"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS"
Paul's Prayer For The Thessalonians (3:11-13)INTRODUCTION
1. The first section of this epistle contain "apostolic reflections" in
which Paul...
a. Praised their wonderful reception of the gospel - 1Th 1:1-10
b. Reviewed the nature of his ministry among them - 1Th 2:1-16
c. Expressed his love and concern for their spiritual condition
- 1Th 2:17-3:10
2. This section ends with a prayer in their behalf - 1Th 3:11-13
a. A common practice of Paul in his epistles - cf. Php 1:9-11; Col 1:
9-12
b. In which Paul expresses his desires regarding his brethren
3. In considering such prayers, I find it beneficial to remember that
Paul wrote by inspiration...
a. So he is not just expressing his own desires, but those of God's
as well!
b. In most cases, these prayers are just applicable to us today as
they were for them!
[As we examine this prayer more closely, then, consider how elements of
"Paul's Prayer For The Thessalonians" might also be God's desire for us
today. We first notice that Paul's prayer was that the Father and
Jesus might...]
I. DIRECT HIS WAY TO THEM (11)A. PAUL'S DESIRE TO SEE THEM...
1. He had expressed this desire earlier - 1Th 2:17
2. He had been hindered by Satan - 1Th 2:18B. PAUL'S PRAYER TO SEE THEM...
1. Requesting aid from both the Father and Jesus
a. Note the distinction between the Father and the Son - cf.
also 2Jn 9
b. This implies the Trinity, the distinction between the
Persons of the Godhead
c. Suggesting both joint and separate actions of the Father
and Son
2. Implying belief in the providence of God
a. That God could overcome the hindrance of Satan's efforts
- cf. 1Pe 5:8-10
b. That God could provide safe travel if it be in accordance
to His will - cf. Ro 1:10C. GOD'S DESIRE FOR US...
1. That we remember God's will in our prayers - 1Jn 5:14
2. That we remember God's will in our planning - Jm 4:13-15
[As Paul desired to see his beloved brethren, so we should desire to
see our loved ones. But in our planning and prayers to see them, let's
not forget the will of God! Now consider how Paul prayed that the Lord
might...]
II. MAKE THEM INCREASE AND ABOUND (12)A. THROUGH THE WORKING OF GOD...
1. Our spiritual growth involves the working of God - cf. Php 1:6
2. He works in conjunction with our own efforts - cf. Php 2:12-13
-- So let us pray as though it depends upon God, but work as
though it depends upon us!
B. TO INCREASE AND ABOUND...
1. Our spiritual growth is to be never-ending, always increasing
- cf. 2Pe 1:5-8; 3:18
2. Our physical may grow old and slow down, but our inner man can
be renewed every day! - cf. 2Co 4:16
-- Like the sun rising to reach its zenith, so our spiritual
growth should be marked by increasing and abundant progress!
- cf. Pr 4:18C. IN LOVE TO ONE ANOTHER AND TO ALL...
1. Especially increasing and abounding in love
a. Something the Thessalonians already possessed - 1Th 1:3
b. Something the Thessalonians didn't really need to be told
- 1Th 4:9-10
-- Yet we can never say that we cannot grow more - cf. Php 3:
13-17
2. Love not just for one another, i.e., our brethren, but for all
men!
a. It is easy to love our brethren
b. But it is loving our enemies that we become like God!
- cf. Lk 6:32-35
-- It is certainly God's desire for all His children to abound in
love, and this should be the focus of many prayers - cf. Php 1:9
[And finally, we note in "Paul's Prayer For The Thessalonians" that the
Lord might...]
III. ESTABLISH THEIR HEARTSA. BLAMELESS IN HOLINESS...
1. To be blameless is very reason Jesus gave Himself for us
- Ep 5:25-27
2. Without holiness, we will not see the Lord - He 12:14
-- While Jesus makes it possible through His blood, we must
cooperate as well - cf. 2Co 7:1B. BEFORE GOD AT THE COMING OF JESUS...
1. Here is the "where" and "when" we must be blameless in
holiness
a. Where - before God at the Judgment!
b. When - when Jesus comes with all His saints (lit., holy
ones)!
2. Note the following about the Lord's coming...
a. This is the third time in three chapters that Paul refers
to this event - cf. 1Th 1:10; 2:19; 3:13
b. While "saints" (holy ones) could refer to angels
(cf. Mt 25:31), it may also include the redeemed (cf. 1Th 4:14)
CONCLUSION
1. From "Paul's Prayer For The Thessalonians", we have seen that it is
appropriate...
a. To seek God's providential guidance when we desire to see our
loved ones
b. To pray for one another's spiritual growth and the Lord's
blessing
2. If we desire to see each other...
a. In this life from time to time
b. Increasing and abounding in love
c. Blameless in holiness in the presence of God at Christ's coming
...the "Paul's Prayer For The Thessalonians" is the sort of prayer
that we should diligently offer for one another!
Book Review: The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart
by
Wayne Jackson, M.A.
Peter J. Gomes is a Baptist clergyman who preaches for Harvard
University’s Memorial Church, and who also teaches at the university in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. The cleric professor has created a maelstrom
of controversy recently with the publication of The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart
(1996). The design of this book is to neutralize the Scriptures of
their doctrinally demanding thrust, thus accommodating the ancient
volume to the inclinations of modern society.
Gomes argues, for example, that the Bible does not condemn abortion. He
contends that the biblical term “murder” refers only to the
premeditated destruction of human life “outside the womb” (p. 45)—a
distinction that is arbitrary, and which, in fact, is at variance with
Exodus 21:22-23.
Further, Gomes, a self-confessed homosexual, alleges that the use of
the Bible to condemn homosexuality is the product of simplistic
interpretative methods that reflect a failure to comprehend the context
in which the Scriptures were written. Such proceduralism he calls
“textual harassment.” These sort of charges flow easily, of course, from
those who reject the plain testimony of the Bible in the interest of
their own personal agenda. For example, the author makes an artificial
distinction in types of homosexual relationships. One moment he contends
that Paul, in his various letters, merely was condemning the “debauched
pagan expression” of homosexuality; then, he alleges that the apostle
hardly can be faulted for his ignorance, because he knew nothing of “the
concept of a homosexual nature” (p. 158). He also suggests (p. 25) that
there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan—a notion
not reflected even remotely in the Old Testament narrative regarding
these great men. Gomes obviously is desperate for some semblance of
support for his aberrant lifestyle.
The professor charges that the New Testament itself is anti-Semitic.
One chapter is titled: “The Bible and Anti-Semitism: Christianity’s
Original Sin.” It is hardly anti-Semitic, however, to contend that the
Jews’ salvation is to be found only in Jesus Christ, when the same
condition prevails for the Gentiles as well. No one can read Romans
9:1ff., where Paul’s heart throbs with love for his brothers in the
flesh, and charge the apostle with hatred and racism.
This volume is filled with reckless charges, sweeping generalizations,
and invalid arguments. It is utterly bereft of scholarly acumen.
Of late, Gomes has been a frequent guest on the talk-show circuit, and
his book has received laudatory reviews in the popular press. This is to
be expected from media that disregard the authority of the Bible, and
seek justification for hedonistic lifestyles.
REFERENCES
Gomes, Peter J. (1996), The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart (New York: William Morrow).
A common misconception among atheists, humanists, and evolutionists is
that those who reject evolution in order to hold to a fundamental,
literal understanding of the biblical documents are guided by “blind
faith.” Robinson articulated this position quite emphatically when he
accused Christians of abandoning rationality and evidence in exchange
for intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of the truth (1976, pp.
115-124). Many within the scientific community labor under the delusion
that their “facts” and “evidence” are supportive of evolution and
opposed to a normal, face-value understanding of the biblical text. They
scoff at those who disagree with them, as if they alone have a corner
on truth.
The fact of the matter is that while most of the religious world
deserves the epithets hurled by the “informed” academicians, those who
espouse pure, New Testament Christianity do not. New Testament
Christians embrace the biblical definition of faith, in contrast
to the commonly conceived understanding of faith that is promulgated by
the vast majority of people in the denominational world.
The faith spoken of in the Bible is a faith that is preceded by knowledge. One cannot possess biblical faith in God until he or she comes to the knowledge
of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove. Faith
cannot outrun knowledge—for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans
10:17). Abraham was said to have had faith only after he came to the knowledge of God’s promises and was fully persuaded (Romans 4:20-21). His faith, therefore, was seen in his trust and submission to what he knew
to be the will of God. Biblical faith is attained only after an
examination of the evidence, coupled with correct reasoning about the
evidence.
The God of the Bible is a God of truth. Throughout biblical history, He
has stressed the need for the acceptance of truth—in contrast with
error and falsehood. Those who, in fact, fail to seek the truth are
considered by God to be wicked (Jeremiah 5:1). The wise man urged: “Buy
the truth, and sell it not” (Proverbs 23:23). Paul, himself an
accomplished logician, exhorted people to love the truth (2
Thessalonians 2:10-12). He stated the necessity of giving diligence to
the task of dealing with the truth properly (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus
declared that only by knowing the truth is one made free (John 8:32).
Luke ascribed nobility to those who were willing to search for and
examine the evidence, rather than being content to simply take someone’s
word for the truth (Acts 17:11). Peter admonished Christians to be
prepared to give a defense (1 Peter 3:15), which stands in stark
contrast to those who, when questioned about proof of God, or the
credibility and comprehensibility of the Bible, triumphantly reply, “I
don’t know—I accept it by faith!”
Thus, the notion of “blind faith” is completelyforeign
to the Bible. People are called upon to have faith only after they
receive adequate knowledge. In fact, the Bible demands that the thinker
be rational in gathering information, examining the evidence, and
reasoning properly about the evidence, thereby drawing only warranted
conclusions. That, in fact, is the essentiality of what is known in
philosophical circles as the basic law of rationality: one should draw
only such conclusions as are justified by the evidence. Paul articulated
exactly this concept when he wrote: “Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). John echoed the same thought when
he said to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). These passages show that
the New Testament Christian is one who stands ready to examine the
issues. God expects every individual to put to the test various
doctrines and beliefs, and then to reach only such conclusions as are
warranted by adequate evidence. Man must not rely upon papal
authorities, church traditions, or the claims of science. Rather, all
people are obligated to rely upon the properly studied written
directives of God (2 Timothy 2:15; John 12:48; 2 Peter 3:16). Biblical
religion and modern science clash only because the majority of those
within the scientific community have abandoned sound biblical
hermeneutics and insist upon drawing unwarranted, erroneous conclusions
from the relevant scientific evidence.
