I wanted to share some further insights I've had on Romans 9, stemming from an earlier series (here). This time we will focus on the famous passage in Romans 9:10-13, which says:
10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
This
passage has been the subject of considerable debate for centuries. One
camp has tended to read the text as a cold, hard assertion of God's
Sovereignty, where God elects us to salvation or damnation before we existed, apart from any
consideration of our good/bad behavior. At first glance, it does seem
to read that way. But I think this is a serious distortion of the text
as well as the other themes of Scripture. Consider the following points.
First, Paul introduces this section by calling upon "our forefather Isaac" (9:10), which not only continues the same lesson of Abraham in the prior verses (9:7-9), but has the same phraseology as the "our forefather Abraham" in Romans 4:1. Recall that in Romans 4 the issue was also "not of works," as it is here in Romans 9:11. I believe I have convincingly shown in my Revisiting Abraham's reckoned as righteousness series, particularly part 2 (here), that Paul's real focus in Romans 4 was about how Abraham tried to bring about the promised heir of Genesis 15 by sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, thus producing the illegitimate heir Ishmael, who was technically Abraham's biological son. In the lesson of Abraham, Paul is saying mere biological descent isn't sufficient to determine who make up God's Chosen Children. Paul uses the language of "flesh" and "works" as closely related, with works meant to show the Israelite superior biological lineage over that of the inferior Gentiles (here). What this means is that when Paul shifts to "also our father Isaac," the same theme continues: now differentiating between Isaac's biological children, Jacob and Esau. So the lesson thus far is not about unconditionally sending people to heaven or hell apart from their deeds, but rather a more practical yet mysterious looking back at a biological/ancestry issue.
First, Paul introduces this section by calling upon "our forefather Isaac" (9:10), which not only continues the same lesson of Abraham in the prior verses (9:7-9), but has the same phraseology as the "our forefather Abraham" in Romans 4:1. Recall that in Romans 4 the issue was also "not of works," as it is here in Romans 9:11. I believe I have convincingly shown in my Revisiting Abraham's reckoned as righteousness series, particularly part 2 (here), that Paul's real focus in Romans 4 was about how Abraham tried to bring about the promised heir of Genesis 15 by sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, thus producing the illegitimate heir Ishmael, who was technically Abraham's biological son. In the lesson of Abraham, Paul is saying mere biological descent isn't sufficient to determine who make up God's Chosen Children. Paul uses the language of "flesh" and "works" as closely related, with works meant to show the Israelite superior biological lineage over that of the inferior Gentiles (here). What this means is that when Paul shifts to "also our father Isaac," the same theme continues: now differentiating between Isaac's biological children, Jacob and Esau. So the lesson thus far is not about unconditionally sending people to heaven or hell apart from their deeds, but rather a more practical yet mysterious looking back at a biological/ancestry issue.
Second, we now turn to the most controversial point "though they were not yet born," which most people mistakenly interpret to mean "before they even existed". The reality is, when this situation took place, both Jacob and Esau fully existed, as babies within Rebekah's womb:
It is worth noting that when Paul says "before they had done anything good or bad," many people overlook the "or bad" and instead read the chapter as if it was saying all mankind are sinners and thus deserve hell. But by their own reading of this verse, God is deciding to damn without consideration of their "bad" deeds, which means they cannot "deserve" hell since their sinfulness isn't even what God is basing their fate on. If God is sending someone to hell without consideration of their sinfulness, then that defeats the whole point of hell. Thus, this verse only really makes sense when read as "before Jacob and Esau grew up to commit the good or evil deeds, God made the prophecy during their time in the womb of how their lives would turn out".
Third, the famous "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" line should keep in mind that there is a Hebrew idiom in the Bible where it is clearly shown that "loved vs hated" is not meant to mean literal hate, but rather "loves less". Consider these texts:
Genesis 25: 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and Rebekah conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” 23 And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”Once you admit the fact that God said this while the children were alive and active within Rebekah's womb, the "before the even existed" reading is instantly discredited. What of the "before they had done anything good or bad"? They were alive and active, yet it wasn't until later in life when they did in fact do good/bad actions. So God was simply making a prophecy during Rebekah's pregnancy of how things would turn out. The "struggling within her" certainly means Jacob and Esau were in some manner fighting each other to be firstborn, with the stronger man winning the birth war, thus Esau being born first. This biological superiority plays out with their "works" showing their dominant physical features. This again ties to the firstborn-yet-not-heir theme as Abraham with Ishmael, and God prophetically saying the older Ishmael will serve the younger Isaac.
