Providence and Common Grace
In His providence, God provides for all His creatures (Acts 17:25). This means that God gives many good gifts to the wicked, including not only rain and sunshine, food, life and breath, but also a rational mind, a will, and a spirit.
Many conclude from this that God loves the wicked and is gracious to them. These things, they say, are God’s “common grace”—His grace for all, a grace which does not lead them to salvation but is nevertheless a testimony to them of God’s favour toward them. A common providence, however, is not the same thing as a common grace and the two should not be confused. Nor does the Bible ever use the word grace to describe these common operations of God’s providence.
This is not to deny that the gifts God gives the wicked are good gifts (James 1:17). It is only to say that just because God gives good gifts to them does not mean He loves them or has a favourable disposition towards them. To say that God gives good gifts to the wicked still says nothing about why God gives those good gifts. And the Bible teaches that He does indeed have other reasons for giving good gifts to them than a love for them. He gives them these good gifts in His wrath, as a snare to them (Ps. 11:5; Rom. 11:9) and a curse (Prov. 3:33), for their destruction (Ps. 92:7). By these gifts He “sets them in slippery places” and casts them “down to destruction” (Ps. 73:18 in the context of verses 3-7). That is clearly seen in the way they use these gifts to sin against God and make themselves worthy of His condemnation.
This is so true that we are even commanded in Scripture to imitate God in this respect in our dealings toward our enemies–to do good to them for their destruction and condemnation (cf. Rom. 12:20-21). Nor should it surprise us that a gift which is in itself good can be given for such reasons. For a father to give a razor-sharp butcher knife, something that is indispensable in the kitchen, to his infant son, would certainly lead us to question whether he was giving such a “good gift” in love or pity. The child will as certainly misuse it for his own destruction as the wicked do with every good gift God gives them.
Perhaps the greatest danger, though, in this teaching—that God gives good gifts to the wicked because He loves them—is that it destroys our comfort in God. If rain and sunshine, health and life are in themselves grace, what are we to conclude when God sends us the opposite: sickness, poverty, drought or death? Are these things His curse? Does He send them because He hates us? If grace is in “good things,” have we no grace (or “less” grace) when God does not gives us those good things? Are we not rather to conclude that all that He sends us, whether health or sickness, poverty or prosperity, life or death, He sends in His love and grace and for our good (Rom. 8:28), and that everything He sends the wicked, even though it be in itself “good” is nevertheless for their condemnation? How else shall we be comforted in sorrows and afflictions? Rev. Hanko
The Rich Young Ruler
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions” (Mark 10:17-22; cf. parallel passages in Matt. 19:16-22 and Luke 18:18-23).
It is not our intention to explain all the details of this important event in the earthly ministry of our Lord; our concern is with one point only: How is it possible for Jesus to love this man who went away grieved?
The implication of this question is, of course, that the rich young ruler was not an elect child of God, and that he rejected the love which Jesus had for him. And the question based on this assumption is: How does Jesus’ love for this man differ from His electing love?
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the word here used for “love” is the strong Greek word which is used so many times in Scripture to refer to God’s electing love of His people.
It is the assumption which we challenge.
It is clear from the text and the context that this rich, young man was indeed an elect child of God. Jesus’ love for him was electing love indeed.
Some commentators conclude from the available evidence that this young man was Joseph of Arimathea who, with Nicodemus, cared for the body of the Lord after His crucifixion and laid the body in his own grave near to Calvary. Of this we cannot be sure, and it makes no difference in the meaning of the text.
The following considerations indicate that he was indeed a child of God.
The approach of the young man to Jesus was indicative of great humility. He did not come in pride to trap Jesus as the Pharisees often did. He came earnestly inquiring concerning a great spiritual problem which he had.
This humility is evident also from the fact that he knelt before Jesus, apparently in worship; and the rich young man, as well as any Jew, recognized that one bows only before God. It was a confession that Jesus was God.
Thus the humility of this man was evident from the fact that he was deeply conscious of sin in spite of the fact that he kept all God’s commandments perfectly.
That the young ruler should think this is not strange. All the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees were calculated to prove the point that outward observance of the law was sufficient to be saved. And outward observance of the law was precisely what the young man had accomplished.
His consciousness of sin, in spite of his rigid observance of the law was evidence of the work of the Spirit in him, as consciousness of sin always is the fruit of the Spirit’s work.
