Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

Say to them, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11)

When it comes to God’s sovereignty and its relation to election, reprobation, and human choice and responsibility, it is strange that people have had more trouble with these verses than many others in the Bible. They are some of the easiest verses to integrate into a coherent understanding of God’s sovereignty. This is because their context is so elaborate, and the context defines the meaning of a text. Here the context is so complete, so emphasized, and so repeated, and then placed into a fuller context of the mission and message of the prophet Ezekiel, that it requires extraordinary effort to disregard.

Both the Arminians and Calvinists have made ridiculous uses of the text. The Arminians present to it a topic that it has no interest in, and they often frame the issue by narrowing the debate to only one verse in Ezekiel 18 and one verse in Ezekiel 33. The Calvinists are just as foolish when they respond to the Arminians or when they formulate their own doctrine on the basis of these verses. They also present to it this topic that the text has no interest in, or at least they do not challenge the Arminians for doing so, and then they also narrow their consideration of the text to only one verse in each chapter.

The result is that the Calvinists resort to blasphemous theories like installing a complex personality in God, turning the gospel into a sincere offer, and even claiming that there are “two wills” in God. Given all of this rubbish, even if the Calvinists arrive at a better theology at the end, it is only slightly better than the Arminians’ theology. In fact, the product is arguably more heretical. The Arminians twist the text for their own purpose, and the Calvinists respond by blaspheming God, and then they congratulate themselves for their orthodoxy, for being heroes who champion the paradoxical sovereignty of a schizophrenic God.

To illustrate the madness, suppose I send you a letter that says, “Tommy was hungry, so he went out to lunch. He had a chicken salad that included many ingredients, but since he disliked eggplant, he avoided it.” It would be unfair for you to ask the letter, “What is Tommy’s purpose in life?” and then insist that the answer is, “To avoid eggplant.” My letter has no interest in Tommy’s purpose in life. It is talking about his lunch, and only about his lunch.

Let us consider a biblical example. When Abraham demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, God said, “Now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12). It would be wrong to deny God’s omniscience on the basis of this verse, because it is not talking about how much God knows. It has no interest in that topic. The statement serves to acknowledge Abraham’s display of obedience. Moreover, when the Bible turns to the topic of how much God knows, it says that he knows everything (Hebrews 4:13, Job 37:16, Isaiah 46:10, etc.).

You would think that there is no need to remind people of something like this, but when it comes to theology and biblical interpretation, it seems that people become supernaturally stupid. Now imagine two groups of thugs starting a huge brawl over Tommy’s purpose in life on the basis of my letter, and that is like the absurdity of the Arminian and Calvinist arguments over these verses in Ezekiel.

 

Precept vs. Decree

In order to understand these verses from the correct perspective, we should acknowledge the distinction between God’s precept and God’s decree. We have selected these words to talk about the distinction for the sake of convenience, but the distinction itself is necessary because it comes from the Bible. God’s precept is his definition (of what is right), and God’s decree is his determination (of what will happen). This is seen throughout the Bible, and sometimes both appear in the same text.

Genesis 50:20
As for you, you meant evil against me, [precept]
but God meant it for good, [decree]
to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

For Joseph to be correct in calling their intention or action “evil” (to be rid of him by selling him to slavery, and doing so out of hatred and jealousy), it would have had to be defined as evil by God. The same intention or action in them that was “evil” as defined by God, was meant to be good as decreed by God.

Even Calvinists often say that God “used” it for good, but the text does not say this. It was not as if God was confronted by the people’s evil action and then figured out how to manipulate it for good. No, the Bible says God meant it for good – he did not respond to their sin with his own action, but he intended their sin for his own good purpose. Both parts of Joseph’s statement refer to the same action. It was evil according to God’s precept, but good according to God’s decree.

1 Samuel 2:25
His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, [precept]
for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death. [decree]

Eli rebuked his sons for their sins, but they did not repent. This refusal to repent was against what God had defined as right, so they were wrong according to God’s precept. Then, the explanation for this refusal to repent was that it was what God had decided to happen, so that it turned out according to God’s decree. His decree was for them to remain in sin, so that he could determine to kill them (his decree) according to his own standard (his precept).

God’s decision to kill them was not a response to their refusal to repent, but the same action that was against God’s precept in fact followed God’s decree. He did not say, “Do not repent, because I want to kill you.” If he had told them to refuse, then it would have been his precept for them to remain in sin, and it would have been right by definition for them to refuse. Rather, God issued the precept for them to repent, and he issued the decree for them to refuse. He caused them to perform what he defined as wrong, so that he could kill them.

