A Textlinguistic Analysis of Amos 1-2

Welcome to my site! I'm Lach Mullen, and I'm glad to see you here. Please feel free to click around, read what you will, check the "About Lach" page, and leave a comment or message. I'm so glad you're here! If you have any ideas of suggestions, let me know!

Charlie Trimm

ETS NW Regional

March 1, 2003

God had a message for the people of Israel. Not wanting to simply speak from the heavens, he chose Amos to deliver this message. But since this message was not one that Israel would readily accept, Amos delivers a “trap” for the people of Israel to get the attention of his audience, which is recorded for us in Amos 1-2. After he draws his listeners in and gains their sympathy with his condemnation of the surrounding nations, he gradually turns the spotlight closer and closer to home until he suddenly turns the tables and delivers a fierce attack upon Israel. “Suddenly the cheering stops and no one shouts ‘Amen’” (Smith 2001 256). But is the oracle against Israel really the point of the passage? Is it really that much of a surprise? Have some of the oracles been inserted by a clumsy redactor? And how does Amos 1-2 relate to the rest of the book?

These are some of the questions that textlinguistics can help answer. Textlinguistics (also called discourse analysis) could be characterized several ways. One way is that it examines the way that a writer communicates using structural clues in the text (Bergen 1987 327-336). The exegete is not simply looking for semantic content contained in the structure, but also looking for the semantic content of the structure itself. The author highlights the most important information in the section using structure, resulting in a peak or focus of attention.

Longacre describes discourse peak as a “zone of turbulence in otherwise placid flow of discourse.” Changes from the “routine” within a discourse serve as cues to mark the progression of a discourse. Longacre explains that languages possess a number of possible strategies to mark discourse peak. These strategies vary across languages. Essentially the regular flow of the discourse is altered at peak. A given discourse may employ one or several strategies. Such strategies may include rhetorical underlying (e.g., paraphrase), change in word order, discourse peak particle, change of tense-aspect-mood, change of sentence length, al. The underlying assumption is that variation is not random nor arbitrary (Christopher 209).

An example is seen in 1 Samuel 16:13-23 where the three major themes of the passage are shown by three morphosyntactically marked sections (Bergen Evil Spirits 320). Another way of viewing textlinguistics is that of extending the limit of study from the sentence, as is done in traditional grammars, to the level of discourse (Reed 231). For example, the use or non-use of a preterite in Biblical Hebrew narrative has more to do with discourse function (introduction of topic or closing of section as examples) than with the semantic content of the sentence by itself.

So how does textlinguistics help us with Amos 1-2? This paper will examine three topics in regards to Amos 1-2 through the lens of textlinguistics. These topics have usually received either little attention or are simply stated without proof in the commentaries. First, data will be given to show that the oracle against Israel is the peak of Amos 1-2. Second, the foreshadowing of the Israel oracle in the first seven oracles will be studied, including an examination to see if any of the oracles were added later. Third, the foreshadowing of the rest of the book of Amos in Amos 1-2 will be examined.

OVERVIEW OF THE ORACLES AND THEIR PATTERN

Amos begins the book after an introduction with eight oracles, one each against Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, and Israel. There are several ways of understanding the order, but a helpful way is to see the first four as cutting chiastically across Israel (NE, SW, NW, SE) and the next three as blood brothers to Israel (Ammon, Moab, and Judah), with Edom serving as a transition since it is in both categories (Finley 134, Wendland 9). The boundaries of the oracles are easy to determine and employ similar boundary markers as those used in the books of Haggai and Zechariah (Clark 23).

Each oracle proceeds according to a tight structure. First comes the introductory formula hw”ëhy> rm:Ã¥a’ hKo (Köh ´ämar yhwh, Thus says the LORD), which is exactly the same for all eight oracles. Second comes God’s statement of determination to not revoke his punishment, where the only variation is the place: WNb,_yvia] al{Ã¥ h['ÞB'r>a;-l[;w> qf,M,êd; y[eäv.Pi 'hv'l{v.-l[; (`al-šülöšâ PiÅ¡`ê dammeºSeq wü`al-´arBä`â lö´ ´ášîbeºnnû, For three transgressions of Damascus and for four I will not turn back).

