Some thoughts on Romans 9-11

I'm the Bible teacher at Silver Lake Wesleyan Camp this week. I thought I'd follow Scot McKnight's lead and work somewhat backward through the book. I will say that it's working really well. 

Over the years, I have found that Romans surprisingly doesn't grab the kind of enthusiasm in teaching that a book like 1 Corinthians does. The typical approach, starting from the beginning, somehow easily becomes very abstract and heady. There are always a few super-enthusiasts, but the bulk seem to glaze over. Then there often seems little time left when you get to the practical teaching in 12-16, and 16 barely gets a glance.

1. I started with Romans 16. To be honest, I'm from the old school that thinks this chapter was actually sent to Ephesus. The whole list of names just screams Ephesus to me. However, this is not the majority opinion at current, and I decided it was better for the camp to assume a Roman destination for the chapter.

It does make a difference in how you read Romans. For example, I think you will likely see more Jews--and powerful Jewish voices--as part of the Roman church if you think chapter 16 was attached. You will also assume Paul knew a lot more people at Rome than otherwise--and a lot more about their situation.

Whatever the destination, I am extremely grateful for the insights into the make-up of some large urban collection of churches.

Phoebe, a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Had some good pushback on Facebook about whether she was a deacon or a servant. I did a quick word study that strongly confirmed "deacon" in my mind. The Gospels do not use the word as a technical term, only Paul does. 1 Timothy 3 shows that it became an official office. That suggests to me that it is such in Philippians 1:1, where Paul greets deacons at that church. If so, then Romans 16:1 is the only other place where Paul references a diakonos of a church (as opposed to being a servant or minister of Christ). That is the context clue that tips the scales to a role in a church.

Priscilla and Aquila -- she's mentioned first, again. Noted.

Andronicus and Junia -- apostles. noted. anti-bias of ESV, noted. 

I loved McKnight's stuff on the physical and social location of Christians at Rome, BTW.

2. I got off track. Typical.

Scot sees the lens of the "strong" and the "weak" in 14-15 as focal to understanding Romans. He reconstructs a storyline that is plausible even if he may exaggerate it a little. The church had a primarily Jewish founding. Of course! The church was likely founded before the Gentile explosion and certainly before the heart of the Pauline mission.

Then Claudius kicks the Jewish Christians out of Rome in AD49. Overnight, it becomes a predominantly Gentile church. McKnight would say a Gentile church that was not very Law-observant. Of that, I'm less sure, but it's plausible enough. Then Claudius dies. Jewish Christians return. Now you have a "strong" (Gentile Christians) group and a now out-of-power "weak" group (more Torah-observant, predominantly Jewish Christians). It's a fascinating scenario.

Paul's goal is peace, which we see especially in 12-15.

3. McKnight's thesis in 9-11 is fascinating as well, although I don't think I can go there in the end. He pictures Phoebe addressing the "weak" in Romans 9-10 and into 11. Then she turns and addresses the "strong" in the rest of Romans 11. This is really one of the most interesting readings of these chapters I have ever heard!

Well, I started this post wanting to put down some of my thoughts on Romans 9-11. I've written them down before. I actually have a book on Romans with Wesleyan Publishing House. Two devotionals go with it, one on Romans 1-8 and the other on Romans 9-16.

But here were some of my usual thoughts:

• Romans 9-11 addresses nagging questions--Why haven't more Jews believed? And why the heck have so many Gentiles believed?! Has God abandoned Israel?
• Paul's answer is that God can do whatever he wants, so deal with it. McKnight makes I think a really good observation that the scriptural examples Paul uses all point to the frequent unpredictability of God's plan.
• Although it is not the easiest interpretation to make, I do think Paul teaches in 11:26 that ethnic Israel will come to faith around the time of Christ's return. It's not an easy interpretation in part because it plays into some blindspots in the church today. But that's what it seems to say.
• This is about the Gentiles and Israel, not individual predestination. The fact that Israel can still be saved shows that predestination is not one-sided or necessarily permanent.
• God has decided that the way to salvation is by faith. This is true for both Jew and Gentile. It's as simple as the word in your mouth. If you confess Jesus is Lord, if you believe God raised him from the dead, it's that simple.