Acts 17:30
He commands all people everywhere to repent. [precept]

2 Timothy 2:25
God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth [decree]

Paul made both statements. First, God commands all men to repent. This refers to God’s precept, in which he defines right and wrong, so that all men ought to repent, and it would be wrong for them to refuse. Then, the same apostle said that God is the one who grants repentance, and he might or might not grant it. This refers to God’s decree, in which he decides what would happen, so that some men would obey the precept to repent, and other men would not obey it.

 

The “Will” of God

Next, we must also acknowledge that the Bible sometimes uses the same words or ideas to refer to different things. Our present interest is that the word or idea of the “will” of God is used in two different ways in the Bible that correspond to God’s precept and decree.

Mark 3:35
For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother. [precept]

Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. [precept]

Romans 15:32
…so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company. [decree]

1 Peter 3:17
For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. [decree]

The “will” of God in Mark 3 and Romans 12 refers to God’s precept. It refers to what God defines as right, and not what he decides will happen. On the other hand, the “will” in Romans 15 and 1 Peter 3 refers to God’s decree. It refers to what God decides will happen, and not what he defines as right. This shows that the Bible uses the term or the idea in two different ways, with two different meanings. However, there is no confusion, because even reading only the clause or the sentence offers a context that makes the meaning unmistakable.

Some Calvinists claim that there are two “wills” in God. Perhaps there is no one so stupid as to say that there are two “apples” – whose meanings are so close but the characteristics are so different that they generate a paradox – because on the one hand there is a fruit by that name, and then on the other hand there is a company by the same name. But these Calvinists are exactly this stupid. No, they mean such different things that they are in effect two different words, and indeed they can be represented by two different words, such as “fruit” and “company.” The same is true with the Bible’s use of God’s “will.” We can call one God’s “precept” and the other one God’s “decree.”

To use Abraham’s example again, God said, “Now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), but when the Bible talks about how much God knows, it says that he knows everything (Hebrews 4:13, Job 37:16, Isaiah 46:10, etc.). It would be ridiculous to say that God has two divine minds, where one knows something only after it has been informed, and the other one knows all things.

The Bible also says, “Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save” (Isaiah 59:1), but when it talks about God’s nature, it says that God is spirit (John 4:24), and that he had no form when he manifested himself to Israel (Deuteronomy 4:12, 15). It would be ridiculous to say that God has two divine natures, where one is physical, able to wield his power as far as his arm can reach, and the other one is spirit, having no corporeal form or dimension.

Again, it would be ridiculous to say that Henry goes to two churches every Sunday, because there is the “church” that refers to the people, and then there is the “church” that refers to the building. No, they mean such different things that they are in effect two different words, and indeed they can be represented by two different words, such as “people” and “building.” Henry meets with the “people” in the “building.”

What in the world are we doing? Why do we need to explain this? How stupid can a person get and still breathe? It is amazing that such stupid people can survive to adulthood. How can anyone be a cessationist, when we see theologians everywhere who are too stupid to live, but still do not die? They are walking miracles, signs and wonders. Can this be what Jesus meant by the “greater works,” because no one was so stupid while he was on the earth?

 

Back to Ezekiel

Now we return to Ezekiel. The discussion on how the Bible refers to God’s “will” is relevant because it is comparable to how it refers to God’s “pleasure.” In fact, it is just another way of saying his “will.” Nevertheless, there is a major difference between the above verses on God’s “will” and the verses in Ezekiel. The difference is that rather than having only a clause or a sentence as in some of our examples, Ezekiel 18 and 33 offer over 30 verses – in each chapter – to show us the context.

Read the two chapters. Both of them obviously refer to God’s precept for people to repent, that his “will” or “pleasure” is not for the death of the wicked but for their repentance. They do not talk about what God causes, but they talk about what he defines as right for the people. They do not talk about God’s sovereignty, especially as it relates to salvation or repentance. The topic is not metaphysics, ontology, determinism, or such things.

However, when the Bible talks about what God causes in relation to repentance, it says that some men did not listen because God wanted to kill them, that God chooses whom to love or hate, that God hardens the hearts of some, that God made the reprobates because he desires to display his wrath and his power, and that he would grant repentance to only some people. These other passages are the ones that discuss the topic the Arminians and Calvinists force Ezekiel 18 and 33 to address, but Ezekiel 18 and 33 do not address the topic.

