Isaiah 5:4 and Sufficient Grace



I was recently asked to comment on Isaiah 5:4 and how I thought it supported resistible grace. (link) Here's the passage in context:

1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? 5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. 6 I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds That they rain no rain on it.”

7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.

Isaiah reprimands Israel for rebellion and foretells their resulting captivity by the parable of a vineyard. The style mixes flowing wisdom literature and a harsh prophetic judgement. Per verse 7, God owns the vineyard, which is Israel. Justice and righteousness are good grapes while oppression and a cry for help are wild grapes (or thorns). The chapter opens with a song about a beloved and His vineyard. (verse 1) God had provided for Israel (dug it up, cleared out stones, planted it with the choicest vine, built a tower in its midst, and made a winepress) with the expectation that it would bring forth good grapes, but it didn't (verse 2). In verse 3 the speaker shifts from someone singing about the beloved and his vineyard to God addressing the vineyard. God calls the Israelites to judge themselves (verse 3). God presents His evidence against Israel by asking what more He could have done and says He looked for good grapes but got bad ones. (verse 4). So God is going to remove His protection and blessings from Israel, leading to captivity and judgement (verse 5-6).

God works on the soil (dug it up and removed stones) and the vine itself (planted it with the choicest vine) and dealt with external threats (the tower). It is difficult to identify the specific blessings in verse 2 which God removes in verses 5-6. Clearly they include physical protection from invading nations, but they must also include means sufficient to produce good grapes (righteousness and justice). The reasons are:

1) Good grapes are more than National existence and prosperity
2) God calls the Israelites to condemn themselves for not producing good grapes, but if whatever God provided was insufficient to enable the production of good grapes, they would not be in a positions to condemn themselves. They simply say, I had to produce thorns, you didn't deal with me in a way in which I could have produced good grapes.
3) God's expectation was that they should produce good grapes, which does not makes sense if the means were insufficient for the production of good grapes. Not that He did not foreknow the result but that His foreknowledge of the result was in some sense dependent on the result.
4) the parable as a whole, especially the expectation, indicates that it was God's desire that they produce good grapes
5) God asks what more He could have done - which would not make sense if He didn't provide sufficient grace for the production of good grapes.

Christ refers to verse 2 in Matthew 21:33-43 perhaps even combining it with Isaiah 3:14. While Christ's point is different than Isaiah's, the overall idea of Israel being inexcusable in light of God's previous gifts  carries over.

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
Good exegesis. I appreciated this study.
April 2, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more