Remember my preference

 
About the Book

Table of Contents

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

     

Part IV: The Omnipotence of God in the Affairs of Men

Chapter 5

The Omnipotence of God and Human Responsibility

     O Assyrian, the rod of Mine anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine indignation.
I will send him against an hypocritical nation and against the people of My wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
     Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.  For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings?. . . .
     Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed His whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.  For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent. . . .
     Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith?. . . . As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up. . . .  Therefore shall the Lord. . . consume the glory.
                                                                                       Isaiah 10:5-18

     THIS PASSAGE IS a beautiful illustration of how God uses wicked men to perform an evil work for the ultimate good of His people, yet for which the performer is justifiably punished.
     Consider a few of the phrases in this passage that are significant in this respect. In verse 5 Assyria is God's rod, the instrument by which in His anger He will chasten Israel. Thus in verse 6 it is the Lord who sends him and the Lord who gives him the appointed duty of despoiling and humiliating Israel. However, in verse 8 it is pointed out very clearly that the Assyrian monarch had no idea that he was being used as the rod of God; in his own mind he was a triumphant king acting as an entirely free agent -- though paradoxically he could have done nothing else! But because he chose to do what he did with complete willingness, indeed with vast enjoyment, he was acting as a free agent. As such, he was entirely culpable. So what was

     pg 1 of 12      

punishable in the man? His deeds? Or his motives? Verse 12 shows that it was his motive; the choice of words to make this clear is important: "I will punish the fruit of the proud heart of the king."
     The importance of the distinction between actions and motives cannot be overemphasized. David, who longed to build a Temple for the Lord, was not permitted to because he had been a man of war (1 Chronicles 28:3), yet he received credit because it was in his heart to do so (2 Chronicles 6:8). Jonah by contrast refused to go to Nineveh to "build a Temple of the Lord" there; but he ended up in Nineveh. And though he was responsible under God for what must have been the most successful evangelistic campaign ever completed in the Old World, Jonah was afterward reproved as a most unworthy individual.
     Jonah's experience exactly illustrates a statement made by Paul regarding his own ministry. In 1 Corinthians 9:16,17 Paul pointed out that though he did preach the gospel so successfully, he had nothing to glory of: necessity was laid upon him. Then he said, "If I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me." By this I take it he meant us to understand that preaching the gospel was a responsibility committed unto him, and he could not avoid it -- whether he did it willingly or unwillingly. But if it was done willingly, then this necessity became voluntary and, as a free-will act, it was rewardable. He found himself in much the same position as Balaam who, in Numbers 23:19ff., simply stated the fact that what God had told him to say, that he must say (verse 26). This incident illustrates a further point, namely, that wherever He sees fit, God overrules not merely the actions of men but even their words. Thus Caiaphas spoke the word of God (John 11:51) because of his position as high priest that year, though judging by his enthusiastic support of those who sought to destroy His Son, he certainly was no friend of God.
     This brings us to still a further point, which is that the servant may do the will of God without understanding it, but a friend of God may go one step beyond and choose His will. But he chooses it only because as a friend he is permitted to know it. This is the import of John 15:15: "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends." The point is beautifully illustrated in the case of Abraham, of whom God said, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" (Genesis 18:17) -- which is in perfect keeping with the fact that, according to James 2:23, Abraham was called the Friend of God.
     The same essential distinction between servants and friends is

     pg.2 of 12     

to be found also in Psalm 103:7, where it is written, "The Lord made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel." This is not merely a play on words; in Hebrews 3:9,10 the fact is reaffirmed, for it is written that the Israelites of old saw His works for forty years but they did not know His ways. Moses, because of his nearness to the Lord, was able to see not merely what God was doing, but why He was doing it; with this deeper insight he could enter willingly into God's plans and participate in a way that was entirely different.
     So often we suppose that it is enough to have done the Lord's will, but it is rather a sobering thought to discover that those who with apparently complete justification could say, "We have done all that we were commanded" (Luke 17:10), still had to admit that they were "unprofitable servants." It is even more sobering to find out what may happen to servants so described (as shown in Matthew 25:30): "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness. . . ." It is evident from Matthew that strict fulfillment of the Lord's will according to the letter, may not be enough to earn His commendation.
     As I understand the Word of God, in all that concerns the Master Plan, man's freedom is not a freedom of action. He cannot decide to do or not to do. The sin of the world is not that it fails to do the will of God; the sin of the world is that man does not choose the will of God -- except where it happens to suit the individual's own selfish desires. In such cases, the fact that it is the will of God is completely incidental. In Isaiah 10 the king of Assyria was glad to do what he did because it suited his own purposes, and in this sense he was choosing to do the will of God -- which was to punish the people of Israel. But it is not in this sense that "choosing" brings any reward. It is only when the choice is deliberately made with the full realization that it is God's will, that any reward would be appropriate. There is no prayer in Scripture that the Lord's will may be done; it is done. There is only a prayer that His will may be done as it is in heaven, i.e., with all the same expedience and complete willingness.
     Some parts of God's will involve the performance of deeds which can only be described as evil. Such deeds are just as much a part of God's plan as the good deeds. The Crucifixion was one of these. What men were condemned for was not the deed itself, but the motives which prompted it. They had no intention of deliberately fulfilling the will of God: they sought only to give expression to their enmity against Him. This was their motive. The wickedness of a deed is always in the motive, not in the deed itself. The deed itself

