SEARCH THE ARCHIVE

? SEARCH TIPS
Exact phrase, enclose in quotes:
“keyword phrase here”
Multiple words, separate with commas:
keyword, keyword

* Not Anabaptist, But Reformed was a pamphlet written by Danhof and Hoeksema in 1923 as a “Provisional Response to Rev. Jan Karel Van Baalen Co

* Not Anabaptist, But Reformed was a pamphlet written by Danhof and Hoeksema in 1923 as a “Provisional Response to Rev. Jan Karel Van Baalen Concerning the Denial of Common Grace.” Translated here from the Dutch by seminarian Daniel Holstege. Previous article in this series: July 2007, p. 421.

The first subject Rev. Van Baalen treats in his pamphlet is the Noahitic covenant. Or rather, the subject of the brother’s treatment is not that covenant as such, but the differing views that exist, with respect to that covenant, between Dr. A. Kuyper on the one hand, and Revs. H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema on the other. These last two brothers had denied that the covenant established with Noah was a covenant of common grace, in the common sense of the term, and had written that there must be seen in that covenant also a phase of the development of the covenant of grace. According to us, then, God reveals the covenant of grace with Noah as inclusive of all generations of the earth, upholding all that exists in time so that God’s creation also might soon be relieved from the curse and be glorified.

Rev. Hoeksema had criticized Dr. Kuyper’s reasoning with respect to this covenant with Noah. The first argument we raised, which has been cut to pieces by Rev. Van Baalen, is that nothing can be built on the different use of the names God and Jehovah in this connection. The argument of Dr. Kuyper in his De Gemeene Gratie was that in Genesis 9, which speaks of the covenant with Noah, not the name Jehovah, but the name God is used. Jehovah is the covenant name, and God is the name that describes the Most High as the God of all flesh. And where the covenant of particular grace is spoken of in Genesis 3, and in Genesis 9:25-27, the name Jehovah is used. But in Genesis 9:9-17 Scripture does not use the name Jehovah, but God. This, then, is one of Dr. Kuyper’s grounds for concluding that the latter passage does not speak of the covenant of particular grace, but of a universally gracious covenant, a covenant of common grace. We respond that nothing can be built on this use of names with respect to that covenant notion, simply because the names God and Jehovah are used interchangeably in this regard. Rev. Van Baalen thinks he must criticize that. Let us see to what extent that criticism is correct. First of all, our critic writes that we have not done justice to Dr. Kuyper’s position. Dr. Kuyper did not write that this distinction always occurs, but only in the places mentioned, namely,Genesis 3 and Genesis 9:25-27, andGenesis 9:9-17. Now we agree with that. But we do not agree that this concludes or settles anything in the matter under discussion. For in the first place it is not true that only the name Jehovah is used in Genesis 3. Both names appear there, and often together (Jehovah-God). But in the second place, this still does not take away from our argument in any way. What underlies Kuyper’s argument is the notion that the name Jehovah indicates the covenant of particular grace and the name God the relation of the Most High to all flesh. The first name expresses the covenant relationship to His people, the second His relationship as Creator to every creature. If this is not true, then nothing can be built on the use of names inGenesis 9 either. Our argument is simply this: if the names God and Jehovah are used interchangeably in Genesis, and no attention is given to any particular or universal relation of God to His people or to His creatures, then no one has the right to make an argument for the institution of a covenant of common grace in the use of those names in Genesis 9. Then we pointed out that in Genesis 17, certainly a classic chapter (if we may use such an expression) for the establishment of the covenant of particular grace, the name God and not Jehovah is used repeatedly. No one concludes from the use of that name in Genesis 17 that a covenant of common grace is spoken of there too. Therefore the argument also fails when it is applied to Genesis 9.