There was the usual engagement with philosophical and theological tangents (I didn't say it quite so strongly as below):

• If God determines everything minutely, he is a devil. Actually, he would literally be telling Satan and every serial killer exactly what to do. 
• The saying, "Everything happens for a reason" is misleading at best. If God empowers us to have some freedom to choose then we and our free will are frequently the reason many things happen, not God's best plan.
• Technically, Wesleyans don't believe in free will. We believe in God-empowered free will.
• The truth is neither total indeterminism (Thom Oord) or total determinism (John Piper). God determines some things and allows other things.
• This doesn't contradict the sovereignty of God. If God, in control, allows something, he has sovereignly decided to allow it. Who are you, o clay, to tell him he can't?

9. Concentrated Romans (9:1-11:36)

See the bottom for the whole series.

II.3 What about Israel?
Romans 9-11
A. Paul's love for his people (9:1-5)

• This is the third and final section of the first half of Romans. The first section addressed the question of "Who will be justified before God and how?" (1:18-5:11). The second addressed the follow-up question of "What about sin and the law, then?" (5:12-8:39). Now we get the big picture question, "What about Israel?"
• When Protestant interpreters read Romans 1-8 in universal, individual terms, Romans 9-11 seemed out of place. But in truth, the question of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God has been the underlying question of Romans from the very beginning. Paul declares in the first section that not only Gentiles but Jews themselves come into right status with God by faith. The question of sin and the Law is a question of the Jewish Law and its purpose if Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith.
• So now we arrive at the elephant in the room. Has God just abandoned his special relationship with Israel then? If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, why is it that more Gentiles than Jews have believed? What's going on?!
• 9:1-5. Paul makes it clear in these verses that he cares about his own people. No doubt some had accused him of hating his own people. By contrast, he says he would willingly become accursed if it would save his own people. Their lack of faith in Christ is a matter of great sorrow and anguish for him.
• He speaks of the great honors that are Israel's. God first chose them to be his "son" among the nations of the world. Now the rest of the world is becoming his sons and daughters. They were given great honor in the Old Testament (cf. Rom. 3:1-2).
• Israel was given the Law, which shows us God's righteous expectation, especially to love our neighbor. Theirs were the covenants--with Abraham, with Moses. Theirs were the fathers.
• Theirs was the temple. Paul gives not a hint that the temple is obsolete in its functions, nor does he foresee the temple's destruction in any of his writings.
• To Israel belonged the Messiah, Jesus. There is a grammatical question in 9:5. The original manuscripts did not have punctuation. In fact they were written in continuous letters without many spaces. Does Paul mean to say, "the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever" or "the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed forever"?
• The theology of the first is of course what we believe as Christians, but it is not a statement Paul makes anywhere in his writings other than Titus 2:13. It does not deny the theology of the first to conclude that it would be more typical of Paul to say the second.

B. God can do what he wants (9:6-29)

• These verses are the central passage on predestination in the Bible. Several things should be kept in mind as we read them. First, Paul still has the Jew-Gentile question in view. That is to say, he is not really talking about individual predestination but God's plan with regard to Israel and the Gentiles. Paul's fundamental point is that if God wants to harden Israel for a season to save the Gentiles, he can do whatever he wants for he is God.
• A second thing to remember is that the hardened of Romans 9 can still be saved in Romans 11. Paul does not see predestination as something that is unalterable.
• Paul does not harmonize his language of predestination with his language of free choice. This fits with some cultural dimensions from his day. In the Oedipus cycle, Oedipus has a fate that works its way out, but he acts freely throughout the story. Paul does not explain how these two conflicting notions fit together. That is why we have Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and others today.
• Central to Paul is that God is not to blame. God's word to Israel has not failed. Why? Because this is part of God's sovereign plan. This is also the key biblical passage for God's sovereignty, his absolute authority over his creation.
• 9:6. "Not all Israel is Israel." Here is an important theological point for all time. Those who visibly seem to be part of the people of God are never exactly the people of God. Even in ancient Israel, not all Israel was Israel. In the church, not everyone in the church is truly in the church. But see 11:26
• The passage certainly sounds like double predestination, but we have to keep in mind the rest of the New Testament as well, which does not sound that way. Among all of the New Testament, this is the unusual passage. Paul makes his point well enough. God can do whatever God wants to do because he is God.
• "The clay would not say to the potter, would it, 'Why have you made me thus?'" (9:20). Again, Paul makes the point clearly enough. God can do whatever God wants to do because he is God. We know of course from elsewhere (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:4) that God wants everyone to be saved. That is what he ultimately wants to do.
• 9:23-29. God's will is to save the Gentiles. That is what this passage is really about. Paul uses a string of verses from the Old Testament to substantiate his point.

