whats the backdrop of romans 9? well its romans 8 immediately and romans 1-7 obviously before, which is about what? the gospel.. and romans 8 is about eternal security - romans 8 is an amazing chapter. 8:29-30 is probably the classic - 'for those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, he also called: those He called He also justified; those He justified He also glorified' - the chain here is completely God's action: 'those He' - He does everything.. i take romans 9 as Paul asking at the beginning of that chapter look at all these amazing promises in romans 1-8 all for us through His mercy, yet what of God's promises to Israel? if they have fallen we have no reason to trust Him in His promises to us - look at the sudden break from the end of 8 (rapture) to 9 (sorrow at his kinsmen being cut off).. first question then - why does Paul wish himself in chapter 9, verse 3 to be acursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his brethren? the Greek word here for 'cut off' is 'anathema' which is associated with Hell - why would Paul appear to be so anguised if all are to be saved or if hes just talking about 'historical election' as some have suggested? why would he ask to be accursed for his brethern if nobody will end up accursed? ok, verse 6-12 i think Paul is saying that not all those within Israel are Israel, or are part of the covenant God made with Abraham because of their unbelief.. he takes the example of Jacob and Esau in verse 10-12 - read verse 11: yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election (read romans 8 again) might stand: not by works but by Him who calls', verse 13: 'Jacob I loved, Esau I hated'..
the key verse i think is verse 14 - Paul states the problem: 'what then shall we say? is God unrighteous (i.e. for choosing Jacob and not Esau)? Not at all!' his answer is verse 15: 'for He says to Moses - I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and i will have compassion on whom i have compassion - it does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy'..
but isn't verse 15 just restating the problem?! i.e. is God unrighteous that he chooses one and not the other i.e. jacob and not esau? 'No!' because he has mercy on who he has mercy - what?! that surely doesnt make any sense(?) paul only seems to answer the problem by restating the problem(!)..
the key is in verse 15 which is a direct quote from Exodus 33:19.. look at Exodus 33 and the surrounding context (keep in mind here the 1st century people remembered passages alot better than we can, so if Paul quotes part of a text they'll immediately recall the context of it) - in verse 18 Moses says 'show me your Glory' to which God answers 'I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you and I will proclaim my Name, the LORD (Yahweh), in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I have mercy etc.'
here the Hebrew of Exodus 33 is parallel to Exodus 3: the famous burning bush incident where God speaks to Moses and reveals His Name for the first time in covenant history - the LORD or Yahweh (YHVH) - Exodus 3 verse 14: 'I AM WHO I AM' (Yahweh), notice the parallel with 'I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHO I HAVE MERCY' - in Hebrew the grammatical structure is identical (even more so than English).. what does Yahweh the name mean? well it seems to mean something like I AM Who I AM - my nature is determined by nothing outside of me, I am fully self-determined in my nature, nothing outside of me causes me to be the way that I Am i.e. in philosopher's parlance God is a necessary being and not contingent (as is everything in the universe).. so what is being said in Exodus 33, with the same language structure of chapter 3 and all? well, basically God is saying I have mercy on who I have mercy - meaning my will and my choice to have mercy is determined by nothing outside of me (see romans 9:15 - not mans desire or effort but Gods mercy), nothing outside of me makes me act the way I do (i.e. nobody chooses God through their own willpower and then God has no choice but to have mercy on them because of their choosing Him first).. the key is exodus 33: Moses asks show me your glory and God reveals His Name - i.e. parallel in the Bible, the glory of God is revealed in new ways through His Names being revealed (at least 5 in Exodus) - the climax of which is Jesus: His Name is Yeshua or salvation - as Paul says all over the NT God's Glory has been finally and perfectly revealed in Jesus.. also read all the times in his epistles Paul says 'so that no man should boast' - we will not boast because we did not choose God, there was nothing about us i.e. intelligence, spirituality etc. that caused us to choose God and boast against someone else who wasnt intelligent or spiritual enough to do the same thing.. it is the perfect tool of humility..
first of all i need to ask what is the concept of Gods righteousness in the book? different views - parallel with His salvation/covenant faithfulness (ala NT Wright), some kind of abstract moral quality (traditional reformed view) etc. but i think the best explination (according to Piper) is in chapter 3 of Romans and it basically reads like it is God's unswerving dedication to uphold His Glory (read the chapter esp. verse 23-26 - btw it might say justice or just instead of righteous in your Bible but its the same word in Greek justice and righteousness is 'dikaiosyne' i think)..
so maybe i can put the pieces together in romans 9 if i havent lost you (not sure how clear this all is exactly).. basically i think pauls anguish is in God choosing some and not others (i.e. on the ground in this case, it's in God not choosing israel/jews but the gentiles for salvation at the present moment), and he asks is there then unrighteousness in God? and he answers this by restating the problem seemingly (i.e. God says He will have mercy on who He will have mercy).. but the key is the quote of exodus 33 which seems to be the restatement of the problem - what hes actually saying is that NO, God is not unrighteous because in Exodus 33 God's Glory (revealed in His Name) is to choose who He wants to have mercy on sovereignly, apart from anything/anyone else determining His choice but He Himself (in Exodus 33 His choice was of Israel), and in Romans 3 God's righteousness is to unswervingly uphold His Glory (a notion which goes above and beyond the two definitions of righteousness usually debated), therefore if He chooses who He wants for salvation in Romans 9 He is not unrighteous because in so doing He unswervingly upholds His Glory/Name (here revealed in Exodus 33 as His having mercy on who He wants) in so doing (i.e. in choosing freely of any outward constraints on His will) and therefore is not unrighteous because the Glory of His Name is upheld and thus His righteousness is upheld and displayed.. and Paul has answered the question, which is seemingly unanswerable otherwise..
then move back to Romans 9:16 - therefore it does not depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy - this sentence straight after the exodus 33 quote suddenly now becomes crystal clear (at least for me), then verse 17 - the Pharoah quote, look again, 'that I might display my power in you and that my NAME (read Glory) might be proclaimed in all the earth.' (and Pharoah in Exodus was judged by God?).. verse 18 - 'therefore God has mercy on who he wants to have mercy and he hardens, whom he wants to harden.'
verse 19 : 'why then does God still find blame? for who resists His will' - the question is if God has mercy on who He wills and yet leaves who He wills to harden or to judgement it seems like its open for us to ask how then is anyone blameworthy because nobody has a choice in what God does (here perhaps we could appeal to the fact that nobody deserves God's mercy)..
i think the whole crux of this is in verse 21: 'does not the potter have the right' - whats the problem? i think we're so caught up in human rights and individuality (which is ok on one level) and being nice and PC to everyone that man comes before God, but actually God's rights come before ours always.. the root of it all for me boils down to is your theology man centered or God centered: did God come to die because He loves us so much and He needs us etc. or did He do it for His Glory and our everlasting joy in seeing and savouring His Glory forever? i think so much theology is person or human centered it's almost like self-help/God loves me etc.
maybe im being unfair but i think its no surprise this theology has had such a big impact on the western church considering our cultural self-centered feelgood climate..
verse 22 and onwards, maybe ill leave a quote of jonathan edwards for you:
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/10/?pageSize=25&pageNumber=7
Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 528)
for Edwards we see more of God's Glory throughout eternity as the riches of His mercy are more & more unfolded to us (and that is set against a backdrop of His justice displayed more & more in the judgement of sinners)..
now how do i feel about that? well.. i think maybe i cant comprehend it all now but i believe God will give us the emotional capacity to understand and see the wisdom of His choices when all is revealed..
i would say read (im sure you cant listen unless you have an ipod to download on) john pipers entires series on romans 9 (linked above) - i think its killed it for me..
No comments:
Post a Comment