Does God Have Two Wills In Relation To Human Salvation?

Introduction

This article deals with the question of whether there is one will of God in relation to, among other things, human salvation, or two wills, that God wishes in some sense all people to be saved (without limiting the denotation of the word ‘all’), while he only brings this about in the elect. My objective is to show that there is indeed two wills in God, that God genuinely desires all people to be saved, so that he makes a sincere offer of the gospel, but that God only brings this about in the elect.

Some believe that the idea of two wills in God is incoherent or illogical. They think it is incoherent that God could on the one hand go before to enable some to believe, but on the other hand that God might genuinely want all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

In the context of Protestant theology, some Christians of an Arminian persuasion believe that God only has one will, that of wanting all people to be saved, but that God is either unable or unwilling to bring this about because of the free will decisions of those humans who refuse his offer. For these Christians, God cannot bring about the situation that he desires because it is contrary to his character or contrary to reality, in that he has given humans free will, and any enabling would thereby interfere with human free will. For such persons, the 'not-negotiable' in their anthropology and soteriology is human free will, which is defined as the power of humans to choose the contrary. The human will is sovereign.

This essay is mainly written to address the concerns of these Christians who assert that humans have a will that is free from God’s efficacious influence. It arises from a controversy whereby some Christians deny that God goes before and grants the gifts of faith and repentance. In this conception, faith and repentance are not gifts of God, but within the power of humans unchanged by God’s effectual calling. My convictions concerning the fact that faith is a gift from God, and my reasons for them, can be seen here in this article on Ephesians 2:8-10.

But in the context of Protestantism, there are also some Calvinists who likewise hold that there is only ‘one will’ in God in relation to salvation. We might call this type of Calvinism ‘High Calvinism’ (I do not use the pejorative ‘hyperCalvinism’). These Christians also argue that there is only one will in God for the salvation of mankind. However, advocates of this position strenuously disagree with the Arminian as to the nature of that will. This position says that God’s only will is the salvation of the elect, and any other will in God is inconsistent with his omnipotence and omniscience. It is of course held by intelligent people and has its own exegesis of key texts.

For example, this is the position of Robert L Reymond. Reymond follows John Gill, and offers the following criticism of well known Calvinist John Murray and John Gerstner:

But all such reasoning imputes irrationality to God, and the passages upon which Murray relies for his conclusion can all be legitimately interpreted in such a way that the Christian is not forced to impute such irrationality to God: R L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 692-3.

The position for which this article argues is held by the Calvinists R L Dabney, John Murray, and John Piper. For example, John Murray concludes:

We have found that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfilment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious: The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh/Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2001), 29.

This position asserts that God makes a genuine offer of salvation indiscriminately, and that God truly and genuinely desires the repentance of the non-elect (Ezek 18:23, 32, 33:11; 1 Tim 2:3-6; 2 Pet 3:9), even though God himself doesn’t bring about this state of affairs by his prevenient grace, in spite of the fact that God could bring that about and grant faith and repentance to all people fully and indiscriminately.

Jesus himself says a similar thing about Judas.

The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born (καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος: Matt 26:24; cf. Mark 14:21)

Jesus and Peter say that Jesus’ betrayal was predicted in the Old Testament. The betrayal of Jesus is so serious that Jesus says it would have been good for his betrayer if he had not been born. Therefore, if this proposition is to be taken literally and not merely idiomatically, nonexistence would be better than the eternal fate of Judas. The literal meaning of this statement, that it would be better for Judas if Judas had not been born than to have betrayed Jesus, is that because of the guilt and eternal consequences incurred by Judas because he betrayed Jesus, not having had existence and being born would have been better for Judas than the unforgiven guilt and eternal punishment which Judas will experience. But the betrayer Judas had in fact been born. God in his omnipotent creative power had created Judas. Before Judas was born, God knew exactly what Judas would do. God foresaw it before the foundation of the world. He predicted it in time through the mouth of David long before Judas was born. It was again predicted by Jesus during Judas life. And it came to pass.

Could God have prevented Judas from doing this act of betrayal? Yes. God could have not allowed Judas to be born. In fact, on one understanding, that would have been the more loving thing to do for Judas: "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Yet, the birth of Judas was part of God’s secret will, that is, his will of decree. I infer that fact from the reality that it actually came about in time. Moreover, the birth of Judas was God’s will, even though God had foreseen exactly what he would do. Further, the ultimate destiny of Judas was foreseen by God. Peter says that he went to his own place (Acts 1:25). Jesus says his situation worse than non-birth. I take it that this is a reference to hell as traditionally understood as everlasting punishment.

Even without me using the idea of divine predestination regarding Judas, simply on the basis of God’s omnipotence and God’s omniscience, we must confess that there are two wills of God with respect to Judas.

God willed that Judas be born. This I infer from his birth. All births ultimately occur because God willed them. Judas was born even though God knew exactly what Judas would do. God also knew what would be the result of those acts for Judas. The results of those acts for Judas were to his eternal detriment and loss. God could have not brought Judas into being. But he did, with full knowledge of what Judas’ end would be.

The betrayal of the Son of Man by Judas was also a moral evil that Jesus warned Judas about. So Jesus pleaded with him. But God also knew his eternal destiny, and though he had the power to not grant Judas existence, he did grant Judas existence.

So God willed Judas’ birth knowing that his end would be a situation worse than not being born. We know God willed this because Judas actually was born, and God is the one who brought about his birth, and that God knew all the decisions that the existent Judas would make. God also willed Judas in his moral will not to sin by betraying the Son of Man. That is why Judas was warned by Jesus: because it was against the moral will of God for the innocent Messiah to be betrayed by Judas. Two wills in God toward Judas is logically inescapable when we look at what actually transpired.

In such a situation, to preserve a single divine will, we cannot merely reject predestination. We must either say that God did not foresee the evil that Judas would do, or we must say that God could not stop Judas betraying Jesus. We could limit God's knowledge and say the he is not omniscient, and that he did not foresee Judas' betrayal of Jesus. This way we might be able to preserve the idea that God’s love is without distinction to all his creatures, but it comes at the cost of God’s omniscience. God does not foresee all things. Alternatively, we might say that God could not stop Judas betraying Jesus. God has the will to save, but is unable to carry it out. But this comes at the cost of God’s omnipotence. God clearly is no longer all powerful.

Moreover, as a matter of fact, we see God stopping many people exercising their free will. Take the case of miscarried babies, or infants who die in their infancy. God stops them exercising their free will by their death. For God is the one who brings about human death as the wages of sin. But even if someone might disagree with this, that God brings about human death, we must admit that God could have decided that some who do exist should not exist in the first place. Otherwise, the existence of any person is by a necessity that is outside the will of God.

We are given no reason to think that the number of people God will create is infinite. They are only innumerable by humans. Nor is anyone conceived or born of necessity apart from the will of God. All persons are conceived or born as a result of God’s will. God wills each conception or birth which comes to be. This is an entailment of God’s omnipotence and God’s creation. So we are required to admit that there are two wills in God with regard to Judas. And all this is without recourse to the doctrine of predestination.

Rather than exalt God’s love, the position that says that God loves all people without distinction, makes God’s love look incoherent. Say that God loves all without distinction. Yet because of what Judas decided to do, it is better that he was never born. God knew all this in advance. So why did God let Judas be born? God willed the birth of one whose eternal destiny was worse than non-birth. If we define God’s love as wanting the best for the object of his love, then God had it in his capacity to give Judas what was best (non-birth) but didn’t give it to him.

Perhaps someone might say that I am not appreciating the benefit and the gift of free will to humans. But I cannot see how having such a 'free will' but ending up in hell would be better than not having a free will and ending up in heaven. Moreover, I cannot see how God 'loves all without any distinction' and Judas, or indeed anyone, would end up in an eternal hell. Would it not have been better for Judas not to have been born than end up in hell? Wouldn’t that have been less painful and therefore ultimately more loving to him, giving him the thing that was better? Next best, wouldn’t it be better that he was annihilated , rather than that he would endure endless punishment? Annihilationism argues that it is inconsistent with God’s love to allow any of his creatures to endure everlasting punishment. How can endless punishment be considered ‘love without distinction’ when there is a heaven as well? So the logic of the position that God 'loves all people without distinction' push a person towards Judas’ or the reprobates' non-existence or nihilism. But Scripture doesn’t talk about annihilation but endless punishment. But most logically, ‘love without distinction’ will push a person towards universalism, that the actual end result of God’s dealings with humans is that everyone receives the same response of salvation. Universalism appears to be as old as Origen and was the effect of his doctrine of apokatastasis. Some Neo-Orthodox thinkers see divine punishment as a purifying form of God’s love which ultimately leads to restoration. There will be no hell, or an empty hell, and none of God's creation will perish or fail to achieve its ultimate positive objective. By positing this, Origen was able to demonstrate that God has shown absolutely no favouritism, and that God loves all without distinction. Everyone eventually gets a room in heaven. However, Scripture gives us no reason to have this expectation.