C. Justification by Faith (9:30-10:21)

• 9:30-33. We revisit some of the material from the first part of Romans but now with the underlying issue fully in view. The Jews have not been seeking justification in the right way, but many Gentiles now have.
• Gentiles have attained righteousness, justification, by faith. But Israel, pursuing justification by the Jewish Law, "works of Law," have not. They have tripped over Jesus, God's fore-ordained path to justification.
• Again, Paul reiterates that his hope for Israel is salvation. They have a zeal (like he once did), but it is a zeal without knowledge. They do not recognize their own Messiah.
• Christ is the goal, the telos, the "end" of the Law. Christ is the one to whom the Law pointed (cf. Gal. 4:1-2).
• 10:5-13. Justification, a right standing with God, is not a matter of great effort, of "works of Law." You do not need to climb to heaven or descend to the underworld to get it. The word of faith which puts you in right standing with God is in your mouth.
• "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). That is, you will escape the wrath of God on the day of judgment. "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (10:13), whether you are a Jew or a Gentile.
• The Lordship of Jesus, here as elsewhere, is intrinsically connected to Jesus' resurrection. It is when Jesus sits at God's right hand that he is "enthroned" as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God.
• As simple as it is to do so, it is not simply putting down true on a quiz. It is a life commitment. It will lead to a life of works, and we will each give an account for the deeds done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10). We are committing our allegiance to Jesus as our king.
• 10:14-21. Paul now moves toward one of his purposes for writing Romans. He is hoping that the churches of Rome will support him on a mission to Spain. If the Gentiles can be saved, then missionaries are needed to go tell them. Paul is just such a missionary. How can they call on Christ if they have not had faith yet? How will they have faith if they do not hear? How will they hear unless someone goes?
• Paul is not dealing with a separate question. How does God deal with those who have never heard. We looked at this question briefly in relation to Romans 1:19-20.
• Israel, however, has not believed even though they have heard. Paul gives several Scriptures to support this claim.

D. Israel will be saved (11:1-32)

• 11:1-32. There is still hope for Israel. A key indication that predestination language in Romans 9 does not function in the way Augustine, Wycliffe, and Calvin thought it did is the fact that those whom God has hardened in Romans 9 can still be saved in Romans 11.
• 11:1-10. God has not rejected his people. Indeed, 11:29 will tell us soon that God's calling on Israel is irrevocable.
• 11:2-5. There is a remnant who believes, the true Israel within the ethnic people of Israel, as in the days of Elijah.
• 11:6-10. In the mystery of God's will, Israel is currently experiencing a "stupor" in relation to its own messiah.
• 11:11-24. But they have not stumbled beyond recovery. In this section Paul develops the branch metaphor. God has broken off many natural branches to the tree so that he can graft in the wild Gentile branches. Clearly, then, Paul still considers ethnic Israel in the Old Testament the trunk of the tree.
• But this is not a fixed situation. The natural branches (ethnic Israel) can be grafted back in. God would be delighted to do so. Similarly, if the grafted branches (Gentile believers) turn away, they can be cut back out again. 
• God is using the in-grafting of the Gentiles into the people of God to provoke the natural Israelite branches to jealousy.
• 11:25-32. Here are highly debated verses, but the train of thought is clear. Part of Israel is currently experiencing a hardening until the full number of the Gentiles come in. Then all Israel will be saved. Paul looks to the eventual faith of ethnic Israel. The Messiah will turn godlessness away from Jacob. That is, he will bring faith to unbelieving Israel.
• This of course did not happen in Paul's lifetime and has not happened since. In their enthusiasm for the re-establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and their horror for the Holocaust, many Christians have forgotten that nothing has changed with unbelieving Israel from Paul's point of view. In fact, there are far more Palestinian believers in Palestine than there are Israeli believers today. 
• 11:32. All are in a state of disobedience, both Jew and Gentile, but God's plan is to have mercy on both.

E. Doxology (11:33-36)

• Paul ends the first half of Romans with a doxology of praise to God. Who can understand the plans of God? We cannot think his thoughts after him. He is sovereign and in control. He is the source of all things ("from whom"), the means of all things ("through whom"), and the purpose of all things ("for whom").
• Praise be to God!

