Understanding the Biblical meaning of election as it was intended is not easy. Of course Calvinists provide us with a convenient answer which fits very nicely into their system of soteriology. They say it means that God unconditionally chose certain individuals to be saved while leaving the rest to perish. Although it could mean this, it doesn’t necessarily have to mean this. There are other valid possibilities. One big problem with the Calvinists’ view is that nothing in the contexts that speak about election indicates that it is unconditional or individual. Election may very well be conditional and corporate.
At this point in my Christian walk, I don’t know what the Biblical meaning of election really is. As a non-Calvinist I am tempted to adopt a view that purposely counters that of an unconditional and individual election but I feel that this would only be serving my own interests. I think it is safer and honest to readily admit that I just don’t know.
What I hope to accomplish in this brief writing is to present some other valid options for the meaning of election rather than simply accepting the Calvinistic view. We don’t have to be confined to just that. We can let Scripture speak for itself and interpret itself. What follows are a few insights about election and hopefully these will encourage us to pursue a deeper understanding of the word.
Did God elect Jacob but not Esau?
The passage of Romans 9:10-13 is quite difficult to understand. Many Calvinists use it as proof of the unconditional election of individuals because it appears God chose Jacob to be saved before he was born but didn’t choose Esau. But there are some problems with this interpretation.
First, there is nothing in the text to indicate that individual salvation is even being spoken of. It is difficult to claim that the salvation of either child is the subject. Second, if Paul really was talking about God electing Jacob unto salvation from his mother’s womb then doesn’t this contradict the Calvinists’ teaching that unconditional election was decreed before the foundation of the world? Thirdly, the passage seems to favor the interpretation that these two children were simply object lessons. It was stated to their mother Rebekah: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated” (Gen. 25:23). The two boys did in fact become the forefathers of two nations; Israel and Edom. Therefore, when Paul said “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” (v. 11) was he talking about the election of an individual or the election of a nation? It seems more likely he was talking about God choosing Israel to be His people, not choosing Jacob to be saved.
But what about the troubling statement: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (v. 13)? Could this mean that God already purposed to love Jacob but hate Esau even before they were born? Again, if the two boys were intended to represent the two nations they fathered then it seems God is really speaking of His love for the nation of Israel and hatred for Edom. But assuming for a moment that God really was speaking of the two individuals in this way, we should recognize that Paul was quoting from the prophet Malachi who lived about 1500 years after Jacob and Esau. This statement of love for one and hatred for the other was not made while they were still in the womb but long after they had already lived and passed on. Therefore, it wouldn’t seem to be a predetermined love and hatred but rather a result of how the two had lived.
Chosen before the creation of the world
Ephesians 1:4 “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world” is a staple in the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional individual election. But one fact we need to recognize is that Paul used the first person plural pronouns “we” and “us” from verse three all the way through verse twelve in the first chapter. His subject has been himself and the group he belongs to up until the point he switches the subject to these Gentile Christians in verse thirteen.
It appears Paul was speaking about the Jews through the first half of the chapter but then directs his attention to the Gentiles he was writing to after that. The immediate context seems to bear this out when he says that they (the Jews) were “the first to hope in Christ” (v. 12), “And you [Gentiles] also were included in Christ” (v. 13). Of course we know that the gospel was taken to the Jews first. Furthermore, this understanding would fit the broader context from chapter 2:11 through 3:9. Paul revealed the mystery that had been kept hidden for ages that the Gentiles would be citizens with Israel.
What is significant about this? Well, it would seem to favor the interpretation that the election spoken of in verse 1:4 is that of the nation of Israel; the corporate election of the Jews, not the unconditional election of certain individuals to salvation. Now it could also be (and I’m quite uncertain about this) that this group of Jews Paul includes himself were an elect subset of the broader nation of Israel as a whole. Though the nation of Israel was God’s chosen people, every generation apparently had only a remnant of believing Jews who may have been considered the true elect.
In Romans 11:1 Paul used himself as an example to defend the charge that God had rejected His people. He simply pointed out the fact that he also was a Jew yet had not been rejected. He went on to say, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (v. 5), and Paul was a part of that remnant. He then elaborated on this grace: “And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (v. 6). He could mean that the remnant chosen by grace depend entirely on God’s grace rather than keeping the works of the law. So the nation of Israel as a whole did not obtain righteousness because they sought it by works. “What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened” (v. 7). The elect here—the remnant of Jews saved by grace through faith—obtained righteousness while the nation as a whole was hardened. This could very well be the group Paul was including himself in when he wrote Ephesians 1:3-12; the elect remnant by grace.
“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people” (Col. 3:11-12). In this passage Paul indicates to the Gentiles at Colossae that they are also among God’s elect. Regardless of nationality, ethnic origin, state of the flesh, or position in society, all who are in Christ are God’s chosen people. This, of course, we might assume are the elect by grace.
This also seems to agree with what Peter said about election. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2). These elect people apparently were Gentiles because of what he said to them in the next chapter: “Once you were not a people, but now you are the People of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (2:10).
No comments:
Post a Comment