Archives - Redeeming God

Two million children are sold into slavery every year. 98% of these are young girls and women, and some of these girls are forced to have sex with men up to 50 times each day [Source].

Help me raise money to rescue some of these girls from the hell they are living in. Learn how below:

Cut my hair to rescue girls from slavery

A while back, someone yelled at me, “Get a haircut, you hippie!” (True story.)

I have decided to go ahead and do it.

I’ve been growing my hair out for several years now … and it is time to get it cut.

AND YOU can help me determine how much to cut off.

My hair is about 14 inches long.

For every $100 raised, I will cut off one inch of hair (up to 10 inches). If I reach $1000 for the 10 inches of hair, it will be donated to Locks of Love .

If more than $2500 is raised, I will get a buzz cut.

If more than $5000 is raised, I will shave my head. Clean. Bald. The goatee stays…

What will we do with the money? Every penny that is donated will be given to the International Justice Mission to aid them in their ongoing work to rescue young girls around the world from sex slavery.

Go visit my fundraising page at GoFundMe to donate! Thanks!

My haircut is scheduled for next Tuesday, February 17. That gives you ONE WEEK to determine how much hair I will cut off. Go here: Yes! I want Jeremy to cut his hair!

Want more people to hear about this? It’s simple. Use the sharing buttons below. Thanks!

Jesus, friend of sinners and tax-collectors?

By Jeremy Myers

27 Comments

A reader recently used my “Contact Me” form on the about page to submit a Bible and Theology Question. Here is what he wrote:

Hi Jeremy.

Thank you for being available. It can be hard to find someone to go to for some spiritual questions via the internet.

Lately I have been struggling with some new information I came upon regarding Jesus and some people’s views. To start with, I am a public school high school boy with an unbelieving family, so I am around the non-religious a lot.

To my surprise, I learned based off of Luke 7:34 and John 15:14 that Jesus was not actually a friend of sinners. In Luke 7:34, the pharisees are trying to discredit Jesus by giving him titles such as a glutton, drunkard, and friend of sinners. But Jesus never claimed these titles.

With this information, some people say that Jesus was only with unbelievers to minister to them and not to fellowship or become friends with them.

Do you think this is right? Does our knowledge of Jesus public ministry give us all we need to know about his interaction/relationships with unbelievers.

Thank you very much.

I am posting my answer here, because I think others might have similar questions.

It is true that the Pharisees and other religious leaders were trying to discredit Jesus by calling Him a glutton, drunkard, and friend of sinners.

It is also true that Jesus never referred to Himself by such titles.

However, none of this means that Jesus was not actually a friend to sinners. Quite to the contrary, there are numerous lines of evidence which prove that Jesus did, in fact, hang out with and befriend those whom the religious world at that time considered “sinners.”

1. Nobody Ever Tried to Discredit a Pharisee by Calling them “the friend of sinners”

The reason the Pharisees were able to pin the accusation of being a glutton, drunkard, and friend of sinners upon Jesus is because Jesus ate a lot, drank a lot, and hung out with “sinners” a lot. If the accusation wasn’t at least partly true, the accusation never would have been voiced, and never would have stuck.

The Pharisees are the perfect example. You will never find any place in Scripture or in any other literature of the time which accuses the Pharisees of being the friend of sinners. Why not? Because they did everything within their power to live separately from sinners.

Jesus, however, was often found in the company of sinners, and so the Pharisees tried to discredit Him and His ministry by saying that He was their friend. This is the classic attack known as “guilt by association.”

But of course, this was fine with Jesus, for this was exactly why He came – to bear our guilt by associating with us.

2. Jesus never denied that he was the friend of sinners

Though Jesus didn’t refer to Himself as a friend of sinners, He did confirm that this was who He came to live among. In Luke 5:32, Jesus says that He did not come to call the righteous to repentance, but the unrighteous. So if Jesus was going to call the unrighteous to repentance, He needed to hang out with the unrighteous.

Similarly, in Matthew 9:12, Jesus says that it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick. Again, to heal the sick, Jesus had to be with the sick.

Which raises the interesting third point:

3. If Jesus Wasn’t the Friend of Sinners, He Couldn’t be Friends with Any of Us!

I think one truth that is often overlooked in this discussion is that ALL of us are sinners. The only reason some people like to say that Jesus wasn’t actually a friend to sinners is because they somehow think that they themselves are not sinners. Or at least, they are not “as bad” as those other sinners.

You know what this is? This is called pride, which is the worst of all possible sins.

The only people who would claim that Jesus wasn’t really the friend to sinners are those people who don’t think they themselves are sinners.

