Christ’s Authority to Give Eternal Life to All People: Thoughts on John 17:2

I was reading in Jesus’ prayer from John 17 this morning and came across a phrase my Reformed friends often use to point to election, “For you (the Father) grant him (Jesus) authority over all people* that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.” (NIV)

I’ve heard John Piper and others talk about this phrase as incontrovertible evidence that the writer of John’s gospel was, indeed, a Calvinist.

I think this verse can be read that way. And in that sense, I wan to be respectful to my Reformed friends.

Nevertheless, I don’t think it has to be read that way. I fact, I think this very verse helps us see an alternative interpretation.

The sentence is divided into 2 phrases: 1. For you grant him authority over all people, and 2. that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

If I understand them right, my Reformed friends essentially say that phrase 2 refers to a specific subset of phrase 1. In other words, there’s almost a sort of contrast between the two phrases. They could paraphrase the verses like this, “For you, Father, gave him, Jesus, authority over all people, but specifically, Jesus will give eternal life to only those the Father gave him.

In this sense, my Reformed friends can maintain that Jesus is the lord of the world, while only being the savior of those whom God unconditionally elected.

But…

as I said, I don’t think this has to be the only option. In fact, I see no reason to see these phrases as contrasting. Nor do I think phrase 2 refers to a specific subset of phrase 1. And I see no reason to assume the “all” in phrase 2 refers to anything less (qualitatively or quantitatively) than the “all” in phrase 1.

Instead of a contrast, I see a synonymous parallelism.

The parallelism is established by the usage of two key words used in both phrases:  “gave/di,dwmi,” and (as already noted) “all.”**

If the statements are synonymous parallels and not in contrast, then the two phrases essentially become equal: God gave all flesh = all those the Father gave Jesus.

Let me paraphrase John 17:2 like this, “For you, Father, gave him, Jesus, authority over all flesh in order that he might give eternal life to those over whom the Father gave him authority.

Or, let me say it one other way…

“For you, Father, gave Jesus authority over all flesh in order that he might give eternal life to all flesh.”

The authority Jesus has is SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE of bestowing eternal life. That’s the point Jesus is making. And assuming I’m right in this, why in the world would God give him authority to give eternal life to all, but then not give him all for the purpose of eternal life? That just would not make sense.

In other words, I think this verse only makes coherent sense of Jesus’ authority and God’s gifting if, and only if, the statements are intended to by synonymous parallels.

 

So, there you go. I’m not sure if I’m right. I haven’t found a commentator to agree with me…which is always a good sign and a bad sign. So, tell me what you think.

 

* “People” is not John’s word in the Greek. John’s word is sa,rx – flesh.

*Two different Gk. words are used for “all,” but both refer to an all encompassing or holistic reality. In other words, I don’t see any exegetical significance to the word choice here. I think it’s just to break up the monotony. John does that sometimes.

Total Depravity in Genesis 6:5?

*Before I jump in here, I want to make clear it is not my intention to deny the doctrine of Total Depravity. Rather, I want to show that this verse (Genesis 6:5) does not, itself, touch of on the subject of Total Depravity.*

Genesis 6:5:

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

From John Wesley to John Calvin to John Stott, Genesis 6:5 has been used to argue for the doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity affirms human persons are, because of the Fall, totally corrupt in our entire nature. Sin has touched every one of our faculties – spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical – and because we are totally corrupted in our sin, we cannot, in our own will, make a decision for God without his prior actions of grace toward us.

It’s easy to see how this doctrine can be derived from Genesis 6:5. It’s easy.

But easy doesn’t make it right. 

The larger context of Genesis 6:5 demonstrates why utilizing Genesis 6:5 out to prove the doctrine of Total Depravity is a mis-use of the text.

Genesis 6:5 is concerned with a special, extensive, particular form of wickedness directly tied to the Nephalim (6:4) – offspring of the Son’s of God (evil angelic beings?) having sexual relations with the daughters of men (human women).

In other words, according to Genesis 6, itself, we’re not talking about normal, run-of-the-mill human sin(fulness). We’re talking about an extreme (and odd!)  form of sin(fulness).