_______________________
I. Introduction
1. Romans 1:1-15

II.1 Who is Justified?
II.1.1 Humanity's Problem
2. Romans 1:16-17
3. Romans 1:18-32
4. Romans 2:1-3:20

II.1.2 God's Solution
5. Romans 3:21-31
6. Romans 4:1-5:11

II.2 What about Sin?
7. Romans 5:12-6:23
8. Romans 7:1-8:39

OMT: Romans 9:19-29

Previous translations include:

Romans 1:1-7
Romans 1:8-10
Romans 1:11-15
Romans 1:16-17
Romans 5:12-17
Romans 7:13-25
Romans 8:1-8
Romans 9:1-5
Romans 9:6-18

Now Romans 9:19-29:

19 Therefore, you will say to me, "Why is he still finding fault?  For who has resisted his plan?"  20 O mortal, yes indeed, who are you, who are passing judgment on God?  The thing formed will not say to the one forming it, "Why have you made me this way?" will it?  21 Or does not the potter of the clay have the authority to make from the same lump one thing as a vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 And [what] if God, wanting to demonstrate [his] fury and to make known his power, bore with much patience vessels of wrath created for destruction 23 and in order to make known the wealth of his glory on the vessels of mercy that he prepared for glory? 24 who [are] we, whom he also called, not only from Jews but also from Gentiles, 25 as it also says in Hosea, "I will call those who are not my people, 'my people,' and those who have not been beloved, 'beloved'" (Hos. 2:23), 26 "and there will be in place of where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God'" (Hos. 1:10).

27 And Isaiah cries out for Israel, "[Even] if the number of the sons of Israel should be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved" (Isa. 10:22-23). 28 "For carrying out and accomplishing [his] word, the Lord will do [it] on the earth" (Isa. 1:9). 29 And as Isaiah has said previously, "If the Lord Sabaoth had not left seed for us, we would have become as Sodom and we would have been like Gomorrah" (Isa. 8:14). 

OMT: Romans 9:6-18

Previous translations:

Romans 1:1-7
Romans 1:8-10
Romans 1:11-15
Romans 1:16-17
Romans 5:12-17
Romans 7:13-25
Romans 8:1-8
Romans 9:1-5

6But [it is] not such a case that the word of God has failed [till now].  For not all those from Israel are Israel. 7And [it is] not that all the children are seed of Abraham, but "From Isaac will your seed be called" (Gen. 21:12). 8That is, those children of the flesh [are] not the children of God but the children of promise are considered as seed. 9 For the word of promise is this: "According to this time I will come and a son will be to Sarah" (Gen. 18:10).

10But not only [Sarah], but [the promise relates] also [to] Rebecca, being pregnant from one [man], Isaac our father. 11For [the children] not yet having been born nor having done anything good or bad (so that the purpose of God according to election might remain, 12 not from works but from the one who calls), it was said to her that "The older will serve the younger" (Gen.25:23), 13 just as it stands written, "I love Jacob, but I hate Esau" (Mal. 1:2-3).

14What, therefore, will we say?  Unrighteousness is not with God, is it?  May it not be!  15 For to Moses he says, "I will show mercy on whomever I will show mercy and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" (Ex. 33:19). 16 Therefore, then, it is not a matter of the one willing nor of the one running but of God who shows mercy.  17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "I led you to this very [point] so that I might demonstrate my power in you and that I might proclaim my name in all the earth" (Ex. 9:16).  Therefore, then, he will show mercy on whom he wills, and he will harden whom he wills.

God's Boss 1

Certain passages in the Bible are what I like to call "naughty verses." They are verses that we find difficult to fit into our general understanding, verses that at least seem to say things that go contrary to what we expect the Bible to say. Romans 9 is one such "naughty passage" for me. In Romans 9:22, for example, Paul speaks of certain humans that God has "prepared for destruction." 9:18 also gives a picture that, if we take it as it is, seems to say that God "hardens" certain people so that they will not do the sorts of things that lead to his mercy.

In other words, some of the verses in Romans 9 seem to say that God makes some people for skeet shooting. He makes them bad so that he can show his glory when he blows them to bits. Some Christians today and in the past for some reason love this image of God. A teacher like John Piper has made Romans 9 the ground zero of his thinking about God. He teaches something called "double predestination," the idea that God not only predetermines who will come to him and be saved, but also who will not come and be damned.

