Jeremiah Whitaker (1599-1654) on Christ's Infinite Love to Men and His Desire After the Nations

"3. He is the desire of all Nations because his desire is after the Nations, though he needs them not, though thousands of Angel[s] stand before him, & thousand times ten thousands daily Minister unto him, though he lies in the bosom of his Father from all eternity, as one brought up with him and was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; yet such infinite love did he bear to men in whom there was nothing lovely, that he saith of himself, my rejoicing is in the habitable part of the earth, and my delights are with the Sons of men."

Jeremiah Whitaker, Eirenopoios, Christ the Settlement of Unsettled Times (London: Printed for John Rothwell, and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Church-yard, at the Signe of the Sunne, 1642), 52-53. His son was William Whitaker (1629-1672). Jeremiah's last name is spelled as "Whittaker" on EEBO.

"...all the commands of God aim at no other end, tend to no other purpose, but that you may lay hold of eternal life..." 

Jeremiah Whitaker, The Christian's Great Design on Earth (London: Printed by G. Miller for John Bellamie at the Sign of the three golden Lions in Cornhill near the royal-Exchange, 1645), 33.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB
Brook

God's Will in His Commands and the Special Case of Abraham and Isaac

Mainstream Calvinists have rightly argued that if God commands all men to repent and believe, according to His revealed will in the gospel, then He desires all men to repent and believe, and thus to be saved. Some have tried to sever this connection between God’s preceptive will and a desire in Him for compliance by bringing up the case of God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It came up in the debates at the Westminster Assembly. B. B. Warfield spoke highly of George Gillespie for distinguishing between voluntas decreti and voluntas mandati in his exchange with Edmund Calamy, and for arguing that, “The command doth not hold out God’s intentions; otherwise God’s command to Abraham concerning sacrificing of his son. …” Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991 reprint of Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1959), 141–42. On the contrary, this reply by Gillespie should not be praised and admired, but rather should be disapproved and avoided, as the following quotes will illustrate.

Ken Stebbins argued that the case of God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice is “an exceptional case of the will of God.” Discussing the subject in John Owen, he said:

Again, Owen refers to God's command to Abraham to go and sacrifice Isaac (Works X p44). This example must be regarded as a special case of God's will, and an exception is no foundation on which to build a structure of theology. If any object that I have no right to single out this example as a special case let me point out that the linchpin of all true theology is the axiom that God's Word does not contradict itself. How then do you explain that in one part of Scripture God forbids child sacrifice (Deut. 12:31, Lev. 18:21, 20:1ff) while in this case He commands it? The only way to deal with Genesis 22 is to treat it as an exceptional case of the will of God when the Lord, for the particular purpose of testing the implicit faith of Abraham to the limit, commands him to do what His very nature militates against.

Nevertheless, so far as Abraham was concerned, he was 'bound to believe' that it was not only his bare duty, but also 'well pleasing unto God that he should accomplish what was enjoined', as Owen himself admits (Works X p44). He was bound to believe that God would 'love and approve this thing, whether ever it be done or no', even as he was also bound to believe that God would yet keep His promises concerning Isaac (Heb. 11:17-19). He did not try to reconcile his conflicting duties--but simply acknowledged a mystery and followed both duties in faith.

Ken Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 1996), 27. Also in Christ Freely Offered (Lansvale, NSW, Australia: Tulip Publishing, 2020), 19–20.

In the special case of Abraham and Isaac, it is useful to note that it is not only a case of God commanding something that He did not will to come to pass, but that He is also commanding something that is clearly something He does not approve. That’s another significant difference between God’s general precepts (which he does approve) and this Abraham/Isaac scenario. Note what Vos said:

80. How are we to evaluate Abraham’s case where he was first commanded to sacrifice Isaac, and this command was later withdrawn?

Here God commands something that He does not will. The great problem, however, was just how God can decree something that He does not approve. In Abraham’s case, one could at most find a difficulty concerning God’s truthfulness. How can God say to Abraham, “It is my will that you sacrifice your son,” while in reality it was not His will? One must so understand this that God did not really say to Abraham, “It is my positive will that it come to pass (will of decree), but it is my will of precept prescribed for you,” that is, “I demand of you that you should feel commanded to do it.”

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., 4 vols. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2014), 1:25.

God still desired Abraham’s obedience in this special case, otherwise this unusual time of trial and testing would make no sense.

