Kingdom of Heaven

 

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.

The ability to acknowledge one’s entanglement in evil is part of the experience of kingdom.(For this reason Jesus’ ministry is among the outcast; or see the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican or the use of leaven in the parable of the Leaven, a sign of moral corruption) Like Paul’s argument in Romans that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), kingdom makes no distinctions, all are sinners—all are called, but only on the condition of the recognition that they are sinners. In synoptic language, the parable leads the reader to the point where the only option left is repentance. Matthew 18:23–34 (Bernard Brandon Scott, “The King’s Accounting: Matthew 18:23–34,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 442.)

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw God’s Spirit descending like a dove and alighting on him. Mt. 3:16

Matthew might have opened his gospel as he did in order to draw a parallel between one beginning and another beginning, between the creation of the cosmos and Adam and Eve on the one hand and the new creation brought by the Messiah on the other.

This proposal gains support from a third consideration, namely, that elsewhere the NT sees the coming of Jesus as the counterpart of the creation account narrated in Genesis. Paul, for instance, speaks more than once of a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), and he likens his Lord to a ‘last Adam’ (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:42–50). 

We are, accordingly, encouraged to conclude that the Spirit as dove originally meant—and meant also for Matthew—that the events of Gen 1 were being recapitulated or repeated in the Messiah’s life:

 the eschatological creation had commenced. 

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 150,334.  

This note of eschatological realization is sounded from the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry. It is on the surface of the Synoptic tradition. In opening the account of the Galilean ministry as a whole, Mark 1:14–15 is fairly seen as summarizing Jesus’s proclamation throughout that ministry:

This summary statement is laden with eschatology, both realized and imminent: the use here of “the time” (ὁ καιρὸς) signaling fulfillment, accented by the perfect passive indicative πεπλήρωται (“is fulfilled”), and also the note of the imminence of the kingdom in “at hand” (ἤγγικεν)

Richard B. Gaffin Jr., In the Fullness of Time: An Introduction to the Biblical Theology of Acts and Paul (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 69.

Jesus’ proclamation of the dawning “kingship of God” (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). The linguistic parallel itself, not to mention the fact that for Mark both Jesus’ kingship and the dawning divine kingship he preaches are hidden and paradoxical realities, points to the organic unity of these conceptions in Mark’s mind. Theological presuppositions aside, the natural explanation for this is that Jesus’ “coronation” vindicates his proclamation of God’s approaching kingship. 

That is, Jesus’ accession to kingship in his passion must represent for Mark the inauguration of that same kingship of God whose imminent arrival Jesus had earlier announced. If so, then the one whose enthronement is “hidden under contradiction” (Jesus) is in Mark’s eyes none other than the one whose coming kingship Jesus promised (God)! Mark must be intending his kingly imagery to depict Jesus not as the royal Messiah, but as the promised divine King.

It is only in the depths of his passion that Jesus’ full identity becomes manifest. It is in his death on the cross, where he may no longer withhold the truth about himself, that Jesus is finally perceived by human-kind, in the person of the centurion, to be the divine υἱὸς θεοῦ-Son of God (Mk.15:39).

Mark’s description of the position of the centurion vis-à-vis the dying Jesus, ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ-facing Him (Mk.15:39), may possess a subtly cultic force. It utilizes, at any rate, one of the idiomatic expressions for entering the temple, for standing “in the presence” or “before the face” of God. Here the expression which the OT used for visiting the temple is transferred to the heavenly sanctuary Heb. 9:24. cf. Heb. 10:19-20

In Mark’s mind, the torn veil describes the ultimate theophany. The God whose whose “face” or “presence,” was veiled within the sanctum sanctorum-Holy of Holies (Exod. 33:11, 14) himself rips away the veil and shows his “face,” manifests his “presence.” By inserting Mk. 15:38 so as to bring it into immediate juxtaposition with Mk. 15:37, Mark intends not only to report a real consequence of Jesus’ death, but also and especially to draw out metaphorically the self-revelatory force of Jesus’ death.