Suppose I am the CEO of Hello Theology Corporation, and you are my employee. My “will” or “pleasure” (my precept) is for you to work hard (but I am not causing you to work), but because you do not work hard, then my “will” or “pleasure” (my decree) is to remove you (now I am causing you to leave). Same words, big difference. Although the context is not elaborate, it is still obvious, so that there is no confusion, no mystery, no paradox. However, when it comes to theology, all of a sudden people lose their minds and all of this becomes a huge puzzle that requires centuries of debate. Why? As Luther said, when people confuse the indicative (precept) with the causative (decree), it is because they are stupid.

 

Application to Doctrine

Context is essential. Calvinists often introduce confusion because they set out to address a topic that belongs to metaphysics or ontology, but then they address it from the perspective of soteriology, or some other category that is logically secondary. Everything is first a matter of metaphysics or ontology, or theology proper. It is, for example, futile to discuss the origin of evil before we either establish or assume that this universe is such that there can be such a thing as evil. What kind of universe this is determines what evil means, whether there can be such a thing, and how it operates. Once we arrive at the fact that there is a God who creates, sustains, and causes all things, and that it is he who then calls some things good and some things evil, we cannot suddenly alter this presupposition when we begin to investigate the topic of evil.

For this reason, Calvinists often manage to do very little more than infuriate their opponents. We could speak of God’s being and power, obviously from the perspective of metaphysics or ontology, or theology proper. Then, a person asks, “So does man possess freedom?” The Calvinists all of a sudden offer an answer from soteriology: “True freedom is found in righteousness and service to Christ!” This is true in its own context, but the statement belongs to another topic altogether. But the Calvinists remain self-righteously oblivious.

Once we have settled the matter of metaphysics or ontology (Is there a God? What kind of God? What kind of universe is this?) – once we have constructed theology proper – soteriology comes as a subsidiary topic. Once things like being and cause have been established, soteriology deals with what the “causer” does with his power in relation to salvation. It is a more specific and narrow consideration. Metaphysics, ontology, or the matter of God’s bare sovereignty can be discussed even if there is no such thing as sin or salvation, but salvation cannot be discussed apart from metaphysics or ontology, as in what kind of God there is and what kind of world this is. Some might think it is pious to sling christology and soteriology in every direction regardless of the context or topic. This is a phony piety. They are hiding behind soteriology to avoid having to address metaphysics, ontology, or theology proper.

God is Power – the Almighty. He is a universal power, without which nothing can exist and nothing can happen. However, this power is not an impersonal force, but an intelligent power – a spirit or mind – and this means that everything that exists and everything that happens does so because he decides and causes it to be so.

With an impersonal force like electricity, few people would have a problem with the fact that it can both save and kill, both help and harm. But since God is an intelligent being, it is assumed that he cannot have such a relation to evil, or else it would mean that he is evil. Thus it has been creedal orthodoxy that God is not the “author” of sin. However, this in fact relegates God to the level of an impersonal force, only that he would be aware of what he is doing. That is, electricity that is sentient is still electricity, and electricity that decides to kill would be a killer, not just a force that kills. So it is assumed that if God causes evil, he would be evil.

This is, in fact, an insult to God, because he is not just a force that happens to be sentient. He is GOD – an intelligent and all-pervasive power that is in a class by himself. He is not just a force that can cause both good and evil that happens to know what he is doing, so that theologians must explain how he is distant from evil, but his own nature and will define what is good and evil. Something like electricity that happens to be sentient would still be unable to do this. He has explained a lot more to us in the Bible, but even if he has not, this fact alone should dispel the notion that he must not be the author of sin from the metaphysical or ontological perspective. As long as he has not defined something as evil for him to do, and as long as he approves of himself, then anything that he does is righteous by definition, because he makes the definition. For this reason, those who avoid calling him the author of sin, or whatever equivalent term, does so not because of an abundance of reverence, but because their view of God is too low.

I often would have spent less time on this aspect of God’s sovereignty if not for the fact that so many people are obsessed with denying it, even to the point of blasphemy. The bare doctrine is just “God is sovereign.” This is the entire doctrine, and there is no need to qualify it or to list the things that he is really sovereign over. It would be unnecessary to even mention good and evil if not for the fact that those who claim to believe the doctrine are so interested in restricting it. To those who accept God for who he is, or at least who are not obsessed with the doctrine of divine sovereignty with a demonic passion – some are obsessed with debating it, even though they do it poorly, and not receiving it or enjoying it – we deliver the message of Scripture in its wholesome proportion. This is the theology that God is sovereign over all things without restriction, that he is full of compassion, that he always keeps his word, that he is eager to forgive our sins and heal our diseases. In fact, it is obvious that many of those who represent themselves as defenders of God’s sovereignty and goodness by denying that he is also the sovereign author of sin acknowledge these divine qualities only on paper. In reality, they do not believe them – any of them; otherwise, they would expect God to manifest himself in glory and power in their lives.

