Supplement

On John Piper’s article,”Are There Two Wills of God?”

Recently,²⁵⁹ I took the opportunity to read through John Piper’s online article, “Are There Two Wills of God?: Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved”²⁶⁰ That such an article should be written by any Evangelical advocating a God divided against Himself (so that two divine wills exist) is so disturbing to me that I have decided to add this Supplement.²⁶¹ My intent here is not to respond to every one of Piper’s points, but only to answer what I regard as the most formidable of them.

Though John Piper is an effective communicator who writes in a non-combative tone, I find that his theology is much bolder than ‘old-school’ Calvinists. Whereas an R.C. Sproul, for example, might take pains to point out his own initial misgivings about the foundational irrationality within Calvinism (that is, irrationality that Sproul regards as so perceived because of the limited potential of human reasoning), such qualms seem curiously absent in Piper. One observes Piper’s unapologetic viewpoint throughout his address, including his discussion of whether or not God takes delight in the death of the wicked. As one might suspect from the rhetorical title of his article, Piper concludes that God has two wills, and therefore delights, and does not delight, in the death of the wicked.²⁶² Thus about midway through his article Piper states:

We just saw that God “desired” to put the sons of Eli to death, and that the word for desire is the same one used in Ezekiel 18:23 when God says he does not “delight” in the death of the wicked. Another illustration of this complex desiring is found in Deuteronomy 28:63. Moses is warning of coming judgment on unrepentant Israel. What he says is strikingly different (not contradictory, I will argue) from Ezekiel 18:23. “And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you.”

Here an even stronger word for joy is used (yasis) when it says that God will take delight over you to cause you to perish and to destroy you.” We are faced with the inescapable biblical fact that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18) and in some sense he does (Deuteronomy 28:63; 2 Samuel 2:25). [Note: last reference should read 1 Samuel 2:25]

Prior to these examples Piper cites the crucifixion as “the most compelling example of God’s willing for sin to come to pass while at the same time disapproving the sin.” As proof he points to the sinful activity of Satan, Herod, Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles, as all supporting Luke’s statement that “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God.” He also cites the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart as evidence that God must delight in the death of the wicked. Regarding this latter example, he points out that even Arminians admit that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart at some point. Thus, even if Arminians are granted their argument that Pharaoh hardened his own heart at the outset of the narrative, even they are admitting that God did, in fact, harden Pharaoh’s heart in the course of the plagues. (Indeed, Piper is right insofar as arguing that such a view as advanced by Arminian thinkers does concede that God causatively hardens Pharaoh at some point.)

Another example which Piper cites as evidence for an absolute sovereignty of God which ordains all the affairs and decisions of man is Proverbs 21:1 (”The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wishes”). Certain other verses are also cited to claim that there are two wills of God to account for all the good and bad. Typical of these examples are Isaiah 45:7 (”I make peace and create woe,”) and Lamentations 3:37-38: (”Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?”)

There are three other examples Piper cites in support of God having two wills. They are: 1) Romans 11:31-32, where Gentiles are said to have received the gospel in order that the Jews would be jealous of their relationship with God; 2) the numerous examples where Scripture is thought to be stating that sinful people unwittingly carry out what God had already foreordained in order that prophecy be fulfilled. [Examples of this last sort are found in the oft-repeated phrase, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” when referring to various prophecies from the Old Testament upon becoming satisfied in the New (such as the betrayal of Judas,²⁶³)]; and lastly, 3) Revelation 17:17, where God is claimed to have willed that ten kingdoms give their allegiance to the Satanic beast.

In responding to these arguments I do not wish to review points already cited in my book. These would include explanations about the sinful acts of men surrounding the crucifixion, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and the judgmental contexts of Isaiah 45 and Lamentations 3, all of which forbid any notion of absolute divine sovereignty and the annihilation of human freedom. Therefore I will confine my attention to the above three points, as well as to whether there is any real antinomy involving Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel 2 and the house of Israel in Ezekiel 18 and 33 that the Bible would regard as “different,” though “not contradictory.”

Let us begin, then, by considering 1 Samuel 2 and Ezekiel 18 and 33 to see whether God delights, and does not delight, in the death of the wicked. First, observe that the context of God’s judgment regarding Eli’s sons and the house of Israel in Ezekiel are not the same. The context of 1 Samuel 2:22-25 is one of impending judgment, while the context of Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11 is contingent judgment. Technically, the former judgment is also contingent, but the hearts of the sons of Eli have effectually rendered it as impending. In 1 Samuel 2:12 we read, “Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial [worthless men]; they knew not the Lord.” We are told that the sons of Eli committed fornication with women involved in Temple service and also truncated the offering process in order to have red meat instead of boiled, thus despising the Lord’s offering which demanded that the sacrifice be fully cooked [pointing to the comprehensive nature and efficacy of Christ’s death, in which Christ’s blood was intended to satisfy God,(not some priest’s appetite)]. Their activity had become public knowledge (1 Sam. 2:23). Because they held positions of high spiritual responsibility but lived reckless and immoral lives, God promised that His judgment would come upon Eli’s sons upon the selfsame day. In fact, God told Eli that this would be a sign to him of His displeasure. The phrase, “worthless fellows,” is uncommonly found in the Old Testament and denotes men who have given themselves over to a particularly virulent form of rebellion. Thus divine judgment was impending, since Eli’s sons showed no willingness whatsoever to repent, and this despite the admonition of their father. Observe that the KJV translates 1 Samuel 2:25 so that the reader is left with the impression that Eli’s sons did not listen to their father because the Lord wanted to slay them:

If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

Now read the same verse but observe that the underlined words below are the only Hebrew words that actually appear in the autographa:

If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

While I think the KJV was correct to render “Notwithstanding” because of the context provided by the beginning and end of the verse (showing Eli’s reproof and the Lord’s desire to slay Eli’s sons), the word “because” could just as easily have been rendered “therefore” to inaugurate the last phrase. As seen above, the Hebrew words for the second part of the above verse are “hearkened,” “voice,” “father,” “LORD,” “would,” and “slay.” Thus, instead of stating that Eli’s sons hearkened not to their father because the Lord desired to slay them, it could just as legitimately have been translated differently, i.e., that Eli’s sons hearkened not; therefore the Lord desired to slay them.²⁶⁴ Whether the word ends up rendered as because or therefore is entirely a matter of the translators’ judgment. When Piper cites 1 Samuel 2:25 to say that God acts causatively to not restrain evil, it is his attempt to read into verse 25 a description of a divided God. But no such reading is necessary. In passing, we should note that the Mosaic Law made provision for capital punishment for a child who demonstrated a lifelong rebellion against his parents. Though Eli’s sons were past that age and would have been at least 30-years old to have been engaged in Temple service, they despised the commandment to honor their father as a parent (and such a parent who was the chief priest!). This fact was not lost upon the Lord, nor the fact that such immoral men who had given themselves over to various lusts-one of which nullified, the very symbolism in the burnt offering-held such esteemed positions. Thus, they were “worthless fellows” whom the Lord desired to kill.

The context of Ezekiel’s message in 18:23, 32 and 33:11 is somewhat different, however. First, Ezekiel’s address was to the house of Israel (Ezek. 18:6, 15, 25, 29-31 and Ezek. 33:7, 10-11, 20). Second, though sin was also present in the house of Israel, it does not appear that the whole of the Jewish nation during this period was so virulently engaged with sin as to make their repentance impossible. We know this because the wicked person of the house of Israel is described as able to “turn from his way, and live.” No such thing could be expected of the worthless sons of Eli, however.²⁶⁵ So despite the sharp language Ezekiel uses to confront his nation’s sinfulness, the hearts of the majority house of Israel of Ezekial’s time were not so stubborn as to have made repentance essentially impossible.

Another word needs to be said here about the degree of sinfulness which we observed earlier in certain biblical examples (e.g. Simon the Pharisee compared to the woman of many sins, or the nation of Sodom compared to Capernaum, or of Tyre and Sidon compared to Bethsaida and Chorazin). Most of Ezekiel 8 describes a prophetic vision where Ezekiel is taken to a succession of four places. The Lord calls the activity in the second place a greater abomination than that done in the first, the activity in the third worse than that done in the second, and the activity of the fourth worse than that done in the third. The four places involve various groups of Jews in a variety of idolatrous activities. The thing to be observed here is that people sin to differing degrees. The judgment of God upon the great majority of Ezekiel’s people was thus conditional, since there was still practical hope for their repentance. Conversely and in practical effect, Eli’s sons had ’sinned away their day of grace’ due to the extreme hardness of their hearts. Any foundation of faith that might have been built up within them through their proper responses to God’s admonitions was entirely missing. With such men God could only take delight in their deaths because there was no practical possibility of repentance, and because their deaths would simply put an end to their cancerous effect on the general populace who had become aware of their sins. As the Scripture itself warns: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Technically, then, Eli’s sons could have still repented if they had exercised their wills accordingly-but this they would not do, for they had set their wills determinedly in opposition to God, and so God was pleased to kill them. But again, there was still hope for the house of Israel in Ezekiel’s time because the hearts of these latter were more malleable. Note that the whole of the Jewish exiles are not as the last of the four groups which Ezekiel saw in his vision in chapter 8-the last group being more abominable than the first three.²⁶⁶ Nor does even this last group necessarily equal in sinfulness the Israeli mother and father described in Deuteronomy 28^lxxviii who cannibalized their offspring to maintain their physical life while apparently giving no thought to their spiritual repentance.