Suffice it to say, this view of God is difficult to reconcile with any meaningful sense of the idea that God is love. It says that God is nice to a certain select few that he has chosen according to his fancy, and he is mean to everyone else. Some who take this view might say that God only chooses who will be saved, that we were all damned anyway. In their view, God does not choose for anyone to be damned because we are all damned already. He only shows his mercy by choosing to save some who are already condemned. Adam had the freedom not to sin and he messed up. Now we cannot help but sin and so are all damned by default.

I appreciate this latter kind of "predestinarian" or "Calvinist," this doctrine taking its name from John Calvin. This last kind of Calvinist at least recognizes the difficulty of reconciling any normal definition of love with this view of God. But I'll at least hand it to the double predestinarian that Paul at least seems to go all the way in Romans 9. Paul pictures the damned complaining to God--why are you complaining about me, God? You made me this way (9:19-21)! So I at least have to hand it to the John Pipers of the world for taking Paul literally.

But the key to understanding Romans 9-11 is threefold. First, we need to understand the role these verses play in the overall thought of Romans. In particular, Paul is not really discussing our individual fates. He is trying to answer the question why so many Gentiles have believed in Jesus and most Jews have not. Second, we need to realize that fatalism and determinism were key features of the world in which Paul lived. In that sense, there is a cultural dimension to his arguments here. Finally, I would argue that the "language game" of predestination does not function primarily on a literal level. It serves two basic purposes: first, to affirm that God is in control and second, to assure the "elect" of their "destiny."

Romans 9

Now for the missed Romans class on Tuesday. I can't possibly go through the whole text of Romans 9-11, so what follows are some thoughts on verses of particular interest (at least to me :-). Below give 1) at least a 100 word comment reaction to some of the specifics of my post and 2) at least 2 responses to the comments below. Let's set Tuesday midnight as the deadline.

This is part 1 of three.
_______
9:2 ... it is a great grief for me and a constant sorrow in my heart [for my Jewish kinsmen who have not believed]...
Romans 9-11 are not an afterthought or a later insertion into the text of Romans (an interpolation). The issue that has been driving Paul's argument is the question of how the Gentiles can be included, accepted by God, without having to enter into God's covenant with Israel?

Or perhaps to put it the other way around, how can Paul take seriously God's relationship with Israel in the Scriptures (remembering there was only the OT as the Scriptures at this time) if, as Paul claims,

1) the Law does not in any way make the Jews right with God and
2) the Jews are justified the same way as the Gentiles, apart from Law?

It seems to throw out the window all the Scriptures and depict God as "divorcing" the wife of His youth for a younger Gentile.

There is also the further question--how can Jesus be the Messiah when the majority of Jews have not believed in him? Since the audience consists of believers, this question seems less at issue, although we can see it poking its way through the text.

So Romans 9-11 addresses God's election of and covenant with ethnic Israel. Someone might see Paul as saying that God has suddenly changed His mind and plans with regard to Israel and the OT Scriptures. What's up with that, Paul?

9:5 ... belonging to whom are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, the one who is over all, God, blessed forever, Amen.
This is a highly debated verse. The question is whether it should read:

1. "Christ, ... who is God over all, blessed forever," or
2. "... flesh. The One who is over all, God, be blessed forever."

I personally wonder if Paul intended some ambiguity here, some blurring of Christ into God the Father in the train of thought. In general, however, Paul maintains a fairly sharp distinction between God in reference to God the Father and Christ as Lord. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the word "God" only refers to God the Father.

And it would be unlike Paul to speak of Christ as over all things. Romans 11:36 for example only speaks of God (the Father) when it says that "from Him and through Him and for Him are all things. To Him be the glory, forever. Amen." Similarly, after all things are subjected to Christ in the future, then Christ will turn the kingdom over to God (Paul never seems to need to say, "the Father," God always or virtually always refers only to God the Father). He will do this "so that God might be all things in all things" (1 Cor. 15:28). The subjection of all things in the creation to Christ is always ultimately, "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:11).

So while I would not be surprised if Paul means to blur the two together, I don't think there would be any question in his or the Romans' minds that 9:5 ends up being about God the Father and that therefore, while it perhaps does not capture the entire meaning of the verse, the best translation remains, "... belonging to whom are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh. The One who is over all things, God, be blessed forever."