I believe that when Jesus makes His statements about not coming for the righteous in Luke 5:32 and not coming for the healthy in Matthew 9:12, He was implying that none of us are righteous, none of us healthy. We are all sinners in need of repentance. We are all sick in need of a physician.

If Jesus was only going to hang out with the righteous, He would have stayed in heaven.

4. Jesus Didn’t Come to Save us From Our Sin, but to Save us From Religion

When it comes to discussing who Jesus hung out with, the choice is not between the righteous people and the unrighteous people (for all are unrighteous), but rather between the religious and the non-religious.

I believe that–even more so than our sin–Jesus came to free people from religion. And one way Jesus showed this was by hanging out with the people whom religion rejects as “unworthy” of God’s attention or forgiveness.

Jesus didn’t hang out with sinners to show that God loves them more than God loves religious people. No, Jesus hung out with sinners to show both them and the religious people that God accepts and loves all people. That is one of the central truths of the Gospel message. You don’t have to become religious in order for God to love and forgive you. In fact, religion may actually get in the way of understanding that God loves and forgives you!

5. Yes, Jesus Hung Out with Religious People Too

Yes, yes. I do not deny it. Some of His own disciples were “religious.” And we must never forget that Nicodemus visited with Jesus (John 3), or that Jesus ate dinner with Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-49). He also calls His followers His friends (John 15:14).

But again, the question is not whether or not Jesus hung out with religious people. Of course He did. The question is Why?

It was not because He approved of their beliefs and behavior. Not at all!

Just as Jesus didn’t hang out with sinners and tax-collectors as an endorsement of their beliefs and behavior, so also, the fact that Jesus hung out with religious people should not be seen as an endorsement of theirs.

Again, I believe that Jesus was more concerned about the barriers to God which are erected by religion than He was about the barriers to God which are caused by sin.

But even this is getting off track. It is not about which group is worse than the other.

It’s not about who is approved, accepted, or endorsed more than someone else.

The message of Jesus was this: “It’s not about your sin! It’s not about your religion! It’s all about God! And guess what? He loves you!”

So Should you Make Friends with Sinners?

Well, I’ve got news for you. If you have friends, you are already friends with sinners.

Some of them are religious sinners and probably suffer from all sorts of spiritual blindness to their own sin, and how they mistreat others in the name of God.

Others might be non-religious sinners, who are simply trying to “have a good time” in life.

Which group should you seek to hang out with?

It’s easy to decide. Here’s the answer:

You should hang out with whomever God brings into your life to hang out with.

Look around you. The people in your life are most likely the people God wants you to live among. So live with them, as Jesus came and lived with us. Love them, as He has loved you. Forgive them, as He has forgiven you.

Final Note About Jesus the Friend of Sinners

After writing the post above, I did an internet search to see what others might have written on this topic. I found an article by Keven DeYoung called “Jesus, Friend of Sinners: But How?” which I strongly object to, and which the person who sent me the question above might have been referring to. I also found an article by Jonathan Merritt called “Setting the Record Straight on Jesus, ‘the friend of sinners’” which is in response to Kevin DeYoung’s article and is fantastic. Go and read Jonathan’s article. He concludes with these words:

A Jesus who loves us even if we don’t love back? A Savior who pursues us even as we run away? A Christ who offers fellowship to all indiscriminately without condition, no strings attached? That would be a Jesus who is better than we’ve imagined, and that would be good news.

What a Day in the Life of the Church Looks Like for me

By Jeremy Myers

3 Comments

I am participating with several other authors and bloggers in a preparation for a conference in Portland called “All About Eve.” The other contributors are:

Wm. Paul Young, author of the The Shack
Deidre Havrelock, author of The Starving Church (and other books)
Skye McKenzie, author of Forty Days to Breakthrough
“Eve,” a follower of Jesus who has recently stopped “attending church”

The situation is that “Eve” has numerous questions about how to follow Jesus outside of the four walls of institutional Christianity. Go read her introduction here. I will be writing as her “pastor” to provide input and suggestions about how she and her family can do this. I put my introductory post up here.

All About Eve

I will be writing my post for the All About Eve blog on Thursdays for the next 40 weeks. I will be posting an excerpt of my blog post here, and then inviting you to go over to the other blog to read the rest of the post.

Here is an excerpt from today’s post:

Eve,

You have asked what it looks like for my family to go to church.

Let me try to describe it.

It all begins in the morning when my wife and I roll out of bed. While my wife wakes up our three girls and then makes breakfast, I stumble into the kitchen to make some coffee. Usually, my wife is several steps ahead of me, and the pot of black magic (aka “The Elixir of Life”) is ready to drink.