 Jesus manifests his true identity; and the effect, according to Mark, is equivalent to God himself showing his “face.” This, of course, explains why the centurion, in recognizing Jesus’ true identity, makes the climactic confession that Jesus is divine (υἱὸς θεοῦ-Son of God): he finds himself on holy ground, in the “true temple,” in the “real sanctum sanctorum.” Standing in the presence of the dying Jesus, he feels himself to be standing in the divine “presence.” Looking into the face of the crucified Jesus at the instant of his death, he sees (as it were) the very “face” of God.

Even before but especially after the passion, the “true temple” is wherever Jesus “goes before” (προάγω, Mk.14:28; 16:7) his disciples—much as the “face” or “presence,” “went before” the people in the wilderness, and as Yahweh was to “go before” them again, according to (Deutero-) Isaiah (Isa. 40:3; 42:16, 24; 43:16, 19; 45:13; 48:15, 17; 49:9, 11; 51:10; 53:6; 55:3, 7, 8, 9.). right worship—formerly characterized by racial exclusiveness and false priorities—is redefined for all human-kind as taking up the cross and following Jesus. (Mark.1:2, 3; 2:23; 6:8; 8:3, 27; 9:33, 34; 10:17, 32, 46, 52; 11:8 12:14.) 

The presence of Gentile centurion in the “real sanctum sanctorum” may capture Mark’s disdain for a clericalism caught up in false priorities (cf. Mk. 2:15–17, 23–28; 3:1–19; 7:1–13) as much as it does his ethnic inclusivism (Harry L. Chronis, “The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37–39,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):101- 111.)

The initial summary of Jesus’ preaching in Mark is ‘The kingdom of God has come near’ (Mk 1:15). Luke replaces this initial summary with his grand scene of the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (Lk. 4:16–30), and the summary statement of Jesus’ message is no longer about the imminence of the kingdom, but the claim that Scripture has now been fulfilled in the ‘today’ of Jesus’ presence (Lk. 4:21).

the Spirit for Luke (as indeed for many parts of Judaism) was thought of as the gift of the End-time. The sudden outburst of activity of the Spirit, as portrayed in Luke’s account of the birth narratives, is therefore extremely significant. Not only is the Holy Spirit the power which engenders the birth of Jesus himself (Lk. 1:35), the Spirit also inspires a series of individuals in various ways. 

Thus it is predicted that John the Baptist will be ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ (Lk.1:15), Elizabeth is filled with the Spirit to sing her praise of Mary (Lk.1:41); perhaps there is too a hint of the activity of the Spirit in Mary’s own song of praise, the Magnificat (Lk.1:47: ‘My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour’). Zachariah is filled with the Spirit as he utters the Benedictus (Lk.1:67), just as the Spirit ‘rested on’ Simeon as he comes to the temple (Lk.2:25) to utter the Nunc Dimittis (Lk.2:29–32). This outburst of prophetic activity by the Spirit thus clearly marks the era of Jesus as one of eschatological fulfilment of Jewish hopes.

The same may also be indicated by one of the words in Luke’s prologue. In Lk. 1:1 Luke refers to the events he is going to cover in his work as ‘the events that have been fulfilled among us’ (Christopher M. Tuckett, Luke (London;  New York: T&T Clark, 2000), 38,46 )

It was Jesus’ mission to bring the world to its consummation in two steps: humility and glory. In his humility, Jesus appeared with the claim that with his coming, the consummation of the world has broken in. The Spirit had once more become active among men, the new creation had begun (Luke 4:1 ff.; Matt. 11:4–5), the new wine—a symbol of the era of salvation—was offered.

George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism, Revised Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 26.

the Kingdom of Heaven is near. The concept of the Kingdom of God is crucial to understanding the Bible. It refers neither to a place nor to a time, but to a condition in which the rulership of God is acknowledged by humankind, a condition in which God’s promises of a restored universe free from sin and death are, or begin to be, fulfilled (David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Mt 3:2.)

Rather, “heaven” is a word that allows us to speak about God’s nearness and availability without pinning Him down to a specific geographical address. Because God’s life is not bodily, He is not limited by the categories of time and space that mark our human existence. God is not part of “the metaphysical furniture of the universe.” (Wesley Hill, The Lord’s Prayer: A Guide to Praying to Our Father, Christian Essentials (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 15.)