Indeed, the passage claims that humanity’s wickedness had become great, not that it always was great. And then later the passage describes God’s grief for having created humanity because of how wicked they had become.

Furthermore, the Nephalim wickedness was so extreme in form that Genesis 6:5 posits it is the direct, causal factor for the subsequent flood narrative. In other words, we have an extreme form of judgment (the flood) because of an extreme form of sin (Nephalim wickedness). And if this wickedness is extreme, then we’re not talking about normative, universal human nature existing in all times, all places, and within every human heart.

In fact, if the words of Genesis 6:5 were universal to humanity, and therefore relevant to the doctrine of Total Depravity, then God would have destroyed the world long before Genesis 6.

But since God doesn’t, this leads me to the conclude that Genesis 6:5 is an irrelevant text in the Total Depravity discussion, except insofar as it illustrates how far human sinfulness can go. But let’s be clear that it cannot prove the Total Depravity of non-Nephalim peoples.

Again, I am not challenging the doctrine of Total Depravity here. That’s another discussion altogether. But I want to argue that we shouldn’t be using this passage.

What do you think? Have I completely missed the boat? Have any of you ever wondered about the use of this passage to prove Total Depravity?

QoD: Prevenient Grace

 ”The Spirit no doubt works in and through the varied experiences of life, creating greater or lesser windows of opportunity and seasons of greater or lesser conviction. Obviously, the Spirit has worked in cultures and contexts where truth has been limited and where the name of Jesus is not yet known.

“But God has not left them without a witness to basic truth (Acts 14:17), assuring that all can perceive the reality of a Creator and the necessity of surrendering in thankfulness to him (Rom. 1). The sacrificial death of Jesus underwrites all of God’s saving activity and assures that all the redeemed explicitly confess him as Lord, whether in this life or on that great day when they first see and recognize him.”

Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I am not a Calvinist (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 72.

 

What are your thoughts on what they’re saying here? Specifically, in the last sentence. 

Ryle and Re-write

I came across this quote on the blog of  a well known Reformed blogger who probably gets thousands of hits a day. I think it illustrates one of the differences between Calvinists and Arminians:

Nothing gives such offence, and stirs up such bitter feeling among the wicked, as the idea of God making any distinction between man and man, and loving one person more than another.** —J.C. Ryle

I could go into a long theological treatise here on the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, but I just want to rewrite this from an Arminian perspective.

Nothing gives such delight, and stirs up such  gleeful feelings among the wicked, as the idea that God makes distinctions between man and man, and loves one person more than another. – Tom Fuerst

Now, let me be clear – I am NOT calling Calvinists wicked in my rewrite. I’m more just pointing out that it is MY SENTENCE, not Ryle’s, that has the more historical legitimacy in praxis.

More harm has been perpetrated in the name of God’s love for the righteous over the wicked, and God’s choice of this group over that group, than has ever been perpetrated by those who claim God loves everyone without distinction.***

—————————————-

**Admittedly, at least Ryle was willing to admit what many of my Reformed friends won’t – that the Calvinist system logically leads the claim that God loves some people more than others. Other theologians (who I respect, like DA Carson) skirt the issue and just claim ‘different loves.’ But this doesn’t make sense, I don’t think. So I’m appreciative of Ryle’s logical consistency and boldness on this one.

***And, yes, I know the phrase ‘without distinction’ needs explanation. But I’m not writing a theological treatise here, just making a quick observation.

God as Father: Rethinking the Proximity of God

During college I was completely convinced that people need first and foremost to hear about their sin and their depravity. My conviction was that we have a Christian culture too comfortable with God as “Father” and this coziness with the Father metaphor, I believed, led to lax ethical standards and an assumption that God is closer to Santa Claus than a wholly transcendent (removed) “Other.”

Today, I am not convinced that this conclusion is entirely off base. However, I am increasingly convinced that it is not entirely correct either. I believe this appealed more to my Calvinistic leanings which tended more toward seeing God as so transcendent and Other that immanence (closeness/intimacy) is almost beyond Him.