After breakfast, we all hop into the car and drive over to a local brick building. We go in and say “Hello” to the greeter at the front door. He sometimes gives us a little piece of paper that will help us know what is going on there that day. We then walk around a little bit, occasionally talking to people we meet. At one point in the morning, we give some money to a person standing behind a counter, and we often chat a little bit with them as well.

Then we leave Walmart with the things we just bought and go back out to our car.

The items we just bought are for a small gathering that will take place later that day at our neighbor’s house. We met him when we first moved into the neighborhood, and we quickly learned that he too is a follower of Jesus. So every so often, we gather at his house. Usually, before we begin, he shows us a project he is working on in his back yard, or a picture he painted when he was younger. His wife is also there, and she talks about their health concerns. Sometimes there is food involved, but not always. Then we get down to business.

On this day, we go outside into his front yard and start raking leaves. You see, he just recently had heart surgery, and is not able to rake all the leaves that have fallen. He also cannot run errands yet. We went to Walmart to buy them some food and household items, and are now at his house raking up the leaves in his front yard. When we are done, he thanks us profusely, and we chat a bit more before going home for lunch.

To read the rest of what a day in the life of the church looks like for me, go read the article here.

One of the best commentaries on Exodus I have read

By Jeremy Myers

8 Comments

If you are tired of reading commentaries on Exodus that seem to do nothing but talk about the Documentary Hypothesis (aka the JEDP theory), and if you have sometimes found yourself yelling at the pages “I don’t care if was the J, E, D, or P source, just tell me what the text means!!!”, then the new commentary on Exodus by Duane Garrett is for you.

I knew this commentary would be good when he wrote this about the JEDP theory:

Much of this discussion is of doubtful value, either in terms of gaining better tools for interpreting the text or in terms of finding criteria for dividing it into its supposed sources. It maintains only a shell of intellectual coherence (p. 17; cf. p 18).

This is a scholarly and gracious way of saying “The JEDP debate is BS.”

And the commentary only got better from there.

I loved his insistence on an early date for the composition of Exodus. He doesn’t side with the “scholarly consensus” that Exodus was written during the post-exilic era.

Following in the same vein, Garrett actually believes that Moses wrote Exodus! While I often benefit from commentaries that were written by source-critical scholars, I find it so refreshing to read a commentary written by a world-class scholar who actually believes Moses wrote Exodus during the time period in which the events took place.

Speaking of which, Garret actually believes the events of Exodus took place. Again, in today’s scholarly circles, this is a very rare position to take! But I love it.

Best of all, Garrett writes his commentary much as he says the book of Exodus was written: “the vocabulary consists primarily of common words” (p. 21). Garrett writes to be understood; not be prove how smart he is. Again, it is so refreshing to read commentaries of this sort.

As I read through the introductory material, I found his discussion of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s conversion to monotheism to be absolutely riveting, as well as his thorough and detailed summary of the date of the exodus and the location of the Red Sea crossing. But then, I’m a bit of a Bible geek.

As for the commentary on the book of Exodus itself, it was top-notch. Most of the questions I had about Exodus were given adequate space for discussion. He talked about how the ten Plagues may have been designed to prove the powelessness of the Egyptian pantheon (though he ended up saying that this was not the point, p. 301).

He also wrote a good discussion of “Theodicy in Exodus” which is an attempt to explain how God could get Himself involved in the questionable behavior of killing children in the 10th plague (p. 214; I was not fully satisfied with his explanation on this). And of course, in light of a recent study of mine, I was glad to see that he wrote several pages about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (p. 370).

One great element to this commentary is that each section concludes with some helpful “Key Theological Points.” This allows the commentary to not just be an explanation of the text, but also to show the student of Exodus how the text guides and informs our theology.

If you are preaching through Exodus or studying it on your own, this commentary on Exodus by Duane Garrett is definitely one you show consult.

A New Podcast by Brandon Chase! I am loving it!

By Jeremy Myers

10 Comments

I have a 25 minute commute to work. Sometimes I listen to Conservative Talk Radio, but when I am looking for something with a little less doom and gloom, I listen to Podcasts.

Two Podcasts I almost never miss an episode of are the (1) The God Journey by Wayne Jacobsen, and (2) Beyond the Box by Raborn Johnson and Steve Sensenig.

A blogging friend of mine, Brandon Chase, recently started his own podcast. I listened to the first two episodes last week. All I can is WOW. If you like listening to Podcasts about theological topics like the things we discuss here on this blog, I highly recommend Brandon’s “Real Life Radio” podcast. Keep it up, Brandon!

