Part Five: God's Soteriological Sovereignty
5.1. Salvation as Originating in God
5.1.1. Will and Purpose of God
5.1.2. Rom 8:28-30
5.1.3. Rom 9:14-29
5.1.4. Phil 1:6
5.1.5. 1 Thess 5:9; 2 Thess 2:13-14
5.1.6.
Eph 1:4-5, 11
5.2. Parallels to Paul's View in the Second-Temple Judaism
5.2.1. Non-Sectarian, Second-Temple Texts
5.2.2. Qumran Sectarian Texts
A. CD 2.2-13
B. Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot)
C. The Two-Spirits Teaching (1QS 3.13-4.26)
Part Five: God's Soteriological Sovereignty
5.1. Salvation as Originating in God
Although he stresses that faith
is the condition of receiving Christ's soteriological benefits and he
warns of the consequences of disobedience and of the possibility of becoming
disqualified for eschatological salvation, Paul affirms, nevertheless,
that God ultimately is responsible for who is saved from his wrath and
who is not.
(1)
He expresses this idea in different ways. This explains why he sometimes
refers to believers as "chosen ones" (eklektos) (Rom
8:33; 16:13; Col 3:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1) (see the use
of the cognate "election" [eklogê] [Rom 9:11; 11:5,
7; 1 Thess 1:4]). Somehow being chosen for eschatological salvation does
not negate the human will.
5.1.1. Will and Purpose of God
Paul makes several references to the will of God (to thelêma tou theou) in his letters (Rom 1:10; 2:18; 12:2; 15:32; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 7:9, 10; 8:5; Gal 1:4-5; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 4:3; 5:18). He views God as being intimately connected with his creation and, for that reason, as having a will for human beings individually and collectively (see Isa 44:28; 48:14). He expresses the same idea by the phrases "according to God" (kata theon) (Rom 8:27) and the ordinance of God (diatagê tou theou) (Rom 13:2). When referring to God's will in soteriological matters, however, Paul prefers to use the term "purpose" (prothesis):
- "to those who are called according to his purpose" Rom 8.28
- "in order that that God's purpose according to his choice would stand" (Rom 9:11)
- "having been predestined according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11)
- "in accordance with the eternal purpose, which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph 3:11)
- "who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace" (2 (Tim 1:9).
In Rom 8:28, Paul speaks of
the situation of the believer as against his situation in the world; he
says that all things work for the ultimate good for those who love God.
The phrase "those who love God" is a designation for believers.(2)
Paul means that the believer (the one who loves God) can have confidence
that God is in control of all events for the ultimate good of a person
who is obedient to him. Paul then defines those who love God as "those
who are called according to [God's] purpose." God's calling is his
effectual calling or summons of human beings to salvation, which
means that it leads necessarily to a positive response to the good news
(euaggelion).(3)
This calling is qualified by the prepositional phrase "according
to [God's] purpose." (Although, there is no possessive "his"
or "God's" qualifying "purpose," the context clearly
implies that it is God's purpose.(4)
In this context, God's
purpose represents his soteriological intention to show mercy to some
human beings.(5)
With "those who love God,
those called according to [God's] purpose" in mind, Paul then sets
up a causal chain designed to explain the process of salvation from start
to finish. (1) The first link in the chain is God's foreknowledge: "Those
whom [God] foreknew" (hous proegnô). Those whom God
foreknew represent those to whom God had gracious intention. Although
it can mean "to know [something] beforehand or in advance" (see
Philo, Somn. 1.2; Josephus, Life, 106; Acts 26:5; 2
Pet 3:17), the verb "to foreknow" (proginôskô),
in this context, refers to God's choice of persons as the recipients of
salvation (see Rom 11:2 for a parallel use).(6)
(See the use of the verb
"to know" in Jer 1:5; Hos 13:5; Amos 3:2.) (2) On the basis
of the fact that he foreknew them, God then "predestined them to
become conformed to the image of his son." God predestined those
to whom he had gracious intention (i.e., those whom he foreknew) to become
"conformed to the image of his son." The verb "to predestine"
(proorizein) refers to God's sovereign decision, unconditional
and independent of all human cooperation (see Acts 4:28; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph
1:5, 11 for similar uses of the verb proorizein). That to which
God predestined those whom he foreknew is "to be conformed to the
image of his son" [summorphous tês eikonos tou huiou autou]
by which Paul means eschatological salvation. Implicit in the idea of
conformity to the image of Christ is receiving a resurrection body like
that of Christ (see 1 Cor 15:49: "We will also bear the image of
the heavenly [man]" [tên eikona tou epouraniou] and
Phil 3:21: "[Jesus] will transform the body of lowliness to be like
[summorphon] the body of his glory"). The purpose of this
conformity to the image of Christ is that he may be the firstborn among
many brothers" (see also Christ as the first fruits in 1 Cor 15:20).