Major variation begins in the third portion, which is the reason God gives for the punishment to follow. Every oracle has the preposition l[; (`al) followed by an infinitive construct to describe the reason. The exact reason and formal number of reasons varies for each oracle. A similarity in wording between some of the reasons is evident occasionally, such as the hm'Þlev. tWlïG" (Gälût šülëmâ ) in Philistia and Tyre (Paul 397-403). In the oracle against Israel this section starts in a similar fashion to the other oracles, but quickly becomes very different. One of the major differences is the inclusion of an "Acts of God on behalf of Israel" section that serves to highlight the evil things Israel was doing by contrasting it with the good things God had done for them. The punishment section is the last section in the Israel oracle that bears any formal resemblance to the prior pattern.

The fourth section in the pattern is the description of punishment. In the first part of this section, strong formal similarity is seen, as each of the first seven oracles begins with yTix.L;îviw> B. vaeÞ (wüšillaºHTî ´ëš Bü, And I will send fire on) and tAnðm.r>a; hl'Þk.a'w> (wü´äklâ ´armünôt, And fire will consume the citadels). Only minor variations are seen, such as the use of yTiC;Ûhiw> (wühiccaºTTî, And I will kindle) instead of yTix.L;îviw> (wüšillaºHTî, And I will send) in the Ammon oracle, or a pronominal suffix on tAnðm.r>a; (armünôt, citadels). But a significant variation in the formal number of punishments is also seen. The Israel oracle has a punishment section, but its formal characteristics are totally different than the previous seven.

The last section is a concluding formula, hw")hy> rm:ïa' (´ämar yhwh, says the LORD). The Philistia oracle has hwI)hy> yn"ïdoa] rm:ßa’ (´ämar ´ádönäy yhwh, says the Lord GOD), while the Tyre, Edom, and Judah oracles lack the formula entirely. The Israel oracle concludes with hw”)hy>-~aun> (nü´um-yhwh, declares the LORD). This formula is often a concluding formula in other sections of the prophets, as it is here (Clark 23).

ISRAEL ORACLE AS PEAK OF AMOS 1-2

Recognition of the Israel oracle as the point or the peak of Amos 1-2 is agreed upon by commentators, but few reasons are usually given besides the fact that it is longer and last (Stuart 316, Wendland 10), although there are a few exceptions, such as Chisholm, who lists two of the points given below briefly in his article (189-190). A close look at the Israel oracle in comparison with the other seven reveal that there are several textual indicators here that show peak. A demonstration of those textual indicators in this text, where there is no doubt that this is the peak, might prove to be helpful in other texts in Amos where peak is in doubt.

The first indicator is the word order of the various clauses. In the first seven oracles, a vast majority of the clauses have the verb first (VX). The only regular exception is the statement of determination (D section) in each oracle, which does not have the verb first (XV). But outside of this regularly occurring section, there are only three clauses that are VX. These three clauses occur in the Edom, Moab, and Judah oracles. There are 45 VX clauses in the first seven oracles with only ten XV clauses, seven of which are in the D section of each oracle. But in the Israel oracle there are seven VX to fifteen XV clauses. This sudden switch in sentence structure would be sure to grab the reader’s attention and highlight this section. This is seen especially in the reason section, where in the previous seven oracles, except for one in Edom, there were only VX clauses. But here five out seven are XV.

Table 1: Word Order in the Oracles

VX (Verb First)XV (Verb not First)

First Seven Oracles45 (82%)10 (18%)

Israel Oracle7 (32%)15 (68%)

First Seven Oracles, Not Counting D Section45 (94%)3 (6%)

Israel Oracle, Not Counting D Section7 (33%)14 (67%)

The added section, the acts of God, is another indicator of peak. Anderson and Freedman consider this section to be an inclusion by a later editor due to its prose nature and its difference from the previous oracles. They even speculate about what the end of the original oracle looked like based on analogy (342-3). However, this would unduly make the prophet a slave to his own pattern and not allow him any artistic freedom to make his point. If the prophet’s purpose is to emphasize the Israel oracle, how much clearer could he be than by adding this section only to the Israel oracle? The turbulence in the pattern shows that this is part of the peak.

