A Theology of Genesis 2: Yahweh in Relationship

There are many ancient Near Eastern creation narratives, with many similarities to those in the Hebrew Bible.(1) It is for this reason, among many others, that I have found it impossible to view the creation accounts in Genesis as literal history of how the world was actually brought into being.(2) Accepting this has caused me to view Genesis 1-3 much differently: If the purpose of these narratives was not to record actual history, what was the purpose? What were the authors of these narratives trying to say through them? I am not interested in answering these questions here. What I am most interested in is what these narratives say about God; and in this study, I have set out to address what Genesis 2, in particular, says about God.

Genesis 2 and the Ancient Near East

My main purpose here is to give life to the uniqueness of the God of Israel, showing what differentiates him from the gods of the other ancient Near Eastern creation stories. Before I do this, I should share with you some of the commonalities between Genesis 2 and other creation accounts. These are pulled from Peter Enns' book The Evolution of Adam:

• "A garden/paradise of God/the gods in the east (Enki and Ninhursag; Gilgamesh)
• Humans created out of dust/clay to cultivate the land (Enki and Ninmah [Sumerian]; Atrahasis; Gilgamesh)
• Humans infused with the Breath of Life (Instructions of Merikare [Egyptian]) . . .
• Streams of water supply irrigation to the garden (Enki and Ninhursag) . . .
• The female made from the male's rib/side (Enki and Ninhursag [referring to a goddess])"(3)

These are not all the similarities, nor would it benefit this study to go through all of them. The point is: Genesis 2 is not completely unique. My concern, then, is how unique Yahweh of Genesis 2 is.

I contend that Yahweh's uniqueness is found in his relationality with the people of Israel (I agree with Enns that Adam & Eve represent Israel in the story).

Yahweh, a God of Relationship

Terence Fretheim provides several characteristics of genuine divine-human relationship:(4)

• The Yahweh-Israel relationship is such that Yahweh is not the only one with something to say
• It is also a relationship in which Yahweh is not the only one with something to do and the power to do it
• Yahweh is genuinely affected by the relationship
• Yahweh is concerned about the human's entire self
• In this relationship, the human will can stand against the will of Yahweh
• The Yahweh-Israel relationship is one in which the future is not all mapped out

All of these characteristics can be found in Genesis 2.

Yahweh is genuinely affected by the relationship and is concerned about the creature's entire self

We begin this section with an astute observation by Bill Arnold:

Gen. 1 portrays the transcendent and sovereign Creator commanding order from chaos by a series of cuts and separations, structuring the world and its inhabitants according to types and categories. Now, 2:4–25 complements that portrait with one in which the immanent and intensely personal Yahweh Elohim, LORD God, shapes humanity from clay like a potter (2:7).(5)

The image of God as potter, says Fretheim, "reveals a God who focuses closely on the object to be created and takes painstaking care to shape each one into something useful and beautiful."(6) Indeed, the human is "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps. 139:14): Yahweh pays acute attention to detail in creating humanity, cautiously engaging in the art of perfecting his craft. This is a God who genuinely cares about humans, unlike the gods of the ancient Near East, to whom the creation of humanity was either an afterthought or an act of selfish gain.(7)

The God depicted in Genesis 2 cares that ādām is alone and wants to provide someone for him (v.18) so that he can be a relational being as Yahweh is ("let us," 1:26).(8) Yahweh is deeply affected by his relationship with humans, and is concerned about their entire selves.

Yahweh is not the only one with something to say; nor is he the only one with something to do and the power to do it

Fretheim says, "Twice, God 'brings' a creature [to the man] . . . [and] lets the human being determine whether [they] . . . are adequate to move the evaluation from 'not good' to 'good.'"(9) Indeed, in verse 23, it is ādām that determines that the creation is good. This reveals that Yahweh wants to receive input from his creatures. He wants their involvement in his creation. In the God-human relationship, Yahweh is not the only being with something to say.

That Yahweh made it so that he was not the only one with something to do and the power to do it can be seen in the incredible responsibility he gives ādām to name all the animals. This might not seem significant to us, but, as Gerhard von Rad provides , "name-giving in the ancient Orient was primarily an exercise of sovereignty."(10) "Without any qualification in the text," Fretheim observes, "whatever the human being called each animal, that was its name (2:19). Whatever!"(11)

Furthermore, Arnold states that by "pronouncing the name of each [animal] as they were created, the human participated in the creative process with God."(12) As Fretheim says, in Genesis 2, "Divine decisions interact with human decisions in the creation of the world."(13) Andre Jolles powerfully conveys the significance of this name-giving:

Man attacks the confusion of the world; by probing, restricting and combining he brings together what belongs together. That which lies piled up in the confusion of the world does not at the start possess its own form; but rather, what is here distinguished with discrimination receives its own form only as it comes together in the analysis.(14

