A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part II

Continuing our look at Christ's Message to the Church at Thyatira, the vision-driven church...

Some interpreters of the Revelation suggest that Jezebel was the wife of the vision caster in Thyratira. Even though there are a few linguistic reasons for such an interpretation, I find none of them convincing in the least. Primarily (as I've written elsewhere), the angels to whom these letters are written are not pastors, prophets, vision casters, or even humans--they are angels as is consistent with the use of the term throughout the Apocalypse. Pastors and bishops are never called angels (or messengers) in the NT, and it would be a novel application of the term to use it as such in these messages to the seven churches.

Furthermore, since the same Koine word means "wife" and "woman", it is not necessary to interpret the reference to Jezebel ("that woman") as "your wife", even if an extra pronoun (your, second person, singular) is attested in some minority manuscripts. She is female, she may be married, but there is no way she is married to an angel! The bottom line: there is nothing compelling about such an interpretation, and much that militates against it.

Christ gives this self-styled prophetess time to repent of teaching and misleading Christians in Thyatira to commit sexual immorality and participate in idolatry. Of course, in that time she actually has an opportunity to lead more astray, although time granted for the one leading others astray is also time granted for those being led astray to come to their senses and repent. If they don't, they'll go down with her because followers never shed their responsibility for following what they follow. The Antichrist may be thrown into the fire first, but those who follow him get thrown in just the same afterward.

Striking her children dead is a shocking threat, not really unique in biblical revelation, but appalling to our modern sensibilities all the same. Whatever else that says about God, it certainly undermines any notion that he is the touchy-feely type that loves everyone unconditionally. God is love, but he does with people as he sees fit, and who is there that can argue with him about it or question his judgment? History has an ample record of bracing catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death (~1340's), the Shaanxi Earthquake (1556), the Spanish Flu (1918), the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004), and the Haitian Earthquake (2010), which should convince any of us that it is a fearful thing to be in the hand of a God who can suddenly bring us into judgment.

If one sees the name Jezebel as a merely figurative assignation, (i.e. there was not a woman actually named Jezebel in Thyatira), then I would think it was permissible to see her children along the same figurative line. In that case, the children would be her second layer or level of followers rather than actual biological offspring. Those she commits adultery with would be the first layer, those that are won to her way as a result of the first layer would be the children. All three (her, her first followers, and the followers of followers) are justifiably threatened with judgment, for none are innocent.

When God strikes in judgment, it is meant to get our attention, but does he do so just because he desires to demonstrate his wrath? I think that the answer to that question must be both yes and no. No, in that he didn't desire it within himself as if wrath were an attribute of his nature; yes, in that given rebellion, he does desire to respond to it with wrath. Apart from creatures rebelling, there would be no need for, nor any expression of wrath--God is not innately wrathful. He doesn't have to, and hasn't fixed the game just so he has an opportunity to hurt someone and break things, but when it comes to unrepented of rebellion, God wants folk to know what reaction to expect from him.

So never read the wrong message into his patient forebearance--God searches the mind and heart, with absolute transparency. And what he knows in secret, he'll make known in judgment seen by all.

The Nature of Election

In an interchange with one of my favorites bloggers, a difference in how we understood election led to his suggestion that I look at what Paul's letter to the Galatians says on the subject. This post is my response to that suggestion. I will interact with portions of Galatians and relate them back to issues arising from Romans 9 and 11, which were the origin of the discussion (even though they were not what the originating blog post was about). Read that post and comments here (and anything else you can from that site--Ben and J.C. are two of the finest bloggers on the internet!).

Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.   Galatians 3:6-9 NIV 1984

Election, as biblically referenced, hearkens back to Abraham and what was promised to him. Abraham was hand-picked by God to be the father of a people through Sarah, who were to be given a land in perpetuity in Canaan, and who would have God as their god and who would be God's people. Through him/them would all the world be blessed. Abraham's heirs through this promise, therefore, were a people chosen by God to be savingly related to him--the elect.

Within God's covenants with Abraham, however, a potential division of his progeny was intrinsic, for "God would be their god" is an inherently conditional statement. God can only be one's god if he is believed in, trusted, and followed in obedience and fellowship uniquely by those for whom he is their god. If those characteristics are not in place, then neither can it be said that God is their god. A cultural myth, part of background perhaps, but not a personal god.

This division is what Paul exploits in Romans 9. There seems to be an assumption packed by Paul into v 6 which would represent, it seems to me, a "Jewish" way to see election. Jews, the sons of promise, the possessors of Israel, the nation affiliated with the worship of God would be expected to be those who would embrace their promised Messiah, the blessing to all nations. That was not happening and therefore it called into question the word of God regarding their election and the promise to the elect.