The acts of God section is included in the midst of the reason section to provide a contrast to what the people of Israel are doing. They are rejecting God by their deeds, including oppressing the poor, desecrating marriage and not allowing the prophets to prophesy. But the deeds of God show his love for the people, whether it be destroying their enemies before them or guiding them in the wilderness or giving them messengers so that they can know him. This contrast with what he is doing versus what they are doing is heightened by the use of first person pronoun, which is technically redundant when used with a suffixed verb. And not only does it remind them of what God did for them, it reminds them that they were the weak people at that point who were oppressed by the greater power. But now, the people who were weak, the people whom God rescued from this power, they are now oppressing other people (Smith 1991 38). Far from being the product of a sloppy redactor, the acts of God section fits nicely with the emphasis Amos is giving the oracle against Israel and highlights the depravity of Israel by showcasing the goodness of God.

The third textual indicator of peak is the concrete imagery used in verse 12. The exact meaning of the verse is obscure, but whatever it refers to it is a concrete picture of God’s relation with Israel. This is similar peak material to what Finley and Payton found as peak in Isaiah 7-12 (330). This use of metaphor is not found in the other oracles, and so its inclusion here highlights this oracle and introduces the lengthy and unusual punishment section.

The different formal structure for the concluding formula and the punishment section also serve to highlight this oracle. The previous punishment sections were very stereotyped and focused on the buildings and rulers of the people being punished. In this oracle, however, the focus is upon the individuals in the army and the desperate straits they will be in. There will be no escape for any. The concluding formula is also different for Israel. First, there are two concluding formulas in this oracle, one to conclude the new acts of God section, and one to close the oracle as a whole. Second, instead of hw”)hy> rm:ïa’ (´ämar yhwh, says the LORD), hw”)hy>-~aun> (nü´um-yhwh, declares the LORD) is used instead.

When Amos composed the Israel oracle, he finely crafted it to achieve maximum effect on his hearers. After hearing of all the evil deeds of their neighbors, Israel expects a glorious end with a victory song or a promise of special treatment to God’s beloved and chosen people. And indeed, Israel does receive special treatment, but not the kind of special treatment they are expecting. Their sins are not overlooked and forgiven simply because they are God’s people. Instead, their sins are punished precisely because they are God’s people. The oracle against Israel is not the shoddy work of a half-awake redactor, but is a masterpiece of a prophet who desires to grab the attention of his audience and shake them up to bring them back to the Lord.

FORESHADOWING OF THE ISRAEL ORACLE IN THE FIRST SEVEN ORACLES

In the first two chapters of Amos, a trap is sprung on unsuspecting Israel, who has been cheering on the condemnation of all the surrounding nations. But now, they are now being regarded in a similar light as these foreign nations: guilty and condemned! But a close study of the first seven oracles reveals that the surprise is not really that surprising. Several textual indicators along the way reveal that “things just aren’t quite right.”

The structure of the Judah oracle is the major indication that all is not quite right. There are a few indications that Judah might be the last oracle in the series. Judah is the seventh oracle, an important number. (Note, for example, the three and the four used in the statement of determination.) The Judah oracle itself is also somewhat unusual, both in its form (more reasons, fewer punishments, no concluding formula) and in its content (no warfare reasons, but a rejection of the law). Then there is a lack of any other near neighbors to condemn. Who else would there be left to condemn? The list seems complete: Start the victory song on behalf of Israel!