Rev. Van Baalen now supposedly refutes this last argument by a proposition which simply astonishes us. The proposition is that Abraham did not know the name Jehovah and therefore can never be presented as employing that name, and that we never read of God introducing Himself to Abraham as Jehovah. Moses knew that name well, and consequently he also made this distinction. But before Moses there was no one who knew that name. Rev. Van Baalen writes, “It appears nowhere that the Supreme Being introduced Himself as Jehovah to Noah or Shem or Adam or Eve or the snake, for He would do that first to Moses. But this is noteworthy, that Moses, who certainly knew the name Jehovah, made that distinction when he wrote the book of Genesis. Moses wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit that Jehovah spoke to Shem and Noah when it pertained to the covenant of particular grace. But Moses wrote that God spoke when it pertained to common grace” (The Denial of Common Grace: Reformed or Anabaptistic?, page 17).

So strongly is the writer convinced of the validity of this argument that he considers it crazy to think of it differently: “No, Dr. Kuyper was not so crazy that he did not know that the Lord would not have used the name Jehovah with Abraham. The Lord God could not have done that; not even if He spoke of the covenant of grace. And why not? For the simple reason that it was His plan to make known that covenant name first to Moses. See Exodus 6:3: ‘And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.'”

Understood, reader? Supposedly, Abraham knew nothing of the name Jehovah. Moses was the first to be aware of that name. Therefore, Moses also does not portray it such that anyone before his time took that name upon his lips or that God would have revealed Himself as Jehovah to anyone before Moses’ time. Hence the name God in Genesis 17. And the author even thinks it would be crazy for someone to claim anything else!

Now there is not one letter of truth in this entire argument. We were actually shocked that a man like Rev. Van Baalen would write something like this. If he had done a little bit of study on this matter, he would not have written such a thing. This certainly does not fit with Scripture. In the first place, it is not true that Moses wrote “Jehovah” when the covenant of particular grace was spoken of and “God” if it had to do with the covenant of common grace. Moses absolutely does not make such a distinction. We will quote a few passages to prove this:

When Scripture relates to us the conversation between God and Cain, the name LORD is continuously used. For the sake of clarity, we will write Jehovah every time that name appears in Scripture.*

Genesis 4:6, “And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen?”

Genesis 4:9, “And Jehovah said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?”

Genesis 4:13, “And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear.”

Genesis 4:15 (take note, the following passage is the very passage that is sometimes quoted as proof for common grace!), “And Jehovah said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

In all these passages we find the name Jehovah used for God when He speaks with Cain.

In several passages which have to do with God’s relationship to man in general, and especially to ungodly humanity, the name Jehovah is used. Genesis 6:3, “And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.”

Genesis 6:5, 6, “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

Furthermore, the names are sometimes used interchangeably.

Genesis 6:8, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.” Parenthetically, Rev. Van Baalen, was this common grace? It was by that grace that he did not perish with the world. Just read this verse once in connection with verse 7. And yet this was really “particular” grace, wasn’t it? You will certainly agree with that.

Genesis 7:1, “And Jehovah said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark.”

Genesis 7:5, “And Noah did according unto all that Jehovah commanded him.”

Genesis 7:9, “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.”

Genesis 7:16, “And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and Jehovah shut him in.”

Genesis 8:1, “And God remembered Noah and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged.”

Genesis 8:20, 21, “And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah; and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And Jehovah smelled a sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake,” etc.

Furthermore, the name God is used when it has to do with the relationship of the covenant in the particular sense of the word.

Genesis 5:24, “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” This walking with God is certainly particular grace, and it has its eye on the inner covenant relationship between God and His people, does it not?

Genesis 6:9, “…Noah walked with God.”

Genesis 17:3, 4, “And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee.”

Genesis 17:9, “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.”

In light of all these passages of Scripture, what remains of Rev. Van Baalen’s contention that Moses wrote “Jehovah” where it had to do with the covenant of particular grace and “God” when it pertained to a covenant of common grace? This entire argument is no good. Not for a moment does it hold any water in the light of Scripture. And therefore, you simply cannot apply it to Genesis 9:9-17. Moses does not make that distinction.