This paints Yahweh as a God who shares power with his creatures. He genuinely cares about what the humans want to do and gives them the power to do it. As Phyllis Trible states, God here is not portrayed as "the authoritarian controller of events but as the generous delegator of power who even forfeits the right to reverse human decisions."(15) Fretheim echoes this, saying "the divine sovereignty in creation is understood, not in terms of absolute divine control, but as a sovereignty that gives power over to the created for the sake of a relationship of integrity."(16)

To step out of our present chapter for a second and go to the first creation narrative, we find a fascinating verse, in which Elohim says to the humans: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it, and hold sway over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heavens and every beast that crawls upon the earth" (1:28). The Hebrew words for 'conquer' and 'hold sway' denote sovereignty, "an absolute or even fierce exercise of mastery."(17) Consider the powerful claims of Ps. 8:5-8:

...you have made [human beings] a little lower than God,
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

Clearly, Yahweh's purpose was not to be the only being with something to do and the power with which to do it.

The human will can stand against the will of Yahweh

This is evident in the "vocation, permission, and prohibition" that Yahweh gives the humans:(18) "From every fruit of the garden you may surely eat. But from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, you shall not eat, for on that day you eat from it, you are doomed to die" (vv.16b-17) The humans can eat all they want from any tree of the garden, but they are forbidden to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Furthermore, the humans were created to till and watch over the earth (v.15), to rule over it (1:28). Walter Brueggemann has observed that, today, the "divine will for vocation and freedom has been lost. The God of the garden is chiefly remembered as the one who prohibits. But the prohibition makes sense only in terms of the other two."(19) Yahweh gave the humans power and freedom, but also a warning of what happens when that power is abused. This warning would be nonsensical if the human will could not stand against Yahweh's will. Here is a God who does not always get his way.

Yahweh shares power, gives freedom, risks his will, and submits to the possibility of opposition. The human will can stand against his.

In the Yahweh-Israel relationship, the future is not all mapped out in advance

"The two trees," Fretheim says, "represent two possible futures: life and death."(20) This motif of two possible futures is found throughout the Hebrew Bible. Here is an example:

This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place. For if you are careful to carry out these commands, then kings who sit on David’s throne will come through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by their officials and their people. But if you do not obey these commands, declares the Lord, I swear by myself that this palace will become a ruin.
Jeremiah 22:3-5

What humanity's future will look like is up to their decisions: "All depends on what the humans do with what God presents."(21) Yahweh as revealed in Genesis 2 does not have a blueprint of his will for human history; he leaves human history is up to humans. The image of divine potter in Jeremiah 18 shows a God who adapts to the decisions of his people, not a God who decides their future himself. Is it a coincidence that the potter image can be found in the narrative of creation, the beginning of human history (2:7)?

"O Lord, Who is Like You?"

In Genesis 2, God is not a fully transcendent, self-glorifying figure. His first act as Creator is not to demand worship from the creatures; rather, he focuses on them the whole time! He selflessly gives the human freedom, adheres to the human's needs, receives input from the human, and gives the human power. Genesis 2 reveals that Yahweh, unlike the gods of the ancient Near Eastern creation stories, is concerned with being intimately involved with his people, and sharing with them a genuine relationship, the sustaining of which depends on all of these qualities.(22)

[Read Paul Imbrone's response to this here]

Notes:
(1) For similarities between ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible, see Kenton Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005); John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); and J.J.M. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Eisenbrauns, 2002).
(2) For other reasons, see Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012).
(3) Ibid., 55.
(4) These come from a presentation Terence Fretheim gave called "Divine-Human Relationship." This can be found on Itunes U. All but one of the listed characteristics can also be found in his book, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 21-22.
(5) Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 56.
(6) Fretheim, "Genesis," in The New Interpreter's Bible: Volume 1, ed. Leander E. Keck: 319-674 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 349.
(7) Arnold, 58.
(8) See Fretheim, God and World, 56.
(9) Fretheim, "Genesis," 352.
(10) Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), 81.
(11) Fretheim, God and World, 58.
(12) Arnold, 60.
(13) Fretheim, God and World, 58.
(14) Andre Jolles, quoted in von Rad, 80-81.
(15) Phyllis Trible, quoted in Fretheim, "Genesis," 352.
(16) Ibid., 356.
(17) Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: W.W Norton & Co., 1996), 5.
(18) See Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Lousiville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1982), 46.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Fretheim, "Genesis," 352.
(21) Ibid., 357.
(22) Walton also recognizes this unique quality. See his Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 110.

Does Genesis 2 Support Complementarianism?