Earlier in Rom 8:23, Paul says that believers will receive adoption (huiothesia),
which synonymous with the redemption of the body. Likewise, in Rom 8:16-17,
Paul calls believers co-heirs with Christ who are destined to be glorified
with Christ. (3) Those who are so predestined are then called: "These
also he called" (Rom 8:30). As explained above, God's calling is
the actualization of his sovereign choice or predestination of those whom
he foreknew to salvation (see parallel uses of verb "to call"
in Rom 9.11; 9.24). (4) God declared righteous (edikaiôsen)
those who were called, insofar as they by faith believed the good news.
(5) Finally those whom God declared righteous he also glorified (edoxasen),
which is a way of describing the completion of the salvation process.
Even though the glorification of believers still lies on the future, Paul
uses the aorist (simple past) tense; this is probably to indicate that,
as far as God is concerned, glorification has already happened, for it
is the last link in a necessary causal chain that had its beginning in
eternity past.(7)
In the context of explaining
why not all of Israel has believed the gospel, Paul makes clear that God
has always dealt with humanity in the context of his sovereign mercy.(8)
After outlining how God chose Jacob over the first-born Esau "in
the womb," that is, before the two had done anything, either good
or evil, Paul explains that he did this "in order that God's
purpose in election might stand” (9:11). What he means is that it was
God soteriological purpose that one of the two brothers—Jacob—
would be chosen before he could do anything to qualify for or be disqualified
from such a privilege. Paul then considers the objection that, if God
operates in this fashion, then surely he could be accused of injustice:
"What shall we say? Is there not injustice with God?"
(11:14). (Paul uses the formula "What shall we say then?"
in Romans whenever he thinks that his readers may draw the wrong conclusion
[see Rom 3:5; 6:1; 7:7].) Paul's response is to say that no one can accuse
God of injustice, because no one can dictate to God that and in which
manner he must show mercy to human beings; the assumption is that divine
mercy is undeserved. Rather, God has the sovereign right to have mercy
on whomever he wills. Using the LXX, Paul quotes Yahweh's words to Moses
as proof of this: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Exod 33:19). He
concludes, "[Mercy depends] not on the one who wills nor the one
who runs, but on God who shows mercy" (9:16). Paul's point is that
eschatological salvation ultimately depends on his mercy, not human will
and effort. Quoting from Exod 9:16, Paul cites the example of Pharaoh
as one on whom God did not will to have mercy; rather, Pharaoh was used
in order to make God's power all the more evident and thereby bring glory
to himself (9:17). (Paul's version of Exod 9:16 differs from the LXX,
but serves to bring out more forcefully the "sovereignty
of the divine purpose."(9)
Paul reiterates the point
that he has already made:"So then he [God] has mercy on whom he wills
to have mercy" (9:18a), but then adds its corollary: "But he
hardens whom he wills" (9:18b). To harden means to confirm a person
in his unbelief and disobedience. One could say that hardening is nothing
more than God's not having mercy: it is not what God does, but what he
does not do that is the essence of hardening. The religious-historical
background to the idea of hardening is the Old Testament, in particular
narratives in Exodus in which Pharaoh is hardened (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12;
10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17; see also Deut 2:30; Isa 63:17) (see Rom
9:17). Interestingly, Pharaoh is also said to have harden his own heart
(Exod 8:15; 8:32; 9:34; see 1 Sam 6:6).
Paul then addresses the objection that God cannot hold someone responsible for his or her choices when that person apparently is not free to obey or disobey. If no one can resist God's will then how can God relate to human beings as if they were truly free and responsible. Paul does not, however, enter into a consideration of how free will and divine determinacy are compatible; rather he merely rejects the question as inappropriate. Paul's view is that the ways of God are not to be scrutinized by human beings. He asks rhetorically, "O man, who indeed are you to answer back to God" (9:20) (ô anthrôpe, menounge su tis ei ho antapokrinomenos tô theô;) (see the use of antapokrinesthai in LXX Job 16:8; 32:12; Luke 14:6). (For a parallel, see Wis 12:12.) Paul then has recourse to a common biblical metaphor of the potter in order to explicate further his position. (For other uses of this metaphor, see Job 10:9; Ps 2:9; Isa 29:16; 41:25; 45:9; 64:8; Jer 18:1-12; Wis 15:7-17; Sir 27:5; 33:13; 38:29-30). Arguing for God's freedom in relation to his creation, Paul compares God to a potter who makes two different kinds of pots from the same lump of clay. A pot cannot complain to the potter about the type of pot that it is, in particular, that it is a "dishonorable" pot rather than an "honorable" one, for the "potter" has the right to do what he wants with the clay: "Does not the potter have the authority over the clay, to make from the same lump a some pottery for honorable uses and some for dishonorable uses?" (9:21) A very close parallel to Paul's use of the potter metaphor occurs in Wis 15:7: "A potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each things made for our service, but making from the same lump of clay both vessels that serve clean pure purposes and those for contrary uses, making all alike. But which shall be the use of each of them the worker in clay determines." This suggests that Paul may have been dependent on this passage and chose to turn its potter image into a metaphor. Paul's point is that those whom God hardens cannot complain about the injustice of being hardened because God can show mercy to whomever he wills. All human beings are sinners are, therefore, equally undeserving, so that God does nothing unjust in showing mercy to some but not to others.
Paul then explains that God has created some as "vessels of mercy" (skeuê eleous) and other as "vessels of wrath" (skeuê orgês). He means that on some human beings God has mercy while on the rest God does not; this makes each one of them one or the other type of vessel. Paul also says that the "vessels of mercy" are "prepared in advance for the purpose of glory" (ha proetoimasen eis doxan); "glory" is a common Pauline word for the completion of eschatological salvation. The "vessels of wrath," on the other hand, "are made for the purpose of destruction" (katertismena eis apoleian), by which he means eternal destruction. Paul believes that God makes some sinners the objects of his mercy and has willed to save them from his coming wrath, whereas other sinners by virtue of his not choosing them have become the objects of divine wrath. (Paul's sentence in Rom 9:22-23a is grammatically incomplete, because there is no apodosis to complete to protasis. The ellipisis of the protasis of a conditional sentence, however, is possible in Greek.) Moreover, the "vessels of wrath" serve the purpose of demonstrating God's wrath and making his power known to all. Without objects upon whom to exercise it, God's wrath would not be known; God's power is demonstrated insofar as he is able to act upon his wrath. (The participial clause "willing...to demonstrate his wrath and make known his power" is causal, being the reason that God bears the "vessels of wrath.") This is the reason that God bears the vessels of wrath. Another purpose of the objects of wrath is that God's wrath serves to demonstrate "the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy." The phrase "riches of his glory" refers to the great benefits of final salvation, which can only be fully understood as such when set in contrast to a demonstration of divine wrath: one must know that from which one has been saved in order to appreciate that salvation. (See also Rom 11:1-21.)
Paul tells the Philippians
that he is convinced that, “He who began a good work in you shall
bring it to completion until the day of Jesus Christ” (1:6) (ho
enarxamenos en humin ergon agaqon epitelesei achri hêmeras Christou
Iêsou). Paul uses the perfect participle of the verb peithein
in order to express his unshakable present conviction. (10)
He provides no subject for the participle enarxamenos and the verb
epitelesei, but there is little doubt that he means that God is
the one who began the work of salvation in the Philippians and is also
the one who shall bring this work to completion.(11)
(In 2:13, Paul writes, “For God is the one who works in you etc.)
The term “a good work” used to describe God’s eschatological
salvation as experienced in the present is unique in Paul’s letters.(12)
In other words, Paul expresses his confidence that salvation as present
will continue to be a reality for the Philippians and continue to increase
in its reality.(13)
The reason that Paul is so confident that the work begun will come to
completion is that it depends not upon the human will but God's will.
The beginning of the good work no doubt is tied to the presence and transformative
activity of the Spirit in each of the Philippian believers; this may be
suggested by the phrase “good work in you.” This is no doubt
the basis of Paul’s confidence in regard to the Philippians. The
terminal point for this increasing experience of present salvation is
the “day of Jesus Christ,” by which Paul means the appointed
time of Christ’s return. (In Paul’s theology, the Spirit’s
presence necessarily leads to resurrection [Rom 8:10-11], which Paul also
expresses as glorification [2 Thess 2:14; 2 Cor 4:17; Rom 5:2; 8:16-18,
21, 30]. A parallel term would be "new creation" [2 Cor 5:17;
Gal 6:15].)
5.1.5. 1 Thess 5:9; 2 Thess 2:13-14
In 1 Thess 5:9, Paul says that God did not appoint the Thessalonians for wrath, but for receiving salvation (sôtêria) through Jesus Christ; the assumption is that what God has determined should occur shall occur. Salvation refers to eschatological salvation, and to be appointed to that salvation is to be the object of God's saving intention. Similarly, Paul writes that God has "called" (ekalesen) the Thessalonians to receive "[the] glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 2:14). The term "glory" (doxa) is a synonym for "salvation" (sôtêria). As Paul understands it, God's calling is effectual, meaning his call necessarily brings about the desired end.
Paul writes in Eph 1:4 that
God "Just as he [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation
of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (exelexato
hêmas en autô pro katabolês kosmou, einai hêmas
hagious kai amômous katenôpion autou). What he is describing
is God's sovereign choice of some human beings from among the Jews and
the gentiles to be the recipients of eschatological salvation. The verb
"he chose" (exelexato) is in the the middle voice, which
indicates God's personal interest in those whom he chose, as opposed to
choosing arbitrarily.(14)
God's choice is specified as being "before the foundation of the
world," by which is meant before the creation of anything; this naturally
implies that God was not extraneously influenced by the objects of his
choice, since they did not yet exist. To be "holy and blameless before
him" describes the imputation of a status of righteousness, or what
Paul calls "the righteousness of God" or "being declared
righteous" elsewhere in his letters. (Holy and blameless are more
or less synonyms in this context, insofar as whoever is holy by definition
is blameless.) (The prepositional phrase "before him" [katenôpion
autou] means before God.) Moreover, to be holy and blameless probably
also means to be righteous in a practical or experiential sense at the
time of eschatological judgment, since the phrase "holy and blameless"
(hagios kai amômos) is used with that meaning in Col 1:22.(15)
In other words, eschatological
salvation encompassing not only being declared righteous in the sense
of being pronounced righteous juridically but also being made righteous
practically has its origins in God's sovereign choice. The adverbial phrase
"in Christ" qualifies God's choosing, and may mean that it is
made possible because of Christ's atoning work (causal use of preposition
en). (See Eph 1:7: "the redemption through his blood.")
Paul continues by affirming that God "predestined us to be adopted
as his children through Jesus Christ" (proorisas hêmas eis
huiothesia dia Iesou Christou eis auton) (1:5) (The verb "to
predestine" occurs six times in the New Testament, and in each case
has God as the subject [Acts 4:28; Rom 8:29, 30; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5, 11].
In Acts 4:28 and 1 Cor 2:7 the object of the verb is a thing. In Rom 8:29,
30; Eph 1:5, 11 people are the object and in such cases these people are
predestined to something.(16)
The participle "having predestined" (proorisas) probably
has a causal relation to the main verb "he chose" (exelexato):
Because he predestined "us" he chose "us."(17)
In this context "adoption" is not a synonym for eschatological
salvation, as in Rom 8:23, but refers to the believer's present status
as a child of God, as a beneficiary of eschatological salvation. According
to Paul, God predetermined who would receive this adoption. The phrase
"through Jesus Christ" is causal, meaning that it is because
of Christ that God can adopt those so predetermined. Paul adds that God's
predestination to adoption is "according to the kind intention of
his will" (kata tên eudokian tou thelêmatos autou),
by which he means that God is motivated by his mercy (see "In love
having predestined us..."). In Eph 1:11 Paul reiterates that believers
are chosen (klêrothenai), having been predestined according
to the plan of him who works all things after the counsel of his will.
In so doing Paul asserts that all events are predetermined by God including
the eschatological salvation of believers.
River Gangites Near Philippi View of the river Gangites situated west of the forum of Philippi. According to Acts 16:13, women gathered near the river on the Sabbath in order to pray. Lydia, a dealer in purple fabrics from Thyatira (in Asia), was one of these women. Tradition has it that this river is the site of Lydia’s baptism. |
5.2. Parallels to Paul's View in the Second-Temple
Judaism
In several passages from the second-Temple period, it is affirmed generally that God predetermines all things and that the eternal destiny of each Jew (or perhaps all human beings) is likewise determined by God.
5.2.1. Non-Sectarian, Second-Temple Texts
There are a few texts in which occurs an all-encompassing determinism; this could be interpreted to imply that human beings do not have free will, but are determined by God to be what they are, either righteous or wicked. There are predestinarian overtones in 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a). The works of the righteous are described as having been predetermined: “Because he [God] established their deeds before they were created and [ ] the righteous service as the division of their boundaries for their generations” (frag. 1, col. 7b–9a). This could be taken to imply that God has chosen in advance who among human beings would be righteous and who would not. Nevertheless, one would expect that the author would hold that paradoxically that the righteous and wicked are still morally responsible and defined by their choices and, even if their choices have been predetermined. In Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice, a similar predestinarian outlook obtains (4Q402 frag. 4 = MasShirShabb frag. 1). It is said that from God came into being all things that exist forever (frag. 4.12). Creation is viewed as having received a permanent and unalterable structure from its inception, one ordained by its creator. God is called the “God of knowledge” (frag. 4.12) because all things are what they are in conformity to his eternal purposes: “And from his knowledge and his purposes have come into existence all the things that were eternally appointed” (frag. 4.12b-13a) (see 4Q400 frag. 2.8; 4Q405 frag. 23, col. 2.12). In other words, whatever exists does through according to the eternal purposes of God, which explains why God knows all things. God has ordained all things that have occurred or will occur: “He makes the former things in their seasons and the latter things in their due time” (frag. 4.13b-14a). There is nothing that happens in time that is outside of the overarching plan of God for creation. The author writes, “For they are part of his glorious works; before they existed they were part of his plan” (frag. 4.15). The “plan” of God is functionally equivalent to his “purposes.” God’s purposes are inscrutable, however, even to the wise (frag. 4.14). Although nothing is said explicitly it would follow that those who receive any benefit from God do so because they have been predestined to do so. This would include the benefit of eschatological salvation, which would be the ultimate act of divine mercy. The Psalms of Solomon have a few deterministic-sounding pronouncements (5:4; 8:14; 16:5–8), and even Wisdom of Ben Sira contains hints of determinism (33:10–13).
In several Qumran sectarian texts, God’s absolute sovereignty over his creation is affirmed (1QS 3.15–17; 11.11, 17–18; 1QH-a 11[1].7–8, 19–20; 4Q180.1.1–3). For this reason it is not surprising to discover other passage in which the claim is made that God determines which human beings will be wicked and which will be righteous (CD 2.2–13; 1QS 3.13–4.26; 1QH-a 4[17].21; 7.18–22 [15.14–18]).
There are strong predestinarian
overtones in CD 2.2–13.(18)
In spite of the fact that they are held responsible for their moral choices,
those who depart from the “way” are designated as those not
chosen by God, whose evil deeds were known from the beginning: “For
God did not choose them from the beginning, and before they were created
he knew their deeds” (2.7). Not to be chosen by God leads to becoming
wicked. Moreover, concerning these the author adds, “Those whom
God hates, he causes to go astray” (2.13b). In other words, God
actively causes those Jews whom he hates to be disobedient.(19)
Conversely, God is said to have raised up renowned men from Israel “in
order to leave a remnant for the country and to fill the world with their
seed” (2.11–12a). These God taught by means of his prophets
(2.12). He also “established their names with exactness” (2.13a),
which is another way of saying that they are the objects of God’s
merciful election. The community owes its existence to the mercy of God
in choosing a remnant from his disobedient people.(20)
B. Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot)
In 1QH-a 7.16-23, the author
confesses that the inclination of every spirit is in the control of God.
Not only did God create the righteous from the womb, in order to bless
with salvation, but God also created the wicked from the womb, in order
to punish in the day of wrath.(21)
Of the wicked the author says, “But the wicked you created for [the
time] of your [wrath] and from the womb you have vowed them to the day
of massacre” (see Jer 12:3) (7.21). The righteous, on the other
hand, are what they are because of God: “You, you alone, have created
the righteous man” (7.18b). From even before birth, God acts to
ensure that those destined to be righteous are such: “For him, from
the womb, you determined the time of approval, in order that he keep your
covenant and walk in [ ]” (7.19). The time of the approval of the
righteous probably denotes the time appointed for final salvation, being
the positive counterpart of “the day of massacre” (7.21).
This is borne out by the next statement, that God will “open up
all the oppression of his soul to eternal salvation and peace without
end, without lack” (7.20), which is a promise of eternal life and
blessedness. It is clear that both the righteous and the wicked have been
predestined for life and destruction respectively. The grounds for the
eschatological destruction of the wicked are God's predestination and
their own guilt. Likewise, there are other passages that assert God's
complete sovereignty over all creation. 1QH-a 9 presents a deterministic
view of human history: every event is an expression of the will of God.
For example, the author writes, “In your wisdom [ ] from eternity,
and before you created them you knew their deeds for all eternity. [Nothing
is done] without you, and nothing known except by your will” (9.7-8).
He later adds, “All things [occ]ur according to [your will], and
without you nothing is done” (9.20) (see also 1QH-a 19.9). The reason
that the righteous and the wicked have been predestined to their respective
destinies is that God has predetermined all events. The predestination
of the righteous to eschatological salvation could be interpreted as God’s
supreme act of mercy to them.
C. The Two-Spirits Teaching (1QS 3.13-4.26)
The Two-Spirits Teaching found
in this 1QS 3.13–4.26(22)
functions literarily as an appendix to the material in 1QS 1.1-3.12.(23)
It explains the origin of evil in the world and even the community itself
by recourse to a cosmic, ethical and psychological dualism.(24)
Although it probably does not originate with it, the Qumran community
adopted the Two-Spirits Teaching and incorporated it into some of its
recensions of the Rule of the Community.(25)
This portion begins with a heading that describes its contents: “It
is for the Master to instruct and teach all the sons of light concerning
the nature of all the sons of men, according to all the kinds of their
spirits revealed in the character of their deeds during their generations
and according to their visitation of affliction as well as their times
of reward” (3.12).(26)
From what follows, it is clear that this section of the Rule of the
Community sets forth an exposition of the two human natures or fundamental
human dispositions, including the two eschatological destinies of “the
sons of men.”(27)
The reference to “all the kinds of their spirits” is, however,
puzzling, since what follows distinguishes only two kinds of spirits in
which a person can walk. One might have expected the phrase “two
kinds of their spirits” rather than “all kinds of their spirit.”
What is probably meant by “all kinds of their spirit” is the
various kinds of spiritual dispositions that result from the different
ratios of the two spirits in human beings (see parallel in 1QS 2.20).(28)
God has established two “spirits” in which a person can walk
until the time of his visitation, which are identified as the spirits
of truth and of deceit (3.18–19). These seem to be synonymous with
the spirits of light and darkness (3.25). (In 1QS 3.25 it is said that
God actually created the spirits of light and darkness.) The spirit of
truth is said to have its origin in “a spring of light,” whereas
the spirit of deceit has its origin in “a well of darkness”
(3.19). This is a metaphorical way of identifying the spirit of truth
with light and the spirit of deceit with darkness.(29)
Every human activity originates in one of these two spirits: righteous
acts in the spirit of truth and wicked acts in the spirit of deceit (3.25;
4.2–14).(30)
The two spirits should be interpreted as two opposing human dispositions
or propensities: the spirit of truth is the capacity for obedience to
God while the spirit of deceit is the capacity for evil. In other words,
these possibilities are spiritual “spheres” in which a human
being can abide. Each spirit manifests itself behaviorally as either good
or evil actions.(31)
The two spirits are also the two “classes” or “divisions”
into which human beings can be classified according to the preponderance
of one or the other spirit. All human action derives ultimately from the
influence of the spirit of truth or the spirit of deceit, and human beings
are identified as belonging to one class or the other by their habitual
actions (4.15–17).