Click any of the links above to subscribe to their Podcasts through iTunes.

Brandon’s first two episodes were a discussion with Jamal Jivanjee. They discussed many of the things I have been writing about on this blog during the past couple years (prior to the current Calvinism series). They say some quite controversial things about Scripture, God, and the church. What a challenging discussion! In fact, I think that Jamal got himself in a bit of trouble by some of the things they discussed… listen to the two Podcasts and then go read his blog to find out why… You should also read Brandon’s blog.

If you subscribe to any of these podcasts, let me know what you think!

As a bonus, I often enjoy listening to The Free Believers Network Podcast as well. The discussion from 7/27/2014 called “Heaven is for NOW” was fantastic.

Understanding the Potter and the Clay in Romans 9

By Jeremy Myers

10 Comments

Western theology has committed a terrible disservice to this imagery of a potter and clay by making it seem as if God is a deterministic puppet master up in heaven pulling the strings of people and nations down here on earth.

This is exactly the opposite of what Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul meant by using this terminology.

The Potter and the Clay in Jeremiah 18

In Jeremiah 18, for example, while God is equated with the potter, God calls upon Israel to turn from her wicked ways and obey His voice so that they, as the pot which God is fashioning, will not be marred (cf. Jer 18:8-11).

God calls upon Israel to come into conformity to the work of His hands. If they do not, they will become marred, and He will have to reform the clay again into another vessel (Jer 18:4). He does not destroy or discard the clay; He simply forms it into another pot which will be used for a different purpose.

A similar understanding is seen in Isaiah 54 and Romans 9.

The Potter and the Clay is not teaching Determinism

There is no deterministic message in the image of the potter and the clay in Isaiah 54, Jeremiah 18, or Romans 9. If we accept the deterministic perspective of these texts, just imagine for a moment what sort of God is being portrayed. H. H. Rowley sums it up best:

Neither Jeremiah nor Paul had in mind an aimless dilettante, working in a casual and haphazard way, turning out vessels according to the chance whim of the moment … To suppose that a crazy potter, who made vessels with no other thought than that he would afterwards knock them to pieces, is the type and figure of God, is supremely dishonoring to God. The vessel of dishonor which the potter makes is still something that he wants, and that has a definite use … The instruments of wrath … were what the New Testament calls ‘vessels of dishonor,’ serving God indeed, but with no exalted service. They were not puppets in His hand, compelled to do His will without moral responsibility for their deed, but chosen because He saw that the very iniquity of their heart would lead them to the course that He could use (Rowley, Doctrine of Election, p. 40-41)

Neither Isaiah, nor Jeremiah, nor Paul had in mind a potter who purposefully created pots just so that He could smash them. No potter would do that, then or now. Instead, God is the wise potter who works with the clay to form useful tools. The vessels of “dishonor” are not vessels which are destroyed, but vessels which will be used in “ignoble” ways. They still serve important purposes and help with vital tasks, but they are not vessels of honor.

Typically, vessels of dishonor do end up being destroyed (which is not necessarily hell!), but this is not because the potter made them for such a purpose, but because unclean vessels, when they have served their purpose, are usually not useful for anything else.

And what makes one vessel clean or unclean? As H. H. Rowley pointed out above, God allows humans to determine what kind of vessel they will be, and then He uses those who have made themselves vessels of dishonor.

A careful reading of Romans 9:22 reveals this very point. W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says that the word “destruction” is used “metaphorically of men persistent in evil (Rom 9:22), where ‘fitted’ is in the middle voice, indicating that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary, 2:165)

None of this Relates to Person’s Eternal Destiny

Again, none of this has anything to do with whether or not a person goes to heaven or hell after death. The way a vessel is used refers primarily to how God uses individuals, kings, and nations in this life. Marston and Forster add this:

The basic lump that forms a nation will either be built up or broken down by the Lord, depending on their own moral response. If a nation does repent and God builds them up, then it is for him alone to decide how the finished vessel will fit into his plan … God alone determines the special features / privileges / responsibilities of a particular nation (Forster & Marston, God’s Strategy, 74).

To read more on Romans 9, get my book The Re-Justification of God.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Why did God harden Pharaoh’s Heart?

By Jeremy Myers

30 Comments

In Romans 9, Paul writes about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for the purposes of making God’s glory known. This seems rather harsh to some.

What does Paul mean?

Who Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart First?

In this debate, Calvinists say that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart first from eternity past because God needed a vessel of destruction through whom to reveal His wrath. They say that the text is quite clear in teaching that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8).

