will be transformed by the renewal of His mind and will approve what is the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God.
Soli Deo Gloria!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 19:16:58 GMT -5
3/1/1943
Election and Foreordination
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
Article
Home / Archive / Volume 19/1943 / Vol 19 Issue 11
SHARE IT
For all who love the truth of God as revealed in Scripture, and who confess the sovereign grace of Almighty God, the importance of this subject must be self-evident. No apology for an article of this nature need be given.
However, for the sake of clarification of our subject we will submit a few remarks of an introductory nature.
Our chief interest in this essay is to make an inquiry into the relationship of the two concepts in the subject under consideration. Were we to define the terms “election” and “foreordination” what would we consider to be their proper “’differentiation”? It is to this question that we attempt to give an answer in the sequence of his essay.
Keeping the aforementioned purpose in mind we will first make a study of the Scripture passages which speak of these concepts and in the light of this inquiry draw some conclusions and finally in this way attempt to give a “definition” of the respective terms.
Some Representative Texts.
The concept “election” is far more clearly worked out and revealed in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. The Mystery of salvation has been revealed in the dispensation of the Spirit in a greater degree of clarity than in the age of the types and the shadows. The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist, the greatest of the Old Testament prophets born from women. “For the Word of God has become flesh and we have seen His glory” the Gospel of John affirms. And the Spirit promised by the prophets was poured out on Pentecost to lead the church “into all truth”. Fact is that without the interpretation of the Spirit as contained in the New Testament Scriptures, the Old Testament remains a closed book to a large extent. And thus it is also with the doctrine of election. We therefore will turn to the New Testament and thus at once we will also have the Old Testament teaching.
Lest we become tedious we will speak but just a word about the terms employed in the New Testament for “election.” There is first of all the verb: to choose (eklego). We find this in Mark 13:20; I Cor. 1:27; James 2:5; Ephesians 1:4. Secondly there is the noun: the elect. This is the noun designating the class elected to life eternal. This term appears in such passages as Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; Titus 1:1 and Luke 18:7. In these passages is spoken of the elect of God designating the Divine authorship of election. For those interested in further study we refer to such passages as Matt. 24:22-24; Mark 13:20, 22; I Peter 1:1-2:9. Finally there is the abstract noun election. This looks at the act of God. The passages where this term is found are Acts 9:15 and Rom. 9:11. In both these passages reference is had to election as an act oi God and not as the result. In Rom. 11:7 evidently election are the elect however.
Whereas we are convinced that a study of the etymology and derivation of the word offers us little or nothing, we will proceed to study the passages in which this concept is spoken of. We will confine ourselves te some of the more representative ones.
In our study of this question we found the fundamental notion of the concept election is that of God’s sovereignly free choice. Election always deals with definite individuals—individuals who are chosen in distinction from others who are rejected, or not elected as the infralapsarian would put it. Thus in James 2:5 the “poor of the world” are said to have been elected by God to be rich in faith in distinction from those who are the “rich in the world.” A distinction is emphasized, a separation between two groups. The same distinction is also found in I Cor. 1:27ff. Just as Jesus calls His people “my sheep” so He also speaks of them as the elect in their battle of faith in the arena of prayer. Thus in the parable of the Unjust Judge and the Widow, He speaks of the elect who cry to God day and night for justice against their enemies, the oppressors. Again this distinction.
Another aspect of election which is emphasized throughout in Scripture is, that it is an act, a work of God in His eternal Council. This is clearly taught in Ephesians 1:4 where election is said to have been “before the foundation of the world”, i.e. before God in His eternal council decided to lay the foundation of the earth. Also here it is stated that God elected definite individuals. He elected us!
And election is also emphatically said to be a sovereign act of God. The ground of this is not what man has done. It is solely in the will and good pleasure of God. A case in point is that of Esau and Jacob the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca. Rebecca, we are told had conceived by Isaac upon the prayer of the latter, and before their birth the children struggle within her womb. Upon inquiring of the Lord she is told that two manner of people shall be born from her, yea, are now already struggling within her for the mastery. And that in this struggle the elder shall serve the younger. Gen. 25:21. The apostle tells us in Rom. 9:11 that this act of God’s sovereign election was wholly independent of the respective works of these children. They had not yet done good or evil, since they were not yet born. That is the teaching of the apostle is evident from ‘the question: “Is there unrighteousness with God”? Rom. 9:14 and the ultimate answer given to this question in vs. 18: “Wherefore He is merciful to whom He will and whom He wills He hardens.”
And finally let it be noticed that election takes place in Christ, who is called the Elect of God. Luke 23:35. He is elected to be the Head, and the elect are said to be His body in Him.
Let us now turn to the concept foreordination. The underlying notion in this term in both the Classical and in the New Testament Greek seems to be that of boundaries, limitations, (“orizoo” and “Pro-orizoo” are from “oros” meaning: a boundary line). There is also a resultant meaning of this fundamental notion when applied to different objects and relationships, thus the term was employed in logic. It defined the limits of a term. Geographically it defines the boundary line between two areas. It is also used of the course of a ship making its track through the waves. Thus its use is in classical Greek. The meaning of the Holy Spirit in using this term in His book is unique as to the resultant notion.
It here means that act of God in His council whereby He determines the course of world-history from Alpha to Omega—from beginning to end. The emphasis here falls on the Events, on history! Or if you will, the “Moment” of history is here singled out!
In Hebrews 4:7 the author speaks of the appointment of “another day” of which David had spoken prophetically in Psalm 95:7, 8. This “other day” is the event of Jesus’ labors on the cross and the Rest that results from it. This other day is the real day of rest, the realization of the typical day of rest. This was appointed, set off as event in History. And the beacon light of the prophetic Word showed the way of God’s foreordination. Likewise in Acts 17:26 it refers to “the time afore-appointed and the bounds of their habitation” where the apostle speaking in Athens to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, contrasts the former and the present relationship of the Gentile world to the Citizenship of Israel. Foreordination deals with the historical destiny and lot of nations.
Again in Acts 2:23 the term refers to an event in history. In this beautiful passage Peter speaks of what the “hands of lawless men have done” to Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God in the midst of Israel by powers, wonders and signs. This wicked event was not a chance happening. It was according to the determinate council of God. According to God’s foreordination the course of history, all the forces and powers that be must be active in this deed. Here the pattern of history as spoken of in Revelation 12 is clearly seen. And the apostles being warned and threatened not to preach in the name of Jesus, lift up their voices to God in prayer and apply Psalm 2 to the event of the Cross,. Now also in Psalm 2 the Decree is the determining factor in history. It and it alone, determines the course of history and the destiny of peoples. Acts 4:28.
In Romans 8:18-30 the apostle speaks of all the events of this “present time”. He looks at all these events in the light of the now prevailing suffering and groaning of every creature and all creation. And what is the conclusion? Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity; there is no wise purpose in all things? Nay, the amazing suffering of all things, this universal “groaning” works together for a “good”, a good which could not be attained in any other way! It is in the deepest sense the love of God in all things, in this universal suffering for those who love God, being called according to His eternal purpose. Nothing can separate God’s people from God’s love in Christ Jesus because there is nothing in which the love of God does not vibrate toward them. This love reaches them not in spite of, but in sickness and health, prosperity and adversity, present and future things, height and depth, nakedness, peril and sword. And therefore God’s called children are more than conquerors in this universal “groaning”.
And what lies back of this “working together of all things for the good of those who love God”? The foreordination of God. The final word in history is the “glory of the children of God, the redemption of their bodies.” The final moment is the glory of being conformed to the image of the glorified Son in the flesh. It is this Omega of history that God’s foreordination has determined to be the end, the purpose of all things. This is the course of history. There is a straight line in the events of time from Alpha to Omega which makes forever impossible the “vicious circle” of a Vanity of vanities! And this thanks to God’s foreordination!
Foreordination also gives the means for the Christian participation in the future blessedness. The central means is Christ and His redemptive work on the cross, His resurrection. Thus it is stated in Eph. 1:5. And soteriologically (applied salvation) foreordination also gives the means; thus guaranteeing the certainty of salvation. Between the foreknowledge of God and the final glory lie the foreordinated means. In Rom. 8:29, 30 this is clearly stated. Foreordination to the glory of sons in Christ implies: Calling (the effectual) and justification. In Ephesians 1:11 foreordination also postulates the means of obtaining the final redemption and the sealing of the Spirit. We read: “In Whom (Christ) we have been called, having been foreordained according to the purpose of all things working One according to the council of His will.” Without foreordination there would be no calling. Now the historical moment of the calling is a certain and effectual reality.