Piper, ignoring these considerations, puts Ezekiel into conflict with Deuteronomy. For note that the word “death” in the phrase, “I [God] take no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” does not mean ‘God’s judgment,’ but rather, ‘the sinner’s way.’ Thus God takes a certain satisfaction and delight when He (rightly) exercises judgment in Deuteronomy, though He still takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked in the book of Ezekiel. Note that the death in Ezekiel is one from which the sinner may still repent. It states that. But when a sinner sins away his day of grace²⁶⁷ and there is no remedy but forthcoming judgment only, then God may take delight in exercising His judgment.

Thus, God does not delight in the deaths of the majority house of Israel of Ezekiel’s time and hopes to still bless the nation, should they repent. Following the two judgments that sent the 10 northern tribes and 2 southern tribes into exile (approx. 762 and 587 B.C., respectively) the house of Israel is now in a new probationary period. Though sin is found among Ezekiel’s people their sins have not filled up their cup of iniquity. Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9 both speak of God making from the same lump another vessel. This means that the vessel which was being formed was discovered (not created by the Potter) flawed, and so the clay is pushed down by the Potter to be reformed into a new vessel. This means that judgment has been effected upon a particular nation, and now that nation is in a new probationary period. If at length the nation regards the Lord it shall be judged a vessel of honor, or if it rebels it shall be judged a vessel of dishonor. The individual aspect of the metaphor is found in the individuals who must be present to form the corporate aspect. Thus individual holiness is also encouraged. As a side note, and at the risk of sounding obvious, it ought to be pointed out that nowhere in Scripture, 1 Samuel 2 included, does it ever state that God delights in the wickedness of the wicked, but only in the deaths of particularly abominable, worthless persons whom God knows shall never repent, have had long opportunity to repent, and who, in the case of Eli’s sons at least, threaten to lead as sheep many people into sin. When God finally afflicts the wayward sheep with judgment and grief, He never does so heartily, unless the willful rebellion of the general populace is set significantly and determinedly against Him (as the subjunctive case shows it to be in Deuteronomy 28, where, e.g., parents would choose to cannibalize their children). Rather, God afflicts the sheep in a way that is not from His heart, knowing, as in the case of Ezekiel’s people, that the sin of the sheep is not the greater sin, at least, not significant enough for God to take delight in the judgment-killing of these sheep.²⁶⁸ In Moses’ long soliloquy (Duet. 28:15-68)²⁶⁹ about the cursed of Israel who rebel against the Lord, it is significant that there is no mention about how such a wicked people would be able to turn from their wicked way and live. Thus Deuteronomy 28:68, though it speaks of the house of Israel, mirrors the impending judgmental conditions of 1 Samuel 2:25, not per se the conditional judgmental conditions of Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11.

***Second, in his evaluation of Romans 11:25-26 and 11:31-32, Piper states that “[God] wills a condition (hardness of heart) which he commands people to strive against (”Do not harden your heart” (Hebrews 3:8, 15; 4:7) ” Says Piper:

Paul pictures this divine hardening as part of an overarching plan that will involve salvation for Jew and Gentile. In Romans 11:25-26 he says to his Gentile readers, “Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved.” The fact that the hardening has as appointed end-”until the full number of the Gentiles comes in”-shows that it is part of God’s plan rather than a merely contingent event outside God’s purpose. Nevertheless Paul expresses not only his but also God’s heart when he says in Romans 10:1, “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is their salvation.” God holds out his hands to a rebellious people (Romans 10:21), but ordains a hardening that consigns them for a time to disobedience.

This is the point of Romans 11:31-32. Paul speaks to his Gentile readers again about the disobedience of Israel in rejecting their Messiah: “So they [Israel] have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you [Gentiles] they also may receive mercy.” When Paul says that Israel was disobedient “in order that” Gentiles might get the benefits of the gospel, whose purpose does he have in mind? It can only be God’s.

To see Piper’s remarks in relation to the biblical context of Romans 11:25-26 and 11:31-32, we will begin with Romans 10:16:

¹⁶But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? ¹⁷So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. ¹⁸But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. ¹⁹But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. ²⁰But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. ²¹But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

(chapter 11)

¹I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. ²God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, ³Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. ⁴But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. ⁵Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. ⁶And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. ⁷What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded ⁸(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. ⁹And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: ¹⁰Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. ¹¹I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. ¹²Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? ¹³For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: ¹⁴If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. ¹⁵For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? ¹⁶For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. ¹⁷And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; ¹⁸Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. ¹⁹Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. ²⁰Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: ²¹For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. ²²Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. ²³And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. ²⁴For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? ²⁵For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. ²⁶And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: ²⁷For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. ²⁸As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. ²⁹For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. ³⁰For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: ³¹Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. ³²For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Piper cites the NIV in verses 31-32 to obtain the phrase, “in order that,”-i.e., “in order that by the mercy shown to you [Gentiles] they also may receive mercy.” The NIV’s phrase in order that is merely rendered as that in the KJV and NAS. And the word “that” may not be so strictly observed to be “in order that” as Piper would have us believe. It appears 570 times in the KJV New Testament, 486 times as that, 76 times as to, and 8 other times. Scripturetext.com²⁷⁰ gives the following definition of that (Gr. hina):

ινα [hina]

conjunction hina hin’-ah: in order that (denoting the purpose or the result)²⁷¹– albeit, because, to the intent (that), lest, so as, (so) that, (for) to.

Keeping this definition in mind, consider the comparison Paul makes in verses 30-31:

30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

In the comparison, Even as X, so too Y, verse 30 acts as the Even as X, and verse 31 as the so too Y. Thus, verse 30 begins (in the KJV) with the phrase, “For as (Gr. hosper; “Even as,” “Just as,” “Exactly like”),” and the comparison is completed in verse 31 which begins with the phrase, “Even so…” The point here is that the word that in verse 31 cannot carry with it essentially any more sense of in order that than what is stated in the first half of the comparison as given in verse 30. The corresponding word in verse 30 is through, rendered in the particular interlinear Greek text in my possession as by. Yet this particular preposition, as supposed from the Greek, seems to rest on the “kai…de” construction which often lays stress upon the explanation of what is being said, and not necessarily upon anything of a causative purpose. Thus the word “through” was supplied by the translators to make the sentence grammatically understandable in English. The Greek of verse 30b does not have to suggest a translation of “yet have now obtained mercy because of their unbelief.” Furthermore, verse 30 harkens the reader back to the reason Gentiles have been grafted in (as it were) into the natural olive tree. It is because of the unbelief of the great majority of Jewish people. Note Romans 10:21: “But to Israel [God] saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” Piper’s interpretation demands that we understand that God is holding forth his hands unto a disobedient people whom God Himself has made disobedient (shut up in disobedience) in order to more universalize the gospel. In effect, Piper is arguing that God is free to do evil if good will result (though of course Piper does not call such divine actions evil, or does he, since he quotes Lamentations 3:38 to that intent?). Instead of resolving the tension inherent in stating that God caused the Jews to reject Him while holding out His hands to receive them, Piper appears to accept the contradiction with a frank, nonchalant, almost colloquial attitude. So what if God holds out his hands to the Jews while at the same time hardening them unto disobedience-whatever. So what if God doesn’t take delight in the death of sinners while at the same time taking delight in the death of sinners-whatever. After all, isn’t this what the Bible teaches? Thus, rather than resolve the tension created by such disastrous definitions of God that threaten the whole of Scripture-a Scripture that is actually opposed to any such notion that God causes evil-Piper insists that such statements that can be taken literally to mean that God is divided against Himself ought to be so taken. Of course, Piper would deny that his theology pits God against Himself because that is part and parcel of his theology. For what appears to our common sense as a God acting against Himself is to Piper’s sense a God who acts for Himself. Piper’s portrayal of God is one of both/and in His essence. God is not either/or. Following this logic, we can only imagine what Piper must take the Scripture to mean when it says that God is not as a man, that He should repent (change his mind). It would have to mean that God does not change his both/and essence for one where His character is understood as either this or that. The result of such theology as Piper’s is thus a ludicrous view where God is said not to tempt man but nevertheless assigns him to irresistible hardening! Piper’s God (as he apologizes Him out) is divided against Himself, yet presumably Piper would still claim that God is good-but obviously this is not how a child would understand good, i.e., good in the common sense and use of the word. Piper, by adding many philosophical trappings (wrong interpretations of various scriptures) has de facto described God as one who authors all events and is therefore indistinct in His character. The final result for Piper is that man cannot therefore cause anything, that is, whenever Piper stresses the sovereignty-of-God side of his dialectical equation. Piper’s inevitable conclusion occurs near the very end of his article, and of course it favors the front rock of the dialectical rocking horse:

I do not find in the Bible that human beings have the ultimate power of self-determination.