They say that they believe in God’s sovereignty, only that he is not the author of sin. But I say that God is sovereign over all things, and he uses his sovereignty to fulfill all his promises – converting sinners, healing the sick, answering prayers for deliverance in the face of seeming impossibilities, rescuing people from hunger, poverty, disasters, by reforming their lives as well as by working miracles in their midst. He pours out his blessings and miracles in such abundance that they often spill over to affect unbelievers, so that even they are healed of blindness, paralysis, and terminal diseases, just as dogs consume the crumbs that fall from the children’s table. (Nevertheless, reprobates are confirmed in their damnation when they do not convert and offer thanks to God.) Since God is sovereign over all things, then he can overturn sin, evil, sickness, poverty, hatred, lust, jealousy, and all such things in this life, according to our faith and his power that is at work in us. So who truly believes and honors God’s goodness? And who is just a religious hypocrite whose doctrine consists of what God does not do, who is just a deist in disguise, or whose orthodoxy amounts to practical atheism?

 

Application to Preaching

We affirm that God is sovereign in an absolute sense, and when the topic is metaphysics or ontology, he is the direct cause and power of all things. This view of divine sovereignty avoids the categorical error made by those who address the topic mainly on the soteriological level. It acknowledges God as the absolute metaphysical or ontological power, even before anything can be logically regarded as good or evil. (An event, before it can be logically called good or evil as defined by God’s precept, or even before it can be called an “action” as if performed by intention, is just an event. What causes this event, or any event?) Then it is applied to other topics of theology and philosophy, including soteriology.

That said, most of the time the Bible does not speak from the perspective of metaphysics or ontology, and neither do we. All statements like, “Adam named his wife Eve” and “Amy had eggs for breakfast” refer to relative or perceived “causes,” that is, the apparent relationship between Adam and Eve, and between Amy and the eggs. They describe the relationship as if it is one of cause and effect only because of a perceived correlation, and not because one produces an actual effect on the other. They do not intend to say that Adam had sovereignty over Eve in the metaphysical sense, or that Amy had this kind of sovereignty over the eggs. The statements have no interest in metaphysics, ontology, or divine sovereignty, although a person who makes these statements might assume the correct view of the doctrine, whether or not he has it in mind as he speaks.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with saying something like Abraham gave birth to Isaac. Indeed he did, although Abraham did not create Isaac out of nothing, and did not make his spirit and body out of existing materials. There is nothing wrong with saying that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). He is a liar, and the father of lies. This does not contradict God’s sovereignty. We are not talking about a cause or power, but a relation. There is nothing wrong with saying that sickness comes from the devil, and that Jesus came to set us free from this oppression (Luke 13:16; Acts 10:38). In fact, seeing how the Bible talks about this subject, it would be false doctrine to say that sickness comes from God rather than the devil, so that we should endure it “for the glory of God” instead of regarding it as an enemy and resisting it by faith. So many people suffer “for the glory of God” in defiance to all his promises for deliverance. And then they tell us all about it, so that we may admire their heroic unbelief. They are religious scammers.

As long as it is not intended as a rejection of God’s sovereignty, it is not wrong to preach, “God wants you to repent. Believe in Jesus and be saved!” There is no denial of predestination, and there is no “sincere offer.” There is confusion only because people have been making the mistakes I mentioned. They wrongly frame the issue when they discuss it. Also, they are obsessed with their favorite doctrines so that they think the Bible is talking about them even when it is referring to something different, and they think everyone must be speaking in relation to those doctrines all the time or they are heretics.

If a crazy man who is obsessed with sushi tries to order it everywhere, even when he goes to restaurants that serve only burgers, tacos, curry, and other items that have little to do with sushi, he will think that he is getting some strange sushi. If he wants sushi, he should go to restaurants that serve sushi. Just because he likes sushi does not mean that every restaurant in the world is a sushi restaurant. This is so simple, but it seems that when you are talking about theology, you need to talk to people like they are little kids. They are so stuck for no good reason.

