“Is God in Your Future?” More Thoughts
Part 1: Romans 9 in a Nutshell
There is a context to this chapter that extends all the way back to the beginning of the book. Also, this is a set of three chapters that run together, 9, 10 and 11.
Paul expresses in verses 1-5 his intense anguish over the rejection of the Gospel by the nation of Israel. Paul, being a child of Israel by birth, wishes that he himself could be cut off from eternal life that Israel might believe.
But Paul reminds us that the promises of God do not fail. The context is important here. Romans 8 was a long chapter of encouragement to God’s elect that, though they will experience temporal suffering, along with creation, and alongside the Holy Spirit, there are great things in store of God’s children. Furthermore, in spite of all the suffering they were encountering, they could rest assured that they would never be separated from God’s love, but that God had ordained all their suffering for His glory and their own good.
But how could God be trusted if He couldn’t keep His promise with Israel, one might ask? That is the question Paul addresses in verse 6ff. Paul makes it clear that God can be trusted. How? Because God’s promise to Israel stands. But Israel isn’t and never was what some thought it was. Paul affirms a Spiritual Israel, so to speak, rather than a Physical or Political Israel. It is the children of the promise, the elect, that is true Israel. And God has, just as Romans 8:29 states, has predestined a people who are His very own, foreknown and fore-chosen to be His people. Why is this comforting? Because it is not based on our control? When we have those Romans 7 moments and feel that we must not be God’s child based on sin waging war within us, we can rest assured that God’s election in us is sure.
Part 2: Erwin’s Interpretation:
Erwin McManus preached a sermon on December 3 entitled “Is God in Your Future.” He begins a section of his sermon with an illustration about this chapter, saying it’s like jumping into the middle or end of a conversation, and how if we do that, we often miss the point, or even reach the opposite conclusion concerning what the conversation was even about. He uses an illustration of how someone walked into an intense conversation between him and his wife, where he emphatically exclaimed, “Divorce!” The conclusion they reached was, “Kim and Erwin are getting a divorce!” But what this person missed coming in late to the conversation the real question preceding Erwin’s exclamation: “What is the one thing you would never consider doing no matter how bad things got?” The question completely changes the answer.
Erwin’s point was that Calvinists come into the conversation with Paul thinking the question is “Why is God excluding so many?” But, according to Erwin, Paul is really answering the objection to the Jews who are asking, “Why are these Gentiles allowed to be entered into the kingdom of God?”
I tried to read this passage according to Erwin’s interpretation, putting myself in the place of a first century Jew who was not following God’s heart for the Gentiles, but I just couldn’t follow it to a logical conclusion. This interpretation makes no sense in the context of the chapter, the surrounding chapters and the entire book. His interpretation is utter foolishness.
Nonetheless, here is what I did. I pretended to be this so-called Jew who believes my chosenness by God is exclusive, even though Paul, according to Erwin, is saying it’s inclusive (of Gentiles). (The point of of disagreement with Erwin isn’t over this point. Of course we are in agreement the Gospel is inclusive of Gentiles, otherwise neither he nor I would even be having this argument. We are both, after all, Gentiles. No, the point of disagreement is on Paul’s reason for anguish in verses 1-3. There are several reasons, both exegetically and logically why Paul is not possibly in anguish over the Jew’s exclusivist thinking, not wanting the Gentiles to be given the Gospel. No, Paul is in anguish for much more crucial matters – the very eternal life of his people, who are rejecting Christ as their Messiah, and therefore going to hell.)
So follow me on this journey through the next few paragraphs as I become this Jew according to Erwin’s interpretation of Romans 9. By the way, I am taking the liberty to step out of the box, remaining a Jew, but jumping forward to refer to Erwin’s interpretation from time to time -
Okay, I’m a Jew who believes Jesus came as the Messiah to my people, not to the Gentiles. After all, we are the chosen people, as promised to Father Abraham by God Himself. And now Paul, himself a Jew, is saying he is completely broken-hearted that Israel has rejected the idea that God chose us inclusively – the include Gentiles into the kingdom of God because God loves them too! We have claimed since the beginning God’s love and choice of us is an exclusive one. We are God’s chosen people, not the rest of the world. They are dogs! And for that, Paul is in anguish – that we just don’t get it. God is moving at a pace that put Him lightyears ahead of us concerning His inclusive, unconditional love to all people.
(I can’t believe Paul is upset at this, and not that the Jews are not coming into the kingdom of God themselves. This should be Paul’s real anguish, that Jews are going to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus.)