The Bible insists that evidence is abundantly available for those who
will engage in unprejudiced, rational inquiry. The resurrection claim,
for example, was substantiated by “many infallible proofs,” including
verification through the observation of more than five hundred persons
at once (Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Many proofs were made
available in order to pave the way for faith (John 20:30-31). Peter
offered at least four lines of evidence to those gathered in Jerusalem
before he concluded his argument with “therefore…” (Acts 2:14-36). The
acquisition of knowledge through empirical evidence was undeniable, for
Peter concluded, “as you yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22, emp.
added). John referred to the auditory, visual, and tactile evidences
that provided further empirical verification (1 John 1:1-2). Christ
offered “works” to corroborate His claims, so that even His enemies did
not have to rely merely on His words—if they would but honestly reason
to the only logical conclusion (John 10:24-25,38). The proof was of such
magnitude that one Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, even admitted: “[W]e
know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs
that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2).
Nevertheless, there are always those who, for one reason or another,
refuse to accept the law of rationality, and who avoid the warranted
conclusions—just like those who side-stepped the proof that Christ
presented, and attributed it to Satan (Matthew 12:24). Christ countered
such an erroneous conclusion by pointing out their faulty reasoning and
the false implications of their argument (Matthew 12:25-27). The proof
that the apostles presented was equally conclusive, though unacceptable
to many (Acts 4:16).
The proof in our day is no less conclusive, nor is it any less
compelling. While it is not within the purview of this brief article to
prove such (see Warren and Flew, 1977; Warren and Matson, 1978), the
following tenets are provable: (1) we can know (not merely think, hope, or wish) that God exists (Romans 1:19-20); (2) we can know
that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and intended to be
comprehended in much the same way that any written human communication
is to be understood; (3) we can know that one day we will stand
before God in judgment and give account for whether we have studied the
Bible, learned what to do to be saved, and obeyed those instructions;
and (4) we can know that we know (1 John 2:3).
By abandoning the Bible as a literal, inerrant, infallible standard by
which all human behavior is to be measured, the scientist has
effectively rendered biblical religion, biblical faith, and New
Testament Christianity sterile—at least as far as his or her own life is
concerned. Once the Bible is dismissed as “figurative,” “confusing,” or
“incomprehensible,” one has opened wide the doors of subjectivity,
in which every man’s view is just as good as another’s. The more
sophisticated viewpoint may be more appealing, but it remains just as
subjective and self-stylized.
REFERENCES
Robinson, Richard (1976), “Religion and Reason,” Critiques of God, ed. Peter A. Angeles (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. and Wallace I. Matson (1978), The Warren-Matson Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Through the years, numerous writers have taken on the task of
explaining the comment spoken by Jesus concerning the “unpardonable
sin”—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. From these writings have come
countless false doctrines, insinuations, and suggested explanations. It
is the purpose of this article to explain what “blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit” is not, what it actually is, and to offer comment
concerning whether it still can be committed today.
Three of the four gospel accounts contain a reference to the statement
made by Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three
passages read as follows.
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone
who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but
whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him,
either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).
Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men,
and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against
the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal
condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark
3:28-30).
And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be
forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will
not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).
Each of these references to the statement made by Jesus verifies that
Jesus did clearly state that there is a specific sin that “will not be
forgiven.” The American Standard Version describes the sin as an
“eternal sin” (Mark 3:29). Jesus defined that sin as “the blasphemy
against the Spirit.” What, then, is blasphemy against the Spirit?
In order to explain this sin fully, a look at the general context of
the statement is critical. Matthew’s account offers the most detail
concerning the setting in which Jesus’ statement was made. In Matthew
12:22, the text indicates that a certain man who was demon-possessed was
brought to Jesus to be healed. As was His common practice, Jesus cast
out the unclean spirit, and healed the man of his blindness and
inability to speak. After seeing this display of power, the multitudes
that followed Jesus asked, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:23).
Upon hearing this remark, the Pharisees, wanting to discredit the source
from which Jesus received His power, declared that Jesus was casting
out demons by “Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.” Jesus proceeded to
explain that a kingdom divided against itself could not stand, and if He
were casting out demons by the power of demons, then He would be
defeating Himself. It was after this accusation by the Pharisees, and
Jesus’ defense of His actions, that Christ commented concerning the
blasphemy against the Spirit. In fact, the text of Mark clearly states
that Jesus made the comment about the blasphemy against the Spirit
“because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ ”
Another critical piece of information needed to clarify Jesus’
statement is the definition of blasphemy. Wayne Jackson wrote:
“Blasphemy is an anglicized form of the Greek term blasphemia, which scholars believe probably derives from two roots, blapto, to injure, and pheme,
to speak. The word would thus suggest injurious speech” (2000). Bernard
Franklin, in his article concerning blasphemy against the Spirit,
suggested:
The word “blasphemy” in its various forms (as verb, noun, adjective,
etc.) appears some fifty-nine times in the New Testament. It has a
variety of renderings, such as, “blasphemy,” “reviled,” “railed,” “evil
spoken of,” “to speak evil of,” etc. Examples of these various
renderings are: “They that passed by reviled him” (Matthew 27:39). “He
that shall blaspheme” (Mark 3:29). “They that passed by railed on him”
(Mark 15:29). “The way of truth shall be evil spoken of ” (2 Peter 2:2).
“These speak evil of those things” (Jude 10). It is evident from these
that blasphemy is a sin of the mouth, a “tongue-sin.” All New Testament
writers except the author of Hebrews use the word (1936, pp. 224-225).
Furthermore, Jesus defined the term when, after referring to blasphemy,
He used the phrase “speaks a word against” in Matthew 12:32.
WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS NOT
With the working definition of blasphemy meaning, “to speak against,”
or “speak evil of,” it is easy to rule out several sins that would not
qualify as the unpardonable sin. Occasionally, murder is suggested as
the “unpardonable sin.” Such cannot be the case, however. First, since
blasphemy is a “tongue sin,” murder would not fall into this category.
Second, several biblical passages show the sin of murder can be
forgiven. When King David committed adultery and had Uriah the Hittite
murdered, the prophet Nathan came to him, informing him that God had
seen that David “killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel
12:9). When David confessed to Nathan and repented, the prophet told
David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (12:13).
And, although David was punished for his iniquity, it was forgiven. The
Bible plainly demonstrates that murder is not the unpardonable sin.
Adultery surfaces as another sin put forward as unpardonable. Yet the
same reasoning used to discount murder as the unpardonable sin can be
used to disqualify adultery. First, it does not fit the category of
blasphemy. Second, David was forgiven of adultery, just as surely as he
was forgiven of murder. The apostle Paul gave a list of no less than ten
sins (including adultery) of which the Corinthian brethren had been
forgiven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Adultery cannot be the unpardonable
sin.
Another sin set forth as the unpardonable sin is blasphemy of any kind,
not specifically against the Holy Spirit. We know, however, that
blasphemy in general cannot be unforgivable for two reasons. First, in
the context of the unpardonable sin, Jesus clearly stated that “whatever
blasphemies” men may utter (besides against the Holy Spirit) could be
forgiven. Second, Paul confessed that before his conversion, he had
formerly been “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I
obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief ” (1 Timothy
1:13). These two biblical passages rule out the possibility of general
blasphemy as the unpardonable sin.
We begin to see, then, that we cannot arbitrarily decide which sins we
think are heinous, and then simply attribute to them the property of
being unpardonable, especially considering the fact that even those who
were guilty of crucifying the Son of God had the opportunity to be
forgiven (Acts 2:36-38). Therefore, since the unpardonable sin falls
into a category of its own, and cannot be murder, adultery, general
blasphemy, etc., some scholars have set forth the idea that the
unpardonable sin is not a single sin at all, but is instead the stubborn
condition of a person who persists in unbelief. This understanding,
however, fails to take into account the immediate context of the
“unpardonable sin.” Gus Nichols, commenting on this idea of “persistent
unbelief,” stated: “It is true, great multitudes are going into eternity
in rebellion against God to be finally and eternally lost; but it is
for rejecting and neglecting pardon graciously extended in the gospel
while they live, not because they have committed the unpardonable sin”
(1967, p. 236). Wendell Winkler, under a section titled, “What the
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit is Not,” wrote that it is not
postponement of obedience until death. The text implies that those who
commit the eternal sin continue to live while having lost all
opportunity of salvation; whereas those who postpone obedience to Christ
(except those who commit the eternal sin) could have obeyed at any time
previous to their death (1980, p. 20).
IN THIS AGE OR IN THE AGE TO COME
Jesus said that blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven “in
this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Certain religious
organizations have seized upon this statement to suggest that Jesus has
in mind a situation in which certain sins will be remitted after
death—but not this sin. This idea of a purgatory-like state,
where the souls of the dead are given a “second chance” to do penance
for the sins they committed in their earthly life, finds no
justification in this statement made by Christ (nor in any other
biblical passage, for that matter). R.C.H. Lenski stated that Jesus’ use
of the phrase under discussion meant simply “absolutely never” (1961,
p. 484). Hendriksen concurred with Lenski when he wrote:
In passing, it should be pointed out that these words by no stretch of
the imagination imply that for certain sins there will be forgiveness
in the life hereafter. They do not in any sense whatever support the
doctrine of purgatory. The expression simply means that the indicated
sin will never be forgiven (1973, p. 528).
As the writer of Hebrews succinctly wrote, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
It also has been suggested by several writers that the “age to come”
discussed by Jesus refers to the Christian Age. According to this idea,
Jesus made the statement in the Jewish Age, when the Law of Moses was in
effect, and the “age to come” denoted the Christian Age immediately
following, when the Law of Christ would prevail. Putting this meaning to
the phrase often leads the advocates of this theory to conclude that
the unpardonable sin could be committed in the Christian Age, after the
resurrection of Christ. As Winkler surmised, “Thus, since our Lord was
speaking while the Jewish age was in existence, he was affirming that
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in (a) the
Jewish age, nor in (b) the Christian age, the age that followed” (1980,
p. 21). Nichols, after affirming the same proposition, concluded:
It follows that this sin, therefore, could be committed during the
personal ministry of Christ, and was then committed, as we have seen,
and could also be committed under the gospel age or dispensation. They
could have attributed the works of the Spirit to Satan after Pentecost,
the same as before (1967, p. 234).
