In the previous eight chapters of his epistle to the Romans (chapters 1-8), Paul has finished presenting his treatise that salvation is receivable on the scheme of grace through faith (rather than on the scheme of mere Jewish ethnicity or Law-keeping). That particular thesis had some ramifications for Israel: it meant that many Jews, because they were not embracing salvation through the scheme of faith in Jesus, but were relying on their Jewish ethnicity or on their keeping of Moses' Law for righteousness, were missing out on experiencing the promised salvation.
As you can imagine, some believers at Rome may have had some issues with that, thinking that God's promises to Israel may have somehow failed, or that God may even have been unjust to exclude Jews because they weren't embracing the way of faith.
Paul now addresses those concerns, in chapters 9-11.
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Paul's topic in the following three chapters is all to do with some specific concerns which his readers may have had regarding the ramifications of the Gospel for Jews.
[Note:- Paul wasn't directly addressing the question which Calvin and Armenius debated centuries later. Rather, Paul was writing some explanations specific to the question of where natural Israel fits with the Gospel of salvation through faith.]
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
The fact that the first-century believers at Rome were observing many Jews missing-out on experiencing the promised salvation, did not mean that God's Word (God's promises, the Scriptures of the Prophets) have failed - because not every ethnic Jew was considered to be a true Jew, in the spiritual purposes of God.
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Not every natural descendant of Abraham was deemed by the Scriptures to be a true child of Abraham, in the Scriptural, covenantal, spiritual sense, in God's purposes and promises.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The Scriptures declared that God's purpose would revolve not around natural descent from Abraham, but around a different criteria - a criteria of God's own choosing and promise.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
Paul cites a Scriptural precedent of God revolving His plans, not around mere ethnicity, but rather on the basis of His own set criteria and promise.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
We now have yet another example of God revolving His plans around a criteria of His own choosing and promise, rather than automatic upon ethnicity or descent.
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
God declared an outcome, election, calling and purpose ahead of time, before the works were even done yet which were factors in those outcomes.
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
This was the outcome of the behavioural traits which the twins were already displaying in their mother's womb, as they strove together. Rebecca asked God what these traits meant. God then told her ahead of time what the outcome of those traits would become after the boys were born and lived and their descendants after them.
The outcome was due to their behaviours and God's response to their behaviours - and all of this was declared ahead of time.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The full outcome was that God loved one (and his descendants) but hated the other. This statement was made many centuries after the twins had both lived and died and their descendants.
Similarly, God declared through the Prophets ahead of time, that Jesus would come as the Saviour, and that all who believe in Him would be saved while all who don't believe would miss out. The present outcome in Israel - that some were believing while others were not - that some are experiencing salvation while others are not - has transpired exactly according to Scriptural prediction and principle.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Paul makes the point that this is not to be misunderstood in a way that makes God out to be unrighteous.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
God showed mercy on believing Jews, as He said believing would be the criteria; and has withheld the experience of salvation from unbelievers, as He said He would. Paul has written in the previous chapters that the criteria upon which God has chosen to show mercy is "by grace through faith" rather than through mere Jewish ethnicity nor through Law-keeping.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
God's purposes revolve around the criteria which He Himself sets, not the criteria which man sets or thinks. That criteria, Paul has already established and is now defending, is "by grace through faith" rather than through Jewish ethnicity alone nor through Law-keeping.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Pharaoh was long previously worthy of judgement, but God delayed Pharaoh's judgment, left him alive and even raised him up to display His own power. Similarly, God delayed ethnic Israel's long due judgement, preserving the polity of the nation, that He might show His power in the nation.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
He shows mercy on those Jews who believe in Jesus, as He willed to; and those who don't believe, become hardened and even believe a delusion, as a consequence of their unbelief.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
We can't complain that God set His own criteria, despite its ramifications for unbelieving Jews.
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
God decided the criteria that would deem one vessel to be honoured while another dishonoured - and that criteria, Paul explained, is by grace through faith, or else unbelief.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Unbelievers and the wicked were already worthy of judgment, but God left the polity of Israel in existence in order to show His power in them.
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
He prepared the vessels of mercy by initiating His plan to save those who believe. It is the believers whom He has prepared for glory - not necessarily all ethnic Jews or Law-keepers.
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Even Gentiles who believe are the called, the prepared.
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Gentiles are included.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
The Prophets already foresaw that not all ethnic Jews would be saved. Therefore the Gospel does not mean God's promises to Israel had somehow failed. It was foreseen all along that faith alone would be the means of grace.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
The Prophets foresaw that faith - or the lack of faith - would be the sole criteria.
Showing posts with label predestination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label predestination. Show all posts
Monday, 24 September 2012
Friday, 21 September 2012
God's Sovereignty in Salvation
God can do anything He wants. He can make choices which have no basis in our choices. He has done so. Where were any of us when He made the worlds? And that is precisely the truth Paul was appealing to in Romans 9. Paul was saying that God made the choice on His own that salvation would be by grace through faith - it wasn't our will or running that decided that scheme.
If it was left up to man to decide the scheme upon which salvation would be granted, many would have decided that Jewish ethnicity should be the basis upon which salvation should be granted; others were asserting that Law-keeping should be the basis - but God, without requiring anyone's permission, will, or running - decided upon His own scheme: salvation would be granted by grace through faith alone.
That's all Paul was defending in Romans 9. The scheme (salvation through faith) was God's and God's alone. And despite the ramifications of this scheme for unbelieving Jews, God was just and His promises had not failed.
If it was left up to man to decide the scheme upon which salvation would be granted, many would have decided that Jewish ethnicity should be the basis upon which salvation should be granted; others were asserting that Law-keeping should be the basis - but God, without requiring anyone's permission, will, or running - decided upon His own scheme: salvation would be granted by grace through faith alone.
That's all Paul was defending in Romans 9. The scheme (salvation through faith) was God's and God's alone. And despite the ramifications of this scheme for unbelieving Jews, God was just and His promises had not failed.
Friday, 14 September 2012
All Who Believe Come to Jesus
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me..." (John 6:37).
All whom the Father giveth to Jesus shall come to Him.
But who is the Father giving to Him? Verse 35 says: "...he that believeth..."
And who or what causes a person to believe? The passage itself does not establish how or whether God is the sole actor in that. But verse 36 does show us that Jesus upbraided those who did not believe.
All whom the Father giveth to Jesus shall come to Him.
But who is the Father giving to Him? Verse 35 says: "...he that believeth..."
And who or what causes a person to believe? The passage itself does not establish how or whether God is the sole actor in that. But verse 36 does show us that Jesus upbraided those who did not believe.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Joel's Prophecy is Receivable by Believers
I don't think Joel's prophecy was necessarily about a future nationwide salvation in Israel before the coming of the Lord. Peter said Joel's prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.
"All flesh" probably meant that the promise was to all, including sons, daughters, servants and the aged - rather than exclusively for prophets, priests and kings.
It also probably meant the promise was potentially available to all Jews – even though not all Jews would necessarily believe and receive it.
The promise may indeed have been for Jews first of all - but on the same day, Peter continued his sermon, saying, "...for the promise is for you and your children and for them that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call..." So the promise was to extend beyond the day of Pentecost. And it was also conditional upon being called – that is, upon believing in Jesus.
The Apostles seemed to deal differently with apparently unfulfilled prophecies than many of our end-times teachers do today. Modern end-times teachers seem to say, "Well it didn't come to pass, so it must be going to happen during the end-times." But the Apostles didn’t seem to be looking for a future fulfillment of God’s promises to the forefathers. Rather, they explained the manner in which the promises had in fact already been fulfilled through the Gospel. They explained that the promises had been received by the remnant of believing Jews. They also explained that Gentiles who believe had been grafted in. They never seemed to look for a future, repeat fulfillment in Israel.
Jesus didn’t seem to mention a nationwide salvation of Israel before the end, either. And the book of Revelation too seemed to paint a different picture for Israel’s future. The Apostles seemed to be expecting not a nationwide revival in Israel, but a great falling away, the love of many growing cold, and persecutions and hardships in Israel, immediately prior to the end. Not a nationwide fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy!
Joel’s prophecy didn’t state for how long God’s Spirit would continue to be poured out before the Day of the Lord – because the prophets didn’t know how much longer it would be before the Day of the Lord – and we don’t know either, neither did the angels know, and neither did the Son of Man know. Only the Father knows.
Therefore the baptism with the Holy Spirit had an end-times context just as much in the first century as it does at any other time during the Church age. The entire Church age is the “last days” really. Joel’s prophecy about the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon all flesh was therefore interpreted by the Apostles as fulfilled. They taught that the promise is receivable by believers – whether Jew or Gentile, and would continue to be received right up until the day of the Lord - and unbelievers will miss out - whether they are Jews or Gentiles. That’s how the Apostles understood prophecy.
The Apostles said nothing of a future, nationwide repeat fulfillment in Israel of Joel’s prophecy immediately before the Day of the Lord. It’s worthwhile taking note of the manner in which the Apostles said prophecy had been fulfilled (and the manner in which it continues to apply during the entire Church age), rather than asserting our own idea that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled during some special future dispensation. The Apostles’ interpretation of prophecy is good New Covenant doctrine which keeps Gospel-truth and natural Israel in proper perspective.
"All flesh" probably meant that the promise was to all, including sons, daughters, servants and the aged - rather than exclusively for prophets, priests and kings.
It also probably meant the promise was potentially available to all Jews – even though not all Jews would necessarily believe and receive it.
The promise may indeed have been for Jews first of all - but on the same day, Peter continued his sermon, saying, "...for the promise is for you and your children and for them that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call..." So the promise was to extend beyond the day of Pentecost. And it was also conditional upon being called – that is, upon believing in Jesus.
The Apostles seemed to deal differently with apparently unfulfilled prophecies than many of our end-times teachers do today. Modern end-times teachers seem to say, "Well it didn't come to pass, so it must be going to happen during the end-times." But the Apostles didn’t seem to be looking for a future fulfillment of God’s promises to the forefathers. Rather, they explained the manner in which the promises had in fact already been fulfilled through the Gospel. They explained that the promises had been received by the remnant of believing Jews. They also explained that Gentiles who believe had been grafted in. They never seemed to look for a future, repeat fulfillment in Israel.
Jesus didn’t seem to mention a nationwide salvation of Israel before the end, either. And the book of Revelation too seemed to paint a different picture for Israel’s future. The Apostles seemed to be expecting not a nationwide revival in Israel, but a great falling away, the love of many growing cold, and persecutions and hardships in Israel, immediately prior to the end. Not a nationwide fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy!