     pg.3 of 12    

may be either evil or good, depending upon the effect it has on others. It is wicked or righteous, depending entirely upon the motive which prompts it and, therefore, its effect upon the doer himself. Motives reveal the state of the soul, and in Scripture they are sometimes referred to as the fruits of our doings.
     There is a very essential difference between a deed itself and the motive behind it. The centurion who was ultimately responsible for carrying out the Lord's crucifixion performed an evil thing. But judging by his subsequent acknowledgment of the Lord's true identity, one might assume that he took no delight in what he was called upon to do. The evil act which he performed was not, therefore, a sinful one, though it was certainly an evil one. Nor, incidentally, is a good deed necessarily a righteous one. It is for this reason that evil deeds will no more keep men out of heaven than good deeds will take them in.
     It is highly important to recognize the difference between evil and sin, and between goodness and righteousness; and it is equally important to recognize the difference between a good man and a righteous man, a distinction which Scripture is careful to observe. When Paul was writing to the Romans he said, "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die" (Romans 5:7). And in this judgment I think we would concur, for experience tells us that most people are much more kindly disposed toward a good man than toward a righteous man. A good man can shield a friend by telling a lie, and though we may know it is a lie, we still think of the man as good. But a completely righteous man would be forced to tell the truth whatever the cost, either to himself or his friend.
     In the Lord Jesus, goodness and righteousness blended perfectly so that everything that was good in Him was also perfectly righteous. But this is not so with us at all. What appears to be a good deed may be no reflection of righteousness whatever, for such deeds are frequently done with ulterior motives. By the same token we cannot judge evil deeds either, for sometimes the motives which prompt them are righteous. Consequently the Lord continually distinguished between deeds and motives, commending what the Pharisees condemned, and condemning what they thought was righteous. They could not understand the basis of His forgiveness, because they supposed He was thinking in terms of actions. He would forgive an act which to them was unforgivable. In reality He was not forgiving the act at all but the doer, and what He was forgiving was the motive which had made the act a sinful one. This is

     pg.4 of 12     

always what condemns and this is always what needs forgiveness.
     The difficulty of judging the true significance of any deed in the light of eternity is so great that Paul was prompted to write, "Judge nothing before the time" (1 Corinthians 4:5). The fact is that an evil can become a good and yet the person responsible can be punished. If an example from a secular situation is allowed, the problem can be illustrated as follows: Suppose that in some small community in the Northwest Territories of Canada there exists only one small hospital with very limited resources and only one qualified surgeon. A man is brought into the hospital suffering from severe exposure and with a gangrene foot. The attending physician decides that the foot must be amputated if the man's life is to be saved. The surgeon is called in and, after examining the patient, recommends to the doctor that it would be wiser to amputate mid-thigh and not just the foot, since circulation of the lower limb seemed badly impaired. The physician concurs and the operation is performed. The patient recovers completely, and an artificial limb restores him to an almost normal activity. As far as the community is concerned, and as far as the subject himself is concerned, a man who might have lost his life remains a useful citizen. The saving of his life was a good thing, but the loss of a leg was an evil thing, yet the evil was necessary that the good might result.
     Some years later, the surgeon mentions to a friend, quite casually, that in looking back upon this particular operation he came to the conclusion that the amputation of the foot might very well have been sufficient to save the man's life. But at the time he was a young man and had already amputated toes and even feet of men suffering the same affliction, this being not uncommon in northern latitudes. He admits to his friend that he was in a way seeking justification for trying out his skill as a surgeon by performing an operation which was a little more difficult and dangerous than those he had already performed. In a way he had persuaded himself at the time it was a safer thing to do: but looking back upon it, he realizes now that there was an element of pride and a desire to strengthen his reputation as a surgeon.
     The operation itself was successful, which was unquestionably a good thing for the patient. Nevertheless, the operation was made more evil than it probably needed to have been because of a young surgeon's pride. An evil which was necessary that good might result became, therefore, also a sinful act, which it might not have been if only the motives had been right. And this aspect of the operation would never have come to light, except in eternity, but for the

