God’s Will of Command and Will of Decree
In the last issue of the News we defended the truth that God has but one will concerning salvation and damnation. He cannot will (in the gospel) and not will (in predestination) the salvation of men.
There is, however, a legitimate distinction to be made in speaking of the will of God. Scripture uses the word “will” to refer not only to God’s decrees but also to His commands. They, too, are His will for our life, though in a different sense of the word.
In His decrees He wills certain things for us in the sense that He sovereignly determines them. In His Law He also wills certain things for us, but in the sense that He commands them. Ephesians 1:5, for example, speaks of His will of decree; Matthew 7:21 is an example of His will of command.
This distinction is sometimes used in defence of the idea that God has two contradictory wills, i.e., He commands (wills) all who hear the gospel to believe in Jesus Christ, while having decreed (willed) that some will not believe. This, we believe, is playing with words, since command and decree are two different things, though the word “will” is used to refer to both. In the case of the decree, “will” refers to what God has eternally determined. In the case of His command, it refers to what is acceptable and pleasing to Him. These are not the same thing.
But even if they are not totally different, there still is no conflict between them. It may be true that God commands that which He has not decreed, but there is no conflict. Why? Because command is not an empty word but something that God uses to fulfil His decree.
To put it more plainly, when God commands someone to believe, that command either draws them irresistibly to Christ in saving faith (John 6:44) or it hardens them in unbelief, thus fulfilling what God has decreed about them. No conflict, then!
Nor is there any conflict in practice. When confronted by the demands of the gospel, we need only know that faith is what God requires of us. We must believe or perish. What He has decreed is not our concern and may not be our concern. We live by His commands, not by His decrees.
Only when seeking comfort and assurance are we concerned with God’s decree. Then we must see that faith and obedience are the fruits of God’s decree of election, so that our faith is grounded not in what we have done but in God’s eternal good-pleasure. Rev. Hanko
Does Scripture Contain Errors? (1)
“And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there” (II Sam. 10:18).
“But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host” (I Chron. 19:18).
These two verses, containing an account apparently of the same battle of David with the Syrians, contain different information concerning the Syrian casualties in the battle.
II Samuel speaks of 700 Syrian casualties among the charioteers, while II Chronicles speaks of 7000.
II Samuel speaks of 40,000 of the cavalry killed, while II Chronicles speaks of 40,000 of the infantry killed.
Unbelievers have pointed to these passages (and others of a similar sort where apparent contradictions occur) to prove that the Bible includes in it mistakes; and, if even one mistake can indeed be found, who can know whether there are not other mistakes? And if one mistake is in even a small item in Scripture, such as the number of casualties in a battle, it is also possible that Scripture is mistaken in great matters, such as our Lord’s birth from a virgin.
The question of Scripture’s infallible and inerrant inspiration is at stake.
Let it be clearly understood that the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland believe without any reservation, qualification or exception, the great truth of the absolutely infallible inspiration of Scripture. In Scripture no error can be found, not even the smallest. God is the Author of Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Every word written is precisely the word that God the Holy Spirit wanted. God cannot err, cannot make a mistake and cannot inspire anything incorrect.
Let it also be understood that we proceed from this premise as a fundamental article of faith. We do not, cannot, may not and will not debate that point. The Scriptures (II Pet. 1:20-21; II Tim. 3:16) as well as the testimony of the whole word of God clearly claim for themselves absolute inerrancy. That settles it. Faith says, “I believe.”
When, therefore, we confront a passage such as the one before us now, we do not ask ourselves the question: Do we have here a contradiction in Scripture? Do we have here proof, perhaps, that Scripture has errors in it? that Scripture is not, after all, inerrant? May we draw our conclusions about Scripture’s inspiration and inerrancy from contradictions of this sort?
The answer to all this is an emphatic, No! Regardless of what may be our explanation of this passage (and others like it), the simple fact of the matter is: Scripture is without error! Regardless, even, whether we are able to solve the discrepancy between these two passages, we still insist that Scripture is without error. Whatever may be the outcome of our efforts, it makes no difference whatsoever: Scripture is without error. Scripture says so itself! Period! That, for a believer, is that! Though all the world screams, “Error! Error!”, the child of God says, Scripture is the inerrant word of God. I will stake my soul’s salvation on that truth. Though all the world screams, “Explain these texts!”, the child of God, in humble faith in God’s own word, says, “Whether I can explain these texts or not, God’s word is without error. All the ‘proof’ in the world can never gainsay God’s own testimony of His word. On that truth I stand. For that truth I will die!”
It requires that kind of faith to deal with the problem present in these two passages.
This is important, far more important than we often realize.
There is, it seems, a discrepancy between these two passages. We are not, by our firm belief in God’s infallible inspiration of Scripture, simply excused from dealing with the seeming discrepancy. And we shall make such an attempt in our next newsletter. But that is not the point for the moment. Whether we succeed or not really makes not one particle of difference as far as the truth of inspiration is concerned. We are small, weak, sinful, very stupid people. We have all we can do to understand the simplest things of God’s great and glorious word. If we have some troubles understanding it, that is not to be ascribed to weaknesses in the Scriptures; that failure to understand is rooted in our own obtuseness, our own spiritual darkness and our own lack of complete knowledge. God’s word stands. It stands immoveable. It has stood against all the attacks of the ages. It is an anvil that has broken a thousand hammers. It is that one great and glorious word in which saints in every age have found a refuge and hiding place. Prof. Hanko
Omissions in the Genealogy of Jesus
One reader has asked about omissions in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. That there are omissions is obvious. In the second part of the genealogy the names of at least three kings are omitted, and it is possible that as many as 10 names are missing from the third part of the genealogy—compare the number of names in the third part to Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23-38).
This is only one difficulty in a very difficult passage of Scripture. There are many questions that arise in a study of this genealogy, and the differences between this genealogy and that of Luke have raised even more questions to fascinate Bible scholars.
One explanation for the omission of certain kings is that these kings were the descendants of Ahab, king of Israel, through intermarriage between Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, and Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah. Some commentators would say that they are omitted due to their dangerous connection, showing the wickedness of Ahab’s house. This seems to us a likely explanation.
Certainly, the wickedness of these three kings is not the reason for their omission, since there were other kings, notably Ahaz and Manasseh, who were even more wicked than they. Nor can we believe that the omissions are purely arbitrary.
However, it must also be noticed that these omissions are part of the very artificial arrangement of Matthew’s genealogy into three groups of 14 generations. Whatever the reason for the omission, it certainly points us to this arrangement, which is the outstanding feature of the genealogy. Matthew himself brings it to our attention in verse 17. This arrangement shows somehow the truth of verse 1, that Jesus is the Christ. As one commentator (Hendrickson) points out, “Matthew is not giving us a chronological report, but a testimony that Jesus is the Christ.”
The question remains, then, “How does this artificial arrangement show that Jesus is the Christ?” Several possibilities have been suggested:
1) That the three parts of the genealogy outline three main parts of Israel’s history: the eras of promise, decline and eclipse in the house of David and in Israel, all showing the need for the Saviour.
2) Some would also find in the genealogy 6 groups of 7 generations (6 x 7).
We are reluctant to attach significance to numbers without warrant, yet here we believe the numbers must have some significance. Scripture itself emphasizes the number 14 here. However, the number 14 seems to be significant only as twice-seven.
If seven is the number of the covenant, as some suggest, then perhaps the numbers point to the fact that Christ is the fulfilment of the whole Old Testament and the covenant of God, the one who completes all that covenant history and all those covenant promises (the “seventh seven,” as it were).
Certainly, many other features of the genealogy must be seen in relation to Christ, i.e., the inclusion of four women (three of them guilty of great sin and three of them foreigners), the fact that the genealogy begins with Abraham, not with Adam, that it is an ascending genealogy, not a descending genealogy like Luke’s. All these things show in one way or another the glory and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. In this light also omissions must be interpreted, though there may be differences of opinion as to their actual significance. Rev. Hanko
