by David Bishop
John Murray’s “Redemption Accomplished and Applied” is an in-depth study of the subject of redemption, not to mention a great read. For that reason, I want to make it clear right from the start that it is not my aim to criticize Murray’s study concerning the subject of redemption itself. To the matter of Murray’s treatment of redemption I have nothing to say at this time other than to suggest that if you haven’t read it yet, then you probably should.
Nevertheless, I do have a bone to pick with Murray. He was under the impression that the death of Christ brings benefits and blessings – not including justification and salvation – to all men, both elect and non-elect alike. This I take exception to, and most vehemently.
Murray writes on page 61 of his book:
“In continuing the analysis of this doctrine (particular atonement), it is necessary to be clear what the question is not. The question is not whether many benefits short of justification and salvation accrue to men from the death of Christ. The unbelieving and the reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given authority in heaven and earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed.”
Some time later, as though to reinforce his earlier thoughts, Murray writes:
“The provision which God has made in his providence for the sustenance and comfort of man and beast is not the sparring or niggardly. He has made the earth to teem with good things to satisfy the needs of man and beast and to meet their varied tastes and appetites. Psalm 104 is the inspired lyric of praise and admiration. ‘These wait all upon thee; that Thou mayest give them their meat in due season . . . Thou openst thine hand, they are filled with good’. ‘Wine that maketh glad the heart of man, oil to make his face to shine, and bread which stengtheneth man’s heart’. And the psalmist exclaims: ‘O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Though made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.’” – Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 79
I see three problems with Murray’s argument.
- It is internally inconsistent
- It falsely assumes
- It is unbiblical
Internally Inconsistent
Murray asserts that the reprobate enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. He bases this assertion upon the notion that Christ’s mediatorial dominion is universal. Where in Scripture is Christ’s mediatorialship presented as universal? That His dominion is universal I do not deny. “Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9), “according the working of His great might that He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph. 1:19-20). But nowhere do I find the idea that He, rather than an angel, is the mediator of a non-justifying, non-redeeming covenant.
Murray recognizes the fact that Christ’s priestly ministry is tied uniquely to the efficacy of His sacrifice is, and earlier in his book states:
“It is necessary to remember that He eternally embodies in Himself the efficacy that accrued from His sacrifice upon earth and that it is in virtue of such efficacy that He exercises His heavenly ministry as the great High Priest of our profession.” – Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 54
How then can it be that Murray on one hand argues that Christ’s priestly ministry is tied uniquely to the efficacy of His sacrifice, and yet on the other insist that His mediatorialship governs even those whom He did not sacrifice for? I ask this, because after all, is He not the mediator of a covenant that was promised only to the elect? “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). Or was the eternal inheritance promised to the world universal?
Galatians 3:22 is clear that the eternal inheritance was promised only to the elect. How then can this be true, while at the same time Christ’s mediatorialship also be universally beneficial? It can’t be!
It seems clear to me that Murray assumes that because Christ’s mediatorialship is eternal, therefore it is also universal. Thankfully he rejects universal atonement, and so limits his idea of Christ’s universal mediatorialship to “just short of justification and redemption”, but this still leaves us with a logical dilemma.
If God also works all things together for good to those who hate Him (the opposite of what is stated in Rom. 8:28), then it must asked, upon what basis does He do this? Murray answers that it is upon the basis of a death that does not justify those whom God hates. “The unbelieving and the reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again” (pg. 61).
However, it must be asked in light of this assertion, why is this not also the same basis for God’s goodness shown to those He does love? After all, if God’s goodness is not dependent on His love, but is instead dependant on His dominion, then upon what basis can the elect say God is kind to them because He loves them? They would have no basis! So what if Christ died for someone. So what if God loves someone. According to Murray, these two conditions are not necessary for a person to benefit from Christ’s death. According to Murray, all that is necessary is that God reigns. But if that is the case, then why should it not be said then that God also gives good gifts to rebellious angels? After all, does He not reign above all principalities, powers and dominions? And does He not so reign because of His obedience unto death?
I trust now we see the problem in Murray’s argument.
False Assumption
I mentioned a moment ago that Murray assumes that because Christ’s mediatorialship is eternal, it is also therefore universal. Murray writes:
“The provision which God has made in his providence for the sustenance and comfort of man and beast is not the sparring or niggardly. He has made the earth to teem with good things to satisfy the needs of man and beast and to meet their varied tastes and appetites. Psalm 104 is the inspired lyric of praise and admiration. ‘These wait all upon thee; that Thou mayest give them their meat in due season . . . Thou openst thine hand, they are filled with good’. ‘Wine that maketh glad the heart of man, oil to make his face to shine, and bread which stengtheneth man’s heart’. And the psalmist exclaims: ‘O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Though made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.’” – Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 79
When did it enter into mainstream thought that sustenance and comfort are always to be understood as good things? Personally, I am of the opinion that it became the dominant view as the result of American industrial dominance and the subsequent explosion of sudden wealth in the average immigrant household at the end of World War 2. I am certainly positive that no one who was condemned to a brutal death in a Soviet gulag would ever have considered it good for Stalin to continue receiving sustenance and comfort. Murray, in my opinion, spent way too much time studying his Bible in the shadow of Western culture.
