Paul’s definition of election deals with the unfolding history of Israel and God’s purposes for the Gentiles. His final understanding of ‘God’s purpose in election’ (Rom. 9:11) is not about the salvation and reprobation of individual souls, but that God in his sovereignty would bring about a salvation apart from human schemes and efforts, by faith alone, to the end that he might have mercy on all (Rom. 11:32). Paul then praises God for the way he has achieved his purposes and therefore receives all the glory (Rom. 11:30-33). God has not broken his covenant with his chosen people Israel, ‘it is not as though the word of God has failed’ (Rom. 9:6). He has worked salvation by his grace through faith “for the Jew first and also for the Gentiles” (Rom. 1:16). Yes, beyond the boundaries of Jewish ‘privilege’ to which the sovereign God was not bound, the way of salvation is now proclaimed to the Gentiles too. Who is Israel to be angry at God for showing mercy to those who were not his people? For they were not chosen for anything worthy in themselves, but only by God’s love and grace extended to them to be his witnesses to the other nations. They were to testify to the only true God – the God of their forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Having rejected the purpose of their election and their Messiah, God has temporarily hardened the Jews. In that hardening, the Gentiles are now extended God’s love and grace in Jesus. They, too, are now considered ‘elect’ in Jesus Christ. They, too, are ‘the people of God’ in Christ. Let’s examine this perspective more closely from Paul’s teaching in Romans.
One problem with interpreting Romans 9-11 is that it is easy to get off track historically regarding the question Paul is dealing with, that is, how it is that Israel, as God’s chosen people, has come to reject their Messiah and how this casts doubt as to God’s ability to fulfill his word and purposes. We must heed James Dunn’s warning so that we come to a proper understanding of Romans 9.
“…we must avoid being sidetracked. Paul has no intention of engaging in a debate about election and judgment (far less about predestination and freewill)…he wants to turn Israel’s own doctrine of election and rejection into an explanation for Israel’s current failure to respond to the gospel…Paul is about to make it clear that the “objects of wrath” are the covenant people themselves, or more precisely, the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the continuity/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel.”[1]
In Romans 9 Paul is grappling with issues like what it means to be God’s chosen people, what the essence of the promise was in God’s electing Israel to be his chosen people, how it is that the very people God himself chose have rejected their Messiah, what this means with respect to God’s faithfulness to Israel and his ability to fulfill his promises, whether God has the prerogative to harden his people for a time to achieve his broader salvific purposes, and whether such a hardening justifies the Jewish charge of injustice and unfairness against God because they are descendants of Abraham and the elect people of God with special position and privileges over the Gentiles. Paul addresses these issues in Romans 9-11. This in turn raises questions about the validity of the Calvinist interpretation of this portion of Scripture. I contend, along with Dunn, that the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 is not what these verses are about.
What I argue here is that we can confidently say, on several aspects of a sound hermeneutic and exegesis of the passage, that in Romans 9 Paul is not expounding upon how each individual’s salvation, past, present, and future, is the result of a past eternal unconditional decision of God. Furthermore, hardening is not a result of any individual Jew’s unconditional election to salvation or lack thereof, but God’s judgment upon Israel at that time for their rejection of Jesus. God has the sovereign prerogative to do as he wills with Israel, despite their being his chosen people. In fact, he has this right precisely because they are his elect people and by this hardening he drives home the meaning and purpose of their election – that they were to be a light to the Gentiles – those Gentiles which God is now grafting in by his mercy and grace through their faith in Christ. Dunn explains,
“…it is becoming increasingly evident that he [Paul] has raised the problem of divine rejection and hardening simply because, as a corollary to Israel’s own doctrine of election, it can actually serve to explain Israel’s own apparent rejection…he is intent on using Israel’s history to illuminate God’s purpose in salvation-history, which provides the key to the difficult verses 22-23/24.”[2]
Biblical scholar Grant Osborne is concerned about the tendency in critical scholarship to overlook “a deeper theological unity” between exegesis and biblical theology. This has implications for the Calvinist interpretive conclusions from Romans 9. Osborne seems to warn that something is amiss interpretively when biblical theology and exegesis do not result in “patterns of unity.”