In contrast to those who want to appeal to the exceptional case of Abraham to negate the idea that God's commands elsewhere are not indicative of His desire for compliance in any sense., notice the strong connection that William Greenhill (1591–1671), a Westminster divine, makes between God's commands and His "strong will" for compliance in the gospel offer:

Fifthly, This appears from the Command of Christ, when a thing is commanded, those that command would fain have it done; now the Lord Christ commands men to come unto him, commands them to believe: John 14:1. Let not your hearts be troubled, ye believe in God, believe also in me. Believe in me, there's the ease, there's rest, there's refreshing, there's deliverance, there's salvation for you: Believe in me: and in the 1 John 3 latter end; This is his Commandment that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the Commandment of the Father that we should believe on the name of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; and this is the Commandment of the Son that we should believe in him. When the Father commanded his Son to go to the Vineyard and dig there; the Father was very willing the child should go and do it: And so when God the Father, and Christ the Son, commands us to believe, they are very willing we should. When Princes send out their Commands to the people to do such and such things, they are very desirous they should be done: So when God gives out his Commands in the Gospel, and Christ commands in the Gospel to come, saith Christ, Let him that is athrist come; I command you to believe; It's an argument there is a strong will in him for it.

William Greenhill, Sermons of Christ (London: Printed by R. I. for Livewell Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head-Alley, 1656), 154–155.

Elsewhere, Greenhill says:

Secondly, I infer from hence, the willingness of the Lord to have poor sinners receive the benefit that is to be had by Jesus Christ; because he commands them to believe; will not you of yourselves do it? then I command you, saith he, to believe; and what's the benefit? you may see in John 3:16. whosoever believes, should not perish: here's great benefit, to be kept out of Hell, to be kept from wrath to come, and to have everlasting life. Now can you have greater benefit then to be delivered from all evil, and enjoy all good? God commands us therefore to believe, that we might partake of these benefits. God commands men to repent, he would have them repent and be saved, 2 Pet. 3:4. so[?] here he commands them to believe, and he would have them come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved, 1 Tim. 2:4. God commands you to believe in his Son Jesus Christ, that you might not perish but be saved; he is very willing, why will you die? why do you not come to my Son and believe in him? I have laid help upon him that is mighty; why do you not look for help from him? God is willing that poor sinners should have the benefit that is to be had from Christ.

William Greenhill, "Believing Lyeth Under Command, in The Sound-Hearted Christian: Or, A Treatise of Soundness of Heart (London: Printed for Nath. Crouch, at the Cross Keys in Bishopsgate-street, near Leaden-hall, 1671), 118–119.

...all the commands of God aim at no other end, tend to no other purpose, but that you may lay hold of eternal life...

Jeremiah Whitaker, The Christian’s Great Design on Earth (London: Printed by G. Miller for John Bellamie at the Sign of the three golden Lions in Cornhill near the royal-Exchange, 1645), 33.

The Positive Side of Egoism

On another blog (2), it’s reported that a Christian teacher said these words regarding our future state in heaven:

I will be a person with no stain or calculation of self-interest.

I commented on one of the blogs with these words:

Does he mean we will have no self-interest at all? Or does he mean that self-interest will be properly placed beneath our interest and motive to glorify God? Isn't it the case that most Christians think of virtue in the sense that all self-interest is bad? I think that's a mistake. I would argue that self-interest is good and necessary, but needs to be placed beneath interest in God's glory issuing in love to our neighbor. Heaven will be a world of love, as Edwards says. We will have self-interest, but we will not be selfish, correct?

I think that it’s frequently the case that we think in false dilemmas. It's not a case of either self-interest or God-interest, but self-interest under God-interest (I assume that the reader understands that genuine God-interest also presupposes that we will have neighbor-interest). Our motives are complex, and we need to arrange and prioritize them according to the teaching of scripture, and according to wisdom that fits life's circumstances (see Ecclesiastes chapter 3). Seeking the glory of God does not eliminate self-interest, but put's self-interest in it's proper place. Jesus, in all of his ethical perfection as a man, had self-interest but he put his own interests under his motive to glorify God first and foremost. Also, some of God's righteous commandments are associated with our self-interest.

NKJ Ephesians 6:2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

That certainly sounds like obedience is connected to self-interest, but it's prioritized under God's glory.

The quote on the blog also brought to mind Steve Wilkins’s treatment of Ethical Egoism. In his book, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics: An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong, he said that there is a positive side to ethical egoism, even though it has serious problems as a theory. He writes:

The Positive Side of Egoism

The initial response many have to the phrase ethical egoism is that it sounds like an oxymoron. How can one be both ethical and egoistic? Moreover, attacking altruism is kind of like attacking mom, apple pie and the flag. Who wants to advocate selfishness? However, if considered honestly, egoism has attractive elements. First, egoism forges a strong link between personal responsibility and self-esteem. Egoism stresses that individuals are responsible for what they do and should receive the benefits of their actions. Moral agency assumes that we accept responsibility for our own actions. If this is not the case, people will depend on others to solve their problems, and this soon becomes habit. Dependency, in turn, has negative consequences for those who are dependent because it is difficult to respect oneself when what is received is undeserved. It also has negative consequences for those who meet the needs of dependent people. Providers cannot focus their efforts on what which is most naturally their concern. Energy which could have been devoted to their interests and needs is now divided and diminished. We do not run as fast when we carry someone.