Complementarianism vs. Feminism is quite a battle these days. A huge part of this debate is due to the fact that complementarians find the basis of their beliefs in Scripture. One of the passages they use to support their views is Genesis 2. I have been studying this passage for a theological collaboration with a friend of mine, and my research has inspired me to write a blog addressing this. Before I do, I must preface it by saying that I am only going to deal with Genesis 2 here. The conclusion drawn will be, "As far as Genesis 2 is concerned..." and not "As far as the Bible is concerned..." I have not done significant research in the other passages used to support complementarianism, so I will not comment on those at this time.

Man is Created First

Does the fact that man is created first imply that the woman has a subordinate role to play under the man? Many believe it does. Elizabeth Cady Stanton criticizes Genesis 2, saying that Genesis 1:26-28 "dignifies woman as an important factor in the creation, equal in power and glory with man," which is in contrast to Genesis 2, which she says "makes her a mere afterthought."(1) Phyllis Trible rightly criticizes this understanding, saying that the woman in the story "is not an afterthought; she is the culmination."(2) Just as creation in Genesis 1 led up to the creation of humanity, followed by God's rest, so this narrative leads up to the creation of woman and their subsequent union. The climax of the narrative is found in the creation of woman.

Furthermore, the fact that the woman is created from the man does not imply that she is inferior to him or destined to be his subordinate. Bill Arnold observes: "As the human was formed from the dust of the ground (‘ādām from ‘ădāmâ), so woman is built from the man (‘iššâ from ‘îš)."(3) That woman was created from man does not imply that she is inferior to man anymore than the fact that man was created out of dust implies that dust is superior to man.(4) In fact, as Terence Fretheim provides, the phrase "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"--what Adam says in response to the woman's creation (v.23)--"literally highlights mutuality and equality."(5) These words that explicitly state woman's equality with man are man's first words in all of Scripture!(6)

Finally, Adam's short poem in response to the creation of woman strengthens the argument that this creative act is the climax of this passage. In Hebrew, the poem begins and ends with zot ('this'), referring to the woman. Gordon Wenham says of this poem, "by opening the tricolon and bicolon with 'this' and then by concluding with the same word, the man's exclamation concentrates all eyes on this woman."(7)

Man Gives Her a Name

While John Bailey recognizes the profound place of woman in this narrative--saying it is "all the more extraordinary when one realizes that this is the only account of the creation of woman as such in ancient Near Eastern literature"--he makes the mistake of seeing the facts that she is called 'woman' by Adam and deemed a 'helper' as signs of a "certain subordination."(8)

While it is true that "name-giving in the ancient Orient was primarily an exercise of sovereignty,"(9) there is a difference, in Hebrew, between what one calls someone and what one names someone. Trible observes this difference. Throughout the narrative, and in other places in the Hebrew Bible, call (qārā') and name (shem) are used together and denote the command one has over the other by naming the other (see Gen. 2:19-20; 4:17, 25, 26).(10) However,‘ādām merely calls (qārā') her woman. Fretheim cleverly observes that for man to call her 'woman' does not imply his authority over her anymore than Hagar calling God "El-roi" implies that she had authority over God (Gen. 16:13).(11) 

Trible reasonably suggests that the action in v.23 is the man recognizing sexuality.(12) Or, as Fretheim says, it "involves discernment regarding the nature of relationships."(13)

That being said, in chapter 3, Adam does name the woman Eve (v.20). However, Trible observes that this takes place after their sin and judgment; Adam asserts his rule over her and gives her a name when sin has entered his life (v.16).(14)

I am of the mind that the author of this passage was explaining why things were the way they were in their society. Thus, after humanity sinned against God, they assumed degraded roles. In a sense, they were downgraded to the service of that from which they were created: man would toil over the land, and woman would serve the man. First, this has to be understood as the result of sin, and not the way God created things to be. Second, given that this was the author's way of explaining why things were the way they were in his culture--men toiled over the land, and women served the men--I don't think it can be said that this is the God-given role of women that they are to fulfill today.

The Woman is a Helper

Bailey, referred to above, sees the woman's role of helper as a sign of subordination. However, this is not at all implied by the Hebrew word. Rather than suggesting any hint of inferiority, Trible recognizes that 'ezer (helper)  is a relational term.(15) Furthermore, if the word did denote inferiority or subordination, we would have to explain why the majority of its uses refer to God's being a helper of humans!(16) The use of 'ezer does not imply subordinate service to the one being helped, but rather that the strength of the one being helped, Wenham provides, "is inadequate by itself" (cf. Eccl. 4:9-10).(17) Furthermore, Fretheim says of this passage that humans were created to be "social, relational beings—male and female—and thereby correspondent to the sociality of God (‘let us’; see Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:17; cf. 9:6)."(18)

Side note: Many complementarians might agree with most, maybe even all of this, and would say that their complementarian views don't put women in lesser roles. However, when one says, for example, that women should not be pastors and should not exercise authority over men in church, this puts women in a lesser role. Genesis 2 does not support such an understanding. The Hebrew word for 'helper' does not limit the role of the woman to serving the man, nor to being under his authority, nor does it deny her the right to exercise authority over him. In Genesis 2, both humans are equal and under the authority of God alone.

