Listen to this post NOW on Beyond Everything Radio!

Throughout the last few chapters we’ve watch Paul decode our Anthropology into two opposing forces (Spirit and Flesh) which both work within each of us. We learned that both aspects are vital and beautiful (distinct from Platonic dualism) because they mirror the life of Christ. This teaching comports with Jesus’ own anthropology in John 6. Intermixed in this narrative we saw a future hope so big, that it reorients us in our present lives. In Chapter 9, Paul begins a three chapter clinic on Theology. Intermixed with this course on God, Paul uses proof texts and another sub-plot to explain his logic for a very different perspective of God.

I taught this chapter while pastoring at a Methodist church in Yorba Linda, CA. It was early in my ministry and during my graduate studies when I discovered the theology of the Reformation. You may not appreciate the nuance of a Calvinist bible teacher in a Wesleyan church, but my rendering of chapter 9 catalyzed my abrupt dismissal.

The reason Romans 9-11 has divided churches, spilt denominations, created rifts between believers, and remains a canker sore that pastors either avoid or relish, is because so few are able to hold both perspectives in tension. I’ve said it many times, if Romans is read from a binary perspective, we won’t understand Romans, nor Paul’s Gospel. As a result, there are few guides who can lead us through this. Hopefully by now I’ve prepared you to hear Paul explain this necessary counter-balance in his doctrine.

I’ll make a few previsionary considerations:

1. Paul talks about destruction, but he is not talking about Hell. Paul never mentions Hell in any of his letters. If we import the hell bound sinners vs born again Christians framework, we’ll fumble this message.
2. Paul is not speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He’s unpacking the reality behind the largess of God and His planes of existence.
3. Keep the subplot and the main plot held in tension.
4. These verses say what they appears to be saying. Yes there is much nuance here, but the larger theological doctrine, while a big vitamin, still needs to be swallowed.

The subplot in chapter 9 is that Israel (as a people and a religion) although named the chosen people, are not assured this status merely by being born an Israelite, nor by fidelity to their religious law. Paul begins by paying homage to Jewish history and validating all of it including it’s promise to deliver the world its Messiah. It pains Paul that Jews assume good standing (justification) with God merely by birth or ritual. Paul would welcome a curse if it meant he could liberate his fellow Jews.

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.” (V.3)

Paul retells the Hebrew saga of the patriarchy with Abraham and Isaac. I think Paul is reassuring the Jewish mind who pushed back against Paul’s claim that Gentiles (heathens) are equal recipients to Jews of God’s grace. A Jew would retell this sub-plot about how God did all this amazing stuff because Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses all obeyed, which they did. However, Paul is reframing how the sub-plot played out, claiming it’s not because of law, but because of faith. Revealing also that God caused it all to happen, before any of them had a choice in the matter. (cue nails on chalkboard)

The big Theology soundbites of the meta narrative are these:

“…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls…” (v.11)

“Yet I have loved Jacob³ but Esau I have hated.” (v. 12, cited from Malachi 1:2-3)

ְThe Hebrew word (שׂנוּ ָאה: sane-(8130), to hate, detest, unloved) is used in the Old Testament 147 times. It’s a common word with a clear definition which means to “love less“ or to be “unloved“, but most of the usage is clearly hating or detesting. So when a bible teacher says “It doesn’t mean hate.” You can rest assured that in most instances it definitely does. Consider texts like this:

“When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.” (Genesis 29:31)

Paul goes on:

“For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (v.15-16)

“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (v.18)

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” ²¹ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? ²² What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, ²³ in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— ²⁴ even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (v.19-24)

Theologians have drafted threatening doctrines of reprobation (which have textual merit) but which are also disproportionately weighted and thus distort their Gospel causing the work of Christ to only love a few and hate everyone else. We can do better, but not by jettisoning this theme which exist in the biblical revelation. So I’d like to propose we place it in context to everything else.

In 1:18, Paul showed how all people suppress the truth in unrighteousness and in doing so exist under the plane of wrath. Paul’s “bothness” or “ternary” framework reveal an anthropology of “bothness” culminating in 7:25. Paul’s logic has been that we exist under wrath and grace (1:18 5:20), we are both slaves to flesh and spirit (6:16), both sinners and justified (3:23),both enemies and reconciled (5:10)… For Paul these are not binaries.

Paul knows we are created as image bearers, therefore it’s not a leap to ascribe “bothness” to God. Binary doctrines view God and the Devil as independent agents in some cosmic war for souls. Biblically, light and darkness are both required to see dimensionally, and for good art to exist. The testimony of scripture is BOTH “God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), AND: “The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness.” (1 Kings 8:12)

To apply this to our metaphor: those opening the Amazon gifts do so because God is reordering/blessing them to do so. The experience of the opener is that they chose to open the box and received a gift, but theologically it is God choosing them to be openers and gift receivers. The reason Divine election is still being debated 1500 years after the Reformation is because both sides have failed to adopt Paul’s both/and framework. It is both entirely God’s choice, and entirely ours.

These opposing realities are as severe as they are beautiful. As the one lifts us up, the other burdens us. Paul is not invoking a threat of hell, he is warning us that such goodness is held in tension with the fear of God. He knows within each soul who seeks to please God exists a part that is prone to wander.

Over the next three chapters, Paul’s big theology, working through our dialectic humanity, will open up a new way to live which is free from religion, or threat, via love and faith. I invite you to read chapters 9-11 holding these teachings in tension, without get sidelined with the sub plots Paul uses to prove his point. I think you’ll see why I’ve approached it this way, neither overdoing it, nor undergoing it. The goal is to find the gospel hanging between two thieves that would steal our love for one another or ourselves.

If we believe God has the power to bless us, then He must have the power to wreck us. Yet, it’s not a threat. It’s a validation that God isn’t a jeanie in a bottle, but the sovereign power animating every particle in the universe and who is conscious of every detail of our lives. Wrath and grace are not in conflict, but are necessary dimensions for us to experience God’s power in life. Once again Christ shows the way. If God didn’t spare Jesus, He will not spare us, but if God also did not forsake Christ, neither will He forsake us. And from a practical standpoint, don’t we all phase in and out of these dire experiences? Who hasn’t felt more or less chosen? Who hasn’t felt more or less loved? We must go with Paul as he builds this out, not doctrines that divide us.

What if instead of arguing theology, we begin living from the place it’s intended to take us? In this case, chosen isn’t a particular religion, then or now. If we look closely at the gift of our life, can any of us say we are hated or less loved? Isn’t the greatest commandment of all to consider ourselves and others as chosen and loved? Maybe we should start there.