Second, after some reflection, most will likely agree that self-preservation and self-interest have a valid role in ethics. We can recognize the impulse toward self-preservation on both the biological and rational level. Our biological life is protected in numerous ways. We have built-in temperature, hunger and thirst controls to protect us. Each body comes with its own infection-fighting armies of cells as standard equipment. Adrenaline is pumped into our system in response to danger and gives us extra bursts of strength and speed. Nature tells us through our physical functions that life is important. Even where our natural defense systems are not sufficient protection, our mental processes work to keep us safe. Decisions are made daily that minimize potential dangers. We consider it rational to avoid certain areas of town, put on seat belts and watch our diets. In short, physically and mentally, we have a number of systems that protect our lives. Except in rare circumstances, we confirm these natural impulses in ethics by making preservation of our lives a moral duty.

Moreover, we can agree that the selfishness of others benefits us. As Nathaniel Branden states,

[Do] we want our lover to caress us unselfishly, with no personal gratification in the doing, or do we want our lover to caress us because it is a joy and a pleasure for him or her to do so? And let us ask ourselves whether we want our partner to spend time with us, alone together, and to experience the doing as an act of self-sacrifice. Or do we want our partner to experience such time as glory?

This makes the point that relationships would be unfulfilling if others received no benefit themselves, and this can be extended into other areas of life. People tend to do best at what they like. If they are free to follow their interests, we all share in the benefits of their productivity.

Finally, ethical egoism warns us that actions are not justified simply because they are unselfish. Altruism cannot be good solely because our actions are of no benefit to us. Otherwise Rand's diagnosis that the self becomes the standard of evil in altruism is correct. We have all seen situations in which a person's unselfishness was destructive for themselves or others. At times, I have given money to people who said they needed to buy food, only to see them minutes later with liquor but no food. People have given so much time at church for good purposes that their own families have disintegrated for lack of attention. Thus if altruism is going to work as an ethical perspective, something must be added to it that allows us to determine when an unselfish act is also a good act.

Steve Wilkins, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1995), 54–56.

Jeremiah Whitaker (1599–1654) wrote:

Austin answers, that truly there was no need of any commandment for man to love himself, God had imprinted it upon his nature: if when God commands thee to love thy neighbor as thy self, and makes the love of thy self the rule of loving another, it implies that a man should love himself; and if a man did truly love himself, all the exhortations Ministers bring to you would be received with joy and gladness for all we desire, and beg at your hand in the name of the Lord Jesus, is, that you would be wise for your selves, and lay up a good foundation for your selves against the time to come, that you may lay hold of eternal life. Now I entreat you, when I speak of self-love, Remember, your bodies are not your selves, much less your corruptions; and the world is not your selves, for all things are either the things above us, and that is God; and things without us, the world; and the things within us, and that is our soul: the soul of man is the man: now love but your souls, and then surely this self-love is so far from being condemned, it is commanded, and God makes admirable use of it, and no man can be wise for another, and merciful for another, that is cruel to himself: every man is bound to love himself: and it is a dispute the School-men handle, Whether any man can truly love another, that truly loves not himself? and they argue, no man can truly love another, till he love himself; and no man truly loves himself, till he loves Jesus Christ, that is the author of this eternal life.

Jeremiah Whitaker, The Christian's Great Design on Earth (London: Printed by G. Miller for John Bellamie at the Sign of the three golden Lions in Cornhill near the royal-Exchange, 1645), 33–34.

Another thought for your meditation:

I once heard a preacher say something like this:

The truly telling thing about a person is not so much the particular values that he or she has, but the order in which they put those values.

I think that idea points to a profound biblical principle. While we obey God with the motive of self-interest, it should almost fade out of view when we consider our motive to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. Putting self-interest over God-interest is idolatry. I think that's why so many Christians overreact and dismiss any self-interest in their idea of what it means to live a virtuous life.

The human heart is an idol factory, and the last idol destroyed is selfishness. We will gladly rid ourselves of other idolatrous affections before we dismiss our perverted self-interest. I think that this is why Jesus commanded us to take up our cross and follow him. The idolatrous veneration of ourselves needs to die.

Paul said that in the last days, "men shall be lovers of themselves." He's speaking about the sinful self-elevation that displaces God's rightful place as Lord. Christians need to properly understand the issue of self-interest, and proclaim the biblical doctrines in the midst of this "crooked and perverse generation."

NKJ Philippians 2:15 that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,