I want to suggest here that this over-emphasized image of a transcendent (removed) Father is actually hurtful in our culture. While it is important to maintain the transcendence of God, we live in a culture that experientially knows fathers as absent and removed from their children. Even fathers who are in the same home as their children are often mentally removed – thinking always of work, sports, or finances. They are there physically, but really there are anywhere but “there.”*

I’m not saying Christians should avoid discussion of sin or references to God as transcendent. I’m merely saying that we live in a culture which understands the brokenness of the world (the old notions of moral, spiritual, and material progress are nearly gone in the postmodern world), and the absence of father figures. No doubt, this brokenness needs a theological context, but that is to build people up in God’s great mercy, not to tear them down  in violent fear of Him.

Because I am no longer convinced that we are cozy with the metaphor of God’s fatherhood I am convinced that we need a renewed interested in the immanence (closeness) of God. Because I’m convinced that we simply do not understand what it means for God to be our Father, we need a renewing of our teaching/understanding of the Trinity, what it means to be “in Christ,” and the Spirits indwelling  work within us. A recovery of the transcendent necessitates a recovery of the immanent – both are at stake.

Rather than forsaking (in a reactionary theological move) the immanence of God, as some new-Calvinists and even Arminians have done, we need a reawakening, a re-defining of the immanent, close, and inviting Fatherhood of God. Jesus’ prayers to the Father were not cheap and neither do ours have to be. “Our father in heaven”. The immanence and transcendence of our God are both magnified in this statement. They are NOT held in tension – they are both accepted in their fullness. To understand God as transcendent we must understand Him as immanent. And to understand Him as immanent we must understand Him as transcendent. I’m not calling for balance – I’m calling for full realization of both un-opposing realities.

We need a re-awakening of our notions of God as Father in a world with absent, abusive, and faulty fathers. Fathers are both transcendent and immanent, which is why the metaphor works so well.

*And this doesn’t even take into account those who grow up with abusive fathers. It occurred to me recently that maybe some of these people  have no problem with the wrath and violence of God because their own fathers were wrathful and violent. Their image of God, then might really be a perpetuation of a familial cycle of violence – they have found their identity in someone who abuses them and now they look for that same attention from God. They know of no other way to relate to father-figures.

The Legitimacy of Penal Substitution Atonement

I think some of the following questions/arguments are weaker than others, and I certainly think that there are some exegetical arguments that would make this case even stronger (we’ll get to those in later posts), but here is an interesting rundown of some of my main concerns about Penal Substitution…

In future posts on this topic I will spend more time on exegesis and my own thoughts, but for now I think Greg Boyd raises some good introductory questions concerning this topic. Boyd espouses a Christus Victor model of atonement, which, to me, is a much more viable option…but we’ll get to that later.

**On a side note, many of you may be too distracted by Boyd’s Open Theism to take him seriously. I would encourage you to see this as a separate issue which is not related to that issue. I want his arguments/questions to be taken on their own merits, not on the merits of whether you like his other theological views. In other words, for my Reformed brothers and sisters – don’t get distracted!**

——-

If asked what Jesus came to do and how he did it, most contemporary western Christians would automatically say something like, “Jesus took the punishment from God that I deserved.” This is what’s usually called “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement, for it emphasizes that Jesus was punished by God in our place. His sacrifice appeased the Father’s wrath towards us and thus allows us to be saved.

This view has been the dominant view in western Christianity since the Reformation period, and it captures a profoundly important biblical truth. Jesus did certainly die as our substitute. And the cross certainly expresses God’s judgment on sin. But I have a number of unsettling questions about the idea that God had to vent his wrath on Jesus in order to forgive us. Here’s a few of them:

*Does God really need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us? If so, does this mean that the law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is the ultimate description of God’s character? And if this is true, what are we to make of Jesus’ teaching that this law is surpassed by the law of love? Not only this, but what are we to make of all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice (e.g. the prodigal son)?

*If God’s holiness requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?

*If Jesus’ death allows God the Father to accept us, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Jesus reconciles God to us than it is to say Jesus reconciles us to God? Yet the New Testament claims the latter and never the former (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:18-20). ). In fact, if God loves sinners and yet can’t accept sinners without a sacrifice, wouldn’t it be even more accurate to say that God reconciles God to himself than to say he reconciles us to God? But this is clearly an odd and unbiblical way of speaking.

*How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards another member (the Son) of the Trinity, when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God? Can God be truly angry with God? Can God actually punish God?

*If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? It seems not, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.

*Are sin and guilt the sorts of things that can be literally transferred from one party to another? Related to this, how are we to conceive of the Father being angry towards Jesus and justly punishing him when he of course knew Jesus never did anything wrong?

*If the just punishment for sin is eternal hell (as most Christians have traditionally believed), how does Jesus’ several hours of suffering and his short time in the grave pay for it?

*If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin, couldn’t this have been accomplished just as easily when (say) Jesus was a one-year-old boy as when he was a thirty-three year old man? Were Jesus’ life, teachings, healing and deliverance ministry merely a prelude to the one really important thing he did – namely, die? It doesn’t seem to me that the Gospels divide up and prioritize the various aspects of Jesus’ life in this way. (I maintain that everything Jesus did was about one thing – overcoming evil with love. Hence, every aspect of Jesus was centered on atonement — that is, reconciling us to God and freeing us from the devil’s oppression.)

* Not to be offensive, but if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son – or, if not that, sacrificing all other humans in eternal hell – then don’t we have to conclude that those pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?

*What is the intrinsic connection between what Jesus did on the cross and how we actually live? The Penal Substitution view makes it seem like the real issue in need of resolution is a legal matter in the heavenly realms between God’s holy wrath and our sin. Christ’s death changes how God sees us, but this theory says nothing about how Christ’s death changes us. This is particularly concerning to me because every study done on the subject has demonstrated that for the majority of Americans who believe in Jesus, their belief makes little or no impact on their life. I wonder if the dominance of this legal-transaction view of the atonement might be partly responsible for this tragic state of affairs.

To me, these are all serious problems with the Penal Substitution view of the atonement. I do not deny that Jesus died as our substitute or even that it was God’s will to “crush and bruise” him (Isa 53:10). But we don’t need to imagine that the Father vented his wrath against sin on Jesus to make sense of these facts. One can (and I think should) rather see this as the Father offering up his Son to the principalities and powers to be bruised and crushed in our place, for this unsurpassable expression of self-sacrificial love is what was needed to destroy the devil and his works and to thus set humans free, reconciling them to the Father.

HT: Greg Boyd: http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/jesus/what-do-you-think-of-the-%E2%80%9Cpenal-substitutionary%E2%80%9D-view-of-the-atonement/

Further Reading

Bartlett, A. Cross Purposes (Trinity, 2001). This is a brilliant but challenging book, centered on Girard’s mimetic anthropology and scape goat theory.

Eddy, P. and Beilby, J., eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2006). Representatives from four major schools of thought debate the atonement. I espouse the “Christus Victor” model in this work.

Jersak, B. and Hardin, M. Stricken By God? (Eerdmans, 2007). An outstanding collection of essays advancing a non-violent (non-penal substitutionary) view of the atonement.

HT: Greg Boyd: http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/jesus/what-do-you-think-of-the-%E2%80%9Cpenal-substitutionary%E2%80%9D-view-of-the-atonement/

Is God the Author of Malevolence?: Genesis 50:20 (Pt. 1/2)

This was originally supposed to be one post, but it got so long I needed to break it into two. My best arguments, I think, are in part 2, but part 1 is necessary foreground, especially for the uninitiated.

A Brief Statement of the Issue:

Certain Calvinists,[1] with their emphasis on the ultimate sovereignty of God, conclude from various biblical passages that Yahweh is the author and determiner of evil. That is, because Yahweh is sovereign, He must have control over both good and evil.[2] My intention in this post is to wrestle with one of those passages – Genesis 50:20, where Joseph, after looking back on all the evil actions of his brothers, says, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.”