***Our inquiry, then, is a simple one. If man is not ultimately self-determinative,then who is the causal agent in man’s sin? Or again, if man is not ultimately self-determinative who is it that causally “rushes” to Christ after allegedly having his desire changed, as R.C. Sproul is wont to imagine? Many Christian readers will think that Piper is stating that somehow man causates within God’s causating, but this is really a failure to understand the force of Piper’s statement. For readers doubtless imagine in their mind a man who acts in some sense-goes to church, reads his Bible, prays, goes to work, pays bills, raises a family, etc. But the idea of a man who can act-i.e., a man who in any sense can even choose for himself a single thought, is simply not permissible under Piper’s definition. One cannot grant any action whatsoever under Piper’s view, because even the inaugural action in any process of action is subject to Piper’s statement that man himself cannot determine it. Piper’s use of the word ‘ultimate’ is his attempt to modify the severity of his definition through a Hegelian-type synthesis of both/and, so that man can be thought to be doing it within God doing it.²⁷² For this ‘reason’ such an attempt of redefinition fails. The condition of such a ‘choice’ is the same as that of a woman’s pregnancy-there are no half measures. We cannot speak of a half-pregnant woman anymore than, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias would put it, we can speak of a one-ended stick. Again, the will is an all or nothing proposition. For example, let us consider a man who is said to run a 100 yard dash. If we can suppose with Piper that the man does not do so because of ultimate self-determination, we are nevertheless obligated to apply Piper’s definition to the fullest extent. Therefore even regarding the first step of the man’s sprint we must say that the man doesn’t choose to do even this in any ultimate power of self-determination. Even half of the first step, or one-quarter of the first step, or one-eight of the first step, etc., is not (in Piper’s view) an event caused by the man himself. Thus, and likewise, the man’s decision to begin moving his body into a first step cannot be caused by the man, for that would require ultimate self-determination. Therefore to speak of man doing anything in a causative way is not possible under Piper’s definition. Again, this impossibility of causation would include Sproul’s belief that man “rushes to Christ” after his desire has been allegedly changed. The only conclusion allowable in Piper’s view is that God does all the acting for the man, and thus man is only ‘man,’ i.e., nothing more than the construct of God placed upon material creation. Incidentally, Piper never states baldly that God Himself must be viewed as similarly non-determinative if He is to escape the charge of sin. But now we see the only conclusion about sin even possible under Piper’s definition. What has been regarded as sin is really only ’sin.’ For since God is the only One who is ultimately self-determinate, then all experience, including sin, must be good-indeed, goodness itself (if we are to take Piper’s position to its consistent conclusion). This is why Calvinists so often treat sin as though it were merely another tool that God also uses to accomplish His purposes. Rather than Piper simply understanding Paul’s statement about shutting up the Jews in disobedience to mean that God stopped engaging them²⁷³ because He was tired of their stubbornness-thus allowing them henceforth to be less hindered in their willfulness to be disobedient until the gospel was fully preached to the Gentiles, with the result that all Gentile nations would have a better chance to respond-(indeed, does Paul not say that the Jews were a branch broken off for unbelief?)-Piper reels out a definition of a God who desires and wills that men disobey Him while all the time holding out His hands to them. Thus, when Piper comes to Lamentations 3:33-”Though he causes grief, he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men,”-he takes the Hebrew meaning of willingly, which means “from the heart,” and in effect takes a position which forces the reader to interpret “not from the heart” as “without compassion” which in his system must correspond to “a will of delight,” a point we will discuss in detail in a moment. In fact, Piper’s position, though one he does not admit to, defines the phrase “not willingly” in such a way as to imply a divine motive essentially opposite of what really describes God’s character throughout the Bible, including the passage of Lamentations 3:32-37, that is, once these verses are understood in their near and far context. In the example below by Piper, keep in mind Piper’s claim that two wills operate simultaneously within God, that of NON-delight and delight in the death of the wicked:

In other words, God has a real and deep compassion for perishing sinners. Jeremiah points to this reality in God’s heart. In Lamentations 3:32-33 he speaks of the judgment that God has brought upon Jerusalem: “Though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men.” The word “willingly” translates a composite Hebrew word (milibo) which means literally “from his heart” (cf. 1 Kings 12:33). It appears that this is Jeremiah’s way of saying that God does will the affliction that he caused, but he does not will it in the same way he wills compassion. The affliction did not come “from his heart.” Jeremiah was trying, as we are, to come to terms with the way a sovereign God wills two different things, affliction and compassion.

At first glance we might be tempted to think that Piper is advocating the kind of divine willing claimed by many non-Calvinists; i.e., that of God merely afflicting those whom He hopes will repent and avoid judgment. But in fact, prior to the above quote Piper cites an illustration from Robert Dabney, in which God’s attitude toward the condemnation of the guilty is likened to that which George Washington felt when he reluctantly sentenced a certain Revolutionary soldier, one, Major Andre, to death for treasonous acts-reluctantly, that is, because certain of Andre’s other actions were not without merit. The problem, however, is that Piper, in the above quote about Lamentations 3:33, is claiming that God also wills to afflict the sons of men in a different way than the way He wills compassion. And we have already noted that Piper’s “different” will is in fact a mutually opposite will. Thus the question begs itself-If God wills His compassion, a compassion which corresponds to his NON-delight in condemning sinners, then what different divine will can it be when God, according to Piper, does not willingly afflict the sons of men? In can only be heartlessness (that is, as the word “heartless” would be normally understood in the phrase “such an act was heartless“). And note that “heartless” must correspond to the divine will of delight in God’s condemnation of sinners, since Piper believes that such a will of delight must exist alongside God’s other will of NON-delight. This is certainly a ‘conclusion’ Piper must maintain to support his argument that God does, and yet does not, delight in the condemnation of perishing sinners.

Yet Piper cites the illustration of George Washington’s “reluctance” as the emotional desire pointing to this “different” will than that of compassion! But Washington’s “reluctance” to punish was in a context of meaning which in any normal sense must indicate something more akin to a will of compassion, not a will of heartlessness! Furthermore, we note that while Washington condemned the soldier on just grounds, he acted against his strongest desire of compassion. That is, it is not accurate to state that Washington had both compassion and heartlessness upon Andre, or we could not speak of Washington’s “reluctance” anymore than we should speak of Washington’s “enthusiasm.” Therefore we cannot properly say that Washington ever acted at any point from heartlessness, though certainly it may appear to us that he felt that way because of his bare decision. But of course Piper, as a Calvinist, does not believe that a man can act against his greatest desire. Thus for Piper, any decision (will) by God (e.g., to condemn a sinner) must involve both God’s NON-delight and delight, since an all-sovereign God always acts to please Himself. Yet even here we find the Calvinistic definition of desire useless, for if God has two desires/wills of presumably equal preference, then there is no such thing as God’s greatest desire that could lead God to will the reprobation of a man any more than to not will the reprobation of a man. And if the Calvinist claims that God’s wills are beyond our comprehension and therefore ought not to invite the same kind of description men make of themselves, then of what use is it for the Calvinist to speak of God’s two wills that are “different,” “not contradictory,” since the Calvinist is also human and therefore without the ability to define the nature of God’s wills? [Such an approach reminds one of neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth (see footnote within footnote, p. 706), who claimed on the one hand that it was not possible through any human conceptions to describe God, but on the other hand claimed that God nevertheless made use of human concepts to communicate Himself.] In this manner Piper spins out a kind of dialecticism within a dialecticism (i.e., a ‘meaninglessness’ within a meaninglessness), that is, by first citing alleged lexical evidence to combine the irrational thought that God delights in that which He does not delight upon the same object in the same instant, and then later adding a further irrationality with the Washington illustration, so that the term “delight,” as defined dialectically, is ‘understood’ as being NON-delight (”reluctance,” so to speak). That is, the word symbol “reluctance” is brought in to support the original doublethink of “delight”/”NON-delight,” thus serving as another confusing distraction from the truth. With such reversibleness it is almost impossible to get hold of what Piper is really saying, so how does one go about refuting it all? Yet because of such reversible meanings, Piper cannot really escape the charge that the phrase ‘a will of delight’ (that is, ‘a will of heartlessness’) might mean either a will of heartlessness or the ‘opposite’ of ‘heartlessness’ as ‘heartlessness’ would [as alternating moments in any dialectical system require, for the sake of appearing to have meaning] be dialectically defined. No doubt whichever will serve Piper in the moment will do, since neither have any actual meaning. Frankly, I don’t think Piper himself really understands what he is saying, which is why he speaks of himself and his sympathizers as trying, with Jeremiah, “to come to terms with the way a sovereign God wills two different things….” The reason Piper is still trying to “come to terms,” of course, is because he cannot arrive at rational definitions (and therefore proper understanding) without destroying the dialecticism that undergirds his Calvinism.

Besides a will of compassion, then, Piper speaks of the remaining will of God, i.e., the term “not willingly.” And because he must assume that “not willingly” means the opposite of compassion (though, of course, not opposite as Piper would define it), he concludes that “not willingly” means “not compassionately.” This means that without the negation of the word “not,” Piper takes the word “willingly” to mean “compassionately.” And the full term “not willingly” must correspond to the delight side of his dialectical equation, since a ‘will of compassion’ is thought by Piper to correspond to God’s NON-delight in God’s condemnation of the sinner.

And so, again, such an emotion that corresponds to that will of God which Piper claims is “different” than compassion-revealed in the implicit word “heartless”-corresponds to God’s 2nd will, i.e., His delight in non-compassion. Thus is yielded the essential thought, ‘With delight in non-compassion doth God afflict…the children of men’.

Remember, Piper makes no contextual distinctions between Ezekiel 18 and 33 on the one hand, and 1 Samuel 2 and Deuteronomy 28 on the other hand, nor can he if the irrational dialecticism of his Calvinism is to remain in place. Thus whenever he urges his readers to accept his definition of divine willing upon the wicked, he wants his readers to believe that God is both heartfelt and unheartfelt upon the same object at the same time. As already noted, Piper strips away all meaning and lexical use of the word willingly. He did this first by using the word “will(s)” as a synonym for “decree(s),” thus, Piper: “God does will the affliction that he caused, but he does not will it in the same way he wills compassion.” For once Piper had admitted into his dialectical discussion of God’s two wills (that are upon the wicked) the idea of compassion (that is, at the beginning of the above, paragraphed quote), he had then to find the remaining idea (or relatively synonymous idea) of NON-compassion. This dialectical approach explains his claim that God’s two wills are “different,” “not contradictory,”²⁷⁴ though we note, in fact (as Edgar might put it), that the phrase “not willingly” is not merely modified by Piper, but changed in definition to where, we observe in this case, it becomes the mutually opposite idea of compassion, therefore making God’s nature contradictory.