Two primary pieces of evidence, however, militate against the idea that
Jesus’ reference to the “age to come” meant the Christian Age. First,
in Mark 10:30, the gospel writer has Jesus on record using the same
phrase (“in the age to come”) to refer to the time when the followers of
Christ would inherit “eternal life” (see Luke 18:30 for the parallel
passage). This is a clear reference to life after death, since Paul said
“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians
15:50). Second, Mark’s account of the unpardonable sin describes the sin
as an “eternal sin.” The translators of the New King James Version
recorded that the person who commits the sin “never has forgiveness, but
is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:29). Mark’s account, with
its emphasis on eternity, shows that the phrase simply is meant to
underscore the fact that this sin will “absolutely never” be forgiven
(Lenski, p. 484). It is incorrect, then, to use the phrase “in the age
to come” to refer to purgatory. It also is tenuous to use the phrase to
refer to the Christian Age. The best explanation, to quote Hendrickson
again, is that “the expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven” (p. 528).
WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS
As was noted earlier, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin
in the Bible that is given the status of unpardonable or eternal. In
fact, Jesus prefaced His discussion of this sin by stating that, “every
sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,” except for blasphemy
against the Spirit. Using the working definition of blasphemy as
“speaking evil of,” it becomes clear that the sin described by Jesus was
a “tongue sin” that the Pharisees had committed, or at least were
dangerously close to committing.
What had the Pharisees done that would have put them in jeopardy of
committing the unpardonable sin? According to His own testimony, during
Jesus’ time on this Earth He cast out demons by the “Spirit of God”
(Matthew 12:28). When the Pharisees saw that Jesus had performed a
verifiable miracle, they could not argue with the fact that Christ
possessed certain powers that others (including themselves) did not
have. Therefore, in order to cast suspicion on the ministry of Jesus,
they claimed that He was casting out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of
demons. The name Beelzebub is simply another name for Satan (Franklin,
1936, p. 227), as can be seen from Jesus’ reference to Satan in Matthew
12:26. Even when faced by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit
through Jesus, the Pharisees were, in essence, attributing Jesus’ power
to Satan, and claiming that Jesus was “Satan incarnate instead of God
incarnate. It is this, and nothing else, that our Lord calls the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (or Spirit—KB)”
(Franklin, p. 227). Maxie Boren wrote: “The context of Matthew 12:22ff.
shows clearly that this was indeed the sin of blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit—attributing the miracle done by Jesus to the power of the
devil. Jesus said it was done ‘by the Spirit of God’ (verse 28) but they
(the Pharisees—KB) said it was done by
Beelzebub” (n.d., p. 1). It is clear that blasphemy against the Spirit
was a definite, singular sin, which could be committed by the Pharisees
during the life of Jesus.
IS THE “UNPARDONABLE SIN” THE
SAME AS THE “SIN UNTO DEATH”?
John, in his first epistle, mentioned the fact that “there is sin
leading to death” and “there is sin not leading to death” (1 John
5:16-17). His statement in these verses has been connected by more than a
few people to Jesus’ remark about the “eternal sin.” It is evident,
however, that this connection is based more on opinion than on textual
Bible study.
First, there is no biblical evidence that connects the passage in 1
John with the Pharisees’ accusation. Furthermore, the entire context of 1
John gives the Christian readers hope of forgiveness for all
sins that they might have committed. John wrote: “All unrighteousness is
sin, and there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:17). Several
chapters earlier, he wrote: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and
just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
(1 John 1:9, emp. added). In the scope of John’s epistle, any
unrighteousness committed by his readers could be forgiven if the
transgressor took the proper steps of repentance and confession.
Apparently, the “sin unto death” in 1 John is not a specific sin for
which it is impossible to receive forgiveness, but rather, is any sin
for which a person will not take the proper steps demanded by God to
receive the forgiveness available. On the other hand, blasphemy against
the Spirit was a specific, eternal sin that never would be forgiven.
CAN THE UNPARDONABLE SIN BE COMMITTED TODAY?
The next question usually asked concerning this sin is whether or not
it is still possible to commit it today. Opinions on this question
certainly vary, and scholars seem to be divided in their positions. The
evidence, however, seems to point toward the idea that this sin cannot be committed today.
First, the circumstances under which the sin is described cannot
prevail today, due to the fact that the age of miracles has ceased (see
Miller, 2003). No one today will have the opportunity to witness Jesus
performing miracles in person (2 Corinthians 5:16).
Second, there is no other mention of the sin in any biblical passage
written after the resurrection of Christ. None of the inspired New
Testament writers refers to the sin in any epistle or in the book of
Acts, and none offers warnings to new converts about avoiding the sin
post-Pentecost. Franklin observed:
If it were possible for it to be committed, would there not have been
some warning against it? Were there any danger regarding it, would the
Apostle Paul, who wrote half the books of the New Testament, have failed
to warn against its commission? Paul does not even mention the
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The sin in question was actually
committed in the days of our Lord’s ministry on earth, but it does not
necessarily follow that it could be committed in His absence (p. 233).
In discussing this matter, Gus Nichols wrote: “It seems that all sins
committed today are pardonable, and that all can be saved, if they will”
(1967, p. 239). V.E. Howard, commented along the same lines when he
stated that “there is no unpardonable sin today” (1975, p. 156).
In conclusion, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only
unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible, and it is mentioned in the
context of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of being possessed by the Devil.
The context indicates that it was a specific sin, and not a series of
forgivable sins, or an attitude of persistent unbelief. After the
resurrection, no inspired writer mentions the sin, and no warnings
against it were recorded. There is no concrete evidence that it can be
committed today. The fact that it is not mentioned after the
resurrection, lends itself to the idea that it cannot still be
committed. In fact, the indication from passages such as 1 John 1:7,9 is
that “all unrighteousness” that a person could commit today can be
forgiven by the blood of Jesus. As Howard said when concluding his
remarks about the eternal sin: “In the same scripture our Lord gave full
assurance that every sin and blasphemy against the ‘Son of man’ shall
be forgiven him. Today the gospel of Christ is to be preached to every
man on earth and any man on earth may be saved by obeying the gospel
(Mark 16:15-16)” [p. 157].
REFERENCES
Boren, Maxie B. (no date), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,”
Class Handout, Brown Trail church of Christ, Bedford, Texas, Lesson 4.
Franklin, Barnard (1936), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost: An
Inquiry into the Scriptural Teaching Regarding the Unpardonable Sin,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 93:220-233, April.
Hendriksen, William (1973), The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Howard, V.E. (1975), The Holy Spirit (West Monroe, LA: Central Publishers).
Jackson, Wayne (2000), Blasphemy—What Is This Great Sin?, [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/blasphemy.htm.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” Reason and Revelation, 23(3):17-23, March.
Nichols, Gus (1967), Lectures on the Holy Spirit (Plainview, TX: Nichols Brothers).
Winkler, Wendell, ed. (1980), What Do You Know About the Holy Spirit? (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).
One cannot read the Bible for long without confronting events that defy
strictly naturalistic explanations. A nation of slaves escaping bondage
by walking on dry ground through a parted sea, an ax head floating and
persons walking on water, and men rising from the dead are but a
sampling of the miracles recorded in both the Old and New Testaments.
Certainly, these are extraordinary phenomena not experienced in present
reality. Thus, the factuality of such events depends on the general
reliability of the Bible as a historical document. Unfortunately, the
Bible’s credibility is under a thick cloud of suspicion in some
theological circles today.
Liberal theologians generally have dismissed the historicity of
miraculous events, considering them to be the mythological
interpretations of natural incidents by two ancient communities: Israel
and the early church. Such an approach suggests that the Bible expresses
how its authors perceived events, but does not necessarily reflect how
they actually happened (Borg, 1993a, 9[4]:9). Accordingly, we should not
conclude from Genesis that God actually created the Universe in six,
literal days, or that Adam and Eve, as the first human couple, lived in a
real Edenic paradise. These are powerfully symbolic tales whose
“...primary purpose and place in the Hebrew Bible is theological, not
historical” (Dever, 1990, 16[3]:52). Thus, the Genesis account of
creation presents the theological truth that “everything comes from
God,” but it does not reflect actual occurrences in remote antiquity.
Biblical religion, however, is rooted in God’s acts in human history,
not in lofty, abstract ideas or ideals. The crucial issues are: (a) is
the Bible historically reliable or not?; (b) should we read the Bible
with confidence or skepticism?; and (c) why do many theologians cast
suspicion on the historicity of the Bible?
THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD
Prior to the seventeenth century, the Bible was considered the
universal authority in all fields of knowledge. However, by the end of
that century, science, history, and philosophy became autonomous
disciplines, freed from biblical authority and the traditionally
recognized experts in these fields (Krentz, 1975, p. 10). The
Enlightenment, in which revelation became subservient to reason, had
begun (see Marty, 1994).
This new, rationalistic approach to the world eventually spawned a
radically different attitude toward the Bible. In the second half of the
eighteenth century, in connection with the intellectual movement of the
Enlightenment, the Bible began to lose its status as the unique and
authoritative “Word of God.” Scholars approached the Bible as a mere
human production that, “...like any product of the human mind, can
properly be made understandable only from the times in which it appeared
and therefore only with the methods of historical science” (Kümmel,
1973, p. 14).
The controls of historical science to which Kümmel referred began to
guide biblical interpretation during this period, and continue to exert
tremendous influence on theology in mainstream scholarship. When applied
to the Bible, the generally accepted “historical-critical” method that
grew out of the Enlightenment subverts the biblical concept of verbal
inspiration (see Anderson, 1993, 9[5]:9). Therefore, we need to analyze
carefully the procedures and presuppositions of current historical
criticism.
Basic Assumptions
Though different scholars use the method with different sets of
assumptions, thus obtaining different results, one can speak justifiably
of a specific historical-critical method that is guided by a specific
set of shared presuppositions (Gredainus, 1988, p. 25). Ernst Troeltsch,
in his 1898 seminal essay on Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology, articulated the three fundamental principles of this method: (1) criticism/probability; (2) analogy; and (3) correlation.
1. Criticism/probability
Troeltsch explained this first principle as follows: “...in the realm
of history there are only judgments of probability, varying from the
highest to the lowest degree, and that consequently an estimate must be
made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition” (1898, p.
13). This basic principle implies that one should read a historical
document with a certain skepticism. The historian’s job is to determine
its degree of credibility, but never entertain the possibility of
complete accuracy. Accordingly, the precision of historical testimony,
at best, can be only highly probable, but never absolute. Troeltsch
further insisted that this principle be applied impartially to all
historical traditions, including the Bible. Obviously, this approach
precludes the possibility of complete, historical accuracy of the
biblical text.
2. Analogy
The second basic principle—that of analogy—is the key to historical
criticism (Troeltsch, 1898, p. 13). This idea suggests that all
legitimate, historical phenomena must have a present-day analogy.