After reviewing the creation narrative, I have found that the passage does not support complementarianism, or any view that places women in a lesser role under men. The way God intended things to be includes the equality of man and woman, partnering with God to preserve a beautiful creation and form a relational human history.


Notes:
(1) Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman's Bible, Part 1 (New York: European Publishing Company, 1895), 20.
(2) Phyllis Trible, "Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread," Andover Newton Quarterly 13, no. 4 (1973): 251-252.
(3) Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), ed. Ben Witherington, III (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 61.
(4) Terence Fretheim makes the same point. See Terence E. Fretheim, "Genesis", in Vol. 1 of The New Interpreter's Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 353.
(5) Ibid.
(6) I recently heard a sermon from Brian Zahnd, in which he said that the first recorded words of man in Scripture are found in Adam's response to God's question "Where are you?" in the garden. Man says, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid" (3:10). While the sermon was beautiful, this, as we can seen, is absolutely incorrect. I like Zahnd a lot, but I'm a little surprised he made this claim again and again, since it would have been so easy to check and see that it wasn't true. On top of Adam's words when seeing woman for the first time, Eve's response to the serpent is recorded in Gen. 3:4-5, just a few verses before the verse Zahnd quoted.
(7) Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn Barker (Word Books, 1987), 70.
(8) John Bailey, Quoted in Trible, 251-252, n. 5.
(9) Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 81.
(10) See Trible's more elaborate explanation, p.254.
(11) See Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 60.
(12) Trible, 255.
(13) Fretheim, "Genesis," 353.
(14) Fretheim supports this understanding. See Ibid.
(15) Trible, 252.
(16) Arnold, 60.
(17) Wenham, 68.
(18) Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, 55. Trible says: "God is the helper that is superior to man; the animals are the helpers inferior to man; woman is the helper equal to man." See Trible, 252.

God is Love, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace 1 John 4

I was having a theological conversation with a reformed friend of mine a few months ago and, like I will often do, I brought up the phrase found in 1 Jn. 4:7, 16, "God is love." He responded the way many respond to this verse by saying that God isn't just love, but is also holy. He added that we have to realize that "God is complex and that there are multiple levels and aspects of His will and character." Thus, "as a person is not easily boiled down into one all-encompassing emotion or state of mind all the time," so we should not boil the transcendent God down to one all-encompassing characteristic

The problem is that Scripture defines God with the word love. "God is just," is a descriptive statement that uses an adjective. All of God's character is not presented in this statement because 'just' is just one adjective. "God is love," on the other hand, is a descriptive statement that uses a noun. The point here is that God = love. John says this to emphasize that God can be "boiled down" to one all-encompassing characteristic: love. It's not that there are "multiple levels and aspects" of God that are seemingly paradoxical, but that every level and aspect of God can be understood through the lens of love. This concept is difficult for many, like D.A. Carson, the author of The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, but if you have a theology in which the love of God is difficult, you need to re-evaluate, because this God is defined by love.

Larry Hart notes that love is not the only noun said to be equal to God. He brings up the statement, "God is light" (1 Jn. 1:5) to say that God is also holy.(1) God's justice and wrath are then thrown under the "God is holy" section. This is a flawed understanding. Hart, my reformed friend, and many others assume that God's holiness somehow balances out his love with all of his qualities that are less loving. I can't remember who I read this argument from, but I remember reading a theology book in which the author said something like this: "Where God's love would disregard man's actions and have mercy on all and save all, God's justice recognizes the need for judgment. And where God's justice would abandon all and send them to hell, God's love comes in with a desire for mercy and an offer of salvation."

Similarly, when I posted my blog about universal reconciliation (here), including my argument that God is love and love never fails, a friend of mine said, "Yes, God is love, but he is also just"--as if, the 'love' part of God purposes to save everyone, but the 'just' part of God balances him out. This creates a conflict within God's nature that can be avoided if we join John in his scandalous claim that God actually is love! That means his holiness and justice are defined by his love. His wrath is defined by his love. His will is defined by his love. His complexity is defined by his love. His followers should be defined by his love (Jn. 12:35). All of his characteristics are in harmony with and defined by his love.

Notes
(1) Larry D. Hart, Truth Aflame, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 86.

Calvinism in Acts of the Apostles

I continue my blog series taking a look at passages in the Bible typically used to support Calvinism. So far, I have covered Romans 9 (here) and Ephesians 1 (here). Now, I'm going to deal with a few verses in the book of Acts that seem to support the theology: those are 2:23; 4:28; 13:48; 16:14; and 18:10. I contend that the most valid reading of these verses does not support Calvinist interpretations at all.

Acts 2:23 and 4:28 can be responded to together because they both refer to the same idea. 2:23 says that Jesus was “handed over to [Jews] according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” and was “crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” Similarly, 4:28 says that Herod and Pontius Pilate gathered together “to do whatever [God’s] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place.” Both verses allude to the idea that the crucifixion was God’s definite, predestined plan.

Ajith Fernando claims that we see here “the paradox between divine providence and human responsibility.”(1) This response is typical of Calvinists. However, it is not a paradox at all, but can be reasonably explained. Gregory Boyd observes that “Both texts speak of the event of the crucifixion being preordained and foreknown. But neither speak of Herod or Pilate being preordained or foreknown to carry out this event.”(2) Of course the crucifixion was the definite plan predestined by God!(3) But, as Boyd says, these verses do not say that the actions of the Jews, those outside the law, Herod, and Pilate were included in the predestined plan of God.

John Sanders states that hōrismenē boulē (definite plan) in 2:23 denotes “a boundary-setting will.”(4) Here, the crucifixion is the “boundary,” meaning God decided beforehand that Christ would be crucified, and established, based on his precise foreknowledge, the perfect time for this to occur.

Furthermore, it cannot be said from these verses that people cannot resist God’s will. Luke himself is aware of the fact that people can and always have resisted God’s will. Luke 7:30 says that “by refusing to be baptized by [John the Baptist], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (emphasis mine). In Acts 7:51, before Stephen was martyred, he exclaims, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (emphasis mine).

The other verse in Acts Calvinists use to support their theology is 13:48: when Paul and Barnabas announced to a large crowd of people that the salvation offering had come to the Gentiles, the Gentiles rejoiced and “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”(5)

C. K. Barrett says that this verse remains “as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination as is found anywhere in the NT.”(6) Indeed, the verse seems to be that, not only because of its wording, but also because it is reminiscent of the idea that names are written into the book of life.(7) But the verse only seems to point to a Calvinist theology of individual predestination when taken at face value. Paton Gloag voices that here, “Luke merely mentions a historical fact—that those who believed were appointed to eternal life.”(8) This translation is more likely. The word ἐπίστευσαν (believed) precedes the rest of the statement ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (all who were appointed to eternal life). Thus, the text could very easily be read, “all who believed were appointed to eternal life.”

In this case, there is no problem at all; the wording no longer suggests that the appointing came before the believing, and the similarity to the references of the book of life is more natural, for none of those references state that specific names were written in the book of life before the foundations of the earth—only that the names of those who believe are included.

This translation fits better within the context as well. Verse 46 says that the Jews rejected the word of God and did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life (meaning they were not appointed to eternal life because they rejected the Gospel). So then, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles, and all who believed were found worthy of eternal life.

All of that being said, this interpretation has not been used by most Bible translations. As Esther Yue Ng suggests, ἦσαν τεταγμένοι (were appointed) in this passage “implies an action that precedes the Gentiles’ believing” and contends that the verse is “one among a number of biblical passages that comports better with the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of divine election.”(9) Though I disagree, even if one does not accept Gloag’s interpretation, the Calvinist theological conclusion of the verse is still not the conclusion that should be drawn. Boyd observes that “the verse does not tell us when these people were destined. . . . Calvinists assume that this destiny was given to the elect before the world began by sheer divine fiat, but the text simply does not say this.”(10) Rather, Boyd continues, the text

only requires us to accept that the Spirit of God had been preparing receptive hearts to accept the preaching that was soon coming their way. . . . Those Gentiles who didn’t resist the Spirit’s work in their lives were ‘ripe’ for the message of Paul and Barnabas. In this sense, they were already ‘destined for eternal life,’ and thus they accepted the good news when it was preached to them.(11)

Boyd’s conclusion is quite plausible; definitely more-so than the Calvinist interpretation. This is true also of Acts 18:10 and 16:14. When God says “I have many people in this city” (18:10), he could be referring to those who were “ripe for the message,” as Boyd says. Lydia in 16:14 is an example of such a person. The verse says that God opened her heart to Paul’s message. However, this was not without her will. Lydia is introduced in the verse as “a worshiper of God.” Thus, she had already subjected herself to God’s work. By worshiping God, she yielded to him and, in a sense, let him open her heart to Paul’s teaching.“Whatever be the precise nuance of the words,” says I. Howard Marshall, “there is no suggestion that [the Gentiles] received eternal life independently of their own act of conscious faith.”(12)

We have seen that, when examined closely, all the verses in Acts that seem to support Calvinism actually provide no platform on which Calvinists can base their theology. Any notion of individual predestination must be read into the texts because the verses themselves do not imply the conclusions that Calvinists make of them. Thus, as far as the book of Acts goes, Christians today do not have to fear that they are ignoring “Calvinist verses” and can maintain a love-centered understanding of the character of God.

Notes:
(1) Ajith Fernando, The NIV Application Commentary: Acts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 102.
(2) Gregory A. Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?” Reknew.org, http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-acts-223-and-428/
(3) It is not applicable to this study, but Acts 2:23 has also been used to refute open theism because of its reference to God’s foreknowledge. In addressing this, we must ask “What is foreknowledge?” Is it knowing exactly every single thing that is ever going to happen? Or could it be knowing all of the possibilities that the future holds? We should ask what Luke’s purpose was in writing these verses in the first place. Was to establish the reality of a theological paradox of God controlling people’s actions yet holding them responsible for them? Robert W. Wall states otherwise, saying that the verses do not “envisage a predestinarian notion of divine providence but Luke’s logical deduction from his idea of Scripture. That is, if the Jesus event and the Spirit’s outpouring both follow the biblical script of God’s salvation, then God must have known about both in advance of their occurrence.” See Robert W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 66. Indeed, on similar lines, Richard I. Pervo notes that “Because Luke is more a ‘romantic’ than an ‘ironic’ theologian, he concentrates more on the fact and fulfillment of God’s plan than on what it reveals about the human situation.” See Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 123, n.30.
(4) John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, rev. ed. (Downers Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 167.
(5) There has been a debate as to how the word τεταγμένοι should be translated. I have found that the choices include: “set,” “determined,” “appointed,” “destined,” “enrolled,” and a few others. Whichever you prefer will not affect the following study.
(6) C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 1 (London: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 658.
(7) F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 267, n.111.
(8) Paton J. Gloag, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), 40.
(9) Esther Yue L. Ng, “ἦσαν τεταγμένοι in Acts 13:48: Middle Voice or Passive Voice? Implications for the Doctrine of Divine Election,” CGST Journal, 50 (2011): 192, 186. 
(10) Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 13:48?”
(11) Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 190–191. Elsewhere, Boyd elaborates on this concept, saying, “The Father is always looking for people whose hearts may be pliable in his hand (viz. through the Spirit) so he may ‘destine them to eternal life’ by opening up their heart to receive the Gospel.” See Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 13:48?”
(12) I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Vol. 5 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 245.

Predestined in Christ: Ephesians 1 and Calvinism

A couple months ago, I discussed Romans 9 and whether or not it supports Calvinism (here). That was the first of a series of blogs I'm doing about the passages in Scripture typically used to support Calvinism. Here, I am dealing with Ephesians 1:3-14:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

At face value, this passage seems to support Calvinist ideas of predestination and election: "he chose us . . . before the foundation of the world," "he predestined us for adoption," "[we were] predestined according to the counsel of his will." This sounds like Calvinism, and I sympathize with everyone who reads this passage and either thinks, "See? There it is!" or "Well, I guess it is in Scripture." However, when one analyzes the passage, and considers its historical context, not only is the Calvinist understanding unnecessary, but also unlikely.

ELECTION

Before Christ, Israel was the elect. Such is common knowledge. Israel was the chosen vessel through which salvation would be brought to the world. However, as N.T. Wright observes, the people of Israel were "bound up in the problem instead of being the bringers of the solution."(1) Thus, if salvation was going to spread to the world, it would have to be accomplished through a very different means. Enter Jesus Christ. The story continued with the "Messiah [doing] for the world what Israel was called to do."(2) Christ, then, is the new elect. Paul spells out God's redefinition of election with Christ at its center. As Markus Barth states, "God administers and carries out election through Jesus Christ."(3) Likewise, Ralph P. Martin states, "Election is . . . universalized to include all who are in Christ."(4)

It then follows that, since Christ is the elect, Wright says, "those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared to be [God's] people, his elect."(5) This can be seen quite clearly in our passage: "God . . . blessed us in Christ . . . [and] chose us in him. . . . he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. . . . he blessed in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood. . . . he set forth [the mystery of his will and purpose] in Christ . . . to unite all things in him. In him we have obtained an inheritance. . . . In him, you also . . . were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."

It is clear in this passage that the elect ones are what they are only in Christ. This may seem like a simple, commonsensical statement, but we have to stop and think about how this completely redefines election: election is no longer a chosen people group, nor is it made up of specific individuals who are chosen; rather, it is Christ who is chosen, the elect, and, subsequently, all those who are in Christ. Those who accept the gospel and believe in Christ become in him, they become elect: "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" (v.13).

PREDESTINATION

How, you might ask, does this perspective explain the references to predestination in this passage? Doesn't the passage suggest that those who are in Christ were predestined to be so?
Not necessarily.

I think all Christians can agree that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, were predestined. But do passages like these suggest that we go a step further and say that all those who would be saved by his sacrifice were also predestined? It is unlikely that Paul was saying that in writing this passage, for one only has to affirm that Christ's saving act was predestined in order to say with Paul that we were predestined for adoption.

God predestined that Christ would be the elect and that he would call all people to salvation. Thus, when one says 'Yes' to Christ through faith, one becomes one of the elect and it can rightfully be said that he/she was predestined for adoption (Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rom. 8:29-30), because it was predestined that Christ would be the elect for all people, and that all who accept him would then be the elect. I was predestined to for adoption, because it was God's purpose in Christ to adopt all who believe in him, and I chose to believe in him. Consider Greg Boyd's analogy:

Suppose you attend a seminar in which a certain video is shown. You might ask the instructor, 'When was it decided (predestined) that we'd watch this video?' To which the instructor might respond, 'It was decided six months ago that you'd watch this video.' Note that it was not decided six months ago that you individually would watch this video. What was decided was that anyone who took this seminar would watch this video. Now that you have chosen to be part of this seminar, what was predestined for the seminar applies to you. You can now say, 'It was decided six months ago that we would watch this video.'(6)

In the same way, Christ's saving act was predestined; it was predestined that all who would believe in Christ would be the elect. Election is an open invitation to all people, and all who say 'Yes' become the elect, who are predestined for adoption, "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (v.11).

ROMANS 8:29

I believe this is the way we should look at Romans 8:29: 

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

If we look at the context, "those whom" does not refer to individual people that God elected for salvation; it refers to "those who love God" and "those who are called." Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that this verse refers to "all who have responded to the divine call."(7) Must we draw from this that the individuals who responded to the divine call were foreknown and predestined?

The Greek word οὓς ('those whom') does not go that far. In Romans 11:2, the word refers to the people of Israel in general. 8:28-30 tells us that God predestined to call people to be conformed to the image of his Son, and that those who love God are justified and glorified. That there would be a group of people--the elect--that would respond to God's call by loving him was indeed predestined and foreknown.

God predestined that he would call people to be conformed to the image of his Son. He foreknew the elect as all who would believe in Christ. Just like the presenter of the seminar in Boyd's analogy foreknew the attendees as all who would arrive for the seminar. The passage does not suggest that God predestined and foreknew the elect as specific individuals chosen for salvation. The passage does provide that God predestined that all who are in Christ would be justified, glorified, and conformed to the image of Christ, but it does not go beyond this. It does not suggest that individuals were foreknown and predestined. To say that would be to go beyond what the text itself provides.

Notes:
(1) N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress press, 2005), 119.
(2) Ibid., 120.
(3) Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Vol. 34 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 107.
(4) Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 18.
(5) Wright, 122.
(6) Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 47.
(7) Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 524.

What C.S. Lewis Got Wrong, Part 2

I continue my assessment of C.S. Lewis' theology of God and time. Lewis believed that God does not
experience moment-by-moment succession but sees past, present, and future all at once in the "eternal now." In Part 1 (here), I discussed this concept philosophically, and concluded that it is logically impossible. Here, I will discuss the concept biblically.

A friend of mine posed the following question in response to Part 1: "is the problem with eternalism eternalism itself, or the limited scope of our minds?" Indeed, many would argue that the fact that the eternal now concept seems impossible to us doesn't mean it's not the reality for God. His intelligence is far greater than ours and his eternal essence is incompatible with our finite minds. For this reason, many believe it because it doesn't make sense. I have a few things to say to this:

1) That very well may be the case. However, we then have to ask, on what authority do we conceive of this idea? If it is in Scripture, then, yes, we do have to accept it whether it makes sense or not. However, it isn't in Scripture, and Lewis himself recognizes this.(1) So then, did God tell Lewis how he relates with time? Did he explain to him what it means to be eternal? What requires us to believe that this is the view we must accept?

2) Lewis said this theology is simply what makes sense to him.(2) He is appealing only to his finite mind. Likewise, the concept was introduced because it seemed like the logical way an eternal being would "relate" to time. Why must we accept a view that only comes from the minds of men?

3) The fact that Lewis appealed only to his reason makes the view posed at the beginning of this blog quite ironic given the fact that the eternal now concept was thought up by philosophers using reason to understand how an eternal being would relate to time. The truth is, we cannot know how God relates to time. Though Lewis would most likely agree, I think he is too presumptuous in his musings, especially since he does not appeal to any higher authority. Christian theology should ultimately come from Scripture. We should be very cautious of developing concepts of God that aren't in Scripture.

Does Scripture Point to an Understanding of God and Time?