It is worth noting that when Paul says "before they had done anything good or bad," many people overlook the "or bad" and instead read the chapter as if it was saying all mankind are sinners and thus deserve hell. But by their own reading of this verse, God is deciding to damn without consideration of their "bad" deeds, which means they cannot "deserve" hell since their sinfulness isn't even what God is basing their fate on. If God is sending someone to hell without consideration of their sinfulness, then that defeats the whole point of hell. Thus, this verse only really makes sense when read as "before Jacob and Esau grew up to commit the good or evil deeds, God made the prophecy during their time in the womb of how their lives would turn out".
Third, the famous "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" line should keep in mind that there is a Hebrew idiom in the Bible where it is clearly shown that "loved vs hated" is not meant to mean literal hate, but rather "loves less". Consider these texts:
- Gen 29:30-31 Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. 31 When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
- Deuteronomy 21:15-17 “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved [Hebrew: hated], and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children.
- Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
- Matthew 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Notice there is nothing within the narrative of the life of Esau that suggests God had hatred for him, especially considering Esau and Jacob reconciled with one another at the end of their lives (Gen 33:9-11). At no point did Esau visibly serve Jacob during their lifetimes. Considering that this line comes from the prophetic text of Malachi 1:2-3, long after the individual sons were dead and the only thing in view were them as "two nations" (Gen 25:23), wherein Esau did serve in subjugation to Israel under king David (1 Chron 18:13), it seems the nation of Edom had certainly gone in a sinful direction. So there isn't much room for 'unconditional hate' from God apart from behavior. (I wonder if the point of Paul quoting Malachi is to raise yet another "Jew-Gentile" dichotomy.)
Lastly, Paul goes on in Romans 9:16 to say "it is not of him who wills or him who runs, but God who shows mercy," which many have taken to mean something akin to "nothing a person does matters, only God's will is what matters". There are a few problems here. First of all, of the many mainstream English translations today, only the KJV, NASB, and Douay-Rheims use the English word "run" when translating the Greek word "run" in this verse. The rest of the mainstream English translations use an English term along the lines of "human effort". There is a certain danger or at least difficulty when it comes to translating the Bible, since we can sometimes project our own theology onto the text in the words we use. The fact is, the Greek term "runs" that Paul uses here is consistently used in the New Testament as normal running. Paul even frequently uses it in reference to the metaphorical race-marathon that we all must run as part of our salvation (1 Cor 9:24-26; Gal 2:2; Gal 5:7; Phil 2:16; Heb 12:1). So immediately there are two issues we should take with Bibles that translate it as "human effort," since this isn't the typical meaning, and more importantly Paul does seem to link "running" to salvation. So it is kind of strange for Paul to say "not of him who runs" and yet say multiple other places that we must run the race to be saved. Furthermore, what is so 'sinful' about running? If salvation is about being saved from sin, and a changed life of good works, why would Paul use a 'neutral' term like "runs"? Here's what I think makes the most sense.
The Hebrew term for "struggle" in the above verse Genesis 25:22 consistently is used to mean something along the lines of "oppress" in the OT. So there could be understood to be some negative connotation here, such as Esau oppressing his weaker brother Jacob while in the womb. This certainly can have connotations of Pharaoh oppressing the Israelites. But there is another angle, perhaps an important nuance, which the traditional Rabbinical interpretation has seen in this Hebrew term, which the famous medieval Jewish sage Rabbi Rashi explains when commenting on Genesis 25:22, as follows:
Lastly, Paul goes on in Romans 9:16 to say "it is not of him who wills or him who runs, but God who shows mercy," which many have taken to mean something akin to "nothing a person does matters, only God's will is what matters". There are a few problems here. First of all, of the many mainstream English translations today, only the KJV, NASB, and Douay-Rheims use the English word "run" when translating the Greek word "run" in this verse. The rest of the mainstream English translations use an English term along the lines of "human effort". There is a certain danger or at least difficulty when it comes to translating the Bible, since we can sometimes project our own theology onto the text in the words we use. The fact is, the Greek term "runs" that Paul uses here is consistently used in the New Testament as normal running. Paul even frequently uses it in reference to the metaphorical race-marathon that we all must run as part of our salvation (1 Cor 9:24-26; Gal 2:2; Gal 5:7; Phil 2:16; Heb 12:1). So immediately there are two issues we should take with Bibles that translate it as "human effort," since this isn't the typical meaning, and more importantly Paul does seem to link "running" to salvation. So it is kind of strange for Paul to say "not of him who runs" and yet say multiple other places that we must run the race to be saved. Furthermore, what is so 'sinful' about running? If salvation is about being saved from sin, and a changed life of good works, why would Paul use a 'neutral' term like "runs"? Here's what I think makes the most sense.