Paul goes as far as saying he would rather lose his own salvation and go to hell than for us to remain blind to this inclusive love of God to the Gentiles.
So this is what Paul is upset about, that Israel isn’t inclusive (not that we aren’t accepting the Gospel). But Paul then reassures his readers that God’s promise to Israel hasn’t been broken. The reason for this is that not everyone born an Israelite is really an heir to God’s promise, only those born of the promise – a spiritual Jew who has the heart of God.
Paul illustrates, saying that Jacob was chosen not exclusively but to be a light to Edom, and that’s why they were getting the discipline of God (Verse 13, where Paul quotes from Malachi 1). What Paul means is that God has chosen Israel (Jacob) so that Jacob could choose (give the Gospel) to Edom (Esau). These verses (Rom 9:7-13) point to the fact that not all children of Abraham, only Isaac was chosen; and not all of Isaac’s children, only Jacob. So, it’s not all of Abraham’s children, just the ones God has chosen (for expanding the kingdom, not salvation).
That sort of makes sense, so far. But then it gets a little hairy. In verse 14, what is Paul really asking when he writes, “Is there injustice on God’s part?” Well, Erwin’s interpretation (as illogical as it sounds) is that Paul is saying God is not unjust to choose to include Gentiles into the kingdom – to include all people in His plan, not just Jews. Now, I’m not really tracking here. God doesn’t seem to be widening the selection through these verses (7-13) but narrowing it. His selection, His choice, is narrowing to children of the promise, not all physical children of Abraham. But I suppose if they are being chosen to include everyone, it makes some sense.
I still object to this inclusion of Gentiles into the kingdom. It’s not fair! Paul even quotes Moses in saying that God has the right to have mercy on anyone He wants to have mercy on. He is referring to the Gentiles!
So, what does verse 16 mean? Paul says that “it” depends not on human will or exertion but on God who has mercy. By “it,” is he referring to this choice to include the Gentiles? That is the only reasonable conclusion we can make. “It” refers to selection by God. Well, using the context provided in the next sentence, Paul brings up Pharaoh, saying God chose to harden him.
So now I’m confused. Isn’t Paul trying to make the point that the Jews should be inclusive of the Gentiles? He’s arguing for that, right? Well, I’ve heard Paul preach and read a lot of his other writings. He’s pretty good at making a reasonable, logical argument. So, why then does he make reference to Pharaoh? Why is Paul citing a person in the Old Testament whom God “hardened” because He chose to? Why not pick a better example to prove his point – someone like Cyrus, or the widow Elijah went to, or the leprous man who went to Elisha? They were all pagans who honored God, weren’t they?
But Paul chooses Pharaoh, someone who was chosen to be condemned. This just comes out of the blue, preceded by verse 16, which states that God chooses not based on any merit or will of the person chosen.* Why Pharaoh? If Paul is arguing for inclusion, why is he referencing someone who was excluded? This doesn’t support Paul’s argument that God’s children of promise include Gentiles, that the Gospel is inclusive. In fact, it completely undermines his point. Why would Paul even mention Pharaoh?
Then it gets even hairier. In verse 19, Paul reads the mind of a skeptic who is asking, “Why does God still find fault?” Now this is directed to me, an exclusive Jew, Paul is saying to me, according to Erwin’s interpretation, that I have no right to tell God whom He can and cannot choose to include (not exclude). I don’t want the Gentiles included. Paul says, “Tough, that’s not your call. You’re just a lump of clay in the Potter’s hands, just like the Gentile. I can do whatever I want with either of you.”
The theology concerning God’s sovereignty makes sense, but the argument is a non sequitur, if the argument is for inclusivity. The questions Paul asks at the beginning of this section puzzles me: “Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist His will?” What fault is Paul talking about? Who is at fault? I thought Paul was arguing that no one is at fault; God was expanding His love by choosing Gentiles. Then why is someone at fault?
The reference seems to point back to Pharaoh, who was chosen for condemnation. God raised him up so that His power might be proclaimed in all the earth. God chose Pharaoh as this instrument of wrath prepared for destruction (verse 22). But why did God choose someone (Pharaoh) to be condemned in order that His love might expand? If God is all-inclusive and unconditionally loving, how could he condemn Pharaoh after hardening his heart?