Table 2: Pattern of the Oracles

Number of ReasonsNumber of PunishmentsConcluding Formula

Syria 15Yes

Philistia 15Yes

Tyre 22No

Edom 42No

Ammon 13Yes

Moab 14Yes

Judah 32No

Israel 77Yes, but different

But a closer look at the previous oracles reveals there should be another. Although there are not any more neighbors to condemn, “[t]here is a big hole in the map where Israel goes” (Vreeland). A study of the structure of the oracles confirms this thought. A comparison of the Judah oracle to Tyre and Edom reveal striking similarities, as seen in Table 2. It appears that Amos has set up these oracles in pairs, with the pairs being determined by the number of reasons, number of punishments, and the inclusion or exclusion of a concluding formula. The groupings are Syria and Philistia as the first pair, Tyre and Edom for the second pair, Ammon and Moab as the third pair, and Judah and ? for the fourth pair (Smith 40). Even though the Judah oracle is unusual, something even more unusual is coming which will clearly break the pattern set up so far. These groupings demonstrate as well that the three minority oracles which have often been on the cutting block of the critics (Tyre, Edom, and Judah) are vital to what Amos is doing. Scholars who take out these oracles either entirely or just excise the Judah oracle due to Deuteronomistic language and then extensively rearrange the other oracles based on such things as meter (Christensen 427-436) are missing the point. To take these oracles out is to ruin the delicate trap that Amos is setting for Israel and to miss the meaning in the structure.

Another indicator of the unsurprising surprise is the use of word order. In the first seven oracles, VX predominates. The one exception is the statement of determination, which is consistently XV. But there are three places, once in the Edom oracle, once in the Moab oracle, and once in the Judah oracle where a XV clause is used when a VX is expected. This increase in use of a non-normal word order occurs increasingly as the end approaches. (Edom is the fourth oracle, Moab the sixth, and Judah the seventh.) This XV use foreshadows the Israel oracle, where XV predominates significantly over VX (14 XV vs. 5 VX). As the end gets closer, things get more and more unusual, tipping off the observant reader that something even more unusual might be coming up.

FORESHADOWING OF THE BOOK OF AMOS IN AMOS 1-2

Although Amos 1-2 serve a very important purpose of themselves, they also serve as an introduction to the entire book of Amos. Most of the major themes of the book are introduced in these two chapters and several important concepts are foreshadowed. To claim that Amos 1-2 are simply a later addition tacked onto an entirely different literary work is to miss the literary ties and connections that are present between Amos 1-2 and 3-9.

The oppression of the poor by Israel is a very common theme in Amos and one of the major complaints Amos has with the people. This oppression is given as a reason for the punishment of Israel in 2:6-8 and foreshadows many of the charges in the rest of book. This same theme is seen again in 4:1, 5:10-12, 15, 24, and 8:4-6. The wording in 8:4-6 is significant, as it has the same obscure phrase as in 2:7 and almost exactly the same phrase as found in 2:6.

Another common theme in Amos is a contrast between what God has done and what Israel is doing. This theme is foreshadowed in the act of God section that was added to the Israel oracle in 2:9-11 to highlight the depravity of Israel. This same listing of what God has done and how Israel is special to him is seen in 3:1-2, 4:6-13, 5:8, and 9:5-6. Amos delights to point out the irony of how Israel acts in relationship to God: no matter what God does, Israel still just doesn’t get it.

The focus on Israel is clearly foreshadowed in Amos 1-2. The other nations against which Amos proclaims oracles are not mentioned again except in passing, while Israel receives constant attention for the rest of the book. Amos is primarily concerned with the spiritual status of Israel, not the other nations. While they are certainly lacking in many moral and spiritual categories (as the oracles clearly show), that is no excuse for Israel to be evil herself. She must be responsible for her own actions, and Amos goes about highlighting what they are doing wrong and what they should do about it.

Several wordplays and minor foreshadowings are done as well. The Lord declares that vaeÞ yTix.L;îviw> (wüšillaºHTî ´ëš, and I will send fire) upon the seven nations, to which Israel would give hearty approval. But later on the tables are turned, as God says yTix.L;’vi (Å¡illaºHTî, I sent) a plague upon Israel (4:10), and yTiîx.l;v.hi (hiÅ¡laHTî, I sent) a famine upon Israel (8:11). The fire and eating terminology is also later directed against Israel, as it was against the nations (5:6). And just as the citadels of the nations will be burnt, the citadels of Israel will be looted (3:11) and be the object of the hatred of God (6:8).