Joel’s prophecy didn’t state for how long God’s Spirit would continue to be poured out before the Day of the Lord – because the prophets didn’t know how much longer it would be before the Day of the Lord – and we don’t know either, neither did the angels know, and neither did the Son of Man know. Only the Father knows.
Therefore the baptism with the Holy Spirit had an end-times context just as much in the first century as it does at any other time during the Church age. The entire Church age is the “last days” really. Joel’s prophecy about the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon all flesh was therefore interpreted by the Apostles as fulfilled. They taught that the promise is receivable by believers – whether Jew or Gentile, and would continue to be received right up until the day of the Lord - and unbelievers will miss out - whether they are Jews or Gentiles. That’s how the Apostles understood prophecy.
The Apostles said nothing of a future, nationwide repeat fulfillment in Israel of Joel’s prophecy immediately before the Day of the Lord. It’s worthwhile taking note of the manner in which the Apostles said prophecy had been fulfilled (and the manner in which it continues to apply during the entire Church age), rather than asserting our own idea that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled during some special future dispensation. The Apostles’ interpretation of prophecy is good New Covenant doctrine which keeps Gospel-truth and natural Israel in proper perspective.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Freewill and the Sovereignty of God
Man's will doesn't diminish God's sovereignty at all - it confirms it.
If man didn't have a will, then God doesn't have a will either - because man was made in God's image.
But since man has a will, it is confirmed that God has a will - since man was made in God's image.
God is holy, and we are commanded to be holy as He is holy - and He has appointed a day of judgment. The necessity for judgment confirms that man has a will. If the only will that existed was God's will, then there should be no necessity for judgment - for God can't judge Himself!
Illustration:
The fact that I own freehold title to my land diminishes nothing of the Crown's sovereignty - it confirms it.
Crown sovereignty is the source of my freehold title. Crown sovereignty sets the limits of my title. Even though I have title, I'm still subject to judgment by the Crown if I break laws on my own land.
Similarly, anything that God sovereignly decides to do, confirms His sovereignty, rather than denies it.
Since God sovereignly decided to make man in His own image, and gave man a will, then the fact that man has a will is evidence of the sovereign action of God who gave man a will in the first place.
Seeing man is sovereignly given a will, it follows that man is also subject to sovereign, divine law - and to judgment.
Illustration:
It's appropriate for a father to tell his child who lives in his house, what to do. But when the child is grown, married and lives in his own house, the father now knocks on his son's door before entering. He is still his father - but his son has his own house now.
God created sons to be mature sons - not undeveloped children. He delights when we use our will with the same ethics with which He uses His.
Illustration:
Marriage is an example of God sovereignly subjecting Himself to the limitations of a subsequent principle - without diminishing anything of His sovereignty. When a man and woman decide to get married, God puts them together - and forever thereafter God relates to the couple as one, respecting the decision the couple made to get married.
God remains sovereign over both individuals, yet He no longer treats them as though they were not a couple. In all His actions towards the couple, He is now duty-bound to regard them no longer as individuals alone but also as a couple.
After they were married, the sovereign God now frames His own actions towards the couple by the terms of a subsequent law - the law of marriage.
The fact that God's regard for the couple must now be framed by the fact that the couple had decided to get married, takes nothing away from the sovereignty of God - it confirms His sovereignty, because it was God who sovereignly decided to create the law of marriage in the first place.
Their decision to marry forever shapes the way God sees them - yet within the provisions of that framework, the couple remains subject to sovereign, divine law.
Similarly, God's sovereign decision to make man in His own image, giving him a will, takes nothing away from His sovereignty, but confirms it. Man's will can affect the way God relates to man - and yet it is still subject to sovereign, divine law and judgment.
Man's will has limitations though - it can't achieve as much as God's. Man is subject to time and death - but God can predict man's choices and He can control certain political destinies spanning generations - not by removing man's will, but by working with it, by keeping someone alive or not - as He did with Pharaoh, and as He did with the unbelieving nation of Israel. He didn't remove their will, but He kept them alive for His own time and purposes.
Pharaoh was like a cleaner-fish in an aquarium. A cleaner fish does what it does by nature - it goes along cleaning up the mess from the other fish in the aquarium. It goes along happily doing what it does, unaware that it is fulfilling someone else's purpose - its owner's purpose.
Similarly Pharaoh was doing his own will, unaware that God, who could have judged him earlier, instead allowed him to rise to a prominent position for His own purpose (so that God's judgment and deliverance would be public).
God couldn't have judged Pharaoh if Pharaoh hadn't had a will of his own. Pharaoh had a will of his own, and was therefore subject to Sovereign judgment - yet God still worked-out His purpose in history by delaying Pharaoh's judgment and allowing him to rise to prominence for such a time.
In the same way, natural Israel was allowed to exist, despite its self-will and unbelief - so that God's judgment and the salvation of believers could both be demonstrated. That's what Romans 9 is about.
Indeed God's salvation plan did not originate with a man's will or running - but with God Himself. He sovereignly offered salvation upon His own sovereign basis - faith. Man's will and running had nothing to do with deciding that basis - God Himself decided it. And faith to live by is not a work: it's a gift for all to receive. Receiving a gift is not a work. The door of faith is open. Whosoever will may come.
Everything in life is a gift. Faith is a gift - and it is offered to all. Therefore if some don't have faith, it's not neccessarily because God hadn't offered it to them - some simply may not have liked to take advantage of the offer. Yet even this is within God's sovereign allowance.
I feel that I'm taking Scriptures on face value, in context, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and without manipulation.
If man didn't have a will, then God doesn't have a will either - because man was made in God's image.
But since man has a will, it is confirmed that God has a will - since man was made in God's image.
God is holy, and we are commanded to be holy as He is holy - and He has appointed a day of judgment. The necessity for judgment confirms that man has a will. If the only will that existed was God's will, then there should be no necessity for judgment - for God can't judge Himself!
Illustration:
The fact that I own freehold title to my land diminishes nothing of the Crown's sovereignty - it confirms it.
Crown sovereignty is the source of my freehold title. Crown sovereignty sets the limits of my title. Even though I have title, I'm still subject to judgment by the Crown if I break laws on my own land.
Similarly, anything that God sovereignly decides to do, confirms His sovereignty, rather than denies it.
Since God sovereignly decided to make man in His own image, and gave man a will, then the fact that man has a will is evidence of the sovereign action of God who gave man a will in the first place.
Seeing man is sovereignly given a will, it follows that man is also subject to sovereign, divine law - and to judgment.
Illustration:
It's appropriate for a father to tell his child who lives in his house, what to do. But when the child is grown, married and lives in his own house, the father now knocks on his son's door before entering. He is still his father - but his son has his own house now.
God created sons to be mature sons - not undeveloped children. He delights when we use our will with the same ethics with which He uses His.
Illustration:
Marriage is an example of God sovereignly subjecting Himself to the limitations of a subsequent principle - without diminishing anything of His sovereignty. When a man and woman decide to get married, God puts them together - and forever thereafter God relates to the couple as one, respecting the decision the couple made to get married.
God remains sovereign over both individuals, yet He no longer treats them as though they were not a couple. In all His actions towards the couple, He is now duty-bound to regard them no longer as individuals alone but also as a couple.
After they were married, the sovereign God now frames His own actions towards the couple by the terms of a subsequent law - the law of marriage.
The fact that God's regard for the couple must now be framed by the fact that the couple had decided to get married, takes nothing away from the sovereignty of God - it confirms His sovereignty, because it was God who sovereignly decided to create the law of marriage in the first place.
Their decision to marry forever shapes the way God sees them - yet within the provisions of that framework, the couple remains subject to sovereign, divine law.
Similarly, God's sovereign decision to make man in His own image, giving him a will, takes nothing away from His sovereignty, but confirms it. Man's will can affect the way God relates to man - and yet it is still subject to sovereign, divine law and judgment.
Man's will has limitations though - it can't achieve as much as God's. Man is subject to time and death - but God can predict man's choices and He can control certain political destinies spanning generations - not by removing man's will, but by working with it, by keeping someone alive or not - as He did with Pharaoh, and as He did with the unbelieving nation of Israel. He didn't remove their will, but He kept them alive for His own time and purposes.
Pharaoh was like a cleaner-fish in an aquarium. A cleaner fish does what it does by nature - it goes along cleaning up the mess from the other fish in the aquarium. It goes along happily doing what it does, unaware that it is fulfilling someone else's purpose - its owner's purpose.
Similarly Pharaoh was doing his own will, unaware that God, who could have judged him earlier, instead allowed him to rise to a prominent position for His own purpose (so that God's judgment and deliverance would be public).
God couldn't have judged Pharaoh if Pharaoh hadn't had a will of his own. Pharaoh had a will of his own, and was therefore subject to Sovereign judgment - yet God still worked-out His purpose in history by delaying Pharaoh's judgment and allowing him to rise to prominence for such a time.
In the same way, natural Israel was allowed to exist, despite its self-will and unbelief - so that God's judgment and the salvation of believers could both be demonstrated. That's what Romans 9 is about.
Indeed God's salvation plan did not originate with a man's will or running - but with God Himself. He sovereignly offered salvation upon His own sovereign basis - faith. Man's will and running had nothing to do with deciding that basis - God Himself decided it. And faith to live by is not a work: it's a gift for all to receive. Receiving a gift is not a work. The door of faith is open. Whosoever will may come.
Everything in life is a gift. Faith is a gift - and it is offered to all. Therefore if some don't have faith, it's not neccessarily because God hadn't offered it to them - some simply may not have liked to take advantage of the offer. Yet even this is within God's sovereign allowance.
I feel that I'm taking Scriptures on face value, in context, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and without manipulation.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Contextualizing Predestination
Someone objected to my understanding of Romans 9 saying:
"You took Romans 9 out of context both with the rest of the chapter and with the rest of the Bible. Pharaoh was pre-ordained to be a child of God's wrath. God turned him and his will to do His bidding like a rider does a horse...Salvation is NOT by the will of men but by the will of God. God determines who is quickened in spirit (born again) and who is not..."
He went on to say:
"Stop making doctrinal statements without backing them up whith scripture in context John, it is very dangerous."
Okay - let's consider Romans 9 in context.
The context of Romans chapter 9 is of course Romans chapters 1-8.
Paul began by stating that salvation was needed by both Gentiles (chap.1) and Jews (chap.2); and he set forth his premise that salvation could be received only through faith in Jesus, rather than through simply being Jewish or having the Law (chap.3).
Paul then supported this premise by the life of Abraham (chap.4); and explained more about this salvation that was receivable by faith (chap.5).
