In his summation, he stated with some genuine astonishment that the passage, popular especially with brides and grooms, never once mentions God by name. The minister feared that Christian couples using this passage were founding their marriages on love rather than on God.
And I was naive in those days because I retorted that the passage speaks of love and God is love1 so God is everywhere in the passage! It's St. Paul's "Song of Songs" and brides and grooms do well to use it.
But lately I've encountered voices, especially online, asserting a "biblical view of God", a view that subjugates passages like those in the "First Catholic Letter of St. John" to (whom else?) St. Paul in (where else?) his "Letter to the Romans", specifically Romans 9:13. And gee, those obstinate Romans (read "Romanists", i.e., Catholics) don't get it, even though St. Paul gave them his best systematic theology. How ... tragic.
A literalistic reading of Romans 9:13 yields a near-anthropomorphic image of God that esteems God's righteousness and justice which, coupled with the sinful human condition, implies wrath and judgment, at the expense of God's mercy [ Chesed ]. Such an unbalanced theology is derived from the "fire and brimstone" preaching tradition that unmistakably continues today ... in much softer tones. It has never spoken to me. Salvation through Christ is about more than being spared Hell.
As a matter of fact, the NAB footnote on Romans 9:13 clears up the misunderstanding so succinctly that there's hardly room for discussion. I wonder whether those who base their view of God on this passage have ever tried to understand Paul's words in their original context, i.e., in terms of Semitic instead of Greek thought.
Emphasis mine:
"The literal rendering, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,' suggests an attitude of divine hostility that is not implied in Paul's statement.
In Semitic usage 'hate' means to love less; cf Luke 14:26 with Matthew 10:37.
Israel's unbelief reflects the mystery of the divine election that is always operative within it.
Mere natural descent from Abraham does not ensure the full possession of the divine gifts; it is God's sovereign prerogative to bestow this fullness upon, or to withhold it from, whomsoever he wishes; cf Matthew 3:9; John 8:39.
The choice of Jacob over Esau is a case in point."
These thoughts were prompted by reading this post on the character of God and noting with concern that the author had more verses against than for:
"Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that Thou hast made."1 1 John 4:8, 16; BXVI's encyclical "Deus Caritas Est", which I haven't read yet. Friendly Persuasion
Wisdom 11:25 (DR / Vulgate / KJV?); Wisdom 11:24 (NAB)
No comments:
Post a Comment