This verse is, however, one of those where an original meaning reading and a theological reading perhaps can legitimately go their separate ways. The Christian reader is allowed, along with most Christians throughout Christian history, to see in this verse a full affirmation of Christ's divinity, even though it is not exactly what Paul himself was thinking.

9:6 And it is not that the word of God has failed, for not all those from Israel are Israel.
A number of interpreters in the Calvinist tradition (Moo might be Lutheran, anyone know?) see Romans 9-11 as primarily being about "the justification of God" (e.g., John Piper, Tom Schreiner). Certainly that subject is in play. But I think the underlying issue is Paul's Gentile oriented gospel. If the question in Romans 9 has to do with whether God is to be blamed, this issue has arisen because of Paul's claim that the Gentiles are in by faith, at the same time that the bulk of the Jews are out.

The Moo/Piper/Schreiner approach thus still reads Romans 9-11 too much like a systematic theology rather than a defense of Paul's understanding of the gospel.

Moo suggests that the true Israel here refers to those ethnic Jews who have believed on Christ. I think he's probably right, with the understanding that believing Gentiles are grafted into that Israel as well. Ethnic Israel thus remains the center point, rather than some completely redefined Israel.

9:19-20 Therefore, you will say to me, "Why will He still find fault?" For who has resisted His will? O mortal, who are you yourself indeed, who are bringing God into judgment? The clay will not say to the potter, will it, "Why have you made me thus?"
This is a classic predestination text, but of course Paul isn't really talking about individuals, although there may very well be implications for individuals. Paul is discussing God's inclusion of the Gentiles and His apparent hardening of most ethnic Jews. Paul's answer to the person who finds this situation problematic is, "Shut up. God can do whatever He wants because He's God." That the Jew-Gentile issue is the real topic appears explicitly in 9:24 and following.

We should remember, however, that the same Jews whom God has currently hardened can still be saved in 11:11. Indeed, Paul indicates that all Israel, including those currently hardened, will be saved around the time of Christ's arrival, the parousia (11:26).

More to come...

Classroom Snippets: Romans 8-9

In Greek Bible, Romans, today, we read Romans 9, as well as the last part of chapter 8. The primary goal was to improve our skills at reading the Greek NT. But of course these are also the verses where Paul talks the most baldly about predestination.

One of the questions I perennially ask myself of Romans 8:29 is what the relationship was in Paul's mind between foreknowledge and predestination. Paul presents it in a foreknowledge then predestination format, but what is being foreknown and what is being predestined.

1. I do feel relative clarity that what is being predestined is resurrection. The expression "conformed to the image of His Son" evokes images of other passages like Philippians 3:10-11--

"I want to know the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death if somehow I might attain the resurrection of the dead."

also 1 Corinthians 15:49--

"Just as we have born the image of the earthly man [Adam], we also will bear the image of the heavenly man [Christ]"

The context of Romans 8 in the lead up to this verse is about how the sufferings of this present time don't hold a candle to the glory that is coming (8:18). And Paul has been talking about how we await the redemption of our bodies (8:23). And of course Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15; Col. 1), imagery that echoes in Rom. 8:29 when it says that our [later] conforming to his image makes him the firstborn among many brothers [and sisters].

So I feel a high degree of confidence that what God has predestined here is the resurrection of those He foreknew.

2. Of course he has also called, justified, and will eventually "glorify" these as well.

I presented the problematic syllogism:

1. If God completely determines who will be saved.
2. And God wants everyone to be saved, then
3. Everyone will be saved.

The typical Wesleyan and Calvinist both deny 3, which is universalism--everyone will, in the end, be saved. But using the logic of this universe, that means that they must deny either 1 or 2. The Wesleyan-Arminian denies the first. The multi-point Calvinist denies the 2nd.

I did not mention it in this class, but I have suggested as a possibility at other times another option, which I do not embrace but at least consider a possibility. That is that God might be able to reconcile outside this universe what is logically impossible within this universe. When I have drawn this picture, I draw a universe and a horizon above the earth. One dotted line I draw going up at an angle is that of predestination. Another dotted line going up at the opposite angle is free will. Then I draw the two dotted lines meeting above and outside the circle of this universe in God.

Of course we haven't got there, but we will see in Romans 11 that those who were "hardened" in Romans 9 can still be saved in Romans 11.

