One of the reasons I adore work as a school chaplain is because of the quality and commitment of the colleagues I work with. Recently, a colleague of mine who teaches English asked me to give him some insight into the importance of Romans 9:25: "I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved." He asked because it is the epigraph to a novel they are teaching: Toni Morrison's "Beloved".
His very astute question led me to write an essay I have meant to write for a long time. This essay has Romans 9.25 at the heart of how Paul uses rhetoric in the book of Romans to lead the reader to an expansive vision of God's all-embracing Love for humanity, revealed in Jesus Christ. If I had to sum it up, here is my one-sentence summary:
Romans 9.25 is part of Paul's assurance that all humans are God's children and recipients of God's Love, despite all the rhetoric of exclusion that is raised against them.
But this summary is rather easy to write, but hard to square with some of the evidence found in the next of Romans. So to understand how Romans 9.25 functions as part of the overall argument, we need to dig in:
The Perplexing Legacy of Romans 9-11
Paul's Letter to the Romans is unique among the New Testament (for a two part visual summary, click here, then here). It is the most systematic of all the books of the New Testament, unfolding the theological implications of what God has done in Jesus for all of God's People, both Judeans and Non-Judeans. And it is unique also because it is appealed to very strongly by both thinkers who advocate for universal salvation and inclusion of all people in God's Love, but also thinkers who advocate predestination of most of humanity to be damned forever. People from wildly different views— God wants to save all versus God wills for most to perish— look at the same texts and derive completely opposite conclusions. How can this be?
This is because Romans— especially Romans 9-11— provides seminal texts and phrases which, taken in isolation, provide strong support for both positions of universal inclusion (UI hereafter) versus predestined exclusion (PE hereafter). And UI and PE advocates often appeal to these texts without immediate context, and with no reference to the overall shape of Paul's argument across Romans. Before we get into the overall shape of Paul's argument, let's get a sampling of the texts that appeal to both groups:
Texts which appeal to PE Advocates
Advocates of PE come from many different Christian traditions which stress God's election and predestination of a remnant of humanity to eternal salvation, and most of humanity to eternal damnation. Included in this are those who draw from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformed tradition, including those who advocate "double predestination" (God actively chooses both the saved and the damned) as well as those who advocate "single predestination" (God actively chooses the saved, and passively allows the damned to suffer). Some of their key texts from Romans 9-11 include:
Romans 9:11-13 "Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' As it is written, 'I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.'"
Romans 9:15, 18 "For God says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' ... So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses."
Romans 9:21-22 "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction...?"
Romans 9:27 "And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, 'Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved...'"
Romans 11:5 "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."
Romans 11:7-8 "What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, 'God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.'"
Romans 11:21-22 "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off."
Texts which appeal to UI Advocates
Advocates of UI include: Protestant Universalists, who often reject the idea of hell altogether, or insist that hell is real, but not inhabited; Catholic Universalists, who regard hell as a kind of universal purgatory, disciplining all people until they are ready for heaven; And Orthodox Universalists, who think that heaven and hell and purgatory are symbols for the soul's experience of the presence of God, and that God's Love is a kind of "refiner's fire" which cleanses and purifies us all, like metal in a furnace, until we can reflect God's image perfectly. Some of their key texts from Romans 9-11 include:
Romans 9.25-26 "As indeed God says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children of the living God.”
The source quote comes from Hosea 2.23 and 1.10. Originally the Prophet Hosea was referring to how God had rejected the chosen nations of Judah and Israel, only to welcome them back again. Here Paul explicitly EXPANDS the referent, so that it applies now to both Judeans and Non-Judeans (Gentiles). This is a crucial clue to his rhetorical strategy which we will discuss below.
Romans 10.12-13 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 11:12, 15 "Now if their stumble means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! ... For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"
Romans 11:25-26 "I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved..."
Romans 11:32 "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all."
Romans 11:36 "For from God and through God and to God are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen."
