Objections to Calvinism Part 14 of 5

Posted by Hank on December 2nd, 2009 filed in Biblical Interpretation, Christ

It’s been a while since I have blogged, let alone about Greg Boyd’s arguments against the deterministic reading of Romans 9. But I return to this since Reformed theology is heavily on my mind today. In this post I will examine Boyd’s fifth argument against he deterministic reading, namely that the clay determines how the potter will fashion it.

Fifth, if read in the light of its Old Testament background, Paul’s analogy of a potter working with clay doesn’t imply that the potter unilaterally decides everything, as the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 suggests. Indeed, in the Old Testament passage that makes the most use of the potter-clay analogy, it has the exact opposite meaning.

First let me say that Boyd presents his best argument against the Reformed position here. He does his best in trying to dig into the larger OT picture that shapes Paul’s worldview. He goes back into Jeremiah and into the Exodus narrative, two places that Paul draws upon.

However, the potter-clay image/metaphor is one that is widely used in Jewish literature and goes beyond only Jeremiah 18. Isaiah uses it twice (Is. 29:15-16; Is. 45:9-11; Wisdom of Solomon 15:7; Sirach 33:7-13). In fact Paul’s wording of the potter-clay metaphor more closely lines up with Isaiah 29:15-16. There Isaiah talks of perverted wise men who try to hide their plans from God–thus acting as God. But to do so is as foolish as clay telling its potter what to do with it. Clay doesn’t have that capacity, and neither do the “wise men” have the capacity to hide their plans from God and be God.

Sirach 33:7-13 (NRSV) offers a startling point of comparison to Paul’s use of the potter-clay metaphor,

7 Why is one day more important than another, when all the daylight in the year is from the sun? 8 By the Lord’s wisdom they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and festivals. 9 Some days he exalted and hallowed, and some he made ordinary days. 10 All human beings come from the ground, and humankind was created out of the dust. 11 In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them and appointed their different ways. 12 Some he blessed and exalted, and some he made holy and brought near to himself; but some he cursed and brought low, and turned them out of their place. 13 Like clay in the hand of the potter, to be molded as he pleases, so all are in the hand of their Maker, to be given whatever he decides.

As in Sirach all days and persons have the same origin, so in Romans 9 the clay comes from one lump. So as in Sirach the days and persons owing their differences to the Lord who appoints and distinguishes them, so also in Paul the potter makes the clay honourable and common. Just as in Sirach the persons are blessed and cursed only the by the will of God, so also in Paul the vessels are made holy/common by the will of the potter. Sirach grounds this choice of God in God’s own wisdom just as Paul grounds the choice of the potter in the potter’s own wisdom (see Piper, The Justification of God, 196-197).

Thus the individual and deterministic view of the potter-clay metaphor is very much present in Paul’s own worldview. The close parallels here indicate that Paul is using the well-known metaphor in such a way as Sirach uses it.

Again, this is the first argument that presents some kind of coherence to a previous argument against the deterministic view of Romans 9, namely with that of the free will of the clay determining what God does with it. Thus I applaud Boyd in this consistency. However, it therefore is going to contradict the same arguments that argument four contradicts since it assumes the free will argument to be true.

I must reiterate again that because Boyd is arguing in such an arbitrary way with Paul’s text, not starting in 9:1 and walking through the passage, Paul is not being given a chance to interpret the Old Testament. Paul’s argument is not being made from the Old Testament, rather Boyd is reading his own understanding of the cited OT texts (however correct they may or may not be) into Paul and forcing Paul to assume them.

The examples of Ishmael/Isaac and Jacob/Esau are provided by Paul to show that not everyone who is from Israel is, indeed, Israel (9:6), and thus recipients of the promises listed in Rom 9:4-5, resulting in them being anathema (9:3). As Boyd has correctly pointed out elsewhere, Paul is interested in showing that God’s word has not failed (9:6). The promise wasn’t for Ishmael but Isaac; the promise wasn’t for Esau but Jacob. The ground of the God’s decision is not found in the children (both sets) but in his electing purpose that stands according to his call and not on works (9:11-12). But this is unjust on the part of God. Jews should not be passed over because they were sons/daughters of Abraham, etc. The Gentiles are not, and therefore to grant to the Gentiles the estchatological vindication that comes from Messiah makes God unrighteous. They have not kept the Laws of Moses. Paul’s point is that God gives his promises to whom he chooses to give them and he is just because he mercies and compassions whom he chooses to mercy and compassion (Rom 9:14-15; cf. Exodus 33:19).

Boyd makes a key error in understanding the flow of Exodus 32-34. I agree that Moses intercession leads to Yahweh not wiping out Israel. But Boyd does not present a key part of the narrative that leads up to Exodus 33:19. God commands Moses to break camp and to follow his messenger to the place that Moses is shown. However, Yahweh will not go in their presence for he will destroy them if he does. Moses pleads with Yahweh not to send some messenger but to go with them himself or they are undone. Moses no longer has a helper; Aaron was supposed to be his helper but failed with the rest of people. Yahweh agrees to go with Moses in the midst of the people. As confirmation of this promise Moses says in Exodus 33:18, “Lord, show me your glory.” Yahweh’s response is, “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will proclaim the LORD by name before you; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.” Thus God tells Moses that he will reveal himself to Moses in a unique way that will reaffirm God’s promise, which is rooted in God himself. He gives mercy to whom he chooses, he gives compassion to whom he chooses. Exodus 33:19 is an affirmation of God’s mercy and grace residing in himself and not in those who somehow deserve it.

And how does Paul use this declaration by Yahweh to further his point that God did not give the promises to every Israelite, as well as being just in giving them to Gentiles? Note the inference Paul draws from Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:16, “So then, it depends not upon him who wills or him who runs, but on God who has mercy.” The clay is not a recipient of mercy because of something the clay wills or does but because God chooses to have mercy upon it.

The same can be said of Pharaoh. Paul cites Exodus 9:16 to argue that God hardens for a purpose, namely to show his purpose and power in those whom he hardens. The inference that Paul draws from this in Romans 9:18 is, “God mercies whom he chooses to mercy and hardens whom he chooses to harden.” Thus, for Paul, the hardening aspect of Pharaoh and Israel is owing to God and his call and mercy and hardening, not to Pharaoh and Israel. (I could argue the same for Exodus when one reads Exodus 4:20-22).

Thus the objection in Romans 9:19 and Paul restating in Romans 9:22-23 that God has a purpose to show wrath and power as well as glorious riches (see Piper, , 205-207 for why “although” should not be supplied in Romans 9:22). Thus some vessels are for honor and others for dishonor. Boyd’s reading of Romans 9 removes the purpose of God to show mercy and wrath, that somehow God only wants to show mercy. But this clearly forces one to have to jump through unspecified hoops in 9:22-23

In conclusion, I am finding Boyd’s reading to consist in several flaws. It is inconsistent with itself. It cannot walk from the start of Paul’s argument and flow through it the end of Paul’s argument, jumping all over itself to try and fit together. Furthermore, Boyd’s reading does not take into account the full testimony of Paul’s worldview, both in terms of the Old Testament and the wider context of 2nd Temple Judaism. In the end, I find Boyd sounding impressive, but not impressing. There is 1 final argument that is very short that I will deal with next time.