That foreordination is sovereign, all-wise, good, no believer of the Scriptures will doubt.
The Proper Differentiation of the Concepts.
To the careful observer this may already have become clear from the observations that we have thus far made. Just a word about this may not be superfluous.
We believe that these concepts have in common:
Both are sovereign acts of God and deal with the history of the world and determine the destiny of men and angels,
Both are therefore to be placed under the genus, concept: The outgoing works of God.
Both deal with the work of God in His eternal council before the foundation of the world; and are therefore best called different aspects of the one undivided work of God.
The differentiation is as follows:
Election deals with individuals, making the separation, and implies reprobation. This cannot be said of foreordination. It has no such antonym. But foreordination deals with events, with the continuity of history. It determines the historical end, the elos, purpose of electing grace, to wit, the glory of the saints. Election is personal and determines who the individuals are that shall share in this foreordained glory.
Hence the concept “election” is not as broad as the concept “foreordination”. Foreordination includes all things, sin and grace, good and evil, present and future, rational and irrational creatures, the earthly and the heavenly creation. It gives display to the unsearchable riches of God’s wisdom, i.e. that virtue of God whereby He has determined the best means to the highest end. Election determined who shall participate in this highest end—the glory of the saints!
Foreordination seems to be the more fundamental of the two concepts, even as it is the broader. God elected us in Christ, having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Christ Jesus. The particular end unto which men were foreordained implied election.
Definitions
Election is that act of the triune God whereby He sovereignly chose men and angels unto the foreordained glory of the new heavens and the new earth in Christ Jesus. Foreordination is that act of the triune God whereby He sovereignly determined the end of all things in history, and the means that should work together unto that end, and thus assuring the salvation of the elect, and revealing the greatness of His glorious virtues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 19:26:08 GMT -5
Calvinism According To Kuyper’s Stone-Lectures—A Critique (2): Kuyper’s Method
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
Article
Home / Archive / Volume 21/1945 / Vol 21 Issue 05
SHARE IT
In our former article we quoted rather at length from Kuyper’s Stone-lectures. We may therefore assume in this article that there remains no doubt in the mind of the reader as to what his conception really was; what he deemed to be a Calvinistic interpretation of the history of mankind—mankind as such apart from the work of the Wonder of Grace in Christ Jesus.
The conception developed in these lectures and the conclusions arrived at as it touches Calvinism is both negative and positive. Negative, in that it is asserted, that Calvinism is not to be understood in an exclusively confessional, ecclesiastical-dogmatical sense. And positively, it is asserted that Calvinism is a movement in the entire domain of life: religious, political, scientific and artistic. And that not merely in this sense that this indicates the entire orb of the life of the regenerated and enlightened Christian, but that this is the case with mankind as such!
In this article we wish to institute an investigation to see what method Kuyper employs in these lectures. To be sure, when we speak of method we do not mean the purely formal method in which Kuyper would make the subject matter clear of these lectures. We refer here to the question of what is known by scholars as “methodology”, that is, the science of method used by one to arrive at and to ascertain the truth of the underlying presuppositions. In this case the premise that the history of the world and of mankind must be judged to have followed the course of: Paganism, Islamism, Romanism, Calvinism, Western European civilization—San Francisco!
Speaking of “method” it will be well to remember that there are in the last analysis but two methods that can be followed. The one is to have Scripture be our guide. The other is to disregard the Word of God altogether, and to merely reason from an assumed premise by inference or observation, or to reason from the facts of experience. It stands to reason that if the first method is employed one will have to proceed exegetically-synthetically, that is, he will have to study all the testimony of Scripture having bearing on a certain matter and come to conclusion and judgments from the data of Scripture.
The question is therefore in order: Does Dr. Kuyper in attempting to establish the underlying presupposition of his conception of Calvinism proceed exegetically-synthetically? If so, does he apply this rule consistently to the very end, or does he reason from the facts of experience and draw certain fundamental conclusions from these when he draws the lines of Calvinism as set forth in these lectures? To seek to give an answer to these questions will be the burden of this writing.
It is an interesting fact, that the Holy Scriptures shed a great deal of light on the history of what it calls “the nations”. In the prophecy of Daniel this is especially the case. Both in the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (chapter 2) and in Daniel’s vision of the “Four Beasts” (chapter 7) we see the development of the world-powers in their Antichristian character. And again the Holy Spirit shows John on the Isle of Patmos the vision of the “beast” coming up out of the “sea” and also of the “beast” coming up out of the earth. Rev. 13. And again this is referred to and explained in Rev. 17. And the lines of nations there given is: Seven nations. Babel-Assyria-Babylon-Per-sin-Greece-Rome-One not yet! This is the beast with the seven heads and ten horns!
Now it must be borne in mind that we are not criticizing Kuyper’s conclusions, but we are interested merely in the question of Kuyper’s procedure to come to his conclusions. However the foregoing paragraph does shed a great deal of light on whether Kuyper’s conclusions are Scriptural.
This question becomes all the more to the point when we remember that according to Kuyper it is Calvinistic to see mankind develop in the three-fold relationship, the entire orb of life, 1. Man in relationship to God. (Calvinism and Religion) Lecture II. 2. In relation to fellow-man (Calvinism and Politics) Lecture III. 3. In relationship to the world, creation Calvinism and Science and Art) Lectures IV, V.
Once more I ask, does Kuyper in these lectures develop this conception exegetically-synthetically? By consistently applying to fallen man in his primordial relationship to God what the Scriptures teach and what the fathers of Dort had set down in confessional statements, statements concerning the things that are revealed that must soon come to pass, and from that Scripture teaches concerning the nature of these “nations”?
One might object to these questions and say: Kuyper had performed all that groundwork in other works, and he is merely giving here the product of that investigation. He might say: don’t expect a man to do everything in a few lectures. If this should be the case, then in a way, this investigation can cease here. We would merely stand before the question whether the conclusions arrived at were Scriptural. This by the way is the task awaiting us in the next installment on this subject.
However one would wish to judge of this matter, the fact is that one looks in vain for any semblance of an attempt in these lectures to proceed from the plain teaching of Scripture. That is an undeniable fact. Nowhere does Dr. Kuyper show that his conclusions are in accord with Scriptures, neither does he show that the positive line, of which he speaks, is in harmony with the plain teaching of the prophecies in this matter.
We would here discontinue our discussion were it not for another matter in these lectures worthy of notice. It also touches the matter of Kuyper’s Method.
To understand this point it should be borne in mind that Kuyper has one underlying thesis which lies back of his entire conception and presentation of Calvinism. It is what he denominates as: Common Grace. He brings this to play when he discusses fallen and unregenerate man’s relationship to God. Thus the matter must be stated. He is not speaking of the regenerated man in Christ Jesus. In unregenerated mankind there is the sense of the Divine, the Seed of religion. This has a positive content. There is something well-pleasing to God’ here in their endeavors. This is due to the restraining influence of common grace, p. 63.
Again this principle of Common Grace is brought to bear in the relationship of man to man, that is, in the field of Politics and Social life. Also here there is a restraining influence. The Magistrate is there because of sin and is really a gift of Common Grace. And finally in the last relationship of man’s relationship to the world. Also here the great and noble endeavors of men are by reason of the restraint of sin due to Common Grace.
The question has been asked repeatedly by interested laymen: “Where did Dr. Kuyper obtain this teaching?” We believe that the following quotation from Lecture IV on “Calvinism and Science” p. 159, will shed some light on this question, and we believe also demonstrates Kuyper’s method. We quote: “Now I proceed to consider the dogma of “Common Grace”, that natural outcome of the general principle, just presented to you, but in its special application to sin, understood as corruption of our nature. Sin places us before a riddle, which in itself is insoluble. If you view sin as a deadly poison, as enmity against God, as leading to everlasting condemnation, and if you represent a sinner as being “wholly incapable of doing any good, and prone to all evil” and on this account salvable only, if God by regeneration changes his heart, then it seems as if of necessity all unbelievers and unregenerate persons ought to be wicked and repulsive men. But this is far from being our experience in actual life. (I underscore, G. L.) On the contrary, the unbelieving world excels in many things. Precious treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages that devour you. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you consider your own surroundings, that which is reported to you, and that which you derive from the studies and the literary productions of professed infidels, how much there is that attracts you, with which you sympathize and which you admire. It is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent, which excites your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty of character, their zeal, their devotion, their love, their candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty. (I underscore, G. L.) Yea, we may not pass it over in silence, not unfrequently you entertain the desire, that certain believers might have more of this attractiveness, and who himself among us has not been put to the blush occasionally by being confronted with what is called the “virtues of the heathen.”