If the foundation of election in Abraham would have been understood by those making such an assumption, then the assumed misunderstanding could have been avoided. Paul spent chapter 9 of Romans trying to get this point across. Salvivic election, NT election--the election of Abraham (if I can put it that way) is predicated on faith. God chooses all those who trust his promise, Jew and Gentile alike, to be saved.

Instead, the "Jewish" approach to election seems to be dominated by Mosaic concerns. God picked Israel, corporately, to be delivered from bondage, ensconced in the Promised Land, governed by the law and blessed. Circumcision and nominal adherence to the Law was all that was necessary to secure what was promised, and if Messiah came it would have been obvious to them. The Jews would have followed him as a people into the golden age of Israel.

What is missing in such an understanding is the transitory nature of the Mosaic Covenant. It was nothing more than a schoolmaster, a temporary regimen meant to ensure that an anticipated goal could actually be reached. A "Mosaic" understanding of election can embrace a purpose in time for national Israel, but let us be clear--Moses has nothing to say about Abraham...

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  Galatians 3:19-25 NIV 1984

So if we see Abraham's promises from God in the broadest sense, Abraham's election was sealed by faith as is that of all those (Jews and Gentiles) who follow in his steps as chosen by God and made righteous by faith. No one is elect unto anything salvivic apart from faith. As for Israel under Moses, they had a role to play (i.e. they were chosen to serve), which is over now, but despite their current rejection of Messiah, God retains plans for them to embrace him en masse finally, one day.

Replacement Theology Undermined by Jesus

"...they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority..."   Acts 1"6-7 NASB

Was the church intended by God as a replacement to Israel? There is no doubt that the new covenant in Christ displaced the old covenant of Moses. That was a covenant of works entered into primarily by the children of Jacob, whereas the new is a covenant of faith entered into by whoever will. If the point of the old was to make way for the new, than a justifiable question arises as to the continuing need or viability of a covenantal people whose identifying covenant is obsolete. What would be the point of a covenant-people if their covenant is defunct?

The church, most definitely, is the new kingdom of God. It is the one and only locus of right relationship with God in this and in the ages to come. In regard to covenantal relationship with God it displaces Israel, encompassing Jew and Gentile in one body as the people of God. Those selected for inclusion in this kingdom are chosen, not on the basis of geneology and faith, but on the basis of faith alone. It is the only game in town.

But even if the old is defunct and discarded as to it's ability to establish and regulate covenantal relationship with God, God's promise to Abraham concerning the land given to his offspring and God being their God still remains in force. The defunct Mosaic covenant cannot regulate their fellowship with God (only the Messiah's can do that), nonetheless, the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and controls their geopolitical destiny here on earth.

Acts 1:7 is proof. Jesus was asked specifically about Israel's earthly destiny--his answer was not that they did not have one any more. He answered that the timing of the restoration of Israel's earthly kingdom was information God was keeping to himself. In other words, there was coming a restoration of earthly kingdom to Israel in the future, but the time and date was unknown to all but God. Ultimately, that kingdom will be governed in its covenantal relationship with God by the covenant of Messiah not of Moses, but there is most certainly still purpose in God for the continued existence of national Israel, despite their present unbelief.

After his resurrection and just prior to his ascension, in Jesus' mind there was still a kingdom to restore to Abraham's descendants in the promised land. In his mind there was still a place and purpose for national Israel. That they would have to relate to God in the same way as Gentiles in order to be right with God (i.e. faith in Christ) does nothing to mitigate the fact of God's continuing purpose for their existence. In his plans at that time there was still a place for the kingdom of the Jews.

That tells me that there still is.

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part III

Mercy and Faith
Verse 19 of Romans 9 begins an aside in Paul’s dissertation. He has a hypothetical responder object to the repercussions of Paul’s presentation, arguing that if all depends on God’s mercy, than those hardened cannot be blamed for their hardness. This, of course, presages Paul’s revelation in chapter 11 that currently, a hardening has come upon the Jews. Hardness is not presented there as a necessarily persevering quality, so the response is more directed at the hypothetical questioner’s arrogance than at establishing any principle of deterministic election.

Regardless, the principle that God can do what he wants with whom he wants is the prerogative of creators. Potters call the shots, not pots. Who, then, is in a position to question God’s motives or demand anything from him? The created can but accept their lot, and be as they have been made to be. There is hope, however, in faith as we shall see.

Vs. 22-24 is Paul’s way stating what Peter said as well. There is a patience in God, holding back the expression of inevitable wrath, so that everyone destined for mercy can be shown it. Peter keys that to repentance, Paul keys it to faith (not only in this chapter but throughout his writings). So whatever this may be saying about God’s predetermination, by the end of the argument, it is said that faith is the means by which one gets into the class of promise.

