If we judge by Romans 8:28, God (if God there be) is not watching out for all the denizens of this little blue and white planet earth; rather God is only concerned for the welfare of his chosen people. Here are three translations of the text:
- We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose (NIV; RSV and An American Translation are similar).
- We know that all things work for good for those who love God who are called according to his purpose (New American Bible for Catholics).
- And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them (New living Translation).
Analysis:
The word “God” appearing as the subject of the main verb in translations 1 and 3, does not appear in most manuscripts, although the reading is supported by a few very early manuscripts. The United Bible Societies Committee for the establishment of the critical text of the New Testament judged the addition of the noun “God” as subject of the sentence had the character of a natural explanatory addition to the text, since the singular ending to the verb “works together for” (sunergei) suggested a personal subject. Since in Greek a singular verb may take a plural neuter subject, a majority of the committee opted for the subject being “all things” (panta, neuter plural with singular verb). Translations 1 and 3 opted for the minority reading.1 Translation 2 apparently followed the rationale employed by the United Bible Societies Committee.
Here is my translation of the text:
And we know that for those who love God, those who are called in accordance with a proposed end, all things work together for good.
The first thing that strikes me is that “all things work together for good” only for those who love God and are called in accordance with a certain proposed end. The rest of humanity is apparently excluded from the expectation that “all things will work together for good” in their lives. The lives of those not chosen and called will be clouded with things not working well; that is to say, there will be complications and disappointments, etc.
What is the “proposed end” to which Paul refers? In his undisputed letters Paul uses the word here translated as “proposed end” (prosthesis) one other time (Rom 9:11). In its context (Romans 9:6-18) the “proposed end” (Rom 9:11) appears to be “God’s proposed end of election,” which is that God’s calling comes to some and not to others. Paul seems to use the terms election/calling/choosing as different ways of describing the same event.2 This act involves God foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, glorifying certain persons but not others (Rom 8:29-30).
The difficulty with Paul’s idea that “all things work together for good for those who love God” is that it is simply not true.3 Bad things still happen to good Church folk in this briar patch we call earth, as a glance at any church or synagogue prayer list will prove, particularly as regards personal health issues. Church folk will be found to have as many health issues as the un-churched and they are as susceptible to covid-19 virus as anyone. The truth of the matter is that God (if God there be) does the best s/he can for all of us in the human family, or at least Jesus seemed to think so (Matt 5:45).4
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; United Bible Societies, 1971), 458.
2Calling/choosing: 1 Cor 1:26-28; election/calling: Rom 9:11; election/choosing: Rom 11:5, 7, 28-29.
3See Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (1981).
4See Hedrick, The Wisdom of Jesus, 110.
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if you've given an example of how the Judaeo-Christian God never escaped tribalism.
Reading in context (vs.29-30), Paul views God as calling, foreknowing, and predestining those who would be justified and glorified, taking on the image of His son who was firstborn of this large family. Sounds like a privileged group to me.
As your last comment points out, Jesus seems to have thought that the loved group included evil ones and enemies.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Thanks Gene
ReplyDeleteFor your first comment. I now understand clearly the concept and expression "tribalism." You have just given me a new critical tool!
Charlie
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteRomans 8.28 seems a rather naive way to look at the world (“all things work together to the good”), but if one is certain that after death God “will make alive” (8.11) because by living spiritually “you will live,” (8.13), things “work together for the good” on the cosmic and eternal level.
I think that the author was also dividing his audience into two groups, those who were conformed to the image of Christ, the others merely “made right” and “given splendor.” It seems to me that “being called” (klētos ousin), in 8.28, used in Romans and 1 Cor. is a different designation than “ekalesen” or “he called” in verse 30. The former were conformed “to the image of his son,” God’s predestined “first born,” whereas the latter group was “made right” and “given splendor.” The first tends to fit into the proclamations of 1 Cor.15.8 and Gal. 1.11-12.) When “ekalesen” is used in the Pauline’s, it seems invariably a “calling” or “vocation,” like “called to be an apostle” or “called to be saints” at the beginnings of Romans and 1 Cor. Of course, forms of “kaleō” are the more common word used for “call.” Or, do I have that wrong? (I do recognize the two words as part of the same cognate word group.) .At any rate, the Calvinists must have loved Romans 8.29-30, !
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
DeleteI think the subject is too big to be debated adequately on a blog. I will have to rest my response on Rom 9:11-12 and Rom 9:23-24 that seem to show that election (eklogen) and calling (kalountos, ekalesen) are the same act.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Evening Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYour book arrived yesterday (finally) and I have been greatly enjoying reading it... The subject matter is very timely with this pandemic going on. There's a passage on page 42 where you write "Whatever bad happens to people is for their benefit." Does that sentence in some way help explain Romans 8:28 to you?
1) In other words, "all things work together" could be taken as meaning both the good and the bad can benefit you in some way. It appears that you do not believe so called "bad things" could ever benefit humans in any way whatsoever. Is that correct? Is it your view that bad things should never happen to good people for any reason at any time?
2) You seemed to have been told that God is benevolent, and you seem to think that Christians view God as a benign, benevolent deity. God was not portrayed in that way to me- he was viewed as a Righteous Judge. The emphasis in my church was to fear the Lord and to "seek his face, not his hand." Put differently, don't ask God for blessings. He's the King and the Judge of mankind- consider yourself lucky to escape his judgment. Is that idea foreign to you?
3) What about suffering? Not only is God not benevolent, he expects us to share in Christ's suffering and afflictions. Sharing in the suffering of Christ is what brings you closer to God. Christians are supposed to suffer- the more we suffer for Christ, the more glory we bring to his name. That's what they teach in fundamentalist churches. What were you taught about sharing in Christ's sufferings? Were these scriptures emphasized in your church: Phil. 3:10, 2Cor. 1:5, 1Pet. 4:13? I'm just trying to figure out this whole "God is benevolent" belief system because it was never a part of my religious training.
Bottom line is that God isn't supposed to be seen as benevolent- he is supposed to be viewed as Righteous and without sin.He only shows benevolence toward those who fear his name. (if they're lucky) His main purpose is to cleanse you of all impurity and to "circumcise your heart" of all fleshly desire... which is why he buffets you with affliction and challenges and adversity and tribulation.
That's how he works all things for your highest good- through the suffering that you are destined to experience in this briar patch called planet earth. Does that idea resonate with you? Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteThanks for engaging and pushing me.
The statement that you refer to on pp. 41-42 is not my explanation rather I am pointing out its inadequacies.
1) "Bad things benefit people." I do not think that bad things as ever benefitting people. Bad things are always bad. I do think however that people find ways to overcome disasters in their lives and some even find ways to turn bad things to their benefit, but that is part of mastering or overcoming the bad. The bad things did not bring the benefit but the person to whom the bad happened "made a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
2)It sounds like the pastoral leadership of your church was trying to frighten the membership in "walking the straight and narrow" as the pastoral leadership understood it. It is a classic ploy of fundamentalism,
3) The church in which I grew up (First Baptist Church of Greenville, Miss) was not fundamentalist, but it was on the fundamentalist spectrum. So those passages you mention were considered a part of the Gospel Message.
"Bottom line": A God that does those kinds of things to people seems rather cruel and does not deserve to be called benevolent but one should describe that god as a stern disciplinarian.
"Your closing paragraph": NO it does not resonate. I prefer to think of God doing his/her best for everyone, but s/he is not quite able to succeed for all.
Cordially,
Charlie
Thank you so much Charlie!
ReplyDelete1) To clarify, yes, I did realize that the statement on pp. 41-42 wasn't the real explanation for Rom. 8:28... But do you acknowledge that that is the explanation given by many preachers? In other words, "iron sharpens iron." Or another phrase "Refining fire"... Have you ever heard of the Refiner's Fire that cleanses people of impurities? I'm not saying these statements make Romans 8:28 "true," I"m just pointing out that a lot of church leaders use those kinds of statements to explain it.
2) You are indeed correct about the pastoral leadership of the church I attended trying to frighten the membership. That is an accurate description indeed- it certainly worked with me. God was indeed portrayed as a stern disciplinarian. Interestingly, my husband (like yourself) attended a Baptist church growing up. I asked him how God was presented to him- Benevolent of Stern Disciplinarian? And he answered the same as you did. Do you think the Benevolent God concept was widely spread by Billy Graham? As you know, the fundamentalists were none too fond of him.
3) You ask what is the "proposed end" to which Paul refers... Again, I was taught that the proposed end is the cleansing of sin and impurity. You said that the scriptures I listed to with regard to "sharing in Christ's sufferings/afflictions" were preached as part of the Gospel message. Do you remember why those verses were part of the Gospel? It's ok if you can't remember, I'm sure it was many moons ago. To me, the Gospel has to do with Jesus taking your place on the Cross and dying for your sins. Paul added to that with his emphasis on "dying daily" to sin and "crucifying the flesh." Gal. 5:24 and 1 Cor. 15:31 (NASB) Do you think crucifying the flesh goes beyond the message of the Gospel?
Many thanks!! Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
ReplyDelete1) Yes I agree. I have certainly heard those things more than once and on occasion a long time ago may even said them myself.
2) Was Graham responsible? I do not know. I do not recall that Graham presented God as a stern disciplinarian. Fundamentalists are pretty much unhappy with everyone other than themselves and sometimes they fall out of sorts with other fundamentalists.
3) Some have even taken it further even to the extent of doing harm to themselves.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see the theological spins this plague will cause, especially in the USA, which has 4.3% of the world’s population, yet around 30% of the cases and 28% of the deaths, tenth highest per capita death rate of around 140 nations large and small (Johns Hopkins, from the news). As early as the Pilgrims, this land was considered by many to be the country given to them by God. That still seems the worldview of evangelicals and fundamentalists. They will need to explain this. I suspect that Romans 8.28 will ring loudly and clearly, over the wheezing and coughing of the parishioners, as will the premillennial dispensational “prophets” plug the pandemic into their charts to announce the looming “coming of Christ.” I have already read the former from both Protestant and Roman Catholic (all works for the good) and anticipate the latter. Such is the folly of considering the pre-modern “hopes” (8.24-25) of a paper apostle as delivering the “word of God.” What would Zeus do? Interestingly, there were those in the first centuries who had solved the problems of personal hardships, pains in a way that was productive, though a function of religion.
Hardships, bad things happening to good people, was seen by some philosophers of the time period as things between virtue and vice, but neither. Suffering was a way for the gods to “exercise” one, who had to struggle to overcome them. This was a sign of strength which made one a better person. Epictetus (a former slave) talked about the basest person avoiding hardships, whereas the Cynic would take pride in his misfortune, overcoming it. Dio Chrysostom wrote of this using a wrestling analogy: “He is afraid of none of these opponents nor does he pray to draw another antagonist, but challenges them one after another, grappling with hunger and cold, withstanding thirst...” The thought was that adversity was not bad because it challenged one to have the strength to overcome it and that this made one stronger or more virtuous. This idea is also found in Pauline writings generally for self-exaltation. One finds the quality of “weak/weakness” used as a motif inserted into several Pauline writings. Adversities were a challenge that one boasted about, that implied one was superior, that one should be imitated (cf. 1 Cor.4.9-16, Romans 5.3-5, 2 Cor.12.9-10).
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeletePaul's idea that when he was weak then he was strong seems to make no sense, and it seems to be an acceptance of something that he would prefer not to accept--to judge from the fact that he prayed on three occasions to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed (2 Cor 12:6-9). Is this a case of making do rather than finding all things working together for good?
Cordially,
Charlie
DeleteCharlie,
In the context of Paul’s purpose, I would argue that it makes sense. In this, the author is speaking about his weaknesses in order to elevate himself over the “super-apostles” or opponents. The three “weakness prayers” are answered with a direct message from the “Lord,” that he has the Lord’s favor, that power is completed in weakness. His weaknesses, hardships, persecutions, etc. enable Christ to live within him, meaning he was “not at all inferior to these super-apostles” (12.11), but on a higher level. (If Paul isn’t inferior, but is “nothing,” they must be super-inferior!) The use of disclosing one’s weaknesses in order to promote oneself was not uncommon in ancient writings. They are purposeful. Livesey notes examples in Galatians, Cicero and Demosthenes. As I mentioned above, I see this as using “weakness.” In this example, the use is to show the author’s superiority. His weaknesses were “sanctioned.” It does relate obliquely to Romans 8.28 in that even "bad things" can work for the good, even becoming a power, "for those who love God..." But, I doubt that was the intended image of 2 Cor.
That, however, is what I meant when I spoke of my different views of the Paulines. I read them as literature, seeing no useful “autobiographic” material, but, for instance in this case a device by which to promote his superiority.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDelete"We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose."
The ultimate good for Paul would probably be the "spiritual body" which he explains in 1 Cor 15.
If we say "nothing prevents those who love God from receiving a spiritual body," does that solve the problem? Is that the same "as all things work for good"? Once one has the experience of "spirit" replacing "flesh," the "body being dead because of sin" (Rom 8:10) has no power to negatively influence the future. And covid-19's attack on the body has no power to influence the journey to a spiritual body.
If something can be removed from influence is that the same as "being a part of all things working together for good?"
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Evening Charlie and all,
ReplyDeleteVery good points being made on all fronts, everyone is on a roll... Lots of food for thought.
Charlie, you said "Fundamentalists are pretty much unhappy with everyone other than themselves and sometimes they fall out of sorts with other fundamentalists." That is very true, couldn't have said it better myself! I have nothing to add to that except to say "Amen." I had no idea that I came from such a fundamentalist background until I started reading and participating in your blog.
Dennis wrote the following which really hit the nail on the head: "The use of disclosing one’s weaknesses in order to promote oneself was not uncommon in ancient writings. They are purposeful. Livesey notes examples in Galatians, Cicero and Demosthenes. As I mentioned above, I see this as using 'weakness.' In this example, the use is to show the author’s superiority." Yes- I can attest to that. Mike Bickle and other pastors loved to promote the idea of our weakness and would say "God enjoys your in your weakness" every single Sunday. It was almost a sin to be strong and self-reliant because then you weren't "dependent of God." How dare you do a something yourself- that makes you like the Jews who think they can follow the law all by themselves without God's help. According to Mike Bickle, you're not allowed to do anything without God's help. How dare you be so arrogant.
Gene wrote: "Once one has the experience of "spirit" replacing "flesh," the "body being dead because of sin" (Rom 8:10) has no power to negatively influence the future. And covid-19's attack on the body has no power to influence the journey to a spiritual body." Again, that is a keen insight. I was taught that whatever happens to you physically (to your "fleshly" body) is somewhat irrelevant. What God truly cares about is your immortal spirit that he's trying desperately to save from sin. If you catch a virus in the process of him saving your soul, so be it.
Gene, I have a question for you. In your first comment, you mentioned tribalism. How do you define tribalism- and what is the difference between tribalism and nativism?? Many thanks to all! Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking religiously rather than culturally, in my view tribalism is when a God takes possession of a certain group of people, working strictly on their behalf excluding all others. It's part of a polytheistic condition.
I think of nativism culturally as the promotion of the characteristics of a certain group. Actually, I don't recall ever thinking about a definition of nativism.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa
Thank you Gene... I never thought of Christianity as being tribal before. It's funny how you grow up with everyone around you believing the same thing and you just never question the belief system. But it really is tribal, and I'm not sure what to think about that.
DeleteIt seems that tribalism has been normalized, in a certain way, in Christian churches and communities. (and also in Judaism and Islam) I'm looking into converting to Catholicism, but I don't understand their obsession with the Eucharist. After listening to a rabbi opine about it, I can understand why his "tribe" views the Eucharist as cannibalism. I never looked at that way, but I can understand why human sacrifice and human cannibalism would be repulsive to them... Not to mention there's no underlying basis for it in the Torah.
Thank you again! Elizabeth
PS: OK! I'm fairly certain there's no typos in this comment!! ;-)
Any group linked together for a common purpose could be considered a “tribe.” Tribalism generally refers to the character trait of loyalty, of being very loyalty to the particular group. Sometimes religion merely masks other group perceptions involving national identity, ethnicity, customs, views of science, even class and power. Many religious groups merely put a thin religious coating onto a political, racial and/or cultural identity. Though that is probably an improvement (at least in Western societies) from the days kings and countries were seen as divinely chosen, when groups conflate religion with other aspects of tribalism, it can validate racism, sexism, and even insurrection and war. The various conflicts today in the Middle East are an example, as have many clashes over the millennia. While the Paul of Romans waxes philosophically that “all things work together for good,” the qualifier “to the ones loving God” demands clarity, especially when one tribe’s god is varies with another’s. This even happens within religions (thinking of Protestant versus Catholic in Ireland and competing sects, like Sunni & Shi’ite of Islam). The “tribes” who associate with “evangelical Christianity” place a religious veneer over the aforementioned values just as those who associate with “progressive Christianity.”
Delete"Nativism" in America traditionally refers to the idea that the "old" immigrants (western & northern Europeans) were different and superior to the newer immigrants after the 1870's from other places (Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, Asia...)
(I wrote a paragraph about the eucharist, but the satire seems just too scathing to post. I was channeling Rabelais.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi everyone,
DeleteCame across some interesting cultural/sub-cultural phenomena when my wife and I took a ride through our county this week-end.
In a very small town about seven miles from our home, on a main-stream church outdoor bulletin board, we read, "Better eat the Bread of life today or you'll be toast tomorrow." Couldn't stop laughing for quite awhile, rather clever really.
I guess they wanted to make clear what loyalty to the tribe involved.
Continuing on our drive through the Allegheny mountains, about 25 miles from home we pass at the top of one a popular beer and steak house, an establishment with a view to die for. and bikers everywhere. I'm guessing 30 to 40 in the parking lot and not one mask in sight and the average distance between people about two feet. Coming by again four hours later when returning home there was the same situation with maybe ten less bikers.
I guess they wanted to make clear what loyalty to the tribe involved.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Happy Memorial Day everyone!
DeleteGene, that was a really clever church sign you saw- I'm always on the lookout for funny church signs. My sister and I text them to each other, so I am going to send her that message... She'll get a kick out of it! Usually I am driving when I see one that strikes my fancy, but then when I get home I've forgotten what it said so I can't send it to her.
That was an interesting display you saw at the beer and steak house... If I have to choose tribes, I suppose I'm more along the lines of the bread of life tribe than the biker tribe (nothing against bikers)... I guess we all need to fit in somewhere.
Many heartfelt thanks to all the veterans who make celebrating this day possible. Elizabeth
PS: Dennis piqued my interest with his Eucharist satire reference... now I'll be wondering what it says ;-)
Charlie, is there any way to edit our comments on this blog?? Mine is full of terrible typos- I need a better pair of glasses. This is the third time I thought I was typing "or" and instead I typed "of." And I even went back and proof read it!! (rolling eyes) Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteHi Elizabeth,
DeleteMy blog guru tells me that there is no way to edit what you post after it is posted. There are only two options after a comment is posted: one is to delete the post and retype it. The second is to type an editing comment to clarify or correct something you have just written. I have found it necessary to do the first only once but have occasionally added a clarifying comment if I thought my goof was too egregious.
Cordially,
Charlie