“It is a fact that your dogma of total depravity by sin does not always fully tally with your experience in life.”
What does this quotation from this lecture teach us as to the author’s approach to the question of Common Grace? Of the possibility of a good world-life in the threefold relationship of God, fellow-man and the world?
Briefly stated the method is: the approach of experience. Practical life does not tally with questions 5 and 8 of the Heidelberg Catechism, neither with Romans 3:10-18 and Ephesians 2:1-3. What is the conclusion? This I must learn to tally my experience with God’s verdict? Not at all. The good that we experience is better than the Scriptures say. Hence an explanation must be given. And that explanation is: Common Grace!
What to say of this method of procedure? It is the same rule that in the last decades has been applied to Genesis 1-3. Scientific observation finds that it cannot square its facts with Genesis 1, the biblical account of creation. And what is done about it? Either the facts of Genesis are denied, or the text is made to fit the case. Scientific conclusions rule in deciding the meaning of the text. And thus also Dr. Kuyper attempts to construe the sense of the Scriptures to fit with, to tally with experience.
But what Kuyper does is more ingenious. But what Kuyper attempts in his method is to show that there are two operations of the Holy Spirit in sinful mankind. Hence there is not only the work of God in regeneration, the positive line in history which runs Abraham-Prophets-Paul-Augustine-Calvin, but there is also the line which runs: Paganism-Egypt-Babylon-Greece-Rome-Islamism-Romanism-Calvinism. Two parallel lines, the lines of natural grace and of saving grace.
Our conclusion: Kuyper did not arrive at this conception in the way of exegetical-synthetical study, but in the way of attempting a reconciliation of what he considered a discrepancy between the doctrine of total depravity and the good that the unregenerate do.
And: this was not the method of the Reformers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 19:27:22 GMT -5
12/15/1944
Calvinism According to Kuyper’s Stone Lectures—A Critique (3)
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
Article
Home / Archive / Volume 21/1945 / Vol 21 Issue 06
SHARE IT
His Dualistic-Synthetic Conception of History
To attempt a comprehensive criticism of Kuyper’s Stone-Lectures, with some regard to details in an article of five typewritten pages would be preposterous. These lectures cover every subject in the encyclopedia, of human knowledge. And what is more the author’s conception of Christian Encyclopedia is presupposed throughout. To understand these lectures one must bear in mind that they were written in maturer years of Kuyper’s life and that they give in abbreviated form his entire Life-and-World-View.
Should we voice our objections against the various elements with which we take issue in these lectures, without attempting to point out what to our mind is the basis error of the author, we would run a twofold risk. The first is of a formal nature. Because of the limitation of space allotted us. We could at best offer mere catalogization of our criticisms. The second is more serious. We would fail to see the real issue because we had lost ourself in the variety of issues. This is our criticism of a great many of the criticisms that have been given of these lectures.
In consideration of the foregoing we will limit our criticism to what we consider the underlying, unbiblical error in Kuyper’s conception; which in this case is tantamount to the basic error of the “common grace” hypothesis.
This basic error of the author in the interpretation of the history, the world and of mankind is, that it is: dualistic-synthetic.
Indeed this is a serious accusation, which places a twofold duty upon our shoulders in this writing. 1. To carefully define our terms, lest we perhaps misrepresent the late Dr. Kuyper’s views, or that we be not mistakenly understood as doing such. 2. To show, in as far as this is possible within the allotted space that this is indeed the error of the author.
We said that Kuyper’s view of history was dualistic. What do we imply with this? We do not refer in thus judging of Kuyper’s conception to the Mythological dualism held by the Persian philosophers, who maintained the existence of a good principle and an evil principle, and who thus explained the mixed state of the things of this present world, such things as, sickness and health, poverty and riches, want and abundance, evil and virtue. This was the philosophy revived by Gnosticism in the early church and was also the error of Manicheanism against which Augustine militated. To represent Kuyper as having advocated this dualism would be unfactual.
There is another dualistic conception to which Kuyper’s view approaches. This is the dualistic conception which holds that the world came into being and is preserved by the concurrence of two principles equally necessary, independent and eternal. We said that Kuyper’s view approaches this. Yet there are some very important modifications to notice. His dualistic view does not postulate two philosophic and abstractly conceived concurrent principles which are eternal. This is evident from the fact that according to eternal principles there is no Creation in the Scriptural sense neither is there a possibility of providence. The only thing there can possibly be is Pantheism. Even though as we shall presently point out, Kuyper’s view is dualistic and has the appearance of this dualism it differs in these following respects:
1. The author of the Stone-lectures holds to the confession that the origin of the world is out of the one creative will of God.
2. It is his conviction that the world’s preservation (providence) is also by the one will of Almighty God. All Pantheistic dualism denies these two fundamental points of confession.
3. Kuyper further believes that all things were created good, both creaturely and ethically.
4. Sin according to Kuyper entered into the world by the disobedience of one man.
We believe that these four factors distinguish the view of Kuyper from heathenistic and modernistic Pantheism.
Kuyper’s dualism begins historically after the good world has fallen through the sin and disobedience of Adam in Paradise. He postulates two concurrent principles in the history of a fallen world: the history of fallen mankind. The two concurrent principles are “common grace” and “saving grace”. And the fruit of these two kinds of grace, thus Kuyper, is a twofold positive development in the history of the world. The one proceeding from saving grace is the one in the church which ends in the final glory of the sons of adoption. The other proceeding from common grace guarantees a positive good development of mankind as such. Thus there is a dualism of principle in the world—both working positive good. The one is stronger and more enduring than the other, to be sure, being regenerative, but the other is positively good being restraintive of the same evil which in regeneration is completely overcome.
It is also well to take notice of the fact that common grace, according to Kuyper is strictly speaking, not the same as providence, the preservation of what God has once creatively called into existence. According to him common grace is the restraintive influence in the element of “government” in providence. And this government of providence does not touch the whole of created things, but only the rational beings. Thus he teaches in his Dictaten Dogmatiek, Locus De Providentia, p. 94. The same presentation may be found in his “Gemeene Gratie”, pp. 380, 596, 600, 601. Instructive on this score is also what one reads in “Van Zonde En Genade” pp. 106, 107, by H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema.
In the Stone-lectures it is especially the element of the positively good development of mankind as such that is placed on the foreground. This the reader can assure himself of once more by reading our first article in the Nov. 1 issue of the Standard Bearer. In fact Kuyper tells us: “The chief purpose of my lecturing in this country was, to eradicate the wrong idea, that Calvinism represented an exclusively dogmatical and ecclesiastical movement.” p. 231. Calvinism is also ecclesiastical, it also follows the line of saving grace, but that is not the whole story. There is besides this also another aspect of Calvinism and that is the positively good development in the world as world of mankind.
This dualism is reflected in all of Kuyper’s later works. It is the ever-recurring theme in his Dictaten Dogmatiek. One finds it in the following Loci: De Providentia, De Peccato (concerning sin) De Feedere (concerning the Covenant) De Magistratu (concerning the magistrates). In a word in all the subjects treated both in “Calvinism” and in his “Dictaten Dogmatiek”. And this dualism is reflected finally in his Locus De Consummatione Saeculi. Also here Kuyper speaks of the two lines in history. The one is “Creatio, de Anthropologic and de Harmartollogie (doctrine of sin) met haar gevolgen in de “miseria et mors” (misery and death) cm op de lijn der gratie ligt de locus de Christo, De Salute (applied salvation) de Ecclesia.” We said this dualism is reflected here, although it should be obvious: that it is not directly taught.
What is most obvious is that Kuyper fails to bring this dualism to a unity of Conception. This is as clear as the day when one asks the question: Is there really a Consummation of this high development of mankind as mankind! Where is the ripened fruit? What happens to all the high development of mankind? For according to Kuyper it is positive development of the human race.
As for the “Future” of Common Grace Calvinism, Kuyper is pessimistic. It has stopped at the western banks of this American continent. “The one world- stream, broad and fresh” Where does it empty its final content? Kuyper does not tell us. Why not? He cannot. Mankind as such has not Consummation! The purely “secularized world” God will destroy.
But we are anticipating. Let us return to our subject.
Kuyper isnot afraid to draw this dualistic line all the way. This means that in the fundamental and primordial threefold relationship of God, fellowman and creation there is in both lines a positive good. Not merely in the realm of God’s special grace of the regenerated man; the renewed man who stands in the proper relationship to God, his neighbor and his possessions. Not at all! In the world of unregenerated man, there is a positive good in all these fundamental relationships!
