The Love and Hate of God in Romans 9

At last recovered from fishing (but more on that later). At last to some thoughts on Romans 9. One of my former Calvinist mentors once opined that most people had little problem understanding why God hated Esau: what the real conundrum was, was why did He love Jacob? For Orthodox, of course, this is a false alternative, for Romans 9, the passage in which St. Paul cites Malachi about loving Jacob and hating Esau, is not about individuals, but the divine providence in preserving the godly seed. As an aside, in beginning to think about this, I would commend St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans. Calvin unhappily cited St. John’s teachings on this subject: “Moreover although the Greeks more than others, and among these especially Chrysostom, have exceeded decorum in extolling the powers of the human will, nonetheless, all the fathers, with the exception of Augustine, in this matter are so wayward, vacillating, and confused, that nothing clear  can be had from their writings (Porro tametsi Graeci prae aliis, atque inter eos singulariter Chrysostomus, in extollenda humanae voluntatis facultate modum excesserunt, veteres tamen omnes, excepto Augustino, sic in hac re aut variant, aut vacillant, aut perplexe loquuntur, ut certi fere nihil ex eorum scriptis referre liceat Institutes, 2..2.4). While an opportunity to comment again about what it says when one can so easily dismiss the universal testimony of the Fathers, it is instructive to see that even Calvin was willing to admit that St. Augustine alone spoke for his own views (and I think St. Augustine would take umbrage at how Calvin used them).

In regard to Romans 9, there are three things on should note: the matter of the love of God, the question of Providence in working out Salvation, and lastly, what is specifically meant by “predestination.” First, the matter of God’s love and God’s opprobrium. God’s love, as everyone will confess, is eternal, for after all, God is love. But His hatred is not, not unless, that is, you have fallen into what has been termed the Origenistic problematic. Origen, the brilliant second/third-century father was influenced by middle-Platonism, and was a contemporary of the founder of NeoPlatonism, Plotinus. He and Plotinus had the same teacher in Alexandria, Ammonius Saccas. The starting point for both Origen and Plotinus was the ineffable singular unity of God (for Plotinus, “The One,” in Greek, to hen, which is neuter in form). For Origen, the eternality and unity of God was primary, and all that God was, he was eternally. Thus He was both Eternally Father with the eternally-begotten Son. (He was the first theologian to use the term “the eternal generation of the Son.”) But this comes at a cost: if God is creator, He is eternally so, and creation becomes eternal. Origen, moreover, was hard pressed to distinguish the eternal act of creation from the eternal act of begetting, for were we to begin with the unity of God, how can we distinguish acts (though Origen did seek to do so). In respect to the love of God, it would seem, hate becomes systemic of the divine nature as well. Origen reasoned that for God to be all-powerful, there must be something against which his power stood; for him to be infinite, His infinity must be opposed to finitude. We can see in this a dialectic of opposition, which would then entail that his love, while having an eternal object of love (and for Christians love is an energy within the Trinity and ultimately among us creatures), this same must be true of his hate. Origen really doesn’t comment on this, and later theologians have seen that God’s hate is but the disposition of God toward that which is not of Him, namely, sin. (Origen’s thoughts on all of this is in his On first principles.)

But Origen’s theology in these matters was condemned by the Church. God’s hate, such as it is, is not eternal (and neither is creation), but a response of his justice and love toward the corruption of His creation. This can be seen at the beginning of Dante’s Divine Comedy, for when Dante enters Hell he reads “eternal love created me.” Thus the love and hate of Jacob and Esau cannot be linked to the eternal purposes of God, in that the hate of God, like God’s creation, are acts of God in His relationship to time. This point was brought home to me by Fr. Aidan Nichols, a Dominican friar in Cambridge, in a conversation we had about the uncreated love of God within the saints, and what constituted freewill in heaven. I shall return to this, but first must note that the love of God, then, as an eternal energy of God, is not the opposite or corollary of God’s hate, the one part of the two decrees, what the Reformers dubbed gemina predestinatio, with the hate of God being the other. It is not some cosmic balancing act, as St. Augustine spoke of in his On Free Choice of the Will, in which God offsets the blessed and the damned by some cosmic scale to bring equilibrium to the universe. What the love of God is, is one of the myriad logoi of God’s existence, eternal, flowing from God and around God, and properly, like God’s glory, a consequence or creature of God, but not the divine essence. This love and into this glory constitute the goals, ends, and telos of the Christian, and properly said, of every creature of God. More anon.

