exegetical maneuvers made to deny non-retributive DRA in the Scriptures. In line with
the arguments of others, I hope to prove the presence of non-retributive, eternal DRA in
the biblical witness as part of my demonstration that DRA is the subject of various
presentations within the canon.
helpfully posits three models for how to understand the relationship between divine and human agency: (1) a competitive model, (2) a kinship model, and (3) a non-contrastive transcendence model.
256He also compares Philo to Paul on the matter of divine agency, concluding that “both Philo and Paul emphasize the priority of divine grace, as the originating cause of salvation, including human virtue.”
257This does not mean that their views on grace were identical however, as Paul lacks any concern with the worthiness of the recipients of grace, leaving him “at the risk of falling into a hard and arbitrary
predestinarianism.”
258Philip Alexander fixes his attention on predestination and free will within the Dead Sea Scrolls. He views the scrolls as emphasizing divine agency at the expense of the human agent, as he states that “there is, apparently little room here for independent human agency: the good and the bad, men, angels and demons, act in the end only as agents of God's grand design. Divine agency is all.”
259Jason Maston believes that the Jews employed various strategies to account for divine and human agency. Some (like Ben Sira) saw the human agent as fundamental.
260Others (like the author of Hodayot) understood YHWH’s agency to be the basis for any human action.
261By exegeting Romans 7:7–25, Maston concludes that Paul had more in common with the latter stream
John presents God as being somehow behind the fate of the unsaved, though his reprobating work and electing work are asymmetrical (195–97).
256 John M. G. Barclay, “Introduction,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment, ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon Gathercole, LNTS 335 (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 6–7.
257 John M. G. Barclay, “‘By the Grace of God I Am What I Am’: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul,” in Barclay and Gathercole, Divine and Human Agency in Paul, 156.
258 Barclay, “By the Grace of God,” 157.
259 Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 48.
260 Jason Maston, Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A Comparative Study, WUNT 2, vol. 297 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 73.
261 Maston, Divine and Human Agency, 122–23.
of Jewish thought, as the apostle criticizes the two-ways theology of Ben Sira and presents divine agency to be the solution to the human predicament.
262Jarvis Williams explores the issue of agency in the OT, in early Judaism, and in Paul’s letters. He concludes that in Paul, divine agency enjoys primacy of place without displacing the human agent.
263He argues as well that this is consistent with the perspective of the OT and with Early Jewish thought.
264Preston Sprinkle compares the Pauline and Qumran literature with respect to the ways in which divine and human agency impact their
perspectives on salvation.
265He argues that the OT presents two streams of soteriological thought: the Deuteronomic stream (which posits that human repentance precedes divine restoration) and the Prophetic stream (which asserts that God will act unilaterally to save His people).
266Sprinkle then argues that Paul consistently emphasizes the latter as he asserts the priority of divine agency in matters of salvation. While some of the Qumran hymns share aspects of Paul’s soteriological worldview, much of their didactic literature betray an emphasis on human initiative in salvation.
267The conversation regarding divine and human agency in the biblical
documents and in Early Judaism needs to continue. While progress has been made and while most believe that Paul prioritized divine agency, much disagreement still litters the
262 Maston, Divine and Human Agency, 153–54.
263 As he states, “Divine agency surrounds human agency. The human agent has an important role in Paul, but divine agency is the cause of human agency, and the latter is consequent to and the result of the former in Paul’s soteriology.” Jarvis J. Williams, “Divine and Human Agency in Paul’s Soteriology,”
in For Whom Did Christ Die? The Extent of the Atonement in Paul’s Theology, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes, England: Paternoster, 2012), 105.
264 Williams, “Divine and Human Agency,” 106–37.
265 Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013), 36.
266 Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited, 38.
267 Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited, 240–43.
discussion.
268Though I do not aim to address the issue as a whole, I believe that an exploration of DRA could make a substantial contribution to an understanding of the subject since DRA represents perhaps the most problematic point of contact between divine and human agency.
Romans 9
Paul’s discussion in Romans 9 continues to be the subject of much dispute.
Historically, proponents of non-retributive, eternal reprobation have claimed to find much evidence for their views in this chapter. Nevertheless, a significant number of modern scholars deny the presence of double predestination in Paul’s argument. Because this section of Paul’s letter plays a prominent role in the conversation regarding reprobation, I will provide a selective overview of some modern treatments of this chapter, paying particular attention to their interpretation of Romans 9:14–23.
G. B. Caird makes the innovative claim that Arminian, Calvinist, and
universalist readings of Romans 9–11 are all correct in what they affirm but mistaken in what they deny.
269Since he was no theologian, Paul felt comfortable simultaneously making three assertions that Westerners would view as logically incompatible
270: (1) salvation is not a matter of human will or exertion, but of divine mercy; (2) due to self-wrought unbelief, the Jews themselves are to blame for their plight; and (3) the
268 Williams, for instance, sees a great deal of continuity between the OT, Early Judaism, and Paul on the matter of divine and human agency. Maston meanwhile sees two incompatible streams of thought within Judaism, with Paul basically subscribing to a Christological version of the view found in Hodayot. Sprinkle disagrees, as he claims that the didactic materials within the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect a Deuteronomic perspective, which sees human agency as being decisive in salvation. Carson, on the other hand, argues that a merit theology emerges in most Jewish literature, with the Dead Sea Scrolls being the jarring exception.
269 G. B. Caird, “Predestination–Romans Ix.-Xi.,” ExpTim 68, no. 11 (1957): 324.
270 Caird believes that this pursuit of logical consistency is what has derailed interpretations of Paul. As he states, “It was this worship of consistency which led both Calvin and Arminius astray.” Caird,
“Predestination,” 325.
rejection of Israel is not final, but is part of God’s plan of universal salvation.
271Furthermore, while Calvinists are correct to emphasize the primacy of grace, Caird claims that they are utterly mistaken when they interpret Romans 9:14–23 as testifying to the doctrine of reprobation.
272Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston agree with this last point. They contend that Romans 9:14–18 cannot refer to negative predestination since Exodus 33:19 does not concern anyone’s eternal destiny; instead, both texts are only claiming that God acts according to the strategy that he thinks is best, regardless of whether or not his servants agree.
273In addition, Paul’s reference to Pharaoh demonstrates that reprobation has no place in his thought since the Egyptian king hardened himself before YHWH gave him the courage to carry out his evil intentions.
274Lastly, Forster and Marston believe that in Romans 9:21–23, Paul alludes to Jeremiah 18:1–11 in order to say that “the basic lump that forms a nation will either be built up or broken down by the Lord, depending on their own moral response.”
275John Piper sees the matter quite differently. He understands Paul to be
grappling with the problem of the faithfulness of God in the face of the condemnation of many within Israel (Rom 9:1–5).
276He then critiques the corporate view of election in Romans 9 as it fails to solve the dilemma facing Paul.
277Instead, Piper argues that Paul sees the unconditional predestination of individuals to salvation or to condemnation as
271 Caird, “Predestination,” 324.
272 Caird, “Predestination,” 326.
273 Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 63–67.
274 Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 69–75.
275 Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 82.
276 Piper, Justification of God, 47.
277 Piper, Justification of God, 63–67.
the means by which God secures his “purpose according to election.”
278Such an act would not compromise God’s righteousness, since in Piper’s view, “God’s righteousness consists in his unswerving commitment always to act for the glory of his name.”
279Thus, even God’s reprobating activity attested in Romans 9:14–23 is righteous because through it, God manifests a clear display of His glory for the sake of His elect.
280Schreiner too defends a more Calvinistic reading of Romans 9.
281He argues that Romans 9–11 has to do with salvation rather than with the historical destiny of nations.
282Additionally, Schreiner asserts that “the election Paul describes in this passage is both corporate and individual” and that “a reference to the former [i.e., corporate election] does not rule out the latter [i.e., individual election].”
283He also contends against the claim that election in Romans 9 refers to God’s choice of a corporate group as opposed to God’s election of individual persons.
284Those who prioritize corporate election maintain that God elects a corporate entity, while individuals make themselves members of this chosen group through the exercise of personal faith. According to Schreiner, such a view should be rejected since it misrepresents the relationship between corporate and individual election and it empties divine election of its saving importance.
285Elass similarly argues for a
278 Piper, Justification of God, 51.
279 Piper, Justification of God, 100.
280 Piper, Justification of God, 186–89.
281 Schreiner, “Romans 9”; see also Thomas R. Schreiner, “Corporate and Individual Election in Romans 9: A Response to Brian Abasciano,” JETS 49, no. 2 (2006): 373–86.
282 Schreiner, “Romans 9,” 26–33.
283 Schreiner, “Romans 9,” 34.
284 Schreiner, “Corporate and Individual Election,” 376–77.
285 As he states, “Corporate election is rendered meaningless, on Abasciano’s scheme, for it constitutes the election of an empty set––a nullity. All the emphasis is placed on human faith, and the grace of God in electing his people to salvation is erased.” Schreiner, “Corporate and Individual Election,” 386.
For Abasciano’s responses, see Brian J. Abasciano, “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas
Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9–11. In addition to some of the points made by Piper and Schreiner, Elass also argues that the Qumran community proves that some pockets within Second Temple Judaism had developed highly individualistic notions of election and predestination.
286He believes that Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11 reflects these conceptions.
287Alternatively, J. Ross Wagner argues that the allusions and echoes within Romans 9–11 suggest a slightly different reading. Though he understands Romans 9:1–13 similarly to Piper and to Schreiner,
288Wagner does not believe Paul to refer to eternal reprobation in Romans 9:14–23. He argues that the citation of Exodus 33:19 means “not simply that God is free to be merciful to whom he will, but more specifically that God has freely chosen to be merciful to Israel and to keep his covenant with his people even in the face of their unfaithfulness and idolatry.”
289Additionally, because the potter metaphor in Romans 9:19–23 draws from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, Paul should not be understood as
“representing a childish attempt by God to assert his sovereignty over his people through brute force”; instead, “the affirmation that God is Israel’s maker implies a far more intimate relationship. This is the language of election.”
290Brian Abasciano argues more forcefully against the Calvinist reading of Romans 9. Since he surmises that the phrase
Schreiner,” JETS 49, no. 2 (2006): 351–71; Brian J. Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election,” ATJ 41 (2009): 59–90.
286 Elass, “Concept of Election,” 102–9.
287 Elass, “Concept of Election,” 121–22.
288 Wagner agrees with them regarding the presenting issue in Rom 9:1–5 and regarding the place of election as part of Paul’s solution in Rom 9:6–13. See J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News:
Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002), 45–
51.
289 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 53.
290 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 66.
“children of the promise” in 9:7 means “those who believe the promise,” he is led to interpret 9:10–13 to mean that human faith is the basis of divine election.
291Moreover, God’s sovereignty in election does not refer to His right to decide between individuals, but to His prerogative to set or reset the conditions of membership into His people as He so pleases.
292Hardening meanwhile is understood retributively and (in Rom 9 at least) refers specifically to God’s act of judgment against the Jews, which consisted of his decision to make faith in Christ the new condition for entry into His covenant people apart from works or ancestry.
293N. T. Wright also sees no place in Romans 9–11 for a doctrine of reprobation, as he offers an original take on these chapters. He believes most commentators have failed to see the main idea of Romans 9–11, which “is all about the fulfilment of
Deuteronomy 30: in other words—though this is almost always missed by commentators!
—covenant renewal and the end of exile.”
294Ultimately according to Wright, the apostle is making the same argument in both Romans 1–4 and in Romans 9–11.
295He maintains that Romans 9:1–23 would not have been controversial to any Second Temple Jew and that the objections anticipated by Paul in 9:14 and 9:19 reflect the perspective of the Gentiles.
296Romans 9:10–13 intimates God’s intention to call Gentiles into covenant membership apart from any consideration of merit.
297God has the right to do this, as His
291 Abasciano, Old Testament in Romans 9.10-18, 53.
292 Abasciano, Old Testament in Romans 9.10-18, 53.
293 See Abasciano, Old Testament in Romans 9.10-18, 203–10.
294 Wright, Paul and Faithfulness of God, 1164.
295 Wright, Paul and Faithfulness of God, 1164.
296 Wright, Paul and Faithfulness of God, 1184–87.
297 Wright, Paul and Faithfulness of God, 1188.
previous hardening of Pharaoh “is explicitly said to be in the service of the worldwide proclamation of God’s name.”
298Furthermore, Israel itself should be understood as the
“vessel of wrath” and the “vessel of mercy”: as God’s elect people, the nation shares in the Messiah’s “casting away” because “the doctrine of election always envisaged the elect themselves being the people through whom God would perform the negative task essential to rescuing the world, namely the outpouring of his anger and power.”
299David R. Wallace reads Romans 9 to highlight God’s merciful character and his desire for humility from both Israel and the nations.
300He argues that the election of Jacob was an expression of mercy towards both of Rebecca’s sons, as it summoned both to humility.
By quoting Malachi 1:2, Paul intends to indict both Jacob’s and Esau’s descendants for refusing to humble themselves. God then responds by judging the Edomites as a merciful warning to Israel.
301A similar principle is at work in God’s actions towards Pharaoh, as God’s judgment against Egypt results in the merciful proclamation of His name to the
“vessels of mercy,” namely, the Gentiles.
302Thus, Romans 9 demonstrates God’s impartial mercy towards both Jews and Gentiles who prove themselves to be part of the
“remnant” through their humility.
303Much more has been written on Romans 9 and much more could be said.
Nevertheless, this brief summary of recent scholarship highlights some of the main contours of the discussion on Romans 9 as it relates to DRA. As is plain, many
298 Wright, Paul and Faithfulness of God, 1189.
299 Wright, Paul and Faithfulness of God, 1190–93.
300 For his interpretation of Rom 9, see David R. Wallace, Election of the Lesser Son: Paul’s Lament-Midrash in Romans 9–11 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 55–100.
301 Wallace, Election of the Lesser Son, 69–73.
302 Wallace, Election of the Lesser Son, 77–78, 93–94.
303 Wallace, Election of the Lesser Son, 104.