1. In the restrained sinner’s relationship to God. Hence as a religious being there is something good. There is in fallen man still the “semen religionis” (seed of religion) and the sensus divinus (the sense of God). For there is the light of the Logos in every man! To quote Kuyper: “To be sure there is a concentration of religious light and life in the church, but then in the walls of this church, there are wide open windows, and the light of the eternal has to radiate over the whole world. Here is a city (common grace, G.L.) which every man can see from afar. Here is the holy salt that penetrates in every direction (common grace, G.L.) checking all corruption.” p. 63, “Calvinism”.
2. Also in man’s relationship to his fellowman. Not merely the reborn child of God. But the man who is under the operation of the restraint of sin. Of him it can be said as put by Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the battle.” Hence it follows that here also mankind is in a stage of positive development.
3. Finally in the unregenerate man’s relationship to the world, that is, in Science and art. This is the stand of Kuyper in Lectures! IV and V.
What must we say of this? The language here is most confusing, but when read in the broad context of all the lectures it is clear that we here have a basis of common activity for believers and non-believers alike. In politics, religion, science and art! And thus this dualism of two concurrent graces we have a perfect synthesis between the world and the church, between “Jerusalem” and “Athens”!
What our reaction toward this is land our evaluation in the light of the Scriptural and Calvinistically Confessional doctrine of the total depravity of man? If this language must of the twofold graces with its resultant conception must be taken seriously all it can mean is that the writer has taken the stand of Pelagianism! This World of mankind as such is then not wholly evil! And as far as the dualistic conception is concerned it is nothing else but the conclusion of Roman Catholicism in its doctrine of the Superadditum and that of fallen man “in puris naturalibus”. Certainly, the way in which Kuyper and Rome arrive at this conclusion differs. But the final result is the same.
And this also we cannot but observe. The positive good world of Kuyper in its development of religion, politics, science and art and that of the humanistic cannot possibly differ. Both speak of the upward development of mankind. No humanist has any objection to this Calvinism of Kuyper. One may object and say Kuyper wanted it all to God’s glory, and that the humanist objects to. I answer that this latter remains but an empty phrase somewhat lamely appended, for it does not follow from his conception!
The following from Lecture IV: “Calvinism and Science” is from Kuyper’s pen: “It was perceived, on the contrary, that for God’s sake, our attention may not be withdrawn from the life of nature and creation; the study of the body regained its place of honor beside the study of the soul; and the social organization of mankind on earth was again looked upon as being as well (worthy an object of human science as the congregation of the perfect saints in heaven. This also explains the close relationship existing between Calvinism (the Common Grace brand, G. L.) and Humanism. In as far as humanism endeavored to substitute life in this world for the eternal, every Calvinist opposed the Humanist. But in as, much as the Humanist con tented himself with a plea for a proper acknowledgement of secular life, the Calvinist was his proper ally.”
Now Kuyper separated life in the world from the principle of regeneration. He did not substitute it. In actual fact both Humanism and Common Grace Calvinism are the same. Only this Calvinism is, far more dangerous than the outright humanism for it carries a misleading title!
Instead of this dualistic-Synthetic conception we would advocate the organic unity of the human race. Take the position that every creature of God is good. And that in this good world (Creation-creature hood) both the unbeliever and the believer live from two antithetically different principles-. Thus the battle of all ages is in this (world. And the regenerated new man looks in hope for the time when what he now claims in faith, may be shown to be his in very deed. This is the difficult way of faith, but it is the way of God.
This is not the position of Anabaptistic Manichean dualism (see above) neither the Kuyperian concurrency of two good principles, but all things indeed for the King. Whether we eat or drink, do it unto the Lord. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when taken with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 20:39:28 GMT -5
4/15/1947
O. T. Quotations in the N. T.
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
From Holy Writ
Home / Archive / Volume 23/1947 / Vol 23 Issue 14
SHARE IT
(The first O. T. quotation to which we would call attention is that recorded in Romans 10:5-8.
This beautiful and instructive passage is a quotation from two different passages and two different books in the O. T., namely, Lev. 18:5 and Deut. 30:12-14.
The passage in Romans 10, calling for our attention reads as follows: “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law on this wise: That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.” (Lev. 18:5).
“But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise: say not in thine heart: Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is to bring Christ down from above) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is to bring Christ up from the dead). But what saith it? The Word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is, the Word of faith, which we preach.” (Deut. 30:12-14).
The general thrust of the passage in Romans 10 is perfectly clear. The apostle Paul is here substantiating the truth of the Word of God, that Christ is indeed the end, the telos of the law. It had never been the purpose of God in giving the law, thus the apostle would instruct his readers, that this law should be the way to salvation and righteousness. Whoever, therefore, seeks righteousness in the way of doing the law must needs fail. Indeed, all, who sought and still seek salvation thus, have not obtained what they sought after. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified before God. Romans 3:20; Gal. 2:16 and Psalm 143:2.
Salvation is not and never has been by works of law, that mere man performs, be he Jew or Gentile. It always was and still is merely by faith in Christ Jesus. There is no other way. None other name is given under heaven. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. They, who are of faith, are the children of Abraham, are the heirs according to the promise!
The law came 430 years after the promise. It did not and could not change the terms of the promise, the will of the Testator. The promise is not by works, but solely by faith, that it might be of grace.
Such is the general thrust of this passage. Salvation by faith alone is the underlying promise of the apostle here. But that is not all the apostle would teach his readers in this passage. The writer to the Romans also shows conclusively in this passage, what this principle of salvation by faith alone means for those, who will not subject themselves to this great work of the Almighty God. Not subjecting themselves to grace, but willing to establish their own righteousness they oppose God. Always do they resist the Holy Spirit at every turn of the way of life. Because of the blindness of unbelief they are ignorant of God’s righteousness. They know not, neither do they seek the one and only righteousness of God set forth in the Cross of Christ, who is the propitiation of God for sin.
What did they not see? They failed to see, that Christ is the end, the telos of the law. And so they stumbled at the Rock of Stumbling, laid by God in Zion.
In passing we should note that when Paul here tells us, that Christ is the end of the law, he employs in the Greek the term “telos”. Now “telos” in its usage in the Bible has a twofold sense. It may refer to the end, the purpose of things. In this case it would then indicate that the sole purpose of the law was Christ. The law must lead man to be a pedagogue to Christ. Everything pointed to Him. And this usage of the term gives a very good sense here. It would mean that all that the Bible tells us about the law in all its demands unto salvation only has sense when viewed in relationship to its divine purpose, namely, to lead to Christ. When, therefore, Israel seeks to establish its own righteousness, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, this is due to their not knowing the Scripture, neither the power of God’s efficacious promise. Always Christ was the end of the Law. And always Israel in establishing their own righteousness has a purely blind zeal. Zealous of God they are, but not according to the knowledge of those who though under law, see Christ as the end of the law.
Of course, the term “end of the law” can also refer to the abolishment of the law. Christ has come. He has died, was nailed to the accursed tree. When men nail Him to the cross, He in obedience to the will of the Father, and taking all our curse upon Himself, nailed the law, as the handwriting against us, to the tree. And so the commandments contained in ordinances have been abolished in Him. Thus the apostle writes to the church at Ephesus.
These two interpretations of the term “and of the law” are not at odds with one another. They are the same reality of the work of God’s grace in Christ considered from different aspects. The view that makes “telos”, end, to refer to God’s saving purpose in giving the law, to lead to Christ, looks at God’s work from the viewpoint of the contemplated end. The interpretation, insists that “end” means that Christ is the abolition of the law views this same work of God from the viewpoint of the purpose attained. When this purpose is attained the law has served its intended end and is made to be ineffective.
Now, for him who believes, Christ is the end, the “telos” of the law in both senses of the term. The believer in the O. T. Dispensation, who by faith obtained the promises, said: Christ is the end of the law. Thus He had peace. The law drove him, as it were, into the arms of God’s mercy. And this mercy is alone in Christ. And the believer in the N. T. Dispensation, be he Jew or Greek, says: for me, as believer, in my believing in Christ crucified, the law was abolished for me. Christ is, for both the believers of the O.T. and of the N. T., the end of the law.
It is a great tragedy, yet, it is dreadful reality, that the unbelieving Jew, not submitting himself to the righteousness of God, perishes in his sins. (He understands neither the Scriptures nor the power of God!
