Romans 9 & predestination

here's an overview of the argument for predestination from Romans 9 (based largely on John Piper's book The Justification of God) that i wrote for a friend a while ago..

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. . .
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)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/10/?pageSize=25&pageNumber=7

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..

notes from terry virgo's sermon on elijah & prayer

terry virgo - elijah/prayer notes (1 Kings 18:41-46)

elijah prayed the rain would come - church history sees prayer for rain as synonomous with revival..
when James wants to use an OT example for importance of prayer he picks out Elijah - who, in James 5, he says was a man just like us, a man who prayed for rain.. scripture's encouragment is that all these bible heroes are just like us - not special, not angels, not weird, just like us - yet they got into such a relationship with God that they could release all kinds of things and arrest nations..

some of the features of Elijah's prayer
1. Elijah removed himself from the crowd.. he went up a mountain to be alone, as opposed to the celebrations that may of been going on after God vindicated Himself against Baal's prophets etc. in that sense Elijah is very much like Jesus - Jesus wouldnt get caught up in other people's agenda, the crowd's excitment - he withdrew..similarly elijah withdrew like Jesus & wouldnt let other people dictate his program.. as did the early apostles in acts - when they saw thousands save & social needs began to arise with the poor they didnt let it form their agenda - they gave themselves to prayer, they withdrew.. they followed Jesus' model - and Jesus not only modelled it, he clearly taught it..
in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6 in verse 6 he says when you pray go to your inner room, close the door & pray to your Father who is in secret. in verse 5 he compares the secret prayer in verse 6 to the Pharisees' making a show of their prayer in public for credability.. so we dont do anything for show - we do it for God.. he then says 'close the door' - its like for prayer we all need a place we go to - 'i go there to pray'.. do we have a place to pray? we need to build into our lives a place we go to pray.. closing the door physically doesnt always close the door on your mind - a big challenge of prayer.. terry takes a piece of paper and when something comes on his mind he writes it down so it doesnt distract him.. cos you want to be with your Father in secret.. do you have a place you can withdraw? find a place to get away, be with Him..

2. Elijah's prayer was based on a promise.. God has already said that He would send rain on the earth.. you may think that if God said He would do something why do I need to do anything - God's already made His will clear - so why pray? isnt prayer thus made redundant? this is the wonder of prayer - instead of God saying 'I'm going to do it', making prayer redundant, actually God's saying 'I'm going to do it' is meant to inspire us to pray & direct our praying.. so that our praying is in line with what God has said..
so prayer is built on what God has promised He will do - prayer starts in God, starts with God initiating, telling us what He's after.. its not us thinking 'well what shall i pray for?', its much more us responding to His initiatives, what He wants to do and we come and ask Him in the light of that.. so i.e. Ezekiel 36 God is saying I will do this, this & this and in verse 37 it says at the end of the list of what God has promised to do 'I will yet be inquired of the house of Israel to do these things'.. in effect its: 'these are the promises, now you ask'.. God is somehow using prayer as a magnificent means of drawing us into a living relationship with Him.. the promises inspire, motivate & keep you going & give you assurance that He will do it.. in 2 Corinthians Paul asks the church in Corinth to pray for him - despite it being the great apostle Paul.. Philip Hughes' commentary says 'prayer is stressed over & over again in the NT as a vital prerequisite for the release & experience of God's power'.. God has promised Paul, sent Paul and yet Paul says please pray for me - somehow that releaases God's power.. Andrew Murray says its as though the promises are waiting for prayer for their fulfilment - we may, and thus most confidently, expect an answer to our prayer.. the promise is there, the prayer ignites it.. take Daniel, he'd been reading Jeremiah and the prophecy of 70 years in exile, he realizes the 70 years are up, but instead of running in the streets shouting '70 years are up' it says he gave himself to prayer & fasting & history thus began to break open before him.. God found someone who would take His promises seriously & lay hold of Him..

in this context of laying hold of Him, Jesus is constantly inviting us to ask, seek, knock - which is present-continuous in the Greek - 'ask & keep on asking', 'seek & keep on seeking', 'knock & keep on knocking' - go after God.. Jesus is constantly inviting us to ask.. in John 15:16 it says 'you didn't choose me, I chose you & I appointed you to go & bring forth fruit, whatever you ask the Father in my name I will do it'..
Miss out the middle bit & it says 'I have chosen you to ask' - Terry quotes this when he prays, 'you chose me to go & bear fruit & whatever i ask'.. so we come bringing our requests because He's constantly inviting us to ask - you could say that prayer is fellowship with God.. Jesus specifically talked about prayer in the context of asking in order to get - He even said 'ask that you may recieve that your joy may be full'.. thats how he emphasized prayer - its an asking & recieving thing..