I’m not tracking here. Let me get this straight. Paul is telling me that my problem is I’m not at one with God’s heart and character because I am not being inclusive of the Gentiles. Then he uses Pharaoh, a Gentile, as an example of someone God rejected rather than chose. But he uses Pharaoh as an example of someone who God used, by rejecting him and hardening his heart, in a desire to expand His all-inclusive love to the Gentile world through the Jews. (Isn’t Egypt part of the Gentile world?) So God hardened Pharaoh, and it would be another non sequitur to assume that Pharaoh was unlike Jacob and Esau, that he was not chosen before birth to be condemned rather than chosen. So, if God is being inclusive of the world, why would He exclude Pharaoh based on his merit or will to pursue God, or lack thereof? God is allowed to love and choose people like Jacob without merit or will, so He must be allowed to reject people like Esau and Pharaoh for the same reasons. He is, after all, the Potter, and we are the clay.
Another thing I notice in verse 24. “Even us” refers to both Jews and Gentiles. So Paul is addressing both Jews and Gentiles in this long argument. So, okay, if he is addressing Gentiles, even partly, who is he arguing with for the inclusion of Gentiles? Why do Gentiles need to be convinced that they need to be inclusive of themselves? And this “even us” is referring to Christian Jews, since Paul says “we were called out.” So the whole chapter is addressed to Christians, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Therefore the argument only follows if it is an argument is for exclusion not inclusion. The Jews are excluded because they don’t believe in Jesus, not because they aren’t including Gentiles into the kingdom. Paul is a pretty serious guy, but his intense emotion in verses 1-3 is not merited merely for the sake of Jewish Christians who simply haven’t embraced an expansion of the Gospel into all the nations of the world. God had already been changing the hearts of many Christian Jews (Acts 10 and forward), and the Jews who didn’t embrace this, who were not true heirs of Abraham, and Judaizers, weren’t Christians to begin with. Paul’s heartache, therefore, couldn’t be that Christian Jews weren’t getting it, because he is making the point in the following verses that true spiritual Israel did get it, leaving their kin by blood but not by promise behind, unchosen and rejected by God. This was Paul’s anguish – the rejection by Jews of Christ, and therefore, their rejection by God.
*(Even if this choosing by God was for inclusion, the fact remains that they were chosen based on no merits or WILL of their own. Now I will give him this, that Paul doesn’t come right out and say there was no will on the part of the person in this verse, but Paul does give a crystal clear example in Jacob and Esau, who were chosen before birth (verse 11). They were chosen when they did not will or even have the ability to choose God for themselves.) Ω
W, 12/21/06
There is a context to this chapter that extends all the way back to the beginning of the book. Also, this is a set of three chapters that run together, 9, 10 and 11.
Paul expresses in verses 1-5 his intense anguish over the rejection of the Gospel by the nation of Israel. Paul, being a child of Israel by birth, wishes that he himself could be cut off from eternal life that Israel might believe.
But Paul reminds us that the promises of God do not fail. The context is important here. Romans 8 was a long chapter of encouragement to God’s elect that, though they will experience temporal suffering, along with creation, and alongside the Holy Spirit, there are great things in store of God’s children. Furthermore, in spite of all the suffering they were encountering, they could rest assured that they would never be separated from God’s love, but that God had ordained all their suffering for His glory and their own good.
But how could God be trusted if He couldn’t keep His promise with Israel, one might ask? That is the question Paul addresses in verse 6ff. Paul makes it clear that God can be trusted. How? Because God’s promise to Israel stands. But Israel isn’t and never was what some thought it was. Paul affirms a Spiritual Israel, so to speak, rather than a Physical or Political Israel. It is the children of the promise, the elect, that is true Israel. And God has, just as Romans 8:29 states, has predestined a people who are His very own, foreknown and fore-chosen to be His people. Why is this comforting? Because it is not based on our control? When we have those Romans 7 moments and feel that we must not be God’s child based on sin waging war within us, we can rest assured that God’s election in us is sure.
Part 2: Erwin’s Interpretation:
Erwin McManus preached a sermon on December 3 entitled “Is God in Your Future.” He begins a section of his sermon with an illustration about this chapter, saying it’s like jumping into the middle or end of a conversation, and how if we do that, we often miss the point, or even reach the opposite conclusion concerning what the conversation was even about. He uses an illustration of how someone walked into an intense conversation between him and his wife, where he emphatically exclaimed, “Divorce!” The conclusion they reached was, “Kim and Erwin are getting a divorce!” But what this person missed coming in late to the conversation the real question preceding Erwin’s exclamation: “What is the one thing you would never consider doing no matter how bad things got?” The question completely changes the answer.
Erwin’s point was that Calvinists come into the conversation with Paul thinking the question is “Why is God excluding so many?” But, according to Erwin, Paul is really answering the objection to the Jews who are asking, “Why are these Gentiles allowed to be entered into the kingdom of God?”