Non-Calvinists respond that in the Exodus account, the text frequently states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened it (Exod 8:15, 32; 9:34). There are also several references which state that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened without giving indication about the source of this hardening (Exod 7:13, 14, 22; 8:19; 9:7, 35).

But in response to this, Calvinists argue back that although the text says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened it, before Moses even went to speak to Pharaoh, God told Him that He planned to harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3).

As one is reading all the exegetical and theological arguments surrounding this debate about who hardened Pharaoh’s heart first, it begins to sound a bit like the question of which came first: the chicken or the egg.

It Doesn’t Matter Who Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart First!

Rather than summarizing all the exegetical and theological arguments on both sides of this debate, it seems best to avoid all the rhetoric and cut through to the main question which neither side seems to be asking.

The real question is this: “What does it mean for Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened?”

The issue is not about who hardened Pharaoh’s heart first—though that is where most of the ink has been spilled—but rather about what it means for Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.

People on both sides of the debate often assume that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart means that Pharaoh was solidified in his status as an unregenerate person headed for hell.

But what if the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart doesn’t mean this at all? What if it simply refers instead to the resolve in Pharaoh’s heart to keep the Israelites as his slaves, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Pharaoh’s eternal destiny?

What if God, in His desire to make His glory known to both the Israelites and the Egyptians, made certain that Pharaoh would resist the will of God to deliver the people of Israel from Egypt, so that all those who witnessed and heard of these events would know that the God of Israel alone was God?

Could not God, in His gracious sovereignty, harden Pharaoh’s heart without affecting whatsoever Pharaoh’s ability to believe in God’s promises and thus become part of God’s redeemed people?

Of course He could!

Dr. J. Sidlow Baxter makes a similar point:

The awesome words to Pharaoh can be faced in their full force—“Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.” The words “raised thee up” do not mean that God had raised him up from birth for this purpose: they refer to his elevation to the highest throne on earth. Nay, as they occur in Exodus 9:16, they scarce mean even that, but only that God had kept Pharaoh from dying in the preceding plague, so as to be made the more fully an object lesson to all men. Moreover, when Paul (still alluding to Pharaoh) says, “And whom He will, He hardeneth” (Exod 9:18), we need not try to soften the word.

God did not override Pharaoh’s own will. The hardening was a reciprocal process. Eighteen times we are told that Pharaoh’s heart was “hardened” in refusal. In about half of these the hardening is attributed to Pharaoh himself; in the others to God. But the whole contest between God and Pharaoh must be interpreted by what God said to Moses before ever the contest started: “The king of Egypt will not” (Exod 3:19). The will was already set. The heart was already hard. The hardening process developed inasmuch as the plagues forced Pharaoh to an issue which crystallized his sin. … Pharaoh’s eternal destiny is not the thing in question (Baxter, Explore the Book, VI:88-89).

This means that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, whether it is done by God or Pharaoh, or by some symbiotic combination of the two, has absolutely nothing to do with Pharaoh’s eternal destiny.

Even if the Exodus account laid all the responsibility for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart upon God Himself, and none upon Pharaoh, this still would tell us nothing about whether or not Pharaoh concluded His life as one of God’s redeemed.

Pharaoh’s eternal destiny is not under discussion in Exodus or in Romans, and so Pharaoh’s heart can be hardened so that God’s purposes are achieved, while still leaving plenty of room for Pharaoh to believe in God’s promises and become one of God’s people.

If you want a longer and more detailed explanation of why God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, check out my new book: The Re-Justification of God.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

The Grand Paradox by Ken Wytsma

By Jeremy Myers

21 Comments

Ken Wytsma recently sent me his new book, The Grand Paradox, for review. I really, really wanted to like this book, since it came so highly recommended by numerous authors and scholars that I deeply respect.

Yet I must confess that as I read the book, I had trouble understanding what the book was about. And after having read the book, I am still not sure I know what “the grand paradox” is. I failed to see how one chapter led to another, or how each chapter contributed to an overall big picture theme or idea.

Don’t get me wrong, Ken Wytsma is a good writer with great ideas. Each chapter individually (except for one … more on that in a bit) is a good on a particular topic. I really enjoyed the chapters on justice and doubt. I just didn’t see how the chapters moved the reader toward any sort of cohesive idea, decision, insight, or new understanding.