The confusion has been manufactured by force, by men’s theological machine. Some have wrongly condemned others for preaching like this. When I say “God wants you to repent” or even “God’s will is that you trust in Jesus to save you,” I declare God’s precept or command to you. The Bible usually speaks on this plane. We have seen an example where it refers to “the will of God” in this sense in Romans 12. Or, as Peter preached to the people, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Since the Bible can speak like this, and sometimes switches from one sense to the other, without a denial of divine sovereignty, there is nothing wrong when I do the same. If our application of a doctrine prevents us from believing and speaking as the Bible does, and if it results in oppression instead of liberty and power in its presentation, then our application must be defective.

We can make the same point about those who have been criticized for preaching, “God wants you well. Healing is God’s will. Believe in Jesus and receive healing!” The Bible says that Jesus “took up our infirmities and carried our diseases” (Matthew 8:17). It says, “And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up” (James 5:15). Opposition against this kind of preaching arises from a rejection of Scripture and an evil heart of unbelief. In fact, we ought to criticize those who do not preach this way.

Is there a difference between Ezekiel 18:23 and James 5:15, except people have faith in one and have no faith in the other? As Jesus put it, “Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” (Matthew 9:5). Now do you understand? James does, and so in the same verse he says, “If he has sinned, he will be forgiven” (James 5:15). God has always put the two things together (Psalm 103:3).

 

Application to Prayer

While we are at it, there might be nothing wrong even with saying, “Prayer changes things.” James says as much in verse 16: “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” Although it is assumed that God is the one who performs the work (v. 15), James sees nothing wrong with speaking as if the effect is attributed to prayer. This is not a denial of divine sovereignty, because he is the same one who writes, “You ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that'” (4:15). However, he does not apply this to prayer, but he says it to rebuke those who “boast and brag” (4:16) about themselves.

He brings up divine sovereignty, and he uses words like “if” and “the Lord’s will,” only to those who trust in themselves. He focuses on the Christian’s responsibility in the rest of the letter. He begins with faith that has no doubt (1:6), and continues to one that does not blame God (1:13), to one that reveals itself in actions (1:19-26), to one that resists the devil and chases him off (4:7). And he ends with faith that heals the sick, that is powerful and effective to work miracles (5:15-18).

It is true that the slogan can sound crude. Most people who glibly utter it have little understanding – but so do those who criticize them. They often have a defective view of divine sovereignty – and so do those who criticize them. The two groups are both deficient, only in different ways, and the differences are often not too great. The issue really depends on what one means by the statement. It would certainly be wrong to suppose that prayer itself changes things. If there is no God to pray to, then prayer would not change anything. The statement would be acceptable only if it means that God would change things in answer to prayer.

Perhaps the worst thing that one can do is to dismiss the statement outright, because then it would be difficult not to dismiss James 5:16 also. A popular response is that prayer changes yourself, even if nothing else. It has become another slogan, and one that has caused much more damage than “prayer changes things” can ever inflict. When it is said that prayer changes yourself, it is not meant that prayer will change anything about your situation, including your body or your health, but it refers only to the condition of your soul. In this context, this is a cop out. THIS…IS…A…COP…OUT! James disagrees with it. He says that the prayer of faith will “make the sick person well” (v. 15). He is not talking about improving yourself, or your spiritual condition, but praying to change a “thing,” a physical body, even someone else’s body. He says that the prayer of a righteous man is “powerful and effective” (v. 16). Then, he uses Elijah to illustrate his point, and his prayer changed the weather. The weather is very much a “thing,” is it not? And he was a man “just like us” (v. 17).

The slogan is sometimes stated like this: “Prayer does not change God, but it changes you.” This is loaded rubbish, and a red herring. There is no need to change God in order to change things. In fact, I am counting on him to stay the same – always – because this means that he will continue to keep his word and fulfill his promises, including his promises to change things when I pray. God is sovereign, and this is why there is nothing that can stop him from keeping his word to me.

The cop out is often used to attack Christians who trust God for “things,” but who supposedly lack an emphasis on repentance, holiness, and so on. However, if these Christians have itching ears for one kind of teaching, this cop out is just a theology for a different kind of itching ears, this time to satisfy an audience of unbelief. It assures those who are weak in faith that there is nothing wrong with them, and that they do not need to repent of their unbelief. If others are lacking in some ways, this does not excuse you for lacking in other ways. For many people, what they think they are doing well is the most important part of the word of God, and what they are not doing well is always heresy. But Jesus wants us to believe and follow all of it: “You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone” (Luke 11:42).