Greek Romans class, Friday, March 23, 2007

Adventures in Predestination

I am not an open theist. Open theism is the idea that the potentially omniscient God has intentionally set aside His foreknowledge for the time being so that we can have free will. To me, this is simply an Arminian counterpart to multiple point Calvinism, just as "this universe" think. It takes the beef of Calvinism with free will too seriously.

On the other hand, I don't quite get why it ticks so many conservatives off. In some cases, it's probably because the person in question confuses it with process theology (which involves the idea that God is evolving with the world). But, seriously, as far as taking the Bible literally, open theists take the Bible way literally.

"And God repented that He had made humanity" (Gen. 6:6)

Taken literally, this implies that God changed His mind. Open theists take this as it appears. And for this "take the Bible as it appears" approach, places like Huntington College fire a person? I feel sorry for these people. My advice to any budding open theists out there? Don't tell anyone. You're way too conservative for a liberal to hire you, and other conservatives have blacklisted you.

For me, God knew the Flood generation would do these things, and He knew what He would do in response, but He did not force humanity to behave as it did and there is a possible world in which humanity did not. For the Calvinist, neither the changing of His mind or the opportunity of humanity to do differently ever existed.

Now which of these interpretations is most biblical? Answer: the open theist's interpretation. The author of Genesis (I'll respect the text and listen to the fact that it nowhere tells who its author is), writing way before anyone understood omniscience the way we do, probably did think that God changed His mind here.

Now me, I believe that the flow of revelation on omniscience has continued beyond the days of Genesis. It is the consensus of Christendom that God knows all things. He cannot thus literally change His mind because He knew exactly what the Flood generation would do. But the statement, "he repented" is a true metaphor. It is a true expression of the value God assigned to the actions of the Flood generation. For me, God's script was written before the creation of the world outside of time, but He did not write this part of the script for humanity in time. For the multipoint Calvinist, God wrote the script for both Himself and humanity before the creation, before time. God is playing chess with Himself.

Of the three groups, only the first could authentically hold to sola scriptura at this point (but of course would have to abandon it once they moved beyond this verse). I have never claimed it, and the paleo-orthodox Calvinist system, once again, explodes in incoherence. The text itself here does not at all suggest their theology, so clearly it is something outside the text that is driving their appropriation of this text. I recognize these extra-scriptural elements, so I'm still coherent. They deny it, and their theology deconstructs.

But there are passages that, if taken at least in a superficially literal way, seem to imply a straightforward predestination without human choice. What about these passages? Since these are "controlling verses" for the multi-pointer, the Calvinist on these verses does not reinterpret them the way they do verses like Genesis 6:6.

And not only [this], but Rebecca also, having the bed of one man, Isaac our father. For not yet having been born, and not having done something good or bad, in order that the purpose of God according to election might remain not from works but from the One who calls, it was said to her, "The greater will serve the lesser, just as it is written, "I have loved Jacob, but Esau I hated."

What will we say then? There isn't injustice with God, is there? God forbid! For to Moses He says, "I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

So then it is not of the one who will nor of the one who runs but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "I have raised you up for this itself, so that I might demonstrate my power in you and so that I might proclaim my name in all the earth. So then He has mercy on the one He wills and He hardens the one whom He wills.

Then you will say to me, "Why then does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" O human, indeed, who are you who are accusing God? "The moulded won't say to the moulder, why have you made me this way, will it?" Or doesn't the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? And [what] if God bore with great patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction to demonstrate wrath and to make known His power and in order to make known the wealth of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He prepared for glory? (Romans 9:10-23).

Wow! Difficult verses! In fact, I have serious questions about your Christianity if you don't find these verses difficult. Why? Because they, at least on an isolated first read, sound as if they contradict the very essence of the gospel: "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Let's dig a little deeper here though. Like God repenting that He made humanity, there are strong reasons to be very careful about making this the controlling passage on your understanding of God.

1. What is the context?
The context is that Paul has been arguing throughout Romans that Gentiles can be justified before God without converting to Judaism, without engaging in works of law. You can see why a Jew would complain about Paul's theology: "I follow all these rules--they're in the Bible for goodness sakes Paul! Now you're telling me a Gentile can be okie dokie with God just by trusting in what God has done in Christ? That's not fair at all!"

Paul's answer? "Shut up, clay, God can do what He wants." If God wants to declare the Gentiles righteous on the basis of their faith, He's allowed because He's God.

