Romans 9 and 11 as a Model for Evolution
My friend Cory wrote a critique of Geocreationism over at http://josiahconcept.org/articles/founding-principles-geo/. Usually, I like to respond to his articles on his own blog, but I believe he has brought up something that I should cover here.
Part of Cory’s review is in response to my use of Romans 11 as a model for Evolution. Though I have not developed the theory on this blog as fully as I should, I have mentioned it:
Romans 11 illustrates Israel as an olive tree that grows as it will, while God grafts in branches that please him, and chops off branches that do not. This is how Geocreationism believes God exercised providence over evolution. Also, 1 Chronicles 14:15-16 illustrates where an independent physical agent achieved an end that God also claimed credit for.
-http://geocreationism.com/2007/07/30/how-geocreationism-is-different-from-evolution/God didn’t only step in where life couldn’t evolve naturally, because that still suggests a type of subservience to the process. Rather, I believe that similar to the tree of faith in Romans 11, God actively pruned and grafted the branches of the species tree to make it look exactly as He wanted it, using and discarding natural results as it pleased Him, and adding what could never happen naturally.
-http://geocreationism.com/2007/01/21/response-to-gotquestionsorg-what-is-theistic-evolution/
Cory has, in a sincere attempt to remain true to the scripture, pointed out some problems he has with my application of Romans to Evolution. I suggest reading the article in its entirety, but here are the key excerpts:
The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.
And also:
Paul meant the tree he talks about in Romans 11 to be a metaphor. As such, the real thing referenced need not take on all of the characteristics of the metaphor.
The suggestion is that just because I can make a metaphor serve my own meaning, it doesn’t mean that the writer meant that. And also:
So, what does all this mean for Romans 11? Well, the tree that is spoken of would be God’s elect–the church, if you don’t believe in the Reformed position. Holding, as I do, to the Calvinist soteriology, I do not believe that the tree “grows” and God prunes it in response to its growth. Nothing in the text would indicate that to me. Rather, God sustains the tree and it grows in response to His pruning. Now, there is a subtle difference.
Let me respond to this critique point by point:
Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out.
Well first, I completely agree with Cory’s statement as it is written. This means that either I do not understand his objection, or he does not understand my theory. I believe it is the latter, because in Cory’s objection, he mischaracterizes an aspect of my theory: God let things go, and came back later “to see how they worked out.” Well, I do not believe God ever left, and I believe He already knew how things would “work out.” If I believed the results of Evolution were an accident for God to deal with, then it would be similar to how many skeptics interpret God’s sending of the Great Flood.
The language in Genesis suggests that God left mankind on their own, and “came back later” to see how evil the world had become, and so sent the Great Flood. “Hmmmm…” the skeptic would say, “Seems God made a little mistake there, huh? And now He’s back to clean up his mess.” Well, clearly, I do not subscribe to that. There was a combination of man’s free will at work (which God chose not to dictate), God’s saving of the righteous, and God’s killing of the unrighteous. It is very similar to, uh, pruning an olive tree.
Now I must point out that the Flood’s parallels to the Olive Tree are not a complete parallel, because in the case of the Flood, God only pruned; He didn’t graft. However, it is the pruning that addresses Cory’s point above. Either the flood contradicts God’s predestination for mankind, or my application of the Olive Tree doesn’t. I would argue the latter, which brings us to Romans 9, which Cory sites as ”the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination.”
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Now, as Cory correctly points out, Paul plans his writing very carefully. Notice who Paul is talking about here: his Jewish brothers, who have rejected Jesus as their Lord and savior. Knowing his own brothers will not be in Heaven caused him unceasing anguish (v. 2). Adding to the tragedy of it all is that the promises Jesus fulfilled were given specifically to them. “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” Note Paul’s mention of the covenants (plural) and the law, lest one think Paul is referring to the new church. So, Paul has set the stage for the remainder of Romans 9: his unceasing anguish over his Jewish brothers’ rejection of their Messiah.
Now, whenever Paul points out a problem, he often speaks to what the skeptic hearing the letter might be thinking. In this case, the skeptic is likely going to say, “Well then, so much for God’s promises to the Jews, huh? If God really promised salvation to His people, then it would seem as though God’s word has failed.” To this invisible adversary, Paul replies:
6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
With verse 8, Paul has established a logical premise that he will build upon later: being a physical descendant of Abraham does not mean you will receive the promise given to Abraham. You must be a descendant of Isaac, too.