     pg.5 of 12    


confession of this surgeon in his later years. How difficult it would have been to judge according to appearances.
     The amputation of a limb is an evil which may be justified by circumstance, but I do not think that a wrong motive can ever be justified. The only thing that can be applied here is forgiveness. It seems to me that in the New Testament, justification is applied only to deeds and forgiveness is applied only to motives. Thus the selling of Joseph was justified in the end because it brought salvation to those who had done it. For all that, this act was justified only because of the suffering of one who was innocent, who thereby paid the price. The crucifixion of the Lord was also justified because of the end result; but this result was achieved only because of the suffering of One who was innocent. We who crucified the Lord need forgiveness; but the deed itself was justified. It goes without saying that God never needs forgiveness: but Scripture plainly tells us that He may be justified (Romans 3:4).
     There are many illustrations in Scripture of this principle of justification. It should be mentioned in passing, however, that while the Old Testament Scriptures laid the foundations for the New, it is in the New Testament that we find the real presentation of theological doctrine. In the Old Testament many words do not have the precision which they are given in the New Testament. In the Old we find principles are established; in the New these principles become the basis of clearly formulated doctrines. It is in the New Testament that we find the word justification implicitly defined.
     One of the most beautiful illustrations is given in Paul's letter to Philemon. A runaway slave believed Paul's word in Rome and was wonderfully saved. Paul insisted that he return to Philemon who was his rightful master, but he was careful to make strong recommendation that Philemon should not penalize Onesimus even though he had the right to do so. The apostle underscores this plea by pointing out to Philemon that Onesimus is now not merely a servant, but above a servant, "a brother beloved." He then significantly suggests that the slave's running away may really have been a blessing: to Paul, to Onesimus, and not least to Philemon himself, "for perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever" (verse 15). I think it is not unimportant, in view of what has been said of the unprofitable servants in Matthew 25:30, that Onesimus, according to Paul, was in time past "unprofitable, but now profitable" (verse 11).
     There is another somewhat similar illustration of this principle in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15. As a matter of fact, I

     pg.6 of 12     


suspect that there is somewhat more to this story than is usually recognized: at least, I should like to suggest the following thoughts. The prodigal son went away from his father and ultimately became lost. In due time, having come to the end of his own resources, he determined to go back to his father and confess his sin. The story of his reception at home is familiar to everyone, but it should be noted in verse 24 that something began that day which by implication had not been known before in the household: they began to be merry.
     Meanwhile the older son, when he had discovered what was going on, was angry and would not join in the family's happiness. He said to his father (verse 29), "Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; yet thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends." It is apparent from verse 31 that the father did not dispute his son's claims.
     Now, this may be reading too much into the text, but it looks to me as though the Lord was trying to show what would be the attitude of a man who had never been lost and, therefore, never needed to be redeemed. This could mean that the prodigal son was ultimately in a far happier position, and his flight from home an evil which turned out to be a good. But he still needed forgiveness, and the cost of his squandering had to be made up in the end by his father. This is another case, then, in which a deed is justified and the doer is forgiven, and the experience is a great gain. If man had never fallen, he might have been almost as unappreciative as that son who stayed at home. There are some who have believed that the real meaning of Romans 8:20 is this: that the creation was made subject to all that was entailed in the fall, not willingly -- i.e., not because this was entirely man's free choice -- but "by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope."
     Evils do not always result directly from sin. When the disciples came upon a man who was born blind, they were in a quandary. God had stated as a simple fact that the sins of the fathers would be visited on the children (Deuteronomy 5:9 and Exodus 20:5). At one time this was thought to be a very barbarous concept, but we know now that a child's character can be influenced to a surprising extent by parental behaviour. However, the children of Israel came in time to believe that this meant that whenever a person suffered, they should blame it not on themselves but on their fathers! Jeremiah was instructed to correct this, and he said, in effect, "It used to be held that the fathers had eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth were set on edge. But now you must realize that when a man's teeth are set on edge, it is his own fault" (Jeremiah 31:29).