Now I agree with this. Does the Calvinist? Can God give humans free will if He wants? What if God wanting to show His love for the world, gave everyone a chance to be saved? Could He do it? I say yes he could. The Calvinist says no. So I respond, but who are you, clay, to tell God "why have you acted thus?"

Could God have forgiven all humans by divine command, without any sacrifice at all if He wanted to? The Calvinist responds no. I respond, but who are you, clay to tell God what He can and cannot do?

My first point is that the multi-pointer has seized on the wrong point in interpretation. The right point is that God is allowed to will whatever He wills. The Calvinist, instead, seized on the point, "we cannot do whatever we will." My second is that the Calvinist use of this passage is incoherent, because in the end they do the same thing as the clay in a different way.

To be sure, Paul is using OT individuals to make his points (Pharoah, Jacob, Esau), but his point is not about individual predestination here. Paul's point is that God can let the Gentiles in if He wants to, period. He's God.

I deliberately ripped these verses from that context because that's what most Calvinist readers of this passage do. But now let's look at the verses that surround it. For example, the next verse after I left off reads:

"With regard to whom [vessels He prepared for glory] He also called us, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles, as also He says in Hosea, 'I will call the not my people, my people,' ... and Isaiah cries out about Israel, '... the remnant will be saved...'

What then will we say? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness received righteousness ... and Israel, who pursued a rule of righteousness, did not attain the rule.

Paul is thus not laying down a theology of individual predestination here, even if the passage raises those questions for us. Paul is arguing over the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God in the way God is including them.

2. When we place the "naughty verses" in the context of the whole of Romans 9-11, their entire tone changes. Is Paul arguing, "So, yeah, the Jews are toast because God has sovereignly decided to waste them"? God forbid. What is Paul's feeling toward them?

"Brothers, the good pleasure of my heart and petition to God about them is for salvation" (Rom. 10:1).

Notice that Paul does not treat their fate as fixed already here. The tone is one of wanting them to be saved, not of their destiny being fixed.

In fact, Paul believes the currently hardened will be saved (Rom. 11:26). Throughout Romans 11, the possibility of Israel's salvation, of being grafted back in, is present throughout. This does not at all fit the conclusion the multi-pointer usually takes from Romans 9, that God has set all these things in stone before the foundation of the world. Even those who are hardened can become unhardened!

This is not Calvinist theology.

3. Biblical predestination language functions biblically as a posteriori rather than a priori language.
Paul's writings would not say the things they say if predestination language functioned for Paul the way the multi-pointer thinks it does. If the Calvinist "language game" of predestination was Paul's game, then predestination language would have predictive force. We would expect Paul to give up on Israel, because their hardened hearts indicate God did not predestine them.

Certainly if Paul thought the way Calvin did, he would not say, "They haven't stumbled so as to fall have they? God forbid! But by their stumbling salvation [has come] to the Jews to make them jealous. But if their stumbling [was] wealth to the world and their defeat wealth to the Gentiles, how much more [wealth will be] their inclusion."

See, the predestined can be repredestined! How do we know God has hardened Pharaoh? Because we see a hardened Pharaoh. But a hardened Pharaoh can also become an unhardened Pharaoh.

Paul's arguments thus do not reflect the presuppositions of Augustine and Calvin. These theologians connected predestination to a prior determinism--they moved theoretically from before to after. Paul connects this it to a subsequent state of affairs--he moves practically from after to before. This is true of how he uses the language, despite the sound of his words in this part of Romans 9. Augustine is the one who connected before and after using logic. Paul's language of predestination, on the other hand, does not govern the rest of his theology. He does not logically follow some of the comments in this chapter through to a straightforward logical conclusion.

In the words of Inigo Mantoia of the Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Conclusion
In conclusion, however, I want to remind us that the entirety of Calvinist theology falls apart on one verse (actually, many verses, but who's counting?)

"If we continue to sin willfully after we have received a knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment."

If a person can have appropriated Christ's sacrifice, and then end up facing judgment, then it is possible for a saint not to persevere. But if a Christian might not persevere, then grace is resistable and election is not unconditional, in fact election is changable. And the Calvinist system, so admirable for its logic, unfortunately turns out not to be God's logic.

So in the words of 2 Peter 1:10, "So, brothers [and sisters], be diligent to make your calling and election firm, for if you do this, you will never stumble at some time." But if one's election can be unfirm, then I don't think that word means what you think it means.