The nations continue to play a role in the rest of the book, although it is not a role that Israel would desire them to have. Even though the inhabitant of Ashdod will be cut off (1:8), Amos calls on the citadels of Ashdod to witness the tumult of Samaria. God does not simply cause tumult for Samaria, he makes other nations see it as well. And in the same verse (1:8), the remnant of the Philistines would Wdb.a’ (´äbdû, perish). But a few verses after inviting the nations to watch the tumult in Samaria, Amos says that the houses of ivory of Samaria would Wdb.a’ (´äbdû, perish). But a glimmer of hope is given at the very end of Amos, as he says that the ruins of David will be raised up and that they would posses the remnant of Edom. Once again, the surrounding nations play a supporting role, even in this breath of hope given to Israel.

One of the charges that God brings against the people of Israel is that they commanded the prophets Wa)b.N”Ti alo (lö´ Tinnäb´û, you shall not prophesy). A very vivid example of this is given later on in the book when Amaziah the priest commands Amos to go to Judea abe(N”Ti ~v’Þw> (wüšäm Tinnäbë´, and there you shall prophesy).

A possible word-play might involve the root #ma (´mc). The root is used three times in the book, and the first two times are in the punishment section against Israel, declaring that none will escape. The third time it appears is in the name of Amaziah, the priest who opposes Amos. His name will remind the readers that no one, not even the priest, will escape the judgment of God, and this is confirmed by the condemnation of Amaziah that comes from Amos (Schmidt 141-142).

Textlinguistics is a helpful tool in the analysis of the book of Amos. First, it was clearly demonstrated textually that the peak of Amos 1-2 is the oracle against Israel, since the other seven oracles are given to lure the Israelites into a trap. Second, this trap is not all that surprising and might have been noticed by an observant hearer: “something isn’t right here.” A demonstration of this tension revealed that the variation in several oracles that makes many critics want to delete them is essential to the trap of Amos. Third, the rest of the book of Amos is foreshadowed in Amos 1-2. There are several textual ties and foreshadowings that reveal that the book is a unified whole. What we have in Amos is a fine piece of highly effective literary art.

Works Cited

Anderson, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Bergen, Robert D. “Evil Spirits and Eccentric Grammar.” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Ed. Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: SIL, 1994.

—. “Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:3 (1987): 327-336.

Chisholm, Robert B. “‘For Three Sins… Even for Four’: The Numerical Sayings in Amos.” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 188-198.

Christensen, Duane L. “The Prosodic Structure of Amos 1-2.” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 427-436.

Christopher, Gregory T. “A Discourse Analysis of Colossians 2:16-3:17.” Grace Theological Journal 11:2 (1990): 205-220.

Clark, David J. “Discourse Structure in Haggai.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5:1 (1992):13-24.

Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990.

Finley, Thomas J. and George Payton. “A Discourse Analysis of Isaiah 7-12.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 6:4 (1993): 317-335.

Paul, Shalom M. “Amos 1:3-2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern.” Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971): 397-403.

Reed, Jeffrey T. “Discourse Analysis as New Testament Hermeneutic: A Retrospective and Prospective Appraisal.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (1996): 223-240.

Schmidt, Daniel. “Critical Note: Another Word-Play in Amos?” Grace Theological Journal 8:1 (1987): 141-142.

Smith, Gary V. “Continuity and Discontinuity In Amos’ Use of Tradition.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34:1 (1991): 33-42.

—. Hosea / Amos / Micah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

—. Amos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea - Jonah. Waco: Word, 1987.

Vreeland, Gerald. Personal Communication, December 2002.

Wendland, Ernst R. “The ‘Word of the Lord’ and the Organization of Amos.” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2:4 (1988): 1-51.

The Basis Of Predestination

Charlie Trimm

April 2000

What is the basis of predestination? Is it ultimately man or God? The answer to this question has been argued since the very beginning of the church. The question is a significant one since its implications play an important part in the life of Christian. For example, the answer to this question influences the question of whether a Christian can lose his salvation, how certain God’s promises are, and what our view of God is. It is vitally important for each Christian to study the Scriptures and determine just what the basis of predestination is. This paper is an attempt to bring the reader into interaction with several of the important texts that relate to this issue and discuss the contribution of each of these texts. The debate has not centered around whether or not God predestines, as the Bible makes it very clear that He does do so

• Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
• Ephesians 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will
• Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Instead, the issue revolves around the basis of predestination. Two answers to this question have been given. One, sometimes called the semi-Pelagian or Arminian view, says that God looked forward through time to see who would have faith, and then predestined those. So the basis of predestination is ultimately human choice. The other view, often called the Calvinist or Augustinian view, says that God chose who would have faith based on his sovereign good will. So the basis of predestination is the sovereign choice of God. Since ultimately our theology must be dictated not by what we want to believe or by what theologians tell us, but by what the Word of God says, we will examine several texts that discuss this important issue.