But the point in all this is that Piper, in doing so, has simply dismissed what the word “willingly,” i.e., the cognate related to Strong’s #3820 and #3824,actually means according to the consistent Hebrew use of #3820 and #3824 in over 700 appearances in the Old Testament, in which the cognate arguably demonstrates no lexical difference in meaning in relation to #3820 and #3824, besides the obvious prepositional one. And #3820 and #3824 means “heart,” as in a “person’s inner self,” that is, the thoughts and/or will (and emotions) generated by the self, though, we note, not the specific kind of content of the thoughts and/ or will and/or emotion. For we note that apart from context the Hebrew word “heart,” though it denotatively indicates content, suggests nothing specific of that content, or whether that content is good or bad. And therefore examining the context of the word’s every appearance is necessary. For example, the bare phrase, “the man’s heart,” indicates nothing about whether the man’s heart is compassionate or uncompassionate, but merely what is de facto, i.e., the man’s real heart. The same is true of the phrase, “God’s heart,” though, of course, we are reminded so often in Scripture that God is good that we tend to think of something positive in the bare term, “God’s heart.” But again, the term “heart” (Heb. leb ) apart from context indicates nothing specific of the heart’s de facto content. To assume otherwise invites serious lexical trouble. For example, when we are told in Genesis 27:41b that “Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob,” we would certainly run into problems by inserting Piper’s meaning of “compassion” into the verse, i.e., “Esau said in his compassion…I will slay my brother Jacob.”(!) (Of course, we assume that Piper’s meaning of the cognate would not be different from the verb(s) from which it derives, except in the obvious prepositional sense.) Thus we note that not the least of Piper’s reasons for his special pleading that “not willingly” in Lamentations 3:33 ought to mean “not compassionately,” is the same in principle as it always is with Calvinists, i.e., God is the grammatical subject, and so “willingly” has to mean whatever the Calvinist needs it to mean in the moment, and since the moment in Lamentations 3:33 calls for God’s pleasure in reprobation, a substitute definition for the word “heart” is sought by the Calvinist to support the dialectical claim on the remaining side of the equation, with the result that God is delighted with afflicting the sons of men. Again, such an assumption by Piper relies entirely on eisegesis, not on the lexical use of the Hebrew word leb or its cognates. And yet Piper’s kind of eisegesis is not the only kind of eisegesis that can be done. For one can also (as regrettably I did in an earlier edition of this book), assume that “unwillingly” means “not from the heart” in the sense of “his heart was not in it,” i.e., “not enthusiastic,” or “reluctant.” (Note that this is not to be confused with how Piper defines “reluctance” in the Washington illustration, the difference in Heb. leb being Piper’s (incorrect) definition of “compassionately” versus my former (incorrect) definition of “enthusiastically.”) The explanation behind my wrong eisegesis is that I took the English colloquial understanding of what is meant behind the phrase “his heart wasn’t in it,” i.e., “it wasn’t from his heart,” and assumed that this was the proper meaning, and I did this without really understanding the lexical use and meaning of Heb. leb and its cognates as revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, I assumed a wider latitude of lexical meaning for leb than what was really warranted, because I had not properly harmonized Lamentation 3:32-37 with enough necessary and relevant scriptures but relied instead on commentary opinion. Consequently, I misunderstood that leb, apart from context, indicated content, though not of what kind (including not stating the specific kind of emotional content, e.g., enthusiasm), though the context of Lamentations 3 showed what kind of content, i.e., that God did, in fact, take delight in His judgment of Jeremiah’s irremediable generation, since that generation fit the description of Deuteronomy 28.

The problem then, as a result of this kind of (e.g., my past) eisegesis, is that the phrase, “He has not afflicted from the heart,” leaves the false impression that God has de facto afflicted, though not from His heart, i.e., not heartily. In fact, this seems to be the non-Reformed interpretation. But this is misleading, since the Heb. leb never means, and despite whatever prepositional indicator it may take to mean from, the idea of “heartily,” but is merely a bare indicator of what is genuinely (I do not mean righteously) the heart, i.e., the heart’s content, that is, “of the heart,” i.e., of the self.

Moreover, while the KJV infrequently translates Heb. leb to mean kindly, comfortably, etc., it is wrong to do so. For Heb. leb does not take these meanings but instead simply refers to of the heart. For example, when Ruth tells Boaz that he had spoken “friendly” to her, this reply came after Boaz had explained to Ruth that he had heard of her good care of her mother-in-law, and how she had left the land of her nativity. He then urged her to glean with his maidens, and to not go elsewhere for her protection. Most of Ruth 2:9, 10, 12, and 13, is taken up with Boaz’ detailed conversation with, and blessing upon, Ruth. Therefore, when Ruth replies to Boaz by saying he has comforted her and spoken “kindly” (Heb. leb) unto his handmaid, she is simply pointing out that he has comforted her and spoken his de facto heart, i.e., his real heart. In other words, the Hebrew word leb bespeaks not merely of the form (ability) which is the heart, but also of the heart’s de facto content, though it leaves it up to the context to explain whether that content is good or bad. So then, the word “comforted,” not “heart,” shows that Boaz was friendly toward her, and that when Ruth speaks of Boaz speaking (KJV) “friendly” toward her, this means that Ruth was declaring that Boaz had spoken his real heart to her, according to how he demonstrated it toward his own maidens. Thus, the translator’s mistaken assumption that Heb. leb means “friendly” is a result of his connotative (associated), not the denotative, definition. Similarly, in Genesis 50:19-21 Joseph replies to his brothers to calm their fears that he would treat them harshly now that their father was dead. Verse 21 states: “Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly (Heb. leb )unto them.” Here it is stated that Joseph comforted them, and so when it tells us that he spoke (Heb.) leb, it simply means he spoke from his de facto heart. The word “comforted,” not “heart,” is the context showing that Joseph was kind toward them. Joseph comforted them and spoke his de facto heart. Thus again, the translator’s mistaken assumption that Heb. leb means “kindly” is a result of his connotative, not the denotative, definition. As a final example here, when Jeremiah says that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, he is declaring that the de facto state of the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Again, Heb. leb indicates the form which is the heart and bespeaks of the presence of the heart’s real content and/ or emotion, but leaves it to the surrounding context to state whether that content is good or bad, or what the specific emotion is. So, in drawing a conclusion here, the idea in Lamentation 3:33 regarding Heb. leb is this: Jeremiah is stating that God’s de facto heart was not, and is not, afflicting nor grieving the sons of men as a general matter of course. Stating the matter negatively, it is not that God reluctantly wills to afflict, but that, in the case of common, probationary periods, He doesn’t afflict at all, i.e., after the manner in which he judges men. The context for leb in this passage about God’s typical dealings with men thus goes to a question about affliction/grieving’s origin when it occurs in such a way where it might mimic in appearance God’s judgment, even during probationary periods. In other words, what is being stated is that God does not afflict generally, not that he does afflict generally though not in a certain manner. And so the passage proceeds to explain that God does not turn aside the [impl. proper] judgment of men or subvert the [impl. proper] argument of men, which, were He to do so, He would afflict and grieve the sons of men, thereby proving Himself cruel. Verse 37ff return to the subject of God’s right to pronounce judgments upon men for their sins, i.e., following periods of their probation in which God’s mercy, shown in His previous activity of patience, has come to an end upon all or upon the great majority.

Of further note is that the word “unwillingly” is really an English translator’s attempt to render the Hebrew noun as an adverb to make the translation appear more sensical to English readers. So, in examining the Hebrew stems and tenses, while also recognizing that anything said to come from the heart in a way that cannot mean “heartily” must therefore simply mean of the heart, (i.e., of the de facto heart), the transliterated meaning would more accurately be something like, “for of [His] de facto heart [He] has not afflicted, and is not grieving, the sons of men.” (This does not imply that another heart of God besides God’s de facto heart exists; for the Bible states clearly that God is not as a man that He should repent. In other words, God is not double-willed.) Thus in more common English we might render Lamentations 3:33 thus: “His heart, as it really is, has never in the past afflicted, and still is not grieving, the sons of men.”

The point here is that the Hebrew is not referring nor stating, as many commentators seem to think, that when God speaks about His judgment of Jeremiah’s generation, He is stating His reluctance to judge. Indeed, Deuteronomy 28 states that God would rejoice over judging such a people, not be reluctant about it. Therefore within verses 32-33 there are two groups in view. The first is Jeremiah’s generation referred to at the beginning of the previous verse (v. 32), i.e., those in object-relation to the activity and character of God, “For though He has caused grieving, He had [and will have (Heb. Piel Imperfect, allowing a polyvalent meaning here)] compassion according to the multitude of His mercies.” (This means that God was mercifully patient despite Israel’s unrepentant spirit, and, according to His nature, will again be merciful in the future after His judgment has passed.) Therefore at the beginning of the next verse (v. 33), Jeremiah explains why God has any mercy at all. It is because God is patient with the sons of men, i.e., by nature is not harsh with the sons of men. The “sons of men” is this second group of men. And this term, “sons of men,” in context of God’s activity toward them, relates to God’s demeanor to men generally, i.e., during the typical and common, probationary circumstances of peoples, not His infrequent instances of divine judgment upon them.