How the Scriptures should be understood Paul tells us in this quotation. Earlier in this essay we remarked that we have here in Romans 10:5-8 two quotations.
In the one, Lev. 18:5, the apostle tells us what Moses writes! In the other, Deut. 30:12-14, the apostle underscores: What the righteousness out of faith says! The righteousness out of faith speaks, it confesses out of the heart! Just what this twofold contrast, drawn here by the apostle, implies, we hope to point out presently. However, before we do so, there is another question that calls for an answer, which we will here consider. It is the question of quotation.
Does Paul in quoting Deut. 30:12-14 and setting it here in the context and argument of Romans 10 give the real sense of the passage as intended by Moses, when he spoke these words to Israel in the plains of Moab? Or, does Paul in quoting this passage, very handily give a slightly different rendering to the text, so as to permit him to prove his point in Romans 10?
At first flush one is inclined to conclude that the latter of the two given alternatives is here the case. The question would then in Rom. 10 not have the sense intended, by Moses, but the one given by Paul. And there are expositors who insist that such is the case. They make the following observations:
In the first place, attention is called to the alterations given by Paul to the text. Moses writes in Deut. 30:13: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? Paul writes: Who shall descend into the deep? And the latter adds: that is to bring Christ up from the dead! Two elements here, it is pointed out. 1. A change of the wording. 2. Interpretation which the literal sense of the passage in Deut. 30:13 hardly allows.
Also it is pointed out, that the contrast of Romans 10, between what “Moses “writes” and what the “righteousness of faith confesses”, as stressed by Paul is not evident in either Deut. 30:12-14, or in the entire address of Moses to the people. Fact is, that what is evident is, that Moses in these chapters (Deut. 29, 30) exactly tells the people what they must do to live and not die. It is argued, that Deut. 30 gives much more of the principle of works, than it does of the righteousness of faith. And, therefore, Romans 10:6-8 gives us not Moses’ sense of Deut. 30:12-14 but Paul’s free rendering. At best it is conceded, that this passage in Deut. 30:12-14 contains “an allegorically and typically prophetic description of this righteousness of faith”.
What are we to say of this argumentation? Is this reasoning to the point and factual?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 20:42:18 GMT -5
4/1/1947
O. T. Quotations in the N. T.
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
From Holy Writ
Home / Archive / Volume 23/1947 / Vol 23 Issue 13
SHARE IT
The Lord willing, the undersigned will be the contributor to this rubric for the next six months. May the little that is here contributed be of blessing to both writer and readers. The rich treasure of God’s Gospel is contained in an earthen vessel and not the least in this column. Of this truth the writer is painfully aware. Still, it is exactly in this acknowledgement that there is also a great measure of comfort. Now the exceeding greatness of the power may be and is not of us but of God. And no labor spent is vain in the Lord.
A few remarks as to the nature of this rubric, as understood by the undersigned, as well as to the material that we hope to offer in these columns, may not be counted out of place. This rubric is captioned: “From Holy Writ”. This offers the writer a broad field. In a sense possibly too wide a field. (However, we hope to limit ourselves. It certainly is not the intention that this department write meditations, although that would be from Holy Writ. That would be infringing on the territory of the Editor. Nor must these articles be on the Psalms. That also would be from Holy Writ. Of this the writer of “Sion’s Zangen” offers excellent contributions. Neither must these articles treat of what falls under the caption “The Day Of Shadows”, for this is the rightful domain of that department. And, again, even though one may not write on Holy Writ in the abstract, as though all Scripture were not also “for correction”, yet this department must not intrude on the field of the contributor to “In His Fear”. And finally, these articles should not be doctrine in the limited sense of the term, for that is offered us by and large in “The Triple Knowledge.”
Since all these departments also fall under “From Holy Writ” in a general sense, it would seem that there should be a sense in which this department treats this subject in distinction from the others. We believe, that, first of all, this department should have a subject not treated by the others. This may be a Bible- book, or some aspect of the Word of God. Secondly, this column should be of an exegetical, an expository nature. And lastly, but not least, it should be as much as possible of a popular nature. We repeat: as much as possible. This latter is no little task. We are conscious of our limitations on this score.
The material that we wish to offer the reader during the next six months is that which falls under the heading “O. T. Quotations In The N. T.”
Just a word of explanation about these quotations.
Biblical scholars, who have made the count, inform us, that there are not less than 300 direct quotations in the New Testament writings from the Old Testament Scriptures.
That these quotations are so numerous should not surprise us. Upon a little reflection on the relationship of the Old Dispensation to the New Dispensation, we discover that we would exactly expect this situation. For is not Christ the end of the law? And does this not mean that the Old Testament has come to its termination in His appearance in the fullness of times, in His death, resurrection and glorification at the right hand of the Father? He it is Who has sent His Spirit into the Church, Who leads her through this selfsame Spirit into all truth. And because of His being the fulfilment of the Promise of God He died according to the Scriptures and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures. In (Him the Old and the New Testaments are one. And, therefore, it is nothing strange, but wholly natural that the number of quotations should be legion.
And thus our first observation is that the possibility and necessity of quotations in the New Testament Scriptures from the Old Testament writings must be sought in the unity of the two in the person of Christ. It is of paramount importance that this be remembered.
Another element in these quotations, that strikes our attention, is the fact that the writers of the New Testament Scriptures all proceed from the fundamental principle, that the Old Testament Scriptures are the Word of God. They are authoritative. They are the last Word in any dispute concerning faith and life of God’s people in this world. And, being authoritative, they are the clinching argument in the New Testament. Thus it was with Jesus. Often He says: It is written. Or again: Have ye never read in the Scriptures. Over against unbelief He says: Ye ere not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God. Thus the Scriptures are for Christ Himself. And as they are for Him so they are also for the Apostles and prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds and Teachers. Legion are the points on which reference is made in the New Testament to the Old Testament. And the circumstances in which this becomes necessary is nearly time without number. Small wonder that there are as many as 300 direct quotations, not counting indirect allusions to Scripture passages, in the New Testament
Finally, it may not pass unnoticed, that there is still the element of what may be called the progressiveness of the New Testament over the Old Testament.
And what may this progressiveness be?
To us the implication of progressiveness in this connection must mean that the New Testament gives us a more clear and a richer revelation of the salvation of God in Jesus Christ than does the Old Testament.
The truth of what we have just stated is so evident to the student of Holy Writ as to hardly need any proof.
We have but to refer our attention to the fact that in the fullness of time the Son of God came into the flesh; that His glory was seen as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth and at once we also see that this implies a richer revelation. The Old Testament revelation has very little glory when compared with the glory of the New Testament.
It is very evident, that Jesus had this in mind when He told the people that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist. Now John was, indeed, the greatest of all the prophets. All the prophets prophesied until John. But John exceeds them all. He stands on the shoulders of all the prophets. Is his not the privilege to point out the Christ to the people and to say: “Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!” And, again, does not Jesus tell His disciples upon occasion of the speaking of parables to the multitude, that their eyes are blessed indeed, as are also their ears. Had not many prophets desired to see the things that they see, but it had not been granted them in the Old Testament revelation ? And did not the very dimness of the Old Testament revelation forbid prophets to hear the things that the ears of the disciples might hear? And were not these very prophets conscious of the fact that in their intense searching out of what time, and the manner of the time of the suffering that should come upon Jesus and the glory that would follow, that they were not going to enter into the fruit of these labors themselves, but that they were performing these labors for us, the children of the New Covenant?
To ask these questions is to answer them.
But, what does this latter imply when viewed in relation to the problem of the quotation of various Old Testament passages in the New Testament?
Or, to state the question somewhat differently, is it evident in some of these direct quotations from the O. T. in the N. T. that the sense they had in their Old Testament setting is superseded in the New Testament setting?
If so, then there should be various texts in the New Testament, which, as quotations from the Old Testament, may seem to have acquired a different meaning.
Of course, these passages cannot have acquired an altogether different meaning. The sense of the Author in the Old Testament is no different from that of the Author in the New Testament. What seems to be a different meaning is but the same truth of the Word of God in the Old Testament now within the light of its fulfilment in the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ.
The implication of this just enunciated principle is that, had we only the Old Testament, had Christ not come as yet, the sense of a given passage in the Old Testament as intended by the (Holy Spirit, the Primary Author, would very really be that given in the New context in the New Testament writings. But the point is, that we would not be able to grasp this enriched meaning. Fact is, were it told us, we would not be able to understand it.
But enough of this. This introduction has become a bit longer than we anticipated. However, I am certain, the reader will understand that an explicit statement of the principles that will govern us in these studies is necessary for both the writer of these lines and for those who follow them.