There were several insights and ideas I found inspiring throughout the book, such as this one on love and justice:

For those who truly care about love and justice, one of the most disappointing experiences in religion is when it becomes a man-made system of conformity and standardization that we use to judge each other. (p. 95)

On the other hand, I disagreed with much of he wrote in chapter 12, titled “Mother Kirk.” Like many Christian leaders today, Wytsma is aware that countless Christians around the world are seeking to follow Jesus outside the four walls of institutional Christianity. That is, they want to follow Jesus without doing the “church thing” on Sunday morning.

Being a pastor of a megachurch himself, Wytsma naturally tries to discredit this way of following Jesus. But in doing so, he reveals that he doesn’t understand the heart or motives of these people, and even resorts to demeaning them with the derogatory label “terminal Christians” (p. 136). He goes on to make this absolutely shocking statement:

When I see someone in the church who is beginning to develop a critical view of church, … I know I am looking at a “terminal Christian.” That individual might not be dead yet, but she is on a trajectory that leads to separation from the people of God, and separation from the people God has identified with will ultimately mean separation from God himself. And separation from God is death (p. 137)

So according to Wytsma, if you decide to stop attending church, or if you are critical of various aspects or elements of the church, you are on your way to becoming separated from God Himself.

As the institutional church continues to suffer a slow and agonizing death, this is the sort of rhetoric we can expect to hear more of from those whose income and notoriety depend upon the institutional church.

I imagine that in Wytsma’s mind, I might be one of those he labels as a “terminal Christian.” But if he were to sit down and talk with me and my wife, or with almost anyone who is on this same journey with God, I think he would discover that we are not falling away from God, but are drawing closer to Him and His people in ways that we never before thought possible–in ways we had only dreamed of when we were part of the institutional church.

Yes, it is true that people who leave the institutional church are often critical of what they left behind. I have contributed to that criticism myself. But this is not criticism of “the church” as much as it is the forms of church which we believe are keeping people from experiencing all that God has for them.

But watch this… if we who no longer sit in a pew on Sunday morning are also part of the family of God through our faith in Jesus, our commitment to follow Him, and our regular fellowship with other travelers on this road, then we too are part of the local and universal church, which means that when Wytsma criticizes us, he is criticizing “the church,” which means that according to his definition, he too is a terminal Christian and headed toward separation from God.

Look, I don’t believe in terminal Christians. I don’t think Wytsma is a terminal Christian. I am just pointing out that when Christians in institutional churches criticize Christians who are not in institutional churches for criticizing the institutional churches, many of their own criticism fall back upon their own heads, just as it does upon us who have left. I am not saying we shouldn’t criticize. We can and we should, for this how we learn. But we must remember what we all learned in kindergarten: “Whenever you point the finger at someone else, three fingers point back at you.”

What am I saying? If you read this book, maybe just skip chapter 12, or if you do read it, just recognize that Wytsma is circling the wagons in an attempt to prop up a dying institution.

If you are part of a fellowship where they say that if you leave their church, or if you question or challenge what the church does or what the pastor says, that you are leaving God or challenging God’s ways, recognize that this is the guilt-based, fear-based, control-based system that forms the foundation of much of the modern “church,” and does not reflect the heart of Jesus for His Bride.

So what can I say about this book? Well, many of the chapters are insightful and helpful. I LOVED his chapter on justice. And if you want to read some thought-provoking s on various Christian topics from a leading church communicator, this might be a good book to try. Just be careful with chapter 12…

Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau?

By Jeremy Myers

27 Comments

Paul writes a difficult statement in Romans 9:13:

Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

Scholars debate whether or not God actually hated Esau. There are two main opinions on this question.

Option 1: Hate = “Love Less”

Some argue that the reference to hate in Malachi 1:2-3 is a Hebrew idiom for “love less.” They point out that Jesus instructs us to love our enemies rather than hate them (Matt 5:44), point to the places where Jesus tells His disciples to both hate and love their parents (Luke 14:26; Mark 10:19), and remind people that God has strictly forbidden the Israelites from hating the Edomites (Deut 23:7).

Greg Boyd succinctly explains this idea:

Some might suppose that God’s pronouncement that he “loved” Jacob and “hated” Esau shows that he is speaking about their individual eternal destinies, but this is mistaken. In Hebraic thought, when “love” and “hate” are contrasted they usually are meant hyperbolically. The expression simply means to strongly prefer one person or thing over another.