My position requires that I acknowledge an aspect of mystery: God sincerely desires all people to be saved, while effecting it only in the elect. But I am not the only one which has mysteries. The one who advocates that ‘God loves all without distinction’ is left with his own set of mysteries. Here are some of them. Why does God consider that it is more loving for Judas to live and have free will but end up in hell rather than not creating that person in the first place? Why is having free will and ending up in hell ultimately better than not having free will and ending up in heaven? How can God foresee exactly what Judas will do and the effect that it will have on Judas into eternity, but not act to prevent it, and still ‘love him without distinction’? How can God be loving, omnipotent and omniscient, and yet Judas ends up in hell.

My solution to the case of Judas is this. There are many ways God showed his love for Judas, e.g. God’s common grace, the warnings that Jesus gave him, him hearing Jesus’ teaching and seeing his miracles. However, to say that God loves Judas in the same way that God loves Peter, given their eternal destinies, stretches the word ‘love’ to the point of meaninglessness, given God’s omniscience and omnipotence. Rather, my solution is that God is just in his punishment of Judas. The punishment that Judas receives is strict retribution. This is according to his (de)merit. While this is not inconsistent with love, justice is not the same as love, understood as ‘doing that which is best for the other’. Justice is giving the person that which he deserves. God might well have good reasons for treating Judas with the justice he deserves while he exercises mercy to another sinner (e.g. Rom 9:22-24).

We now need to look at the interactions between Satan and Judas as they are presented in Scripture, and see how they inform the interplay between Judas' moral responsibility and God's sovereignty and control.

And Satan entered into Judas (Εἰσῆλθεν δὲ σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν) who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. (Luke 22:3 NASB)

During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him (τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα παραδοῖ αὐτὸν Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου: John 13:2 NASB)

The book of Job (chs 1-2) makes it clear that Satan is elsewhere under the sovereign government and command of God. God permits Satan to do only what God allows him to do. On the expectation that God’s interactions with Satan are consistent with the descriptions in the book of Job, God could clearly have prevented Satan from entering Judas or otherwise not putting it into Judas' heart to betray Jesus. God could have done so in the same way that God commanded Satan to not touch Job, or to touch Job's body but not kill him. Or is God only allowed to prevent Satan from touching the body of a person or killing that person, but not from putting an idea in the heart of a person? No, surely God is morally vindicated if he doesn't prevent any or all of these things.

Contrast the situation of Judas with Jesus’ prayer for Peter:

³¹Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat (ὁ σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον); ³²but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail (ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου); and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31-32 NASB)

Satan here seeks permission to sift, that is, to tempt or test, Peter. From whom does Satan seek permission? Certainly it is God. But Jesus' intercessory prayer is the reason why Peter's faith will not fail after the Satanic test, and that Peter will turn back to strengthen his brothers.

Could not Jesus have prayed for Judas in like manner? Yes, he could have. Would God have answered Jesus' prayer and thus protected Judas, if not from the sifting of Satan, but from the failure of Judas' faith? Almost certainly God would have answered Jesus' prayer in the same way that he had protected Peter. If Jesus prayed in the same manner for Judas, would Judas’ faith have failed? Presumably not. If Satan, who can only, it seems, act with God’s permission, had his permission to enter Judas refused, would Judas have betrayed Jesus? Presumably not. If Jesus had asked only ‘take this cup from me’ but not added ‘but not my will but yours’ would Judas have betrayed him to death? Presumably not. But it appears that none of these things happened.

So therefore, it was both Jesus’ and God’s will that Satan enter Judas. We know this because God knows all things and can do all things. God did not prevent Satan from doing these acts, even though he prevented Satan from doing certain acts to Job, including killing Job (which brings an end to the human will, at least as far as acts in this world are concerned) and imposing sores upon Job. It was Jesus’ will that Peter’s faith not fail. Jesus expressed his will in a prayer. Because God granted his prayer by enabling Peter's faith to not fail and for him to turn back, it was also God the Father’s will that Peter’s faith not fail. (of course, the will of the Father and the Son are in perfect conformity). Was it likewise the will of God that Judas’ faith not fail? Yes and No. Yes, because God genuninely desires all people to trust in him, including Judas. No, because Jesus did not ask for, and God did not grant, Judas’ faith to not fail.

²⁶Jesus then answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him." So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. ²⁷After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly." (John 13:26-27 NASB)

Jesus wanted Satan to do this act of betrayal quickly. The desire to do something quickly is usually because it is a painful thing. That is why people rip off a band aid quickly, so as to minimise the pain. So does Jesus want Judas to do this act? Yes and No. Yes, because this act of betrayal has been predicted in Scripture, and because it is the will of God the Father that Jesus suffer for our sins on the cross. No, because for the one who does this, it would be better if he had not been born, and Jesus warned him with those same words.

While I was with them, I was keeping them in your name which you have given me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled (καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. (John 17:12 NASB)

None of the eleven will perish, but Jesus calls Judas the son of perdition, or more literally, ‘the son of the perishing’. In the active volce, the verb ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) means 'to destroy'. In the middle, as it is here, it means 'to perish'. The noun ἀπωλείας (apōleias), from apollumi, the earlier cognate verb, here denotes a 'perishing, ruin, destruction'. It is used of the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, the perdition of those excluded from the kingdom of God.

What is the reason that the eleven did not perish? The only answer the verse gives is that the eleven were given to the Son by the Father, and that during his earthly ministry, Jesus kept and guarded the eleven. So presumably Judas was not kept or guarded, for if he was kept or guarded, he would not have perished.

However, unlike the eleven, the son of perishing will perish. What is the reason that he will perish, or that he has perished? The reason the verse gives is that ‘so that the scripture be fulfilled’. Could Jesus have kept and guarded Judas? Presumably he could have. But even if someone might not accept this, the verse is clear as to why Judas is ‘the son of the perishing’: so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Whose will is the Scripture? God’s. So it was God’s will that Judas was ‘the son of perishing’. So God predicted long before Judas’ birth that Judas would perish. He revealed this in scripture. Jesus also knew from Scripture that Judas would perish. He says that Judas is the son of the perishing so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Knowing all this, could God have done any other thing? I believe he could change Judas' heart. But I will allow for the moment that God cannot change the heart, and that the human heart is off limits to and beyond an internal work of God by his Spirit. Could a God who possessed perfect prescience or foreknowledge and whose will creates each new human in his image have done something else? Yes, he could. He could have not made the prediction in Scripture. He could have decided that Judas should not exist. He could have ensured that Judas’ mother miscarried. He could have sent a lightning bolt which killed Judas in his infancy.

This would of necessity destroy God’s gift of free will (if such a thing exists, which I doubt) in Judas in his acts and intentions in the world, which some take to be the highest gift God gives man (I cannot agree with this, because a much greater gift is an effectual salvation rather than a potential salvation). But isn’t this exactly what God does in every miscarried child? Every fertilized embryo who dies in the womb does not get to exercise his or her free will. Presumably every stillborn child does not get to exercise free will in this world. Every person who has significant mental impairment has at least a terribly limited will.

Moreover, we might say, it would have been better for Judas to have been a stillborn child or to have died in infancy. From the moment of conception a human life is formed. A unique human life is created with an everlasting human soul. As Athanasius said, whatever is assumed by Christ in his incarnation is redeemed (On the Incarnation). Many evangelicals and reformed believe that it is at least possible that all the aborted foetuses and miscarried children and children who will die in infancy will be saved. God has said that the children of believers are to be considered holy, at least for a time (1 Cor 7). If they reject the gospel they are not just unbelievers but worse, are covenant breakers (Acts 2). I think we would agree that it is God’s choice whether someone is born into a Christian family or not. If it is not his choice, then who has decided? Moreover, it is certainly fitting that the Jesus who welcomed the little children, and said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, and who said that the first will be last and that the last will be first, will exalt the aborted foetuses and miscarried children and children who die in infancy, and give them into eternity the life that was denied them in this world. Universal infant salvation cannot be proven from Scripture. But something will happen to these divine image bearers. And this is a better guess than any other. And the salvation of believers' children who die in infancy is based on sound exegetical reasoning (1 Cor 7).