On the other hand, the “kingdom of God” or “of heaven” is a broader concept than that of the church. In fact, it is presented to us as leaven that must permeate everything, as a mustard seed that must grow into a tree that with its branches covers all of life. Plainly, such a thing may not be said of the concept “church.” 

There are other spheres of life beside that of the church, but from none of those may the kingdom of God be excluded. It has its claim in science, in art, on every terrain. But the church may not lay claim to all that. The external side of the kingdom (the visible church) must not undertake these things; the internal essence of the kingdom, the new existence, must of itself permeate and purify. It is precisely the Roman Catholic error that the church takes everything into itself and must govern everything. 

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 9.

When Jesus wants to point His hearers to the telltale signs of God’s kingship bursting onto the scene, He says things like this: “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Luke 11:20). Where you see people being delivered from oppression, in other words, there you see God’s reign in action. Jesus made His followers into emissaries of God’s saving rule; “he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal” (Luke 9:2). Where you see healing and the restoration of what sin and death have disfigured, there you see God’s kingship displayed.

That is what Jesus teaches His followers to cry out for: “Your kingdom come” means “Father, make Your healing reign more and more tangible and visible in our world. Let Your rule assert itself ever more concretely in the places where sickness and evil still seem to have the upper hand.” (Wesley Hill, The Lord’s Prayer: A Guide to Praying to Our Father, Christian Essentials (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 34–35.)

This is all the more urgent, for you know how late it is; time is running out. Wake up, for our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is almost gone; the day of salvation will soon be here. So remove your dark deeds like dirty clothes, and put on the shining armor of right living.  Because we belong to the day, we must live decent lives for all to see. Don’t participate in the darkness of wild parties and drunkenness, or in sexual promiscuity and immoral living, or in quarreling and jealousy. Instead, clothe yourself with the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. And don’t let yourself think about ways to indulge your evil desires. (Rom.13:11–14 NLT)

The thought is a fundamental one in Paul’s moral teaching. The ‘time’ (kairos) is the eschatological era or ‘Last Days’, introduced by Christ’s death and resurrection and co-extensive with the age of the Church on earth, the age of salvation, 2 Co 6:2a. It is opposed to the era that preceded it by a difference not so much of time as of nature. The Christian, henceforward a ‘child of the day’, emancipated from the wicked world, Ga 1:4, and from the empire of darkness, belongs to the kingdom of God and of his Son, Col 1:13, is already a citizen of heaven, Philippians 3:20. This entirely new status dominates the whole moral outlook, see 6:3 seq Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible (New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday, 1990), 1887.

After the same sort the scripture speaketh in many places, when it sometimes saith that Christ is to come, sometimes that he is come, although he always hath been, and is in all the elect; howbeit because he hath not before his resurrection come to all by public preaching, the scripture speaketh diversely of his coming; for because of his public preaching he came in the flesh, being made man, for his incarnation had not been profitable to any, if the gospel had not thereupon been preached, by which he came into the whole world, and whereby it is commonly known why he was made man, whereby that blessing promised to Abraham is now published, and made common to all which by the gospel believe in Christ. 

Hereupon Paul saith very well, Rom. 1:2. that the gospel was promised of God &c. as though he would say, although God hath promised every where in the writings of the prophets his Son in the flesh, yet forasmuch as all that should be done, that the gospel might be preached abroad in the world, whereby he cometh spiritually to the minds of the believers, (which coming only bringeth salvation, and is far to be preferred before that coming in the flesh, inasmuch as it was done because of this) 

I say rather that God promised by the prophets in scripture the gospel concerning his Son; for God considered the gospel and our faith in all these things; for which he would also have him to be made man, that the gospel might be preached of him, that being made man, he hath saved us by his death, and that the salvation which he hath wrought, might go into the whole world and be made near unto all. 