So, for example, when Jesus said, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26), he was not saying we should literally hate these people. Elsewhere he taught people to love and respect their parents, as the Old Testament also taught (Mk 10:19). Indeed, he commanded us to love even our enemies (Mt 5:44)! What Jesus was saying was that he must be preferred above parents, spouses, children, siblings and even life itself. The meaning of Malachi’s phrase, then, is simply that God preferred Israel over Edom to be the people he wanted to work with to reach out to the world (See “How do you respond to Romans 9?“)

Option 2: Hate = Hate

Others, however, argue that God did in fact hate Esau (and the Edomites), for that is what the text clearly states. The Calvinistic commentator John Murray provides a good explanation of this view:

We must, therefore, recognize that there is in God a holy hate that cannot be defined in terms of not loving or loving less. Furthermore, we may not tone down the reality of intensity of this hate by speaking of it as “anthropopathic” … The case is rather, as in all virtue, that this holy hate in us is patterned after holy hate in God (Murray, Romans, 2:22).

So which view is right? Did God hate Esau?

How can we choose between the two views above? Does God hate Esau and Edom, or does He simply love Edom less than He loves Israel?

The solution to the problem of Romans 9:13 is to agree with those who say that “hate” means “hate,” but to also agree with the others who argue that neither Paul nor Malachi are talking about Esau’s eternal destiny (or anyone else for that matter).

More critical still is to recognize that what God hated is not specifically Esau, for Malachi 1:3 was written many centuries after he had died, nor was God saying He hates the people of Edom.

Instead, God hated how Edom behaved toward Israel.

The Hebrew word used in Malachi 1:3 for “hate” (Heb., sanati) is used in various other places to speak of hatred for the sin and wickedness of people (cf. Psa 26:5; 101:3; 119:104, 128, 163; Prov 8:13; Jer 44:3; Amos 5:21; 6:8; Zech 8:17), not hatred for the people themselves. In light of what many other biblical prophets say about the actions and behavior of Edom (cf. Jer 49:7-22; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; Amos 1:6-11), this is how we can understand God’s hatred in Malachi 1:3.

God does not hate Edom; He hates how she has behaved. Specifically, God hated how Edom treated Israel.

To read more about this, check out my new book: The Re-Justification of God.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

3 Keys to Understanding Romans 9

By Jeremy Myers

28 Comments

Romans 9 has been a battleground text for centuries. Calvinists and Arminians have hotly debated this passage since the days of the Reformation.

Since I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, I want to offer my perspective on Romans 9 over the course of the next few posts so that people who are trying to understand what Paul is saying in Romans 9 about election, Esau, Pharaoh, and the potter and the clay. Note that all of these posts are drawn from the longer explanation in my book The Re-Justification of God.

When it comes to understanding Romans 9, there are three keys which I have found helpful in explaining what Paul is teaching in this text. Let us look briefly below at each of these three keys to understanding Romans 9.

1. Salvation in Romans

To begin with, we must recognize that “salvation” in Scripture rarely refers to receiving eternal life. “Salvation” does not mean “forgiveness of sins so we can go to heaven when we die.” The word simply means “deliverance,” and the context must determine what sort of deliverance is in view.

Most often, the deliverance is some sort of physical deliverance from enemies, storms, and sickness, or from some of the temporal consequences of sin (cf. Matt 8:25; 9:22; Mark 5:34; 13:20; Luke 8:48; 23:35; John 12:27; 1 Tim 2:15; 2 Tim 4:18; Jas 5:15; Jude 5; See “save, saving” in Vine’s Expository Dictionary, p. 547). This understanding of “salvation” is especially true in Romans.

Most of the uses of “salvation” in Romans are in connection with wrath. It is not wrong to say that “salvation in Romans” is deliverance from wrath (Hodges, Romans).

So what is wrath?

Just as salvation does not refer to entrance into heaven, wrath does not refer to eternity in hell. Nor is wrath from God.

Though an imaginary objector to Paul does occasionally speak of “God’s wrath” in Romans, Paul does not understand wrath this way. For Paul, “wrath” is what happens to people (both believers and unbelievers) when they stray from God’s guidelines for proper living.

Today, we would speak of “consequences.” While someone today might say that a destroyed marriage is the consequence of adultery, Paul might argue that a destroyed marriage is the “wrath” of adultery. And as all who have experienced the damaging and destructive consequences of sin know, the fall-out from sinful choices often feels like wrath. Sin brings metaphorical earthquakes, hailstorms, raging fires, and flash floods into our lives, leaving behind large swaths of destruction. What better word to describe this than “wrath”?

So in Romans, salvation is deliverance from the devastating consequences of sin. This is the first key to understanding Romans 9.

2. Election is to Service

The second key to understanding Romans 9 is to see that “election” is not to eternal life, but to service. Just as God elected Israel to serve His purposes in the world, so also, God chose the Church for similar purposes. This understanding of election greatly helps us understand some notoriously difficult texts in Romans 9–11.

