This continues the discussion of Psalm 139 and Paul's letters.
__________________________
1. While Romans 9 is the passage we most associate with the question of predestination, we find strong predestination language in other parts of the New Testament as well. The question is what function this language performs. Is it a core element of New Testament theology, or is it largely rhetorical language that performs some other function?
One of the great insights of the twentieth century was that the meaning of words is a function of how they are used. [1] Meaning is far more in what words do rather than in some static content they contain. J. L. Austin used the example of saying "I do" at a wedding. [2] These words effectively marry a couple, a function that goes far beyond the simple meaning of the two words.
So, if we wish to understand predestination language in the various writings of the New Testament, we need to know what those words were doing. Was their function to make a theological statement, or was it primarily something else? For example, did that language primarily point to God being in control of everything? Was it to express the great value God places on those who follow him?
A couple more examples may be helpful. A person may say a good many words when they are afraid. The particular words themselves may not actually be the point but rather the fact that they are deeply afraid. Anyone who has participated in a marital spat might testify that things can be said that are not really meant in terms of the words themselves. Rather, their function may be to express hurt, insecurity, or anger.
2. We might begin with 1 Peter, perhaps the closest writing in time to Paul's letters of the other New Testament books. The very beginning of the letter describes its audience as "elect exiles... according to the foreknowledge of God by the sanctification of the Spirit" (1:1-2). The connection of God's foreknowledge with the exiles being chosen is reminiscent of Romans 8:29.
As a quick sidenote, there has been some debate in the history of the interpretation of 1 Peter as to whether these were literal or metaphorical exiles. For example, in his early work, John H. Elliott argued that the letter addressed individuals whom the Roman Empire had literally exiled. [3] However, most now take this language metaphorically, as did Elliott himself in his later work. [4] That is to say, calling the audience exiled is a reference to their marginalization within society.
Returning to 1 Peter 1:1-2, the question is what did God foreknow in this case? Did he foreknow that they would exist and chose them unconditionally and irresistably? Did God foreknow that they would exercise faith in Christ and thus plan for the Spirit to sanctify them? Or is foreknowledge and election language performing some other function?
The sense that the foreknowledge leads to obedience to Jesus might imply that the election according to foreknowledge had to do with their salvation. Later in the letter, 2:8 seems to imply that those Jews who rejected Christ were appointed to do so. These observations point toward individual predestination based on God's foreknowledge.
At the same time, the letter consistently urges its audience to choose to take certain moral actions. For example, they are not to use their freedom as an excuse to do evil (2:16). They are to be holy in their conduct (1:!5). They are to put away malice (2:1), stay way from the passions of the flesh (2:11), and turn away from evil (3:8). These instructions assume that they have a legitimate choice in what they do.
The tension in this language may suggest that language of election is doing something different than expressing literal determinism. Indeed, 2 Peter 1:10 exhorts its audience to be diligent to make its calling and election certain -- a seeming contradiction. [5] How can human effort confirm one's election if one's election is purely a matter of God's determination?
In 1 Peter, there may be a correlation between the alienation of the audience and election language. Groups that are marginalized and persecuted can easily develop a "remnant" theology where they view themselves as set apart by God amid a broader culture that has ostracized them. We find this same dynamic among the Dead Sea Scrolls, arguably written and preserved by marginalized Essenes. [6]
In this sense, the function of this language would in part be to affirm God's approval on a group that, from a worldly point of view, would seem to be an "out-group." Appearances would say, "This group is wrong. This group is odd. This group is weak and dishonored." Election language indicates rather that this group is chosen. This group is the truly valued. This group is honored.
Therefore, within that function of the language, normal imperatives implying freedom of choice would still be in play. The audience is chosen and elect, but they also exercise undetermined choice -- as do those who have rejected faith.
3. As we have seen, the Augustinian/Calvinist way of reconciling these two sets of imagery is to privilege the deterministic language and to make language of choice phenomenological. That is to say, we appear to have choice but we really do not. This is soft determinism. We behave as if we are making free choices even though we are not.
However, this approach to harmonizing the two sets of language seems anachronistic. It is nowhere expressed in the text itself. It is a philosophical solution to the puzzle that is imposed on the text.
Yet we might say the same thing of the Arminian approach that says, "God foreknows our choice and predestines us accordingly." This also seems to fill in blanks that the text does not. It seems yet another philosophical solution that is imposed on the text.
4. The books of Luke-Acts also seem to live in this tension, although they do not share 1 Peter's sense of social alienation. Acts 13:48 is a good starting point for the theology of Luke-Acts on predestination: As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. [7] Acts is referring to those Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch who end up believing. The perfect tense is used in this verb construction, suggesting that they were appointed at some point in the past and remain appointed to the present.