     pg.7 of 12     


     This sounds reasonable enough, but once again the simple truth was distorted. It came to be believed that whenever a man suffered a misfortune, he could blame nobody but himself, he himself had eaten sour grapes. The result was that nobody had any sympathy whatever for the sufferer unless the sufferer happened to be a loved one. This explains the callousness that lies in the background of some conversations recorded in the New Testament. It also explains why the disciples were so perplexed: a man who was born blind obviously had not done something wrong himself to merit the condition, and Jeremiah had said that his parents were not to be blamed either. So who did sin? Who was responsible? The surprising answer which the Lord gave is recorded simply and without apology: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" (John 9:1-3).
     It is difficult for us to conceive of God imposing upon men any kind of affliction when they do not deserve it. And yet Scripture is full of illustrations of it. For example, some might be disposed to argue that Job's afflictions were, in a way, a punishment for a certain measure of self-righteousness. But I think Scripture has gone out of its way to show that this is not so. With remarkable insight, the afflicted man refused to accuse God of any injustice even while insisting upon his own innocence. In reply to his wife who encouraged bitterness, he said, "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). This might be thought to have been the misguided apology of an exceedingly discouraged man for his stubborn faith in God. But Scripture adds this comment, "In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
     Does God really do evil, then? Consider Amos 3:6: "Shall there be evil in a city, and the L
ORD hath not appointed it?" Some Bibles suggest this should be translated, "And shall not the LORD do somewhat [i.e., do something about it]?" This is possible, but the Hebrew does not require it; there are plenty of other Scriptures to justify the text as I have rendered it. The verb is 'asah, "to appoint."
     Consider Lamentations 3:38: "0ut of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?" Or Isaiah 45:7, where it is written, "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the L
ORD do all these things." Again and again in the Old Testament we read of evils which the Lord brought upon Israel, or evils which He planned to do if they continued in their wickedness but which their subsequent repentance rendered unnecessary. The real difficulty in accepting these statements at their face value results

     pg.8 of 12


from a confusion of evil with sin. Evil is merely an event in its historical perspective -- not in its moral perspective. When God does evil in Scripture, it is evil in the sense only that it appears to be an undesirable thing
     This distinction between evil and sin -- and between goodness and righteousness -- is interestingly pointed up when we remember that while we are never to tempt the Lord -- that is to say, we are never to test His righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:16) -- we are invited to test for ourselves His goodness (Malachi 3:10). Similarly it is important to realize that it is good works and not righteous works which God foreordains for us to do. They only become righteous works when we choose them (Ephesians 2:10), and in precisely the same way it is evil works and not wicked works that God foreordains shall be done by the vessels of dishonour. These only become wicked when the doers of them take delight in them.
     Paul observes with proper insight that though he gives all his substance to the poor (a "good" indeed -- for them), yet unless this is done in love, "it profiteth me nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:3). Such an act is good whether done in love or not if it supplies a need: but without love it cannot be a righteous act; without his really wanting to do it, it is not a moral deed at all. Without love, the fruits of the good work would not appear. Hebrews 10:36 is careful to point out that doing the will of God itself is not enough. Merely fulfilling His will does not guarantee any reward; nor by the same token is there necessarily any punishment for doing an evil thing when it is part of God's will.
     The point of all these somewhat cryptic statements is that there is nothing unjust on God's part when He punishes men even though their punishment seems to be associated directly with doing His will. The reason why this is so must be clear from what has been said above. An evil act in which a man takes delight becomes a wicked one. It is the wickedness which is punished, not the act. This answers a question put to Paul, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" (Romans 9:19). As a matter of fact, a man may even be condemned for having done a good work. The children of Israel were told to destroy certain of their enemies utterly. But in the "goodness" of their heart and supposing themselves to be wiser than God, they spared some of them. They did not spare them because God told them to, but because they wanted to. Undoubtedly, from a human point of view, we would judge such merciful action as good. But it is sobering to read in Matthew 7:21-23 how there will be in the final judgment those who come before God and expostulate, "Lord, Lord, we have done many

