In this email, I was seeking to respond to some (not all) of the issues raised when reading portions of Romans 9 and 11.
The Romans texts are not the only passages to consider, but they are important ones.
At the very beginning of Romans 9, Paul shows his intense concern for his people, even willing to be "cut off" for the sake of those he loves. Whatever Paul’s version of divine sovereignty, it included a healthy dose of compassion (1-5).
Then, of course, Paul writes about the difference between a work of God on the heart and a merely outward profession. Privileges are fine; in fact they’re gifts from God. But they, by themselves, are not the center issue (6ff); God’s love governed promise is.
Next, of course, we come to the difficult verses (14ff), where it seems that God’s choice is the issue. Whatever the order of these things, however, note the way Paul describes it. These are not merely theoretical moves on God’s part. No, they are acts of mercy and compassion. So, whatever God’s sovereignty entails, it is a merciful and compassionate sovereignty.
I take the hardening process (18) to be God’s way of saying, "Hey, if you don’t want me, then you can have your way." It’s kind of like his giving people what they want.
Verse 19 picks up on the implications of such a divine choice. There are a few things to consider here:
(1) The imaginary objector is apparently getting cocky with God, being arrogant and basically accusatory. There are times in Scripture when questioning and complaining are valid expressions of an honest faith. Here, obviously, that’s not the case. Therefore, the questions are of a rebellious sort.
(2) The response that Paul provides is aimed, I think, at showing the imaginary objector (and any who would accuse God) that His ways are far above our own. Who are we, mere creatures, to question the Creator? Can a house complain against the one who built the house? Of course not. The point here is that God is, ultimately, a different category of being, and the objector here has failed to recognize this fact. In fact, in an almost escalating argument, Paul basically confronts God’s imaginary accuser with an "in the face" challenge. God is God, is He not? If so, He can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t have to first gain permission from His creatures.
(3) The Romans 11 passage is another tough one. Calvin seems to take the entire passage in a rather positive way. If God has had mercy on us, then He is just as likely to have mercy on others. We all require mercy because we’re all disobedient, Jews and Gentile alike. "Paul makes the Jews equal in guilt to the Gentiles, in order that both may understand that access to salvation lies open to others as much as to themselves" (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Romans, 258). If Calvin is correct, the purpose of this passage is to state emphatically that all are shown to be disobedient and in need of rescue. That way, they are all forced to partake of the offer provided by the only Savior. The context that follows also seems to fit this interpretation. God has shown that we are all disobedient, but He has done so in order to provide the only path of salvation. If this is true, it makes sense that Paul would cry out, "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God" (33)!
(4) All that being said, there are still some very hard passages and some difficult to swallow truths. What can any of us say? God is truly sovereign. He calls the shots and runs the show. At the same time, we are still responsible for our choices. The best way to handle these matters, I think, is to do our best to retain this tension. We might think that human responsibility contradicts any notion of divine control. Then again, we might be led to believe that divine sovereignty utterly destroys any sense of human freedom and divine fairness. Somehow, and I’m not sure how, both of these truths are compatible. The temptation is to allow one of these ideas to suck the meaning out of the other. A better, more biblical, yet clearly very puzzling alternative is to seek to allow both text types to have their sway in our lives and our theology. Easier said than done! :-)
The Romans texts are not the only passages to consider, but they are important ones.
At the very beginning of Romans 9, Paul shows his intense concern for his people, even willing to be "cut off" for the sake of those he loves. Whatever Paul’s version of divine sovereignty, it included a healthy dose of compassion (1-5).
Then, of course, Paul writes about the difference between a work of God on the heart and a merely outward profession. Privileges are fine; in fact they’re gifts from God. But they, by themselves, are not the center issue (6ff); God’s love governed promise is.
Next, of course, we come to the difficult verses (14ff), where it seems that God’s choice is the issue. Whatever the order of these things, however, note the way Paul describes it. These are not merely theoretical moves on God’s part. No, they are acts of mercy and compassion. So, whatever God’s sovereignty entails, it is a merciful and compassionate sovereignty.
I take the hardening process (18) to be God’s way of saying, "Hey, if you don’t want me, then you can have your way." It’s kind of like his giving people what they want.
Verse 19 picks up on the implications of such a divine choice. There are a few things to consider here:
(1) The imaginary objector is apparently getting cocky with God, being arrogant and basically accusatory. There are times in Scripture when questioning and complaining are valid expressions of an honest faith. Here, obviously, that’s not the case. Therefore, the questions are of a rebellious sort.
(2) The response that Paul provides is aimed, I think, at showing the imaginary objector (and any who would accuse God) that His ways are far above our own. Who are we, mere creatures, to question the Creator? Can a house complain against the one who built the house? Of course not. The point here is that God is, ultimately, a different category of being, and the objector here has failed to recognize this fact. In fact, in an almost escalating argument, Paul basically confronts God’s imaginary accuser with an "in the face" challenge. God is God, is He not? If so, He can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t have to first gain permission from His creatures.
(3) The Romans 11 passage is another tough one. Calvin seems to take the entire passage in a rather positive way. If God has had mercy on us, then He is just as likely to have mercy on others. We all require mercy because we’re all disobedient, Jews and Gentile alike. "Paul makes the Jews equal in guilt to the Gentiles, in order that both may understand that access to salvation lies open to others as much as to themselves" (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Romans, 258). If Calvin is correct, the purpose of this passage is to state emphatically that all are shown to be disobedient and in need of rescue. That way, they are all forced to partake of the offer provided by the only Savior. The context that follows also seems to fit this interpretation. God has shown that we are all disobedient, but He has done so in order to provide the only path of salvation. If this is true, it makes sense that Paul would cry out, "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God" (33)!
(4) All that being said, there are still some very hard passages and some difficult to swallow truths. What can any of us say? God is truly sovereign. He calls the shots and runs the show. At the same time, we are still responsible for our choices. The best way to handle these matters, I think, is to do our best to retain this tension. We might think that human responsibility contradicts any notion of divine control. Then again, we might be led to believe that divine sovereignty utterly destroys any sense of human freedom and divine fairness. Somehow, and I’m not sure how, both of these truths are compatible. The temptation is to allow one of these ideas to suck the meaning out of the other. A better, more biblical, yet clearly very puzzling alternative is to seek to allow both text types to have their sway in our lives and our theology. Easier said than done! :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment