As long as I can remember, I have struggled hard against the Calvinist understanding of the doctrine of election. Recently I have been observing and interacting with a number of people of the Reformed persuasion, and I am astounded at the intellects of some of the people wholly sold on a teaching that requires so much nonsense ad hoc philosophy and theology in order to sustain it. In order to make the Calvinist God “sovereign” as they understand that concept, people such as John Piper have to redefine “love” — you know, the love that God says He is and that He requires us to have one for another — to mean its polar opposite: selfishness. All this to prop up an unscriptural understanding of the quite scriptural doctrine of election.
The confusion is magnified because of bad eschatology. This next couple of posts will address eschatology and the doctrine of election at the same time. Sound like fun?
John McPherson, in his article called “A Biblical Perspective on Election”, pulls out one of the most famous proof-texts for the Calvinist take on election, Ephesians 1:4 and 5. Let me supply his annotated version of this passage (vv. 3-12) in context, and I want you to see if you can grasp our point before I spell it out.
“3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”
Did you catch the importance of that last sentence? It defines the “we” and “us” everywhere throughout the passage: Paul was referring to his first-century, firstfruits audience!
Leaving that aside for the time, we are going to talk about Paul’s use of the term “adoption”. What is going on in Ephesians 1?
Notice first that this predestination is specifically stated to be for the adoption as sons through (Gk. dia) Jesus. The Greek term here, huiothesia “adoption to sonship”, is the same word seen in Romans 7-9. It must be remembered that Romans, as I have mentioned elsewhere, is concerned throughout with the issue of the in-grafting of Gentiles into the Israel “after the Spirit”. Let’s take a look at the concept of adoption in Romans.
v.18 “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” Literally, this verse states that the glory was “about to be” (using the Greek word mello) revealed in “us”. The imminence of this event is restated in the following verse.
v. 19 “The creation (Gk. ktisis) waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.” See?
vv. 20-21 “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Some assume that Paul’s word “creation” refers to the entirety of (physical) creation. Yet this manifestly cannot be: that which is liberated is brought in the freedom of the children of God! Are rocks, trees, and water going to one day turn into the children of God? No, although even this nonsensical view contradicts the predominate futurist view of the decimation of our world before the inauguration of the next! In actuality, the word ktisis does not always refer to the totality of (physical) creation, but refers to any thing that has been created. In fact, we see Paul using this word to refer to individual people when he says, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation” (ktisis again). Paul is referring to what he describes in verse 23 as “adoption as sons”: what we have here is something merely made being gloriously and graciously turned into a son.
v. 22 “[For] we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” Here, he extends his use of the word ktisis with the adjective pasa “all” to refer to an entirety, probably of the whole of creation in our common sense. But notice what happens next: he says that at that time the “whole creation” was suffering birth pains in its anticipation of something. Does this talk of pains of childbirth suffered by physical creation remind you of anything? I hope so! Jesus predicted, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains” (Matthew 24:7-8). Paul is describing a fulfillment in his “present time” of Jesus’ words predicting the “last days”! This is yet another quite obvious time statement substantiating the preterist position that Matthew 24 refers to the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
“Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” - but the Greek actually reads “body” (a singular). Here we see that those who have the “firstfruits of the Spirit” are awaiting “adoption as sons”. Verses 13 through 17 speak of the “misdeeds of the body” that are done away with by the “Spirit of sonship” (huiothesia again!): this, not the reconstitution of corpses, is the redemption of the body. What “body” is this? To determine this, we have to back up a little and see Paul’s broader context.
