Lynn Cohick says this about election in her Ephesians commentary:
"It is important to keep this picture of the gracious God as central, as some of the discussion surrounding terms such as “predestine” can give rise to images of capriciousness or cavalier flippancy in a modern reader’s mind. Either God is presented as fickle, choosing willy-nilly whomever he wants and also choosing to damn the rest, or God is seen as choosing some because in some way, however hidden it may be, they deserved it more than the others. Of course we usually don’t voice either of these claims in such bald language, but nonetheless their unsettling presence, like ants at a picnic, intrudes inconveniently."
13 comments:
Matt,
Please reread the quote. She was describing two WRONG ways people look at election.
Hence, she concludes:
"Of course we usually don’t voice either of these claims in such bald language, but nonetheless their unsettling presence, like ants at a picnic, intrudes inconveniently."
Yes Matt, please reread. She is not saying that at all. Rather she is saying that some people present "God . . . as choosing some because in some way, however hidden it may be, they deserved it more than the others." She herself doesn't agree with this.
MarieP & Alan.
You're right! Thank goodness.
I removed my original comment due to its breathtaking irrelevance.
I just might buy the book after all!
thank you.
Honestly, the quote is too short to be truly useful and is easily misread (I can sympathize with Matt's error). Where does Cohick really come down on the issue?
I believe that we need to be very careful in our understanding of the first chapter of Ephesians to understand what is being said about predestined.
Paul is actually saying that it was the Jewish nation that God predestined to bear forth Christ.
It is highly unlikely that Paul has the "Jewish nation" in view in this verse. One has to insert that understanding into the text to arrive at such a conclusion. Paul is talking about "us", and that identification suggests both the author and audience, largely composed of Gentiles.
In defence of craig.benno and contra Sean, the idea that Paul is referring to the Jewish nation may not be the importation that Sean claims. One theme of Ephesians 1-2 is the way the gospel is for both the Jew and the Gentile. This is utterly explicit in 2:11ff but may be present earlier in the letter. Evidence that it might be may be discerned in the contrast between the 'we/us'of 1:3-12 and the 'you' of 1:13ff. Certainly the great Jewish Christian writer, HL Ellison, thought so.
I think both Craig and Sean have a point. It's not either/or but both/and. Same with that other great passage on election, Romans 9.
Given that the issue of Jew and Gentile is only explicitly raised in 2:11f., it is unlikely that the audience would hear the "we" in chap one as referring to Jews. Furthermore, why would Paul or whoever wrote it, emphasise a distinction between Jew and Gentile given his view that the two are now one new humanity? To see a Jew/Gentile distinction in chapter one is to import a foreign idea into the text that goes explicitly against what he will later argue.
Post a Comment