Underlying this principle is the uniformitarian assumption that all
events in history are similar. In other words, like those in Peter’s
day, it assumes that “all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:4). Thus, the factuality of any
alleged past event is judged by occurrences in present reality. Only
those events that have a corresponding contemporary event are considered
historical. Consistent with this assumption, a historian dismisses as
unhistorical any recorded event that transcends the experience of
contemporary humanity. This principle rejects a priori the factuality of unique, miraculous events such as Jesus’ resurrection, since no analogous event occurs today.
3. Correlation
The third basic concept of history, according to Troeltsch, is the
“...interaction of all phenomena in the history of civilization” (1898,
p. 14). This concept implies that all historical events are “...knit
together in a permanent relationship of correlation...in which
everything is interconnected and each single event is related to all
others” (Troeltsch, 1898, p. 14). In other words, all historical events
form a unified web of immanent causes and effects. Every event must be
interpreted “...within the context of the whole of history in terms of
its causes and effects, its antecedents and its consequences”
(Gredainus, 1988, p. 27). This principle views history as a closed
continuum of natural causes and effects, which eliminates the
possibility of a transcendent God’s entering into human history. Yet,
that is what the Bible is all about!
Results
Some aspects of this approach to the Bible were consistent with sound
methods of exegesis. For example, it placed proper literary and
historical constraints on biblical interpretation. It appropriately
emphasized the fact that the Bible was written in certain historical and
cultural contexts by different men with varying literary styles. And,
it is correct exegetical procedure to interpret texts in light of the
historical circumstances under which they were written and in keeping
with contemporary cultural norms. Further, we recognize that the Bible
contains different kinds of literature (e.g., narrative, poetry, etc.)
and that the literary style of Paul differs significantly from that of
Peter. These are legitimate factors to consider when approaching any
text and, when used judiciously, they do not militate against the
biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration (see Hamann, 1977, pp. 74-75).
In general, however, the historical-critical method—with its underlying
presuppositions—has resulted in an extreme skepticism regarding the
historicity of biblical events. Since research is conducted “...as if
there were no God” (Linnemann, 1990, p. 84), this method repudiated the
divine nature of the biblical text. This fundamental presupposition
produced at least two destructive results. First, it excluded the
possibility of God’s acting in history, demanding that all supernatural
events in the Bible be given natural explanations. Second, scholars
considered the Bible to be the end product of a long, evolutionary
process of mere human literary genius. For instance, Julius Wellhausen
(1844-1918) denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and alleged
that it was an amalgamation of different sources (both oral and written)
compiled by a redactor (editor), and thus had no real historical
underpinning. Modern critics continue to hold to such a fragmentary view
of the Pentateuch (Davis, 1993, 19[2]:54). Therefore, many scholars do
not consider the Old Testament to be a unique, divine revelation; it is
just one body of ancient, sacred literature among a myriad of others.
This has compelled many scholars to draw a sharp distinction between
“actual” and “theological” history in the Bible. Such a distinction has
led many biblical students to dismiss historical investigations of the
Old and New Testaments, and to seek instead theological or canonical
meanings (cf. Anderson, 1994 and Childs, 1985, p. 6). For example,
Gerhard von Rad, an influential Old Testament scholar, contrasted
“history” and “story” in the Hebrew Bible. He argued that critical
historical scholarship eliminates the possibility that all Israel was at
Sinai, or crossed the Red Sea as the Bible indicates. Though something
actually happened in Israel’s past, these stories were the constructions
of Israel’s faith (1962, 1:106-107). Thus, one must peel off the layers
of elaborate embellishments from biblical narratives to arrive at
actual history. For example, one should not accept naively that God
actually parted the Red Sea. This was a mythological explanation of some
natural event in Israel’s past. Accordingly, biblical scholars must
recognize the minimum historical core of Old Testament stories while
they pursue their maximum theological meanings.
Similarly, New Testament scholars draw a line of distinction between
the historical Jesus and the Jesus presented in the Gospels. Such
critics argue that many of the words and events attributed to Jesus
actually were put into His mouth by the early church to deal with a
specific problem it faced (Bultmann, 1958, p. 63; cf. Koester, 1993 and
Borg, 1993b, 9[6]:10,62). For example, this idea suggests that the
confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding Roman taxation
(Mark 12:13-17) was not an actual occurrence in Jesus’ life. It was a
story invented by the early church to address a crucial contemporary
issue: “Is it consistent with Christian principles to pay Roman taxes?”
This contrived episode provided authority for paying such taxes.
Additionally, Jesus’ miracles recorded in the Gospels are considered to
be the result of the early church’s theological reflection on, and
proclamation of, Jesus’ ministry (see Fossum, 1994). For example, Marcus
Borg (who denies the historical factuality of the virgin birth, the
star of Bethlehem, the journey of the wisemen, and the shepherds’ visit
to the manger; see 1992, 8[6]:4), offered this interpretation of the
resurrection narratives:
I would argue that the truth of Easter does not depend on whether there
really was an empty tomb, or whether anything happened to the body of
Jesus. The truth of Easter is that Jesus continued to be experienced as a
living reality after his death, though in a radically new way, and not
just in the time of his first followers but to this day. It is because
Jesus is known as a living reality that we take Easter stories
seriously, not the other way around. And taking them seriously need not
mean taking them literally (1993a, 9[4]:9).
To Borg, and other scholars of kindred spirit, the truth of
Christianity depends merely on the internal consistency of its
doctrines, not on the historicity of its miraculous claims (e.g., Jesus’
resurrection). Thus, to be a Christian, one simply should “...live
within [the Bible’s] images and stories and vision of life,” which are
not necessarily historically authentic (see Borg, 1993a, 9[4]:54). Paul,
however, perceived and cautioned against the destructive implications
of such an approach: “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile;
you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). For Paul, Jesus’
resurrection was more than a symbolic expression of his subjective,
continued experience of Jesus as a living reality (see Borg, 1994,
10[2]:15); it was an actual event in history that authenticated Christianity.
APPRAISAL OF THE METHOD
Obviously, the principles and presuppositions of the
historical-critical method have forced its scholastic adherents into an
unenviable position: arguing for the truthfulness of Christianity while
denying its historical foundations. However, rather than retreating into
such untenable positions, it seems that a more respectable route would
be to analyze the method that caused the problem.
This does not mean that the Bible should be exempt from legitimate
historical investigation. God revealed His Word to humankind in human
form. As such, it can be subjected to the same critical questions as
other ancient documents. However, one should not apply more harsh
criteria to the Bible, as is often the case, than those applied to other
historical traditions. Additionally, any method used to assess the
historicity of the Bible must allow for the possibility of all
events—natural and supernatural—or it is insufficient.
Is the generally accepted historical-critical method a proper tool with
which to evaluate the history of Israel and the real, historical Jesus?
A close analysis of this method exposes its insufficiencies for
biblical investigation. Consider some of them.
Radical Skepticism
One problem with this method is its radical skepticism regarding the
reliability of historical documents. Certainly, since some documents are
spurious, one should not gullibly accept as true all historical
statements. Thus, a measure of doubt is in order when one investigates a
historical document. But the historical-critical method presses this to
the extreme. It has shifted the burden on the Bible to prove its own
historical accuracy. Yet, despite the Bible’s many marks of historicity
(see Moreland, 1987, pp. 133-157), these do not satisfy the critic’s
persistent skepticism. The underlying principles of this critical method
disallow the historical accuracy of the Bible. Accordingly, this method
condemns the Bible as historically specious regardless of the proof it
offers for its own credibility, which is not a fair treatment of the
evidence.
Subjective
The historical-critical method purports to be a scientific, rigidly
objective investigation of historical documents. However, as Gerhard
Hasel correctly observed, “...it turns out to be in the grip of its own
dogmatic presuppositions and philosophical premises about the nature of
history” (1991, p. 198). For example, the idea that all past events must
be explained by prior historical causes (correlation), and understood
in terms of analogy to other historical experiences, is subjective. This
places the authenticity of any reported event ultimately at the mercy
of the historian’s experience. So, the fate of an alleged event rests
upon the broadness or narrowness of the critic’s experience (Gredainus,
1988, p. 31).
Proves too much
Additionally, even if critics approach the idea of analogy with a
broader scope than one’s personal experience (i.e., from the experience
of contemporary humanity), this does not solve its difficulties. When
pressed to its logical end, this method screens out all unique
historical events, whether miraculous or nonmiraculous. Accordingly,
when something happens for the first time in history, and there is no
previous analogy, it must be dismissed as unhistorical despite
eyewitness testimony. Such a method cannot confirm the historicity of
the first human landing on the Moon, or any other historical first,
though we know such occurred. In short, a strict application of analogy
“...will tend to declare as unhistorical what we know as a matter of
fact to be historical” (Gredainus, 1988, p. 31; cf. Geisler, 1976, pp.
302-304). Anything that proves too much proves nothing at all.
The Bible makes miraculous claims about historical events. While it is
true that the Universe operates according to natural law, that does not
preclude the possibility of the miraculous. Scientific laws testify to general regularities in nature, but they cannot be used as a testimony against unusual events in particular.
Biblical writers recognized natural regularities such as the changing
of seasons (Genesis 8:22), and often appropriately attributed them to
God as the author of such natural laws. For instance, Amos attributed
natural hydrological processes to God: “[He] calleth for the waters of
the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the Earth: Jehovah is His
name” (Amos 5:8). However, there are certain recorded events that
cannot be explained by natural processes. There simply is no sufficient
natural explanation for the resuscitation of a decomposing body (John
11:39-45). And, it is methodologically improper to deny that such an
event could take place before examining the evidence. Further, it is not
logically naive to acknowledge a supernatural cause of a supernatural
effect.
Additionally, one should not attempt to place theology over against
history, as many historical critics frequently do. It is true that the
Gospel writers, for instance, had a theological purpose behind their
inspired presentations of Jesus’ life. Also, some of Jesus’ miracles, no
doubt, had theological meanings attached to them. For instance,
conservative scholars have long recognized that the cursing of the
barren fig tree represented the vacuous piety of the Jewish nation, for
which it was destroyed (Mark 11:12-14). However, such theological
purpose and meaning do not negate the fact that miracles actually
occurred.
Finally, the historicity of the Bible’s miraculous claims is contingent
on the general reliability of the Bible. Any method employed to
investigate its historicity must include the possibility of the
miraculous. Gerhard Hasel has summarized this point well:
If the reality of the Biblical text testifies to a supra-historical
dimension which transcends the self-imposed limitations of the
historical-critical method, then one must employ a method that can
account for this dimension and can probe into all the layers of depth of
historical experience and deal adequately and properly with the
Scripture’s claim to truth (1991, p. 199).