On this reasoning, it would have been better for Judas to have been a stillborn child or an aborted foetus, than to have his eternal destiny predicted in Scripture as perishing. At least then there would have been the possibility of his not perishing.

Someone might eventually decide to argue that Judas ultimately was saved. Someone might say that Judas repented. After all, Judas threw the money into the temple, declared that he had betrayed innocent blood, showed at least regret for what he had done, and then went and hung himself. Jesus called him friend as Judas kissed him with that betraying kiss. And I don’t believe that suicide is the unforgivable sin. But such a thesis has some substantial exegetical work to do to show that Judas was indeed saved, or that Judas' salvation is possible on the state of the Scriptural evidence. I don’t think it can be proved that Judas was saved and it seems to me that the evidence we have in Scripture points the other way.

But even if Judas was eventually eternally saved, (which I think highly unlikely), one still has the problem that God with complete foreknowledge had predicted Judas' sin of betraying the Son of Man. And God allowed or caused Judas to be born. So God is allowing sin, or at least the possibility of sin, by giving Judas free agency. If someone allows something that he has the power to stop, he is in one sense willing it. But sin is not nor cannot be God’s moral will. So God has two wills. The first is that sin is a possibility – more than that, that sin actually does occur in God’s world – and God could have prevented it. And the second that all sin is against God’s moral will.

The logic of the position of the one who denies that God indeed has two wills will also drive him to deism in his doctrine of providence and of God sustaining and governing his world. God clearly sustains and upholds and governs his world (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3; Neh 9:6). Traditionally theism views God as upholding the world moment by moment. Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of our Father (Matt 10:29). Traditional doctrines of providence hold that the world is not self-sufficient, but depends on God moment by moment. It is not as if God is a watchmaker who makes the watch, but then the watch runs on its own, and only when something breaks down does the watchmaker intervene. God is intimately concerned in the universe’s moment by moment continuation. If this is the case, then God is sustaining the world, and its people, even as they sin against him. God sustains their existence, so he wills their continued existence. But it is against God’s moral will to sin. So God wills the continued existence of creatures who he knows and foresees sin against him. God does this moment by moment. Yet God also reveals his moral will against their sin. Again, two divine wills. One can escape this by being a deist. But then we have a ‘God of the gaps’.

Furthermore, to maintain the proposition that ‘God loves all people without distinction’, we will have to limit either God’s omnipotence or God’s omniscience.

First, we would have to limit God's omnipotence. Someone would need to say that God is either not able or not willing to do anything about Judas’ free will decisions. I believe that God could have done something, and that human will is not free of God’s will. But allow for the moment that God cannot or does not ‘intervene’ in human free will because he is not able or not willing to change the human heart. I have already shown that he could still have done something to prevent the state of affairs which does not involve God changing the heart, and which would have been much more loving for Judas. He could have prevented these sins from the beginning by not permitting Judas to live beyond infancy. That would have been better by far for Judas, if our only paradigm for understanding God’s actions towards each individual human is ‘love without distinction’. And indeed, God does this in innumerable cases, to every child who does not survive infancy.

Second, we would have to limit God's omniscience. One could conceivably show that God is pure benevolence and loves all people without distinction if God does not know the outcome of future events. Clark Pinnock argues this.

In saying this I stand against classical theism which has tried to argue that God can control and foresee all things in a world where humans are free. […] There is no room for the kind of freedom the Bible speaks of if there is a God who knows and/or controls all things in a timeless present […] I agree with the traditional Calvinists that a strong omniscience entails strong predestination and also with Luther who argued precisely this against Erasmus. […] [I]t would appear to me that actions which are infallibly foreknown or timelessly known cannot be free in the required biblical sense […] I do not receive the impression from the Bible that the future is all sewn up and foreknown: Clark Pinnock, ‘God Limits His Knowledge’ in D & R Basinger (eds), Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (Downers Grove: IVP, 1986), 151, 156-7.

Pinnock believes that God limits his knowledge of the future. God doesn’t know, or chooses not to know, the future exhaustively. So God doesn’t know who is going to be saved. God sincerely issues his universal offer of salvation, not knowing, or choosing not to know, who responds. Pinnock preserves God’s love without distinction, but at the cost of God’s foresight. I believe Pinnock's resolution is unbiblical in its denial of God’s absolute knowledge of all events and things in his world. Consider the following:

⁴He counts the number of the stars; he gives names to all of them. ⁵Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; his understanding is infinite. (Ps 147:4-5 NASB)

²⁸Do you not know? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. ²⁹He gives strength to the weary, And to him who lacks might he increases power. (Isa 40:28-29 NASB)

⁹Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, ¹⁰declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure"; ¹¹Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. (Isa 46:9-11 NASB)

And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Heb 4:13)

Prescience (divine knowledge of the future) is not excluded from God’s omniscience (divine knowledge of all things) in these verses. In fact, the everlasting God knows the end from the beginning, he knows the future from the ancient times. Oswalt comments on Isaiah 46:10-11:

God tells in general what will happen in the future. He can do so because the future is fully shaped by his own plans and purposes: J N Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66: NICOT, 2:236-7.

Motyer comments:

He dictates the purpose within history […] He dictates what will happen: J A Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 370.

Whybray says of the phrase in verse 10, "declaring the end from the beginning", that it is "announcing the future before it began to take shape": R N Whybray, Isaiah 40-66: NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 117. This is foreknowledge of the future, and probably predetermination of the future as well.

(2) The Case of Jesus’ Death

The death of Jesus Christ is said in Scripture to be both the will of God and the act of sinful men. Human evil is used by God to bring about his purpose. Therefore, there are two divine wills. God wills that Jesus be handed over to sinful men who will sinfully kill him (as God fully knows, foresees, predestines, decrees, and in one sense enables by upholding the existence of those people moment by moment). And God wills in his moral and revealed will that these same men not sin.

²²Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs (ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσιν καὶ τέρασιν καὶ σημείοις) which God performed through Him in your midst (οἷς ἐποίησεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν), just as you yourselves know-- ²³this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God (τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ ἔκδοτον διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε), you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death (διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε). ²⁴But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power (ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἀνέστησεν λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου, καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ). (Acts 2:22-24 NASB)

Did God will that Jesus die? Yes. God had planned, determined, and willed that Jesus Christ should be handed over. But the handing over of Jesus Christ was sinful. We read that it was Jerusalem’s inhabitants who "delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate" and "disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted […], but put to death the Prince of life" (Acts 3:13-15). Did God allow, decree, predetermine, and predestine this sinful handing over by men? Yes. The verb ὁρίζω (horizó) in verse 23 means 'to mark out, determine', and the passive is a divine passive. Was it a sinful handing over? Yes. So did God allow or permit or even predestine sin to happen against the sinless Son of God? Yes. Did God determine this sin? Yes and no. Yes, Jesus Christ was handed over according to the previously determined will of God. God could have prevented this. God could have destroyed the sinful agents at birth. God could have decided that Jesus would die by natural means, not at the hand of sinners. But it was God’s determined will that Jesus Christ would be handed over the way he was handed over. In other words, God predestined that Jesus Christ should die at the hand of sinners. So of course God foreknew that Jesus would be handed over this way, because to predetermine includes to foreknow: foreordination includes prescience. Because he is omnipotent, God could have decided another way for the Son of God to die, and brought this about, but he did not.

Yet God is not the author of sin. This is demonstrated in the different way that God’s role is described. Jesus was delivered over (ἔκδοτον) by the determined will and foreknowledge of God (τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ). The dative clause clearly expresses God as the ultimate cause as it is God whose determined will and foreknowledge is the effective and ultimate cause that hands over Jesus Christ to sinful men. However, there is a human secondary cause in the handing over (ἔκδοτον). Thus we can distinguish this from the way in which Luke describes God’s role in the resurrection and the good works of Jesus Christ. God directly did these things. God is subject of both verbs (ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἀνέστησεν; οἷς ἐποίησεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς ) . The verbs are respectively made (ἐποίησεν) and raised (ἀνέστησεν). God stands directly behind these events. God stands indirectly, but no less in reality, behind the sinful handing over of Jesus Christ, because it was foreknown by God and occurred according to God’s determined will. Again, we have two divine wills: the will that Jesus Christ really be handed over; and the will that Jesus be treated according to his sinlessness. That is, the sinful acts of humans really are against God’s moral will. But they are clearly not against God’s decreed will, because these events come to pass and actually happened according to God’s determined will and foreknowledge.