Somehow associated with the spirit of truth is the Prince of Lights (3.20)
or Angel of Truth (3.24), while the Angel of Darkness (3.21) is associated
with the spirit of deceit.(32)
In other words, the ethical dualism of the two human spirits or basic
dispositions is connected to a cosmic dualism in which two ruling spirits
or angels contend with each other for the control of the cosmos, including
human beings.(33)
The exact relationship
between these spiritual beings and their corresponding basic human dispositions
or propensities is not clear. Confusion is caused by the polyvalent use
of the term “spirit” to mean both basic human disposition
and spiritual being. In the Two-Spirits Teaching, however, it seems that,
apart its occurrence in the phrase “spirits of his lot” (3.24),
“spirit” denotes basic human disposition. What is clear is
that in which spirit or basic disposition a person “walks”
depends on which of these two spiritual beings holds sway over him. Those
who walk "in the ways of light," the sons of righteousness,
are under the dominion of the Prince of Light and those who walk “in
the ways of darkness” are under the dominion of the Angel of Darkness
(3.20–21). In effect, the Prince of Lights rules those in the community,
while those on the outside are consigned to the Angel of Darkness. Moreover,
the Angel of Darkness (and the spirits of his lot) are said to be responsible
for all the sins of the sons of righteousness, but without absolving them
of responsibility: “But in the hand of the Angel of Darkness is
the dominion of the sons of deceit; and in the ways of darkness they walk”
(3.20b–21a). Even though they walk in the spirit of truth and are
therefore under the dominion of the Angel of Truth/Prince of Lights, still
the Angel of Darkness is able to lead them astray: “And all their
sins, their iniquities, their guilt and their acts of rebellion are because
of his dominion” (3.22).
Walking in these two spirits
will have opposite eschatological consequences. God will reward the righteous,
but punish the wicked at the appointed time. The “visitation”
of those who walk in the spirit of truth will be “healing, great
peace with many days and progeny with blessings forever eternal joy in
everlasting life” (4.6b–7a). (The term "visitation"
also occurs in 1QS 3.14, 18; 4.6, 11, 19, 26. For its meaning as punishment
in the Old Testament, see Num 16:29; Isa 10:3; Jer 8:12; Mic 7:4.) This
seems to refer to an eternal existence of blessedness on earth.(34)
The reward of the righteous is also said to consist of “a crown
of glory together with a garment of honor in eternal light” (4.7b–8).
These are metaphorical ways of describing the eschatological benefits
to be received by the sons of light. (On “crown of glory,”
see Ps 8:5; T. Benj. 4:1.) The phrase “in eternal light”
is causal, meaning through eternal light, probably a reference to God.
On the other hand, the “visitation” of those who walk in the
spirit of deceit will be destruction (4.11–14). This “visitation”
will be carried out by “angels of destruction” (4.12-13).(35)
God has set an end to the existence of deceit, when at the appointed time
he will destroy it eternally (4.18–19). It is clear that, in spite
of the predestinarian teaching that God ordains all things “according
to his glorious plan" (3.15–16), which leads to the conclusion
that it is God himself who has created the two spirits (3.17–19,
25), a human being is still held responsible at the final judgment for
his moral condition. Paradoxically, God will condemn that for which he
is ultimately responsible.(36)
Footnotes
(1) See G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille (WUNT 12; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1971); J. Piper, The Justification of God (2 ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
(2) C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC n.s.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975, 1979) 1.424 n. 4.
(3) O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (12 ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 210-11.
(4) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.429-30.
(6) Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 211.
(7) J. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away [Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1990] 9-14.
(8) See Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 489-503 and C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1967) 183-92; Piper, The Justification of God; P.-G. Klumbies, Die Rede von Gott bei Paulus in ihrem zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext, 1992, 210-37.
(9) Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2.487
(10) P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NTGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 63. The object of Paul’s conviction follows the recitative hoti.
(11) See the omission of theos see Rom 8:11; Gal 1:6; 2:8; 3:5; 5:8; 1 Thess 5:24 (M. R. Vincent, Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon [ICC; New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, 1897] 7).
(12) Paul uses the term "good work" of human beings (Rom 2:7; 13:3; 2 Cor 9:8; 2 Thess 2:17). On the topic of the meaning of "good work," see Gundry-Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 33-47./
(13) As Vincent expresses it, "The thought is pregnant; will carry on to completion, and finally complete" (Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, 8).
(14) H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003) 175-76. See his "Excursus Four: Election" (185-93).
(15) P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 100.
(16) Hoehner, Ephesians, 193-94.
(18) CD 2.2–13 has numerous verbal parallels with 1QS 3.14–4.25. As P. Davies points out, however, the difference between these two texts is that, whereas in 1QS 3.14–4.25, the spirit of deceit or Angel of Darkness is the cause of wickedness, in CD 2.2–13, it is God who makes the wicked and the righteous what they are (The Damascus Covenant [JSOTSS 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982] 72–73).
(19) A. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination (STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 260-67.
(20) J. Becker, Das Heil Gottes (SUNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964) 180–81.
(21) See E. H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (STDJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 16-23.
(22) 1QS 1-4 appears not to be a part of 4QS-d (S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule [STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997]36-40; P. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4 XIX Serekh Ha-Yahad and Two Related Texts [DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998] 11). It is also possible that 1QS 1-4 did not form part of 4QS-e also (The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, 48-51, 107). This suggests that this unit was not viewed as being integral to the Rule of the Community and that this text consists of a collection of self-contained literary units.
(23) Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 167-68; J. Frey, "Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library," Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein; F. Garcia Martinez; J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 275-335, esp. 301.
(24) On the topic of dualism, see J. Gammie, "Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature," JBL 93 (1974) 356-85, esp. 372-83; J. Duhaime, "Le dualisme de Qumrân et la littérature de sagesse vétérotestamentaire," Eglise et Théologie 19 (1988) 401-22.
(25) Lange argues persuasively that the Two-Spirits Teaching does not derive from the Qumran community (Weisheit und Prädestination, 127-28). Nevertheless, once adopted, it did influence the community’s subsequent theologizing (132-35).
(26) See J. Charlesworth, "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the ’Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John," John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1991) 76-106; S. Beyerle, "Der Gott der Qumraniten," Henoch 20 (1998) 271-89.
(27) See Becker, Das Heil Gottes, 83–103; Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 222–60; See K. G. Kuhn, "New Light on Temptation, Sin and Flesh in the New Testament," The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. Stendahl; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957) 94-113; H. May, "Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery," JBL 82 (1963) 1-14. A.R.C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning (London: SCM, 1966) 143–61; O. Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (WUNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1960) 144–47; H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980) 123-42; E. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle, vol. 2, Les données Qumraniennes et classiques (EB, n.s., 21; 2 vols.; Paris: Libraire LeCoffre, 1993) 426-40; M. Philonenko, "Le Doctrine Qoumrânienne des Deux Esprits," Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien (ed. M. Philonenko; RI 2; Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1995) 163-211; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 121-70; Frey, "Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library," 289-300; M. A. Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) 400-408.
(28) A. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLDS 110; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 194-95.
(29) Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, 238.
(30) On the structure of 1QS 4.2-14, see J. Duhaime, "Les voies des deux esprits (1QS iv 2-14). Une analyse structurelle," RevQ 19 (2000) 349-67.
(31) As H. W. Kuhn expresses it, "Mit Geist ist das prädestinierte Sein des Menschen gemeint, durch das sein ’Tun’ von vorherein bestimmt ist" (Enderwartung und Gegenwärtiges Heil. Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeleidern von Qumran [SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966] 123).
(32) See the discussion in M. Davidson, Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSS 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 152-56.
(33) See M. Treves, "The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community," RevQ 3 (1961-62) 449-52; Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran, 193-219; Becker, Das Heil Gottes, 83-91; P. Wernberg-Møller, "A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1QSerek III,3-IV,26)," RevQ 11 (1961) 413-41. This is contrary to Anderson, "The Use of ’Ruah’ in 1QS, 1QH and 1QM," JSS 7 (1962) 293-303, esp. 298-99; F. Noetscher, "Geist und Geister in den Texten von Qumran," Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de Andre Robert (Paris: Blaud and Gay, 1957) 305-15, esp. 310; H. May, "Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery," JBL 82 (1963) 1-14. Osten-Sacken suggests that the author intends that these two spirits be understood as neither purely angelic influences exerted from without nor as simply good and evil human dispositions; rather they partake of both natures. He writes, "Es schient, daß diese Doppeldeutigkeit kein zufälliges Überbleibsel der anthropologisshen Interpretation, sondern durchaus beabsichtigt ist—wird dich nur dadurch die kunstvolle Vernüpfung von Anthropologie und Angelologie, vom Wirken der Geister und der Menschen, wie sie in SIII, 13–IV, 14 unternommen is, gewahrt (Gott und Belial, 141).
(34) G. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1972) 156–67. Nickelsburg points out that nothing is said about the eternal fate of the righteous who have already died (165). See H.C.C. Cavallin, Life After Death (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974) 60-62.
(35) M. Davidson, Angels at Qumran, 157-58.
(36) Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte, 146; S. Schulz, "Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus," ZThK 56 (1959) 155–85, esp. 158. For a consideration of the determinism of 1QS 3.15–17a, see Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial, 123–31.
Ahead
to Part Six: Cosmic Effects of the Work of Christ