Thus we come to the second point, the question of God’s providence. For the Orthodox God does not do violence to his creatures. The Reformed will maintain this as well, but still must assert that it is God that changes the will, and God that moves us from beginning to end. Providence, for the Reformed, is God’s active ordering of the world, part of God’s eternal decree by which He brings to pass all He has decreed. For the Orthodox, this is not the case. The Blessed Mother of God could have said “No.” (Most Holy Theotokos save us!) What Providence is, is God’s moving, calling, wooing, confronting, and ordering the world to effect salvation. God does have a way of being persistent (ask Jonah), and about making our lives miserable until we obey, and using His gifts in us to his own purposes (see Baalam). God uses people’s own ambitions and desires for His purposes (He will cause the wrath of man to praise Him), and we see in the case of Pharaoh that God ultimately moved Pharaoh’s heart in order to teach him a lesson. If we really want to resist God, He will grant us our request. This is why, as C. S. Lewis wrote, the gates of Hell are locked, from the inside. When we look at Romans 9 we see the working out of God’s purposes for “Israel.” And what Israel is, is not a clearly precise thing, as it is not those of the physical seed of Abraham, for not Ishmael but Isaac is the seed. That God is watching over Israel, waiting for the fullness of Israel (both Jew and Gentile Israel) is the thrust of Romans 9-11. But I must pause over those few verses, 9: 20-23, about the vessels of honor and dishonor, wrath and mercy, for here we have what seems a clear statement that what is being said is about individuals.

And this brings me to my third point, and back as well to Fr. Aidan Nichols. Fr. Aidan, who as noted is a Dominican (and someone whose writings) I highly recommend Papist though he be), like St. Thomas Aquinas, sees God as the highest good, the summum bonum, of all (and we would not dissent). But when this is pushed, it robs the Saints in light of any real freewill, for they would have no choice in heaven but the one Good, namely God. I was quite pleased, therefore, in pressing this point that Fr. Aidan said he would not hold to that for in the eschaton the Saints would also have each other, and thus a multiplicity of choices.  Thus, God’s intentions for mankind, His preordained goals and ends for us, His predestinations, inform us about what St. Paul is asserting in Romans 9: God’s love for Israel (and they are not all Israel who are of Israel) was worked out in spite of Pharaoh, and in spite of Edom (the hated Jacob), the vessels of wrath “adjusted to destruction” that he might show His mercy on the vessels of mercy “purposed for glory.”  St. Paul, I should point out, used two different words about how the respective vessels came to their ends. The ones’ ends were reached by an adjustment or a reordering; the other came to their proper end having fulfilled their purpose. What we have in 9:20-23 is not a double predestination, but an affirmation that God has ordered the world to a particular goal, but one which because of the freewill of the creature is not now for everyone. Hell was not something created for the damned, but is instead a place they shall take up with the first rebels against God’s order, namely the Devil and his angels. Thus the vessels of wrath are reordered into the nonorder of death. Each creature, each person, has their own proper logos of existence, and like the other logoi around God constitute the arena of our activity, the ends of our wills ordered to the good. Thus, I concur with Fr. Aidan that we are ordered to the Saints in the age to come, but also ordered to all the words of God.

What clinches this reading, at least for me, comes in the next verse (24): “Even us whom He has called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” These are the Israel not of Israel, the Gentiles who have fulfilled the righteous purposes (dare we say, predestinations) of the law. The purposes of God in showing mercy as He wills, and in enduring those who seek His wrath, is that He might fulfill His purposes among the Gentiles, that is, in the Church. The Church is the great mystery, prefigured in the garden in Adam and Eve, hidden but still present to the prophets, and now at last made known in God’s good time as fulfilling Israel’s purpose as a light to the nations.

There is a great deal to be said about the question of predestination, and there are many places on the web one may look to, to find this, including here, and here, and a very long explanation here, which is not wholly orthodox, but a good reading of the text.

After going back and forth about this, I have decided to go with these thoughts. I am sure they won’t please everyone, but I await your thoughts on this matter.


About Cyril Jenkins

Professor of History
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Love and Hate of God in Romans 9

  1. Pingback: Orthodox Collective

  2. Pingback: The Love and Hate of God in Romans 9 « Energetic Procession

  3. I think I follow you, but, to perhaps expand upon what you have said, how does St. Maximos’s interpretation of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart fit in with this? According to St. Maximos, God is like the sun, and we make are hearts either like clay or like wax. When wax is exposed to the heat of the sun it softens and melts. Clay, on the other hand, hardens. In this way, Pharaoh hardened his heart (making it like clay), and God hardened his heart (just as it says in Exodus), yet in the latter case only as the natural effect of a clay heart exposed to the warmth of the love of God.

  4. Cyril Jenkins says:

    I had completely forgotten reading that, or else read it too late at night for it to have sunk into my memory. My bookmark in that section of the Philokalia is but 8 pages after that part (The 200 Texts on Theology and the Incarnation, 1.12, Philokalia Vol II, p. 116). Serves me right.
    But yes, this is an excellent expansion. I don’t know where I read it, but one Orthodox theologian believes there is no separate Hell, for we are all in God’s presence, but to the Saints the Fire of God is purifying, to the damned it is consuming.Thanks, Dylan.