Taking into consideration some of the Hebrew stems and tenses in the key phrases important to our argument here, the following is a suggested translation for Lamentations 3:32-37:

³²For though He has caused grieving, He had (and will have) compassion according to the multitude of His mercies; His heart (as it really is) has never in the past afflicted, and still is not grieving, the sons of men., ³⁴to crush under His feet prisoners of the earth, ³⁵to turn aside the judgment of a man before the face of the most High, ³⁶to subvert a man in his argument, the Lord has not considered.

Thus, of the two groups of theological commentators who approach verses 32 and 33, Calvinists like Piper miss this contrast of men under judgment versus men under probation, assume one group of object men only, and so end up with a dialectical God, whereas non-Reformed commentators likewise miss the contrast but conversely conclude that God is always reluctant in judging the wicked. And so these latter commentators miss Piper’s proper point, (one which we accept as Piper basically worded it, if defined apart from Piper’s definition), namely, that God IS said in Deuteronomy 28:63 to rejoice at bringing destruction upon the nation of Israel if it pursues a course of rebellion. And if some reader here wishes to steer a third course to say that God has ‘mixed feelings’ and therefore rejoices in His judgment while feeling reluctant in having to condemn man, thereby attempting to reconcile Lamentations 3 with Deuteronomy 28, it still remains for such a reader to prove that God ever in Scripture expresses reluctance to destroy the wicked who are beyond remedy.

But moving on, understandably, Piper is searching for proof in this Lamentations passage that God DELIGHTS in the destruction of the wicked who fit the description of Deuteronomy 28. That is, Piper is not content with doing what so many moderate Calvinists would do, i.e., find a ‘biblical’ proof text for one side of their dialectic over here, and then find the remaining proof of their dialectic over there. Rather, Piper is striving to find both sides of the dialectic in the same biblical passage. At least we see that he is trying to be consistent. In the end, however, we note that all that “remains” in Piper’s wake of ‘explanation’ is a complete breakdown of definition about God’s character, since a discussion about mutually opposite wills cannot lead to any conclusion about ‘God’ or ‘His motive’ or ‘His activity,’ etc. Piper has presented the matter in the same irrational way that someone might claim that God had two wills, one will that led Him to eat an apple, and another will that led him not to eat the apple. What then can be said about ‘God’ or ‘the apple’? Nothing at all. Yet Piper attempts to persuade his readers of his doublethinking theology regarding a God who acts from a ‘compassionate heartlessness’ by 1) insisting that there is no contradiction, 2) claiming he is only following the Bible in recognizing two different wills of God, and 3) using lingual arguments that exchange obvious contradictions for subtler ones (i.e., exchanging the word “different” for “contradictory”). Sadly, all this passes for evangelical theology. At any rate, despite Piper’s insistence that there is a divine will of affliction in regards to the sons of men in Lamentations 3:33, and that implicitly it is not compassionate,we state once more for the record that the Hebrew word leb, along with its cognates, is used hundreds times in the Old Testament to mean heart, or of the heart, defined to be [of] the inner self of a person, but arguably never of any specific content of thought, will and/or emotion, such as “compassion,” “enthusiasm,” “good,” “bad,” etc.

Now, since Piper cites Lamentations 3 for support of his view of two divine wills-the kind of which, we note, in a dialectical system must express morally opposite wills-his system demands both a compassionate AND a delighted willingness in condemning men, so that God can be imagined to condemn the sinner with compassionate heartlessness. This particular form of eisegesis is the kind of mind-numbing apologetic that has captured the minds of so many of today’s Evangelicals.

So then, to review in some detail an essential point made a moment ago, Piper does make a legitimate point about Deuteronomy 28:63, since God did indeed say that He would take great delight in bringing destruction on the nation of Israel if they were to forsake Him. And, in fact, we must remember that the generation of Jeremiah’s hearers fit perfectly the description of the prolonged and disobedient wicked in Deuteronomy 28 about whom God said He would delight in destroying, and therefore did delight in bringing destruction upon them. But again, this specific judgment against this specific people did not, and does not, reflect God’s typical, ‘everyday,’ common demeanor toward men in general, i.e., the sons of men. Note the verses surrounding verses 32-33. These “sons of men” i.e. subsequent generations of men, or men in general, are defined, e.g., as here in this specific context, Israel’s remnant which would become prisoners of the land (v. 34 ), about whom God says He will not retain His anger forever (v. 31), and in general defined as the “sons of men,” i.e., those whose right God will not turn aside from before His presence (v. 35), being those whom God will also not subvert in their argument (v. 36), for the Lord does not consider doing such things to those He presently finds are manageable within the bounds of His mercy, i.e., mercy defined as God’s willingness to postpone judgment for a time at His own expense.

An analogy might be helpful here. Suppose, for example, you are the CEO over a huge movie production company in which employees at length prove themselves to be of two kinds-manageable and unmanageable. In that company are writers, actors, stage hands, a construction crew, a marketing department, accountants, etc. Now suppose that the writers decide they’re not getting paid enough. But you realize they are paid as much as possible, and that if you paid them any more, it would jeopardize the jobs of other people in the company as well as the company itself. (For the sake of argument, we will say that your assessment is objectively true.) You try to reason with the writers, but to no avail. Meanwhile the writers go from bad to worse. They begin treating you and other employees contemptuously, show up late to work (when they show up at all), steal money from the company’s safe, etc. For a long time you are merciful with them and try to reason with them. Yet you also warn them. You will have to fire them from their responsibilities and jobs if they persist in their selfish behavior. But such warnings only inflame them further, and they grow even worse in their behavior. Finally, they become unmanageable and stubborn beyond remedy. So you fire them, and they are exited from the company. Now all this time, the other departments-the actors, accountants, stage hands, etc.-did not follow the writers in becoming unmanageable employees. They were not perfect employees, of course, for they had their faults; but your common demeanor toward them remained one of patience and compassion. And even now you commit yourself to their ongoing welfare along the lines of their present in situ, because they did not rebel as the writers did, but accepted, and still accept, a certain degree of your management, at least sufficient enough so that you don’t have to fire them and force them off the premises. You even hope that these employees will eventually come under your influence of benevolent despotism to a point where one day they regard you as a father figure instead of a boss. Thus, it could be said that while you took great delight in firing the thieving writers who were doggedly opposed to treating you and the rest of your company’s employees with any sense of decency, your demeanor toward employees in general is not one of harshness, but of patience. Even so, and as we turn back our thoughts to Lamentations 3:32-33, we see that God did cause the grief that came upon Jeremiah’s generation-a grief He took great delight in-but His demeanor toward men in general is one of patient mercy (love). Thus in Lamentations 3:33 the “sons of men” represent the kind of humanity [or nation(s)] that Jeremiah speaks of in Jeremiah chapter 18, a people on the wheel of probation awaiting the decision of the potter to bless or curse it, according to what that nation will come in time to prove about itself. Sometimes God breaks the pot beyond remedy (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah) because the offense against God is too great (or the potential effects of those cities too dangerous upon other peoples); consequently, their generations will not continue after the present judgment. But oftentimes God just makes another vessel from the same lump, as He did with Israel.

So then, one reason that Piper doesn’t come to these conclusions about “willingly” in Lamentations 3:32-33, besides committing the mistake of assuming that “from the heart” might mean “compassionately,” is because he has a faulty view of God. As Dave Hunt has pointed out about the Calvinist in general, the Calvinist simply doesn’t believe that God loves everybody. God loves Piper and a certain few others, of course, but not everyone. Thus the lexical evidence of what the word “willingly” really means is something Piper has to ignore if he is to find support for both sides of his dialecticism within this one biblical passage from Lamentations 3. And the only way he can accomplish his goal is through special pleading and through so narrow a reading of verses 32 and 33 that the overall context about God’s nature is avoided in favor of dialectical conclusions. Thus he sets out both to approve and disprove that God is compassionate, for the nature of affirming both sides of the dialectic is that one must also deny both sides of the dialectic. This see-sawing leaves Piper open to our just charge that he assumes a lexical meaning for Heb. leb that is not present. But it appears Piper will not be deterred. Thus he claims with Robert Dabney that while certain objections can be raised against the analogy of Washington being reluctant about condemning Andre, nevertheless the analogy is “essentially” true. How this could be the case is truly a mystery, of course, since, besides the arguments we have been presenting here, all humans, presumably Washington and Andre as well, are claimed by Piper elsewhere not to have “ultimate” self-predication. Nor, of course (were Piper to grant predication), does Washington in Dabney’s illustration ever demonstrate at all a delight, i.e., uncompassionate attitude, in condemning Andre. Of what use, then, was this analogy, that Piper introduced it?

And yet while considering this whole matter more closely, I begin to see something else. I had in fact missed how Piper’s approach to irrationalism strikingly resembles the method of journalist Pico Iyer in her defense of the Dalai Lama. For even as Iyer attempted to persuade her hearers that the Dalai Lama did in fact recognize the oppression of Tibetans, but then backed away from that statement by claiming that Tibetans didn’t have to be unhappy about it (thus denying, I contend, the real emotion of anger any normal person would feel if he truly believed that oppression existed), so too was Piper throwing us a red herring to convince us that he really did sympathize with those of us who can’t imagine God being arbitrary in his dealings with men. Piper nearly had us fooled, talking about a reluctant God and pulling on our patriotic heartstrings with a George Washington illustration. But in fact, Piper does not really share the same dilemma as we non-Calvinists do about God’s nature. For the definition of sharing in the same dilemma, is to share in it consistently. For example, if Piper were a football player on Team A, he would have to share in the dilemma of winning for Team A during the duration of the game. Otherwise it could not be said that he shared in the same dilemma. But suppose he were a quarterback trying to ‘win’ a football game by playing on opposite sides for whatever team happened to have the ball at a given moment. In such a case he would always be on the field, playing both for, and against, both sides. This would really mean that he is not sharing in the dilemma of winning for either team; neither can he be a winner or loser. For to be a winner on Team A is to be a loser on Team B, or visa versa. Thus he cannot be called a winner or loser of the game without redefining what the words “winner” and “loser” mean.