We should consider legitimate questions of the biblical text
(linguistic, literary, cultural, historical) as we investigate the
meaning of God’s Word. Yet, we must recognize that humanly contrived
methods are subject to both error and abuse. Recognizing this, we should
listen with cautious skepticism when such methods repudiate the truth
of Bible.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Bernhard (1993), “Historical Criticism and Beyond,” Bible Review, 9[5]:9,17, October.
Anderson, Bernhard (1994), “The Changing Scene in Biblical Theology,” Bible Review, 10[1]:17,63, February.
Borg, Marcus (1992), “The First Christmas,” Bible Review, 8[6]:4,10, December.
Borg, Marcus (1993a), “Faith and Scholarship,” Bible Review, 9[4]:9,54, August.
Borg, Marcus (1993b), “Jesus in Four Colors,” Bible Review, 9[6]:10,62, December.
Borg, Marcus (1994), “Thinking About Easter,” Bible Review, 10[2]:15, April.
Bultmann, Rudolph (1958), Jesus and the Word (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Childs, Brevard (1985), Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Davis, Thomas (1993), “Faith and Archaeology: A Brief History to the Present,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 19[2]:54-59, March/April.
Dever, William (1990), “Archaeology and the Bible,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 16[3]:52-58,62, May/June.
Fossum, Jarl (1994), “Understanding Jesus’ Miracles,” Bible Review, 10[2]:16-23,50, April.
Geisler, Norman (1976), Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Greidanus, Sidney (1988), The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hamann, Henry P. (1977), A Popular Guide to New Testament Criticism (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Hasel, Gerhard (1991), Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Koester, Helmut (1993), “Recovering the Original Meaning of Matthew’s Parables,” Bible Review, 9[3]:11,52, June.
Krentz, Edgar (1975), The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Kümmel, Georg Werner (1973), The Theology of the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).
Linnemann, Eta (1990), Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Marty, Martin E. (1994), “Literalism vs. Everything Else,” Bible Review, 10[2]:38-43,50, April.
Moreland, J.P. (1987), Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Rad, Gerhard von (1962), Old Testament Theology, (New York: Harper and Brothers).
Troeltsch, Ernst (1898), Religion in History (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991 reprint).
While studying Bible passages about Calvinism, God's sovereignty, and man's free will, Calvinists frequently turn to Romans 9 as a favorite proof-text. The chapter contains multiple passages, which appear
to support Calvinism. Therefore, this article will analyze the entire
chapter in its context, discussing the arguments raised by Calvinists.
Careful examination of the context of Romans 9
reveals that Paul was explaining God's right to predetermine and use
the nation of Israel to produce the Messiah. The Jews profited greatly
from this arrangement; however, such a relationship did not guarantee
God's mercy unto salvation. God maintained and exercised His right to
use nations to accomplish His promise to Abraham, and furthermore, He
demonstrated His prerogative to save individuals as He deemed best. As
long as Israel would seek to establish their own righteousness by the
law of Moses, over-emphasizing their national part in God's plan, they
would fail to be saved. God's promise for mercy was ultimately extended
to whomever would live by faith, not necessarily those who required the
law of Moses, nor necessarily those who descended from Abraham.
The spiritual salvation of individuals, especially a predestined, unconditional election, is not the subject of Romans 9.
Vindication of God's judgment regarding the nation of Israel is the
primary point. However, detailed analysis of the immediate context,
plus the context of the Old Testament passages, which Paul quoted, clearly teaches that God's mercy has always been conditioned upon man's repentance.
The Calvinistic viewpoint focuses on the following verses, which are quoted here along with typical explanations:
... (for the children not yet being born, nor having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:11-13)
A Calvinistic Argument: Paul is laboring to
show that our salvation is not dependent upon what we do ("not of
works"); furthermore, we are saved based on God's predetermined election
("the purpose of God according to election"). As an example of this
election, Paul selects Jacob and Esau to demonstrate that God loved
Jacob and therefore chose him unto salvation, while God hated Esau and
chose him unto condemnation. God clearly chose and predestined their
fates independent of their works ("the children not yet being born, nor
having done any good or evil"); therefore, God's election is
unconditional, and our destiny is predetermined!
For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have
raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be
declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. (Romans 9:15-18)
A Calvinistic Argument: Here we see God's
sovereignty clearly being exercised ("on whomever I will"). Not man -
but God has chosen who will be saved and who will be destroyed ("not of
him who wills ... but of God who shows mercy"). Moreover, Paul uses
Pharaoh as an example of one whom God hardened, just so God could
demonstrate His power and sovereignty by punishing him. In addition to
the Lord's sovereignty, His predestination again is manifested, because
God raised up Pharaoh for this purpose. It was God who chose, created,
manipulated, hardened, and destroyed.
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" (Romans 9:19-20)
A Calvinistic Argument: Often free-will
advocates claim that Calvinism is not fair. In these verses, Paul
anticipates that charge and condemns all who would question God. We
have no right to challenge God's fairness.
Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory ... (Romans 9:21-23)
A Calvinistic Argument: Admittedly dreadful,
God has chosen, designed, and prepared certain people for destruction.
Their only purpose is to serve as objects of God's wrath, so the elect
can better appreciate God's mercy toward them and His power. Likewise,
the elect were chosen, designed, and prepared to serve - but, they were
fashioned to serve as objects of His mercy and therefore glorify Him.
In these verses we see an undeniable demonstration of God's
sovereignty, predestination, and unconditional election. Before people
were born, and before they had opportunity to perform good or evil, God
divinely chose who would be saved as the objects of His love and mercy,
and He chose who would be destroyed as objects of His hatred and wrath.
In both cases, God's glorious power is demonstrated, and His wrath and
mercy are clearly manifested and contrasted.
Answering the Calvinist, Examining the Context
Were those arguments convincing? To many Calvinists, these
proof-texts are unassailable and entirely persuasive. If these passages
seem overwhelming to you, may I suggest that you are suffering from the
same challenges that confront all good Bible students? Too often, we
bring a prejudiced view to the Bible texts. Even our definitions of
words are too frequently loaded with a bias that essentially proves our
conclusion. In essence, we have guaranteed the triumph of our
conclusion before we begin to reason from the facts, just by our
definitions.
Our prejudices and our fears prohibit us from doing what is
required: Honestly, diligently reading an entire passage based on its
context. After forming an interpretation, we must repeatedly test and
refine our interpretation by comparing it to all
the words in the text, looking for contradictions as well as support -
all the while, ignoring the tug of our human allegiances. ... This
takes time, and regrettably patience is not one of our innate virtues.
Plus, we like to be right. Therefore, too often we rush to judgment,
gravitating toward words that support our view, while unconsciously
dismissing troubling words that detract from our cherished conclusions.
Those words that aggravate, we promise to answer another time, but
conveniently, that time never comes and our prejudiced conclusions
stick. Even worse, if we are not careful, our heart becomes hardened in
our original conviction, because we believe our doctrines overcame
careful examination. When in reality, our beliefs and our heart were
never truly opened to serious challenge.
One goal of this essay is to recognize and sidestep that trap.
We will carefully make a detailed study of this passage, in light of the
Calvinistic arguments, observing and answering each word or phrase that
challenges either side. After you finish reading this article, if you
feel that this responsibility has been betrayed, you would be our friend
by raising this matter to the author's attention. This will enable the author, as well as all readers to benefit through future revisions of these comments.
First, A Word on "Words"
Many people, especially those who identify with Calvinism,
generally associate the words "predestination", "election", and
"foreordination" with Calvin's definition of those terms. However, that
is not necessarily true, and it is certainly not fair.
Please consider "predestination" and "foreordination". Both
words simply mean to "choose beforehand". However, there is nothing in
these words to suggest the basis of the choosing.
Yes, "predestination", "foreordination", and "election" are Bible doctrines. They are affirmed in multiple Scriptures (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5, 11). However, we must be careful not to assume the basis of the choice! We must be careful not to assume that every occurrence of these words supports Calvin's view, because we should not assume his definition of these words!
Yes, God made a choice concerning who would be saved and who
would be lost before the world began. However, we should take the time
to properly define these words, as provided by the Scriptural context -
and not rush to assume a loaded definition. This diligence is key to
realizing the truth and resolving our differences on these points.
There is an old saying about debates, logic, and reasoning that goes something like this, "He who defines uncontested, wins."
... This is a case where many of us have accepted a prejudiced
definition that inherently accepts the Calvinistic conclusions. We must
be careful not to blindly accept any man's definitions without
comparing them to their Scriptural usage. Let each compare his
definition with the other's definitions to make sure that we are "speaking the same thing" (I Corinthians 1:10),
and let us be sure not to "load" our definitions with our conclusions
merely restated, so that our conclusions invariably arise from our
"premises" without thorough examination. As we study Romans 9 in its context, we will repeatedly need to make application of this point.
The Context Surrounding Romans 9
Paul's inspired book to the Romans was written to a church
containing both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Their opposing
backgrounds presented difficult problems for the congregation. Paul
developed common solutions for a common need, in spite of their cultural
differences. He elaborates on God's nature and justification, and he
reminds them of their responsibilities to God as well as to each other.
Frequently, Paul anticipated the questions and reactions of each side
and replied accordingly. This letter is extremely logical, moving from
one issue to the next along a consistent theme of justification by faith
in the gospel for the Jew and Gentile alike. The main points of this
great epistle's chapters are as follows:
Introduction of theme, and Gentiles' condemnation for descent into depraved idolatry.
Jews' condemnation for disobedience to the law of Moses.
All stand guilty before a just God. Therefore, justification by His mercy and our faith.
Justification by faith apart from perfect keeping of Jewish law.
Hope and comfort by faith through God's love and Christ's
sacrifice, contrasted with death, guilt, and condemnation introduced
through Adam's sin, perpetuated by all.
Dead to sin through baptism into Jesus' death, and resurrected for new life in God' service.
Jews freed from bondage of law of Moses, through Christ's death, and all freed from bondage to sin through Jesus' deliverance.
Free from carnal mind to walk after the law of the Spirit. Security in God's love in the face of tribulation.
God's right to reject national Israel for salvation after using them to produce the Messiah.
Israel's rejection of a universal call to both Jew and Gentile to believe on the Lord.
Israel's fall through unbelief, Gentiles salvation by faith, and salvation of a Jewish remnant through grace.
Moral Applications: Therefore, be transformed and live sacrificially, devoted unto God.
Submit to the government and neighbors - put on Jesus Christ.
Do not condemn or cause brother to stumble, based on scruples as a Jew or Gentile.
Serving others and glorifying God with one mind - Paul's personal plans.
Paul's personal salutations and warning to avoid divisive brethren.