Psalm 104 is clear enough all right. God gives water for drink to every beast of the field, a song to sing for every bird in the air, grass to eat for livestock in the field, and vegetables to grow for every man in a tent, but no where in this Psalm is there talk of all these things being universally a good thing for the people who receive them.
Yes, the Psalmist does say in verse 28 “when you open your hand they are filled with good things”, but he is using the word good to describe the savory taste of food!
“These all look to you,
to give their food in due season.
When you open Your hand, they gather
it up;
when you open your hand, they are
filled with good things.”
The Psalmist does not declare that these things are universally good to everyone who receives them. Quite the contrary. He looks at all that God does and has done in creation, and then praises Him for creating it all in His wisdom (v. 24). He praises Him for His majesty, for His splendor, for His glory, but nowhere does he say that everything that receives gets for its own good. In fact, when the Psalmist states in verse 27, “these all look to you, to give them their food in due season”, does anyone believe the wicked think this a good thing?
Certainly it should be said that God gives for the good of His glory, but this should not be interpreted as meaning He gives to the wicked with the intent to bless them. He did not raise Pharaoh up with the intent to bless Pharaoh. He did not raise Assyria up to be the rod of His anger in order to bless Assyria. Assyria’s rise to power was not good for Assyria. It was good for God, good for God’s people, but it was not good for Assyria. It was a curse for Assyria, just as King Saul’s installment onto the throne was bad for King Saul.
God gives wine to gladden the hearts of men. We praise Him for His wisdom in this. We say He is wise to do this. But let’s ask the thrice-divorced, homeless alcoholic whether this gift is beneficial for him. Let’s ask Noah and Lot whether it was beneficial to them. It benefitted Christ at a certain wedding feast, and later benefitted His disciples in a certain upper room, but let us not assume from these few examples that it benefits everyone universally.
God sends His rain upon the just and the unjust. But as Hebrews 6:7-8 points out, that rain chokes the unjust. It is not beneficial to them. God created oxygen for lungs and the stomach for food, but Hitler’s continued supply of air and food was not beneficial for the millions who suffered and died in Nazi concentration camps. God ordained this. He ordained it for the good of His glory. He did not ordain it for the benefit of any non-elect who died in a concentration camp. If you have a hard time accepting that, then you will have a hard time accepting the truth about God’s sovereign grace.
Unbiblical Argument
There is no doubt that God’s dominion is universal. But there is great doubt that Christ’s mediatorialship is. Several times in the gospels Christ warns that He will return at the end not only to collect His elect, but also to destroy the reprobate. He makes no promise of mediating anything for the reprobate, either then or now. He promises only destruction. His return will not benefit them. Not their governments, not their homes, not their lives.
Scripture is clear that all things work together for good only for the obedient.
Ecc 2:26 – For to the one who pleases Him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner He has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to the one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after the wind.
Ezek 20:25-26 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
Amos 9:4 And if they go into captivity before their enemies, there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them; and I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good.
Jeremiah 5:24-25 They do not say in their hearts, “Let us fear the Lord our God, who gives the rain in its season, the autumn rain and the spring rain and keeps for us the weeks appointed for the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these away and your sins have kept good things from you.
Isaiah 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land, but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
The good news for those who are in Christ is that Christ fulfilled all the conditions required for the receipt of God’s blessings. That is why all things work together for the elect. That is not to say that the elect are promised an easy life of health and wealth, far from it. But ultimately, even if only in the later, God will work all things together for their good.
This is not the case for the non-elect. Nothing will work together for their good. They may at times believe that things are working out for their good, but they are not. As the old cliché goes, better be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
How many times do we have to be confronted with another nobody who got rich and famous only to then later find himself embroiled in an embarrassing scandal played out on our evening news? The guy who wins the lottery and then five years later receives a twenty-year prison sentence for tax evasion. The young lady who wins the next big talent show and then finds herself a virtual sex slave addicted to heroine and methamphetamines after she spent a few years chasing the lifestyle of a “rock star”. The popular TV preacher caught in a financial scandal, the politician caught in a sex scandal, the TV star caught in a drug scandal. Time and again we watch people’s lives come undone as a result of receiving what many of us would like to receive. And time again we shake our heads, tisk to ourselves, and then reassume the view that the next big lottery winner has received a good thing.
Sure, there is pleasure to be found in sin, but only for a season. “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.” (Heb 11:23-24). That pleasure is not a good thing to receive. It coils tight around its prey like a serpent, choking its prey with hopelessness and addiction. There is sometimes also suffering to be found in righteousness. “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” (Rom 8:20-21) In either case, whether suffering or pleasure, we cannot say that suffering is always bad and pleasure always good, anymore than we can say winning the lottery is always bad or falling in love is always good. It depends. The one thing I will not say is that the non-elect receive good because of Christ’s death. They most certainly do not.
lucidmarbles 