For example, Paul writes in Romans 11:17-21 that the elect branches were cut off so that non-elect branches could be grafted in, which in turn will lead to the elect-which-became-non-elect to be re-grafted back in and become re-elect. If Paul is referring to eternal life when he speaks of election, none of this makes any sense. How can a people or a nation whom God elected “to eternal life” before the foundation of the world go from being elect to non-elect and then re-elect?

However, this makes perfect sense when we recognize that election is not to eternal life but to service. God wants to bless the world through His people, and if one group of people fails in this God-given task, then God will simply find someone else to do it while He continues to lead the first group to fulfill His overarching purposes—albeit in different ways than originally intended. If this second group also fails, they too will be moved into an alternative role in accomplishing God’s will (Rom 11:17-21).

If necessary, God could raise up a people for Himself from rocks (Matt 3:9). In this way, when Paul writes about branches being cut off so others can be grated in which will lead to the cut off branches being grafted back in again, he is not talking about people losing and regaining eternal life, but about losing and re-gaining places of privilege and purpose in God’s plan for this world.

God’s plan of redemption started with Israel, shifted to the Gentiles, and eventually will reincorporate Israel so that “of Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Rom 11:36).

This idea really helps us understand Romans 9. Election is to service, so that God can elect even people like Esau and Pharaoh to service, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with their eternal destiny.

3. Election is Corporate AND Individual

The third and final key to understanding Romans 9 is that election is both corporate and individual.

There is a long-standing debate about election, regarding whether Paul is talking about corporate election or individual election. That is, when Paul writes about the election of Israel, or God’s choice of Jacob over Esau, is Paul talking about the individuals within Israel, and the individual destinies of Jacob and Esau, or is Paul referring instead to the national and corporate destinies of Israel (which came from Jacob) and Edom (which came from Esau)?

Usually, the battle lines over this debate are determined by whether a person is a Calvinist or not. As Calvinists believe and teach the individual election of certain people to eternal life, they are more likely to understand and explain Romans 9 in this light. Those who do not hold to Calvinism tend to interpret Romans 9 as teaching corporate election. Henry Halley, author of Halley’s Bible Handbook, is one such writer:

Paul is not discussing the predestination of individuals to salvation or condemnation, but is asserting God’s absolute sovereignty in the choice and management of nations for world functions (Halley’s Bible Handbook, 527).

So which is it? Is Paul talking about individual election or corporate election?

I believe that in Romans 9 Paul is teaching both corporate and individual election.

Since it is the purposes of God that determine who gets elected and to what form of service they are elected, then it is God who decides when He needs to call individuals and when He needs to call nations or groups of people to perform certain tasks.

Of course, even when election is corporate, it is true that God’s purpose for that group of people is carried out by individuals within the group, and so in this sense, we can say that even corporate election has an individual aspect.

On the other hand, the benefit to corporate election is that even if some individuals within the corporate identity do not contribute to fulfill the purpose of the corporate entity, there will be some within the group that will fulfill their purpose, thus accomplishing God’s purpose in election.

With these three keys before us, the difficult chapter of Romans 9 becomes much less difficult. If you want to read more, you can get my book, The Re-Justification of God.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

I’m Getting a Haircut to Rescue Young Girls from Sex Slavery

Cut my hair to rescue girls from slavery

Jesus, friend of sinners and tax-collectors?

1. Nobody Ever Tried to Discredit a Pharisee by Calling them “the friend of sinners”

2. Jesus never denied that he was the friend of sinners

3. If Jesus Wasn’t the Friend of Sinners, He Couldn’t be Friends with Any of Us!

4. Jesus Didn’t Come to Save us From Our Sin, but to Save us From Religion

5. Yes, Jesus Hung Out with Religious People Too

So Should you Make Friends with Sinners?

Final Note About Jesus the Friend of Sinners

What a Day in the Life of the Church Looks Like for me

All About Eve

One of the best commentaries on Exodus I have read

A New Podcast by Brandon Chase! I am loving it!

Understanding the Potter and the Clay in Romans 9

The Potter and the Clay in Jeremiah 18

The Potter and the Clay is not teaching Determinism

None of this Relates to Person’s Eternal Destiny

Why did God harden Pharaoh’s Heart?

Who Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart First?

It Doesn’t Matter Who Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart First!

The Grand Paradox by Ken Wytsma

Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau?

Option 1: Hate = “Love Less”

Option 2: Hate = Hate

So which view is right? Did God hate Esau?

3 Keys to Understanding Romans 9

1. Salvation in Romans

2. Election is to Service

3. Election is Corporate AND Individual

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!