The Hebrew term for "struggle" in the above verse Genesis 25:22 consistently is used to mean something along the lines of "oppress" in the OT. So there could be understood to be some negative connotation here, such as Esau oppressing his weaker brother Jacob while in the womb. This certainly can have connotations of Pharaoh oppressing the Israelites. But there is another angle, perhaps an important nuance, which the traditional Rabbinical interpretation has seen in this Hebrew term, which the famous medieval Jewish sage Rabbi Rashi explains when commenting on Genesis 25:22, as follows:
struggled: Perforce, this verse calls for a Midrashic interpretation, for it does not explain what this struggling was all about. Our Rabbis interpreted it [וַיִתְרוֹצִצוּ] as an expression of running (רוֹצָה). When she [Rebekah] passed by the entrances of [the] Torah [academies] of Shem and Eber, Jacob would run and struggle to come out; when she passed the entrance of [a temple of] idolatry, Esau would run and struggle to come out. Another explanation: They were struggling with each other and quarreling about the inheritance of the two worlds.
The Rabbis say the Hebrew term "running" has similar roots to the Hebrew word "struggle," and we can see that these ideas do have similarities. The idea of running faster certainly fits the Genesis 25:27-28 theme of firstborn Esau having 'superior DNA', making Esau the "alpha male" while Jacob is weaker the "beta male". This would certainly explain why Paul chose to say "it is not of him who runs," as this situation is about "running". I cannot really think of any better explanation.
If that's the case, then when Paul says "it is not who wills and not who runs," if we grant that "runs" applies to Paul's second example of election in Jacob/Esau in Rom 9:10-13, then perhaps the "wills" applies to Paul's first example of election with Abraham's sons Ishmael/Issac in Rom 9:7-9. Again, I think it does fit, for in that first case, Abraham used his own willpower to bring about an heir, since he didn't have a son after so many decades. Recall that in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series that I mentioned above, Abraham's own sexual vitality brought about Ishmael. But God wanted the Promised son to be Isaac, born of miraculous (beyond human) means, that is, a kind of super-natural birth. This sounds a lot like John 1:13, which says: "12 To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." This certainly ties "wills" to a matter of causing children by human sexual choice. Thus, we see a very reasonable connection of Romans 9:16 to Abraham's firstborn Ishmael to the "not of him who wills," and to Isaac's firstborn son Esau to the "not of him who runs".
In conclusion, I think the above is an honest look at the controversial text Romans 9:10-13. I believe the reflections above show why the 'mainstream' Calvinist view doesn't really do justice to the text, while the view I present here explains the details quite nicely, and best explain Romans 9:16. It would be nice to see a revolution in the way people approach and talk about Romans 9, since there are a lot of fascinating points to be made, and which should be reasonable enough that everyone can generally agree on the text without sharp divisions.
If that's the case, then when Paul says "it is not who wills and not who runs," if we grant that "runs" applies to Paul's second example of election in Jacob/Esau in Rom 9:10-13, then perhaps the "wills" applies to Paul's first example of election with Abraham's sons Ishmael/Issac in Rom 9:7-9. Again, I think it does fit, for in that first case, Abraham used his own willpower to bring about an heir, since he didn't have a son after so many decades. Recall that in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series that I mentioned above, Abraham's own sexual vitality brought about Ishmael. But God wanted the Promised son to be Isaac, born of miraculous (beyond human) means, that is, a kind of super-natural birth. This sounds a lot like John 1:13, which says: "12 To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." This certainly ties "wills" to a matter of causing children by human sexual choice. Thus, we see a very reasonable connection of Romans 9:16 to Abraham's firstborn Ishmael to the "not of him who wills," and to Isaac's firstborn son Esau to the "not of him who runs".
In conclusion, I think the above is an honest look at the controversial text Romans 9:10-13. I believe the reflections above show why the 'mainstream' Calvinist view doesn't really do justice to the text, while the view I present here explains the details quite nicely, and best explain Romans 9:16. It would be nice to see a revolution in the way people approach and talk about Romans 9, since there are a lot of fascinating points to be made, and which should be reasonable enough that everyone can generally agree on the text without sharp divisions.