you also find Elijah prays quite specifically to God - he says 'Lord stop the rain', then 3.5 years later he says 'Lord start the rain'.. its specific, tell the Lord this is what you are asking for.. when Jesus was moving along the crowds he came to someone who was obviously ill & He asked what would you have me do for you?.. isnt it obvious from his illness? no - Jesus is looking for that kind of specific request.. in a parable He tells the man asks for 3 loaves - specific, not just 'can I have some food please'.. Yongi-Cho in his book on prayer tells the story of himself as a young man when he prays for a chair, desk & bicycle - they dont come.. he felt a small, still voice say I heard you the first day six months ago - Cho asked why hadnt he got them? God replied that there are many bicycles & which one do you want? Cho replied he'd like an American bicycle, a mahogany Phillipino desk & a chair with wheels on it like a bigshot.. within 2 weeks he was given an American bike by the son of an American missionary, a mahogany desk from the Phillipines & a chair with wheels on it.. God is saying He wants us to be specific.. when Terry was younger he was going through difficulty financially near Christmas time - He said God told him to ask the number of verses in a particular Psalm number (cant remember which one), so he asked for it & within the week he was given 3 gifts that added up to precisely that sum of money.. focus in on what you want..
Elijah knows the promise of God about rain & he prays specifically according to that promise.. Jesus said abide in me & my words will abide in you.. if we abide in Him we know what He wants & we pray along those lines..

3. Elijah prayed fervantly. James 5:17 - says there was great power in his prayer. literal greek means 'he prayed in his prayer' - a Hebraism, repeating words for effect. don carson in his book on prayer says to pray yourself into prayer. when we pray we can sometimes feel abit dull - thats not a time to back off, we begin to pray in your prayer, when we pray sometimes in your heart its like a telescope that opens up & we begin to pray for things we never knew were there.. paul says we work with all the energy he mightily inspires within us - theres a praying that grows as you do it - pray yourself into prayer.. for terry when he goes to a prayer meeting he prays early on to get into it.. when you pray yourself into prayer you suddenly find yourself praying for things you never thought of praying for - you feel an energy taking over and with it comes faith because you think this is beyond what i would of asked.. the NT calls this praying in the Spirit - praying with the Spirit is talking about tongues but in the Spirit is talking about when the Spirit of God energizes you to pray.. and with it often comes faith.. you pray fervently and with power..
Jacob wrestled with God - he said he wouldnt let the angel go unless he blessed him.. have we fought with God & prevailed? what a blessing is this? that we can lay hold of God.. Moses also did this, Exodus 32, in verse 10 God tells Moses to let Him alone - its like a man can hinder God.. what power does this man have with God? Moses answers him and says theyre your people you brought out of Egypt, what will the heathen say? Moses argues with God & God hears him & Moses prevails.. God is willing to be sought & the fervant, effectual prayer of a righteous man avails much - it accomplishes a great deal.. we can sometimes be in a sovereignty position - we can think what is the point of praying & it can undo our praying.. but then we see these Moses/Jacob examples - no: God makes promises but invites our prayer - God doesnt do anything without our praying as Philip Hughes says.. we need to be encouraged to rediscover the phenomenal power of prayer both corporately or alone.. Foresythe says: 'lose the importunity of prayer, lose the real conflict of will & will, lose the habit of wrestling & the hope of prevailing with God.. make it mere walking with God & friendly talk and precious as that is you tend to lose the reality of prayer at last.'
some of us say i just tend to talk with God as i walk down the road - i dont set aside a time, but Jesus said when you pray go to your room, shut the door & lets get down to some work.. lets release power, lets get hold of God.. we're called not just to be religious but to know God..
Carson says prayer is not like carpentry or cookery - you can read a book on these things - instead prayer is the active exercise of a personal relationship, a kind of friendship with the living God.. we can learn alot from books on marriage but in the end its an act of exercise of a personal relationship.. the books on prayer can help but prayer isnt like cookery - we need to press into that personal relationship..