Some have taught for comings of Christ, according to the four Sundays in Advent, as they call it, but this coming of Christ by the gospel, which is most necessary of all, and of which all do depend, of which Paul here speaketh; this coming I say they could not see, inasmuch as they are ignorant both what the gospel is, and to what end it was given. They babble many things of the coming of Christ, and nevertheless they drive him further from themselves, than heaven is distant from the earth; 

for what can Christ profit any man which doth not possess him by faith? Or how can any man possess him by faith, where the gospel is not preached?

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.” His meaning in effect, is, that salvation is at hand; for by the day Paul understandeth the gospel, namely, that it is that day whereby our hearts and minds are enlightened; therefore such a day being sprung, our salvation is certainly at hand, that is, Christ and his grace promised in time past to Abraham, hath shined forth by preaching in the whole world, giveth light unto all men, raiseth all out of sleep, sheweth true and eternal good things, wherein we may be hereafter occupied, and may walk honestly in this day.

Martin Luther and Philip Melancthon, “Concerning Good Works, the Fruits of Faith,” in Thirty-Four Sermons on the Most Interesting Doctrines of the Gospel (London: Gale and Fenner, 1816), 182–183

the primary meaning of the Aramaic term used by Jesus is not properly “kingdom” but “sovereign authority.” Whenever the biblical texts speak of God becoming king the Targumim speak of God’s exercise of sovereign authority, and render the Hebrew verb by an Aramaic noun. E.g.:

Ex. 15:18 “The Lord shall reign forever and ever.” 

“The sovereignty of the Lord endures forever and ever.” Targ. Onkelos

Isa. 40:10 “Behold, the Lord will come as a mighty man, and his arm (I.e. the Messiah) will rule for him.”

Targum “The sovereignty of your God will be revealed.”

Particularly this second example illustrates the interpretation of the Targum: for the Lord to come as a mighty man and for his arm to rule for him signifies the revelation of God’s sovereignty through a saving action. This indicates well the dynamic character in the concept of the kingdom: God is he who comes and exercises his sovereign authority in the redemption of men. 

William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974).Page 64 note 92

 Nor, on the other hand, is the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus simply another way of saying that God is sovereign, equated with God’s eternal or universal kingship over the creation. Certainly God has always been King—past, present, and future. That is clear, for instance, from a passage like Psalm 145:13: “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, / and your dominion endures throughout all generations.”

With that noted and kept in view, however, it is not in this sense of a timeless kingship—embracing past, present, and future—that Jesus proclaims the kingdom of God. Rather, particularly against the background of Old Testament promise and expectation, for Jesus the kingdom is an eschatological reality. It is a matter of consummation, of the fulfillment at last of the promises made to the fathers. The kingdom that Jesus proclaimed is the actual arrival of the new and final order at the end of history, that order of God’s eschatological rule that has begun with Christ’s coming and was not before.

Richard B. Gaffin Jr., In the Fullness of Time: An Introduction to the Biblical Theology of Acts and Paul (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 68–69

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt:  “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. Lk 18:9–10 

The religiously upright assumed that not only would the Gentiles be cast out, but their apparently less devoted fellow Jews would be excluded as well. The upright were the true children of Abraham and so anticipated God’s blessings. But in Luke this thinking is challenged. 

Recall the earlier poignant statement of the Baptist: “Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Lk.3:8–9). As it now stands, Luke 4:16–30 provides a prophetic challenge to first-century Jewish assumptions regarding election, and central to this passage are the references to Elijah and Elisha. 

Just as Elijah went to the widow in Sidon and raised her son from the dead (1 Kgs 17:17–24), so Jesus goes to the widow in Nain, on the outskirts of Galilee, and raises her son from the dead. The reference to the Elijah story in Lk.4:25–26 finds its fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus in Lk.7:11–17, as Jesus reenacts the action of Elijah. 

 The most obvious parallels would include (1) “Nain,” which is probably meant to be an allusion (rightly or wrongly) to the ancient city of Shunem (2 Kgs 4:8); (2) the widow (1 Kgs 17:9, 17); (3) an only son that dies (1 Kgs 17:17; cf. 2 Kgs 4:32); (4) the expression “he gave him to his mother” (1 Kgs 17:23); and (5) the exclamation of the crowd recognizing that a prophet is present (cf. Luke 7:16, which probably parallels the widow’s similar exclamation in 1 Kgs 17:24).

the possible parallel between Elisha’s mercy upon the Syrian captain (2 Kgs 5:1–14) and Jesus’ mercy upon the Roman centurion should also be considered. 