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”

This passage tells us several things about election. First, verse 4 tells us it was before the foundation of the world. Second, verse 6 tells us it is for His glory. Thirdly, the last part of verse 4 and verse 5 tell us the basis of this election. It is “in love” and it is “according to the kind intention of His will.” Paul mentions nothing here of any kind of human work or faith, but only the love of God and God’s sovereign will. Election is not based on random choice or on human action, but is based on the will of God in accordance with God’s love and kindness.

Ephesians 2:1 “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ….. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus,”

Paul here states our condition before salvation – spiritual death. This would again incline us in the direction of the Calvinist viewpoint, since dead people don’t do things. It is not that we are partly dead, or mostly dead, but we are totally dead in our sins. And God made us alive when we were still dead, that is, while we were still in a state of inability to do anything (death), He made us alive, clearly showing that the basis of Him making us alive is not our actions, since we were dead, but the basis is His mercy and love.

Romans 9:10 “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; (11) for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, (12) it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” (13) Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (14) What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (15) For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16) So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” (18) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (19) You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (20) On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (21) Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? (22) What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (23) And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (24) even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”

These verses present the clearest case for predestination based solely on the sovereignty of God. First, the emphasis in these verses is that the choice depends not on man, but on God, as seen in verses 11 and 16. Verse 16 flat out contradicts the Arminian view as Paul states that it depends not on man, but on God who has mercy. As verse 18 says, He has mercy not on those who have distinguished themselves or are special of themselves, but He has mercy on whom He desires, irregardless of the state of the object of that desire. He has mercy based on His sovereign good will. To make these verses say something else would be to commit serious eisogesis, reading into the text what is not there. Second, Paul enters into the discussion of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in verse 19. Notice I say human responsibility and not human free will. In that verse Paul is essentially asking the question of how man can be responsible if God is totally sovereign. If the Arminian position is correct, Paul would have answered the question by saying that humans are responsible because we have free will and in fact do resist His will. But notice carefully Paul’s response: “The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ will it?” Paul does not give any hint here at all that God sets aside his sovereignty as far as salvation goes, as Arminianism says. On the other hand, Paul does not say either that since God is sovereign we are not responsible. He could have stated that “Actually, God doesn’t find fault.” But that is not what he says. Humans are responsible, and God is sovereign. Both of those statements are equally true. Even though we may not understand how they both can be true at the same time, Scripture clearly says they are both true. Another example of this is found in Luke 22:22 “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” On the one hand we see divine sovereignty in this verse in that the Son of Man is to go, just as it has been determined or ordained by God, but then, on the other hand, we see human responsibility in the woe to Judas. Just because it was ordained what Judas would do does not remove the responsibility from him. And so throughout Scripture we see this delicate balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. We cannot make one “more” true than the other, for both are equally true.

Philippians 1:29 “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,”

In this verse Paul clearly states that faith is a gift of God (it was granted to us to believe). This presents a logical dilemma for the Arminian position. They would say that faith has been granted (based on Philippians 1:29) to believers because He foresaw their faith (what they claim to be the basis of predestination). Notice the logical inconsistency in this statement. They do not have faith until he grants it to them, but the basis of his granting it is the foreseeing of their faith. Only the Calvinist position makes sense here, which states that God grants faith on the basis of his sovereign will and is not dependant on anything in a man.

Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”

This familiar verse informs the reader again that grace and faith are the gift of God. The grammatical structure of the Greek here indicates that the “that” of verse 8 refers not just to grace being a gift, but refers also to faith being a gift. So once again we see that faith is a gift of God to His people. And how can the basis of giving a gift be the content of that gift itself?