Untangling the rhetoric of Romans 9-11
So which is it Paul? Is he arguing for UI or PE? Why does he seem to waver back and forth? I think the key here is to understand the rhetorical strategy at play across the book of Romans. In Romans Paul is having a many-layered theological dialogue (and at times debate) with other members of the Christian community, including those coming from Judean and Gentile backgrounds. The three main arguments are about:
Where does Jesus as Messiah fit into the story of salvation that grows out of the Hebrew Scriptures to include the promises to Abraham and Moses?
What is the relationship between God's faithfulness and grace in proactively saving us through Jesus, versus our faith and good works in response to that Divine gift?
How far does God's grace and atonement extend through Jesus? Only to a chosen group— if so, which group— or does it expand to include all humanity?
In reference to this third thread, Paul has already made some provocative UI statements before Romans 9-11. For instance:
Romans 1.16 For I am not ashamed of the Good News [of Christ]: It is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith [or "is faithful"], to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Romans 2.9-11 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
Romans 3.23-24 Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
Romans 5.18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.
Romans 8.35-39 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? ...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 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.
Note that this striking UI statement is the rhetorical crescendo before we enter into the minefield of Romans 9-11. After stating unequivocally that "nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord", Paul then seems to waver, back and forth with the readings we listed above: PE to UI, UI back to PE! Why is Paul so confusing?
I think the confusion lies in the fact that ancient Greek prose did not generally have the markers we might expect for a dialectical argument in which the author presents counter arguments to his thesis, followed by refutations of those counter arguments. Most people read Paul in Romans 9-11 as if he is presenting his own views flatly, in a straighforward way. Instead of this flat reading, many New Testament scholars suggest that he is actually presenting the exclusionary arguments of his imaginary interlocutor, followed by his refutation and enlargement of his imaginary opponent's positions.
I think when you read Paul as an exponent of UI who is dealing with PE counter-arguments, Romans 9-11 makes much more sense. As you read these three chapters, you will note that every PE idea and text listed is eventually included into, and superseded by, texts and ideas that support UI. And this makes sense of why the crescendo of his argument here ends, NOT with exclusion and judgement, but with a song of praise:
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience
so that he may be merciful to all!
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments
And how inscrutable his ways!
For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?”
For from him
and through him
and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever. Amen!
(Romans 11.32-36)
This makes the end of Romans 11 the mirror bookend to the end of Romans 8. And after having transmuted the arguments for PE into an overall vision of UI, Paul then enters into the "practical" section of Romans, where he talks about:
How to live as a Community (Romans 12)
How to deal with living as a subject of the Roman Empire in a world of spiritual darkness (Romans 13)
How to deal with practical issues that divide local communities (Romans 14-15)
Shout outs to friends and co-workers in the Gospel (Romans 16)
The startling conclusion of the breadth of God's Love
Now, advocates of PE would disagree with me at almost every step of the way. The Bible often functions as a Rorschach test or mirror, in which we see the best and worst of ourselves in the text. But I would argue that the UI position advocated here actually makes the best sense of the book of Romans and the New Testament as a whole. As the Apostle James says: "Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2.13).
With this in mind, a fundamental interpretive choice in understanding the trajectory of the Biblical Story is whether we will allow texts of limitation and exclusion to interpret and restrict texts of universal love and salvation, or whether we will allow inclusive and universal texts to expand and fulfill the horizon of the texts of exclusion and limitation. For instance, when we encounter texts about judgment, retribution, and damnation, will we see these as “the end of the story” with no hope for redemption beyond Divine condemnation?
Or, conversely, will we allow universal texts such as John 3.16-17, 12.32, and 1Corinthians 15.22 to interpret these texts of judgment, so we understand that Divine judgment is ultimately redemptive: A phase in the story of salvation that leads to the hopeful reconciliation of all persons in Christ. I have chosen this latter interpretive path, and understand the texts as universally and inclusively as I can, while staying centered on the concrete person of Jesus, in whom the universal love of God is fully incarnated. Thus, if I err, I try to err on the side of love, grace, and healing.
No comments:
Post a Comment