“Critical scholarship in this sense is often more “literalistic” than conservative scholarship in that it often assumes that any so-called contradiction or difference between biblical writers removes the basis for a deeper theological unity between them. This is unnecessary, for writers use different terms or phrases for similar biblical concepts and stress one side or another of a larger theological reality. For instance, divine sovereignty and human free will are not contradictory aspects of the process of salvation. But can be harmonized at a deeper level. The same is true of faith (Paul) and works (James). While works cannot save us (Eph. 2:8-9), they are the necessary result of a true faith (Eph. 2:10 = Jas. 2:14-16).”[3]
Osborne continues,
“There is a two-way relationship between biblical theology and exegesis. The former provides the categories and overall scriptural unity behind one’s interpretation of biblical passages, while exegesis provides the data collated into a biblical theology. In other words, the two are interdependent. The exegete studies the author’s meaning on the basis of literary considerations (grammar and thought-development) and historical background (socioeconomic), then the biblical theologian works with the results and compiles patterns of unity behind the individual statements.”[4]
Although Osborne does not explain this “deeper level” that harmonizes divine sovereignty and human free will here, his point is that a hermeneutical solution lies in the wings regarding the “contradiction” the Calvinists’ deterministic definition of divine sovereignty generates with human freedom. Attempting to justify the matter, as Calvinists do, as an “apparent contradiction,” or defend it as a blatant contradiction to be humbly and blindly accepted, is not hermeneutically sufficient.
Osborne offers a way forward that is more hermeneutically complete and coherent than the Calvinist interpretation of election exhibits. Speaking on the nature of metaphor and the interpretive considerations affecting the meaning of metaphors, Osborne views the doctrine of election as a place where evangelicals are guilty of ignoring the metaphorical nature of theological statements. Osborne mentions the Calvinist / Arminian debate as a “critical” example of a lack of sensitivity to Paul’s use of metaphor in his language of election in the New Testament. Osborne states,
“One example will suffice, and it is a critical one. Debates over the doctrine of election usually center upon the individual (Calvinist), corporate or foreknowledge (Arminian) options. Yet all fail to ask the extent to which the language is literal or metaphorical. There is no question that the New Testament writers primarily take up a term used by Israel to describe her special place before God. It is indeed possible that this figurative component (that we are God’s chosen people) is the major message of election language in the New Testament, rather than the literal way the terms are often used; that is, to describe the actual process by which God saves people, namely by “electing” certain ones to be saved. It remains to be seen whether this obviates the (traditional view of a) literal use in some passages like Romans 9–11[5] or John 6, but the metaphorical aspect must be considered more closely in future studies of election theology.”[6]
I take Osborne’s use of the term “metaphorical” with respect to election to mean the transfer of the Old Testament meaning and implications of election into the New Testament while retaining the fundamental meanings and purposes, yet as applied in a new way to a new context with new implications. This is precisely the thesis I presented in my study of the patriarchal history found in my Old Testament Historical and Theological Overview.
In a footnote on the quote above, Osborne references page 125, where he discusses a method for rhetorical criticism. There he maintains that “rhetorical criticism must be utilized as part of the holistic process of exegesis rather than as an end in itself.” Osborne delineates five points for performing responsible rhetorical criticism of a passage: 1) determine the rhetorical unit; 2) analyze the rhetorical situation; 3) determine the type of rhetoric employed and the question behind it; 4) analyze arrangement, technique, and style; and finally, 5) evaluate rhetorical effectiveness. He states that “the rhetorical strategy decided upon will have hermeneutical implications for the interpretation of the passage. He provides the following example.
“For instance, if the predestinarian passages of Romans 9 are part of a diatribe against Jewish-Christian misunderstandings regarding the nature of God (due to the divine judgment against Israel), this may mean that the statements regarding divine election there do not comprise dogmatic assertions regarding the process by which God saves people (the traditional Calvinist interpretation) but may instead comprise metaphors describing one aspect of the process (that is, God’s sovereign choice [the emphasis in Romans 9] working with the individual’s decision [the emphasis elsewhere]). Paul would be stressing one aspect of a larger whole to make his point.”[7]
Now, although Osborne does not elaborate on what he means by “God’s sovereign choice” and clarify this “one aspect of a larger whole”, we can safely assume that what he means by “God’s sovereign choice…working with the individual’s decision” is not something that is a contradiction or rationally incoherent. In other words, we do not suspect Osborne to deem it acceptable to ultimately declare his proposed interpretations to be a contradiction that is only apparent because it is beyond human comprehension.