Romans 8:29 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;

This verse is the cornerstone for the Arminian view, who see here that foreknowledge comes before predestination, so predestination must be based on foreknowledge. And since in Romans faith is the basis of salvation, they assume that the foreknowledge spoken of here is that of God foreknowing who would have faith. In this way, even though predestination is true, human free will is preserved as it is defined in their system of theology.

However, while the Calvinist would agree that predestination is based on foreknowledge, they disagree as to the definition of foreknowledge. On the one hand, the text says too little to support the Arminian position, and on the other hand it says too much. First of all, the text says nothing whatsoever about foreknowing faith. The contention that this is a foreknowledge of faith is read into this verse on the basis of the Arminian theological system, a dangerous practice, as our theology needs to be based on our interpretation of Scripture, not the other way around. Second, the text says too much for the Arminian interpretation, as it says that He foreknows people. It does not say that he foreknew something about them, such as their faith, but that he foreknew them. Notice as well, that he does not foreknow all humans, but only those he predestines and justifies and glorifies. Thirdly, some insight can be gained by examining the Greek word used here. There are two Greek words for know, oi=da (oida) and ginw,skw (ginosko). oi=da has the idea we English speakers often associate with knowing, that of intellectual knowledge, a knowledge of the facts, a knowing about someone or something. However, while ginw,skw sometimes has a similar meaning to oi=da, it often has a deeper connotation to it, that of not just knowing facts, but of knowing relationally, of knowing someone. For example, in Matthew 7:23 Jesus says “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” It is not that Jesus did not know about them, for of course he knew the facts of their life and such. But he did not know them relationally. In Romans 8, the word foreknow is constructed in Greek the same way as in English, that is, it is the word know with the prefix meaning “before” attached to the front of it, giving us proginw,skw (proginosko). So this Greek word used would indicate to us that to foreknow is not just some sort of abstract knowledge of whether they have faith or not, but is an intimate sort of knowledge, or to know with peculiar interest, or to set regard upon. This definition is further seen to be true in that God only foreknows some in this way, not all. So it would be best to see in this text not a foreknowledge of the believers faith, but God’s loving foreknowledge of his people.

1 Timothy 2:3 “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

The Arminian sees this verse as a decisive argument against Calvinism. The question this verse brings up is this: If God desires all to be saved, why are not all saved? The Arminian answers this question by saying that the reason some reject God is that since God does not foresee their faith, He does not predestine them and they are not saved. The Calvinist says that God has two aspects of his will. One aspect is His sovereign will, what will certainly happen. The other aspect is His moral will, what he wants or desires all to do. For example, he desires that all Christians love each other. And here, he desires that all men be saved. As to why God does not make his moral desire his sovereign will, we do not know the full answer. The best answer Scripture gives is found in Romans 9:23 “And He did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.” Everything God does is for His glory. Beyond that, and specifically how all things can be to the glory of God, all we can say is what Paul says in Romans 9, “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?” We, as finite humans, cannot understand the infinite God, for His ways are far above our ways.

The Arminian response to the Calvinist declaration of the two wills of God is that this makes God self-contradictory and senseless. However, the Arminian position has the same problem of God having two wills. The only theological position in which God has a will that does not have different aspects of it is that of the Unitarians, who believe that all are indeed saved, a position that the rest of Scripture clearly shows to be untrue. In the Arminian view, God has the aspect of His will that all be saved, and also the aspect, which he places above his will that all be saved, that all men be totally free to make their own decisions. So both positions contain the problem of God having two aspects of His will. The Arminian places God’s desire for men to have free will as His top desire, and the Calvinist places God’s desire for His glory as His top desire.