Finally, just a word about the material that we hope to offer in this rubric.
Since there are 300 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, we will have to choose a group of quotations which have a common characteristic. Choosing such a group will enable us to study the quotations from a single viewpoint. Thus there should be unity in the discussion and also continuity.
Tentatively our plan is to discuss the following passages in the New Testament which are quotations from the Old Testament. Rom. 10:5-8; 10:18; II Cor. 3:16; Eph. 4:8; Hebrews 1:7 and Hebrews 2:6–8.
What is peculiar about all of these quotations is that there seems to be a different sense given to these passages in the New Testament than in the Old Testament.
Another matter worthy of consideration here is that in these passages a great deal of light is shed on the practical application of the threefold principles earlier delineated upon in this essay, to wit: 1. The unity of the two dispensations; 2. The authoritative nature of the Old Testament Scriptures; 3; The progressive character of the New Testament Scriptures.
D. V. we will begin our discussion in the next issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 20:47:16 GMT -5
10/1/1947
O.T. Quotations in the N.T. (Ex. 34:34 in II Cor. 3:16—concluded)
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
From Holy Writ
Home / Archive / Volume 24/1948 / Vol 24 Issue 01
SHARE IT
“Turning unto the Lord” in II Cor. 3:16 must, therefore, mean: a deep and abiding change of the heart, a turning away from self-chosen ways of seeking to establish their own righteousness on the part of Israel, and turning to the righteousness of God in Christ.
But does “turning unto the Lord” also have this meaning in Exodus 34:34? The text reads literally: “But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him. . . .” This hardly can be interpreted as referring to repentance on the part of Moses. Neither, do we think that such is the implication of Paul in quoting this passage, even though the rendering he gives to it refers to Israel’s repentance.
Yet, there are those who would thus interpret this passage. They reason, that whereas Moses represents Israel, and whereas going into the tent to speak with God was an act of fellowship with God, Moses entering into the Old Testament counterpart of Israel’s repentance and turning to the Lord in seeing the glory of the risen Christ. Of this view we will not here say much. Only this: It seems to us, firstly, that it is rather farfetched and assumes that very element in Paul’s quotation must find the exact counterpart in the Old Testament passage. Secondly, such assumption hardly squares with the clear and logical argumentation of the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 3.
As for the argumentation of Paul, in the passage under consideration, the following is pertinent in regard to this matter of Moses going in before the Lord.
1. In II Cor. 3 Paul is not at all speaking of the personal life and piety of Moses, neither does he speak of Moses as a sort of Mediator in the stead of Israel, a priest bringing the sacrifice for the sins and weaknesses of the people. What Paul refers to is the office of Moses in the ministry of the Old Testament. This ministry is that which Paul characterizes as being written in “tables of stone” instead of that “written by the Spirit of the living God on the table of the redeemed heart”. Nay, Paul is here not speaking of the piety of Moses, neither of a certain high-priestly function of Moses’ part, but he is speaking of Moses’ office in administering the law. Moses is here the one who has a ministry of death, a ministry of condemnation. (Compare vss. 6-10). In the light of this alone one should hesitate to make Moses the Old Testament counterpart of the repenting Israel in the N. T.
2. In close connection with the foregoing, it should by all means not escape our attention that Paul is here not speaking primarily of Moses’ ministry but that the theme which Paul here develops is his own ministry as an apostle of Jesus Christ and through His Spirit.
Says Paul to the Corinthians in vs. 2: “Ye are our epistle, engraved in our hearts, known and read by all men, being manifested that ye are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone but on the tables of fleshy hearts.” It is to Paul’s place as an apostle, his office and ministry in the Spirit that attention is here directed. The new life in the congregation, revealed in the life of conversion and sanctification is what God wrote there through the Holy Spirit, by the ministry of Paul. God administered it through Paul’s preaching. Says Paul: ministered by us. And having developed this theme of the glory of his own ministry, a ministry of righteousness, a ministry of the Spirit that far exceeds in glory the ministry of Moses, Paul begins the 4th chapter of II Corinthians as follows: “Therefore, having this ministry, even as we have received mercy, we faint not. . . .” From this it is evident that Paul is here referring to two ministrations of God. The one the ministration of the Spirit, the other the ministration of the law by Moses. Surely, Paul, therefore, does not speak here of the piety of Moses, but he most emphatically, persistently and clearly speaks of the office of Moses in the administration of the law.
3. It is for this very reason also that Paul does not say that Moses put a vail upon his heart. Moses most clearly understands the import of the law. Yet, understanding the law on the one hand, and also clearly perceiving the unbelief of Israel on the other hand, he is said to place a vail on his face when speaking with Israel, and we are told that he put the vail off whenever he entered the tent to speak with the Lord.
The difference, therefore, is as follow. Moses as the officebearer of God in administering the law, puts a vail on his face when he talks with Israel. Israel has a vail on their heart. This latter is not true of Moses. That is the difference. And this difference is not explained by making Moses a mere pious man without a covering on his heart.
How must this difference be accounted for then?
The answer to this question hinges on the reason for and the nature of the vail on Moses’ face. Why did Moses place this vail upon his face? And when this vail is there what is its implication, what does it proclaim to us concerning Israel?
As to the reason for the vail on Moses’ face, we are told in Exodus, that it was as follows: “And it came to pass when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he (Moses) talked with him (God). And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh unto him. And
Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation came unto him; and Moses talked with them. And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave unto them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in Mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the vail off until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone; and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.” Exodus 34:29-35.
The reason for placing this vail upon the face of Moses is said to be: the fear of the people. What did they fear? They were afraid of Moses because of the radiance of his face.
Two elements are here present in the “shining” of Moses face which must not be confused, but which must clearly be distinguished.
The first is, and we must clearly understand this, that there was a literal, visible light, a glory that was manifest to the naked eye of Israel on Moses’ face. It was a glory as impossible for the created eye of man to behold even as it is impossible for the naked eye to look into the brightness of the noonday sun. Just as it was impossible for Israel to view without fear the glory of Mount Sinai when God spoke the ten words, the Decalogue from out of the midst of the thunder, lightning, earthquake and darkness and tempest, so it was impossible for Israel to view Moses’ face even from a physical viewpoint. It was divinely terrifying.
But surely it was more than this. If it were no more than this then Israel’s request would not be sinful, it would not have been an indication of the vail of unbelief that lay upon her heart. Surely it is more than mere brightness on Moses’ face, the meaning of which is left to every man’s interpretation and imagination in Israel.
It was also a “glory” which bore its own testimony. Was this glory not on Moses’ face because he has spoken with God face to face on the mount, and because he was bearing the tables of stone on which God has inscribed His law with His own finger? It was the testimony of the glory of the law on Moses’ face. And this glory of the law is nothing else but God’s revealed will, His self-maintenance in His glorious virtues of justice and holiness, equity and truth, which demand that the man that doeth the law, that will face the glory of God even though it condemns, shall live in them. It is the glory of the ministry of the Old Testament written in tables of Stone and not in the tables of the heart. Says Paul, “If the ministry of death. . . . became in glory. . . .” II Cor. 3:7. And again, in verse 8 it is called “the ministry of condemnation“. The glory of Moses’ face is the glory of the ministry of condemnation and death for the guilty sinner. As such it is clearly perceived to be by Israel even in the radiance of Moses’ face.
The request of Israel that Moses cover his face was, therefore, as to its spiritual nature, fundamentally hardness of heart. The vail on Moses’ face was a symbol of this hardness of heart. Hence, the vail on Moses face is at once the vail of unbelief on Israel’s heart. This is the inner connection which is alluded to by Paul in II Cor. 3:15, 16.
Yet, this vail on Moses’ face is more than symbol of Israel’s unbelief. It is also an act of the minister of condemnation, a judicial act whereby Israel’s vision of the telos, the divinely designed end, the purpose of the glory of the law is taken from her vision. Briefly the end of the law was this: it meant to lead Israel pedagogically to Christ, to the Lamb that would take away the sin of the world in facing the glory of God in Moses’s face. But when Israel would not see this glory on Moses’ face as it must be the taskmaster to Christ, it could not see either the greater glory to come in Christ, a glory so great that it would cause the glory of Moses face to dim and pass away. Turning from the glory of Moses as the minister of death means turning away from Him who has come to fulfill Moses’ law in the perfect obedience at Calvary.