¹⁷And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance (κατὰ ἄγνοιαν ἐπράξατε), just as your rulers did also. ¹⁸But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled (ὁ δὲ θεός, ἃ προκατήγγειλεν διὰ στόματος πάντων τῶν προφητῶν παθεῖν τὸν χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐπλήρωσεν οὕτως). (Acts 3:17-18 NASB)

Why did the Jerusalemites hand Jesus over to be killed? They handed Jesus over because they were ignorant that Jesus was the Christ. We would agree that ignorance that Jesus is the Christ is a bad thing. But God knew about this ignorance beforehand. Could God have done something about this ignorance? I believe he could have. After all, he revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ (Matt 16:17). Jesus specifically says that Peter is blessed and that God the Father has revealed this information to him. Presumably, God has the power to reveal this to others also, but he did not. But even if someone says that God doesn’t have the power to reveal this to people who have hardened their own heart (a proposition with which I disagree), you must say that the ignorance of Christ’s persecutors is completely foreknown and used by God to bring about Christ’s sufferings. One evidence of God’s foreknowledge is it being predicted in Scripture. Another is that in the passage it is God who is said to fulfill the prophecy that Christ suffer. Could God have done something else, apart from allow people ignorantly to kill Christ. Yes, he could have done something else. He could have destroyed those people who acted ignorantly, and made Christ suffer by natural evil, not human evil. God could have done this, since he is omnipotent. Even if he was not omnipotent (which he is according to Scripture), but has power over the lives and death of men, he could have done this. He could have arranged that Christ die by natural evil, such as a tsunami or an industrial accident. But God did not. So God fulfilled his purpose, that Christ would die through the ignorance of the people of Jerusalem. We must say that the omnipotent God allowed their ignorance. If he allowed it, when he could have done otherwise, he must have in some sense willed it. So God in some sense willed the ignorance of those who sinfully made Christ suffer.

The Illustration of the Artist and the Children

Take the illustration of a masterful artist, who has painted a beautiful painting, but who also allows children into his studio to throw paint at the canvass. The naughty children in the studio wreck the painting that the master painter was originally making, but because of his skill as an artist, the master painter makes a better painting, integrating the children's vandalism, but turning it into something beautiful.

Could the painter have done otherwise? Yes he could. He could have kept mischievious children out of his studio. He could have taken the paint off them before they threw it at his masterpiece. Someone may say, the painter in his love for the children wanted them to be part of the handiwork. Granted, but he also foreknew that this would occur when he let the naughty children in his studio and allowed it to occur when he could have done otherwise. In thus foreseeing what the children would do, yet allowing them to do it, the great artist in some sense willed what they did. I would say he allowed, permitted, decreed, and predestined it.

Did he will the children’s actions in the same way that he willed his own masterful brush strokes. No: the actions of the naughty children he permits, but still wants to occur, because he has full power to do otherwise, but does not stand behind them in the same way as he does his own paint strokes. Thus, the painter is the author of his own strokes, but in a very real sense not the author of the children’s strokes.

However, when the painting is hung in the National Art Gallery, down the bottom is the title and artist, “The Created Order This Side of Glory. By God”. He is the artist who has brought about the whole painting. He has not in some sense authored the sinful naughty vandalism of the children. Yet in another sense he has permitted their random paint splotches so that in some sense God has willed them. Yes, I say that God has willed them, because he could have done the contrary.

So when the painting is looked as a whole, it is correct to say, "This is God’s painting", and not the painting of the naughty children. The naughty children were vandals who sought to destroy the painter’s work. But the painter, by taking the consequences of their naughtiness into his artwork, transforms their evil into good. So God is the author of the whole painting, although he stands behind the evil in a different way to the way which he stands behind the good. He still allows and permits the evil, so in some sense has predestined it, because it comes to pass. As I have indicated before, he stands behind everything that has happened in his studio. Yet he is not the author of the sin. That lies in the children.

Of course, the illustration of the artist and the naughty children takes us only so far. How does the illustration work when it is the painter who gives the children life and breath and sustains them in the midst of their sinful and rebellious acts of vandalism? God sustains the world by his powerful word. That means the painter also sustains the entire created order by his powerful word, including the naughty children, and even in the midst of their naughtiness. No painter in real life has this sort of power over those who would potentially deface his work. But to disagree with this view of providence, however, takes a person into the realm of deism, which is a serious mistake. So the illustration probably leads to deism, if pushed to its logical extent. But that is because every illustration which has the human as creator will tend to deism, because humans do not have the power to sustain the existence of their manufactured products moment by moment. Human creation is only a molding of God’s creation for a period of time.

²⁴And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is you who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, ²⁵who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David your servant, said, 'Why did the gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? ²⁶ The kings of the earth took their stand, the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ'. ²⁷For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur (ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου καὶ ἡ βουλή [σου] προώρισεν γενέσθαι). (Acts 4:24-28 NASB)

All manner of people gathered against Jesus in Jerusalem to kill him. Yet Jesus was the holy one of God, anointed as Messiah. Did God want them to gather against Jesus? No and Yes. No, because they were gathered against God’s Christ, and so were gathered against God himself (v. 26). That the gentiles rage and devise futile things against God and his Messiah is against God’s moral will. It was sin, and God does not desire sin. Yet, the passage says ‘Yes’, that the people in gathering in Jerusalem to conspire against Jesus, the people did what God had predestined and purposed to occur. It was God’s will that the people gather against his Christ. These raging Jews and gentiles gathered together only "to do as much as your hand and your will predestined to happen" (ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου καὶ ἡ βουλή [σου] προώρισεν γενέσθαι). The infinitival clause is a purpose or result construction. They gathered together to do what God’s hand or will predestined. So God has two wills: he doesn’t will sinful opposition to himself and his Christ, but he does will the suffering of the Christ, and he does will their opposition to the Christ so that he can bring about salvation through Christ’s suffering. That is what the text says.

The Analogy of the Apple

A Christian friend who is an Arminian theologically put it to me that predestination does not mean that those things God purposes to occur necessarily come to pass. An apple which is predestined by the farmer to be eaten at the table, might end up in the trash can. Therefore, something that God predestines to occur may not come to pass. God wishes and hopes that something happens, and plans that it comes about, but God is either unable or unwilling to bring it about, because of human free will.

But such a meaning of predestination cannot fit here. The things God predestined and purposed to occur in fact do occur. I would say that they cannot but occur. This is because God is omnipotent. "The hand of God" is a phrase indicating God’s power. God by his power will bring about the thing that God has purposed will occur.

The word translated 'predestination', προορίζω (proorizō) is used in 5 other places in the New Testament (Rom 8:29, 30, 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5; 11). In none of those places do we get the idea that the thing that God predestined to occur will eventually not occur. In Romans 8:29-30, those who are predestined are glorified. There is no failure in God meeting his purpose. That is the whole point of the golden chain. In 1 Corinthians 2:7, the subject of the verb is God and the object is ‘God’s wisdom in a mystery’. The time of the predestining is ‘before the ages’, and the purpose of the predestination is ‘our glory’. Again, there is no indication or suggestion that God fails to accomplish his purpose. The predestining purpose is limited to those who love God (1 Cor 2:9). It is for them that God has prepared astounding things. Likewise, in Ephesians 1:5, 11, there is nothing in the text to indicate that God’s predestining will is thwarted by anything. We are specifically told in Ephesians 1:10-12:

In Him ¹¹also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will (ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ), ¹²to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. (NASB)

What does God work out according to the counsel of his will? Everything. Nothing that occurs fails to conform to the divine will. Now, someone might well respond, "But many things fail to conform to God’s will. What about sin!" And I say, "Agreed, but you are now talking about God’s moral will. Ephesians 1:11 is talking about God’s secret will of decree, or his permissive will, in other words, that divine purpose and intention which by his power God brings about and causes it to be. God works in or energises all things (τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος) according to, in conformity with, and consistent with [his] purpose (κατὰ πρόθεσιν, which context suggests is God’s purpose) and the counsel of his will (κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ). It is only consideration of matters beyond the passage, that is, a particular understanding of human free will as the non-negotiable principle in anthropology, that leads someone to say that God’s predestining purpose doesn’t finally come about.

So, in every instance of the use of προορίζω in the New Testament, it is always used with God as the subject. God is the only one said to ‘predestine’. That should in itself warn us that human analogies such as the apple illustration, will be necessarily limited. For no human is ever said to predestine, at least using προορίζω. It is a thing said only of God.