Paul then addressed an objection to this premise - an objection which had been raised by the Judaizers who were infiltrating the churches attempting to bring believers back under their Jewish Law:
Did not 'salvation through faith' give a licence to sin? they objected.
But Paul answered: No - God's grace actually empowered believers to live holy (chap.6); in fact, Paul explained, God's grace (through faith) was even more effective than the Law at producing holiness (chap.7).
'Salvation through faith alone' was always therefore going to be a controversial message - one that would attract persecution and hardship to the believers. But Paul reassured the faithful of a good eternal outcome of their faith despite their hardships - seeing they were, after all, complying with a plan which had genuinely been foreseen, foretold and enacted by God Himself (chap.8).
So that's the context of Romans 9: Salvation is through faith not through Jewishness nor through having the Law - salvation is even for the Gentiles.
In chap.9 Paul then anticipated another objection:
If salvation is through faith alone, wouldn't that imply that God's promises (to the forefathers) had somehow failed - seeing most Jews had not become believers? This objection was another ploy by the Judaizers to undermine the faith and to elevate the Jewish Law.
Paul answered that God's promised salvation given to the forefathers was never all-encompassing of the natural descendants but from the beginning a chosen segment of the natural descendants were the custodians of that promise. The custodianship was given first of all to Isaac's line, and then to Jacob's line - but the promised seed who was to save all nations was actually a singular descendant of Abraham, who is Christ (see Galatians 3:16).
Paul's premise - that salvation is through faith - meant that many Jews were missing out on God's promised salvation. Paul's objective in Romans 9 was to defend this scenario against the objection that it represented a breach of God's promise or even unfairness on God's part.
God was not unjust to have elected or preordained that 'faith' would be His criteria for honoring a 'vessel' (that is, for saving a person). Even though some vessels had been marked for destruction (due to their failure to meet the chosen criterion - which was faith) God had every right to delay the destruction of those vessels (He endured their unbelief, He had allowed their nation to continue up until then), for His own time and purpose - namely, to eventually demonstrate His wrath on those vessels (on Jewish unbelievers, and on the polity of the Jews) and to demonstrate His mercy on the vessels which met His elected criteria (that is, on all those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile).
Having successfully defended his premise against the above objection of the Judaizers (chap.9) Paul then talks more about the pivotal role of an individual's faith in salvation (chap.10).
Paul then proceeded to address another opposite extreme misconception amongst Gentile believers: the misconception that God had become utterly disinterested in Jewish people. That couldn't be further from the truth. Although a Jew may currently be missing out on the promised salvation, Paul explained, he can still be grafted in again if he believes. Therefore Gentile believers should feel warned against conceit: because it is still possible even for them to miss out on God's salvation if they too similarly fail to comply with God's elected criteria - that is, it is only by faith that they themselves stand.
Thus Paul presented the same message (of salvation through faith) to both Jew and Gentile, and successfully defended his message against the objections and misconceptions of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom.1-11).
Finally Paul urged a practical response upon his readers, with final personal remarks (Rom.12-16). And there you have the book of Romans.
So in context, Rom.9 was not presented by Paul as an assertion of five-point Calvinism - rather, it was intended as Paul's defense against a specific objection of the premise he'd already presented in chaps 1-8 - that salvation is indeed through faith.
Paul showed that it had indeed always been God's intention, choice and promise to one day grant His mercy, compassion and salvation exclusively on the basis of faith in Jesus even to believing Gentiles. And he said it was God's prerogative to carry out this plan in the affairs of Israel and the Church despite its ramifications for unbelievers, even for unbelieving Jews.
That's how I understand Romans 9 in the flow of the design of Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans. To say Romans 9 is about the Five-Point Calvinist view of 'predestination' comes right out of left field - it's about as relevant as throwing a tennis ball onto the field of play of a football match - midplay. The assertions made by Five-Point Calvinists have nothing at all to do with Paul's argument in the book of Romans and cut cross-grain across it.
Salvation through faith - and its ramifications for unbelievers, whether Jew or Gentile - is a premise that was both Scriptural and just. That's all Paul was trying to say in Romans 9.
And this of course complies with, and eliminates conflict with, the overall tenure of Scripture. Jesus saves all who believe.
"You took Romans 9 out of context both with the rest of the chapter and with the rest of the Bible. Pharaoh was pre-ordained to be a child of God's wrath. God turned him and his will to do His bidding like a rider does a horse...Salvation is NOT by the will of men but by the will of God. God determines who is quickened in spirit (born again) and who is not..."
He went on to say:
"Stop making doctrinal statements without backing them up whith scripture in context John, it is very dangerous."
Okay - let's consider Romans 9 in context.
The context of Romans chapter 9 is of course Romans chapters 1-8.
Paul began by stating that salvation was needed by both Gentiles (chap.1) and Jews (chap.2); and he set forth his premise that salvation could be received only through faith in Jesus, rather than through simply being Jewish or having the Law (chap.3).
Paul then supported this premise by the life of Abraham (chap.4); and explained more about this salvation that was receivable by faith (chap.5).
Paul then addressed an objection to this premise - an objection which had been raised by the Judaizers who were infiltrating the churches attempting to bring believers back under their Jewish Law:
Did not 'salvation through faith' give a licence to sin? they objected.
But Paul answered: No - God's grace actually empowered believers to live holy (chap.6); in fact, Paul explained, God's grace (through faith) was even more effective than the Law at producing holiness (chap.7).
'Salvation through faith alone' was always therefore going to be a controversial message - one that would attract persecution and hardship to the believers. But Paul reassured the faithful of a good eternal outcome of their faith despite their hardships - seeing they were, after all, complying with a plan which had genuinely been foreseen, foretold and enacted by God Himself (chap.8).
So that's the context of Romans 9: Salvation is through faith not through Jewishness nor through having the Law - salvation is even for the Gentiles.
In chap.9 Paul then anticipated another objection:
If salvation is through faith alone, wouldn't that imply that God's promises (to the forefathers) had somehow failed - seeing most Jews had not become believers? This objection was another ploy by the Judaizers to undermine the faith and to elevate the Jewish Law.
Paul answered that God's promised salvation given to the forefathers was never all-encompassing of the natural descendants but from the beginning a chosen segment of the natural descendants were the custodians of that promise. The custodianship was given first of all to Isaac's line, and then to Jacob's line - but the promised seed who was to save all nations was actually a singular descendant of Abraham, who is Christ (see Galatians 3:16).
Paul's premise - that salvation is through faith - meant that many Jews were missing out on God's promised salvation. Paul's objective in Romans 9 was to defend this scenario against the objection that it represented a breach of God's promise or even unfairness on God's part.
God was not unjust to have elected or preordained that 'faith' would be His criteria for honoring a 'vessel' (that is, for saving a person). Even though some vessels had been marked for destruction (due to their failure to meet the chosen criterion - which was faith) God had every right to delay the destruction of those vessels (He endured their unbelief, He had allowed their nation to continue up until then), for His own time and purpose - namely, to eventually demonstrate His wrath on those vessels (on Jewish unbelievers, and on the polity of the Jews) and to demonstrate His mercy on the vessels which met His elected criteria (that is, on all those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile).
Having successfully defended his premise against the above objection of the Judaizers (chap.9) Paul then talks more about the pivotal role of an individual's faith in salvation (chap.10).
Paul then proceeded to address another opposite extreme misconception amongst Gentile believers: the misconception that God had become utterly disinterested in Jewish people. That couldn't be further from the truth. Although a Jew may currently be missing out on the promised salvation, Paul explained, he can still be grafted in again if he believes. Therefore Gentile believers should feel warned against conceit: because it is still possible even for them to miss out on God's salvation if they too similarly fail to comply with God's elected criteria - that is, it is only by faith that they themselves stand.
Thus Paul presented the same message (of salvation through faith) to both Jew and Gentile, and successfully defended his message against the objections and misconceptions of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom.1-11).
Finally Paul urged a practical response upon his readers, with final personal remarks (Rom.12-16). And there you have the book of Romans.
So in context, Rom.9 was not presented by Paul as an assertion of five-point Calvinism - rather, it was intended as Paul's defense against a specific objection of the premise he'd already presented in chaps 1-8 - that salvation is indeed through faith.
Paul showed that it had indeed always been God's intention, choice and promise to one day grant His mercy, compassion and salvation exclusively on the basis of faith in Jesus even to believing Gentiles. And he said it was God's prerogative to carry out this plan in the affairs of Israel and the Church despite its ramifications for unbelievers, even for unbelieving Jews.
That's how I understand Romans 9 in the flow of the design of Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans. To say Romans 9 is about the Five-Point Calvinist view of 'predestination' comes right out of left field - it's about as relevant as throwing a tennis ball onto the field of play of a football match - midplay. The assertions made by Five-Point Calvinists have nothing at all to do with Paul's argument in the book of Romans and cut cross-grain across it.
Salvation through faith - and its ramifications for unbelievers, whether Jew or Gentile - is a premise that was both Scriptural and just. That's all Paul was trying to say in Romans 9.
And this of course complies with, and eliminates conflict with, the overall tenure of Scripture. Jesus saves all who believe.
Contextualizing Predestination
The context of Rom. chapter 9 is Rom. chapters 1-8.
Paul began by stating that salvation was needed by both Gentiles (chap.1) and Jews (chap.2); and he set forth his premise that salvation could be received only through faith in Jesus, rather than through simply being Jewish or having the Law (chap.3).
Paul then supported his premise (salvation through faith alone) by the life of Abraham (chap.4); and explained more about the salvation that was receivable by faith (chap.5).
Paul then addressed an objection to this premise, an objection which had been raised by Judaizers who has been infiltrating the churches attempting to bring believers back under their Jewish Law:
Did not 'salvation through faith' give a licence to sin? they were objecting. Paul answered: No - God's grace actually empowered them to live holy (chap.6); in fact, Paul explained, God's grace (through faith) was even more effective than the Law at producing holiness (chap.7).
'Salvation through faith alone' was therefore a controversial message, attracting persecution and hardship to the faithful. But Paul reassured the faithful of a good eternal outcome of their faith, despite their hardships - seeing they were complying with a plan which after all had been genuinely foreseen and enacted by God Himself (chap.8).
That's the context: Salvation is through faith, not through Jewishness nor having the Law - salvation is therefore even for Gentiles!
In chap.9 Paul then anticipated another objection: If salvation is through faith alone, wouldn't that imply that God's promises (to the forefathers) had somehow failed - seeing most Jews had not become believers? This objection was another ploy by the Judaizers to undermine the faith and to elevate the Jewish Law.
Paul answered that God's promise to the forefathers was never all-encompassing of the natural descendents but was from the beginning limited.