Certainly on a surface level, this statement sounds like determinism. Some believed. Some did not. What made the difference? Some were appointed to believe and others were not.
Yet we also find language in Luke-Acts that could be taken to indicate the contrary. Just two verses before the verse we just quoted, Paul tells the Jews who do not believe that they have "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" (13:46). It at least sounds like they used their agency to reject the word of the Lord -- they did it themselves.
Similarly, in Stephen's sermon in Acts 7, he indicts the leaders of Jerusalem by saying that they "always resist the Holy Spirit" (7:51). If God was determining what they chose, then this verse would be saying that God caused them to resist the Holy Spirit. This does not seem to be what Luke was saying here. The Jerusalem leaders thus seem to have agency in their rejection of the movement of the Holy Spirit.
How can we reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements in a way that would have made sense in the first century?
5. One option again is to suppose that deterministic language is expressing something other than literal predeterminism. Deterministic language was a feature of much ancient culture. We find it expressed, for example, in the Oedipus story. Oedipus' father is told that he will be murdered by his son, who will then marry his mother. Horrified, the king has his son exposed and left for dead.
But of course Oedipus grows up and hears the prophecy himself. In horror, he flees what he thinks is his hometown and, without knowing it is his true father, kills him in an encounter. He then unknowingly goes to Thebes, where he ends up marrying his mother.
Everyone in this story seems to exercise freedom of choice, and yet the end result is exactly that which is fated. Presumably, the ancients lived within this paradox of freedom that results in fate. The Stoics also believed that you could resist your fate even though it was inevitable.
While we philosophically note the apparent contradiction, the ancients apparently could use deterministic language and language of free choice without seeing the two as exclusive. If the author of Luke-Acts approached election in this way, then he may not have seen a conflict between a sense that those who came to Christ were predestined to do so and yet that they did so of their own free will.
6. Of all the Gospels, the Gospel of John has the strongest sense of determinism. Here we might consider the possibility that different New Testament authors may have had varying senses of determinism. The community that the Gospel of John first addressed may very well have been a marginalized sect within early Christianity. For example, 1 John 2:19 suggests that they were those left after a split, with the departing group possibly being more affluent (3:17).
The social conditions of John may thus be similar to those of 1 Peter with the audience feeling ostracized and marginalized -- even within the broader Christian community. We see dynamics of ostracism throughout John. For example, John 6:66 pictures many of Jesus' initial followers abandoning him. It is probably no coincidence that in the same chapter Jesus says that no one can come to him unless God first draws them (6:44).
John 9:22 likely reflects the situation at the time the Gospel was written, where those who confessed Jesus as the Christ could be expelled from the mainstream Jewish synagogue. These social pressures seem to lie not far beneath the surface of John on the whole. Like 1 Peter, they correlate well with a strong sense of election in John.
In John 12, God blinds the eyes of certain Jews and hardens the hearts of Jesus' opponents (12:37-40). Only Jesus' sheep hear his voice (10:26-29). These are those whom God has given Jesus out of the world (17:9).
Nevertheless, we also find significant language of freedom of choice in John. John 3:16 says that "whoever" believes in him will not perish -- an apparent invitation to everyone. John 8:31-32 leaves open the possibility that someone might walk away from Jesus. John 15:6 suggests that our choices can result in God cutting us off of the vine.
Once again, we find conflicting language. Warnings indicate that we have choices to make. But there is also this overarching language of determinism.
7. Like Luke and 1 Peter, John does not reconcile this conflicting imagery. The two sets of language do not cohere very well. Perhaps the best option, rather than forcing a harmonization philosophically, is first to accept that the ancients at this time did not see a fatal contradiction between the two sets of language. However, on a practical level, all these texts assume that we as individuals must make choices and decisions.
Against this backdrop, deterministic language seems to perform a different function than prediction. In fact, it is "after the fact" language. How do we know whether someone was predestined? By the choices they make. The language thus affirms divine belonging and value far more than predeterminism.
[1] This insight was especially brought out by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), captured in his posthumous Philosophical Investigations.
[2] J. L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 2nd ed. (Harvard University, 1975).
[3] John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Fortress, 1976), 34-38.
[4] John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (Anchor Yale Bible, 2000), 109–118.
[5] It should be noted that perhaps the majority of New Testament scholars believe that 2 Peter comes from a different author than 1 Peter, meaning that election language in 2 Peter may or may not be used similarly to the way it is used in 1 Peter.
[6] E.g., 1QH 7.25-27
[7] I had a seminary professor, Dr. Joseph Wang, who ingeniously suggested that this might be a middle voice instead of a passive -- "as many as appointed themselves." However, this seems to be a case of "special pleading," using your intellect to find a way to defend the position you want to be true rather than what is actually the most likely interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment