Theology for the Masses

Henry Michael and I have been having a wonderful discussion about Romans 9 (click here and here for the posts and comments). In response to the interpretation of Romans 9, or at least Henry’s attempt to show that the historical roles interpretation can raise the objections of Romans 9:14, 19, I asked this question,

Your interpretation, or that of Dr. Reese, fails to take into account Romans 9:1-5. It is here that I find the issue of salvation for here Paul speaks of wishing to be “accursed and cut off from Christ” (v.3). Considering Romans 8:37-39 says that no one can be cut off from God”s saving love and considering Paul”s use of “accursed” in the only two other places in his writings (Galatians 1:8-9), how does this interpretation fit in with this?

Well, what I want to do is kind of answer this question, but mainly demonstrate that the issue of Romans 9 is not how God used Israel to bring forth the Messiah but that Paul is deeply concerned over the eternal condition of the souls of the Jews. The main focus of this post will be Romans 9:3 but I am going to keep it in its larger of context of Romans 8:35-9:5.

In Romans 9:1-2, we can see the situation of Paul and what this issue does to his very soul. Paul writes, “I am speaking the truth in Christ”I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit”that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.” Paul’s sorrow is great and his anguish does not end. He cannot get this off of his mind and heart and soul. It is important to see this, Paul is heartbroken by this situation. So let us see what this issue is that breaks his heart.

Romans 9:3 says, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” To understand this verse, I want to identify two ideas: who are Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh and what does it mean to be “accursed and cut off from Christ.” First is who are “Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh?” Romans 9:4-5 answers this question very clearly for the reader, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” Paul’s kinsmen are the Jews, the nation of Israel, God’s chosen and elect people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). This is crucial to understand the importance of the meaning of “accursed and cut off from Christ.”

Now let us define the meaning of “accursed and cut off from Christ.” The Greek term for “accursed” is anathema. It is a term used only six times (I miss spoke in my comments quoted above). Luke uses this term once in Acts 23:14 to describe the oath taken by the Jewish leaders when they swore to kill Paul. Paul uses the term five times in Romans 9:3; Galatians 1:8-9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22. In each case (omitting Romans 9:3 for this is the text in question), anathema is being used to curse some one. In Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 16, Paul is condemning the people who preach a false gospel or don’t love Jesus. This curse isn’t just a curse word but a strong condemnation. The question is, is this curse a curse to hell or not? Strong’s defines the term as

a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction

I think this idea is not unfounded. In Galatians 3:13 Paul says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us”for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” Here Christ is to be the one who redeems us from God’s curse. Here the idea of a curse is a curse to eternal condemnation, a curse to hell. Indeed, this fits the usage of Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22 best. If you don’t love Jesus, you are going to hell. If you preach a false gospel, then you are condemned to hell. It seems that when Paul speaks of being accursed, he is thinking of an eternal curse to hell.

Now, Paul speaks of being separated from Christ in these terms in Romans 8:31-35,

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died”more than that, who was raised”who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

For those who are God’s elect, no one can separate them from God’s love because he sacrificed Jesus to give them everything and Jesus intercedes for them on their behalf. Then he also speaks of being separated from Christ in terms of Romans 8:37-39,

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again, we cannot be separated from Christ, as God’s chosen and predestined people, by anything, including death. We will live with Christ forever. If Deuteronomy 7:6-8 is true, the the Jews are God’s chosen people and yet Paul is describing them in these terms, cut off from Christ.

Thus Paul’s anguish is that the Jewish people are under the eternal curse of God and are separated from Christ. The issue of Romans 9 is the salvation, or lack there of, in the nation of Israel. The issue of Romans 9 is slavific, not historical tasks or roles. Paul therefore is citing examples of God’s sovereign election over people to illustrate one point, Romans 9:6 which says, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” There are those people in the nation of Israel who are not truly Israel, who are not being saved and this breaks Paul’s heart. The reason why is because there is a remnant within the nation that God has chosen, like he chose Isaac and Jacob over Ishmael and Esau. God’s election is not to what task, but the examples are to illustrate the principle of God’s sovereign election that must be applied to the issue of salvation.

In Romans 9 Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 saying, “As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Calvinists take this to refer to the election on God’s part as either a) damning Esau to Hell and promoting Jacob to Heaven or b) damning the nations that come from Esau all to Hell and promoting the nations that come from Jacob to Heaven. There is another way to look at the hated/loved idea. It is my contention that the use of loved/hated denotes favor over another. Several passages will be looked at and examined, including Matthew 6:24, Matthew 10:37-38, Luke 14:26, Genesis 29:32-33, Deuteronomy 21:15-20 and John 12:25 This post will be two pronged. The first prong will look at how one should interpret the Loved/Hated idiom and the second will examine whether or not Edom was hated by God.

The Love/Hated Idiom

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Must we hate money as to cast it away for all eternity along with all our possessions? No. We are to elevate our devotion to God above our attachment to money. When it comes to God or money, we are to choose God. Money is a mere means, not a end unto itself. If money comes between you and God, get rid of it.

Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37-38

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.

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. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

In order to be a Christian, does one need to hate the rest of their family? Again, I would say no. Instead, following with the love of money from above, one needs to prioritize God over their family. Your number one allegiance needs to be to God, not family ties. These two verses really show how this loved/hated idiom should be viewed.

John 12:25

Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Does this verse advocate suicide? To really hate one’s life, that can be the only conclusion if one is to really truly hate one’s life. No, once again, one is not to hate one’s life, but instead, one is to give one’s life to God and hold God’s priorities over one’s own priorities.

Genesis 29:32-33

And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, “Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.” She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also.” And she called his name Simeon.

Here one sees an example of the relationship between those in the loved/hated idiom. There is reference not to damnation, but preference.

Deuteronomy 21:15-20

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the hated, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.

Once again, the wife that is said to be unloved, or hated is not actually hated in the sense that one would normally attach to the word. Instead, it speaks of the favor of one wife over the other by the husband.

God’s Hatred of Esau and Edom

How did God view Esau and Edom? One sees that from the start of the covenant with Abram, God decides to pass the primary covenant thru the people and therefore nations that He wishes, often in stark contrast to how normal entitlements were passed. However, God does not forget, nor withhold compassion for those that are not selected with the special favor of inheriting the task of bringing Christ into the world and being the example of God’s Holiness to the world. One sees in Genesis 21:13 and 21-17-18 that God provides and loves the people that were rejected in terms of carrying the covenant. In Genesis 36 God is multiplying Esau’s possessions so much that Esau has to move away into a land that God gives him.

The specific point of contention here is the land. Hank notes that the land is now cursed as a judgment on Edom. Is this judgment decided beforehand? No. As a matter of fact one sees the opposite in Deuteronomy 2:4-6, where God tells the Israelites not to mess with the Edomites because he has given them their own land. It was only after Edom’s actions did God pronouncing judgment on them, just like He did with Israel.

How is one to understand God’s hate? The most important distinction what needs to be made is a understanding of Reese notes that “[t]he human emotion of ‘hate’ is un-Christ-like and sinful when there are elements of malice, vindictiveness, or bitterness involved in it. Such attributes are foreign to God’s ‘hate’ and so many have preferred to explain it in terms of ‘loved less.’”

So, what is really going on in Malachi? Notice first that the main focus of the book is on Israel, not Edom. God”s love for Israel is questioned in verse 2 of chapter one. Malachi reassures Israel that it is still loved by God and the point is made that Israel is favored (loved) over its sibling nation Edom, which God favors less (hated). In God”s judgment on the nation that He favored less, there is terrible devastation to the land that the LORD lovingly gave to other son of Isaac (see below). This is done so that the people may know that God is not just the God of Israel, but of the whole world (Malachi 1.5).

The punishment of Edom is held in contrast with the punishment that the LORD will lay upon Israel. Israel has disobeyed the covenant and is going to be punished for it. That comparison is that Edom has strayed from God and is going to be punished and so will the favored nation, Israel. There is constant reference to the LORD”s favor of Israel and the other nations knowing that the favor is for Israel. Because of this favor, the LORD spares the land and despite the judgments, the land will grow fruit again. Notice the parallel: God loves Israel more and Edom less; God punishes Edom more and Israel less. Therefore one cannot take the mere punishments of Edom as a sign of the LORD”s hate of the whole nation and the damnation of each and every person within that nation, for the same thing happened to Israel, who is loved (more) by God. Only the level of punishment differs, which is in accord with God loving Israel more and Edom less.

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that one can easily take the “love/hated” idiom to indicate a “loved more/loved less” relationship between two parties and that which does the loving. It has also been demonstrated that such an interpretation fits with what one sees in the book of Malachi. Therefore, it is also reasonable to utilize this interpretation of the love/hated idiom as it is applied to the nations of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9.