Some Hermeneutical Humility:

Let me be honest here (and hopefully have a bit of humility in an argument that all too often becomes about ego) and suggest that it is certainly possible to read this text the way Calvinists do – that God determined this particular evil in order to bring about good. It is possible, but not necessary, and maybe not even desirable. The logic of which will lead to dangerous places, which I will discuss further toward the end of this post.

The Calvinist Philosophical Assumptions:

Calvinist’s have philosophical assumptions guiding their interpretation of this text. Contrary to their claim that Arminians are the ones with philosophical commitments hindering a true reading of the text, Calvinists here attempt to preserve the innocence of God in this matter by saying that Joseph’s brothers freely chose to commit this evil, but their decision was determined by God. By making a “free choice” they say that Joseph’s brothers are morally responsible and God is not accountable. Yet, to make such an assertion they have to appeal to a Compatibilistic sense of freedom. A sense of freedom, that I will argue later, is destroyed by this text.

Contextual Observations

As of yet, my complaints in this post are from a larger theological, philosophical, and maybe even ethical framework. But the true question, for any good Protestant (though I’m not always sure I’m really a good one), is what the text says. Does the text say that God intended (purposed, determined) Joseph’s brothers to commit these evil actions so that His saving purposes (and, might John Piper add, his ultimate glorification) might be revealed and worked out?

Lets begin with the context:

God knew, all the way back with Joseph’s dreams and his Technicolor Dream-Coat, that his brothers were going to be jealous of him. The text nowhere indicates that God determined their jealousy! This is important for Calvinism b/c in Calvinism God doesn’t just determine people’s actions, He actually determines their desires![3] But nowhere, in any of this, does the text attribute the evil desires of Joseph’s brothers to Yahweh. The actions J’s brothers participate in are solely and completely of their own doing. We have no textual evidence that God determined their actions. Only that God took free actions and determined to make something good out of them. We cannot pull this isolated text out of the larger context and think it has settled the matter.

But here’s the thing, and let me give Calvinism some props here - I actually think this verse does suggest that God sovereignly acts in this localized event, that He is active in the way things played out. While the text does not say that God gave them their desires or determined their actions, it does affirm that he was sovereignly and actively involved in some way.

Arminian/Open Theistic Determination

But does God’s sovereign action in this instance prove Arminianism/Open Theism wrong? No, actually, both of these positions also hold that God can and does determine certain things to happen. In the words of Jerry Walls concerning this text, “God foresaw the good that would eventually come out of this and (after considering all possible creatable worlds) he chose the world in which these circumstances and choices took place, and he allowed them for the sake of the good that would follow. This way of reading the story makes perfect sense of Joseph’s claim that the brothers meant it for evil but God meant it for good.”[4] I

In other words, God’s intentions/determination[5] to work salvation out of evil actions is seen here, but without any recourse to his determination of Joseph’s brothers evil desires. The text never connects the determination of God with the actions of Joseph’s brothers. It is never says that He determines their actions on a primary or secondary level. Yet, it does maintain that God sovereignly decided that this would be the best course of action to bring about the salvation of Jacob’s family.


[1] John Piper and DA Carson are the two most popular.

[2] I am no longer convinced that this is Classical Calvinism. I think this is John Piper’s aberrant Calvinism, most likely. Though, he is not the only one who believes this. However, John Calvin, himself, more believed that God allowed sin, but did not determine it. See his Institutes, 3.23.8.

[3] For more on this see my previous entry, “I Do Not Permit a Calvinist to Use “Permit” Language.” It got raving reviews even from Calvinists!!! (Just kidding)

[4] Jerry Walls & Joe Dongell, Why I’m Not a Calvinist, 151.

[5] Also, I might note here that for the Arminian and the Open Theist, what God intends is not the same thing as what God determines. God may intend things that do not come to pass. The Calvinists do not have this same assumption. They maintain that what God intends must necessarily be determined as well. Because of this, our disagreement is not exegetical. Our disagreement is a theological one that must be settled with other texts which connect intention and determination and explicates their differences/similarities. This text does not provide such an explanation.