Furthermore, Brodie sees Elijah tradition underlying the healing of the centurion’s slave (Luke 7:1–10//2 Kgs 5:8–16), which, if correct, would provide yet another example of a disenfranchised person (in this case the centurion) receiving God’s blessing                                         

Just as Naaman the Syrian commander was cleansed of his leprosy at a distance by Elisha (2 Kgs 5:1–14), so in Capernaum the Gentile centurion’s servant is healed at a distance by Jesus. The reference to the Elijah story in Lk.4:27 finds its fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus in Lk.7:1–10, where the parallel emphasis is on healing being granted to a Gentile from a distance and on the acceptability of the Gentile’s faith. (Jeffrey S. Siker, “‘First to the Gentiles’: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16–30,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 88.)

In Jewish minds, if any group was not elect but was deserving of God’s judgment, it was the Samaritan people. But, utterly contrary to such expectation, Jesus rebukes his disciples and refuses to permit such a judgment. Such an attitude of clemency and mercy, coming where it does (i.e., in the central section itself, in which the theme of election is prominent—see Lk.10:30–37, where the true neighbor proves to be a Samaritan, and Lk.17:11–19, where only a Samaritan returns to give thanks), may very well be viewed as yet one more prophetic challenge to assumptions regarding election theology.

What is common to the four pericopes just examined is the question of requirements for membership in the kingdom of God. In these pericopes the emphasis appears to be the concern to show that those who are assumed to be the nonelect (such as Gentiles, Samaritans, the poor) may in fact be included in the kingdom and may even serve as examples for others to follow, whereas those who may assume their fitness for the kingdom (such as pious and wealthy Jews who say, “I will follow you”) may in fact be excluded.

But does this Elijah/Elisha tradition, as it is utilized by the evangelist, contribute anything meaningful to the theme of election? In all likelihood it does make such a contribution; one must remember that the prosperous and apparent righteous were regarded as blessed of God, whereas the poor, the unfortunate, and the apparent unrighteous were regarded as under God’s judgment (cf. John 9:2).  (Craig A. Evans, “Luke’s Use of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives and the Ethic of Election,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 79,82.)

Our thinking and willing and doing, even in their sinful course, take place under the rule of God, and nothing happens outside the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water; He turns it to whatever He wills (Prov. 21:1). The ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his goings (Prov. 5:21; 16:9; 19:21; and 21:2). 

And, in a quite different and much more intimate way, God by His Spirit dwells in the hearts of His children. By that Spirit He brings them to the confession of Christ as their Lord (1 John 4:3), makes them know the things that are given them of God (1 Cor. 2:12; 1 John 2:20; 3:24; and 4:6–13), grants them the gifts of wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor. 12:8), and works in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).11 Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 85.

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 2 Pet. 1:3

The church must not conclude that godliness comes from their own inherent abilities since the gifts given to believers are rooted in the knowledge of Christ. Everything needed for eternal life is mediated through the knowledge of the Christ, who calls believers to himself. 

The word for knowledge is again epignōsis (cf. 2 Pet.1:2), referring to the encounter with Jesus Christ that began in conversion and continues thereafter. The focus is on conversion since Peter referred to God’s calling (kalesantos). English readers are apt to understand calling in terms of an invitation that can be accepted or rejected.

 Peter had something deeper in mind. God’s call is effective, awakening and creating faith. Paul referred to calling in this way regularly (e.g., Rom 4:17; 8:30; 9:12, 24–26; 1 Cor 1:9; 7:15; Gal 1:6, 15; 5:8, 13; 1 Thess 2:12; 4:7; 5:24; 2 Thess 2:14; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 1:9). More significantly, the word “called” also has this meaning in (1 Peter 1:15; 2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:10). 

