Think Wink.

Yesterday I linked to a quiz by an Arminian/Wesleyan for Calvinists to take. I’m not certain how serious of a quiz it is but I just wanted to address each question. First up is a question based upon Genesis 25:23 (NIV) which reads,

The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

THe question is, “What was in Rebekah’s womb?” The answers available are a.) two nations/people; b.) an elect person and a reprobate person; c.) “Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic” (I find this last answer to be somewhat funny).

The question seems straightforward enough fromt he text. Why would this Arminian quiz a Clavinist on this verse is puzzling until one looks at answer c. Then one who is familiar in the Calvinism/Arminianism debates realizes that the question is asked to show that Paul in Romans 9 is talking about Israel on a national level. Clearly Genesis 25:23 speaks of two nations bing seen in Jacob and Esau–the twin boys in Rebekah’s womb when I AM gives this prophecy to her. Therfore when Paul cites this text in Romans 9:12, he is talking about Israel and Edom, not Jews who are going to heaven and hell. Salvation isn’t the issue in that portion of Romans. Optoin c in the quiz is a shot at Calvinists (again is seems like a playful one to me) who say you cannot go to the Old Testament text cited to determine Paul’s meaning. One Calvinist who is adamant on this is James Whtie (go to his website and click on the Romans 9 exegesis link in the center of the page).

What we have here is two approaches to Romans 9 and the texts Paul cites to support his argument. The ARminian is wanting to see what texts Paul cites and go back and read them, exegete them, to find out what Paul is arguing. The Calvinist wants to identify what Paul is arguing first, and then see how the cited OT texts supports his position.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with looking up the cited OT texts in their own OT contexts to see what was intended by Paul/NT author. The problem that White and myself have with doing this before determining Paul’s point in citing the text is that one runs the danger of forcing Paul to say something he actually isn’t if taken on his own terms.

Take this idea that Paul is speaking of nations in Romans 9:6-18. Romans 9:6 becomes somewhat confusing when Paul speaks of two Israels, “οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ·”, “for not all those out of Israel are Israel” becomes “for not all out of the nation Israel is the nation Israel.” This can be consistently maintained through Romans 9:18, although 9:16, 18 can present problems. But once one gets to Romans 9:19, nations gets a bit tricky, although still can be maintained.

What kills this is the preceeding context of Romans 1:18-9:5. Romans 1:18-8:39 is Paul’s discussion of salvation for sinners on an individual level. He is presenting the problem of humanity, asking and answering the question “How can a person be saved from this plight.” Romans 9:1-5 is Paul expressing his anguish over his kinsmen, his fellow Israelites, being ἀνάθεμα (anathema) from I AM inspite of everything listed in Romans 9:4-5. Indeed Paul would desire to become ἀνάθεμα in their place if he could. If Jews aren’t being saved as Paul described in Romans 1:18-8:39, why does he lanch a discussion about Israel as a nation that does nothing to furhter what was said in Romans 9:1-5. What does “the word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) refer to in 9:6 if not in some part to what was listed in 9:4-5? The nations approach becomes uncharacteristic for Paul because it has absolutely nothing to do with the anguish he has over the plight of his kinsmen and why he prays for them!

This is furthered by what was said by Paul in Romans 9:30-11:36. Paul goes back into speaking of salvation on an individual level again whil still talking about Israel. Paul seems to lose his mind in Romans 9:6-29 (being nice in allowing the Arminian to have more text to work with) and discusses a topic that is irrelevent to anything Paul is speaking about in this letter. Not even Paul’s rabbit trail in Romans 3:1-8 is irrelevent to his over all theme in Romans 1:18-3:20. It was a necessary rabbit trail that also sets up Romans 9:1-5. But why this “nations” trail in Romans 9:6-29? Whast does it contribute to the overall flow of thought in Romans about salvation and the gospel? As far as I can tell, nothing.

What I find Arminians missing is this. Yes Paul cites two texts in Romans 9:12-13 that deal with nations, Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3. But one must undestand these texts to prove that the word of God has not fallen because not everyone from Israel is Israel. God’s electing purpose stands because it is based upon his call and choice, not by works or birthright. That’s what the texts are proving, the principle of sovereign election. It is being proven from I AM’s interactions with nations in the OT and applied to why the Jews are rejecting Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. They are ἀνάθεμα in spite of all the promises given them because not everyone who is an Israelite is an Israelite. Why is that? Because God’s electing purpose is based upon his call and not human works or birthorder. The nation of Israel was loved and Edom/Esau wasn’t was because of I AM’s unconditional choice of Israel. Jews are rejecting Jesus because of I AM’s sovereign and unconditional choice, I AM’s not calling them to Jesus.

Related posts:

An Interesting Question

I cannot tell a lie?

One More Question

No comments