We see then, that it is not good enough for Piper to offer his readers an illustration about Washington for the purpose of convincing us that he believes God is ‘reluctant,’ when in fact the entire thrust of his article denies this very thing. He is toying with us. In fact, I believe he is fooling himself unbeknownst to himself, which is why he speaks of trying to “come to terms with the way a sovereign God wills two different things, affliction and compassion.” At any rate, the struggle which Piper mentions here is telling. His coming to terms is not a struggle born of trying to show a difference in contexts between Ezekiel 18 and 1 Samuel 2 in order to advocate for a consistently good nature of God, but only for a consistent nature of God as dialecticism defines it. And that, my readers, is the test of whether a theologian is really struggling with the truth; at least that is the case if a theologian consistently chooses the dialectical ’solution.’ Never forget that. In the end, there is really no reason Calvinists like Piper can give us about why some of the Andres of this world are condemned and others elected unto safe keeping. For again, if man cannot predicate his own thoughts and intentions, then only God is left holding the bag to explain why He has arbitrarily condemned some but preferentially elected others in a process where only God has the ultimate power of predication. Thus, for Piper; the mirage of meaning continues, as Piper speaks repeatedly of God’s two wills, yet places them both under the term “sovereign God” instead of “divided God” to leave the impression that God is still unified in one purpose and design. Furthermore, Piper insists that books that attempt a rational answer about God’s nature are [rather, I would think that from his viewpoint, must be] mere metaphysical speculations without any Scriptural support. Let him think that, if he chooses. But to deny God His consistently good nature, as Piper does through dialectical spin, is to create ‘definitions’ about God that are not merely modified, but non-sensical. And so we have a right to say it-A failure to embrace the truth about God’s nature-a failure Calvinists demonstrate through a rigorous application of irrationalism-is also a lie of the first magnitude.

This is a serious matter. By insisting on false lexical support and non-sensical definitions for God, Piper and others have, at least in some sense, blasphemed by taking God’s name in vain by defining Him as nothing—for nothing is always the final result when a good God is implied to be the only person of ultimate self-determination in a sinful world.²⁷⁵And thus, in order for them to maintain a good God who does evil, they must cancel out all terms of apposition until no definitions remain. When the dust settles there is only ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ i.e., words (so-called) which have no meaning. The result is nothing but a mystical understanding (if such can be called understanding). One can imagine the chaos in the Church which follows in the wake of such statements. Recently, in fact, a concerned Christian friend of mine told me that his church (which does not carry with it any official designation of Presbyterian nor Reformed) is teaching in their young people’s group a primary goal of “looking at the beauty of Christ.” He says that this is the apparent catch-phrase that has become a [the(?)] main goal of the group’s experience. This, I think, is the inevitable result whenever God is stripped of any meaningful content. It aims²⁷⁶ toward the old medievalist view that God can only be contemplated in His transcendence which defies description. Thus people can speak of the “beauty” of Christ while their theology de facto denies any reality to Christ at all. The average congregant isn’t going to pick up on what is really happening in such a case, because he has no idea that when these others speak of the “beauty of Christ” they define it along Piperesque lines, which has nothing to do with the beauty of Christ as the Bible defines it. What is actually happening, then, is that young people are being encouraged to worship a man-made notion of God rather than the God of the Bible. The leaders of this young people’s group who are pushing this agenda are among certain other Christians within this same church who have apparently become so identified with the study of John Piper’s books that they have been referred to as “Piper heads.” Whether this nickname is meant to be derisive or quasi-endearing I do not know, but of course the studying of a man’s books at the expense of understanding the Bible will often lead to trouble. In this case it has been the misguidance of impressionable youth. And this is the kind of sad result a church can expect when it despises the prophetic gift and/ or gift of knowledge designed to warn it of false teaching. Thus, in a meeting meant to air out the various positions of the youth leaders and some concerned parents and congregants, two women ended up weeping at the end of the meeting because their spiritual intuition was properly telling them that something was desperately wrong with the teaching in the youth group. This whole circumstance is merely one example of what can happen when the wrong doctrine is taught in our churches.

Well, admittedly, we have traveled a long way from Romans 11, but perhaps the digression was an essential one for a fuller examination of Piper’s view. Nevertheless, let us return to our previous subject before closing our discussion of it altogether, for a few more observations must still be made about the word that (Gr. hina). Some theologians, for example, have wondered if the word that can occasionally mean with the result of rather than in order that. In a similar vein the biblical commentator Joseph Thayer discusses the attempts of two theologians (C.F.A. Fritzsche and H.A.W. Meyer) to find in the word that the meaning in which state of things in 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Galatians 4:17. Apparently, Fritzsche and Meyer took their cue from the use of the Greek hina as used
1. as an adverb of Place as found in Homer and subsequent writers, especially in the poets; thus, a. where, in what place, b. to what place, wither.²⁷⁷ But Thayer finds the conclusions of Fritzsche and Meyer unconvincing, and takes umbrage at the possibility of an alternate meaning, such as ekbatikos, which means, with the result that: Thus, Thayer:

In many passages where [hina] has seemed to interpreters to be used ekbatikos, the sacred writers follow the dictate of piety, which bids us trace all them to God’s purposes…so that, if we are ever in doubt whether [hina] is used of design or of result, we can easily settle the question when we can interpret the passage ‘that, by God’s decree,’ or ‘that, according to divine purpose’ etc.; passages of this sort are the following:…[Romans] xi. 31 sq….also the phrase [hina plerothe], wont to be used in the O.T. prophecies.²⁷⁸

Despite Thayer’s argument that God is the author of all events and that therefore hina should always be understood as supporting the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty either directly or indirectly in doubtful passages, a few objections can be raised. First, the very nature of the phrase, with the result of (that), if the Greek New Testament meant to convey this ecbatic²⁷⁹ idea through the use of hina in certain passages, could instead, if one so wished it to be because of one’s Calvinistic presuppositions, always be taken as pointing directly to the absolute sovereignty of God. Regarding what is relevant to our discussion here, this is because the phrase, with the result of, obviously cannot exist in a sentence apart from a Subject, Predicate, and the Direct Object²⁸⁰ of the Subject’s action i.e., the three things necessary for the Calvinist to claim that absolute sovereignty is always at work. In short, if hina can mean with the result of, how do we prove it? Put another way, how does one falsify the claim that hina always means in order that, since such a conclusion based on that claim can be read into all the appearances of hina by eisegetical philandering? Thus, we see the difficulty of the matter. Indeed, the Calvinist can claim a purpose every time hina appears, even if the only actor is Nature. Such determinists can be expected to say, “Even the moth sleeps in order that it might wake up-and so God is at work.” Therefore the Calvinist’s argument (abstractly considered) that because the phrase in order that may make perfect sense in every appearance of hina, is therefore no real argument that it must be so taken. On the other hand, a David Hume-type thinker could argue that hina never means in order that, but always means with the result that, and be just as consistent in his view. But we do not have to appeal to the example of Hume to argue that it is reasonable that hina may sometimes mean with the result of, without meaning in order that.²⁸¹ Thus the lexical arguments that many would bring forth claiming that hina so often means in order that, such that we ought not to doubt that it should always mean in order that, have no real value except for pointing out how a theologically deterministic agenda can drive lexical definitions in certain cases more often than most of us would care to admit. But David Hume is not among us, and, at any rate, there is no need to be so difficult as he. I would argue, however, that if one must take hina literally whenever it occurs, then hina at certain times does mean with the result of, that is, if taking hina to mean in order that would make God absolutely sovereign in decreeing sin or hardening a person unto disobedience.²⁸²And this conclusion we base on the message of the entire Scripture, including not a few Scriptural proof-texts we have shown in this book to be interpreted falsely by Calvinists. Indeed, it is the general message of the Bible, not a myopic, narrow focus on the immediate verse of Romans 11:31 that demands this conclusion-indeed, that also compels us to understand the near-context, so that when God says 1) that He has concluded all unto unbelief that He might have mercy upon all, and 2) that His gifts and calling are without any change of mind, these two thoughts taken together merely mean that God will not ‘go soft’ on sin because of any natural affection for the Jewish people whose patriarchs were genuine believers. Rather, God will continue declaring that sin is sin, and that sinners are sinners. And He will do this even if it means that He will stop, for a time, the great majority of His effort in trying to turn His chosen people away from their stubborn unbelief, with the result that the gospel will be preached to the Gentiles.