God's promise (to Abraham's seed) followed Isaac's line only, and then Jacob's line only, and spoke of a single seed, who is Christ.
Paul's premise meant that many Jews were missing out on God's promised salvation. To combat Jewish pride, Paul proved that 'salvation through faith alone' was neither a breach of promise nor unfair on God's part.
God was not unjust to have chosen that 'faith' would be His criteria for honoring a vessel.
Even though a vessel had been marked for destruction (due to its failure to meet the chosen criteria - faith, repentance) God had every right to delay that person's destruction and to endure such a person or nation in order to raise him up for His own time and purpose: to later demonstrate His wrath on them and His mercy on others (others who met His chosen criterion - which is faith) even if they are Gentiles.
Having defended his premise of salvation through faith (chap.9) Paul then talks more about the pivotal role of an individual's faith (chap.10). All of this had been a defence against the influence of the Judaizers.
Paul then proceeded to address an opposite misconception amongst Gentile believers: the misconception that God had become utterly disinterested in Jewish people. Although a Jew may currently be missing out on the promised salvation, Paul explained, he can be grafted in again if he believes. And Gentile believers should also be warned against conceit: it was possible even for them to miss out if they similarly don't comply with God's elected criteria.
Thus Paul presented the same Gospel (salvation through faith) to both Jew and Gentile, and successfully defended it against objections and misconceptions from both Jewish and Gentile camps (Rom.1-11).
Finally he urges a practical response, with final personal remarks (Rom.12-16).
So in context, Rom.9 was not presented by Paul as an assertion of five-point Calvinism - rather, it was intended as Paul's defence of the premise he'd presented in chaps 1-8 that salvation is indeed through faith.
It was indeed always God's intention, choice, promise to grant mercy, compassion, salvation exclusively on the basis of faith in Jesus. And it was God's prerogative to demonstrate this plan in the affairs of Israel and the Church.
That's how I understand Paul's design in his epistle to the Romans.
Paul began by stating that salvation was needed by both Gentiles (chap.1) and Jews (chap.2); and he set forth his premise that salvation could be received only through faith in Jesus, rather than through simply being Jewish or having the Law (chap.3).
Paul then supported his premise (salvation through faith alone) by the life of Abraham (chap.4); and explained more about the salvation that was receivable by faith (chap.5).
Paul then addressed an objection to this premise, an objection which had been raised by Judaizers who has been infiltrating the churches attempting to bring believers back under their Jewish Law:
Did not 'salvation through faith' give a licence to sin? they were objecting. Paul answered: No - God's grace actually empowered them to live holy (chap.6); in fact, Paul explained, God's grace (through faith) was even more effective than the Law at producing holiness (chap.7).
'Salvation through faith alone' was therefore a controversial message, attracting persecution and hardship to the faithful. But Paul reassured the faithful of a good eternal outcome of their faith, despite their hardships - seeing they were complying with a plan which after all had been genuinely foreseen and enacted by God Himself (chap.8).
That's the context: Salvation is through faith, not through Jewishness nor having the Law - salvation is therefore even for Gentiles!
In chap.9 Paul then anticipated another objection: If salvation is through faith alone, wouldn't that imply that God's promises (to the forefathers) had somehow failed - seeing most Jews had not become believers? This objection was another ploy by the Judaizers to undermine the faith and to elevate the Jewish Law.
Paul answered that God's promise to the forefathers was never all-encompassing of the natural descendents but was from the beginning limited.
God's promise (to Abraham's seed) followed Isaac's line only, and then Jacob's line only, and spoke of a single seed, who is Christ.
Paul's premise meant that many Jews were missing out on God's promised salvation. To combat Jewish pride, Paul proved that 'salvation through faith alone' was neither a breach of promise nor unfair on God's part.
God was not unjust to have chosen that 'faith' would be His criteria for honoring a vessel.
Even though a vessel had been marked for destruction (due to its failure to meet the chosen criteria - faith, repentance) God had every right to delay that person's destruction and to endure such a person or nation in order to raise him up for His own time and purpose: to later demonstrate His wrath on them and His mercy on others (others who met His chosen criterion - which is faith) even if they are Gentiles.
Having defended his premise of salvation through faith (chap.9) Paul then talks more about the pivotal role of an individual's faith (chap.10). All of this had been a defence against the influence of the Judaizers.
Paul then proceeded to address an opposite misconception amongst Gentile believers: the misconception that God had become utterly disinterested in Jewish people. Although a Jew may currently be missing out on the promised salvation, Paul explained, he can be grafted in again if he believes. And Gentile believers should also be warned against conceit: it was possible even for them to miss out if they similarly don't comply with God's elected criteria.
Thus Paul presented the same Gospel (salvation through faith) to both Jew and Gentile, and successfully defended it against objections and misconceptions from both Jewish and Gentile camps (Rom.1-11).
Finally he urges a practical response, with final personal remarks (Rom.12-16).
So in context, Rom.9 was not presented by Paul as an assertion of five-point Calvinism - rather, it was intended as Paul's defence of the premise he'd presented in chaps 1-8 that salvation is indeed through faith.
It was indeed always God's intention, choice, promise to grant mercy, compassion, salvation exclusively on the basis of faith in Jesus. And it was God's prerogative to demonstrate this plan in the affairs of Israel and the Church.
That's how I understand Paul's design in his epistle to the Romans.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Note to Five-Point Calvinists
Saving-faith is not a 'work' - it is one of those things a person can 'do' which isn't actually in itself doing anything. It does result in doing something though, after it has saved us.
Monday, 23 May 2011
Freewill and Sovereignty
Freewill gives us the ability to choose between options - but not the ability to set the options themselves.
We are free to choose either to believe or to doubt - but it was God who sovereignly chose that those would be our two options.
We are free to choose either to believe or to doubt - but it was God who sovereignly chose that those would be our two options.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Who Are the Elect?
Titus 1:1
"...the faith of God's elect..."
Who are God's elect? All ethnic Jews? Those who keep Moses' Law? Those who believe! God has elected that it is those that believe who shall be saved - irrespective of ethnicity or the works of the Law. Hence, the faith of God's elect.
"...the faith of God's elect..."
Who are God's elect? All ethnic Jews? Those who keep Moses' Law? Those who believe! God has elected that it is those that believe who shall be saved - irrespective of ethnicity or the works of the Law. Hence, the faith of God's elect.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Romans 11 - My Explanatory Notes
ROMANS 11
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Paul had finished presenting and proving his premise that salvation is by faith in Jesus, irrespective of ethnicity or law-keeping.
He now responds to a question regarding the ramifications of that premise for Israel: does it mean God has utterly, completely excluded Jews from His plans?
Of course not! For Paul himself was an Israelite. Therefore, on God's terms, God's plans are still open to Jews.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
God foreknew that He would call out His Church - comprising of those who believe in Jesus. These, He has not cast away. (It was always in God's plan - and declared by the Prophets - that His plans would focus around them which believe, on the basis of their faith in Jesus, not on the basis of their ethnicity or law-abiding).
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Just as God reserved to Himself 7000 men who chose to be obedient, in Israel's past - so now there actually are a number of Jews who are participating in God's purposes - those who participate on the basis of God's choosing, which is the basis of grace, not the basis of ethnicity or law-keeping: by grace, through faith.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
It's not that no Jew has access to today's fulfilment of God's promises to Abraham, because a certain number of Jews today are enjoying the fulfilment of those promises - but they are doing so not on the basis of keeping the Law, but on the basis of grace (through faith).
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
By-and-large, Israel failed to obtain what the nation was looking for - they were looking for Abraham's blessing - for justification - for entry into the Messiah's kingdom. But the election - those who participated on God's originally-intended basis - are obtaining it. God's originally intended basis was by the grace of Jesus Christ and through faith in Him. The rest were blinded - they were left in their darkness.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
It was given to them as a consequence of their unbelief. God decreed that both blessing and judgment would hinge on the issue of faith.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
The state of being blinded, slumbering, deaf, snared, trapped, stumbling - are all said to be a recompence - that is, a consequence - not a cause of their unbelief, but a consequence of it.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
It means, their stumbling is not an irreversible, irretrievable situation. They can still be saved! Seeing Gentiles enjoying God's salvation is meant to provoke Jewish people to desire those same blessings.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
It is still possible for a Jewish person to repent and experience fulness. It is still possible for a Jewish individual to stand up again. The diminished state of collective Israel is a potentially reversible situation. (But Paul is not here specifically prophesying a nationwide revival of Israelites. Rather, he is answering the confused notion that salvation by faith somehow meant it was no longer possible for Jewish individuals to be saved.)
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Some of them: proof that Paul did not have in mind a future nationwide revival of Israel during some future special dispensation. Rather, his discussion is all about the potential salvation of the Jewish individual.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Jews can still potentially be reconciled - and when one is, imagine what a blessing he can be to Gentiles! Paul himself, as the apostle to the Gentiles, is an example of that! This is so far from the mistaken notion that all Jews were cast away, excluded from God's promises.
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
The root holds the grafted branches - that is, God holds us on His own stated basis - which is, that we continue in faith.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
The only reason He would not spare them, is if they cease to comply with God's intended, stated, basis for inclusion - which is, faith.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Continuing in His goodness - continuing in faith - is the basis for sustained inclusion in God's promises.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Any Jewish individual can be included in God's promises, if they come via God's stated doorway, which is faith in Jesus.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
It is still entirely appropriate for Jewish people to become believers in Jesus! (Rememeber, Paul was answering the mistaken first-century notion of some believers at Rome that perhaps Jewish people could no longer be saved).
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Only part of Israel was experiencing blindness - and deafness, and had stumbled, and been broken off, as a consequence of, not a cause of, their unbelief. This state will continue until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. In other words, there will continue to be unbelievers amongst ethnic Israelites right up until the end. Paul wasn't necessarily foreseeing a nationwide revival during some future special 'dispensation' during which Jews can allegedly be saved on some different basis than the basis of faith in Jesus.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The sense is: and so (in this manner, according to this scheme of things) all Israel shall be saved (potentially). Paul then quotes a prophecy, which was fulfilled at the first coming of Jesus, not at the second coming. Therefore Paul was not necessarily here predicting a special future event in ethnic Israel - rather, he was saying that the current scenario (as it was being witnessed even in the first century by believers at Rome) fulfilled the sense of the prophecy.