I do not claim to know the proper answer to this question, as I am not an eternal being and have no knowledge of what an eternal being is actually like. However, I do think there is enough to go off of in Scripture to say without a doubt that God does at least experience moment-by-moment succession. I do not have the space or the inclination to make a complete case for this, but I will provide several examples that show that the eternal now concept is incompatible with the biblical accounts, and that God does experience time.(3)

What if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made ready for destruction?
Romans 9:22

Really, this discussion could stop at the mention of God's patience, for a god who does not experience time cannot experience patience. If anything implies time, it is patient endurance. The word means long-suffering. If God experiences past, present, and future all at once in the eternal now, he absolutely does not endure anything with much patience. We should know from the culture in which we live that 'Now' is completely incompatible with patience. Not only does enduring something with much patience imply moving from one second to the next, it implies experiencing a considerable amount of moment-by-moment succession. God cannot be both long-suffering and timeless.

I thought,
How I would set you among my sons,
and give you a pleasant land,
a heritage most beautiful of all nations.
And I thought you would call me, My Father,
and would not turn from following me.
Surely, as a treacherous wife leaves her husband,
so have you been treacherous to me, O house of Israel.
Jeremiah 3:19-20

In this chapter, we see a before-and-after occurrence with God. Before, he thought he would bless them, but now he has to deal with their rebellion. This could not be possible if God was timeless and the past and future were both present to him. God would not experience a before-and-after; there would only be now.

Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.
Jeremiah 26:3

Perhaps they will listen? that I may? repent? A God who is in past, present, and future now does not say 'perhaps', because that implies that what he is experiencing precedes something else. His supposing that his people will listen precedes their listening or ignoring. If God existed in the time in which they chose whether or not to listen to him while simultaneously existing at the time when he said this, he wouldn't say it! Not only would he know when he said it that they wouldn't listen, but he would see them not listening.

Likewise, an eternal now God does not change his mind and relent on something he was planning on doing, because, again, there is no before-and-after with him. A timeless God does not plan to do something at one point and then change the plan at another; his plan simply is now.

I could go on and on, verse after verse, because throughout Scripture we can see God experiencing time, and, furthermore, no one in Scripture has any problem with it, unlike the philosophers who thought that the idea of God relating with the world--let alone within time--would point to an imperfection in his nature.

The Omni-Resourceful God

Lewis begins his chapter "Time and Beyond Time" by addressing an issue concerning prayer: a man told him that he could believe in God but could not swallow "the idea of Him attending to several hundred million human beings who are all addressing Him at the same moment."(4) Lewis responds by laying out his theology of God and time. God isn't "hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe," but lives in the 'eternal now', and, thus, "has all eternity in which to listen to" the prayers of people.(5)

The issue posed here displays a lack of knowledge about some of God's significant attributes. What's amazing about the God of Scripture is that he does attend to millions of people who are addressing all at the same time. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-resoureful. He is present everywhere, with everyone. When you pray, he is right there with you; and he knows what you need, and he knows the best way to respond to all of your actions; and he is powerful enough to attend to your prayers. With all of this, he is omni-resourceful. God is so awe-inspiring that he can attend to all of the actions of free agents within time.

God Isn't What Man Thinks He Should Be

This eternal now concept was developed by philosophers attempting to come up with the characteristics of God through reason.(6) They thought, God is perfect, and what is perfect does not change, does not experience emotion, and is not subject to time. Surely the God that created time would not himself experience it! Or, as Lewis said, "Almost certainly, God is not in Time."
Ironically, this is a finite understanding of God. Finite reason led man to this conclusion, not Scripture. The problem with eternalism is not that the scope of finite minds is too limited to understand eternity, but that it was only limited finite minds that came up with it!

Lewis should not have said that a characteristic of God is 'almost certain' when he himself recognizes that it isn't even in Scripture. Many people assume many things about God simply because that's what they were taught, that's what their reason tells them, or that's the popular consensus. We should be getting our theology from Scripture; we should not read Scripture with preconceived theological assumptions.

What is amazing about the God of Scripture is that he relates to the world in time, he adapts to their actions and is affected by their actions. He is intimately involved in every second of human history. He is not the unattainable, immutable, impassible, unmoved mover. In other words, he is not what man thinks he should be.


Notes:
(1) C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1952), 133.
(2) Ibid.
(3) For a good biblical assessment of timelessness theology, see Michael R. Saia, Does God Know the Future? (Fairfax: Xulon Press, 2002).
(4) Lewis, 130.
(5) Ibid., 131.
(6) For more on the historical development of classical theism, see Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), and Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1957). For a general overview, see John Sanders, "Historical Considerations," in The Openness of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994); also, Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 65-74; Gregory A. Boyd, "Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge to God," Religious Studies 46, no. 1 (2010), 41–59; and Saia, "A Brief History of Timelessness," 29–50.