I tried to read this passage according to Erwin’s interpretation, putting myself in the place of a first century Jew who was not following God’s heart for the Gentiles, but I just couldn’t follow it to a logical conclusion. This interpretation makes no sense in the context of the chapter, the surrounding chapters and the entire book. His interpretation is utter foolishness.
Nonetheless, here is what I did. I pretended to be this so-called Jew who believes my chosenness by God is exclusive, even though Paul, according to Erwin, is saying it’s inclusive (of Gentiles). (The point of of disagreement with Erwin isn’t over this point. Of course we are in agreement the Gospel is inclusive of Gentiles, otherwise neither he nor I would even be having this argument. We are both, after all, Gentiles. No, the point of disagreement is on Paul’s reason for anguish in verses 1-3. There are several reasons, both exegetically and logically why Paul is not possibly in anguish over the Jew’s exclusivist thinking, not wanting the Gentiles to be given the Gospel. No, Paul is in anguish for much more crucial matters – the very eternal life of his people, who are rejecting Christ as their Messiah, and therefore going to hell.)
So follow me on this journey through the next few paragraphs as I become this Jew according to Erwin’s interpretation of Romans 9. By the way, I am taking the liberty to step out of the box, remaining a Jew, but jumping forward to refer to Erwin’s interpretation from time to time -
Okay, I’m a Jew who believes Jesus came as the Messiah to my people, not to the Gentiles. After all, we are the chosen people, as promised to Father Abraham by God Himself. And now Paul, himself a Jew, is saying he is completely broken-hearted that Israel has rejected the idea that God chose us inclusively – the include Gentiles into the kingdom of God because God loves them too! We have claimed since the beginning God’s love and choice of us is an exclusive one. We are God’s chosen people, not the rest of the world. They are dogs! And for that, Paul is in anguish – that we just don’t get it. God is moving at a pace that put Him lightyears ahead of us concerning His inclusive, unconditional love to all people.
(I can’t believe Paul is upset at this, and not that the Jews are not coming into the kingdom of God themselves. This should be Paul’s real anguish, that Jews are going to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus.)
Paul goes as far as saying he would rather lose his own salvation and go to hell than for us to remain blind to this inclusive love of God to the Gentiles.
So this is what Paul is upset about, that Israel isn’t inclusive (not that we aren’t accepting the Gospel). But Paul then reassures his readers that God’s promise to Israel hasn’t been broken. The reason for this is that not everyone born an Israelite is really an heir to God’s promise, only those born of the promise – a spiritual Jew who has the heart of God.
Paul illustrates, saying that Jacob was chosen not exclusively but to be a light to Edom, and that’s why they were getting the discipline of God (Verse 13, where Paul quotes from Malachi 1). What Paul means is that God has chosen Israel (Jacob) so that Jacob could choose (give the Gospel) to Edom (Esau). These verses (Rom 9:7-13) point to the fact that not all children of Abraham, only Isaac was chosen; and not all of Isaac’s children, only Jacob. So, it’s not all of Abraham’s children, just the ones God has chosen (for expanding the kingdom, not salvation).
That sort of makes sense, so far. But then it gets a little hairy. In verse 14, what is Paul really asking when he writes, “Is there injustice on God’s part?” Well, Erwin’s interpretation (as illogical as it sounds) is that Paul is saying God is not unjust to choose to include Gentiles into the kingdom – to include all people in His plan, not just Jews. Now, I’m not really tracking here. God doesn’t seem to be widening the selection through these verses (7-13) but narrowing it. His selection, His choice, is narrowing to children of the promise, not all physical children of Abraham. But I suppose if they are being chosen to include everyone, it makes some sense.
I still object to this inclusion of Gentiles into the kingdom. It’s not fair! Paul even quotes Moses in saying that God has the right to have mercy on anyone He wants to have mercy on. He is referring to the Gentiles!
So, what does verse 16 mean? Paul says that “it” depends not on human will or exertion but on God who has mercy. By “it,” is he referring to this choice to include the Gentiles? That is the only reasonable conclusion we can make. “It” refers to selection by God. Well, using the context provided in the next sentence, Paul brings up Pharaoh, saying God chose to harden him.