4. Elijah prayed with importunity. in other words he kept on praying when he looked and the sky was still blue - he sent his servant again & again to look for clouds. he kept praying & wouldnt let go. when we dont see anything happening we take that as the final word. d.a. carson says we're like the naughty boy who rings the doorbell and runs away. we need to KEEP ON and its very challenging. Jesus told two parables about carrying on praying. one was about the unjust judge and the woman who keeps appealing to him and in the end he gives in to her. because of her importunity, cos she wont let go he says ok you win the case. the other parable is about a man who comes to a friend at night and is starving and needs something to eat, and this man has nothing to eat either so he goes to another friend and asks for three loaves. the other friend is asleep and tells him to go away but the man keeps asking, keeps knocking on his door until he is given the loaves - not just because hes a friend but because he wouldnt stop. why would Jesus tell two such parables if this principle wasn't important? its hard for us because we live in instant coffee society. andrew murray says 'what a deep heavenly mystery this is: of persevering prayer. the God who has promised, who longs, whose fixed purpose is to give blessings holds it back. he trains us in the school of answer delayed to find out how our perseverence really does prevail. what a mighty power this we can weild in heaven if we do but set ourselves to it.' yes this is a mystery but why not penetrate it? why not penetrate this mystery and and press into God? Isaiah says: 'the Lord waits to be gracious to you, He waits on high to have compassion on you, how blessed are those who wait for Him.' He's waiting to be gracious, we dont always understand why. Why is there delay - why doesnt it happen straight away? Sometimes it does ie Elijah prayed for fire to fall and it fell - it can happen immediately but it doesnt always. The Bible tells us that when it doesnt happen immediately dont give up & see it as the end. Continue to lay hold of God - it's in that continuing that our muscle grows.

driscoll on emerging church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fgkfS6E-0

a clip of mark driscoll on what he thinks are the four main streams of the emerging church

emergent

http://gatheringinlight.com/2008/01/13/the-four-models-of-emerging-churches/

the above article is by a guy called C. Wess Daniels, who gives a brief description of the four general 'emergent' strands that have 'emerged' in the past few years in church circles..

i must admit to having a mixed view of the whole emerging/emergent church movement (or 'conversation' or whatever non-dogmatic term you want to use).. on the one hand i can see a need for 'doing' church in the face our so-called postmodern society/culture in fresh ways.. on the other hand i pretty much can't stand (or even really understand the point of) theological liberalism and the soppy political liberalism that often goes with it, especially the sort that uses Jesus as some kind of proto-hippie who, to paraphrase Mark Driscoll, wears a dress and has peroxide in his hair.. alot of the emerging church appears to be such a theological and political liberalism just dressed up in a new package.. it also often seems to be Christian kids rebelling against their evangelical/religious right parents and trying to be 'relevant' to the culture they live in.. but lets face it they're very often not, no matter what they do.. i haven't read up as much as i'd like on many of the strands but, of the four movements he mentions, i think i'd lean more towards the fourth - the Driscoll/missional thing.. for me the first (Brian McLaren/postmodern theology) is way off target - it seems to compromise too much with the culture.. the second (what appears to be the so-called 'Radical Orthodoxy') looks quite interesting but, again, i haven't read anything much by the theologians behind it (i.e. James K.A. Smith) - though the little i have read seems highly abstract and arcane (but hey after Hegel nothing can be that bad eh?).. and the third seems to be more for left wing Christian hippies (i.e. Shane Claiborne/the New Monastics), which unfortunately i'm not one of (can't imagine driving a bus run on vegetable oil anytime soon) - though i can understand the pull of a more contemplative Christian life (which explains why figures like Dallas Willard are becoming increasingly popular in the movement)..

a second article is from Christianity Today and is written by New Testament theologian Scot McKnight:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html

this article is overall less descriptive, though there is alot of that, and more supportive of the movement as a whole.. he outlines some of the aspects which identify 'emergent' - one of which is to be poilitically left leaning.. again i think this is because of a conscious rebellion against the Christian Right stance of many of the emergent kids' parents - either that or it just seems abit more hip and cool to be a left winger these days.. i think this is generally one of the reasons why alot of Christians are becoming more and more anti-Israel (and anti-America and anti-capitalist etc.) - because its part of the left wing position to be so and the left wing position has almost become the default cultural position for 'sophisticated' and 'intelligent' people (at least it has in post-Christian, seculaist/socialist Europe and a good portion of the States too)..
he also says that one thing Evangelicals are wary of is the fact that emergents often do theology as postmoderns rather than with or to postmoderns (which they also do and which is perfectly fine).. the part about worship and the questions it asks is also interesting.. is the sermon the most important thing on a Sunday? i would answer probably yes but i think fellowship is also highly important as well as worship.. i like the part about our deeds being as important as our theology which, it's true, alot of Christians forget, despite paying lip service to (which i'm often guilty of myself).. the section on missional living is also good, if brief.. then there's the bit on being 'post-evangelical' (where did all this 'post' crap come from? i first heard it with post-rock, then every music genre became 'post', then postmodern this and that, now post-postmodern.. when will it end?)..
to quote McKnight here at length:

'Post-systematic theology: The emerging movement tends to be suspicious of systematic theology. Why? Not because we don't read systematics, but because the diversity of theologies alarms us, no genuine consensus has been achieved, God didn't reveal a systematic theology but a storied narrative, and no language is capable of capturing the Absolute Truth who alone is God. Frankly, the emerging movement loves ideas and theology. It just doesn't have an airtight system or statement of faith. We believe the Great Tradition offers various ways for telling the truth about God's redemption in Christ, but we don't believe any one theology gets it absolutely right.'

i'd generally agree with this at the minute.. i was thinking the other day that the more theology i've come across the more i've taken parts from some and mixed it with parts from others, without every wholly agreeing with one theologian or theological position (for instance i've been heavily influenced by Reformed theology, Jewish Roots, premillennialism, the pentecostal/charismatic movement, philosophy of religion etc. without holding up one of them and saying theyve got it all spot on).. the only thing i'd say here is that i dont believe this means we can't and shouldn't agree on some fundamentals of the faith which it is pivitol for a Christian to believe i.e. the obvious ones like the Trinity, the Incarnation, penal substitution etc. (i.e. the doctrines that basically seperate Christianity from any other world-faith)..

the part about in-versus-out is where McKnight seems to become critical of the emergent movement i.e. the universalism some of its followers adhere to.. McKnight also has a warning for the emergent's left-leaning political position i.e. not to forget the spiritual gospel at the expense of the social gospel, as many liberals once did..

again, because i'd like to remain both politically and theologically conservative whilst remaining conscious of the fact the gospel needs to be contextualized for a postmodern culture, i'm more drawn to the missional/Driscoll model than the other three outlined by Daniels in the first article..

and again, overall, i'm still mixed about the movement as a whole but its obvious that it is a multi-faceted thing, much like Christianity itself, and can't be generalized as some monolithic entity with such and such characteristics.. i think there are aspects to be wary of but also some potentially interesting ideas.. as McKnight observes at the end of his article it seems like emergent movement will leave its mark on evangelicalism somehow or other, much as the Charismatic and Jesus People movements did in the 60's.. hopefully i'll post some more about this topic in the future..

new perspective articles

just a couple of brief summaries of the NPP for anyone not familiar:

http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html
http://www.thepaulpage.com/What.html

works righteousness and the NPP

a few years ago i was heavily into the teaching of men like n.t. wright and dwight pryor and, as a result, came to be an adherent of the so-called 'new perspective on paul'.. at the time i sort of brushed over the controversy surrounding it simply because i wasn't reformed and i could never understand some of their doctrines (like predestination etc. - which especially abhorred me).. since that time i have found a massive respect for the reformed tradition and would now consider myself a calvinist - john piper being instrumental in my mini-conversion (his work on romans 9 especially) as well as jonathan edwards, who i consider to be one of the greatest theological and philosophical minds to have ever lived.. there is a beauty and a glorious nature to the reformed doctrines of grace and it has a very systematic way of approaching the scriptures which appeals to a mind like mine.. but since that time the whole new perspective controversy has reared its head again with john piper writing a book in response to n.t. wright's theory of justification and, now wright is in turn writing a response to piper/carson etc., i've started looking at some of the issues again in light of what i've learned since i originally came across the new perspective..

at the moment i just want to look at the question of legalism and the way the reformed tradition considers paul to be attacking 'works righteousness' in his letters (especially romans & galatians).. i have to admit i still find it hard to accept that jews in the first century had a 'works righteousness' mentality and i still think its a caricature of judaism in general.. personally i think e.p. sanders' covenental nomism is still more or less correct - that jews were in the covenant by God's grace and mercy alone and they didn't have to 'earn their salvation'..

just looking at the old testament (or the tanakh) it seems obvious that jews never saw the law (hereafter Torah, due to 'Law's' somewhat negative connotations) as some kind of burdensome task that the Lord had made them accept (see Psalm 119: 'O how i love your Torah, i meditate on it all day''), nor does it make sense to say that God rescued Israel out of slavery in Egypt and took them to Mount Sinai in order to once again enslave them, this time to the 'Law' and its onerous requirements which they needed to keep in order to remain in covenant with the Lord.. it makes God look like a harsh taskmaster and makes his relationship to Israel look like a kind of abusive marriage..
according to Sanders convenental nomism says that Jews were already in the covenant with the Lord by his mercy and grace and the precepts of the Torah were supposed to be a joyful response to this grace.. they weren't earning their place in the covenant by doing any works, they were simply responding as any thankful Jew would to God's saving acts of the past..

this now leads to the question as to what Paul was referring to by 'works of the law' in his letters.. James Dunn's study of second temple Judaism lead him to the conclusion that 'works of the law' doesn't mean good deeds done to earn your salvation.. instead it means more or less covenental 'boundary markers' that show who was 'in' the covenant of Israel (kashrut/dietrary laws, sabbath observance and circumcision were the three main things that seperated Jews from their pagan neighbours).. these boundary markers had become something of an issue of pride for Jews of the first century, who used them as a kind of corporate boasting against the pagan nations..