First Peter 2:9 indicates that conversion is in view, for God called believers out of darkness into his marvelous light. The terminology reminds us that God is the one who called light out of darkness (Gen 1:3). Some scholars maintain that the calling of the apostles is in view, but it is not likely that Peter restricted such to the apostles.

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 292.

The intention and purpose of God receive primacy rather than the choice of human beings.  This is confirmed elsewhere in Paul, for the election, predestination, and calling of believers is according to God’s “purpose” (πρόθεσις, prothesis; Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). Moreover, as most scholars affirm, “calling” (κλητός, klētos), must be understood as effectual. 

It is not merely an invitation that human beings can reject, but it is a summons that overcomes human resistance and effectually persuades them to say yes to God.  This definition of “calling” is evident from Rom. 8:30, for there Paul says that “those whom he called (ἐκάλεσεν, ekalesen) he also justified.” The text does not say that “some” of those called were justified. 

This understanding is also vindicated by Rom.4:17, where God’s call effectually brings into existence things that did not exist (cf. also Rom. 9:24–26; 1 Cor. 1:9, 24, 26–28; Gal. 1:6, 15; 1 Thess. 2:12; 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9). The foundational reason why all things work for believers’ good begins to emerge: God’s unstoppable purpose in calling believers to salvation cannot be frustrated, and thus he employs all things to bring about the plan he had from the beginning in the lives of believers.

Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, vol. 6, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 451.

The doctrine of God’s election does not eliminate human responsibility. The fact that no one can come to Jesus unless they are drawn by the Father (Jn 6:44) never stops Jesus from calling people to come to him (Jn 7:37). The seed is sown everywhere, even though it can only bear fruit when it falls on good soil (Mk 4:1–20). Paul knows that “those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:14 NRSV), yet he makes an open statement of the truth, commending himself to everyone (2 Cor. 4:2). He has “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means [he] might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).

Sigurd Grindheim, Introducing Biblical Theology (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2013), 192.

One aspect of our turning back to God (Isa. 55:6–7) is acknowledging that his glorious being transcends our thinking: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa.55:8–9).

In the Enlightenment, the notion of externally received revelation as the final judge of truth was replaced by internal human reason. In other words, enlightened human beings would no longer be bound by the dictates of any external authority, be it the church or the Bible, that claimed to speak for God. 

They would follow their own experience and reason wherever it would lead as the means of obtaining knowledge rather than blindly accept what they regarded to be the superstitions proclaimed and taught by traditional Christian faith. Instead of believing in order to understand, the Enlightenment maintained that humans should believe only that which they could understand. 

Similarly, with respect to morality, it was believed that human reason was able to discover the natural moral law that was internal to all persons and to bring about conformity to this universal natural law for the good of all

John R. Franke, Barth for Armchair Theologians, Armchair Theologians Series (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 6.

The distinction between God’s decretive will and preceptive will guards two great doctrines: God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. We see both in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Peter preached in Jerusalem that Christ, “being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). 

On the one hand, the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus was clearly against God’s preceptive will, for it was the murder of God’s righteous servant. On the other hand, the death of Christ fulfilled God’s decretive will, for all these things took place according to God’s plan.

This distinction also has enormous practical value for the Christian life. We must learn to distinguish between what God will do with our lives and what our duty is toward God. When we pray for God to teach us his will, we must seek to know our responsibility and be content to leave his plans for our future hidden in the secrecy of his wise decree. 

God’s Word bridges the gap, for he adapts it to our capacities so that it nourishes us as rain and snow nourish the plants of the ground (Isa.55:10–11). The call to repentance is a call to faith in God’s Word: “Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live” (Isa.55:3). 

Only when he hears God does the wicked man forsake both “his way” (self-determination) and “his thoughts” (rational autonomy), and “return unto the LORD” as the transcendent source of direction and wisdom (Isa.55:7). 

How precious it is to know God’s covenant, for all the forces of creation cannot move him from his determination to glorify his righteousness by keeping his word!

Though we often do not understand God’s specific purposes in his works of providence, we may be assured that he is always working to fulfill his covenants in judgment and salvation, for he is righteous

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 269–270.767.817.