(3) The Case of 1 Peter

(a) The Will of God

Peter uses the phrase, ‘the will of God’, four times in 1 Peter, and his use bears out that God has both a moral will revealed in Scripture that is obeyed or disobeyed by human agents, but also that God has a secret will, decreed and brought to pass in the events that transpire in his world. The first passage is 1 Peter 3:17-18:

¹⁷For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that is the will of God (literally, "if the will of God might will": εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ), than to [ever] do bad. ¹⁸For even Christ suffered for sins, once and for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that he might bring you to God (ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ). (my translation)

Peter says it is better for the elect exiles of the diaspora to suffer for doing good than doing evil. He provides a qualification in a simple conditional clause, "if the will of God wills". What does Peter mean by this condition? The conditionality suggests that it is unknown to humans whether they will in fact suffer like this. This suggests that this divine will is ‘secret’. That is, God has not revealed whether they Christians to whom Peter writes will suffer. There is the possibility that they will not suffer, but there is also the possibility that they will suffer. What reveals whether they will suffer or not? Only their actual suffering reveals whether it was the will of God for them to suffer. I am suffering, therefore it is God’s will that I suffer. The unstated premise is that God is sovereign and in control, all powerful and all knowing. But what if my suffering is unjust, that is, I am a righteous person, but I am suffering unfairly, in that humans are making me suffer for no good reason? Peter would respond, "Don’t worry, you have not stepped outside of God’s will. You are within God’s will for your life.

So Peter believes that all events that happen in the world are under God’s sovereign control. God stands behind every event that happens in our world, either bringing it about (the good) or allowing it (the evil) for God’s good purposes. So suppose that difficulties or sufferings come the way of the letter's recipients, and they suffer unjustly, even at the hand of sinful men. Then, God was sovereignly in charge of these events. So if that is the case, they suffer according to the will of God. In other words, this is God’s secret will, or will of decree, that even the unjust and therefore sinful things that happen in God’s world to God's elect happen according to God’s will, that is, his secret will, which is only revealed by the facts as they transpire.

Jesus Christ is the chief example of this for Peter. He suffered as a just or righteous person. God foreknew this (1 Pet 1:20). Yet Christ suffered nevertheless, achieving good for us. So Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of a just sufferer. He endured the unjust suffering for good reason. That good reason was to ‘suffer for the unjust’ – that is, us, Peter’s readers, to bring us to God.

Was it God’s will that the just and righteous Christ suffer unjustly? Yes and no. Yes, it is according to God’s will to save humans through Jesus’ unjust suffering, because it brought about a good thing. Yes, because God foresaw Jesus death for doing good and could have stopped it. Moreover, according to Peter, God predicted it in scripture. Scripture is God’s will (1 Peter 1:10-11). So Jesus’ suffering as an innocent was according to God’s will of decree, his permissive will, his sovereign purpose which he brought about.

But no, the sins committed against Jesus were not according to God’s moral will, for God's moral will is not that just and righteous people are found guilty and condemned by human courts. So God has two wills. Is it God’s will that the elect exiles suffer from the sinful acts of those who persecute them for doing good? Yes, because God wants them to do good, and has permitted them to suffer? No, because all unjust suffering from sinful men is not according to God’s moral will, as revealed in Scripture, that innocent men should not be pursued as if they were guilty.

The second passage is 1 Peter 2:13-16:

^2:13Submit yourselves for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a King as the supreme authority, ¹⁴or to governors as those sent by him for the punishment of evil doers but the praise of those who do good. ¹⁵For this is the will of God (ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ), that by doing good you silence the ignorance of foolish people. ¹⁶[Live] as free [people], and do not hold [onto your] freedom as a cover for evil, but [live] as slaves of God.

Here, Peter uses the phrase ‘the will of God’ (τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ) in a way that suggests what theologians variously call God’s ‘revealed will’, ‘will of command’, or ‘moral will’. That is, God commands the Christians to do good. The result that God wants to bring about is the silence of sinners. Does this mean that every Christian by their good behaviour is successful every time in silencing the ignorant talk of foolish men? Experience tells us that this doesn’t always happen. Scripture and the example of Christ agree. Foolish people still rail. Christians are unable to silence them all the time. Indeed, Peter agrees, because there are times when Christians suffer for doing good (1 Pet 3:14-17, 4:14-19). Sometimes Christians sin and give unbelievers good cause to rail against God, Christ, and the church. So God wills Christians to silence non-Christians by their good works. Yet sometimes nothing will satisfy the unbeliever. Neither Jesus Christ himself, nor the apostles, could satisfy all unbelievers all the time. So it is also God’s will that righteous men suffer (1 Peter 3:17-18). We know this because Peter says it is. We also know this because it actually happens in our world. This is different from bringing praise from the ruler, which we know is God’s revealed or moral will for Christians. So God has two wills, that righteous men suffer, and that righteous men silence the talk of foolish men.

The third passage is 1 Peter 4:1-3, especially verse 2:

^4:1Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, ²so that he no longer lives the rest of his time in the flesh for human desires (εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις) but for God’s will (ἀλλὰ θελήματι Θεοῦ). ³For the time that has passed away is sufficient to have done the will of the gentiles (τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν), having travelled in flagrant indecency, lusts, drunkenness, late night drinking parties, [more] drinking parties, and disgusting idol worship. (my translation)

This passage also speaks of God’s 'revealed will', 'moral will', or the 'will of command' when Peter mentions in verse 2 that the one who has suffered in the flesh and has faith in Christ now lives for God's will God’s will (θελήματι Θεοῦ […] βιῶσαι). God wills Peter’s readers to live a moral life. This is the exact opposite of the lusts of men (ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις: v. 2) and the will of the gentiles (τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν: v. 3), those things being the immoral practices listed in verse 3. Instead, God wants Peter's readers, if they suffer in the flesh (according to God’s 'secret will', because God is in control of all things) to conduct themselves in holiness (according to God’s moral will, with is different to the will of the gentiles and the lusts of humans). Interestingly, in verse 1, the HCSB took the referent of the participle, of 'the one suffering' to Christ: "because the One who suffered in the flesh has finished with sin".

The fourth reference is in 1 Peter 4:19, which says in context:

¹⁴If (εἰ) you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the glory and Spirit of God rests upon you. ¹⁵For none of you should suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer, or as an interferer into other peoples’ affairs. ¹⁶But if (εἰ) you should suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God in this name. ¹⁷For it is time for judgment to begin with the house of God. But if (εἰ) judgment first begins with us, what will be the end of those who disobey the gospel of God? ¹⁸And if (καὶ εἰ) it is only with difficulty that the righteous person is saved, what will become of the ungodly person and sinner? ¹⁹So then also (ὥστε καὶ) those who suffer according to the will of God (οἱ πάσχοντες κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ) should also entrust their lives to their faithful creator by doing good. (my translation)

There is the chance that Peter’s readers will suffer for being Christian. Notice the conditionality of verses 14 and 16, "if (εἰ) you are reproached for the name of Christ […] if you should suffer as a Christian " Peter doesn’t know whether any of his readers will in fact suffer, although there is a very good chance of it, from a human point of view, and given everything he knows about the sinful world and what it thinks of Christ. So the identity of those who might suffer is secret to him, and indeed, whether they actually will suffer is also unknown. Indeed, Peter doesn’t know whether all will suffer, or only some will suffer, if any will suffer at all, though it is very likely some will. So he has a word for those whom he calls "the ones suffering" (οἱ πάσχοντες) in verse 19. The participle is modified by a prepositional phrase, κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, "according to the will of God". Now, God has nowhere revealed his will that these particular people will suffer, except by the fact of their actualised suffering, when it comes to pass. The unstated premise here is that God is in control of the suffering they endure, and that God stands behind everything that happens in his world as its ultimate cause in terms of his permissive or secret will. The "will of God" that they suffer is only revealed in the fact of their suffering. So it is the will of God that they suffer if in fact they suffer. But the sufferers, knowing that it is ultimately God whose will it is that they suffer, can undergo and endure the suffering in the knowledge that God is a faithful creator.This is because is a good God, despite the bad things that are happening. He is not a good impotent God, who doesn’t will the suffering, but is sadly powerless to stop it. He is a good potent God, who has willed the suffering, and has ultimately brought it about. That is, God has willed it in the sense that his secret providential and omnipotent will has brought it about for good reasons. Those good reasons that God has for sending the suffering are many, according to Peter: suffering shows that God’s blessing and God’s glory rests upon the sufferers, that they bear the name of Jesus, and that they undergo something like what Jesus went through and thus are shaped into his image. So here is God’s secret will that he brings about: the suffering of perhaps some of his people, but he will bring good out of it.