Even stranger is Van Baalen’s exegesis of Exodus 6:3. According to him, no one before Moses would have known the name Jehovah! And Moses never presents it that way. God could not call Himself by the name Jehovah before Moses. And Dr. Kuyper was not so crazy that he did not know this.

This is what Van Baalen writes.

But what does the Scripture say?

Genesis 14:22, “And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto Jehovah, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.”

Genesis 15:2, “And Abram said, Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless…?”

Genesis 15:7, “And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees….” 3

Genesis 15:8, “And he said, Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?”

Genesis 22:14, “And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah Shall Foresee It.”

Genesis 24:2, 3, “And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by Jehovah, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth.” And a little later we read that Abraham’s servant calls out to God as follows:

Genesis 24:12, “And he said, O Jehovah God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham.” Genesis 24:27, “And he said, Blessed be Jehovah God of my master Abraham….”

These examples could be multiplied, but we trust that Rev. Van Baalen will look them up himself and come to the conclusion that he is making a colossal mistake here. The entire argument on pages 16 and 17 rests on this error. This is the result, brother, if one reasons from a single text of Scripture and simply ignores all the rest. This is a weakness revealed more often in your pamphlet, as we will later demonstrate.

Our conclusion with respect to the use of names is as follows:

a) That nothing can be concluded from the use of the name God in Genesis 9:9-17 with respect to a universal covenant of common grace. The names God and Jehovah, with respect to this point, are used interchangeably in the Holy Scriptures.

b) The remark, “No, Dr. Kuyper was not so crazy that he should not have known,” etc. (p. 16, Pamphlet) is erroneous. And the entire argument that follows the remark is also a misunderstanding. Moses again and again presents the saints from before his time as knowing the name Jehovah. And God also introduced Himself to them as Jehovah.

Once again, Rev. Van Baalen, acknowledge that you have erred!


* Translator’s note: The Dutch version used by the authors (Staten Vertaling) translates the Hebrew name ‘Yahweh’ with ‘HEERE’ (LORD). Here the authors change ‘HEERE’ to ‘Jehova’ wherever that name ‘Yahweh’ appears. Similarly, the KJV translates ‘Yahweh’ with ‘LORD.’ We have taken the citations from the KJV and changed ‘LORD’ to ‘Jehovah.’ncerning the Denial of Common Grace.” Translated here from the Dutch by seminarian Daniel Holstege. Previous article in this series: July 2007, p. 421.

The first subject Rev. Van Baalen treats in his pamphlet is the Noahitic covenant. Or rather, the subject of the brother’s treatment is not that covenant as such, but the differing views that exist, with respect to that covenant, between Dr. A. Kuyper on the one hand, and Revs. H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema on the other. These last two brothers had denied that the covenant established with Noah was a covenant of common grace, in the common sense of the term, and had written that there must be seen in that covenant also a phase of the development of the covenant of grace. According to us, then, God reveals the covenant of grace with Noah as inclusive of all generations of the earth, upholding all that exists in time so that God’s creation also might soon be relieved from the curse and be glorified.