Romans 9 is immediately preceded by the profound encouragement, promise, and hope of security in the Lord. (Please read Romans 8:31-39
for background.) After Paul's climatic declarations, both Jew and
Gentile readers might have questioned him based on the case of then
current Israel. At that time, Jewish persecution was increasing. Their
rejection of the Lord was becoming more complete, while the Gentiles
were turning to the Lord in droves. Yet, it was clear at that time,
that as a nation, the Jews were rejecting God and being rejected by Him.
Both Jew and Gentile might ask, "Had God not elected and predestined Israel?"
Paul seems to have anticipated such a question, because he moved from a
proclamation of God's love and the elect's victory in Christ to the
situation regarding God's elect nation, Israel, in chapter 9.
Comments on Romans 9
God's Rejection of Physical Israel
Now, Paul turns his attention toward the state of the Jewish people, his people:
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain
the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the
service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom,
according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)
Ask yourself, "Who is Paul concerned about?" Is it not national, physical Israel? Paul, being a Jew himself (Philippians 3:4-6), declares the subject to be his "brethren" and "countrymen according to the flesh",
not spiritual brethren. The Jewish people were the chosen recipients
of God's blessings. He selected them and delivered from Egyptian
captivity in a glorious manner ("to whom pertain the adoption, the glory").
(Recall the 10 plagues and Pharaoh's defeat in the Red Sea.) God
made covenants with their father Abraham and with the Israelites at
Mount Sinai, and He gave them the law there through Moses ("to whom pertain ... the covenants, the giving of the law"). The nation of Israel ministered and served God in the temple ("to whom pertain ... the service of God").
They were the descendents of the patriarchs and recipients of God's
three-fold promise to Abraham (become great nation, possess Canaan, and
bless all nations through a descendant - Genesis 12:1-7; 13:14-18; 22:17-18).
Finally, it was through the Jewish lineage that Jesus Christ came, Who
was the fulfillment of the seed promise to bless all nations (Galatians 3:16).
The nation of Israel was chosen to be the means of God's
blessings for all people. This choice produced great blessing for them
(consider Deuteronomy 4:1-40), which they did not deserve (Deuteronomy 9:4-7; 4:37; 7:7-8).
Yet, clearly, their national state before God was one of condemnation
and rejection. Paul grieved for them. He even, almost, wished that He
could be personally condemned, in exchange that they might be saved.
But, of course, he would not ultimately do such (Luke 14:26), nor was it even possible.
God's Election By Promise, Not Heritage
Again remembering the backdrop of Romans 8:31-39,
please imagine yourself in the audience of this letter's early reading.
Maybe the Jews felt disgruntled? Maybe the Gentile Christians were
concerned that God's election for them might also fail? Paul seems to
here address the appearance that God's promise and efforts failed for the Jews, for he says:
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but,
"In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the
children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the
children of the promise are counted as the seed. (Romans 9:6-8)
Here we are introduced to the concept of "spiritual Israel"
versus "fleshly" or "physical Israel". In 9:3-5, Paul discussed
Israelites who were identified "according to the flesh". But, here in 9:6, we are told that, "They are not all Israel who are of Israel".
This sentence makes no sense, unless one realizes there are two
distinct groups of people recognized by God as the "people of Israel".
We have already been introduced to fleshly, national Israel, but we have previously inferred they were not all saved (Romans 9:1-3).
Therefore, this second "Israel" figuratively represents those
spiritual people (as opposed to "fleshly" or "physical"), whom God had
rescued from spiritual bondage and given a covenant, just as He rescued
physical Israel from Egyptian bondage and gave them a covenant. This
figure is not unique to this passage, rather it is commonly used
throughout Scripture to refer to a set of spiritual, holy people, which
overlaps but does not completely include the set of all Jewish people.
(Compare this figure to the similar symbol of two "Jerusalems", found in
Galatians 4:21-31.)
We will later see that God's plan was always for the Gentiles to
ultimately have access to this blessed circle, as well as the Jews.
God's intention was never to spiritually save all of Abraham's
seed, just because they were his descendents. The Israelites should
have known and been comfortable with this general concept. They were
intimately familiar with at least two occasions where the patriarch's
lineage was separated and God's promise to Abraham was conferred to one
branch and not the other. For example, God chose Isaac over Ishmael to
receive the promise and covenant given to Abraham (Genesis 17:21),
even though both were sons of Abraham. And, God chose Jacob over Esau
to receive the promise of Abraham, even though both were sons of Isaac
and grandsons of Abraham. Over a thousand years before the Jewish
nation was rejected, God showed the Jews that the blessings were
extended based on God's promise and choice, not on ancestry alone.
God's Election To Produce the Messiah - Not Related to Salvation
For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and
Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but when Rebecca also had
conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children
not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who
calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:9-13)
Now, please ask yourself this question, "Up to this point, has Paul been focused on the election of individuals or nations?"
Go back and reread verses 1-5. Physical, national Israel has clearly
been the topic of Paul's and his readers' shared concern. Now, in these
verses, Paul turns his attention to two specific cases, as examples of
his previous point. Unfortunately, the Calvinist begins reading here -
without the benefit of the previous context. Consequently, although the
passage never mentions salvation, the Calvinist assumes that the
discussion pertains to the predetermined, unconditional election of individuals
unto salvation, specifically Jacob over Esau. However, the context we
have already studied proves the discussion is focused on the judgment of
the Israelite nation.
Furthermore, please notice that Paul quotes two Old Testament passages, which he believed to support his point ("for the children ... it was said to her, ... as it is written").
Therefore, we should be able to look at these two passages in their
context. Under the influence of inspiration, we know that Paul would
not use these passages in conflict with their original meaning (Titus 1:2).
By reading them, as the Jews themselves would have previously read
hundreds of times, maybe we can better understand Paul's point. Did
God's election of Jacob over Esau pertain to an election of individuals unto salvation? Or, did God's choice relate to the roles played by nations in God's scheme to fulfill the promises to Abraham and produce the Messiah?
But the children struggled together within her; and she said,
"If all is well, why am I like this?" So she went to inquire of the
LORD. And the LORD said to her:"Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger." (Genesis 25:22-23)
Who was in Rebecca's womb? She was carrying two individuals,
yes. But, God foresaw two nations, two peoples, and He clearly informs
Rebecca of that truth. It is from this vantage point that God foretells
her that the "the older shall serve the younger".
In other words, the nation that descended from the older brother would
serve the nation that descended from the younger brother. This passage
offers no prophesy or foreordination regarding the two brothers as individuals.
Now some may insist these passages still refer to individuals; therefore, please consider this question, "As individuals, did Esau (the older brother) serve Jacob (the younger brother), or did Jacob serve Esau?". Please recall that it was Esau who threatened to kill Jacob (Genesis 27:41). Jacob fled from Esau (Genesis 27:42-28:5), and when Jacob returned, it was Jacob who was terrified of Esau (Genesis 32:3-22)! Jacob sent all his possessions, including his wives and children, as gifts to Esau and bowed down 7 times before him (Genesis 33:1-11)!
In their lifetimes, Jacob came far closer to serving Esau, than Esau
ever came to serving Jacob. Therefore, if this prophecy referred to the
individuals, it failed! Since God's prophecies cannot fail, this
prophecy of the younger's supremacy must not be referring to individuals!
Furthermore, please remember, that Esau and his people sprang to
supremacy earlier, having kings well before Jacob and the Israelites (Genesis 36:1-43, especially vs. 31). And, Esau's people, the Edomites, tormented the Israelites during their journey to Canaan (Numbers 20:14-21).
It was only after over one thousand years, when Babylon and Greece
successively attacked Edom, that we see a significant distinction.
Israel survives as a remnant, but the Edomites were virtually wiped out (Ezekiel 4:21-22; Ezekiel 25:12-14; 32:29; 25:15; Joel 3:19; Malachi 1:4) with the few survivors being absorbed into the Israelite nation (Amos 9:12).
It was from this vantage point, over a thousand years after the
original prophecy, that the second Old Testament quotation was
originally uttered:
The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. "I
have loved you," says the LORD. "Yet you say, 'In what way have You
loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness." Even though Edom has said, "We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places," Thus says the LORD of hosts: "They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever. (Malachi 1:1-4)
The Edomites, descendents of Esau, were a "people against whom"
God's wrath and indignation moved. They were "hated", because they
were wicked. However, this "hatred" is not absolute, but relative. The
word, "hatred", is only raised in contrast with God's "love" for the
people of Jacob. (Please, recall that the Edomites were blessed with
land and nation as well. Also, compare to Jesus' usage of "hatred"
toward family relative to the required "love" for Him, Luke 14:26.) In this quoted context of Malachi 1,
the ultimate distinction between Esau and Jacob was that God spared a
remnant from Jacob's seed, through whom came the Messiah, but Esau's
seed were destroyed. This context shows applicability to the role of the nations, not the salvation of the original fathers.
Occasionally, a Calvinist may acknowledge that the context of Romans 9:1-15 is indeed dealing with nations, not individuals, and reply, "But, that makes my point even stronger! God is sovereignly saving or condemning entire nations, not just individuals!" This statement overlooks the second aspect of the Calvinist assumption: The context is dealing with a nation's role in God's providence and plan to bring forth the Messiah, not the salvation
of a nation. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that all
Edomites were condemned and that all the Jews were saved. However, that
clearly is not the case. The pages of Scripture contain a multitude of
Jews, who were clearly consigned to hell (for example, Judas, Matthew 26:21-24; the wicked Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' day, Matthew 23:13-26; etc.). Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that this passage relates to the salvation of entire nations, because the entire nation of Jews was clearly not saved!
Paul is not laboring to develop the predestination of individuals
unto salvation or condemnation apart from their works. He is first
demonstrating God's choice to use the Jewish nation to produce the
Messiah and receive Abraham's three-fold blessing (inherit Canaan land,
grow to great nation, and produce seed who would bless all nations).
From this point, he is secondly arguing that God does not owe the Jews
spiritual salvation, even if they are Abraham's seed. People are saved
according to God's promise, not by virtue of their ancestry. The exact
conditions of God's promise for salvation are not discussed here - only
that election is not a right by birth, even for the Jew.
Vindication of God's Election and Reprobation
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (Romans 9:14-16)
Paul's discussion continues by anticipating a charge from a
dissatisfied Jew. (Recall, it was the Jews, over whom Paul was
grieving. It was the Jews, whom Paul described as receiving God's
blessing of Abraham's promise. It was the Jews, who were not entirely
saved, despite being Israelites according to the flesh. Romans 9:1-7). As is so often the case, when we do not get what we want, we cry out, "That's not fair! I have been robbed!" Paul seems to anticipate such a reaction, so he observes God's right to determine the basis
for one's reception of mercy. It is God's mercy that is extended unto
salvation; therefore, God gets to choose who receives that mercy. We
don't get to choose who receives mercy. No matter how deeply we want,
no matter how diligently we strive, we cannot choose who will be the
recipients of God's mercy. That alone is His sovereign choice. ...
