PART I: REFLECTION
The hardest part about this passage for me (at first, anyway) was how this passage relates to me. Paul talks about Israel and divine election here. More commonly, some (Calvinists in particular) use this chapter as Biblical basis for predestination and reprobation. It puzzled me how this passage relates to me.
Yet, beyond these intense theological issues, this passage reflects the character of God. The most straight-forward character we see is God's sovereignty, shown in the perseverance of His Word and the finality of His choices. At this point, I'm sure Paul has struggled deeply with the fact that his people, supposedly God's chosen, have rejected the Messiah and are heading towards certain death. Just like others in the Bible (such as Habakkuk), Paul questions God's character. "Are You not the all-powerful and all-loving God I grew up learning about?" Paul would have asked. "The way I see the situation right now, if You are loving, You must not be powerful enough to stop my people from turning away. And if You are all-powerful, You must not love us. Why else would You have given up on those You have chosen Yourself?" It's a very valid question, one that is asked (earnestly) by God-fearing men and women today, and at the same time (mockingly) by atheists and those who would disprove the Christian/Judaic Yahweh. Like any earnest seeker of the truth, Paul finds the answer to his doubt in the words "it is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." (v. 6) Paul came to the conclusion that God was still all-powerful and all-loving (along with a slew of other traits), but that physical Israel was not the same as spiritual Israel. Man, and not God had failed.
I don't know what God's plan is for Israel. Some say that God will save all of physical, national Israel before the final Judgement, while others maintain that the Church has become the new Israel and that God is finished with the old Israel. However, this reflection isn't the place to debate that, nor am I the most qualified person to speak about this. What is clear from verses 6-9 is that God's love is not limited to national and racial boundaries, nor is it limited to bloodline and status. Paul shows that the requirements to becoming a child of God (and thereby becoming a recipient of His love) is determined by the grace of God alone, and not by race, gender, or blood relation. This already is a huge departure from humanity, where until recent history (and even today) love and preference is largely based on culture and status.
Paul illustrates his point by bringing in Jacob and Esau. Although they were both children of Abraham's promised child (Isaac), God demonstrates both His love and His sovereignty by choosing Jacob over Esau. God's love is demonstrated when He chose the younger instead of the elder. God broke the tradition of favouring the eldest and showed the boundless reach of His love. God's sovereignty is demonstrated by the finality of this seemingly random decision. After all, neither had done anything good or bad, so God couldn't be credited with saying that He chose Jacob on the basis of works or character. God simply says "I choose you to do My work", and no one can say anything about it. Again, this is in huge departure from human norms, where workers are selected on the basis of ability. These human choices are based on what others do and do not reflect our absolute sovereignty (or control) over a situation. By contrast, when God chooses the weak and the flawed to do His work, He displays His sovereignty by being the One who commissions and the One who sustains.
So what does all this have to do with me? This passage re-affirms my faith in God being true to His Word, His sovereignty over the world (and by extension, my life), and His love for me, which is based on no standard but God's own. And I give thanks to You, my God, for being all these things to me.
PART II: DOCTRINE
I do want to comment on the differing theology that arises from this passage, for two reasons. Firstly, because I constantly struggle with the doctrine of election. This is a written record for myself that I can read to remind myself of what I've found, and a place to recant if God shows me that what I wrote here was wrong. Secondly, there is a doctrinal dispute centred largely around this passage, and I wouldn't be doing it justice if I didn't at least briefly talk about it.
Several commentators maintain that God was talking about choosing who was going to inherit the covenant, the Law, and the bloodline of the Messiah, and not about their eternal destinations. I agree with this viewpoint. There are several passages that point to the universality of God's gift of salvation (such as 2 Peter 3:9). More importantly however, in my view a God who picks by flipping a coin or rolling dice can't be called fair (which includes "just", "good", and "impartial", all of which are expounded on in various places in the Bible). I also wouldn't call such a God sane (cringes at the lightning bolt coming down).
Some might say that God's justice should mean that none repent, even though God had to "fight" with His human delegate. Jonah himself said to God "I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." (Jonah 4:2) This view of God relenting from the destruction of Nineveh (despite its lack of status as chosen) is incompatible with the view of a God choosing a predetermined group of elect and sending the rest to destruction.
Finally, commentators parallel Romans 9:13 (or Malachi 1:2-3) with Jesus' words in Luke 14:26. Jesus wasn't telling his disciples to hate their families, but rather that their love for God must be so great their other relationships (even their closest ones) must be far removed. The same can be said of God's relationship with Jacob and Esau. Both were extremely blessed by God, yes, but God's love for Jacob was so great that His love for Esau was incomparable. Commentators also note that the Biblical "hate" actually means "to love less". Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but it doesn't hurt the viewpoint I'm promoting here.
Now some might ask about Pharaoh, and God's words about him. That, unfortunately, is not part of the passage I'm looking at, so I have no answers.
Matthew
No comments:
Post a Comment