“So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law [i.e., Torah] were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”
As long as Torah was in effect, it baited the hook for sin, because it added consciousness of sin without an empowerment to avoid sin. Moreover, it was being used by the Judaizers (against whom the whole book of Galatians was written) to condemn believers. The Law (”the power of sin” per 1 Cor. 15:56) was at work in their bodies, so that the fruit born was only for death (”the sting of death” per 1 Cor. 15:56). This is in contrast to the “first fruits of the Spirit”, which was able to “put to death the misdeeds of the body”. The struggle with sin Paul famously describes at the end of Romans 7 was not the temptation to sin that we are so familiar with — remember that Adam was subject to the enticement of sin long before the Law was given — but the tension between the “old way” of the Law and the “new way” of the Spirit. It was only “through Jesus Christ our Lord” that Paul was able to find “freedom”. While the Law was still around (albeit passing away), Christians did not have to follow it, but as the book of Acts illustrates, they could not simply ignore it. Freedom could not be complete until the problem passed away completely.
The passing away of the Law of Moses was completed with the final destruction of the Temple in the judgment of AD 70. This was the release of the tension between Jews (including many believers such as James; see Acts 15) still trying to fulfill the Law of Moses and the other Jews along with the vast majority of Gentiles who did not follow the customs. It was not until that future event in which God would settle the question of the Law and weave together a united Israel “after the Spirit” from Law-observers and non-Law-observers that God could truly be said to be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). This resolution and vindication of those believers not observing the Law is what is referred to here in Romans 8:19 as the revelation of the sons of God; at the end of the day, those who were redeemed by faith rather than the works of the Law were going to be the ones to receive the adoption (Romans 9:3-8).
There’s so much here, I will have to get back into this at a later time!
Email this post to a friend
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
5 responses so far ↓
1 Mike Beidler // Jan 19, 2008 at 10:46 pm
So far, so good … although I might take exception to the following observation:
Did you catch the importance of that last sentence? It defines the βweβ and βusβ everywhere throughout the passage: Paul was referring to his first-century, firstfruits audience!
Is the post-AD 70 church not to be considered adopted sons of God? Are we not to receive “redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” this side of AD 70? Maybe I’m misunderstanding the extent to which you are claiming “audience relevance.”
On to Part 2 … =)
2 Steve // Jan 20, 2008 at 1:05 am
Thanks for the comment! I look forward to your feedback on these issues.
I think that the context is pretty clear that those he is talking about are those first century believers. He states as much in verse 12. So whether or not “redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his graceβ exist for anyone else is therefore not explicitly stated in this passage. Now, I do believe that the post-AD 70 church reaps these benefits, but we are not who he was talking to. They were the firstfruits selected, plucked out, “elected” from the harvest beforehand.
I talk later about how the purpose of election was the spread of redemption. The result of that adoption is that the benefits of redemption have passed on to the rest of us. We are now sons of God, but we are not the firstfruit. I guess maybe I should say that “adoption as sons” does not equal “election”. I think that the selection of the firstfruit for adoption was more the equivalent of “election”.
Does this answer the question? Or create more?
3 Mike Beidler // Jan 20, 2008 at 1:58 am
While I agree that Paul’s primary audience is the first-century church, I don’t agree that it also follows that God’s process of election is relegated to that first-century church, especially considering the several examples in Romans of God’s election process prior to the NT age.
In other words, while the elect in this instance may refer to those first-century firstfruits, the “elect” is a much larger community of individuals throughout the history of God’s people.
4 Steve // Jan 20, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I would agree that election was not simply a first century phenomenon. My argument is that election is a tool used by God in his redemptive plan; the only people named as “the elect” or “vessels of destruction” in Scripture are key figures who came about at pivotal points in salvation history. Pharaoh and Jacob were chosen to further the redemptive purposes of God, and the first century Christians were another. I can’t validate election for anyone else in Scripture, since the times election is referred to in the NT it has specific referents that don’t include the balance of humanity post-AD 70.
As an FP, I see those things as having been accomplished, and the last major turn in salvation history as having occurred in the first century.
The predestination we see here wasn’t simply their own individual golden tickets to personal salvation, as most Calvinists claim or imply. It was specifically for the purpose of extending God’s glory to others. I contend that we have no examples of predestination solely on the individual level.
5 Mike Beidler // Jan 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Interesting approach, Steve. I’ll have to chew on your words some more and, of course, continue reading your posts on this subject.
Leave a Comment