In covering his face Moses does two things. Firstly, he executes the judgment written in the law upon Israel as reflected in the brightness of his face. That was really all that the glory of God in the face of Moses could possibly do. Secondly, he nevertheless maintains the law as to its design in view of the greater glory to come. The time now must come and has come (thanks be to God) that in the face of Jesus Christ the glory of God now shines through the gospel in our hearts. Through whose ministry? That of Moses? Nay, through that of the ministry of the New Testament, through the ministry of the Spirit, the ministry of righteousness and of the glory that is pre-eminent.
For God Himself, the Lord, the Almighty God has come to dwell amongst us. And we have seen His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. In Him the Lord has come to fulfil the prelude of the tables of stone in Moses’ hand and making it a reality in our hearts: “I am the Lord Thy God which hath delivered thee out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is there is liberty.
This glory is not difficult to behold. Moses cannot cover it; and Paul will not do so. Never do we desire this glory to be covered as believers. By turning to the Lord in faith the vail is removed. In heartfelt sorrow and contrition we turn unto the Lord. And that we all do. We do it with uncovered, unveiled face. And from glory unto glory we, seeing Christ by faith in a glass darkly are changed from glory unto glory as by the Spirit of the Lord!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 20:49:35 GMT -5
5/15/1947
O.T. Quotations in the N.T. (Conclusion on Rom. 10:5-8; Deut. 30:12, 13)
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
From Holy Writ
Home / Archive / Volume 23/1947 / Vol 23 Issue 16
SHARE IT
Strange though it may sound to us, it is nevertheless the clear teaching of Holy Writ, that Israel must pass through the curses of the law to obtain the promised blessing.
Israel, the church of God, must pass through death and hell to get to heaven.
Such is the very evident implication of such a passage of Holy Writ, as Romans 11:31, where we read: “For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that He might be merciful to all”. And, again, also this sense is very clear in Galatians 3:22, which reads: “For the Scripture hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise which is out of the faith of Jesus Christ might be to all them who believe”.
Now, what bearing does this have on our discussion of Paul’s quotation?
We should bear in mind, that, in this quotation in Romans 10:5-8, the fundamental question is whether Paul’s interpretation is the real sense of Deut. 29 and 30. It is our position, as was evident in former articles that the apostle gives us the true sense of the Holy Spirit of Christ in Deut. 30:12, 13, in his quotation.
If this be the case, then we should also be able to give account of this from the rest of the Holy Scriptures. In this we find great support from Gal. 3:22. Paul says: “the Scripture” has shut up all things under sin. This means that the fact of all things being under sin, does not merely appear from a few isolated passages, but that he who understands the Word of God will see this throughout the Scriptures. You can begin at Moses and proceed through all the prophets, but always the “Scripture” teaches that all things are under sin.
Is there then no mercy? Is there then no way out of this divine corral of the law; are we so hemmed in by the law, that we can never escape its curse and malediction ?
No, God forbid!
The Lord, our God, is very near in His gracious presence among (His people. He has a righteousness. He has prepared and manifested His righteousness. Is His name not the Lord, our righteousness?!
God is in Christ. He is Immanuel, God-with-us! As such He Himself in our flesh comes and fulfills the law in our stead, on our behalf, and merits for us life, the right to sonship. The law was, indeed, given of God through Moses, but grace and truth become a reality through Jesus Christ. John 1:17. He is the Lamb of God that taketh away by His mighty arm, the sins of the world. He it is that shows unto us, explains to us God, whom no man hath seen. Does Jesus not tell Phillip at the Lord’s Supper in the upper room: ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father? And does not God come to stand before us in all the beauty of His wondrous grace, and assure us in our hearts, that he, who receives this grace, will never desire ought else. Those drinking of this water will never more thirst. He is the true Bread sent down from heaven by the Father.
It is to this wonderful gift of God that the apostle Paul speaks in Rom. 10:6-8, when he introduces the confession of the “righteousness of faith”.
It should not be difficult to understand this central truth of the gospel.
Let us try to understand this. In doing so there are a few questions that need to be answered.
There is first of all the question what Paul means with “the righteousness of faith confesses”. What is this “righteousness of faith”? How can this “righteousness” make a confession, and that, too, such a jubilant one?
Oh, but do you not understand that this “righteousness” is the sum total of all that God has prepared for the salvation of the guilty and damn-worthy sinner? It is, indeed, wholly God’s righteousness. He has realized it in the death of His Son on the Cross. There our guilt of sin was paid, the right to sonship or adoption merited, and Christ became for us righteousness, sanctification and complete redemption.
This righteousness God imputes to the guilty sinner. The sinner has kept none of God’s commandments, yea, he has forfeited all through his transgressions. He is a hater of God and His law. And now God deals with the sinner, in this righteousness, as though he had never sinned but as if he had kept all the commandments of God. So gloriously wonderful is righteousness, that even though our conscience accuse us, God so imputes this righteousness to us, so that we may say: I know that my sins are all forgiven me, they are all washed away.
Yet, this is not all there is to this righteousness.
This righteousness is also instilled into the heart of God’s people. There are many expressions in the Bible to represent this truth. Sometimes it is called living unto God by the faith of the Son of God, Gal. 2:19, 20; it is the placing of our members as servants unto righteousness, so that we no more are under the dominion of sin. In short, he who possesses this righteousness is a new creature, old things have passed away and all things have become new.
This righteousness is a new and transforming power. It lifts one out of sin and death, and actually caused its possessor to have his conversation in heaven.
It gives hope to those in despair, rest for the weary, water for the thirsty. And he who possesses it desires nothing better. One thing he knows; he was blind but now he sees. Before receiving this righteousness he was darkness, but now he is light in the Lord.
Such is the righteousness of God in its redeemed and transforming power. And it is all in Christ, who is the end of the law.
Always this righteousness is called the righteousness of faith.
Also this is a matter that calls for elucidation. Why is it always associated with faith? What is this faith? This faith is God’s sovereign gift of grace whereby He engrafts the dead by elect sinner into Christ and into all His benefits. By means of this faith the sinner becomes the actual recipient of the benefits in Christ, i.e. of the righteousness of God in Christ. Because we receive this righteousness through faith, by means of faith in Christ, this righteousness is called “the righteousness of faith.”
Let us not mistake this faith to be mere historical faith. He who merely assents to the historical truths of the Holy Scriptures does not yet believe in the Scriptural sense of the term. One may very well believe the historical fact that Jesus was born from the virgin Mary and that He rose again the third day from the dead, and that He ascended to heaven. He may know this very well, yea, so well, that he can instruct others in the truth of the gospel, and still not possess this all by faith. Just as one can, for instance, very well know what elements water is composed of, can know all the possible usages of water without ever bathing in it, or drink it and enjoy its benefits, so also one can know all about Christ without yet believing in Him and obtain the righteousness that is in Him. He who believes in Christ and confesses that God has raised Him from the dead, confesses from the heart that Jesus is Lord, does not merely know all about Jesus, but knows Christ Himself. Him, the living Lord, the Christ in all His blessings and benefits of salvation the believer knows!
He who knows Christ by faith obtains by this faith righteousness. For Him it is a joyful and blessed experience. So real is it to Him, that He jealously keeps the truth of this salvation ever before him. As He experiences this righteousness by faith this righteousness controls his tongue and heart. And thus the righteousness of faith confesses!
It confesses!
It has a speech. It believes, and therefore, speaks.
And what does it say? The apostle casts its speech into a negative form, quoting Moses. The believing heart, drinking from the fullness in Christ, the fullness of grace and truth says: Do not say who shall descend into hell, into the abyss! Do not say this because this is finished. Christ has descended thither! He has performed the uttermost! To the very bitter death on the cross, and His descension into hell.
Thus speaks the believing heart as to the death of Christ. And, again, faith speaks also as to Christ’s ascension. It says: “Do not say: who shall ascend into heaven.” That would be denying Christ’s victory, His passing through the heavens as the first-fruits, the firstborn of all creatures.
Nay, do not speak so foolishly, says this righteousness in the heart of every believer.
The believer, righteousness in the believer’s heart, the praises that God has there prepared (Himself says: The Word is nigh thee; it is even in thy mouth and in thy heart. Oh, it is in the mouth. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The tree is good, hence also the fruit is good. Living waters spring forth from the good well of the soul of him who possesses this righteousness by faith.
Thus the righteousness of faith sings:
My song forever shall record,
The tender mercies of the Lord;
Thy faithfulness will I proclaim,
And every age shall know Thy Name.
Thus we sing in the Lord; sing a new song to Jehovah, for the wonders He has wrought. Thus did Israel sing. They sang of “Mercy and of Justice’’!