It certainly is the case that Paul is addressing the present perplexity over Israel’s rejection of their Messiah and the implication for the veracity of the word of God spoken to Israel and the divine promises made to them. As Osborne suggests, it also appears that the nature of God and his prerogatives as God needed to be elucidated as a corrective to Gentile misconceptions regarding both Israel’s present position and their own place in God’s salvific plans that centered upon Israel to avoid a sort of “pride of place” given God’s present hardening of his own people. Osborne’s point is that the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9 may not be as sensitive as it needs to be to all that comprises a sound interpretation of such a unique and difficult passage. Indeed, a holistic process of interpretation would have to attend to whether one’s interpretation of Romans 9 logically conflicts with Paul’s statements in chapters 10 and 11. I believe this is the case with the Reformed Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. It contradicts chapters 10 and 11. Therefore, to generate incoherence between Paul’s statements across these three chapters (and I would argue the whole scope of the epistle of Romans) is an important hermeneutical element that speaks against the validity of the Reformed Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9.
What Osborne is suggesting is that the use the New Testament writers make of the language of election is made clear by the context and may have more of a metaphorical sense and purpose than a strictly literal application, informing us that God chooses certain people to be saved. It is put into the service of the gospel revealed in Christ rather than bluntly stating that God predestines people to their eternal destiny. In fact, even if we were to think more literally or make a direct correlation between the relationship between God and Israel in the Old Testament as his “elect” and the New Testament usage, we would still be hard-pressed to see an individual salvific determinism in either usage. God’s relationship with Israel was not one of individual salvific predestination. Many individuals were destroyed, and Israel itself was sent into exile because of their disobedience and sin. So even the concept of “the elect” in the Old Testament does not lend support to a static, individual predestinarian salvation in the New Testament. If that were the case, if God simply predestined certain people to be saved, Paul could have summed it all up in a few sentences.
A more holistic hermeneutical methodology leads us to conclude that how an individual gets saved was not Paul’s concern in Romans 9. Paul certainly includes that in chapter 10, but what he says there would be in contradiction with chapter 9 if we take the Calvinist view on that chapter. So Paul is not teaching unconditional election and reprobation in chapter 9. Therefore, there is good reason, hermeneutically, to think that the original situation Paul is dealing with in chapter 9 has not been properly grasped and accounted for in the Reformed Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. Following the rhetorical method developed by George A. Kennedy and Duane F. Watson, Osborne comments under point 2 of his suggested rhetorical method about analyzing the rhetorical situation that,
“…in literary theory, the identification of the original situation is an essential component, for that situation dictated the rhetorical strategy employed. The determination of the audience’s situation adds hermeneutical precision to the task of interpretation. Watson (1988:9) speaks of three constituents of the rhetorical situation: the problem or obstacle that needs to be corrected, the audience to which the rhetorical situation is directed, and the constraints brought by the speaker’s / writer’s analysis of the situation. Each aspect should be investigated as part of the critical process.”[8]
As Henry Thiessen observes, the non-Calvinist view of election,
“…has fewer objections than any other, and best commends itself in the light of what we know of the righteousness and holiness of God on the one hand, and of human responsibility on the other.”[9]
I submit that the Reformed Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 is deficient in employing these interpretive concerns and principles.
Return to Chapter 16 – The Doctrine of Election According to Scripture
Footnotes
[1] James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, Romans 9-16, v.38b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers), 567.
[2] James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 566.
[3] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 264.
[4] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 265.
[5] Here is Osborne’s footnote number 29 at this point in his text. “Since Romans 9 is a diatribe, it is indeed possible to argue that Paul is not describing the divine process of salvation but rather is utilizing the Old Testament metaphor of predestination metaphorically to stress God’s sovereignty. At this point I have not studied Romans 9 sufficiently to state unequivocally that this is indeed the case, but my preliminary study suggests that it may be so (see also p. 125).”
[6] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 302.
[7] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 125.
[8] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 125.
[9] Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lessons in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 347-348.
The Truth of the Gospel 