Romans 9 is considered to be the “hammer” in the debates on Predestination and Free Will in terms of the salvation of the individual. Hank makes this point clear in his post, My Comfort in Romans 9. In this post, he expounds upon verses 9:11 and 9:14. It is Hank”s contention that only assuming a Calvinistic interpretation of Paul, does one raise the objections that Paul raises in the cited verses. If one adopts a Arminian position, one would not encounter the objections and because the objections are in fact raised, only the Calvinistic interpretation is the correct viewpoint.

Henry Thomas is correct” only if that section of Romans 9 is dealing with the salvation of the individual. If, however, the theme of Roman”s nine is different, if it speaks, say of the predestination of service, then one can hold an Arminian position and raise the objections that Paul raises.

In the beginning of Romans 9, Paul is writing about the seed of Abraham and how God chose that the line was used as a tool. This sets the tone for Romans 9, that the election that God uses to unfold his plan of history. Paul then goes on to write about the line of Christ and its election, one that God decided apart from any merit on any person”s part. The call that is written about here is not towards faith in Christ or God, but it is a call to service. This is then expanded from a discussion on Jacob and Esau to a discussion of their descendants, as noted by Paul by his quotation of Malachi; writing, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” In Malachi, this phrase is denoting the nations of Jacob and Esau ” Israel and Edom. It should also be noted that the terms “loved” and “hated” misstate the issue. Translated properly, it should read “loved more” and “loved less.” Malachi, and thus Paul is not speaking about the election of salvation, but on the lineage of the Messiah. That is what depended upon God. Dr. Reese writes about this passage in his commentary on Romans.

Paul”s argument, so far, is one with which few Jews would find fault. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham; but the Jews would never dream of saying that the Arabs are included in the “seed.” The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and Esau was a true son of Issac, and the twin brother of Jacob; but no Jew would ever have included the Edomites in the “seed.” They could hardly disagree with Paul”s emphasis that God has been making choices all through history, selecting this one and bypassing that one, without being unfaithful to the promise about “seed” that He made to the patriarchs¹

In verses 9:17 Paul further emphasizes the theme of the passage; the election in God”s formation of history, not salvation, with a discussion of Pharaoh. Paul quotes Moses” conversation with Pharaoh to show that God acted in Pharaoh”s life to spare him from the plagues so that Pharaoh might be a mouthpiece of God – through Pharaoh”s life, God”s name might be proclaimed throughout the earth. Reese notes that the turn of phrase here indicates that God spared Pharaoh”s life, he did not create nor change Pharaoh as or into a monster, writing, “[b]oth in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, the idea is that Pharaoh had been kept alive instead of being cut off, that God”s power might be displayed in him.²” Was God doing injustice via this choice? Paul says no. But once again, the theme is the service and use in history, not of personal salvation.

Exactly how is this injustice denied? There is mention of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh, both in Exodus and in Romans. What does this mean? Reese notes that there is no mention of God making Pharaoh”s heart being hard to begin with. Reese explains the idea of hardening in the footnotes to his commentary on 9:18:

God himself is said to have hardened Pharaoh”s heart” [i]t is thus certainly declared to that this hardening is from God. But even so, it is nowhere said that God had made Pharaoh”s heart hard from the first, so that, after a willful resistance to appeal, final obduracy was sent on him as a judgment.³

We see evidence of this in Pharaoh hardening his own heart in Ex 9:34 and Ex 7:15-21; in other places it is said that God further hardened his heart. Therefore, one can conclude that once Pharaoh decided to act against God”s plan for him, instead of striking Pharaoh down, God decided to use him anyway, although through alternative means. The Bible does make it clear that God is sovereign in everything, yet does decide to allow humans to have the exercise of free will.

Thus, the charge brought by the objector in 9:11 and is answered in 9:14, that God is unjust in his selections in history, does come up within a Arminian interpretation.

Footnotes:

1) Reese, Gareth. New Testament Epistles: Romans p.386.
2) Ibid. 391.
3) Ibid. 391.

Aside: I’ll be pretty busy until Wednesday afternoon, so don’t expect any responses on this until afterward. Also, in this post I am only talking about 9:11 and 9:14. That is not to say I am ignoring the rest of the passage nor the letter of Romans.

This is cross-posted at the Unsound Argument, but would like to discuss it here. I have copied Hank’s first comment over here for that purpose.