Isaiah 26:10 on common grace/favor

[wildboar]

In another forum I was discussing the topic of common grace with someone and Isaiah 26:10 came up. The person was not defending common grace as the CRC does. However they were defending the use of common grace as a theological term although they beleive it has been misused. The NKJV reads:

Isaiah 26:1-11 In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah: "We have a strong city; God will appoint salvation for walls and bulwarks. 2 Open the gates, That the righteous nation which keeps the truth may enter in. 3 You will keep him in perfect peace, Whose mind is stayed on You, Because he trusts in You. 4 Trust in the LORD forever, For in YAH, the LORD, is everlasting strength. 5 For He brings down those who dwell on high, The lofty city; He lays it low, He lays it low to the ground, He brings it down to the dust. 6 The foot shall tread it down -- The feet of the poor And the steps of the needy." 7 The way of the just is uprightness; O Most Upright, You weigh the path of the just. 8 Yes, in the way of Your judgments, O LORD, we have waited for You; The desire of our soul is for Your name And for the remembrance of You. 9 With my soul I have desired You in the night, Yes, by my spirit within me I will seek You early; For when Your judgments are in the earth, The inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. 10 Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD. 11 LORD, when Your hand is lifted up, they will not see. But they will see and be ashamed For their envy of people; Yes, the fire of Your enemies shall devour them.

The word translated as grace in verse 10 is a word which is commonly translated as grace or favor in the OT. After researching this for a bit it does not seem that there is anyway of getting out of this meaning.

Gesenius Hebrew grammar takes this as a conditional sentence as does Keil and Delitzsch. It reads:

(a) Imperfect (cf. § 107 x) in protasis and apodosis, Jos 22:18, y Ps 104:28 ff. !Wj+qol.yI2 ~h,l' !TeTi (if) thou givest unto them, they gather, &c.; y Ps 139:18, Pr 12:17, Jb 20:24, Ec 1:18, Neh 1:8; with an interrogative imperfect in the apodosis, Ju 13:12; with the jussive, Jb 10:16; with the cohortative, Pr. 1:23; with the perfect, Is 26:10 (yet will he not learn righteousness; the apodosis forcibly denies what the imperfect in the protasis had represented as still conceivable; cf. Ho 8:12); with the perfect consecutive, Gn 47:25, Ex 33:5; with the protasis suppressed, Jb 5:8 (see § 107 x).

Of course one of the interesting things is that it emphatically denies the CRC conception of common grace since it states that if the wicked is shown grace he will not act righteously. I'm told that Herman Hoeksema wrote some articles in the Standard Bearer on this verse but they're all in Dutch and my Dutch is horrible. I considered the idea that it was not God but others who were showing favor to the wicked in this passage but the context seems to teach clearly that it is God. I also considered that the wicked were the elect as they are described in Ezekiel but the context is against this interpretation as well.

So I am left with the idea that either the sentence is speaking of something that doesn't actually happen and saying that "even if God showed grace to the wicked they would not learn righteousness even though he does not show grace to them" or I am left with the idea that perhaps grace is a legitimate term to speak of God's providential dealings with man. Any help would be appreciated especially if there is anyone who knows Hebrew that is reading this.

[Ivor Thomas]

To me the word SHOWN Grace is not saying GIVEN Grace, for instance the wicked could be SHOWN the Grace of how the Righteous live in the land.Can't help with Hebrew though will be interested to see what some have to say on this. Ivor Thomas...

[wildboar]

To me the word SHOWN Grace is not saying GIVEN Grace, for instance the wicked could be SHOWN the Grace of how the Righteous live in the land.

After consulting a few lexicons it doesn't seem that the word has the meaning of simply 'displaying grace'. Shown can be taken a couple different ways in English but it seems from the Hebrew that the meaning is an actual giving of grace. I am more and more inclined the more I look at it though in the context to take it as talking about a hypothetical thing, saying that even if the wicked were given good things out of a love from God they would still act wickedly. I believe the purpose of the passage is to show the complete wickedness of the unregenerate man in that when good things are done for him it just makes him want to take advantage of the person who has done this good thing for him and that even if God were to show a true love for that unregenerate person it would just cause him to act more wickedly.

[Skeuos Eleos]

In his commentary Calvin interprets it as:

Whatever may be the acts of kindness by which God draws the wicked, they will never learn to act uprightly.