So to sum up the evidence from Peter's first letter, the phrase, ‘the will of God’ (τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, θέλημα Θεοῦ) is used four times in 1 Peter. Twice the phrase is used to refer to God’s revealed, moral will, or will of command, founded on his holiness and justice (1 Pet 2:15, 4:2). Twice it is used to refer to God’s secret, permissive, sovereign will, his will of decree, founded on his omnipotence, that those things God wants to come to pass happen, even when they are against his moral will and involve injustice, such as the righteous suffering for doing good (1 Pet 3:17; 4:19).

(b) Election and Appointment to Salvation

The noun ἐκλεκτός (eklektos), meaning 'elect, picked out, chosen', occurs in 1 Peter 1:1, 2:4, 6, 9, and the cognate adjective συνεκλεκτός (suneklektos) 'co-elect, chosen together with', occurs in 1 Peter 5:13. Whatever ‘elect’ means almost certainly also applies to ‘co-elect’ in 5:13. First is the references to the 'elect' recipients of Peter's letter.

¹Peter, Apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect temporary residents (ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις) of the diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ²according to the foreknowledge of God [the] Father by [the] sanctification of the Spirit for obedience and sprinkling by the blood of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 1:1-2, my translation)

In the first instance, it is unclear whether in verses 1-2, ‘the elect temporary residents of the diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God [the] Father’ (ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις Διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας, καὶ Βιθυνίας, κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός) refers to the election of the new chosen people or nation (cf. 1 Pet 2:9), or each individual in it. The election of the nation Israel was not necessarily with a view to the salvation of every outward Israelite. Only context can determine this, including the meaning of 'foreknowledge', for which see below.

There are three uses of the adjective in 1 Peter 2:4, 6, 9:

⁴As you come to him, a living stone, rejected by men but elect [and] precious with God (ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον), ⁵you yourselves as living stones are also being built [into] a spiritual house as a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ⁶For it is contained in Scripture, ‘Behold I set in Zion an elect [and] precious corner stone (Ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον), and the one who trusts upon him will never be put to shame’. ⁷Therefore, to you, those who believe, [it is] worthy, but to those who do not believe, [the] stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner, ⁸and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. They stumble by disobeying the word, for which they were also appointed. ⁹But you [are] an elect people, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people [who are God’s] possession, so that you might widely announce the excellencies of him who calls you out of darkness into his wonderful light (ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς). ¹⁰[You] once [were] not a people, but now [you are the] people of God. Once [you] had not received mercy, but now [you] have received mercy. (1 Peter 2, 4-10, my translation)

Jesus Christ is the elect one in 2:4 and 2:6. He is elected and chosen by God the Father as the corner stone, though he is rejected by men. This election is individual, but it is for the body, the corporate. This might be an argument that the election of ‘the chosen temporary residents’ is individual before it is corporate, because Christ is elect as an individual. Or others might say that the church is elect, but only ‘in Christ, the elect one’. Nevertheless, I think he description ‘elect’ is probably an individual category and expresses an inference that Peter makes from the fruit of faith and good works that he sees, in a way analogous to Paul, when he says of the Thessalonians,

⁴ knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; ⁵ for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.’ (1 Thess 1:4-5 NASB).

At first glance, 1 Peter 2:8 reads as a strong statement of reprobation. Given the language of ‘elect’ used in 2:4, 6, 9, this is understandable. Peter says:

They stumble by disobeying the word, for which they were also appointed (οἳ προσκόπτουσιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες, εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν)

The verb προσκόπτω means 'to stumble, reject'. The word translated 'appointed' in almost all EVV is the common word, τίθημι, 'to place, put, set'.

Some argue that it is not the disobedience that is predestined, but that punishment is predestined for those who 'disobey’. In other words, God predestines the judgment (stumbling) but not the means (disobeying the word). But the relationship between the stumbling and disobeying the word is expressed by a participle, the force of which depends very much on context. I have taken the participle ‘disobeying’ (ἀπειθοῦντες) as epexegetical, explaining the nature of the stumbling, thus, ‘they stumble by disobeying the word’, that is, the stumbling (metaphoric) is actually disobeying the word (literal), rather than causal ‘they stumble (judgment) because they disobey the word (reason for judgment)’. But either way, the syntax suggests that it is the disobedience of the word that is appointed, given the proximity of the participial clause to the relative clause that follows it. The aorist passive of τίθημι I take to be a divine passive. It is God who appoints or sets the disobedience. So I conclude that this is indeed a strong statement of reprobation. However, it is not unique in the NT (cf. Rom 9:13, 18, 21-24; Mark 4:11-12; 2 Thess 2:10-12). That this is a statement about reprobation thus suggests that the statements about election are also to referring to the divine appointment of individuals to eternal salvation.

There are three of Peter’s statements that suggest the perseverance of the saints in 1 Peter. The first in 1 Peter 1:3-5, particularly verse 5:

³Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who according to his great mercy has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from [the] dead, ⁴into an imperishable, unspoiled, unfading inheritance, being kept in heaven for you (plural) ⁵who are guarded by [the] power of God through faith for the salvation ready to be revealed in the final time. (my translation)

Being guarded by the power of God suggests that God is powerful enough to keep his precious people in faith for their final time salvation, and that they won’t fall from the faith or fail to achieve the promised inheritance. There is a second statement relevant to perseverance, in 1 Peter 1:23:

[since you have] been born again, not from perishable spore but from imperishable, through the living and remaining word of God. (my translation)

It is an entailment of being born again of imperishable seed that those born again imperishably actually do not perish! This suggests perseverance of the saints. The third statement is in Peter’s committal of his charges in 1 Peter 5:10-11:

¹⁰Now the God of all grace (Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς πάσης χάριτος), the one calling you into his eternal glory (ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν) in Christ, after a little suffering, will himself fully restore, establish, strengthen [and] prepare a foundation for [you] (αὐτὸς καταρτίσει, στηρίξει, σθενώσει, θεμελιώσει); ¹¹To him [be] the dominion forever. Amen. (my translation)

With these words Peter commits the recipients of his first letter to God. Because Peter is confident that God will finish the good work he has started in them, he says that God himself will bring all this. This implies the perseverance of the saints, that those who are born again will receive the inheritance. It is God who does this, ensuring that his people receive the inheritance.

(c) The Foreknowledge of God

Peter also uses the language of ‘foreknowledge’ (προγινώσκω, proginōskō, πρόγνωσις, prognōsis) twice in his first epistle, in 1 Peter 1:1, of the elect temporary residents ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’, and in verse 20, of Christ, ‘foreknown before the foundation of the world’. I will deal with verse 20 first, because it is more straightforward.

¹⁷And if you call upon a Father who judges impartially according to the work of each [person], you must conduct your lifestyle during the time of your temporary residence [as a stranger on earth] in fear, ¹⁸[all the while] knowing that you were not redeemed from the futile way of life handed down from your forefathers with perishable [things, such as] silver or gold, ¹⁹but with [the] precious blood of Christ, like a lamb without blemish and spotless (ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ). ²⁰He was foreknown before the foundation of the world (προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), but was made known at the end of the times for you (φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς), ²¹who through him believe in God who raised him from [the] dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:17-21, my translation)

The same family of words is used of God’s foreknowledge of Christ before the foundation of the world, and those who are elect exiles scattered according to the foreknowledge of God. The noun is used in verse 2 (πρόγνωσις, prognōsis) in verse 20 the perfect passive participle of the verb is used (προγινώσκω, proginōskō). Etymologically, the root means 'foreknow, know beforehand', a compound verb consisting of the preposition προ—(pro, 'before') prefixed to the verb γινώσκω (ginōskō, 'know'). For the purpose of this treatment, I will assume that ‘foreknow’ means know someone or something beforehand. I will leave what ‘know’ might mean as an open question until I look below at what it means in each context in which it appears.

What was foreknown from before the foundation of the world in verse 20? Christ. The passive participle agrees with the genitive Χριστοῦ of verse 19, which it immediately follows. The passive no doubt is a divine passive. Christ is foreknown by God.

Can we say that God’s foreknowledge as asserted in this verse is only of Jesus Christ, or does it also include what Jesus Christ did? I think the foreknowledge of God the Father covers both. God foreknew the Christ before the foundation of the world. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Christ is pre-existent, being God the second person of the Trinity. God also foreknew something about him, that he would be a precious lamb, unblemished and spotless, who would redeem Peter’s readers. The first makes sense of the proximity of Χριστοῦ to προεγνωσμένου, and thus God foreknew Christ. The second makes sense of the string of genitives in apposition to Χριστοῦ with which the participle agrees (ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ ²⁰προεγνωσμένου: 1 Pet 1:19-20). So God foreknew that Christ would offer his precious blood as a lamb, unblemished and unstained. And God foreknew the Christ. Both are true, because verse 20 seems to say both things.