Jesus’ instruction is exactly adapted to show this young man that God requires more than mere outward observance of the law. And to accomplish this end, Jesus instructs him in covetousness. Riches in themselves are not evil. But to trust in riches is the sin against the tenth commandment. Jesus makes this clear when He says, “Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God” (24).
The tenth commandment is exactly the one commandment which points to the fact that God requires inward perfection. The Heidelberg Catechism points this out clearly when it insists that the tenth commandment requires of us “that even the smallest inclination or thought, contrary to any of God’s commandments, never rise in our hearts; but that at all times we hate all sin with our whole heart, and delight in all righteousness” (Q. 113).
It is for the reason that the young man was stricken with the consciousness of his sin that he went away “grieving.”
We might be inclined to say that his grief was caused by his great love for his possessions and that the thought of parting with them was more than he could bear. But this could hardly be the case.
Grief is hardly the reaction of one who refuses to obey the injunctions of the Lord. Those who will not hear Him are angered, or mock or turn away in disgust. They do not grieve. Grief is evidence of sorrow for sin. The words of the Lord entered the soul of the young man as a dagger and brought shame and sorrow for his covetousness and love of riches.
If one would argue that, after all, he left Jesus, this would not be so surprising. The young man had much to think about. His grief overwhelmed him. How could he be worthy of the Lord’s favour? His attitude towards his riches needed to be examined and the sin was one from which he had to repent.
We must not forget, too, that even Nicodemus, while a disciple of the Lord, was a secret disciple who did not dare openly to make known his faith in Christ, for the Jews were determined to punish anyone who showed any sympathy for the Lord and His teachings.
Jesus Himself clinches the matter, however. When His disciples are in awe at the great requirements of the law, the Lord tells them pointedly and with reference to the young man himself, that, while it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom, “with God all things are possible” (27).
The love of Christ was electing love. We shall see this man in glory. Prof. Hanko
Subject to the Father?
One of our readers asks about I Corinthians 15:28: “How can the Son be subject to the Father when they are both equal—both God?”
I Corinthians 15:28 reads, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
This is a favourite passage of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other sects who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is equal to the Father, as the only-begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.
Scripture teaches that Jesus is God in many ways and many places (Ps. 45:6, 7; Isa. 9:6; John 1:1, 5:18, 8:58; Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:15; I Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3, 8; I John 5:7). To look at just one of these passages, John 1:1, we see that Jesus is true and eternal God in the plain statement there that “the word was God” (literally “the God”). Nor may we forget that this truth is so plainly taught because it is fundamental to all we believe.
How then can I Corinthians 15:28 say that the Son is subject to the Father? The answer to this question lies in the mystery of the incarnation, the mystery of the two natures of Christ. The whole truth of Scripture concerning our Lord is that He is both God and man: really and truly God, equal to the Father, and at the same time really and completely a man, like us in all things, except sin.
That He has a real human nature like us means that His human nature is subject to all the same limitations as ours. It is a human nature—not a divine nature—and therefore not equal but subject to the Father. One of the oldest creeds of the church, the so-called Athanasian Creed says it this way: “God, of the essence of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.” How He can in these two natures be at the same time subject to the Father and equal to the Father and yet be only one Christ and Saviour is the great mystery of the incarnation.
This wonderful mystery was evident in many ways during His ministry. The one who was so much subject to our sorrows that He could weep at the grave of Lazarus is the same one who with a mighty word summoned Lazarus back from death and corruption (John 11). The one who lay so exhausted in the bottom of the boat that even the storm did not wake Him, was also the one whom even the wind and the waves obeyed when He commanded them to be still (Luke 8:22-25). He who needed to spend all night in prayer was also the one who walked on the water to rescue His disciples (John 6:15-21). He who had to learn obedience through the things He suffered is also the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey Him (Heb. 5:8-9).
That is the glory of this mystery! It is the mystery of our redemption and salvation; for if He is not God, He is not able to give us that everlasting righteousness which alone can justify us before God. Yet only as a man, subject to the will of the Father, can He suffer for our sins and make Himself a substitutionary sacrifice for us. It is a mystery which will always be beyond our full comprehension, yet one which must be believed—for there is no other way of salvation. As the Athanasian Creed says, “Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that [we] also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Rev. Hanko