What about the thought that it simply means temporal favor? After all the KJV renders it 'favour'.

Martin

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is Gill on the subject:

http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?vi...&createchaps=1

Isa 26:10, (GILL), Let favour be showed to the wicked,.... As it often is in a providential way; they have the good things of this life, and sometimes more than heart could wish for; nor are they in trouble as other men; they have many mercies, and many deliverances; they have their portion here, and are filled with hidden treasure, and are spared when others are cut off; and, besides sparing mercy and providential goodness, sometimes enjoy the means of grace, have the word and ordinances:


[yet] will ye not learn righteousness; neither repent of sin, nor reform from it; though "the goodness of God" should, yet it does not, "lead" him "to repentance"; he neither learns the righteousness of God, nor of Christ, nor the insufficiency of his own righteousness, nor to live a truly righteous and godly life; all means and mercies will not do, without the efficacious grace of God:

in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly; in the land of Judea, where were the laws and statutes of God, which were just and equitable, the word and worship of God, and many good men, who lived uprightly, and set good examples; and yet wicked men went on in their sinful courses. Jarchi interprets it of Jerusalem, and the temple, and of men's spoiling, plundering, and destroying there; and the Talmud [x] of wicked Esau, by whom the Romans are meant, that should destroy Jerusalem, and the land of Israel. It seems best to understand it of any land or country in later times, or present ones, where there is a good polity, good and wholesome laws are enacted, vice is corrected and punished, and virtue encouraged, and where also the Gospel is preached, and the ordinances of it administered; and yet, notwithstanding all laws, instructions, precepts, and precedents, such men will go on to live unrighteous and ungodly lives and conversations:

and will not behold the majesty of the Lord; visible in the government of the world; in the dispensations of his providence, in protecting and defending his own people, and in punishing of the wicked; in the Gospel, and in the success of it: in the effusion of the Spirit; and in the setting up of the kingdom of Christ in greater glory in the latter day. [x] T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 6. 1. & Gloss. in ib.

[GraceAmbassador]

In his commentary Calvin interprets it as:

What about the thought that it simply means temporal favor? After all the KJV renders it 'favour'.

Martin

I agree with Martin on this one. It is temporal favor. That's why I call it a "truce". A truce is a temporary cessation of hostilities. However, there is the legitimacy given to the word "grace" being used as very wel (and honestly) pointed out by WildBoar.

When Jesus quotes Isaiah 61 in the N.T. He purposefully leaves out "and the day of the vengeance of the Lord". I mentioned that to Phil Johnson in a private email. Jesus was not prone to misquote Scripture and so, He is on and by purpose, declaring a "truce" which could be called "grace". As long as the word "grace" is qualified as something temporal or temporary, its usage may be fine. However what to do with the word Grace when it is specifically bestowed upon the elect? Should we qualifiy such word as well as an ETERNAL, EFFECTIVE and SPECIFIC GRACE?

I checked every single item that I have in my library and indeed, as WildBoar, I came to the conclusion that it does in a way "legitimizes" the word "grace" (small g). Nonetheless, note that this text, even in the Hebrew is stated in the subjunctive mood. For you Americans deprived of good grammatical understanding, the subjunctive mood, usually stated with the word "let" (which does not mean "allow") represents a "wish" or a "prayer".
It is as saying "May God bless you" or "Let there be peace in the valley". Please check a grammatical book and read what is the subjunctive mood. There are many verses in the Bible that start with "let" and that are misunderstood in the English language because many believe it means "allow". In every Bible translation I have from the languages I understand and others that I master, this text is in the subjunctive mood. In Portuguese and Spanish it says "Even if He would show favor.... etc."

As per the above conclusion, God is speaking through Isaiah and saying in a challenging manner, as in a dare: Let favor be shown to the wicked... do it anyway and even if it is done, he will not change... It is not stating that God actually does... It is taking an idea to the supreme abusurd. The same is found in the book of Hebrews when the writer to Hebrews 6 verse 4 where many use to prove that we can lose our salvation.

I understand that this discussion is about the word "grace" because of "common grace" and whether is legitimate for some to use such a word as something that God bestows on the reprobate. It is clear to me, given the fact that it is in the subjunctive mood that this is more of a challenge, an impossibility or an absurd that even if made into a possibility will not produce any result at all.