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Only the remnant was obtaining the fulfillment of this promise - according to the scheme explained by Paul. Thus, Zechariah's prophecy was being fulfilled, even in the first century. This is the scheme according to which all Israel could potentially be saved. But if not all Israel believed, it didn't nullify God's promises at all. And the sum total of all Jews who shall believe, comprises the true Israel of God. No true Israelite - no Israelite indeed - no true Jew, who is a Jew inwardly - shall fail to be saved in the last day. Truly, all Israel shall be saved in the day of judgment - but only after the method so described by Paul - that is, by grace through faith in Jesus.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Just like you still love your unsaved relatives, because they are relatives - so, unsaved Jews are still loved, because they are the line of Abraham's descendant's which were chosen as the original custodians of God's promises.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Meaning, the opportunity to be saved still exists for Israelites. As a nation, they were given a gift - but like the unwise steward, many of them were unfaithful with it, and so were not assured of entering the kingdom. As a nation, they had a calling - a privilege, a first opportunity - but few were chosen - that is, few actually complied with the conditions previously set by God as the prerequisite - that is, faith in Jesus. But the opportunity still exists for Israelites! Paul's message of salvation by faith doesn't take away from that.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
The Lord used the situation to set-up His work of knocking on the doors of men's hearts - both Gentiles' and Jews' - with His offer to come in and sup with them and they with Him.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
He concluded - not caused - them all under the category of unbelief. He did this so that their salvation would be based on mercy alone - and not on ethnicity nor law-keeping.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
It means: not that Israel's unbelief - and spiritual blindness - is caused by God, but that God even works around their unbelief - and the consequential, retributional blindness due to their unbelief - in order to use it to produce an even wider opportunity for His mercy to Israel.
There is no precedent for the tenets of five-point Calvinism in the topics of this chapter.
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Paul had finished presenting and proving his premise that salvation is by faith in Jesus, irrespective of ethnicity or law-keeping.
He now responds to a question regarding the ramifications of that premise for Israel: does it mean God has utterly, completely excluded Jews from His plans?
Of course not! For Paul himself was an Israelite. Therefore, on God's terms, God's plans are still open to Jews.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
God foreknew that He would call out His Church - comprising of those who believe in Jesus. These, He has not cast away. (It was always in God's plan - and declared by the Prophets - that His plans would focus around them which believe, on the basis of their faith in Jesus, not on the basis of their ethnicity or law-abiding).
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Just as God reserved to Himself 7000 men who chose to be obedient, in Israel's past - so now there actually are a number of Jews who are participating in God's purposes - those who participate on the basis of God's choosing, which is the basis of grace, not the basis of ethnicity or law-keeping: by grace, through faith.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
It's not that no Jew has access to today's fulfilment of God's promises to Abraham, because a certain number of Jews today are enjoying the fulfilment of those promises - but they are doing so not on the basis of keeping the Law, but on the basis of grace (through faith).
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
By-and-large, Israel failed to obtain what the nation was looking for - they were looking for Abraham's blessing - for justification - for entry into the Messiah's kingdom. But the election - those who participated on God's originally-intended basis - are obtaining it. God's originally intended basis was by the grace of Jesus Christ and through faith in Him. The rest were blinded - they were left in their darkness.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
It was given to them as a consequence of their unbelief. God decreed that both blessing and judgment would hinge on the issue of faith.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
The state of being blinded, slumbering, deaf, snared, trapped, stumbling - are all said to be a recompence - that is, a consequence - not a cause of their unbelief, but a consequence of it.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
It means, their stumbling is not an irreversible, irretrievable situation. They can still be saved! Seeing Gentiles enjoying God's salvation is meant to provoke Jewish people to desire those same blessings.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
It is still possible for a Jewish person to repent and experience fulness. It is still possible for a Jewish individual to stand up again. The diminished state of collective Israel is a potentially reversible situation. (But Paul is not here specifically prophesying a nationwide revival of Israelites. Rather, he is answering the confused notion that salvation by faith somehow meant it was no longer possible for Jewish individuals to be saved.)
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Some of them: proof that Paul did not have in mind a future nationwide revival of Israel during some future special dispensation. Rather, his discussion is all about the potential salvation of the Jewish individual.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Jews can still potentially be reconciled - and when one is, imagine what a blessing he can be to Gentiles! Paul himself, as the apostle to the Gentiles, is an example of that! This is so far from the mistaken notion that all Jews were cast away, excluded from God's promises.
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
The root holds the grafted branches - that is, God holds us on His own stated basis - which is, that we continue in faith.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
The only reason He would not spare them, is if they cease to comply with God's intended, stated, basis for inclusion - which is, faith.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Continuing in His goodness - continuing in faith - is the basis for sustained inclusion in God's promises.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Any Jewish individual can be included in God's promises, if they come via God's stated doorway, which is faith in Jesus.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
It is still entirely appropriate for Jewish people to become believers in Jesus! (Rememeber, Paul was answering the mistaken first-century notion of some believers at Rome that perhaps Jewish people could no longer be saved).
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Only part of Israel was experiencing blindness - and deafness, and had stumbled, and been broken off, as a consequence of, not a cause of, their unbelief. This state will continue until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. In other words, there will continue to be unbelievers amongst ethnic Israelites right up until the end. Paul wasn't necessarily foreseeing a nationwide revival during some future special 'dispensation' during which Jews can allegedly be saved on some different basis than the basis of faith in Jesus.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The sense is: and so (in this manner, according to this scheme of things) all Israel shall be saved (potentially). Paul then quotes a prophecy, which was fulfilled at the first coming of Jesus, not at the second coming. Therefore Paul was not necessarily here predicting a special future event in ethnic Israel - rather, he was saying that the current scenario (as it was being witnessed even in the first century by believers at Rome) fulfilled the sense of the prophecy.
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Only the remnant was obtaining the fulfillment of this promise - according to the scheme explained by Paul. Thus, Zechariah's prophecy was being fulfilled, even in the first century. This is the scheme according to which all Israel could potentially be saved. But if not all Israel believed, it didn't nullify God's promises at all. And the sum total of all Jews who shall believe, comprises the true Israel of God. No true Israelite - no Israelite indeed - no true Jew, who is a Jew inwardly - shall fail to be saved in the last day. Truly, all Israel shall be saved in the day of judgment - but only after the method so described by Paul - that is, by grace through faith in Jesus.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Just like you still love your unsaved relatives, because they are relatives - so, unsaved Jews are still loved, because they are the line of Abraham's descendant's which were chosen as the original custodians of God's promises.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Meaning, the opportunity to be saved still exists for Israelites. As a nation, they were given a gift - but like the unwise steward, many of them were unfaithful with it, and so were not assured of entering the kingdom. As a nation, they had a calling - a privilege, a first opportunity - but few were chosen - that is, few actually complied with the conditions previously set by God as the prerequisite - that is, faith in Jesus. But the opportunity still exists for Israelites! Paul's message of salvation by faith doesn't take away from that.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
The Lord used the situation to set-up His work of knocking on the doors of men's hearts - both Gentiles' and Jews' - with His offer to come in and sup with them and they with Him.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
He concluded - not caused - them all under the category of unbelief. He did this so that their salvation would be based on mercy alone - and not on ethnicity nor law-keeping.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
It means: not that Israel's unbelief - and spiritual blindness - is caused by God, but that God even works around their unbelief - and the consequential, retributional blindness due to their unbelief - in order to use it to produce an even wider opportunity for His mercy to Israel.
There is no precedent for the tenets of five-point Calvinism in the topics of this chapter.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Romans 9 - My Explanatory Notes
Romans 9
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Having presented his premise that salvation is by faith (chapters 1-8), Paul now proceeds to answer an objection to that premise: Did it mean the promises concerning ethnic Israelites had somehow failed? did the emergence of the predominantly Gentile Church mean God's promises to the Patriarchs, and through the Prophets, had been anulled?
No - it's just that not all Israelites were meeting the conditions.
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Descendency from Abraham alone was never to be the intended criteria. Right from the start, God gave His promises on another basis altogether - a different basis of His choosing.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
That other basis was not ethnicity - it was another basis of God's own choosing.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
By one: God's purpose was narrowed down even further - on a basis of God's own choosing - irrespective of descendency from Abraham.
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
God's plans for Israelites were never to revolve around the person's works - but from the very start of God's dealings with their forefather Jacob, God's relationship with them was to be on another basis entirely - another basis of God's own choosing. Paul had revealed, and was now defending, that that other basis today is by grace through faith.
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
In context, the above verse, quoted from the Old Testament, was stated after Jacob and Esau had lived, not before. It wasn't a prophetic statement about the individuals Jacob and Esau's future - it was a prophetic explanation about God's response to both individuals - or better still, about God's purposes for the nations which descended from them. In the same way, it's God's own prerogative to make plans to save people on the basis of faith rather than ethnicity or works - and then to treat those people in accordance with whether they had believed or not.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Is it unrighteous of God to treat people in accordance with no other basis other than whether or not they believe? Of course it isn't.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
God has shown us the basis upon which He has chosen to show mercy and compassion - and that is, upon those who believe.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Salvation therefore does not originate with a man's own will (nor ethnicity), nor does it come as a result of a person's running (nor his works in the Law - but it's only on the basis of God's mercy. And God has shown us that He extends His mercy through Jesus Christ to those who believe.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
The existence of an ethnic nation didn't automatically indicate God's saving-favour: God has other purposes. In the same way, the existence of ethnic Israel wasn't necessarily an indication that all ethnic-Isralites would be saved on that basis.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
He has chosen to have mercy on them that believe. And to those who won't believe, it's His prerogative to reserve their judgment for a future time - it's His prerogative to let their unbelief takes its course - for His own purposes.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Does this mean He can't hold individuals accountable?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Answer: no. If God has chosen to save on teh basis of faith, we can't argue with Him and say that He should have granted salvation on a different basis of our own choosing (such as ethnicity, or attempts at keeping the Law).
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
It's God's own merciful prerogative to honour one vessel and to dishonour another vessel, upon His own basis - and His chosen basis is the basis of faith in Jesus.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Just because an ethnic nation had survived to that day, did not mean God had granted every individual in the nation salvation. The nation may by-and-large have already qualified itself for wrath and destruction - but God has His own purposes for reserving them until a future day of judgment.
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
His vessels of mercy, are those vessels to whom He has chosen to show mercy, upon the basis of His own choosing - with is the basis of their faith in Jesus. He has already prepared heaven for those who are believing in Jesus.
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
He has called those who believe - irrespective of nationality.
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
The emergence of a Gentile-church was an outcome that was already foreseen by the Prophets.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
The outcome that only few Jews - rather than all Jews - would be saved, was an outcome that was already foreseen by the Prophets.