Still, someone may raise the question why Paul did not simply use and as a connective conjunction in Romans 11:31 so that there was no confusion. That is, why didn’t Paul simply write, “Even so have these also now not believed, and through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.” To use and instead of that would make it clear that no real divine purpose was afoot. But the reason such conjunctions were not used appears to be an interesting one-i.e., such conjunctions could not convey the irony so very evident in the passage, i.e., that the Jewish people rejected God that the gospel might be given to the Gentiles that the Jews might become jealous and so return to God. Let me offer an illustration to help show this irony. Suppose my neighbor saw me trashpick from his curb a rather plain-looking, antique candy jar which he did not value, but which he saw me sell at my yard sale the next day for a thousand dollars. Would my neighbor not be jealous of the money I received from something he threw out? Almost certainly he would. And certainly there would be great irony in such a circumstance. Even so have the Jewish people rejected something of immeasurable value (and apart from any so-called divine hardening²⁸³) which is now presented to the Gentiles. In time, the Jewish people will become (properly) jealous of the relationship God has with the Gentiles, and so turn their hearts again to God. As irony, then, Paul could not have restricted himself to conjunctions such as and, yet, or but to convey the ironic sequence of events. Thus, in Romans 11:31 hina can act (if we must so take it) in a literal sense of with the result of, and at the same time act in an ironic sense as though it meant in order that.²⁸⁴

Having now explained the difficulty of interpretation regarding Romans 11:31 owing to the use of the word that (Gr. hina), there still remains the question of prophecy, i.e., what Thayer states above as “also the phrase [hina plerothe], wont to be used in the O.T. prophecies.” In other words, irony may work for Romans 11:31, but what (for example) of John 13:18, where Judas betrays Christ that the Scripture might be fulfilled, or John 18:32, where the Jewish leaders want Christ to die by way of crucifixion that the Scripture might be fulfilled?But perhaps my readers now see that hina in such instances can simply be taken as with the result that. By understanding hina in this way, we do not preach a God who is divided against Himself such that He would cause Judas to betray Christ in order that the Scripture be fulfilled. And yet one more surprise awaits us in the phrase, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. It is that irony is present here also! That God in the Old Testament foreknows what the future will be without Himself determining that future, is the irony of events where what God says does come to pass despite the confluence of activity which involves many unsaved people over the course of centuries-indeed, people who have no intention whatsoever of demonstrating publicly God’s non-determinative foreknowledge of events in which they have freely exercised their wills! Thus, when Psalm 22 speaks of a crucifixion, a mode of death the Romans, not God, invented (centuries after Psalm 22 was written), it was foreknown by God and therefore anticipated by Him in a foreshadowing of a crucified Christ by the symbol of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21:8). Certainly, the inventors of crucifixion and the Jewish leaders who sought to have Christ lifted up on the cross had no desire to fulfill the foreshadowed example of Numbers 21 or the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 22. Yet that is exactly what happened. And yet this is not to say that God Himself never acts to fulfill His own prophecy in a way that does no violence to the free will of His creatures. For He sent His Son Jesus, the Messiah, to die according to the time predicted in Daniel’s prophecy, that is, after the 62^nd week²⁸⁵ from the time of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. But again, God did not determine that the practice of crucifixion be extant in Palestine circa 30 A.D. so that the foreshadowing-type of Christ in Numbers 21 and the prophecy of Psalm 22 (and Isaiah 53) would be fulfilled. But he did foreknow it would be extant, and He recognized the irony in such fulfillments of Scripture, that is, inasmuch as unbelievers acted as though they were trying to fulfill them.²⁸⁶

Having critiqued Piper’s positions on the above points, we now come to the last of his arguments we will consider in this Supplement. It is that God “wills” that the ten nations in Revelation 17 give their united kingdom to the beast. Says Piper:

Waging war against the Lamb is sin and sin is contrary to the will of God. Nevertheless the angel says (literally), “God gave into their [the ten kings’] hearts to do his will, and to perform one will, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled” (v. 17). Therefore God willed (in one sense) to influence the hearts of the ten kings so that they would do what is against his will (in another sense).

Those readers who have persevered through the many arguments of my book will probably recognize that when Piper uses the terms, “in one sense” and “in another sense,” he is merely trying to give the appearance of a difference in sense regarding God’s will without demonstrating, in fact, that he regards these terms as anything except synonymous of a single divine will. That is, Piper has been trying all along to state that God has two wills (which from his descriptions can only be described as mutually exclusive of each other) while claiming that God is non-contradictory, i.e., as implied in the necessity of God having an undivided purpose (singular). Apologist Ravi Zacharias has characterized this kind of phenomenon after observing this kind of problem in another vein, i.e., such men use the law of non-contradiction to hammer the law of non-contradiction. Thus Piper claims to be giving the literal translation of Revelation 17:17 when, in fact, “to do his will” actually means “to do his judgment.” (Such an idea is nothing new to those who remember what God did with Pharaoh in the Exodus narrative.) Here in Revelation 17:17 the word will is Strong’s word #1106:

1) the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason

2) that which is thought or known, one’s mind

2a) view, judgment, opinion

2b) mind concerning what ought to be done

2b1) by one’s self: resolve purpose, intention

2b2) by others: judgment, advice

2b3) decree

Strong’s word #1106 (Gr. gnome) is rendered in translation as judgment more often than it is rendered as any other particular word, and is used only rarely in the New Testament. Taking together the above definitions gives us a sense of what the Greek word gnome means in Revelation 17:17 if the general message of the entire Bible is already properly understood regarding God’s character. It is simply saying that God has decided to allow sin to run its course. That is His judgment. That is His decree. Again, such a judgment is the same type of decision that God made regarding Pharaoh after the latter’s display of continued rebellion. The idea that Revelation 17:17 is somehow teaching that God’s purpose is fulfilled by the continuance of sin, and not man’s purpose, is the inevitable conclusion for the theologian who claims that God has two opposing wills that are not ultimately opposed to each other.²⁸⁷

In conclusion, it is a shame that in this troubled and unspiritual age in which we live-indeed, in which so many men are perishing because of their unbelief-that so much Christian effort must be directed against the false teachings of professing Christians themselves, when the Church is suppose to be battling the world. But, in fact, it is the world in the Christian, so to speak, that the Church is also fighting. Some might think our efforts in this regard are disproportional to the problem, but with such a notion we must strenuously disagree. The troubling status of the world and the weakened state in which the Church finds itself are sufficient to argue that not enough attention has been given to the problem of false teaching within the Church. Indeed, may we ever keep before us the Scripture which says that judgment must begin at the house of God. And may we also remember those in the early church whom Paul said desired to teach, but nevertheless disastrously affected their hearers because of their jangling (i.e., uttering of empty, senseless things). In such cases of false teaching-as Paul observed in his time, and now we in ours-the old proverb seems to hold true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” But none of this should shake the Christian’s faith, though a great many Evangelicals are heaping to themselves false teachers to tickle their ears. Such a phenomenon is simply a fulfillment of what Paul said would happen in the last days. And in light of what Paul knew of coming events, he admonished Timothy centuries ago to preserve true doctrine, and to live out the principles of faith. So, shouldn’t we today, while it is the day, heed the same admonition?

5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.²⁸⁸

 

---

²⁵⁹At about the time of the first trade edition of this book, ca. Autumn, 2006.

²⁶⁰This article is actually a chapter from Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. Thomas Schreiner/Bruce Ware, editors (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000

²⁶¹-that is, I respond because Piper is so very influential these days, and because certain of his points in “Two Wills” are very cleverly constructed.

²⁶²found at www.desiringgod.org

²⁶³i.e., as seen in John 13:13-19: ¹³ Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. ¹⁴ If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. ¹⁵ For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. ¹⁶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. ¹⁷ If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. ¹⁸ I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. ¹⁹ Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

²⁶⁴See Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown’s commentary regarding 1 Samuel 2:25 at [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/1samuel/jfb/1samuel2.htm].

²⁶⁵that is, the average Israelite of Ezekiel’s exile had not set nor exercised his will to a point of rebellion where repentance was all but impossible.

²⁶⁶-and not because there were more people sinning, as in fact there were only about 25 in the fourth group compared to 70 in the second.

²⁶⁷from a practical, not theoretical standpoint. We know from John 6:44 that a man will not come [i.e., powers not to come] unless God draws him. One might ask what the difference would be between the two phrases, ‘no man powers to come’ and ‘no man comes’ if the word ‘powers’ essentially means ‘chooses,’ such that there might seem to be no difference between the phrases ‘no man chooses to come’ and ‘no man comes.’ But what I’m contending here is that the Greek word dunamai shows us that “chooses to” (KJV ‘can,’ or more properly, “powers to”) points to the willful, and therefore causative, nature of man, in contexts involving intention.

²⁶⁸Even in the New Testament Paul urges that not many be teachers, as God shall hold them to a stricter accountability (presumably because of their greater influence).

²⁶⁹See p. 700, endnote lxxviii, for a reading of Deuteronomy 28:15-68.

²⁷⁰[http://scripturetext.com/romans/11-31.htm].

²⁷¹emphasis mine on “or the result.”

²⁷²See chapter 4 for a fuller explanation of Hegel’s irrationality and his advocacy for relativism.

²⁷³Compare this similarity of circumstance with our discussion of Pharaoh in chapter 14.

²⁷⁴And yet one can almost hear how Piper himself would presumably reply to our argument here-”But I said that the “from the heart” was different, not opposite from how God exerts compassion on his chosen!” Such obfuscation of definition, then, would be our contention with Piper. For while Piper would surely retain the appearance of the rational side of definitions so that different must mean opposite if there are truly to be two wills of God wherein God can be claimed as 1) holding out His hands in invitation to Israel; and 2) hardening their hearts so that they do not come, Piper must nevertheless and all the while maintain that “different” is not opposite in a mutually exclusive sense, that is, in order to uphold his statement that God’s character is non-contradictory, i.e., as when, in the context of attempting to explain his notion that God can take delight in the death of Eli’s sons while not taking delight in the death of the wicked [house of Israel of Ezekiel’s time] he says, “What [God] says is strikingly different (not contradictory, I will argue).” Again, Piper, in his explanation of God delighting while not delighting in the death of the wicked, does not make final appeal to the law of non-contradiction, i.e., the law of logic which is the basis of the apologetic I have offered in this Supplement. Rather, Piper appeals to the irrationality that says that “different” is not defined as “opposite” while yet it must be defined as “opposite.” For with Piper every term referring to the nature of God’s will must be maintained in irrationality-as itself and its other-if God is to invite and harden at the same time the same object.