Finally, note that if we believe that this is an objective, not a subjunctive, phrase, we will render this a type God's favor ineffective thus making something that God objectively does not produce any effect. I dread such a thought.

Please, let me know if this makes sense.

Milt

[ray kikkert]

I understand that this discussion is about the word "grace" because of "common grace" and whether is legitimate for some to use such a word as something that God bestows on the reprobate. It is clear to me, given the fact that it is in the subjunctive mood that this is more of a challenge, an impossibility or an absurd that even if made into a possibility will not produce any result at all.

Finally, note that if we believe that this is an objective, not a subjunctive, phrase, we will render this a type God's favor ineffective thus making something that God objectively does not produce any effect. I dread such a thought.

Please, let me know if this makes sense.

Milt

It is good sense to me Milt, and fine exegetical work that you have spared me of trying to work out. Your final volley (God's favor ineffective) being something that those of us who reject common grace to be one of the most truthful and out right honest arguments that we have in refutation , namely that something from God can be rendered ineffective and therefore man resorts to paradox or a complete misconstruing of God's Word. Thus the sovereingty of God is deplored and the will of man exalted.

By the way I signed on today and missed the moving Hymn while entering 5 solas. I find myself singing before entering the forum, "and give Him all honor for just is His name" Can I get a witness?

greetings and salutations, el rana

[wildboar]

What about the thought that it simply means temporal favor? After all the KJV renders it 'favour'.

I don't believe this really clears the matter. Grace is unmerited favor and so it is really just a matter of replacing the word with a synonym. Kuyper used two basically synonymous words in his development of the doctrine of common grace. The one meant basically grace which he used only for the elect, and the other meant favor which ends up getting translated as grace in his writings and the distinction falls away completely. But anyhow, whether you use the term favor or grace you would still end up with some sort of positive disposition of God toward the person if they were experiencing this favor and in all of Scripture this grace/favor has a love that goes along with it. So lacking in knowledge of Hebrew myself, I am inclined to follow Gesenius in saying that it is describing an inconceivable situation. I don't believe Gesenius had any theological ax to grind on this issue.

[Brandan Kraft]

By the way I signed on today and missed the moving Hymn while entering 5 solas. I find myself singing before entering the forum, "and give Him all honor for just is His name" Can I get a witness?

greetings and salutations, el rana

OK, I'll add it back!

[GraceAmbassador]

...I am inclined to follow Gesenius in saying that it is describing an inconceivable situation. I don't believe Gesenius had any theological ax to grind on this issue.

Yes, as I said in my post above, this is an impossibility or an absurd. Otherwise, if we believe that Isaiah was speaking inspired by God, and it was God speaking, God would be admiting defeat, that is, God would be saying that He was doing something that was ineffective: showing "grace" with no results. I still insist that we study the tense of the verb and we will find it is the subjunctive mood: a prayer, a wish and also used for the expression of an impossibility... or an absurd

Milt

[wildboar]

Yes, as I said in my post above, this is an impossibility or an absurd. Otherwise, if we believe that Isaiah was speaking inspired by God, and it was God speaking, God would be admiting defeat, that is, God would be saying that He was doing something that was ineffective: showing "grace" with no results. I still insist that we study the tense of the verb and we will find it is the subjunctive mood: a prayer, a wish and also used for the expression of an impossibility... or an absurd

I agree with your conclusion for the most part, however I'm not certain that there is a specific subjunctive mood in Hebrew. However the idea can be expressed in different ways. Here's what Gesenius says just prior to the section I quoted previously:

2. The relation between condition and consequence may be expressed, as in English, by the simple juxtaposition of two clauses. At the same time, it is to be observed in general as a fundamental rule (in accordance with the original character of the two tenses), that the imperfect, with its equivalents (the jussive, cohortative, imperative, perfect consecutive, and participle), is used to express a condition and consequence which are regarded as being capable of fulfilment in present or future time, while the perfect represents a condition already fulfilled in the past, and its consequence as an accomplished fact. The other use of the perfect — to represent conditions regarded as impossible — occurs only in connexion with particles.

The imperfect form is used in the protasis and the perfect is used in the apodasis and so Gesenius comes to his conclusion.