Rev. Hoeksema had criticized Dr. Kuyper’s reasoning with respect to this covenant with Noah. The first argument we raised, which has been cut to pieces by Rev. Van Baalen, is that nothing can be built on the different use of the names God and Jehovah in this connection. The argument of Dr. Kuyper in his De Gemeene Gratie was that in Genesis 9, which speaks of the covenant with Noah, not the name Jehovah, but the name God is used. Jehovah is the covenant name, and God is the name that describes the Most High as the God of all flesh. And where the covenant of particular grace is spoken of in Genesis 3, and in Genesis 9:25-27, the name Jehovah is used. But in Genesis 9:9-17 Scripture does not use the name Jehovah, but God. This, then, is one of Dr. Kuyper’s grounds for concluding that the latter passage does not speak of the covenant of particular grace, but of a universally gracious covenant, a covenant of common grace. We respond that nothing can be built on this use of names with respect to that covenant notion, simply because the names God and Jehovah are used interchangeably in this regard. Rev. Van Baalen thinks he must criticize that. Let us see to what extent that criticism is correct. First of all, our critic writes that we have not done justice to Dr. Kuyper’s position. Dr. Kuyper did not write that this distinction always occurs, but only in the places mentioned, namely,Genesis 3 and Genesis 9:25-27, andGenesis 9:9-17. Now we agree with that. But we do not agree that this concludes or settles anything in the matter under discussion. For in the first place it is not true that only the name Jehovah is used in Genesis 3. Both names appear there, and often together (Jehovah-God). But in the second place, this still does not take away from our argument in any way. What underlies Kuyper’s argument is the notion that the name Jehovah indicates the covenant of particular grace and the name God the relation of the Most High to all flesh. The first name expresses the covenant relationship to His people, the second His relationship as Creator to every creature. If this is not true, then nothing can be built on the use of names inGenesis 9 either. Our argument is simply this: if the names God and Jehovah are used interchangeably in Genesis, and no attention is given to any particular or universal relation of God to His people or to His creatures, then no one has the right to make an argument for the institution of a covenant of common grace in the use of those names in Genesis 9. Then we pointed out that in Genesis 17, certainly a classic chapter (if we may use such an expression) for the establishment of the covenant of particular grace, the name God and not Jehovah is used repeatedly. No one concludes from the use of that name in Genesis 17 that a covenant of common grace is spoken of there too. Therefore the argument also fails when it is applied to Genesis 9.

Rev. Van Baalen now supposedly refutes this last argument by a proposition which simply astonishes us. The proposition is that Abraham did not know the name Jehovah and therefore can never be presented as employing that name, and that we never read of God introducing Himself to Abraham as Jehovah. Moses knew that name well, and consequently he also made this distinction. But before Moses there was no one who knew that name. Rev. Van Baalen writes, “It appears nowhere that the Supreme Being introduced Himself as Jehovah to Noah or Shem or Adam or Eve or the snake, for He would do that first to Moses. But this is noteworthy, that Moses, who certainly knew the name Jehovah, made that distinction when he wrote the book of Genesis. Moses wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit that Jehovah spoke to Shem and Noah when it pertained to the covenant of particular grace. But Moses wrote that God spoke when it pertained to common grace” (The Denial of Common Grace: Reformed or Anabaptistic?, page 17).

So strongly is the writer convinced of the validity of this argument that he considers it crazy to think of it differently: “No, Dr. Kuyper was not so crazy that he did not know that the Lord would not have used the name Jehovah with Abraham. The Lord God could not have done that; not even if He spoke of the covenant of grace. And why not? For the simple reason that it was His plan to make known that covenant name first to Moses. See Exodus 6:3: ‘And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.'”

Understood, reader? Supposedly, Abraham knew nothing of the name Jehovah. Moses was the first to be aware of that name. Therefore, Moses also does not portray it such that anyone before his time took that name upon his lips or that God would have revealed Himself as Jehovah to anyone before Moses’ time. Hence the name God in Genesis 17. And the author even thinks it would be crazy for someone to claim anything else!

Now there is not one letter of truth in this entire argument. We were actually shocked that a man like Rev. Van Baalen would write something like this. If he had done a little bit of study on this matter, he would not have written such a thing. This certainly does not fit with Scripture. In the first place, it is not true that Moses wrote “Jehovah” when the covenant of particular grace was spoken of and “God” if it had to do with the covenant of common grace. Moses absolutely does not make such a distinction. We will quote a few passages to prove this:

When Scripture relates to us the conversation between God and Cain, the name LORD is continuously used. For the sake of clarity, we will write Jehovah every time that name appears in Scripture.*

Genesis 4:6, “And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen?”

Genesis 4:9, “And Jehovah said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?”

Genesis 4:13, “And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear.”

Genesis 4:15 (take note, the following passage is the very passage that is sometimes quoted as proof for common grace!), “And Jehovah said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

In all these passages we find the name Jehovah used for God when He speaks with Cain.