Calvinists usually trick the reader into accepting this irrationality by using synonyms that are defined as opposites (as we saw earlier, when Calvinists state that man’s will is “free” but has no “liberty”) or by using, as Piper more cleverly does (wittingly or not), words that can act as synonyms, but do not always have to (that is, in truly logical contexts). Thus, Piper uses the terms “different” and “not contradictory” as we saw a moment ago. It would not clarify anything, then, if a Calvinist were to object to our argument here by saying that difference is possible without having to be opposite, i.e., as in one woman being dressed differently than another woman while not being her opposite, i.e., a man. For such an objection would miss the point entirely, since Piper’s definition requires irrationality such that the rational observation (God holding out His hands in earnest invitation) must also be at the same time synthesized with an irrational difference (God hardening their hearts so that they cannot respond to His invitation) upon the same object. Thus, again, according to Piper, God is of such character that He can only be understood, for example, as endorsing the two concepts of divine invitation and divine hardening upon the same object at the same time (i.e., a God not defined in mutually exclusive terms). It appears that any final appeal to logical argument has been lost on Piper for some time, now, though Piper will still use the law of non-contradiction selectively to hammer the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, he denies the consistent and unfailing usefulness of the law of non-contradiction in establishing the character of God and His will. Therefore Piper states early in his article, in response to the Arminian accusation that Calvinist assumptions involving irrationality are contradictory, “But in spite of these criticisms the distinction stands, not because of a logical or theological deduction, but because it is inescapable in the Scriptures.”

²⁷⁵Please do not misunderstand the matter: when I say that Piper and other followers of Calvin are blaspheming. I am not saying that Piper is necessarily a blasphemer. (I cannot know all his statements or any of his inward thoughts to see if he modifies his statements at all), but merely blaspheming, even as I myself was blaspheming for many years when I too professed to believe in the doctrine of divine absolute sovereignty. To call a man a blasphemer is to make an ultimate judgment upon the totality of his beliefs and confessions and to find him wanting, which is why we should be careful about making such judgments in difficult-to-discern cases. Only God can judge all the beliefs and confessions of a man, and know what a man truly believes. Thus, while we might say that a Christian acts foolishly by double-mindedly believing thus and so, we should be careful about calling any Christian (I mean here, a professing Christian) a fool. Yet I would be less than stating the facts if I assigned to such theology as Piper’s (as represented in his article “Are There Two Wills of God”) anything short of blasphemy. At any rate, to be consistent with his own theology, Piper would have to conversely assign blasphemy to my statements in this Supplement, since from his perspective is it I who hold notions about nothing which I claim represent the nature of God. On the other hand (need I say it?), since Piper claims that man is not self-determinative, I suppose he cannot ultimately (to use his word) assign any causation of statements to myself.

²⁷⁶(unwittingly, no doubt)

²⁷⁷[http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1161343368-6447.html].

²⁷⁸http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1161343368-6447.html].

²⁷⁹“Denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which denotes intention or purpose; thus the phrase “i’na plhrw’qh,” if rendered “so that [with the result that] it was fulfilled,” is ecbatic; but if rendered “in order that it might be,” etc., is telic.” See source: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ecbatic].

²⁸⁰or, the recipient Object of the Subject’s action may also be the Subject itself (i.e. reflexive).

²⁸¹ After all, we are not appealing to any principle of irrationality (though it, too, would be an equally consistent view) that would advocate the kind of purple-turtle-in-the-sky theology mentioned in chapter 2, i.e., if one were to argue, for example, that every appearance of hina follows, say, the scientific theory of tachyons as applied to the history of literature and interpreted through deconstruction theory, so that it would argue for backward causation. If that were the case, then when the Scripture says that the Jews rejected the gospel that it might be preached to the Gentiles, the real meaning of hina would be that the gospel was preached to Gentiles that it might be rejected by the Jews! Such a position would be consistent but also nonsense. Rather (and when taking hina in a literal sense and properly understood), while the phrase with the result of does not always mean in order that, the phrase in order that always includes the meaning of with the result that, therefore showing in this last instance the nature of difference in these phrases and therefore how easily one could claim that every appearances of hina should mean in order that. Thus the idea that hina may sometimes mean with the result of/(that) without also meaning in order that is a rational possibility, that is, if one grants our argument about lexical use. Conversely, the phrase in order that cannot ever mean not in order that, since deconstruction theory is irrational and antithetical to Scripture.

²⁸² that is, hardening as Piper would define it, and not as I define it in chapter 14 of my book.

²⁸³that is, ‘hardening’ as Piper would define it.

²⁸⁴ i.e., idiomatically.

²⁸⁵(biblically understood as 62 x 7 years, which is 434 years)

²⁸⁶It should also be pointed out that the phrase “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” is in the aorist passive subjunctive, stressing the contingent nature of the prophecy being fulfilled. If for no other reason, this would seem to be the case because God Himself, technically, may cause events or refrain from acts which would frustrate the fulfillment of prophecy. He does not do any such thing, of course, because God always chooses to maintain His eternal, historical ideals to which He acts accordingly. Nevertheless, Piper takes the subjunctive mood and subjects it, not to Possibility, but to God acting alone and irresistibly.

²⁸⁷Thus to offer another example of this kind of irrationality, Piper, would presumably have no hesitancy about stating that God had two wills for Pharaoh even as He had two wills for the Jews, inviting him to be obedient while hardening him, so that he cannot obey. Is that kind of irrationality (we ask) a problem for the post-modern, deconstructing-of-apologetics Calvinist? Piper’s statement speaks for itself. In a short bulleted article called “How to Teach and Preach “Calvinism,” ” he states: “Be rigorously textual in all your expositions and explanations and defenses of Calvinistic teachings. Make it a textual issue every time, not a logic issue or an experience issue.” The problem of course, is that Piper’s ‘textural issues’ are all cases of special pleading arguedapart from the evidence of lexical control groups. In short, textural issues involving ‘definitions’ of words that are without definition are meaningless. Yet so adamant is Piper about accepting this alternate form of textual ‘rightness’ that he wrote against J. I Packer’s advocacy of mysticism some thirty years ago, all but describing it in terms of theological cowardice.

In passing, one should observe a very disturbing implication of Piper’s methodological principle. It is his advocacy of two wills that (we note) allegedly occur in Scripture hundreds of years apart. Indeed, I believe Piper’s methodological principle makes it possible for his followers to argue for an open canon of Scripture, which could include the Koran, as well as the works-based soteriology of Catholicism, etc., ad nauseam, (even including various historical religious beliefs of certain pagan peoples). For since a span of 900 years separates Moses’ Deuteronomy from Ezekiel’s writings (and 400 years Samuel from Ezekiel), and since the principle of irrationality does not bother Piper, any statement in the New Testament book of Revelation that could be taken to mean that the canon of Scripture is closed, and that therefore one ought not to add to the words of this book (understood in its near context as referring to the book of Revelation and in its far context as the entire Bible), can also, if one follows the methodological principle of Piper, argue that, e.g., the Koran is part of the ongoing revelation of God. For why should any who follow Piper be bothered with the idea of an ongoing divine revelation that logically refutes itself hundreds of years later, since to Piper and his followers such refutation might only appear to be refutation because of the limits of fallen, human reasoning? Christ may thus be taken to be the exclusive Savior of the world and only begotten Son of God, yet also just a man who was not God at all (i.e., merely a human prophet of some importance). For why could we not say that the Koran is a different, yet not contradictory, divinely given text awaiting its own Calvinistic imprimatur, based not on logic but on ‘textual issues’? Indeed, no more essential span of time separates John and his book of Revelation from Mohammed and the Koran than does separate Moses from the writer of 1 Samuel and Ezekiel, and thus no charge of heresyabout the nature of Jesus can be sustained, as long as one consistently applies Piper’s principle of irrationality. In effect, we on the East Coast of the United States are told by Piper, “Go West, young man!” only to observe that Piper stops at Chicago (so to speak) while his followers are free to travel the full road of irrationality all the way into the Pacific Ocean, should they wish to do so. O Pshaw, that we thought Ecunemicalism a bad thing!

²⁸⁸1 Timothy 1:5-7

 

---

^lxxviii

Deuteronomy 28:15-68:

¹⁵But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: ¹⁶Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. ¹⁷Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. ¹⁸Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. ¹⁹Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. ²⁰The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. ²¹The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. ²²The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. ²³And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. ²⁴The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed. ²⁵The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. ²⁶And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. ²⁷The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. ²⁸The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: ²⁹And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee. ³⁰Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof. ³¹Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them. ³²Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long: and there shall be no might in thine hand. ³³The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway: ³⁴So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. ³⁵The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head. ³⁶The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone. ³⁷And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee . ³⁸Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.³⁹Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them. ⁴⁰Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit. ⁴¹Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity. ⁴²All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume. ⁴³The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. ⁴⁴He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

⁴⁵Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee: ⁴⁶And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever. ⁴⁷Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; ⁴⁸Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. ⁴⁹The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; ⁵⁰A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young: ⁵¹And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. ⁵²And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. ⁵³And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: ⁵⁴So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave: ⁵⁵So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates. ⁵⁶The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, ⁵⁷And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates. ⁵⁸If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; ⁵⁹Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. ⁶⁰Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee. ⁶¹Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed. ⁶²And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God. ⁶³And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. ⁶⁴And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. ⁶⁵And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: ⁶⁶And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: ⁶⁷In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. ⁶⁸And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.