For God’s righteousness was very near. It was near to them in their heart and mouth when they entered into the tabernacle. There were the sacrifices, the altar, the whole ceremonial, typical institution pointing to the atonement that Christ had wrought, Christ was for them the end of the law. In Him they hoped and trusted, and had peace for their soul, and had a sacrifice of praise upon their lips.
And thus, even though the yoke was hard and the burden heavy of the law, Israel saw before their eyes the dying Christ, their peace. The covenant into which Israel entered was ratified with blood. And this blood proclaimed: Salvation by grace, through the faith in the Promise, which would be realized through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, Christ is the end of the law. He is the end of the law for everyone believing!
The righteousness of faith speaks; it speaks thus! It says: Jesus, my Lord!
Thus it spoke in Moab’s plains.
And today the righteousness of faith still speaks thus. For Christ is the end of the law for every believer in the Old Testament Dispensation and in the New Testament Dispensation.
Is He not the same yesterday, today and forever?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 20:50:40 GMT -5
6/1/1947
O. T. Quotations in the N. T. (Eph. 4:8-12; Psalm 68:18)
LUBBERS, GEORGE C
From Holy Writ
Home / Archive / Volume 23/1947 / Vol 23 Issue 17
SHARE IT
When we were students in our Theological Seminary, our professors would continually stress the importance of keeping in mind that the Bible is no Dogmatics. The Holy Scriptures indeed, thus it was stressed, were the only source of dogmatics, to be sure. But this did not constitute them a dogmatics pure and simple.
It is well to bear this fundamental truth concerning the Word of God in mind also in this study of “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.”
When the apostle Paul speaks of the great article of faith, the ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father, he does not merely speak of an abstract dogma, that means nothing for our daily life as children of God. To the contrary, all these truths in general, and the ascension of Christ in particular, is presented by the apostle as being intensely practical.
That Jesus ascended to heaven is to our advantage as believers. Of this advantage as well as of the high calling connected with it the apostle writes in this fourth chapter of his letter to the Ephesians. Of this we hope to see more presently.
The great profit of Christ’s ascension is not merely something for the church as a whole. It is a profit for each member in the Body of Christ. Each receives grace from Christ befitting his particular place and station in life and in the Church. None is overlooked. The individual saint has value before God, is precious in God’s sight both in life and in death.
Of this the apostle speaks in Ephesians 4:7 where we read “Now unto each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”
This care that Christ exhibits for His people is therefore intensely personal. And, what is remarkable in this passage in Ephesians 4 is, that the apostle makes such a special point of the care that the ascended Lord has for each individual believer. And as remarkable as it is, so comforting it is also.
To prove this point of the care of the risen and glorified Lord for each member in that great multitude of the Saints, the apostle Paul quotes from Psalm 68:18. And, lest it be overlooked, this passage is the end of all contradiction on this score. Without doubt, when Paul makes this quotation from this well-known Psalm, the tacit implication is that this Psalm teaches that Christ does not only give gifts to His Church, but that this Psalm also teaches that each believer receives grace from Christ.
We repeat, according to Paul, Psalm 68:18 teaches that Christ cares for each individual believer; the Shepherd does not forget one of those whom the Father has given to Him, but He will bring them all to the fold and will go in and out before them, and feed them in green pastures!
That is the intensely practical truth which the apostle is here teaching.
And to verify this giving of gifts, which is an activity of the Crucified and Risen Lord, Paul appeals to Psalm 68:18. In effect he says to us, turn to your Bible and read Psalm 68:18 and there you will read: “When He ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men.”
Perfectly clear, isn’t it?
Don’t say too soon that this is perfectly evident? For if you do, you may later discover that you did not read Psalm 68:18 carefully.
But what is the difficulty? Is there a discrepancy here? If so, what is it?
Let us place 68:18 next to Ephesians 4:8. The respective passages here follow.
Psalm 68:18: “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts from men” (amongst men).
Paul quotes this in Ephesians 4:8 as follows:
“When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men”.
What do we notice, when we compare the exact wording of these two Scripture passages? It strikes our attention, that Paul, in quoting Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 has made a change in the text. He has made a rather important and fear-reaching change. The drastic change is that instead of reading “received gifts” we now have “gave gifts”. And, we also notice that instead of the second person “Thou” in Psalm 68:18 we here have the third person “He”.
The question arises, when we consider this change of the wording, whether Paul changed the sense of the text, the sense of the Holy Spirit as meant in Psalm 68:18 when he quotes as he does in Ephesians 4:8? This question, as might be expected, has received a great deal of attention already in the Christian church. Men of every age, from the times of the early church fathers till this present day, have sought to give an answer to this question. Each one, who has answered the question, or, at least, attempted to give a solution to the problem proceeded from a definite critical or dogmatic bias. This, from the very nature of the case, could not be different. Paul is no longer in our midst. Him we cannot interrogate; we cannot ask the writer of the letter to the Ephesians just what prompted him to give this rendering to Psalm 68. Therefore, each and every one in attempting to answer the question of this change in quotations, must needs study the text in question. In doing so he will always proceed from a definite bias; in large measure the point of departure and procedure will determine the solution to this question.
We will, in this investigation, also proceed from definite presuppositions.
The first matter, that we accept as established is, that we here are dealing with the Word of God’s revelation. In this passage, we very definitely have the unfolding of the Mystery of God’s will in the death and resurrection of Christ and in His exaltation at the Father’s right hand. Ultimately, we are here not dealing with the word of Paul, but with the Word of God.
Implied in the former paragraph, namely, that we are here dealing with the Word of God’s revelation to Paul, is, that we do not purpose to seek to establish, whether Paul actually understood the sense of, the general instruction and intent of Psalm 68. We believe, that the great apostle of Christ to the Gentiles did give us the sense of the Spirit of Christ, as this permeates the typical-prophetical 68th Psalm. Pray, why should we doubt Paul’s understanding of this Old Testament Scripture, which he quotes? Who are we to set up ourselves as competent judges above this apostle. Rather than to assume such a critical and proud attitude in this matter, we should place ourselves humbly and eagerly at his feet.
Surely, that is our place.
If we possessed only this great epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, and had not other great letters from his hand, such would be the case. Does Paul himself not call our attention to this fact? Whose understanding of the Mystery of Christ measures up to his? Who has received grace as Paul did to understand the mystery of God’s will in Christ Jesus His Son? Thus we read in Ephesians 3:2-11: “If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward; how that by revelation (according to the standard of uncovering the sense, the meaning, G.L.) He made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge of the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given me by the effectual working of His power. Unto me who am less than the least of all, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all to see what is the fellowship of this mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intend that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose, which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord!”
Who, upon reading this most marvelous passage from the apostle’s pen, a passage that becomes the more marvelous the oftener one reflectively reads it, would still dare to assume a critical attitude toward Paul. Surely, it is a great privilege and responsibility to listen to what this preacher on the “riches of Christ”, the “manifold wisdom of God” has to proclaim. Do not the very angels, who ever behold the face of God, learn to see “the manifold wisdom of God” in the Church of Christ, winch wisdom Paul preaches— preaches even in this quotation from Psalm 68:18? We will, therefore, only attempt to learn from Paul that Psalm 68:18 speaks of the tender care of the Shepherd for each individual sheep of the fold; for thus is the sense of Paul here in Ephesians 4:8.
However, this does not mean that we do not have the right or the duty to attempt to give account of this change of quotation in the light of the Word of God. We must do more, to be sure, than merely say: “What Paul says is true; hence, there is no need of investigation and study.” On the contrary, we have a very real calling to attempt to understand this change.
In attempting to understand this quotation we will have to give account of two matters particularly. The first is, how in the light of Psalm 68 in its entirety and verse 18 in particular Paul could possibly change the term “take gifts” into “give gifts”. Is there anything in the Psalm that would suggest this rendering? The second matter that clamors for an answer is, whether due to the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, suffering and dying on the cross, and being raised to God’s right hand, Paul did not by the Spirit of the Risen Lord see explicitly in this Psalm what was very really implicitly present.
We believe that an affirmative answer to both of these propositions wall not only give us the answer to this knotty question of quotation here, but it will also aid us in grasping with all the saints what is the length and breadth, the height and depth of the love of God in Christ Jesus that surpasses all knowledge.
This is a matter of great importance. This matter thus becomes for us more than a matter of academic study. It will be a matter of the heavenly Father’s wondrous love manifested in His Son to us.
We will consider, D.V., these two propositions in the next issue.
|
|