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
The exclusion of ethnic Jews - because of their failure to comply with a condition of God's own choosing (that is, the condition of faith in Jesus) - was a scenario that had already been foreseen by the Prophets.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Paul sums it up: faith in Jesus was always intended to be the basis upon which Israeli individuals could be saved - and Gentiles are also mercifully included in that opportunity.
The five-points of Calvinism do not even feature as part of the topic Paul was addressing in this chapter.
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Having presented his premise that salvation is by faith (chapters 1-8), Paul now proceeds to answer an objection to that premise: Did it mean the promises concerning ethnic Israelites had somehow failed? did the emergence of the predominantly Gentile Church mean God's promises to the Patriarchs, and through the Prophets, had been anulled?
No - it's just that not all Israelites were meeting the conditions.
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Descendency from Abraham alone was never to be the intended criteria. Right from the start, God gave His promises on another basis altogether - a different basis of His choosing.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
That other basis was not ethnicity - it was another basis of God's own choosing.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
By one: God's purpose was narrowed down even further - on a basis of God's own choosing - irrespective of descendency from Abraham.
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
God's plans for Israelites were never to revolve around the person's works - but from the very start of God's dealings with their forefather Jacob, God's relationship with them was to be on another basis entirely - another basis of God's own choosing. Paul had revealed, and was now defending, that that other basis today is by grace through faith.
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
In context, the above verse, quoted from the Old Testament, was stated after Jacob and Esau had lived, not before. It wasn't a prophetic statement about the individuals Jacob and Esau's future - it was a prophetic explanation about God's response to both individuals - or better still, about God's purposes for the nations which descended from them. In the same way, it's God's own prerogative to make plans to save people on the basis of faith rather than ethnicity or works - and then to treat those people in accordance with whether they had believed or not.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Is it unrighteous of God to treat people in accordance with no other basis other than whether or not they believe? Of course it isn't.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
God has shown us the basis upon which He has chosen to show mercy and compassion - and that is, upon those who believe.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Salvation therefore does not originate with a man's own will (nor ethnicity), nor does it come as a result of a person's running (nor his works in the Law - but it's only on the basis of God's mercy. And God has shown us that He extends His mercy through Jesus Christ to those who believe.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
The existence of an ethnic nation didn't automatically indicate God's saving-favour: God has other purposes. In the same way, the existence of ethnic Israel wasn't necessarily an indication that all ethnic-Isralites would be saved on that basis.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
He has chosen to have mercy on them that believe. And to those who won't believe, it's His prerogative to reserve their judgment for a future time - it's His prerogative to let their unbelief takes its course - for His own purposes.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Does this mean He can't hold individuals accountable?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Answer: no. If God has chosen to save on teh basis of faith, we can't argue with Him and say that He should have granted salvation on a different basis of our own choosing (such as ethnicity, or attempts at keeping the Law).
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
It's God's own merciful prerogative to honour one vessel and to dishonour another vessel, upon His own basis - and His chosen basis is the basis of faith in Jesus.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Just because an ethnic nation had survived to that day, did not mean God had granted every individual in the nation salvation. The nation may by-and-large have already qualified itself for wrath and destruction - but God has His own purposes for reserving them until a future day of judgment.
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
His vessels of mercy, are those vessels to whom He has chosen to show mercy, upon the basis of His own choosing - with is the basis of their faith in Jesus. He has already prepared heaven for those who are believing in Jesus.
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
He has called those who believe - irrespective of nationality.
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
The emergence of a Gentile-church was an outcome that was already foreseen by the Prophets.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
The outcome that only few Jews - rather than all Jews - would be saved, was an outcome that was already foreseen by the Prophets.
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
The exclusion of ethnic Jews - because of their failure to comply with a condition of God's own choosing (that is, the condition of faith in Jesus) - was a scenario that had already been foreseen by the Prophets.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Paul sums it up: faith in Jesus was always intended to be the basis upon which Israeli individuals could be saved - and Gentiles are also mercifully included in that opportunity.
The five-points of Calvinism do not even feature as part of the topic Paul was addressing in this chapter.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Predestination - Mishearing Question/Misapplying Answer
You can hear someone answering a question - but if you didn't hear what the question was, you might not understand and apply the answer properly.
When you hear someone speaking on the phone, without hearing what he is responding to from the other side of the line, you might misapply what you hear him say. You might not even be in the same ballpark with what he's really talking about.
In the same way, many read Paul's statements in Romans 9, and seek to find answers in it to the question that was debated by Calvin and Armenius - but there's one problem with that: Paul was never, in Romans 9, addressing the specific question that Calvin and Armenius debated - Paul was addressing another issue not related to their question at all!
Take another look at the text. Observe the issue which the text states Paul was addressing. The meaning of the rest of the chapter will then fall into place nicely, as a defence of his premise that salvation is by faith.
When you hear someone speaking on the phone, without hearing what he is responding to from the other side of the line, you might misapply what you hear him say. You might not even be in the same ballpark with what he's really talking about.
In the same way, many read Paul's statements in Romans 9, and seek to find answers in it to the question that was debated by Calvin and Armenius - but there's one problem with that: Paul was never, in Romans 9, addressing the specific question that Calvin and Armenius debated - Paul was addressing another issue not related to their question at all!
Take another look at the text. Observe the issue which the text states Paul was addressing. The meaning of the rest of the chapter will then fall into place nicely, as a defence of his premise that salvation is by faith.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Acts 4:27-28 and Predetermination
Acts 4:27-28
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever THY HAND and THY COUNSEL DETERMINED BEFORE to be done.
I think the mood of it is that Peter was declaring that the things Herod and Pilate did against Jesus - which they did with their own motives - actions for which they themselves shall be held fully responsible - were the things which the Prophets had already said would happen.
They were the things which God was pleased to allow - things which He was pleased to subject the Messiah to, rather than deliver Him from from them - because those were the very sufferings which were necessary for the procurement of our eternal salvation.
It means God predermined not to intervene and stop those things from being done to His Son, by those people.
It means Scripture had been fulfilled.
It meant God had a reason for commanding His Son to subject Himself to their cruelty.
Man meant it for harm, but God achieved good out of it.
The wording of the text allows this meaning. And the rest of Scripture supports it.
Someone may object: "In the Greek, it says that he DETERMINED these things to happen."
Yes, He did. He determined it should happen, by commanding His Son to subject Himself to it. By not intervening to stop it. By hiding as it were His face from Him. By declaring it ahead of time, by the Scriptures of the Prophets.
But He's not the author of sin. He tempteth no man with evil. God even gave Pilate's wife bad dreams, prompting her to warn Pilate not to do any harm to Jesus. Why would God do that if He was actually spurring Pilate on to do what he was going to do? That's contradictory.
Someone may respond: "There are lots of contradictions in Scripture......unless you believe in antinomy."
I don't believe in antimony. I believe Scripture explains Scripture.
But even without comparing other Scripture, the wording of the text in this passage in Acts 4, as a stand alone verse, is able to convey the meaning I explained above. It's only contradictory to the rest of Scripture if you take it differently to how I've explained it. And the grammar of the wording itself allows the explanation that I've given.
The way I've explained it fits gramatically, ethically, morally, historically and it fits with the rest of Scripture. But to take it another way immediately brings one into conflict.
It's not rocket science.
It might not have been easy for me to see, once, either. So I'm sympathetic about that. It sometimes takes years for the penny to drop, but when it does, a Bible verse shines so clearly and with it a multitude of other Scriptures verses finally become clear too.
I may see it differently in several years from now. But as for now I personally feel really satisfied and thrilled with the grasp I seem to have of it - satisfied gramatically, intellectually, ethically and Scripturally, about it.
The best key I think I can give to help a person grasp the way I understand predestination is this:
I think the concepts of predestination & election, as taught in the New Testament, were given as a response to a specific objection that was... huge in the first century: namely, that the message of salvation by faith was never something God had previously planned.
Wherever you see the words election, predestined, etc in the NT, it was used in order to simply say that the Gospel actually really was something God had planned in advance.
It wasn't used to answer the Calvinist/Armenius dilemma. That question was not an issue in the first century, and it wasn't something Paul ever addressed.
The big concern in the first century was to answer the question: was all this really part of God's own plans? Did the Messiah really have to come meek, and die? Were Jews really going to largely miss out? Can Gentiles really be saved through faith without the works of the law? Did God really envisage the Church?
Yes He did. God always planned, elected, predestined, purposes, promised to save Gentiles through faith.
If you don't identify what the question was, you won't understand what the answer was meant to mean!
Romans 9-11 answered that issue - now read it again and see how it answers that question, instead of trying to see how it answers Calvin's and Armenius' unrelated question centuries later. It will start to fall into place.
Back to Acts 4, here is an illustration:
I have determined that tomorrow morning, I shall place some break-flakes in our fish tank. The hungry fish shall gather around the bread-pieces, tear them to bits, and consume them.
I determined what should happen to the bread. But I didn't make the fish do it. It's just what fish do! All I had to do was put the bread in the fish tank, and it happened.
If I wanted to, I could withold the bread from putting it into the fish tank. But I chose to, knowing full well what would happen if I did, because I had a purpose in it.
In the same way, God pre-determined to send Jesus, and place Him at the hands of the Jewish and Roman rulers, to do what they did - but that doesn't mean God made them do it. It was their nature. Just like it was the fishes' nature to swarm around the bread and tear it to bits.
That's the sense of the word "determined" in Acts 4.
This was all allowed to come to pass, in accordance with God's "counsel" - that is, He had a plan in allowing Jesus to be subjected to such treatment.
And thank God, that plan has saved us all, who believe!
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever THY HAND and THY COUNSEL DETERMINED BEFORE to be done.
I think the mood of it is that Peter was declaring that the things Herod and Pilate did against Jesus - which they did with their own motives - actions for which they themselves shall be held fully responsible - were the things which the Prophets had already said would happen.
They were the things which God was pleased to allow - things which He was pleased to subject the Messiah to, rather than deliver Him from from them - because those were the very sufferings which were necessary for the procurement of our eternal salvation.
It means God predermined not to intervene and stop those things from being done to His Son, by those people.
It means Scripture had been fulfilled.
It meant God had a reason for commanding His Son to subject Himself to their cruelty.
Man meant it for harm, but God achieved good out of it.
The wording of the text allows this meaning. And the rest of Scripture supports it.
Someone may object: "In the Greek, it says that he DETERMINED these things to happen."
Yes, He did. He determined it should happen, by commanding His Son to subject Himself to it. By not intervening to stop it. By hiding as it were His face from Him. By declaring it ahead of time, by the Scriptures of the Prophets.
But He's not the author of sin. He tempteth no man with evil. God even gave Pilate's wife bad dreams, prompting her to warn Pilate not to do any harm to Jesus. Why would God do that if He was actually spurring Pilate on to do what he was going to do? That's contradictory.