However, let us be careful here: Does this passage reveal the basis of God's choice? Could God choose people apart from their works? Yes, that would be His choice! Alternatively, could God choose people based on their works? Yes, that would be His choice! Or, could
God choose people with red hair, or people over 6 feet tall, or ...?
Yes, He could choose based on whatever purpose He chooses! That alone
is His right and prerogative. However, that purpose is not manifested
here! Only assumption and prejudice can inject a basis into the
passage. (Again, we must be careful not to assume Calvin's connotation
of election and predestination.) We will have to look elsewhere to
learn the basis of God's choice and bestowment of mercy...
He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy. Happy is the man who is always reverent, But he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity. (Proverbs 28:13)
Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:7)
... be clothed with humility, for "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble." (I Peter 5:5b)
Why does God draw near to some people, but not others? Why does
God extend mercy and grace to some people, but not others? These verses
clearly teach that penitent humility is the basis of God's choice.
These are the people that God has chosen as the objects of His mercy.
He could have chosen selfish, proud, cruel, wealthy, intelligent, or
strong people, but instead, He chose humble people. We cannot challenge
that choice. It is His mercy, and He can extend it to whomever He
wishes. No matter how hard we try, we cannot change God's basis for
election. For example, we cannot be proud or stiff-necked and receive
God's grace, because he has chosen humility as one characteristic of the
elect. He is the One setting the rules and making the decisions - not
us - and rightly so.
Indeed, this was the very point made to Moses in Paul's
quotation: The Israelites had severely broken God's covenant through
the golden calf (Exodus 32). God informed Moses that He would no longer travel with them (Exodus 33:1-6). Moses pleaded with mercy on behalf the people (Exodus 33:7-13). The Lord agreed to grant mercy to Moses, and He promises Moses salvation ("I will give you rest"), but not to the people (Exodus 33:14). Moses again pleaded for mercy (Exodus 33:15-16). And, the Lord agrees to go with the Israelites at Moses' requests, but He answers with the above quotation (Exodus 33:17-19).
Although God respected Moses, and although He often granted mercy to
the people for Moses' sake, neither He nor the people possessed ultimate
control over God's terms for final rest. No matter how diligently
Moses struggled or willed, it was God's choice, and Moses could not
change God's final decision!
As a side note of clarification, please keep in mind that this
entire discussion refers to those previously condemned under sin (Romans 3:23). God, by force of His just nature, would be indebted to bestow salvation upon any who kept His law perfectly (Romans 4:1-4).
However, since all have sinned, all are in need of mercy. Therefore,
that impractical exception of perfect obedience, is not even considered
here.
"Not ... But"
The keen Calvinist may observe, "But, the text plainly says that salvation is 'not of him who wills, ... but of Him who shows mercy! This statement completely eliminates the influence of man's will on his salvation."
The key to proper understanding of this critical verse is to
recognize the "not-but" construction. This phrasing, commonly used
throughout the New Testament, is frequently employed not to eliminate one constituent, but rather it is used to emphasize one factor over another. It is not a statement of exclusion, instead it declares relative significance. The following examples make this abundantly clear:
"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life ..." (John 6:27)
Then Jesus cried out and said, "He believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me" (John 12:44)
In this first verse, is Jesus commanding us not to work for
earthly food? Clearly, the answer is no! Elsewhere, we are commanded
to work under the penalty of not receiving food to eat (II Thessalonians 3:10).
Or, in the second verse, is Jesus commanding us not to believe in Him?
Again, the answer is clearly no! Elsewhere, in the same book, John
expresses that belief in Jesus is the very purpose of his letter (John 20:30-31). Jesus is merely emphasizing the root of belief in Him. Belief in Jesus is ultimately an expression of belief in the Father.
In the case of Romans 9:21,
God's determination for the basis of receiving mercy is more essential
than our will to be saved. To justify, please consider the case where
God does not wish to extend mercy. Can man save himself then?
Emphatically, no! God's will is supreme and cannot be thwarted (Isaiah 43:13).
No matter how vigorously such a man seeks to assert his will, he
cannot escape God's justice. (Recall Pharaoh as example: Did he want
to be judged and destroyed? How hard did he seek to establish his
will?) God alone has the right, authority, and power to offer mercy
upon whatever basis He chooses. However, does this fact necessitate or
elaborate on God's will or the basis of His extended mercy? No! He
could just as easily choose to extend mercy based on some conditional
character trait as based on some secret, unconditional purpose. His
choice is the crucial one, because man cannot force God to choose,
although God could force man to choose, if He so desired. However,
recognition of the supremacy of His choice in no way eliminates nor
excludes our choice any more than labor for spiritual food eliminates
labor for physical food, or any more than belief in the Father negates
belief in the Son! We must be careful not to insert our prejudices into
this declaration. We must allow God to declare His will to us, lest we
be found fighting God.
God's Rejection of Israel Compared to Pharaoh
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. (Romans 9:17-18)
As further proof to his point, Paul recalls a negative example,
the reprobate king of Egypt, Pharaoh. God hardened this man's heart,
prolonging his rebellion, so God could use him as an object of wrath to
demonstrate His power. Truly, this man did not receive God's mercy. In
fact, God chose to harden his heart. However, we must ask, "Was this hardening apart from Pharaoh's will or in concert with it?"
The passage does not say, because that question is not Paul's concern.
He is defending God's right to manipulate the obstinate and use them
for His own purposes. He is not discussing how these objects originally became obstinate. We will have to look to the background of this Old Testament reference to answer that question:
"But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go,
no, not even by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out My hand and strike
Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that he will let you go. (Exodus 3:19-20)
And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see
that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your
hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not
let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD:
"Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he
may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn." ' " (Exodus 4:21-23)
Afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let My people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness.'" And Pharaoh said, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go." (Exodus 5:1-2)
God knew that Pharaoh would not release the people from captivity. Yet, He commanded Pharaoh ("that I should obey His voice")
to let the people go free, and He threatened Pharaoh, if he did not
release the people. What was the result of this command and threat? It
was the same result produced whenever any proud or arrogant man
receives a command or threat. God first manipulated Pharaoh's proud
heart simply by issuing a command under the threat of severe penalty for
disobedience. Does this imply that God was responsible for the guilt
associated with Pharaoh's hardened heart?
No! First, please recall that Pharaoh had already proved himself
to be an extremely wicked king. His predecessor was fearful of the
Israelites and first subjected them to severe labor and bondage (Exodus 1:8-14). When that failed to reduce their numbers, he instructed the Hebrew midwives to kill the males as they were born (Exodus 1:15-21). When they failed to execute his command, the predecessor commanded all the Israelites to kill their male newborns (Exodus 1:22).
Eventually, this king died, and the Pharaoh under discussion came to
power. Did he recognize the severity of the Israelites' bondage, the
cruelty of their labor, or the wickedness of their population control?
No! In fact, we see that Israelites cried out to the Lord under this
king's rule because of their cruel bondage (Exodus 2:23-24).
There is no indication that he relaxed any of their labors.
Furthermore, after Moses spoke to him, Pharaoh accused the people of
being lazy and idle. He ordered their labor to be increased by forcing
them to fetch straw for their bricks, and the Israelites' leaders were
beaten for failure to make the existing quota (Exodus 5:4-19).
Truly, this man had proven himself to be extremely wicked, well before
Moses ever spoke a word to him. He could have been destroyed by the
Lord before Moses spoke with Pharaoh, yet God spared him for some
reason.
Secondly, Pharaoh's hardening was not performed contrary to his
will or apart from it. Ten different times, the Scriptures speak of God
hardening Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21-23; 7:1-6; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). But, five different times, the Scriptures also speak of Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Exodus 5:2; 8:15, 32; 9:34; see also I Samuel 6:6)!
In fact, the Scriptures establish a pattern during these plagues.
Each time, Moses reissued the command to release the people, Pharaoh
would harden his heart, causing Moses to bring a plague on the Egyptians
from the Lord. Eventually, Pharaoh would beg Moses to cease the
plague, promising to let the people go. On one occasion, Pharaoh
confessed that he had indeed sinned, and it is from this occasion that
Paul takes his quote:
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Rise early in the morning and
stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD God of the
Hebrews: "Let My people go, that they may serve Me, for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
Now if I had stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with
pestilence, then you would have been cut off from the earth. But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth. As yet you exalt yourself against My people in that you will not let them go.
Behold, tomorrow about this time I will cause very heavy hail to rain
down, such as has not been in Egypt since its founding until now. ...
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward heaven, that
there may be hail in all the land of Egypt -- on man, on beast, and on
every herb of the field, throughout the land of Egypt." And Moses
stretched out his rod toward heaven; and the LORD sent thunder and hail,
and fire darted to the ground. And the LORD rained hail on the land of
Egypt. So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, so very heavy
that there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a
nation. And the hail struck throughout the whole land of Egypt, all
that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail struck every
herb of the field and broke every tree of the field. Only in the land
of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, there was no hail. And Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "I have sinned this time. The LORD is righteous, and my people and I are wicked. Entreat the LORD, that there may be no more mighty thundering and hail, for it is enough. I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer." (Exodus 9:22-28)
God warns Pharaoh that He could destroy him immediately, but he
has spared him solely for the purpose of demonstrating His power. And,
so God sent another plague, because Pharaoh continued to exalt himself
above God's people! Pharaoh was to blame for the guilt of the plagues -
not God. After the hail destroyed so much of their land and people, a
crushed Pharaoh finally repents, acknowledges his sin, and confesses the
Lord's righteousness. Was the Lord responsible for Pharaoh's sin? No!
The Scriptures confirm that Pharaoh was guilty, because he sinned.
But, this was not the end of Pharaoh's story...
So Moses said to him, "As soon as I have gone out of the city, I
will spread out my hands to the LORD; the thunder will cease, and there
will be no more hail, that you may know that the earth is the LORD's.
But as for you and your servants, I know that you will not yet fear the LORD God."
Now the flax and the barley were struck, for the barley was in the head
and the flax was in bud. But the wheat and the spelt were not struck,
for they are late crops. So Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh and
spread out his hands to the LORD; then the thunder and the hail ceased,
and the rain was not poured on the earth. And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants. So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the LORD had spoken by Moses. (Exodus 9:29-35)
Here we see another way that God hardened Pharaoh's heart:
leniency. If the Lord had continued to oppress the Egyptians, Pharaoh
certainly would have crumbled underneath God's hand. But, by
deliberately sending incrementally stronger plagues, and by relenting at
Pharaoh's cries for relief, God effectively hardened Pharaoh's heart.
