Monday we looked at the big tough question about "missional" even being appropriate for the Old Testament. Today we look at chp 7 in Chris Wright, The Mission of God
What do you think of Wright's themes of election below? How do you understand election?
This chp is a sketch of texts that confirm the two big themes in our questions for the week: the universal vision and the particular reality. In Wright's terms, God wants his name known throughout the world but God chooses to do that through a particular people, Israel, shaped by the Covenant and in whom the story was Wrigh Large in Jesus Christ and the Church.
I suggest you pick up your Bible and read a few of these texts. You might then ask if Israel was justified in its non-missional ways and you might want to ponder why and why not.
Universal vision:
1. Pentateuch: Exod 9:13-16; 19:5-6; Num 23:8-10; Deut 28:9-10.
2. Historical books: Josh 4:23-24; 1 Sam 17:46; 2 Sam 7:25-26, 29; 1 Ki 8:41-43, 60-61; 2 Ki 19:19.
3. Psalms 22:27-28; 47:9; 67:1-2; 72:17; 86:9; 145:8-12.
4. Prophets: Is 19:24-25; 26:6-8; 45:22-23; 48:18-19; 60:12; Jer 4:1-2; Zech 8:13.
He likes Is 19:24-25: "Is. 19:24 On that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, 25 whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage.”
Particular instrumentality through Israel:
Exod 19:5-6; Deut 7:6; 26:18-19; 28:9-10; Jer 13:11; 33:8-9; Deut 4:23-25; 10:14-15.
Now a summary of election, and what Wright does here is push back hard against the systematizers who do not understand "election" as it is found in the OT but who force it into systematic categories:
1. Election is set in the context of God's universality.
2. Election does not imply rejection of other nations.
3. Election is not warranted by anything special about Israel.
4. Election is founded only on God's inexplicable love.
5. Election is instrumental, not an end in itself (where too much of some theology ends).
6. Election is part of the logic of how God is at work in history.
7. Election is fundamentally missional, not just soteriological.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
“Thus, election is not “me instead of you” but “he chose me to be a blessing to you all.”
Would Brad Cooper disagree? Where are the reformos today?
Assuming Wright is onto something good about election, that it is narrative-based rather than systematics-based, how can we ignore Romans 9:12? I don't think Esau would agree that election is not individual-oriented.
John,
These points convince me that Wright doesn't deny individual election:
5. Election is instrumental, not an end in itself (where too much of some theology ends).
6. Election is part of the logic of how God is at work in history.
7. Election is fundamentally missional, not just soteriological.
It is this last word "just" that shows that to me.
John,
Protest commentary on Romans (especially ch. 9) has been dominated by the Calvinistic systematic type who presume their view of election upon the text. However, if one carefully reads Romans 9 a different foci is definitely apparent. Paul is responding to the question (a very important one) as to why so many Jews (God's select people to fulfill Abraham's promise to be a blessing to the nations), esp. those in the land of Israel, have rejected their Messiah, the very one who could bring concrete fulfillment to the promise made to Abraham.
So, what about them? They are being set aside for God's purposes in history because of their unbelief. But isn't the promise made to Abraham's children. Paul's response: Not all physical descendants are Abraham's descendants, only those who follow in the example of Abraham (a common NT arguement).
There are a numbers of complex issues in ch.9 that revolve around the Greek text (i.e. "prepared for destruction" is a partaciple in the middle voice and should actually be trans. as preparing themselves), rhetoric, and sociological issues. However, it is clear that an overly deterministic view does not fit in with Paul's clear assertion that unbelieving Jews are accountable for their unbelief. They are "on the sidelines" of God's redemptive work in history. How this issue is related to soteriological concerns is more complex. What is clear is that Paul was willing to give anything up to see his physical brethren come to know the joy of our Savior.
Scot #9 and Josh #10,
I am not arguing for an individualistic view of election. I am wondering how Romans 9:12 (in context) fits with Wright's views. I deeply appreciate your responses.
John
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.