(B) Next, briefly discuss how you understand this part of Paul’s argument to relate to the notion of “election”. What is the “logic of election” here in this passage? What is the pattern and purpose of God’s choice? What happens to those who are not chosen? What is the role of the scriptural allusions and citations?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding of the ‘flow’ of Paul’s argument in Romans 9: 1-29 is in essentially three parts: Verses 1-5 describe Paul’s heartache over the lostness of Israel and lists prepotences/advantages that they were given but are not currently enjoying due to unbelief. This raises the question of whether God’s word (i.e. promise) has failed. In verses 6-13 Paul explains that contemporary unbelieving Israel is not the true people of God (“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” 9:6), so God’s word has not failed. God’s people are not the product of human pedigree, but of God’s promise. In verses 14-18 Paul explains how God is just to harden one group and show mercy to another exactly as he did concerning Pharaoh and Moses, because God’s national calling is not based on human will, but on God’s elective choice.
It is not
difficult to become easily overwhelmed by Romans 9:11 in the whole
controversial theological and political topics, its entire scale and scope, and
most of all, the overall flow. These
three chapters are connected tightly to monotheism and election. Chapter 9 is filled with questions related to
God’s future purpose(s). The chapter is
a retelling of Israel’s story from God’s election of them to the Exodus
event. The entire section (Romans 9-11)
follows by reason from where Paul leaves off in Romans 8, where he discusses
the life experienced by those who are not in Christ. Romans 9 thus, deals with those who have not
believed, chiefly those of Israel who have not believed in Jesus as the
Messiah.
Much like the
days were connected in the Creation story (i.e. Days 1-3 align with their 4-6
counterparts), so too is there a “visual” connection within Romans 9-11 in
terms of structure and counterbalance:
9:1-5: Heartfelt
appeal……………. 11:33-36:
Heartfelt doxology
9:6-29: Israel’s
history…………….. 11:1-32:
Israel’s future
9:30-33: Gentile
inclusion/Jewish stumbling…. 10:18-21:
Gentile inclusion/Jewish mercy
10:1-4: Jewish
unbelief/ignorance…………. 10:14-17:
Faith/knowledge of the Gospel
…………….10:5-13: Law and Prophets pointing to
Covenant Renewal………
10:9: THE GOSPEL….Jesus
is Lord[1]
To answer the
question of “What is God’s purpose of ‘election’?” it is imperative to note
what Chapters 9-11 are about in general:
the trustworthiness of God
regarding His promise to Israel. If
privileged (chosen) Israel has betrayed the true implication of her inheritance
through disobedience and unbelief, has God’s entire redemptive program thus
failed? Has His promise to make Israel
the light to the Gentiles and the channel for the blessing given to Abraham
gone up in smoke? (Rom. 9:6) Paul’s answer to support his thesis statement
in 9:6 is as direct as it is meaningful.
God has NOT betrayed His redemptive program, as membership in elect
Israel has always been solely
dependent upon God’s personal selection of individuals. He has NOT rejected the Jews en masse as
clearly evidenced by Paul’s own election and by God’s remnant strategy in the
OT (Rom. 11:1-10). Throughout the
history of Israel, God’s actions supported that the eternal benefits of His
covenant of grace were always guaranteed only to those upon whom God [from
eternity] chose to show mercy (9:15).
Jacob, not Esau, was the heir of the promise – and this promise cannot
be broken because all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ in whom ALL elect, whether Jew or Gentile,
become children of the promise (Rom. 9:8; cf. Gal. 3:29, 2 Cor. 1:20).
1b. The notion of election in Paul’s argument is all about
solidifying that God’s word remained true and had not failed. As Keck points out, “by expressing the wrong
conclusion so strongly, Paul underscores the right conclusion, expressed in
verse 11: ‘so that the purpose of God might continue to be [mene, remain]
according to election [kat’ eklogen]’.”[2] Paul was trying to show that if God’s purpose
continued on in a way which was compatible with election, then it negated the
fact that only some of the Jews believed while others did not. The pattern and purpose goes hand in hand
with the role of the scriptural allusions and citations. Specifically, with regard to Paul’s statement
in 9:6 (“Not all who are
descended from Israel are Israel), the identity of “real” Israel (to whom
God gave His promise and thus on which the authenticity of His word is being
based) has never been determined by lineal descent alone.[3] The whole point is that the OT allusions and
references which Paul is utilizing are relevant since God is consistent. God’s election was indisputable in the time
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Contrarily,
if that were not the case and God was deemed inconsistent, then nothing at all
would be relevant, i.e. no conjecture would hold about how God operated during
the time of the patriarchs in that present time [of Paul’s writing to the
Romans].
According to Blackwell, et al, there really is no “logic
of election” at least as far as Paul was concerned. As just explained God had a purpose according to election; however “for Paul, God’s
merciful election is logically inexplicable because it is dependent solely on
God’s willingness to be merciful.”[4] There didn’t need to be a logical or easily
explained, let alone understood reason for election; rather, it was only based
on God’s mercy. It was God’s decision
and His decision only – one not to be
questioned. “But who are you, O man,
to talk back to God? Shall what is
formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Rom. 9:20).
Johnson sets it up beautifully when she states that
Paul’s use of Scripture here confronts his readers more pointedly than does any
other exegetical discussion in his letters with the difficulties inherent in
the claim to possess a sacred book, and further, that “as historically and
religiously significant as those questions are, it may just be the asking of
them in this way that unnecessarily distorts interpretation of the passage.”[5] Just because we (or they) cannot understand
the why behind God’s election, does
not mean it is unfair, not impartial, or irrelevant. Paul knew that. As Johnson also says and I conclude: “Paul is
more confident about his grasp of things eternal than most moderns are of their
handle on things temporal.”[6] On
that point, I’m not sure anyone can disagree.
[4]
Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 120
. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
[5] Johnson,
Elizabeth E. The Faithfulness and Impartiality of God. Page 212.
New Brunswick Theological Seminary.
[6]
Johnson, Elizabeth E. The Faithfulness and Impartiality of God. Page 212.
New Brunswick Theological Seminary.
No comments:
Post a Comment