So now I’m confused. Isn’t Paul trying to make the point that the Jews should be inclusive of the Gentiles? He’s arguing for that, right? Well, I’ve heard Paul preach and read a lot of his other writings. He’s pretty good at making a reasonable, logical argument. So, why then does he make reference to Pharaoh? Why is Paul citing a person in the Old Testament whom God “hardened” because He chose to? Why not pick a better example to prove his point – someone like Cyrus, or the widow Elijah went to, or the leprous man who went to Elisha? They were all pagans who honored God, weren’t they?
But Paul chooses Pharaoh, someone who was chosen to be condemned. This just comes out of the blue, preceded by verse 16, which states that God chooses not based on any merit or will of the person chosen.* Why Pharaoh? If Paul is arguing for inclusion, why is he referencing someone who was excluded? This doesn’t support Paul’s argument that God’s children of promise include Gentiles, that the Gospel is inclusive. In fact, it completely undermines his point. Why would Paul even mention Pharaoh?
Then it gets even hairier. In verse 19, Paul reads the mind of a skeptic who is asking, “Why does God still find fault?” Now this is directed to me, an exclusive Jew, Paul is saying to me, according to Erwin’s interpretation, that I have no right to tell God whom He can and cannot choose to include (not exclude). I don’t want the Gentiles included. Paul says, “Tough, that’s not your call. You’re just a lump of clay in the Potter’s hands, just like the Gentile. I can do whatever I want with either of you.”
The theology concerning God’s sovereignty makes sense, but the argument is a non sequitur, if the argument is for inclusivity. The questions Paul asks at the beginning of this section puzzles me: “Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist His will?” What fault is Paul talking about? Who is at fault? I thought Paul was arguing that no one is at fault; God was expanding His love by choosing Gentiles. Then why is someone at fault?
The reference seems to point back to Pharaoh, who was chosen for condemnation. God raised him up so that His power might be proclaimed in all the earth. God chose Pharaoh as this instrument of wrath prepared for destruction (verse 22). But why did God choose someone (Pharaoh) to be condemned in order that His love might expand? If God is all-inclusive and unconditionally loving, how could he condemn Pharaoh after hardening his heart?
I’m not tracking here. Let me get this straight. Paul is telling me that my problem is I’m not at one with God’s heart and character because I am not being inclusive of the Gentiles. Then he uses Pharaoh, a Gentile, as an example of someone God rejected rather than chose. But he uses Pharaoh as an example of someone who God used, by rejecting him and hardening his heart, in a desire to expand His all-inclusive love to the Gentile world through the Jews. (Isn’t Egypt part of the Gentile world?) So God hardened Pharaoh, and it would be another non sequitur to assume that Pharaoh was unlike Jacob and Esau, that he was not chosen before birth to be condemned rather than chosen. So, if God is being inclusive of the world, why would He exclude Pharaoh based on his merit or will to pursue God, or lack thereof? God is allowed to love and choose people like Jacob without merit or will, so He must be allowed to reject people like Esau and Pharaoh for the same reasons. He is, after all, the Potter, and we are the clay.
Another thing I notice in verse 24. “Even us” refers to both Jews and Gentiles. So Paul is addressing both Jews and Gentiles in this long argument. So, okay, if he is addressing Gentiles, even partly, who is he arguing with for the inclusion of Gentiles? Why do Gentiles need to be convinced that they need to be inclusive of themselves? And this “even us” is referring to Christian Jews, since Paul says “we were called out.” So the whole chapter is addressed to Christians, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Therefore the argument only follows if it is an argument is for exclusion not inclusion. The Jews are excluded because they don’t believe in Jesus, not because they aren’t including Gentiles into the kingdom. Paul is a pretty serious guy, but his intense emotion in verses 1-3 is not merited merely for the sake of Jewish Christians who simply haven’t embraced an expansion of the Gospel into all the nations of the world. God had already been changing the hearts of many Christian Jews (Acts 10 and forward), and the Jews who didn’t embrace this, who were not true heirs of Abraham, and Judaizers, weren’t Christians to begin with. Paul’s heartache, therefore, couldn’t be that Christian Jews weren’t getting it, because he is making the point in the following verses that true spiritual Israel did get it, leaving their kin by blood but not by promise behind, unchosen and rejected by God. This was Paul’s anguish – the rejection by Jews of Christ, and therefore, their rejection by God.
*(Even if this choosing by God was for inclusion, the fact remains that they were chosen based on no merits or WILL of their own. Now I will give him this, that Paul doesn’t come right out and say there was no will on the part of the person in this verse, but Paul does give a crystal clear example in Jacob and Esau, who were chosen before birth (verse 11). They were chosen when they did not will or even have the ability to choose God for themselves.) Ω
W, 12/21/06
posted by Ron | 9:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home