Returning to verses 1-2, we are told that God has foreknowledge of something else.

¹Peter, Apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect (ἐκλεκτοῖς) temporary residents (παρεπιδήμοις) of the diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ²according to the foreknowledge of God [the] Father (κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός) by [the] sanctification of the Spirit (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Πνεύματος) for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). (1 Peter 1:1-2, my translation)

The genitive (πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός) is one of possession. God the Father possesses foreknowledge, rather than the knowledge being about God the Father. Of what does God possess foreknowledge? This requires more exegesis.

The clause ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’ (κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός) is the first of 3 prepositional clauses (followed by ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Πνεύματος, and then εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). It is difficult to determine the syntax of the following two. Are the following two clauses, ‘in the sanctification of the Spirit’ (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Πνεύματος: 1 Pet 1:2), and ‘for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’ (εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 1 Pet 1:2) subordinate to verse 1, or to one or other of the preceding prepositional clauses?

The ‘elect’ (ἐκλεκτός, eklektos) and ‘foreknowledge’ (πρόγνωσις, prognōsis) have to do with choice and prescience, so they are related ideas, especially when the subject is an omniscient, omnipotent God. One might say it is the ‘elect’ on its own, that is according to foreknowledge. ‘To the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’. But this is unlikely. The word for 'elect', ἐκλεκτός, is 8 words away from the prepositional phrase κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός. Thus, it doesn’t seem to be that divine foreknowledge of only the ‘elect’ (ἐκλεκτοῖς) that is on view, given that ἐκλεκτοῖς is simply the first word of a 9 word descriptive phrase. It is foreknowledge of the 'elect temporary residents of the diaspora'. Further, the first two words in the phrase are appositional adjectives in the dative. They are in the dative because they refer to the addressees. They are ‘elect exiles’ (ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις). There is a paradox within this two word description. They are chosen by God, but they are also exiles in the world. Moreover, they are ‘elect exiles of the diaspora’, meaning a dispersion or scattering. The 5 regions indicate where the ‘elect exiles’ have been scattered. Then we have the prepositional phrase.

It seems to me, therefore, that God foreknows the elect, knows that they are exiles in this world, and that theses elect exiles would be dispersed throughout modern day Turkey. The scattering of the elect exiles throughout Asia Minor and elsewhere is not accidental, but it has been ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’. The prepositional phrase does not merely modify the first adjective ‘elect’, but the whole 9 word phrase of verse 1. For if Peter’s readers are ‘elect’ according to foreknowledge, wouldn’t they also be ‘exiles’ according to foreknowledge? But what does that mean? That God knew they would be able to cope with being exiles, and so made them exiles? I don’t think so. All it means is that before the foundation of the world God knew them as exiles in the world, but special and chosen to him. So, God has foreknown the scattering of his elect exiles. This would give the ‘elect exiles’ comfort, being scattered throughout Asia Minor. God has foreknown that these elect exiles would be strangers in foreign places. This certainly fits with 1 Peter 2:11-12, where the addressees are said to be aliens and strangers living among the gentiles. So I don’t think the passage teaches election according to foreknowledge in the sense that God foresees the faith of them in advance, but that they themselves are foreknown, that God foreknows their situation as exiles, and that they would be scattered, and indeed, where they would be scattered. The Spirit will use these circumstances for sanctification. And that sanctification consists in obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.

So God not only foreknows the whole situation, but also each of the parts. So God foreknew his elect, that they would be exiles, that they would be dispersed, and that this is for their sanctification. God also foreknew the Christ and how the Christ would redeem the elect exiles with the precious blood. So Peter affirms that the redeemer, the means of redemption, the elect exiles and their situation of being scattered, are all ‘according to foreknowledge of God the Father’. Nothing has sidestepped God’s plan. God has foreknown it all.

However, even if this is a statement of ‘election according to foreknowledge’, I still do not believe that it would be a statement that God foresaw that the elect would believe in Christ, and therefore chose them on that basis. God’s foreknowledge is more than ‘pre-cognition’. It is a deeper knowledge of the persons.

Of course, no thinking Christian ever says that God the Father only ‘foresaw’ the sufferings of Christ, as an omniscient but somewhat disinterested bystander. The Bible also tells us that God ‘sent’ (Galatians 4:4), ‘gave’ (John 3:16) and ‘predestined’ (Acts 4:28) the sufferings of his Son. It is not surprising then that Bible translations reflect this in their translation of ‘foreknow’ and ‘foreknowledge’.

If God foreknew (as prior cognition) Christ as the lamb who would be killed, could God have done something to prevent this? Yes. He could not have sent his Son. But then we would all be lost. So God willed that Christ would die. One assumes that God also willed the nature of his death, which he also foreknew, because he allowed it. God also wills that people not condemn the innocent.

Most Arminians take election according to foreknowledge to mean that God looks ahead to see who has the disposition to faith and repentance, and chooses them on the basis of what he foresees in them. It is a real stretch to see that is what Peter is teaching. He doesn’t mention in the phrase any of the predisposing factors that would condition God’s election. There is, of course, a different understanding of ‘election according to foreknowledge’, that God ‘knows’ the elect in a deeper sense than simply ‘knowing something about them that would come to pass because of their disposition’, and this is the understanding to which I adhere. God knows them in a deeper sense, that has really chosen them for salvation and has decided to have an efficacious and saving relationship with them before the foundation of the world, which he will bring about in time and consummate into eternity. They are thus, ‘the elect’, not that they have chosen God (although, in another sense, they have, in that they have faith and repentance), but in that God’s choice of them is first and produces their choice of God.

The Lamb Slain From the Foundation of the World

And all who dwell on the earth will worship him [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (Rev 13:8 NASB, cf. HCSB, ESV, NAB, NEB, NLT, RSV)

And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 RV, cf. Douay-Rheims, Geneva, KJV, NIV, Bishops NT, Tyndale)

καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. (Rev 13:8 NA28)

The first question here is what was ‘from the foundation of the world’? Was it the ‘lamb who was slain’ from before the foundation of the world? Or is it ‘the name of him not written in the lamb’s book of life’ from before the foundation of the world.

Even a cursory glance at the English translations show they do not neatly divide along theological, denominational or modern/ancient lines. There are Catholic, Protestant, Modern and Ancient, literal and paraphrastic English Versions in either camp. This is because, prima facie, it can legitimately be taken either way. The arguments either way are provided by Beale, Revelation, 702.

Let us suppose that the RV, NIV, KJV, etc are correct. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. What does this mean? Jesus was not literally slain ‘from the foundation of the world’. He was slain in time and space, around AD 33 outside Jerusalem. Neither was he able to be slain before the foundation of the world. It was only in time and space when the Eternal Word, the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, became human, and was thus able to be slain, because as God the Son he is not able to die. God is in very nature immortal (1 Tim 1:17).

It must mean rather that in the mind of God, in the purpose and plan of God, the lamb was intended and purposed and predestined to be slain. Before Adam and Eve sinned, the lamb was purposed and predestined to be slain. This purpose preceded the creation of the world. Because God intended and purposed and predestined this event to occur, it did in fact occur. It came about in the fullness of time, after God created the world. The manner of speaking is ‘proleptic’. It speaks of future events as if they happened when God purposed them, before the foundation of the world, even though they actually occur in time and space after God created the world.

This shows that the death and resurrection of Christ was no ‘Plan B’. It was THE plan for the salvation of the world. But if God decided to send Jesus Christ as the lamb and savior of the world, he also in some sensed willed that we live in a world of sin. In some sense God willed sin, because he could have done something else (i.e. created heaven in the first instance). But God allowed and permitted (I would say predestined) the sin of Adam and Eve, and all their children. Though he could have done otherwise, God allowed their sin because a better ‘new creation’ would result. The saved would then worship the Lamb not merely as Creator (John 1:1-3; Col 1:15ff) but also as Redeemer, as a Lamb that was slain. We are owned twice by God, first by creation, then by redemption.

But I do not say that God is the author of sin or that God sinned in making the world in which sin reigned. No, God purposed and predestined the sin of Adam and Eve, so that Jesus Christ would be the lamb that was slain from before the foundation of the world. But he doesn’t will it in another sense. That is, it is against his moral will. So God did not author it. He used secondary causes to bring it about.

This is the only coherent understanding that does justice to scripture. This is the position that holds both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in parallel, and expects that everything will become clear when Jesus remakes the world.

Of course, we could argue that the NASB is correct. Everyone who was not written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world worshipped the beast. But that sounds terribly close to reprobation!

(4) The Case of David

And after He [God] had removed him [Saul], He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will" (ὃς ποιήσει πάντα τὰ θελήματά μου). (Acts 13:22 NASB)

³⁶For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation (Δαυὶδ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ ὑπηρετήσας τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλῇ), fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay; ³⁷but He whom God raised did not undergo decay. (Acts 13:36-37 NASB)

David was raised up by God to be one "who will do all God’s will" (Acts 13:22). And the fact was, David did serve the purpose or will of God in his own generation. To what does God’s will refer here?

One might say God’s will for David was for David to obey God’s commands. Acts 13:22 then would be speaking about God’s moral will. David was chosen to be king instead of Saul, presumably because he was a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22). However, did David do all of God’s moral will? No, David sinned, and not just with Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sam 11; Ps 51). The census was sinful (2 Sam 24; 1 Chr 21). Moreover, it is difficult to leave David’s parting words to Solomon without suspecting that there is something not right there (1 Kgs 2). David also asks God to not remember the sins of his youth (Ps 25:7). Therefore, he has sins of his youth. And it was likely that he committed other sins (Ps 32). One wonders if it is possible to be married to so many women as David was and not have been involved in some level of sin. Perhaps the seed of Solomon’s sin of apostasy lay in his Father’s many wives, which he copied and expanded upon. So then David clearly didn’t fulfil all God’s moral purposes for his people.

Let’s take David's role in the census count, which is clearly presented as sinful (2 Sam 24; 1 Chr 21). David confesses that he was the one who acted sinfully in the count (2 Sam 24:10, 17; 1 Chr 21:8, 17). He was warned by Joab before he did it (1 Chr 21:3). Afterwards, he blames only himself, and asks for the punishment to be visited on himself and his family. The Chronicler also says it was evil in God’s sight (1 Chr 21:7). So David sinfully acted, bringing guilt on himself. He also brought guilt and punishment on his country. We know this because God punished the country. Yet, the situation is more complex than even that. Compare these two verses.

Then Satan stood against Israel and moved David to count Israel. (1 Chr 21:1)

Καὶ ἔστη διάβολος ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ ἐπέσεισεν τὸν Δαυιδ τοῦ ἀριθμῆσαι τὸν Ισραηλ (LXX)

וַיַּֽעֲמֹ֥ד שָׂטָ֖ן עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיָּ֨סֶת֙ אֶת־דָּוִ֔יד לִמְנֹ֖ות אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (MT)

And the anger of Yahweh [masc sing] again burned against Israel,

and he incited David against them, saying,

“Go, count Israel and Judah”. (2 Sam 24:1)

Καὶ προσέθετο ὀργὴ κυρίου ἐκκαῆναι ἐν Ισραηλ,

καὶ ἐπέσεισεν τὸν Δαυιδ ἐν αὐτοῖς λέγων

Βάδιζε ἀρίθμησον τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ τὸν Ιουδα. (LXX)

וַיֹּ֨סֶף֙ אַף־יְהוָ֔ה לַחֲרֹ֖ות בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל (MT)

וַיָּ֨סֶת אֶת־דָּוִ֤ד בָּהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר

לֵ֛ךְ מְנֵ֥ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְאֶת־יְהוּדָֽה׃

Chronicles and Samuel use the same verb (וַיָּ֨סֶת), meaning to incite or instigate. The Chronicler uses it with the implied subject, Satan. Samuel uses it with the implied subject, ‘the anger of God’ (אַף־יְהוָ֔ה || ὀργὴ κυρίου). Whose anger is it? God’s. Has God control of his own anger? Yes. So ultimately God, who has self-control of his own anger, sovereignly worked to bring about his intention that David would count the men. Who stood behind David’s decision to count the men? God, Satan, and David. All three are true causes of the event. But because God is God, his purpose is the ultimate purpose that cannot be thwarted. What about Satan’s will? Satan was used by God as a secondary cause. Satan is responsible for his decision. No doubt he had his own intentions in acting as he did. Probably it was because he loves human suffering and sin. And David is also responsible for his sin.

We could say that David’s will is the ultimate will. David wanted to number the men, and we might say that God couldn’t do anything about it. But that is not what Scripture says. Samuel provocatively says at the heading of the whole incident, that the anger of God burned, and God (whether you take the subject as 'God' or 'his anger' is irrelevant, because God has control of his anger) incited David. Furthermore, I know of nowhere in Scripture where human will is given the ultimate primacy over God’s will. Rather, the proposition that no-one resists God’s will, being his secret will (although many, indeed at one time all, have resisted his moral will) is a scriptural one that is not contradicted with ‘May it never be’ (Rom 9:19). No human can resist God's secret will, God's will of decree, such that the human will renders God's will impotent to bring about a state of affairs which he ultimately desires.

Someone might say say that Satan’s will is the ultimate will. What Satan eventually wants to happen comes about. But then Satan is the all powerful one, not God. Moreover, God actually brought good out of David's sin and Satan's malice, being the choosing of the temple location and the chastisement of his people. Satan is opposed to all good.

So it is God’s will that is ultimate, yet, God is not the author of sin. That is Satan and David’s responsibility. If this is thought to be incoherent, then the incoherence lies in Scripture, because Scripture teaches that God, Satan, and David were all involved. But Scripture is not incoherent, so the incoherence lies in our inability to hold the three truths together without necessarily knowing how they fit. This is the essence of compatibalism.

I think that Samuel used the somewhat round about phrase ‘the anger of God’ to distance God from the sin that the anger of God incited. That is not to say that God doesn’t stand behind the events as they occur as the ultimate cause. But it does say that he doesn’t stand behind sinful events in the same way that he stands behind events that conform to his moral will.

Further, I suspect that, as a matter of exegesis, Acts 13:22 probably refers to God’s moral will, but only in a particular circumstance: the circumstance of David replacing Saul as king of Israel. That is, Paul is saying that when compared to Saul, God sees that David will do all the things that Saul failed to do because of his disobedience, including wiping out the Amelakites. It is not a statement about whether David will always keep all of God’s moral will. Nor is it necessarily a statement about God’s secret will. It has to do with the specific circumstances that led to David’s anointing as king. David will perform the functions of the king which Saul failed to do, in all the areas that Saul failed.

However, in Acts 13:36, I believe the phrase that ‘David served the will of God in his own generation’ (Δαυὶδ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ ὑπηρετήσας τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλῇ) refers to everything God brought about through David, including the judgment on the nation of Israel as a result of his sin with Uriah’s wife, the census count, the resultant judgement, and the subsequent choosing of the place of the temple, and also bringing retribution on Joab and Shimei and the others who in David’s final days were condemned to die at Solomon’s wise hand. But whatever David meant for evil, God meant for good, to bring about good things. So God stood behind every event in David’s reign; it was all the purpose of God, from which God will bring about good things.

Conclusion

The idea of two divine wills, one in which God decrees secretly what will come to pass and only is revealed through the course of history, but another in which God makes clear his moral will, his will of command, or his revealed will, makes sense of Scripture. It is not particularly original. It can be seen in Peter’s letter, and theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, R L Dabney, and John Murray have taught it.

In defending the proposition that God has two wills, Dabney uses the illustration of George Washington’s treatment of Major Andre, whose death warrant George Washington signed, though with reluctance and sadness. The illustration shows that someone with the power to exercise the prerogative of mercy, may for other reasons of justice and wisdom not exercise it and give the person his due, not mercy, but without calling into question the sincerity of his mercy: R L Dabney, ‘God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as related To His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity’ in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological: 1:282 at 284.

God commands all people to repent (Acts 17:30). However, God also grants ‘repentance unto life’ (Acts 11:18). God commands belief in the gospel (Mark 1:14-15). Yet God also opened the heart of Lydia to receive Paul’s message (Acts 16:14). The idea that God has two wills holds both ideas in tension, and as such maintains the scriptural tension. The Christian preacher and teacher therefore needs to teach both sides of the truth.

The reason why people don’t accept the gospel invitation is inside them, in their hearts: they are dead in their transgressions and sins. The only impediment that prevents people accepting Christ lies in the hearts of the people, but it is surely there. God makes a genuine offer of the gospel, because the reason they reject it lies wholly in them. That God could do something about this for all, and only does so for some, does not alter this fact.