Each time Pharaoh "escaped" a plague or sensed leniency, he would harden
his heart. Thereby, both God and Pharaoh worked in concert to harden
his heart. Pharaoh provided an arrogant, proud heart, suitable for
hardening, and God provided the commands, threats, and leniency - an
environment suitable for hardening.
Now some might argue that God's actions toward Pharaoh made God
in part responsible; however, it is critical to note that God uses the
same methods on the elect:
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness,
forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God
leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "will render to each one according to his deeds" ... (Romans 2:4-6)
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (II Peter 3:9)
The Lord is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). He offers longsuffering, incremental chastisement, and relief to all, even those He loves (Hebrews 12:5-11).
Yet, it produces salvation in some and hardening in others. Why?
What is the difference? Look back at Pharaoh. God supplied an
environment to promote change (repentance for some, hardening for
others). But, upon whom does Scripture lay the final blame? Pharaoh!
He is the one who sinned, because he chose to use a God-given
opportunity for enlightenment, repentance, and relief as an opportunity
to sin even more - not once, but ten different times! In a similar
example, even the heathen Philistines recognized God's longsuffering and
Pharaoh's hardening of his heart (I Samuel 6:5-6).
In both cases, it could have gone either way. Pharaoh could have
repented, because: God touched his heart; Pharaoh recognized God;
Pharaoh recognized his sin; and he repented outwardly (Exodus 9:14, 27).
But, Pharaoh chose to further sin, while the Philistines chose to
repent under the hand of God's plagues. They were healed (I Samuel 6:1-16), while Pharaoh was temporarily used for God's purpose and finally destroyed.
Clearly, God, Who declares "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10),
knew Pharaoh's heart and that he would reject God, as God foretold.
However, God exercised His right choose the punishment of Pharaoh, so
that it would suit his purposes. This is Paul's point: God's right to
manipulate the obstinate for His end. Could it be that just as God
persevered with Pharaoh, so that He might exercise some greater purpose,
He also persevered with physical Israel, so that He might exercise some
greater purpose, such as the production of the Messiah? Paul will
continue to develop this theme and drive this point home with his
readers.
Vindication of God's Condemnation and Manipulation
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who
has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply
against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have
you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay,
from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for
dishonor? (Romans 9:19-21)
Paul, again anticipating the reader's reaction, considers a
follow-up question. Based on the context, the unbelieving, rejected,
even hardened Jewish nation appears to be the original concern (verses
1-6, 14). Therefore, it is concluded that the anticipated charge would
most likely arise from a disagreeable Jew, seeking to justify himself by
charging God with unfairness. In essence, this impenitent Jew is
blaming God for his own rejection and condemnation, as if God's judicial
hardening or manipulation was the cause of his original sin and
ultimate judgment.
This challenge is sternly answered - not because the reader has
challenged the truthfulness of the message, but because the reader has
accepted its truthfulness and accused God in dissatisfaction and
desperation. Therefore, Paul reminds his readers the infinitely removed
positions that they and God occupy by quoting two Old Testament
passages. The first passage reminds us of God's right to manipulate the
life of the individual (Isaiah 45:9).
Specifically, it was a warning to the Persian King, Cyrus, whom God
raised up and used to release the Israelites from Babylonian captivity (Isaiah 45:1-9).
Please note again, this election and fashioning was not one unto
salvation, but of providential preparation, so that Cyrus might do a
great work in saving God's physical people. The second quotation is
taken from Jeremiah's lesson received at the potter's house:
... So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. (Jeremiah 18:1-4)
In this parable, the potter represents the Lord, and the clay
represents the children of Israel during the days of Jeremiah. First,
please note that the clay became "marred in his hands". The potter's intention was not that the clay be marred, because after the marring occurs, he then forms it "into another pot".
Clearly, the potter had not predestined what would occur, because his
intention was originally to fashion "another" pot than the final one.
Then the word of the LORD came to me: "O house of Israel, can I
not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in
the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at
any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn
down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil,
then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be
built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me,
then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. Now
therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem,
'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and
devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.'" (Jeremiah 18:5-11)
God proclaims His power to fashion Israel as He saw fit, just as
the potter did. However, please notice that their "fashioning" was not
independent of their will. In fact, it was a consequence of it! God
promised to change His plans for a nation, based on whether it repented
or turned to evil! Here God clearly manifests His basis for mercy or
wrath, and what is the basis? Humility, repentance, and obedience - or
the lack thereof. Admittedly, this passage merely proves that a nation
could exhibit free moral will through either repentance or disobedience,
but can a nation exhibit a collective free will, if its individual
constituents have none?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory ... (Romans 9:22-23)
Here, Paul begins to more directly introduce his point: God
merely persevered with Jewish nation, so that He might work out a larger
scheme. The vast majority of physical Israel, who rejected God in
faithless rebellion and idolatry, and who rejected and continue to
dismiss His Messiah, were "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction".
Their sins and stubbornness warranted wrath much earlier, but God
suffered long with them, so that He might work out His purpose through
them.
Frequently, Calvinists may observe the phrases, "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction", and "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory", and assume Calvin's connotation of preparation - an unconditional, individual predestination.
Now, we mortals can discuss how we must exercise longsuffering in
following through on projects or activities that we start. How often
do we naively, ignorantly, accidentally, or even deliberately dig a hole
for ourselves and must therefore labor to dig our way back out?
But God!? How can a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God ever
exercise longsuffering with Himself? If He has sovereignly decided,
decreed, and designed these wicked machines, then He is really being
longsuffering with Himself! His efforts exerted upon these vessels that
He wholly prepared reduces to a struggle with Himself!
How can He possibly exercise longsuffering with them, essentially
Himself, unless He failed to foresee, control, or prepare for these
exasperating beings? ... Or, unless He gave them an option, and He now
forebears with their abuse of His freedom? ... If this passage teaches
Calvinism, then it contradicts Calvin's view of a supreme God. Since it
is therefore self-contradictory, Calvinism is wrong - or this verse is
wrong. (Truth does not contradict itself or Scripture - Titus 1:2, 9; John 17:17.)
The ongoing context reveals the manner of preparation: God's
general plan to redeem both Jew and Greek in Christ through faith!
Suffice it to say, this involved some "preparation". Lastly, Paul's
letter to Timothy shows that the vessel's "preparation" is also
partially dependent upon the "vessel":
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. (II Timothy 2:20-21)
God has prepared the plan, the Man (Jesus Christ), and the means.
However, we must avail ourselves of that gracious plan through
penitent faith, if we hope to partake in those glorious blessings.
God's Usage of the Jews to Save the Gentiles
... even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God." Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth." And as Isaiah said before: "Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah." (Romans 9:24-29)
As we approach Paul's closing points in this section, we are
reminded that God long ago planned and prophesied to bring the Gentiles
into His kingdom. The Gentiles had not enjoyed the blessings of being a
chosen people, as had the Jews. The Gentiles had enjoyed none of the
blessings that Paul mentioned at the beginning of this context (9:4-5).
Yet, in the Jewish Old Testament, God had foretold that He would claim
the Gentiles as His beloved people. At the time of those prophecies,
He was preparing the means of salvation for spiritual Israel (consisting
of faithful Jew and Gentile), and He was preparing the occasion of
physical Israel's destruction. Both were realized in the rejection of
God's Messiah and His kingdom.
In contrast to the Gentiles' hope, God foretold that only a
remnant would be saved of the Israelites. In fact, if it had not been
for God's plans to spare a remnant, they would have been annihilated
like all the other nations that had preceded them. As we learn later in
Romans, the nation of Israel had not yet outlived its usefulness.
However, its days were drawing near, when its role would be completed
and God would end the Jewish nation, just like preceding nations.
Righteousness Promised By Faith
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue
righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of
faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained
to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by
faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at
that stumbling stone. As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a
stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will
not be put to shame." (Romans 9:30-33)
Here is Paul's closing summary for this section: The Gentiles
will be saved, because they sought God through faith. However, even
though used by God, the Jewish nation was condemned by God, because they
had sought to establish their own righteousness, independent of God,
based on perfect obedience to the law. They had no excuse for their
obstinance. God's rejection and hardening of the Jews was accomplished
by requiring them to do the very thing they detested. They had to
recognize that God would save the world through one of their brethren,
Jesus, and not through the whole nation. They had to trust in God
through His Messiah, not their twisted version of the Messiah, not their
ancestry, and not their obedience to the law.
Summary
It is ironic that a passage, designed to exemplify God's right to
choose who will be saved and by what means, has been used to mandate an
election and calling defined by a man! Calvinism, and so called
"orthodoxy", have philosophically defined God's sovereignty, such that
it is impossible for God to choose who will be saved, at least outside
of Calvin's choice. Free-will, man's choices, and an individual's
character are theoretically prohibited from serving as a basis of God's
choice, even though this passage was designed to vindicate God's right
to choose who would be saved. However, if we look closely at Romans 9
and its referenced passages, we can observe where God has manipulated
nations in His grand scheme, or judicially hardened rebellious
individuals. Yet, He still allowed the ultimate fate of both nation and
individual to be chosen through either penitent obedience or stubborn
disobedience.
Yes, Romans 9 clearly teaches God's
sovereignty and the immutability of God's election. However, we have
learned to be careful and not to interject our prejudices into the
context. By exercising diligence (II Timothy 2:15; II Peter 3:14-18),
we have examined the context of the Old Testament passages quoted by
Paul, so we could clearly see that God's unconditional election only
applied to the role of nations in producing the Messiah, not the salvation of individuals (Genesis 25:22-23; Malachi 1:1-4). Although God may judicially harden an individual, it only occurs after
an individual demonstrates himself to be opposed to redemption through
his rejection of God's message, God's discipline, and God's mercy (Exodus 3:19-20; 4:21-23; 5:1-2; 9:22-28).
Finally, God may certainly fashion either a nation or an individual
for salvation or condemnation, but God will modify His plans based on
the subject's response (Jeremiah 18:5-11).
Only through one's cleansing himself of evil works may he be fashioned
and prepared for salvation, good works, and use by the Master (II Timothy 2:20-21). Yes, God has made an irrevocable choice, and His choice is to save those who humbly trust in His Son, repent, and obey (Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; I Peter 5:5; Matthew 7:21-23). The gospel is designed to invite, touch, and draw these people, and it will by no means fail, because God is its Author (Isaiah 55:11).