Acts 18:9 “And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city. ” 11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”

Paul’s response to election here is interesting. When Paul hears that God has many people in this city (Corinth), his response is not to go somewhere else since he figures that they will be saved anyway. No, he responds by spending a year and a half in the city, a longer stay than any other city except for Ephesus. The doctrine of election was an encouragement to Paul, since he knew that it was not his power saving people, but it was the power of God. And just because people are of the elect does not mean that they do not need to hear the gospel and repent, for as Paul says in Romans 10:14 “How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” The Calvinist view of election is not one that removes the need for evangelism. First, Christians do not know who is of the elect, so we are to proclaim the gospel to all. God is glorified when He is proclaimed, even if people reject Him. Second, as Paul illustrates here, the Calvinist view of election provides an encouragement for evangelism since God has not laid aside his sovereignty as He has in the Arminian viewpoint. Third, in the Calvinist view, people still make real decisions that matter. People must still repent and have faith to be saved. A illustration is helpful at this point. Suppose it was predestined that we would be alive 10 years from now. Why then keep on breathing? Because if we didn’t breathe we wouldn’t be alive and then be dead. When God predestines an end (life in 10 years or salvation), He also predestines the means (breathing or evangelism and faith).

A further word of clarification regarding free will is appropriate at this point. The Calvinist does not deny that humans have free will, as long as that free will is clearly defined. The Calvinist defines free will as follows: man does what he wants. And before salvation what does a man want to do? Since he is dead (Eph 2:1) in his sins, he is a slave to sin (Romans 6:16-23) and therefore wants to sin. Since he is free, he does what he wants to do and sins. He does not want to seek God (There is none who seeks for God Romans 3:11) since God is holy and man is sinful. A thief does not want to find a policeman, does he? So the Calvinist does not deny that man has a free will, but he does deny that a man, having a free will, will choose God. On the contrary, that will be the last thing the man having a free will want to do.

So how does any become saved, if all do not seek him? The answer is that “No one comes to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65) When God gives us new life, then our free will is that we want to choose Christ, so we do. God gives us new life, we are born again, and then we come to Him, because “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). This is beautifully illustrated in the case of Lydia where Luke says “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Notice the order here: first, the Lord opened her heart, and then she responded in faith. Or see again Paul in Colossians 2:13 “when you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.” So while we were still dead in our sin, God made us alive, we were born again. And to be born is an apt illustration, because just as we had no choice when we were born physically, so we have no choice as to when we are born again spiritually. After we are born again, then we respond to what we want to do, that is, to follow Christ.

The Arminian position in removing sovereignty from God in the sphere of salvation and giving it to humans encounters another problem as well. This problem is that predestination based on foreknowledge still does not give people free choice. Let us say, for example, that a pair of twins will be born. God in His foreknowledge knows that one of them will be saved and one won’t. So their destinies are fixed, even before they are born. The twins cannot change their destinies, because it has been predestined. Now who causes this? The Arminian does not want to say it is God, but since the twins have not been born they have not made any choices yet, so it cannot be them having made a choice. Their destinies are determined, yet they have not been born to make a choice yet. So since it is not God or them, we have to enter in some kind of fate or luck or third power making this decision. But what benefit is this? We have gone from election by a loving God to a kind of fatalism by an impersonal “chance.”

One further objection to election is as follows: election presents a situation where if someone was not of the elect and they wanted to be saved, they could not be since they are not of the elect. The answer to this of course is that all who are not of the elect will do as they want to do, and since they will never want to choose Christ, this situation will never take place. For example, Jesus said to the Jews who rejected Him, “and you are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life” (John 5:40). The only ones who will want to choose Christ will be those to whom He has given new life. Notice as well, the choices humans make are voluntary and willing choices because the choices reflect what the humans want to do. So it is not as if God forces us against our will.

One last objection is this: election is not fair. This is a large reason for believing the Arminian position because it seems to put God in a better light. It allows God to place more of the blame onto humans and seems to separate God more from evil. However, as we have seen the Arminian position is simply not Biblical, and we cannot hold a theological position simply because we like it better. The response to this objection is that election is indeed unfair, but for a different reason than is supposed. That is, it is unfair for God to elect anyone, but it would be perfectly fair for Him to condemn every single one of us. As to the question of why God does not save all since He is sovereign, two responses can be given. One is that God’s ultimate purpose is not the salvation of all mankind, but His glory, and He is glorified by displays of His justice as well as being glorified by displays of His mercy (Romans 9:22-23). The second answer is that we are finite human beings and cannot question the ways of an infinite God. We need to believe what God has revealed of Himself and trust Him for the parts we do not understand and may not like, for He is good.

Uncategorized Post a comment
Page 65 of 65« First...«6162636465