My post on John Stott on Hell has led me to this one, and without getting into deep calvinistic debates about infralapsarianism/sublapsarianism and supralapsarianism (please don’t bother yourself with those big words, and I mean big words), I want to know what your thoughts are on the following verses:
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory… (Rom 9:22-23, TNIV, emphasis added)
Here are the same verses in the NLTse:
In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction. He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. (NLT, emphasis added)
These verses seem to suggest that God making known his wrath on the wicked brings him glory, which evidently applies to the punishment of the wicked in hell for all eternity.
TC, I love this mini-series.
And if we’re not happy with the thought of those verses, we can always look at verse 20:
But who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
I was beginning to get interested in NLTse after what Rick Mansfield had to say about it today. But after reading this post I have suddenly lost confidence in it. For in these verses it shows a clear Calvinist bias. TNIV correctly reflects the Greek by starting these verses with “What if”, indicating that what follows is not definite teaching but being put forward as a hypothesis for the sake of argument. But NLTse completely loses the “What if” and turns Paul’s hypothesis into definite teaching. This is of great importance because there is no other place in the Bible where anyone is described as predestined to eternal damnation. So it is vital not to make these verses say in a definite way what Paul is careful not hedge with “What if”.
What if indeed!
Stan, these verses have not generated a few debates. They are quite profund and telling.
Peter, I think the translation concern you raised is legitimate. I personally don’t believe translators should let their theological bent trump accurate translating. It seems like this is what we have on our hands.
Ferg, What if indeed.
How does a false hypothetical answer the legitimate question Paul raises? That essentially means that Paul is answering the question with a non-answer:
“He could be considered unjust if this is true… but we know it isn’t,” essentially leaving the readers between a rock and a hard-place. In the end it seems like that brings more problems than it actually solves.
Considering Paul is making an argument, it seems that the reason he uses a “for the sake of argument” conditional is because he expects it to answer the question posed. Otherwise, Paul is just being unnecessarily theoretical, and evades the actual question by positing an answer he doesn’t believe.
I do agree that the “what if” should be retained, however. Forgot to actually add my agreement. I just don’t see how the use of the “what if” allows us to say something other than what the thrust of Paul’s argument is pointing at- why is it, if Romans 8 is true, that most Israelites are not believing in Christ?
If the verses are considered in their immediate context which seems to be about the problem of the rejection of the Gospel by most Jews then it seems to suggest that the objects of his wrath might be referring to unbelieving Israel and the objects of mercy are the Christians made up gentiles and a few Jews.
Paul doesn’t say anything about the wicked in this passage and it doesn’t appear that those objects of wrath can just be understood generically.
Not only that but the only time he seems to speak of the wicked (or ungodly) in Romans it is to say that God justifies them, those that do not work (4:5) and that he died for them (5:6)
Not only that but the passage seems to suggest that God is holding out with patience on those objects of wrath and that they could eventually become objects of mercy, that their destiny is not settled.
Bryan L
“If the verses are considered in their immediate context which seems to be about the problem of the rejection of the Gospel by most Jews then it seems to suggest that the objects of his wrath might be referring to unbelieving Israel and the objects of mercy are the Christians made up gentiles and a few Jews.”
While I agree that the context must be set in terms of “why are some believing and not others,” particularly of the Jewish people (I don’t think this can be denied in terms of the first part of chapter 9), I don’t think we can set it specifically on -just- the jewish people. I say this because of how Paul first addresses his answer, namely that not all who are considered “jews” are just those by birth and nationality (which I think is further picked up in the vine metaphor in 10 and 11). But more than that, also because of v. 24 - which is the rest of the sentence began in v. 23, and thus still carries the idea: “even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?”
Essentially, I see this as saying - “the reasons I’m giving for this question of why are some not being saved is not only just true of the jews which you are wondering about, but true of both jews and gentiles.”
Bryan:
I’m having trouble understanding what your specific criticism is.
And since the problem never seems to about unbelieving gentiles I have a hard time seeing it as a problem Paul would be addressing and feeling the need to explain unlike the fact that the Messiahs own people have rejected him and that those who have are no objects of wrath that God is withholding his wrath from patiently, giving them a chance to repent.
Bryan L
The criticism is that I don’t think we can limit the discussion to just Jewish people when Paul himself doesn’t do that. By virtue of his opening stance (not all of Israel is Israel) he opens up the door for verse 24 - this is not only true for the Jews, “but also from the Gentiles.” This then feeds into the ideas of Chapters 10 and 11, where he talks about how one is saved and the inclusion of the gentiles as branches on the vine.
Essentially, the flow of the argument seems to me to go like this:
This is why some of the Jewish people are not believing [the majority of the argument of Romans 9]
This is true also of the Gentiles who are called [verse 24]
Then verse 25ff is a grounds for 24 [the use of the hos clause which opens up verse 25]
Rom 9:22 begins with what grammarians call a first class condition, “presumed through for the sake of argument.” So since this verse presents some interpretive issues, we need to settle matters within the context of Paul’s discussion.
Bryan and Bryan, the argument as I see it is on the lines of “Even if God were to predestine some people to damnation, he would not be unjust because he has the right to do what he likes with his creation”. I agree that this may well be more about Jews and Gentiles as a whole than about individuals. But I don’t accept that Paul is teaching that either faithless Jews or Gentiles are in fact predestined to damnation. As TC says, this is a matter of “presumed through for the sake of argument.” NLTse, translated largely by Calvinists, loses this aspect of the discussion and so is less than fully accurate here.
Peter,
Thank you for your explanation in your last post. That makes sense.
Peter, it’s simply not true that the NLTse is translated largely by Calvinists. That assertion is a bit of an overstatement. There’s a bit of irony here, too, in that the original Living Bible was often accused of being too Arminian. It simply demonstrates that you can never please everyone.
I don’t have to agree with the way a translation translates every verse in order to enjoy a translation. Mainly when the way a particular verse is translated in part depends upon one’s theological “bent”. Being a Calvinist myself, I am perfectly comfortable with the way the NLT translates Romans 9:22-23. However the version of the NLT I own has different wording then the one quoted by TC. My version of the NLT, published in 2000, by Tyndal, translates the verses in this way:
“God has every right to exercies his judgment and his power, but he also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of his judgment and are fit only for destruction” -Rom 9:21
Either way the pie is sliced I think the point of the verse is that there are those on whom God will pour His wrath and there are those on whom God will pour His grace.
Martin.
Peter,
Ok, that makes a bit more sense to me. Thanks.
Bryan:
I don’t know if we are speaking of the same thing. I’m not saying Paul is only talking about Jews in Romans 9. I am saying that in referring to objects of wrath he may have in view here specifically unbelieving Jews in contrast to the objects of mercy which are Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ. Romans 10-11 does speak further on this and I think highlights this by noting how the branches (Israel) have been broken off and may be grafter back in, which illustrates further my point that 9:22-24 holds out hope that that those who are objects of wrath may turn into objects of mercy and that God is being patient for this reason.
Even though Paul can say that not all Israel are Israel–I think meaning that being naturally born a Jew does not make you truly Israel–he still speaks of Israel as being unbelieving. He seems to use the term to refer to two thing, those Jews (and maybe gentiles) who are followers of Christ (In this case Israel may be a theological shorthand for those who are of the promise) and the people as a whole with those who don’t believe in Christ specifically in view.
My point is that this section can not be abstracted to be a general discussion of the soteriological fate of all mankind but is specifically addressing a problem of unbelieving Israel and believing Gentiles which all relates to Paul’s mission.
Peter:
I don’t believe that the verb used to speak of the fate of the objects of wrath (katertismena) is speaking about a predestining before time of their fate but instead what they have been fashioned for (after their creation and maybe because of their actions and unbelief), which is wrath, but as with the potter and the clay in Jeremiah, that can change.
Blessings,
Bryan L
@Bryan L
That was my mistake then- I misread your comment. My apologies!
Bryan L, both Arminians and Calvinists have a lot riding on Romans 9. You read an Arminian take on the chapter and you know what to expect. And you read a Calvinist take and you also know what to expect.
It seems like a text takes on a whole new meaning based on our theological bent. Brilliant minds have been butting heads over this one.
Well, Bryan L, if the Greek doesn’t imply “predestining before time of their fate”, NLT’s “destined for destruction”, which tends to imply this especially when in parallel with “prepared in advance for glory”, is not a good translation.
TC:
Actually I’m just going with the interpretation that seems to me to make best sense of the section and Romans as a whole. It is a lot less abstract, and is instead addressing a particular question and problem that Paul imagines being raised. Plus it takes the OT allusions and quotes (specifically their original contexts) more seriously. It isn’t necessarily Arminian as much as it is not Calvinists. I didn’t find the argument from any specifically outspoken Arminians and just read some commentaries on it. I have to admit though that N.T. Wright has been very influential to me on this section of Romans but I also conferred with others like Jewett, Dunn, and Keck as well as others like Witherington (who is an outspoken Arminian) and Esler but I don’t really remember what all of them said. I just continued to get the same gist of the passage from them.
However being an Arminian I admit that I do find their interpretations more attractive however I’m not one who thinks everything in the Bible has to harmonize for something to be right theologically and recognize that there are other passages that seem to have more Calvinists leanings to them.
Bryan
Oh yeah, I agree Peter. I don’t think it is a good translation.
I think “prepared” or “made ready” is better. The original NLT said “are fit only for destruction.” I don’t know if that is better but it is a bit more ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Bryan
Bryan L, as you know, Rom 9-11 form an entire context, addressing the Jewish fate. Yes, Paul anticipates a few objectors along the way in making his point.
The whole section of Rom 9-11 answers the question about the fate of Israel as a people: Has God given up on them, since he has turned to the Gentiles and a few Jews? No, but he will return to save them. That’s what Rom 11:25-29 is all about. That’s my take.
Now we can debate the fine points of Chapter 9 along the way.
Being that you believe what you do about Romans 9-11 why do you think Romans 9 contains some abstract discussion about God predetermining half od mankind o glory and the other half to damnation? Doesn’t that kind of seem odd to throw in there in the middle?
Bryan
Bryan, I can’t remember making that argument.
My bad. I must have confused you with Bryan or understood you to say that you were agreeing with his position. So sorry. : )
Bryan
No problem.