Someone may respond: "There are lots of contradictions in Scripture......unless you believe in antinomy."
I don't believe in antimony. I believe Scripture explains Scripture.
But even without comparing other Scripture, the wording of the text in this passage in Acts 4, as a stand alone verse, is able to convey the meaning I explained above. It's only contradictory to the rest of Scripture if you take it differently to how I've explained it. And the grammar of the wording itself allows the explanation that I've given.
The way I've explained it fits gramatically, ethically, morally, historically and it fits with the rest of Scripture. But to take it another way immediately brings one into conflict.
It's not rocket science.
It might not have been easy for me to see, once, either. So I'm sympathetic about that. It sometimes takes years for the penny to drop, but when it does, a Bible verse shines so clearly and with it a multitude of other Scriptures verses finally become clear too.
I may see it differently in several years from now. But as for now I personally feel really satisfied and thrilled with the grasp I seem to have of it - satisfied gramatically, intellectually, ethically and Scripturally, about it.
The best key I think I can give to help a person grasp the way I understand predestination is this:
I think the concepts of predestination & election, as taught in the New Testament, were given as a response to a specific objection that was... huge in the first century: namely, that the message of salvation by faith was never something God had previously planned.
Wherever you see the words election, predestined, etc in the NT, it was used in order to simply say that the Gospel actually really was something God had planned in advance.
It wasn't used to answer the Calvinist/Armenius dilemma. That question was not an issue in the first century, and it wasn't something Paul ever addressed.
The big concern in the first century was to answer the question: was all this really part of God's own plans? Did the Messiah really have to come meek, and die? Were Jews really going to largely miss out? Can Gentiles really be saved through faith without the works of the law? Did God really envisage the Church?
Yes He did. God always planned, elected, predestined, purposes, promised to save Gentiles through faith.
If you don't identify what the question was, you won't understand what the answer was meant to mean!
Romans 9-11 answered that issue - now read it again and see how it answers that question, instead of trying to see how it answers Calvin's and Armenius' unrelated question centuries later. It will start to fall into place.
Back to Acts 4, here is an illustration:
I have determined that tomorrow morning, I shall place some break-flakes in our fish tank. The hungry fish shall gather around the bread-pieces, tear them to bits, and consume them.
I determined what should happen to the bread. But I didn't make the fish do it. It's just what fish do! All I had to do was put the bread in the fish tank, and it happened.
If I wanted to, I could withold the bread from putting it into the fish tank. But I chose to, knowing full well what would happen if I did, because I had a purpose in it.
In the same way, God pre-determined to send Jesus, and place Him at the hands of the Jewish and Roman rulers, to do what they did - but that doesn't mean God made them do it. It was their nature. Just like it was the fishes' nature to swarm around the bread and tear it to bits.
That's the sense of the word "determined" in Acts 4.
This was all allowed to come to pass, in accordance with God's "counsel" - that is, He had a plan in allowing Jesus to be subjected to such treatment.
And thank God, that plan has saved us all, who believe!
Predestination in Context
Instead of approaching Rom.9-11 seeking to understand how it answers the Calvin v. Armenius question, approach Rom.9-11 seeking to understand how it answers the specific first-century objection which Paul was addressing.
"Was God's decision to save through faith really part of His pre-plan?"
"Isn't it unjust of God to reject ethnic Israelites and choose to save believers instead?"
"Doesn't that mean God's promises to Israel have somehow failed?"
Those were the questions.
Now re-read Romans 9-11 and see how it answers it.
It will come clear!
"Was God's decision to save through faith really part of His pre-plan?"
"Isn't it unjust of God to reject ethnic Israelites and choose to save believers instead?"
"Doesn't that mean God's promises to Israel have somehow failed?"
Those were the questions.
Now re-read Romans 9-11 and see how it answers it.
It will come clear!
Monday, 21 March 2011
Freewill and Predestination
Since God ordained that man should have freewill, then whatever man chooses to do, it can be said in a sense that God is the doer of it, without meaning that God necessarily controls each person's choices.
Illustration:
Queen Victoria on July 9, 1900 gave Royal Assent to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created and give legislative powers to the Australian federal government).
But the Act did not come into force until January 1, 1901.
Thereafter the Australian federal parliament began passing its own Bills.
But it can be said that whatever Bills the Australian government chose to pass were in a sense passed by the monarch Herself (seeing She had given Royal Assent in the first place that an Australian federal Parliament should be created and that it should be empowered to enact its own legislation).
But that doesn't mean the Queen literally is the doer of everything enacted by the Australian parliament. She hasn't decided on a single Bill. Her only sovereign decision was that parliament should henceforth make its own decisions - even when parliament might sometimes make decisions that happen to be against Her personal preferences!
Similarly, God's sovereign choice (like the Queen's) was that man should have freewill and that there would be consequences for different choices.
Therefore it can be said that God foreordained people to various consequences - not because freewill isn't really freewill, but simply because He foreordained freewill and consequences.
Illustration:
Queen Victoria on July 9, 1900 gave Royal Assent to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created and give legislative powers to the Australian federal government).
But the Act did not come into force until January 1, 1901.
Thereafter the Australian federal parliament began passing its own Bills.
But it can be said that whatever Bills the Australian government chose to pass were in a sense passed by the monarch Herself (seeing She had given Royal Assent in the first place that an Australian federal Parliament should be created and that it should be empowered to enact its own legislation).
But that doesn't mean the Queen literally is the doer of everything enacted by the Australian parliament. She hasn't decided on a single Bill. Her only sovereign decision was that parliament should henceforth make its own decisions - even when parliament might sometimes make decisions that happen to be against Her personal preferences!
Similarly, God's sovereign choice (like the Queen's) was that man should have freewill and that there would be consequences for different choices.
Therefore it can be said that God foreordained people to various consequences - not because freewill isn't really freewill, but simply because He foreordained freewill and consequences.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
TULIP - from Paul's Point of View in Romans
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Both Jews (having the Law) and Gentiles (without the Law) are sinners. All have sinned.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Jewishness and Law-keeping are not conditions of election. Only BELIEVE - without works - and you will be saved. That's the method God elected.
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Although Jesus died for all, it is by faith that we stand. Therefore Jews must not stumble at the stumblingstone. And Gentiles must fear. For it is by faith we stand.
IRRESISTABLE GRACE
Our nationality or status in regard to the Law neither attract nor obstruct the availability of God's grace to us. It's freely available to all, through faith.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
If ye continue in the faith.
Both Jews (having the Law) and Gentiles (without the Law) are sinners. All have sinned.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Jewishness and Law-keeping are not conditions of election. Only BELIEVE - without works - and you will be saved. That's the method God elected.
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Although Jesus died for all, it is by faith that we stand. Therefore Jews must not stumble at the stumblingstone. And Gentiles must fear. For it is by faith we stand.
IRRESISTABLE GRACE
Our nationality or status in regard to the Law neither attract nor obstruct the availability of God's grace to us. It's freely available to all, through faith.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
If ye continue in the faith.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Contextualizing Predestination in Rom.9-11
Calvin vs Arminius.
I like John Welsey's notes on these passages of Scripture.
"But Wesley was an Arminian wasn't he?"
My preliminary thoughts are as follows:
That Paul's general treatise throughout Romans was that salvation is received by faith irrespective of nationality, not earned by keeping the Law or through being Jewish by birth.
The above treatise gave believers at Rome a dilemma - did the fact that most first-century Jews were failing to receive salvation, because of their unbelief in the Gospel, imply that God's ancient promises to Israel were somehow now failing?
Paul's statements in these famous Predestination chapters were his answer to that dilemma - and need to be understood in that light.
They need to be understood as a continuation of and a defence of his treatise that salvation is by faith, rather than as a discussion of a whole new topic (namely, Calvinism v Arminianism) as if from left-field.
By appealing to Scriptural precedent and prophecy, Paul was defending God's sovereign prerogative to extend mercy on the grounds of faith alone rather than on the grounds of Jewish nationality or the works of the Law.
"'Extend mercy on the grounds of faith'. Yet faith itself has to be given, it is a gift, not a natural attribute in man since the fall. We are saved by faith (by means of), not because of faith," some may say.
But that's outside the scope of Paul's design in these chapters. The only dilemma Paul was seeking to answer here was the dilemma caused by his simple treatise that salvation is through faith. He was discussing the impact of this treatise on the question of God's ancient promises to Israelites. His statements were not in answer to questions which only came centuries later about what role God might have in granting saving-faith.
To understand how to apply someon's answer, we first have to know what question he was answering.
Illustration:
I ask my sister how to prevent a cake from flopping in the oven.
She writes her answer to me in a letter.
Years later, two people are discussing how to change a flat tyre.
They both argue over my sister's answer.
But my sister's answer was about flat cakes - not flat tyres!
Similarly, we could misapply Paul's answer if we don't identify the question.
The question asked by the believers at Rome was not the same question being debated today by Calvinists and Armenians. It was a question of how Paul's treatise that salvation was by faith impacts upon God's ancient promises to Israel.
So it's a mistake to take Paul's answer to that question, and instead make it an answer to Calvin's and Arminius' question.
That sort of reasoning wouldn't help us with changing a flat tyre nor with preventing a flopped cake.
"Ok I have it...............Im getting a black laundry marker and completely marking through everyplace that the Bible says The Elect, chosen, predestinated, called. And Im so glad the Bible says that I chose God before the foundations of the earth
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls — not because of works? before either was born? oh, and there is that word ELECTION again. hmmmmmmm and God's PURPOSE......I though it was all based on me??????" some may say.
Before the foundation of the world, God elected to extend His mercy to you on the basis of your faith despite your nationality and without the works of the Law. I think that's the tenure of Paul's argument in Rom.9-11.
"On the basis of my faith????? Bull hickey...........Romans 9 plainly staes that it is not him that willeth or runneth.....but according to God's purposes..........
better read the Bible...........we have nothing good in us unless God puts it there
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who call Romans 9:16 (New Living Translation) 'So it is God who decides to show mercy.' We can neither choose it nor work for it," some may say.
But you didn't work for it - you only believed it!
That is Paul's point throughout all of Romans.
"...and he chose me to believe!" some may retort.
The meaning is that the availability of salvation to the Romans through faith was not a plan that was contrived by their own will, nor awarded to them on the basis of their running or works - it was a plan which originated in God's own merc...y.
That's why Paul explained that the Gospel didn't mean that the Roman believers should be conceited above the unbelieving Jews - because it was by God's mercy and by faith alone that they stood.