Paul, then, is objecting to Jews (both believing and, according to scholars like Mark Nanos, also non-believing) requiring Gentile believer to take up these 'works of the law' in order to be considered a part of the covenant.. instead, as far as Paul is concerned, all they need to be a part of the covenant of Israel is faith in Jesus the Messiah of Israel - they don't have to become ethnic Jews..

the interesting thing is as far as i can tell John Piper more or less actually agrees with all of this - he doesn't believe God asked for works righteousness from the Jews.. he seems to think that, though the Law wasn't about earing your own salvation through works, it had nevertheless been turned into such a thing by the first century and so, in effect, Paul was talking about works-righteousness after all and so 'works of the law' does refer to such legalistic acts of righteousness trying to earn covenant.. what piper seems to be responding to mostly, however, is n.t. wright's reformulation of what righteousness and justification are.. wright has a more eschatological and corporately minded/ecclesiological view of it, while piper has in mind the more traditionally reformed individualistic and soteriological reading..
i'll try and look at this issue in more depth in another post..

Jude

Possibly the best pragmatic yet stimulating talk I've heard in a while (in two parts).

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/16/42_Learning_to_Pray_in_the_Spirit_and_the_Word_Part_1/

Enjoy.

Faith - A Hebrew Perspective (thanks to Dwight Pryor)

We are 'justified by faith' (Romans 5:1). But what does the term faith mean? Is it just 'firm belief'?
The first appearance of the word faith (Hebrew 'emunah') in the Bible is to be found in Exodus. The Israelites have just come out of slavery in Egypt by the power of God's saving acts, lead by Moses and Aaron, when they are suddenly attacked by Amalek. Joshua leads the host of Israel into battle while Moses stands by with his staff raised towards heaven.
Exodus 17:1-2: 'Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.'
The word 'steady' here in 17:2 is 'emunah' or faith. His hands were 'emunah' until the sun went down. Obviously to translate the passage his hands were faith until the sun went down makes no sense. The meaning of the word emunah in Hebrew is firmnness, steadfastness, fidelity. It is better translated not as faith but faithfulness. Matthew 17:29 - when Jesus talks of the faith of the mustard seed He's speaking of the seed's determination and persistence to grow in even the most barren climates - its faithfulness.

Romans 1:17 says: 'For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed … that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” '
When Paul states that from first to last the gospel is about faith, he has in mind firstly the faithfulness of God in keeping covenant promises to the patriarchs, then the faithfulness of Jesus in His atoning death on the cross and the faithfulness of those who believe this good news and walk in it's light. The text quoted in 1:17 is originally from Habakkuk and is literally translated: 'the righteous shall live by His faithfulness.'

If we read the word faith in the New Testament as the Hebrew 'emunah' it gives a much fuller meaning to certain passages. For example:

But now [the mystery] is disclosed
… to all the Gentiles, according to
the command of the eternal God,
to bring about the obedience of
faithfulness — to the only wise God,
through Jesus Christ, be the glory
forever! (Rom 16:26)

Without faithfulness it is impossible
to please God. (Heb 11:6)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision is of any
avail, but faithfulness working
through love. (Gal 5:6)

Look to Jesus the pioneer and
perfecter of our faithfulness. (Heb
12:1)

This is the victory that overcomes
the world, even our faithfulness. (1
Jn 5:4)

We give thanks to God always for
you all … remembering your work
of faithfulness and labour of love
and steadfastness of hope in our
Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thes 1:2-3)

When the Son of Man comes, will
he find faithfulness on earth?" (Lk
18.8)

Here is a call for the endurance of
the saints, those who keep the
commandments of God and the
faithfulness of Jesus. (Rev 14:12)

Biblical faith signifies more than intellectual assent to true propositions - it encompasses this, obviously, but goes beyond it. Remember that even the demons believe in God (James 2:19), but they do not have faith. It is when our faith leads to faithfulness that we truly honour the God of Israel.