  5. Pingback: The Love and Hate of God in Romans 9

  6. David Lindblom says:

    I’ve also heard that analogy concerning how it is largely our predisposition toward God that actually determines our experience of Him. I certainly do believe this is true but I have heard some good well informed critiques of carrying this truth too far when dealing w/ damnation. I’ve read “River of Fire” that’s been quite popular espousing this view and also some learned critiques of this view that, basically, hell is simply heaven/God experienced differently. But that is a bit off topic.

    All this Romans 9 talk fit right in to a AFR podcast by Jeff Wisniewski that deals w/ the Reformed folks. Many things that he says are both fair and true…to a point. But what bothered me about his podcast is his semi-defending the Calvinist view of predestination. On the one hand he clearly states that the Orthodoxy’s view on these things is right he, on the other hand, seems to have not shed his former Calvinist views. He seems to be taking the “sitting on the fence” position. He states that Orthodoxy has it right concerning this but then goes on to say he can easily defend the Calvinist view of predestination biblically. Well, yeah…any theology can be defended using scripture…alone. He seems to hedge his bets by stating it’s a Divine Mystery. Yeah, but again, to a point. He also fails to deal w/ the horrific beliefs that follow this Reformed theology. Here’s the link to this podcast if anyone’s interested:

    Anyway, interesting post. I’ll have to read through it a couple more times. As I posted on E.P. on this same article…I’m surprised not more reactions have been posted. I figured this would be a real rock’em sock’em topic.

  7. reyjacobs says:

    Romans is like Alexandrians, one of those epistles “forged in the name of Paul” which the muratorian canon mentions. After all, Paul says in 2nd Timothy 2:14

    “Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.”

    Are we to believe that the same Paul who condemns striving about words to no profit but rather to the subverting of the hearers, turns around and does exactly that in another epistle with foolish words about justification by faith and not by works and about predestination? Epic fail.

    Romans and Galatians are to be rejected along with “to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul according to the heresy of Marcion. There are also many others which cannot be received in the General Church, for gall cannot be mixed with honey.” Yes, in the true church gall cannot be mixed with honey, and mixing the filth and garbage of Romans and Galatians with the Pastorals is mixing not just gall but poison with honey! May Christendom come to its senses and condemn these forged epistles which teach evil Gnostic speculations rather than the truth. And may it happen in my lifetime. AMEN.

  8. Cyril Jenkins says:

    You quote the Muratorian canon about rejecting the epistles to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians, lumping Romans and Galatians with the quote, but this the canon doesn’t do. What part of the Church has ever rejected these two epistles? I am sorry, but who made you a bishop so that you could speak for the Church? Who gave you power to sit over the canon? Who gave you greater discretion than all of Christendom? Not even the most ranting of liberal scholarship, the Gnostics of our day, have rejected Romans and Galatians. And more to your own seeming pique, not even Pelagius would be so bold or rash.

  9. reyjacobs says:

    “Not even the most ranting of liberal scholarship, the Gnostics of our day, have rejected Romans and Galatians.”

    Well, obviously, since Romans and Galatians are liberal and Gnostic works, why would you expect liberal and Gnostic scholars to reject them? The liberal Gnostic Protestants (those are the scholars) who believe in faith-onlyism and works vs faith dichotomy (the false doctrines taught in Romans and Galatians) would obviously NEVER reject the fountainheads of their heresies!!!!

  10. Cyril Jenkins says:

    So then why did Irenaeus accept them? Why Pelagius?

  11. reyjacobs says:

    “So then why did Irenaeus accept them? Why Pelagius?”

    To avoid being burned at the stake. They didn’t exactly live in modern times.

  12. Cyril Jenkins says:

    I try to be reserved and measured in my responses, but that has to be one of the silliest and most inane responses I have seen. If you cannot make a recourse to facts, you should go elsewhere to get your kicks. Who exactly was going to burn St. Irenaeus?

  13. reyjacobs says:

    As you so astutely point out, it is a better response with respect to Pelagius than Irenaeus, obviously, because of the fact that Irenaeus was more likely to burn someone at the stake for not accepting a certain book into the canon than to be burned for it himself. The blame for the mistake of accepting Gnostic solafidean works like Romans and Galatians into the canon actually all goes to Irenaeus for he is the one responsible for screwing up the canon. Why you venerate him rather than Justin Martyr who had not knowledge whatsoever of the Pauline corpus, its a great mystery to me (and not one to be adored).

  14. Cyril Jenkins says:

    Irenaeus had neither the authority nor the means to burn anyone. Nor can you draw from any of his writings that he even had such an inclination. Further, if you cannot make cogent arguments, you will be banned from posting here. Argument means making assertions backed by proof. Where do you get sola fideism from either Romans or Galatians? The Bible only has justification linked with the words “by faith alone” in one place, and it is in neither Romans nor Galatians. Where do you get that St. Irenaeus would or could have burned someone at the stake? What has the silence of St. Justin Martyr (or St. Theophilus of Antioch, or St. Hippolytus, or St. Ignatius of Antioch) have to do with all of this? Disagreement is welcome; pomposity and gratia asserta are not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s