Vs. 25-33 pull all of these concepts together in application by showing that God’s purpose was inviting a people, made up of Jews and Gentiles, to righteousness. This promise was entirely a matter of God’s mercy, rather than arbitrary status or works, and is accessed through faith. And not just faith, but specifically, trust in that stumbling block that is Christ. God had to make choices in time to bring this promised Rock into place, but now that he is, whoever puts their trust in him will never be ashamed.

Conclusion
The principle of Romans 9 is not that God arbitrarily chooses certain individuals to be saved and others to be damned. Instead, it teaches that anyone who receives God’s promise by faith and relates to God on the basis of his mercy, rather than works, will be part of his people. God is God and can do as he likes, but if Gentiles, regardless of lacking the Jews' “God-givens,” can be made righteous by faith, anyone can. And by God, you too, whoever you may be, can.

Parts I, II

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part II

Election
Paul’s use of the concept of election in Romans 9 is not accurately related to individual salvation (i.e. that God picks individuals to be saved or damned). In verse 11, election is cast in a redemption history light (and as evident by vs 4-5). Paul was neither trying to establish a principal of individual salvation by election, nor establishing, contra-Calvin, that election unto salvation was corporate. He was merely trying to establish the fact that in order to fulfill his purposes (which were salvivic), God made choices among men.

God chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in that regard, and rejected Ishmael, Esau, and others. This choice had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing any pattern concerning personal salvation, nor was it made for personal merit.  These individuals (and their progeny after them) were chosen merely in regard to their role in bringing forth the ultimate promise--Christ. That progeny's counterintuitive rejection of Christ is the point Paul is exploring in Chapter 9.

In verse 16 we do discover something more akin to precedential regarding salvation—that God’s mercy was the determining issue, rather than any merit or lack of merit in his selectees. In the immediate context, this refers to his choices within redemption history, but in the broader context (see chapters 3, 4, 10 and 11), it does service the concept of salvation by grace. It seems that everything in redemption history and in redemption itself, rests in God’s mercy rather than the merits of man. As always, to God be all the glory.

In making these choices in time, which would ultimately result in the fulfilling of his purpose, v. 18 says that God shows favor to some folks and disfavor to others. Disfavor results in obstinacy (hardness) toward the purposes of God, although it is not clear that it causes such (especially in light of v. 30). Pharaoh is used as an example, and at least in his case, hardening was attributed to both God’s action and his. Regardless, the choosing of which is which is God’s alone, and he answers to no one for it, although I think it worth remembering at this point that these are not choices to personally save or damn, but to accomplish his purpose in making these choices.

That purpose is finally specified in vs. 23-24. God saw the end of making these choices prior to that end occurring, that end was his purpose: that Gentiles and Jews would be called together into his salvation in Christ. He endured with great patience those vessels hardened throughout history, because he saw the glory in the end for those vessels of mercy, even us, those Jews and Gentiles being saved in Christ. So God made choices in history, not to demonstrate his methodology in establishing who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, but in order to advance his purpose through history and to accomplish it in time.

Conclusion
Romans 9 is not speaking about election unto salvation at all, as if there could be an explanation of why God, solely by decree, would determine some to be saved and others to burn in hell forever. If anything, Romans 9 is trying to explain why the elect are not being saved--why Jews, despite their status as the chosen, are not embracing Christ. Neither corporate nor individual election unto salvation is in view at all! The conclusion of the explanation, in a nutshell, is that Jews do not accept God’s mercy by faith but try to establish their own meritorious record and end up missing the promised Messiah of the Jewish people.

Parts I, III

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part I

Introduction
Romans 9 has to be the most controversial chapter in the entire Bible among believing Christians. Generally, the issue that causes all the sparks and gets all the attention is election; however, when I read the chapter, I don’t see election, as generally understood, as the intent or the focus of the chapter. All the hullaballoo about election is misplaced, in my mind, the result of misinterpretation. Romans 9 is merely the opening salvo in explaining why Jews were not being saved in the Apostle Paul’s day (chapters 10 and 11 continue the explanation), and the determining issue in that problem is stated to be faith, not election.

Overview

The initial subject of chapter 9 (vs. 1-5) is the disheartening rejection of Christ amongst the Jews, who were supposedly God’s chosen people (the elect). The chapter goes on to explain how the benefaction of God’s promises cannot be understood according to arbitrary qualifications (who your daddy is) or by human efforts (what one does to make himself meritorious). The conclusion (vs. 30-33) is that the promises can only be pursued through the auspices of faith, and not by dependence upon one’s status in a group over which they had no control, nor by personal merit (works).

Paul's Argument

Though it is true that the Jews were the recipients of the promises concerning salvation, they were, in Paul’s day, not beneficiates of those promises. The fault, Paul explains, does not lie in the promises (God’s word), but in Israel’s unbelief; and the puzzle of it lies in their misapprehension of God’s choice (election). An arbitrary membership in a class of people was not a sufficient way to understand or define those chosen to be God’s beneficiates. Abraham and Isaac were used to illustrate the point: though Ishmael (and others) were the offspring of Abraham, they were not the result of promise nor the beneficiates of promise; though Esau was Isaac’s son, he was not the recipient of promise either.