     pg.9 of 12     


good works in Thy name." But Jesus will say, "Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity. . . . I never knew you." Notice carefully that they were not accused of doing evil, but of acting sinfully, i.e., working iniquity.
     Although it is probably true that Christians are specifically called upon only for the performance of those elements of God's plans which involve good deeds, there is at least one incident in which this was not exactly the case. The incident is a beautiful illustration of how God's judgment is determined.
     In 2 Samuel 24:1, the Lord was angry with Israel and had decided they must be chastened, so He moved David to "number" them. This directive found an immediate response in the pride of David's heart -- for he was anxious to find out just how many subjects were really under his domain, i.e., how great was his kingdom. It is not altogether unlike our temptation to count "souls saved." The people shared in the king's reflected glory and were equally keen to know their own numerical strength.
     In spite of a warning (verse 3), the census was vigorously taken. But as soon as the returns were all in, both the king and the people were punished severely (verse 15), and David's heart condemned him deeply as he realized what had really prompted him to take pleasure in numbering the people.
     When Paul had tried to make some of these points clear to the Christians in Rome where law played such an important part in the minds of thoughtful people, there was considerable criticism. They said, in effect, "If good comes out of evil because of the grace of God, then let us do evil that good may come" (Romans 3:8). Paul also put it in this way: "If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory -- why then am I to be judged as a sinner?" (Romans 3:7). In other words, if when we do something evil God turns it to good and acquires greater glory thereby, how could one possibly be wrong in doing an evil thing? Well, if the judgment of God hinged upon deeds, this might verily be true. And God might be left without any basis for judging the world (verse 6). But God's judgment is not based upon deeds at all; it is based upon motives, and therefore, whenever it is necessary for the fulfillment of His own purposes for some evil deed to be performed, in His omnipotence He can predetermine that it shall be so without in the slightest degree surrendering His right to condemn the doer if he should take pleasure in the evil.
     As we have seen, on the other side of the ledger there are many good deeds which are part of the Master Plan. For the most part, I

     pg.10 of 12     


think, the children of God are foreordained to do only good deeds. These are the "good works" of Ephesians 2:10. But God has a second purpose here which is not in view in His dealings with the unsaved: in the performance of these appointed good works, the children of God should be made better in character -- should, in short, "bring forth the fruits thereof." If we would be strictly accurate, we ought rather to say that these fruits will be brought forth by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22,23); but the process by which the Holy Spirit achieves this in us is our response to what God appoints for us to do for Him. However, this is not the only way by which Christian character is perfected. The evil things which we do are also used whenever God allows the consequences of them to result for our edification. Then such consequences are not to be thought of as punishments, but as being permitted by God in His graciousness that we might be made better. As F. L. Chapell put it so pointedly:

      God's purpose in calling us to be labourers together with Him during this present age is not simply that the apparent work which He sets before us may be accomplished. It is, rather, that, in the accomplishment of this work we may be prepared for our chief and ultimate work in the age to come. For this reason the present age is disciplinary rather than executive. We are disciples, that is, students, more than we are workers at present.

     God is engaged not so much in making executives as in making saints.

Some Conclusions

     Summing up the essentials of my thesis in this paper, I would draw the following tentative conclusions:

1. God's will is done by the saved and the unsaved alike.

2. God's will in this sense is His intention. It is represented in the New Testament by the Greek noun thelema as distinct from what He would like, which is represented by the use of the Greek verb boulomai (contrast, for example, Acts 22:14 and 2 Peter 3:9). His intention is always related to His Master Plan.

3. On all occasions in which a man's actions relate to any aspect of this Master Plan, such actions are overruled. The freedom he does have lies only in the attitude he takes toward what he does.

4. Wherever man's actions are not related to this Master Plan, presumably man is a free agent.

5. Each individual has an appointed contribution to make, and

     pg.11 of 12     


this contribution will be made. As Augustine rightly observed, "Man is immortal till his work is done." This is reflected in such passages as Job 14:6 and Acts 13:36.

6. In the purposes of God there are some good things and some evil things that must be done. The good or the evil nature of these things is determined by their historical effect; the righteousness or sinfulness of these deeds is determined by their motivation. The moral responsibility which attaches to them hinges upon the condition of the heart when they are done. Credit or blame are not determined by the acts themselves. Whether a man is rewarded or punished is not dependent upon the evil or the good which he is called upon to do.

7. While God works in the world to fulfill His will, He works in the Christian to choose His will (Philippians 2:13).

8. The sin of the world is not that it does not do the will of God, but that it does not choose the will of God.

9. A good deed done from the heart becomes also a righteous one. Even the unsaved may be rewarded, though such rewards are in this life (Matthew 10:42). An evil deed done from the heart becomes also a sinful one.

10. When the wickedness of man no longer contributes to the glory of God, it is restrained (Psalm 76:10).

     Finally: God works in His children not only to do His will but also, knowing it, to choose it (Philippians 2:13). Our new relationship to Him makes such knowledge possible (John 15:15) and when we do choose what God has appointed by decree we act freely in spite of the compulsion. The slave who freely chooses slavery remains a free man (Deuteronomy 15:16,17). Our bondage to the will of God in Christ becomes a new freedom, for His will is perfect and perfect obedience to a perfect will is perfect freedom.
     Nevertheless, we only see through a glass darkly. . . .

     pg.12 of 12   

Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights reserved

Previous Chapter                       * End of Part IV *                Next Chapter (Part V)



Home | Biography | The Books | Search | Order Books | Contact Us