In several passages which have to do with God’s relationship to man in general, and especially to ungodly humanity, the name Jehovah is used. Genesis 6:3, “And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.”

Genesis 6:5, 6, “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

Furthermore, the names are sometimes used interchangeably.

Genesis 6:8, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.” Parenthetically, Rev. Van Baalen, was this common grace? It was by that grace that he did not perish with the world. Just read this verse once in connection with verse 7. And yet this was really “particular” grace, wasn’t it? You will certainly agree with that.

Genesis 7:1, “And Jehovah said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark.”

Genesis 7:5, “And Noah did according unto all that Jehovah commanded him.”

Genesis 7:9, “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.”

Genesis 7:16, “And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and Jehovah shut him in.”

Genesis 8:1, “And God remembered Noah and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged.”

Genesis 8:20, 21, “And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah; and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And Jehovah smelled a sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake,” etc.

Furthermore, the name God is used when it has to do with the relationship of the covenant in the particular sense of the word.

Genesis 5:24, “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” This walking with God is certainly particular grace, and it has its eye on the inner covenant relationship between God and His people, does it not?

Genesis 6:9, “…Noah walked with God.”

Genesis 17:3, 4, “And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee.”

Genesis 17:9, “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.”

In light of all these passages of Scripture, what remains of Rev. Van Baalen’s contention that Moses wrote “Jehovah” where it had to do with the covenant of particular grace and “God” when it pertained to a covenant of common grace? This entire argument is no good. Not for a moment does it hold any water in the light of Scripture. And therefore, you simply cannot apply it to Genesis 9:9-17. Moses does not make that distinction.

Even stranger is Van Baalen’s exegesis of Exodus 6:3. According to him, no one before Moses would have known the name Jehovah! And Moses never presents it that way. God could not call Himself by the name Jehovah before Moses. And Dr. Kuyper was not so crazy that he did not know this.

This is what Van Baalen writes.

But what does the Scripture say?

Genesis 14:22, “And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto Jehovah, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.”

Genesis 15:2, “And Abram said, Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless…?”

Genesis 15:7, “And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees….” 3

Genesis 15:8, “And he said, Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?”

Genesis 22:14, “And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah Shall Foresee It.”

Genesis 24:2, 3, “And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by Jehovah, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth.” And a little later we read that Abraham’s servant calls out to God as follows:

Genesis 24:12, “And he said, O Jehovah God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham.” Genesis 24:27, “And he said, Blessed be Jehovah God of my master Abraham….”

These examples could be multiplied, but we trust that Rev. Van Baalen will look them up himself and come to the conclusion that he is making a colossal mistake here. The entire argument on pages 16 and 17 rests on this error. This is the result, brother, if one reasons from a single text of Scripture and simply ignores all the rest. This is a weakness revealed more often in your pamphlet, as we will later demonstrate.

Our conclusion with respect to the use of names is as follows:

a) That nothing can be concluded from the use of the name God in Genesis 9:9-17 with respect to a universal covenant of common grace. The names God and Jehovah, with respect to this point, are used interchangeably in the Holy Scriptures.

b) The remark, “No, Dr. Kuyper was not so crazy that he should not have known,” etc. (p. 16, Pamphlet) is erroneous. And the entire argument that follows the remark is also a misunderstanding. Moses again and again presents the saints from before his time as knowing the name Jehovah. And God also introduced Himself to them as Jehovah.

Once again, Rev. Van Baalen, acknowledge that you have erred!


* Translator’s note: The Dutch version used by the authors (Staten Vertaling) translates the Hebrew name ‘Yahweh’ with ‘HEERE’ (LORD). Here the authors change ‘HEERE’ to ‘Jehova’ wherever that name ‘Yahweh’ appears. Similarly, the KJV translates ‘Yahweh’ with ‘LORD.’ We have taken the citations from the KJV and changed ‘LORD’ to ‘Jehovah.’