4 comments:
Because Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated," I think it's worth looking into that book a bit, since we know Paul wasn't ripping verses out of context. Malachi is about 3 pages long, focused almost entirely on the bad behavior of the Israelites, especially the bad behavior of the Levitical priests. The book is one long threat of judgment against Israel, with a clear prophecy of the Messiah Jesus coming to make things right and judge those who won't change. Paul is certainly calling to mind the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, and not so much focused on a very brief reference to Esau and the long eradicated Edomites. The theme of Malachi is that you will end up exactly like the Edomites if they don't change their behavior, so there is no unconditional/secure election theme here. Again, the Rom 9 theme of "just because I'm biologically descended from Abraham" doesn't mean you're unconditionally entitled to blessings.
Malachi was written either during or after the Babylonian exile, so the Israelites are already suffering for their sins. It can be hard to hear "Jacob have I loved" when they are suffering and oppressed by foreign pagan powers. The "loved" here is really only contrasted to the fact God let Edom be wiped out for their sins, whereas Judah was allowed to be preserved. The book gives hints that God will turn to the Gentiles (a figure of Esau/Edom and pagan neighbors) for the Sacred Worship that He desires (1:5, 1:11), almost as if Judah was now selling off its own birthright.
Also worth considering that Malachi really does fit into "Jews vs Gentiles" discourse since it have prophecy of Gentile-offered Eucharist "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."
Really love your content. I'm coming to it a lot later than it was written, so I'm unsure whether you'll see it, but worth a shot.
The more I read the "works of the Law" as referring more specifically to the covenantal/sacramental works of the Mosaic Law, and the more I follow you into reading Paul as working with the flesh vs spirit/older brother vs chosen brother motif, the more these passages make sense. However, it does bring up new questions.
For me, a big question this leads to is what kind of security is there for individual catholic churches within the new covenant? If God can cut off the branches, not just of individuals, but also of entire peoples, like the Edomites and then the Judeans, even though the Temple was in their midst, then why can't He cut off entire churches for their faithlessness? It seems like He did cut off the unfaithful churches in the book of Revelation. Specifically, what guarantee is there He wouldn't cut off Rome, other than Christ's promise to Peter? I'm not accusing any pontiff of heresy, but by the criteria for faithfulness that God seems to measure in the OT and in the gospels, the diocese of Rome isn't doing so good. It seems like an odd sort of exemption for the most authoritative church in the communion to get a free pass on actual fruitful manifestation of covenantal faithfulness? What is Christ's actual promise to Peter, if Peter's church is exhibiting the exact kind of behavior that brought the Son of God to cut off His Father's house from Jerusalem? Christ could never leave Peter, but could Peter leave Rome?
Perhaps I've gotten my exegesis or even just my assessment of Rome wrong. What would you say I'm missing here?
Z.J. that is a very good meditation. It is hard to say, since no time in history has Rome been on this much bad behavior, especially given the technology we have to spread bad behavior all over the world. We know many great cities of Christendom have been wiped out over the centuries, including Ephesus. What we are seeing in our times is a combination of factors, including the fact certain agendas in play in World War 1 and 2 were focused on destroying Catholic Europe, and re-building it under a secular foundation.
It is hard to see why God would allow Rome to fall into such bad behavior for this long, and it certainly does shake the faith of many. It makes you wonder why God doesn't make His Church more "beautiful" to the world, since it is His own reputation when His Bride ends up looking so disfigured. It's hard times to evangelize as a Catholic when you cringe at the thought of inviting someone to join such a mess. I'm fortunate that the Latin Mass has not been wiped out in my area, but I can imagine things getting darker as the Latin Mass begins to disappear. Really, I'm saddened by it all. That said, it has only been about 60 years of bad behavior allowed to run free, and those generations are now elderly and dying off, leaving a faithful remnant behind. Makes you wonder if we are enduring a 70 year Babylonian Exile of sorts, with 10 more years of this.
One account that I heard someone mention is that the Church models the life of Christ: it was born, tiny and irrelevant, and it quietly grew, until reaching adulthood, where it grew into a mature body, and its fame spread; but it was eventually going to have to face its own Passion, it's hour of darkness like never before, where it would endure a severe beating and disfigurement, for a "short time", and then Resurrect.
Post a Comment