Paul was defending the Gospel of salvation through faith by proving that it was indeed God's prerogative to save or reject without any recourse to a person's nationality or works (of the Law). Only believe! That's God's mercy.
Otherwise it could not have had any relevance at all when Paul warned, in this very context, that the Roman believers could just as well be cut off if they didn't continue in faith. They should not be conceited but fear, since it was by faith that they stood.
The inclusion of that warning makes no sense unless Paul's statements were meant to be understood as a defence of God's right to save or reject without respect to a person's Jewishness or Law-keeping.
In Rom.9-11 Paul was responding both to disillusionment at the rejection of so many israelis on one hand, and to conceitedness over the promotion of so many Gospel-believing Gentiles on the other hand. It was Scriptural for God to have set His own basis for extending His mercy even if it meant some natural-born Jews would miss-out; and it meant the Gentiles should also maintain a healthy fear - because the basis which God set by His own prerogative is faith alone.
That's what Paul was arguing.
"and he chose me to believe!" some may again retort.
But that is a question that is outside the scope of what Paul was discussing in Rom.9-11!
I'm not saying it is a question that shouldn't be asked - just saying that it wasn't the issue which Paul was answering in Rom.9-11.
And if we do happen to ask that question, we make a mistake if we assume Paul's statements in Rom.9-11 apply directly and deliberately to that question - because they don't!
The question which Pastor Calvin and Pastor Armenius squabbled over in the 16th century didn't even get a mention in Paul's letter to the Romans.
Instead the pertinent issue during the first century in Rome, which Paul addressed in Rom.9-11, was the doctrine of salvation through faith and its RAMIFICATIONS FOR ISRAEL AND FOR GENTILES.
Was God unjust to reject unbelieving Jews? Did it mean His ancient promises to Israel had failed? Plus there was the danger that Gentile believers might become too complacent with their new privileges in the plan of God. Those are the issues which Paul sought in Rom.9-11 to answer.
Rom.9-11 wasn't about some Calvinistic/Armenian debate in God's mind about who to give saving-faith to and who not to give it to - rather, it was about defending the Gospel (of salvation by faith) despite its ramifications for natural-born, Law-keeping, but unbelieving Jews. And Paul's statements need to be understood in that context.
That's the meaning that springs naturally to my mind anyway, when I consider the chapters in context.
I like John Welsey's notes on these passages of Scripture.
"But Wesley was an Arminian wasn't he?"
My preliminary thoughts are as follows:
That Paul's general treatise throughout Romans was that salvation is received by faith irrespective of nationality, not earned by keeping the Law or through being Jewish by birth.
The above treatise gave believers at Rome a dilemma - did the fact that most first-century Jews were failing to receive salvation, because of their unbelief in the Gospel, imply that God's ancient promises to Israel were somehow now failing?
Paul's statements in these famous Predestination chapters were his answer to that dilemma - and need to be understood in that light.
They need to be understood as a continuation of and a defence of his treatise that salvation is by faith, rather than as a discussion of a whole new topic (namely, Calvinism v Arminianism) as if from left-field.
By appealing to Scriptural precedent and prophecy, Paul was defending God's sovereign prerogative to extend mercy on the grounds of faith alone rather than on the grounds of Jewish nationality or the works of the Law.
"'Extend mercy on the grounds of faith'. Yet faith itself has to be given, it is a gift, not a natural attribute in man since the fall. We are saved by faith (by means of), not because of faith," some may say.
But that's outside the scope of Paul's design in these chapters. The only dilemma Paul was seeking to answer here was the dilemma caused by his simple treatise that salvation is through faith. He was discussing the impact of this treatise on the question of God's ancient promises to Israelites. His statements were not in answer to questions which only came centuries later about what role God might have in granting saving-faith.
To understand how to apply someon's answer, we first have to know what question he was answering.
Illustration:
I ask my sister how to prevent a cake from flopping in the oven.
She writes her answer to me in a letter.
Years later, two people are discussing how to change a flat tyre.
They both argue over my sister's answer.
But my sister's answer was about flat cakes - not flat tyres!
Similarly, we could misapply Paul's answer if we don't identify the question.
The question asked by the believers at Rome was not the same question being debated today by Calvinists and Armenians. It was a question of how Paul's treatise that salvation was by faith impacts upon God's ancient promises to Israel.
So it's a mistake to take Paul's answer to that question, and instead make it an answer to Calvin's and Arminius' question.
That sort of reasoning wouldn't help us with changing a flat tyre nor with preventing a flopped cake.
"Ok I have it...............Im getting a black laundry marker and completely marking through everyplace that the Bible says The Elect, chosen, predestinated, called. And Im so glad the Bible says that I chose God before the foundations of the earth
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls — not because of works? before either was born? oh, and there is that word ELECTION again. hmmmmmmm and God's PURPOSE......I though it was all based on me??????" some may say.
Before the foundation of the world, God elected to extend His mercy to you on the basis of your faith despite your nationality and without the works of the Law. I think that's the tenure of Paul's argument in Rom.9-11.
"On the basis of my faith????? Bull hickey...........Romans 9 plainly staes that it is not him that willeth or runneth.....but according to God's purposes..........
better read the Bible...........we have nothing good in us unless God puts it there
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who call Romans 9:16 (New Living Translation) 'So it is God who decides to show mercy.' We can neither choose it nor work for it," some may say.
But you didn't work for it - you only believed it!
That is Paul's point throughout all of Romans.
"...and he chose me to believe!" some may retort.
The meaning is that the availability of salvation to the Romans through faith was not a plan that was contrived by their own will, nor awarded to them on the basis of their running or works - it was a plan which originated in God's own merc...y.
That's why Paul explained that the Gospel didn't mean that the Roman believers should be conceited above the unbelieving Jews - because it was by God's mercy and by faith alone that they stood.
Paul was defending the Gospel of salvation through faith by proving that it was indeed God's prerogative to save or reject without any recourse to a person's nationality or works (of the Law). Only believe! That's God's mercy.
Otherwise it could not have had any relevance at all when Paul warned, in this very context, that the Roman believers could just as well be cut off if they didn't continue in faith. They should not be conceited but fear, since it was by faith that they stood.
The inclusion of that warning makes no sense unless Paul's statements were meant to be understood as a defence of God's right to save or reject without respect to a person's Jewishness or Law-keeping.
In Rom.9-11 Paul was responding both to disillusionment at the rejection of so many israelis on one hand, and to conceitedness over the promotion of so many Gospel-believing Gentiles on the other hand. It was Scriptural for God to have set His own basis for extending His mercy even if it meant some natural-born Jews would miss-out; and it meant the Gentiles should also maintain a healthy fear - because the basis which God set by His own prerogative is faith alone.
That's what Paul was arguing.
"and he chose me to believe!" some may again retort.
But that is a question that is outside the scope of what Paul was discussing in Rom.9-11!
I'm not saying it is a question that shouldn't be asked - just saying that it wasn't the issue which Paul was answering in Rom.9-11.
And if we do happen to ask that question, we make a mistake if we assume Paul's statements in Rom.9-11 apply directly and deliberately to that question - because they don't!
The question which Pastor Calvin and Pastor Armenius squabbled over in the 16th century didn't even get a mention in Paul's letter to the Romans.
Instead the pertinent issue during the first century in Rome, which Paul addressed in Rom.9-11, was the doctrine of salvation through faith and its RAMIFICATIONS FOR ISRAEL AND FOR GENTILES.
Was God unjust to reject unbelieving Jews? Did it mean His ancient promises to Israel had failed? Plus there was the danger that Gentile believers might become too complacent with their new privileges in the plan of God. Those are the issues which Paul sought in Rom.9-11 to answer.
Rom.9-11 wasn't about some Calvinistic/Armenian debate in God's mind about who to give saving-faith to and who not to give it to - rather, it was about defending the Gospel (of salvation by faith) despite its ramifications for natural-born, Law-keeping, but unbelieving Jews. And Paul's statements need to be understood in that context.
That's the meaning that springs naturally to my mind anyway, when I consider the chapters in context.
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Jacob Have I loved, Esau Have I Hated
Paul quoted this verse. It was a statement by God. But notice God didn't say it in the first book of the Bible, before Jacob and Esau were born - He said it in the last book of the Bible long after the two brothers had lived and died.
Yes, before they were born, God declared what the outcome of these two guys' descendents would be, based on His foreknowledge. It wasn't even a statement about the two brothers, primarily. Esau didn't actually serve Jacob during his lifetime. It was mainly a statement about the two brothers' descendants. But the outcome was not without a cause: Esau despised his birthright and chose to allow Jacob to inherit it. The New Testament later actually describes Esau as a profane person - a prototype of the type of Hebrews who were at risk of missing-out on God's promised salvation due to unbelief in Jesus.
Paul told this story to illustrate that it was not without precedent in Scripture that many Jewish people were missing-out on experiencing the promised salvation - it was an outcome long foreseen by the Prophets. God had elected that salvation would be by grace alone, and He foresaw that many, despite being Jewish, would not believe. Therefore the outcome which the Roman believers were witnessing in the first century was quite in-keeping with prophecy and quite in-keeping with God's original promises. Paul's Gospel [the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith] was therefore vindicated, despite its implications for unbelieving Israel.
Yes, before they were born, God declared what the outcome of these two guys' descendents would be, based on His foreknowledge. It wasn't even a statement about the two brothers, primarily. Esau didn't actually serve Jacob during his lifetime. It was mainly a statement about the two brothers' descendants. But the outcome was not without a cause: Esau despised his birthright and chose to allow Jacob to inherit it. The New Testament later actually describes Esau as a profane person - a prototype of the type of Hebrews who were at risk of missing-out on God's promised salvation due to unbelief in Jesus.
Paul told this story to illustrate that it was not without precedent in Scripture that many Jewish people were missing-out on experiencing the promised salvation - it was an outcome long foreseen by the Prophets. God had elected that salvation would be by grace alone, and He foresaw that many, despite being Jewish, would not believe. Therefore the outcome which the Roman believers were witnessing in the first century was quite in-keeping with prophecy and quite in-keeping with God's original promises. Paul's Gospel [the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith] was therefore vindicated, despite its implications for unbelieving Israel.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
I Pet.1:1,2
The sanctified, obedient and blood-sprinkled believers in Jesus Christ were considered "strangers" from the Jewish, Law-keeping point of view - but from God's point of view the Church - made up of both Jews and Gentiles - was in reality the very thing that God had foreknown from the beginning; the existence of the Church as the true people of God was the very plan that God Himself had elected from the beginning - a chosen plan based on His own grace and willingness to extend His peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)