Monday, October 16, 2006

I am in the midst of watching Steven Spielberg's Munich for the second time. At the risk of running the issues of peace and war and justice into the ground, I am struck by several things in this movie.

1.) Near the very beginning of the movie, Golda Meir (the Israeli Prime Minister in 1972) says to her generals concerning Israel's response to the Olympic hostage crisis, "Every society has to compromise even with its own values."

2.) When one of the Jewish men who is on the response team is interviewing one of the Palestinian supporters of Black September, the Palestinian and his wife insist upon pointing out the evils that have been perpetrated upon the Palestinians by Israel while barely shrugging at the heinous violence done by the terrorists in Munich.

At the heart of such violence is the insistence upon revenge--disguised as justice, of course. I punch you; you punch me right back. The sad thing is that when you punch me back, it doesn't make us even. Because you punched me, I will punch you again. And so on and so forth. The lex talionis ("An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth") always reminds me of the Mafia: a cycle of violence that will not be broken until someone refuses to hit the other back. "An eye for an eye" cannot produce justice, cannot lead to peace. And the first instinct is always to respond in kind.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'; but I tell you, do not resist an evil man. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him your left cheek also." I had someone tell me a couple of weeks ago that it was 'lunacy' to think that Christ renounced self-defense, for if he did, then God wants his people to be murdered. Yet what did Christ do in going to the Cross but refuse to defend himself? Are his disciples not called to the same cross, the same suffering? God doesn't want his people to be murdered; he wants us to be the firstfruits of the Kingdom that shall be consummated on a day when "they shall turn their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and will learn war no more." In incarnating that kingdom vision in our troubled times; in refusing to take revenge; in refusing to use evil means against evil men, Christ's disciples may face their Lord's fate. But won't those who are "faithful unto death" be crowned with life?

What shall we say to each other of these things? Shall we trust in the sword and the spear? Shall we finally acknowledge that the kingdom into which we have been translated shall not be destroyed by any craft or weapons of any enemy--nor men nor demons? What shall we say to each other of these things, you and I?

1 Comments:

Blogger ddj said...

Mr. Johnson,

Thanks very much for leaving your comment on my blog. You acknowledge that you've never really been presented with a Calvinist reading of the Bible - hopefully my reply will spark some interest in Calvinist theology!

Paul's precise issue in Rom 9-11 is the agony of how God's promises can seem largely unfulfilled in Israel due to their unbelief. Has God transferred his love to Gentiles? If so, is this fair of God to thus reject his people? Note Paul's anguish in 9:3 - many Israelites are cut off from Christ. Now the issue is: does their faithlessness call God's faithfulness into question? Your understanding of the broader context fits better in Rom 4 - that is where Paul argues that the Gentiles are included by faith.

What follows in Rom 9 is a strong statement of God's sovereign right to elect whomever he wishes. You say: "The point is that God's purposes with regard to redemption are about who has faith." However, faith is not the issue in Rom 9. If it were, it would surely be mentioned! Faith as the *means* of justification is the heart of Rom 4, but here Paul deals with the *basis* of justification. Thus, in Rom 4, faith is contrasted to works, but in Rom 9:12 we have "not by works but by him who calls." If faith was the issue, we would expect it to be mentioned in the contrast with works. However, it is God's sovereign unconditional choice that is the point - and even faith is not a foreseen condition. The heart of it is this: "in order that God's purpose in election might stand." (v.11) "It does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (16) "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (18)

Of course, you are right in saying that Paul does not see an unconditional total rejection of the Israelites. He will labour throughout the rest of this section (esp. chapter 11) to show that God still has a remnant from Israel as well. The point is: God's election is determinative.

David, I really like your ideas especially towards the end of your comment. You say, "there is a lot of tension in Scripture between God's choosing and man's choosing that is not reconcilable." Exactly! And Calvinism is the theological system more than any other that maintains the full tension Scripture contains. Both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are stressed. The case of Pharoah in Rom 9:14-18 is a perfect example. He was reprobate, but also is held responsible for knowingly rejecting God. Arminianism ultimately tries to make God's sovereignty contingent upon man's choice, flattening out the tension. Fatalism or determinism would flatten out the tension the other way. Only Calvinism maintains the true Biblical tension, which is actually anchored in the difference between eternity and history.

God bless!

Dave deJong

8:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home