Furthermore, that choice was not predicated upon the determination or effort of man--it was purely and simply a matter of God’s mercy and not human merit. God’s mercy cannot be tethered to deserts in the recipients but is solely according to the pleasure of God, otherwise it would be reward rather than mercy. God has mercy on who he wills, as Paul ably illustrates by the examples of Esau and Pharaoh. The bracing repercussion is that we have nothing to say to God to defend our worthiness, nor detract from his judgment which excludes us from his beneficence.

Mercy is not merely arbitrary, however. Although mercy is not extended on the basis of worthiness (which would seem to make it arbitrary), it is received on the basis of faith (which seems to make it anything but arbitrary). If this was not the intended point of Paul's dissertation from verses 1 through 29, he would never have brought up the pursuit of righteousness starting with verse 30. The long and short of it is that God extends mercy to whomever he wishes regardless of works or geneology, but that ultimate, saving mercy can only be received through the auspices of faith.

The force of the argument in Romans 9 is that Jews who thought they had the privileged position of being chosen by God because of their heritage and their works, were in fact missing the ultimate promise of that election. It is not that they were not chosen or even chosen no longer, as chapters 10 and 11 make abundantly clear. Their loss (hardening) revolves completely around their unwillingness to respond to God's mercy with faith. Instead, they endeavored to establish their own record of worthiness by the law and thereby missed out on God's mercy in Christ.

Parts II, III

Shock: Maybe We're Owed A Little Something After All

We are owed nothing. We are entitled to nothing. We are in a position to demand nothing. God is under no obligation to do anything for us. If you think otherwise you know nothing.

I have run across the position of those first sentences and the attitude described in the last taken by zealous folk when discussing God. Truth be told, I may have taken it myself at one time or another. At this point in my life, however, I'm not sure it's tenable. Certainly, none of us would argue for such a position being justified among humans in positions of authority; for example, pet owners.

How could such a position be anything other than callous and oppressive for anyone in a powerful position? Claiming it for God casts him in a very Marie Antoinette-like light. I see absolutely no upside in doing so. A holy and just God merits a better defense than to be cast in that tyrannical light!

Does God not have obligations to sentient beings given his decision to create them? After all, they did not wish themselves into existence with their capacity to (even the inevitability that they would) go against God. I think God does have some responsibility, especially since such souls are eternal and risk everlasting fire. God certainly acts like he has some parental obligations. Perhaps we should take our cue from him regarding this and not press Romans 9:16-24 beyond reasonable measure.

Time continues, giving opportunity for humans to be made right. God has stamped a witness into creation and poured out his Spirit profusely. We have been given all things, including Christ, even holiness is ours if we want it. We may turn our backs upon the responsible provision of God and be left to our fate, but thankfully, God is not so callous that he didn't feel the compulsion to provide.

It Is What It Is

If determinism is true, is there even such a thing as evil? By determinism I mean that as a consequence of God's sovereignty every jot and tittle of existence, animate and inanimate, seen and unseen has been willed by God to be as it is, as it unfolds. Freedom of action, choice or will would really be nothing more than an illusion under such an regimen, because all things would be determined by God to be and do as they are and do.

If everything is an expression of his will, then all is in his will and could be none other that what it is. The fatalistic expression, "it is what it is" would then actually be the profound explication of the most fundamental truth of existence rather than the lazy abandonment of someone who settles. If this is so, than any judgment loses it moral distinction, just in the way a pride of lions running off a mother wildebeest to separate her suckling so they can pounce and eat is not morally repugnant in the least. It is what it is, neither good nor evil. Evil only exists where choice exists.

Romans 9 is often seen as teaching determinism within the framework of Christianity. However, those verses merely demonstrate how God does in history what he needs to do with people in order to fulfill his purpose in in making those choices. Though that certainly is a deterministic thought, it is not speaking about determining an individual's eternal status with God by fiat or decree, nor of governing every thought and action of every human being alive.

It is speaking about the advent and effect of Jesus: the purpose in election was first, that Christ would come when he came, by whom he came and where he came; and second, that those who believe in Christ would be righteous. In fact, until the end of his discussion on the topic in Romans 11, Paul allows faith as the only operative issue in what determines righteousness or eternal status with God. Faith, as opposed to works, was the deciding factor.

God did do some picking in order to bring Christ into the world--so that Jesus could do what he did and that those who believed in him could be made righteous thereby. That is a far cry from jumping to the conclusion that God micromanages the expression of human choice and action and has determined by his choice alone who will have faith in Christ and who will not. Christianity cannot be made to service a philosophy which so blurs the distinction between what is good and evil, that it becomes meaningless: it is what it is.