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
With verses 10 to 13, Paul builds on his argument, pointing out that even being a descendant of Abraham isn’t enough! One must be a descendant of Isaac! Again, Paul anticipates what his adversary is thinking…
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
”I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Look at how Paul’s argument is developing. He started out by saying that he is in anguish over his Jewish brothers who cast Jesus aside. He then starts narrowing who he defines as being his Jewish brothers. It is NOT all of Abraham’s descendants, and not even all off Isaac’s descendants, and the reason is because God has mercy on whom He will, and hardens whom He will. Though up to this point, Paul’s illustrations have only been of people God hardens, the principle has a flip side: God has mercy on who he will have mercy. This has an interesting ramification. If God can remove some of Abraham’s and even Isaac’s descendants from the promises to Abraham, can He add to them, too? And if He can, then what is our real choice? Is free will real? But as usual, Paul is way ahead of us, and he has a response:
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
In other words, we have no right to argue when God blames us for our choices. It would seem that when God forms someone to reject Him, that person does not have the right to blame God for that rejection. Well, that would have to mean that the person’s rejection of God was willful. It seems that when we make our choice, it is both God’s will and our own at the same time. Somehow, our own choice doesn’t negate God’s, God’s doesn’t negate ours, and the consequences of our choices are our own to bare. In fact Paul gives the reason for God doing this, abstractly referring to his own Jewish ancestors as an example:
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
Here we see the will of both person and God. The person choosing things God does not like, and God choosing to be patient. Paul then goes on…
23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
And that was the bomb: Remember Paul’s implication above that God can add people to the list of recipients of His promises to Abraham, people who aren’t biologically of Abraham’s line? Well, that is exactly what God has done!
25As he says in Hosea:
”I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26and,
”It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
’You are not my people,’
they will be called ’sons of the living God.’ ”27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
”Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
”Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”
So Paul has skillfully shown the great lengths God has gone to, so that all those He has created for Heaven can be there. Has created people who would choose Him, and people who would not. He created people who would inherent the promises to Abraham directly through Abraham’s line, and those will receive those promises without being born into his line. In addition, God created people who would be born through Abraham and not receive the promises, and those not born into his line and not receive the promises. But again, this begs the question of free will. Does God’s sovereignty trump man’s free will?
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
In other words, we all make our choices. Apparently, God lets our free will stand, while paradoxically accomplishing His own free will at the same time. Paul finally sums it up like this:
33As it is written:
”See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Now, how does this play into the Olive Tree of Romans 11? Well, Abraham’s physical descendants are the Olive Tree. The branches God prunes are the descendants of Abraham who did not receive the promises to Abraham, due to their choice. The branches God grafts are the Gentiles God gives the promise to, due to their choice. Paul summarizes this quite nicely in Romans 11:
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
As this plays itself out today, the Jews within God’s church (such as myself) are natural Olive branches; the Gentiles within God’s church (such as Cory) are grafted Olive branches. How does this play into the Geocreationist view of Evolution? It is very simple.
Like the Olive Tree, the Evolutionary Tree has three kinds of branches: branches God kept (akin to a Jew who believes in Jesus) branches God did not keep (akin to a Jew who does not believe in Jesus), and branches that God added (akin to a Gentile who believes in Jesus).
I can now respond to Cory’s other charges:
Paul meant the tree he talks about in Romans 11 to be a metaphor. As such, the real thing referenced need not take on all of the characteristics of the metaphor.
- - -
So, what does all this mean for Romans 11? Well, the tree that is spoken of would be God’s elect–the church, if you don’t believe in the Reformed position. Holding, as I do, to the Calvinist soteriology, I do not believe that the tree “grows” and God prunes it in response to its growth. Nothing in the text would indicate that to me. Rather, God sustains the tree and it grows in response to His pruning. Now, there is a subtle difference.
Now, why is the tree God’s elect church? It is because God took a tree that traces back to Abraham, and has actively grafted in Gentiles and pruned out Jews, based on their acceptance of the promised messiah. This is important, because many people just say, “Oh the tree isn’t the Jews, it’s the Church,” which is an over-simplification. The tree is not specifically the church, because the “tree” predates it. It is more accurate to say that those grafted into the tree today make up the church. While it doesn’t contradict Cory’s statement exactly, it shows a subtle distinction in perspective.
So then, what of Cory’s statement, “I do not believe that the tree “grows” and God prunes it in response to its growth. Nothing in the text would indicate that to me. Rather, God sustains the tree and it grows in response to His pruning. Now, there is a subtle difference.” Well, it would seem that neither extreme is exactly true.
When God prunes the Olive Tree, it is because a branch offends him. He put up with it for a while (as Paul describes in Romans 9), but at some point He prunes it… not because it grew, but because he hated it (Romans 9:13). And so I agree with Cory’s statement that God doesn’t prune in response to growth. He prunes what He hates, and does it when He is ready.
However, the alternative Cory presents, in my opinion, is not entirely correct either. “God sustains the tree and it grows in response to His pruning.” If I may use Cory’s words against him, “Paul meant the tree he talks about in Romans 11 to be a metaphor. As such, the real thing referenced need not take on all of the characteristics of the metaphor.” In other words, Paul isn’t saying that the tree grows because God prunes it. In fact, the tree’s actual growth is never addressed. Simply, branches that offend God get pruned, branches that do not offend are kept, and wild branches are grafted by God as He wills. Now, given that that there are branches to prune, it indicates that the tree indeed grows (or else where to the natural branches come from?), but that isn’t at all Paul’s point, yet Paul chose the tree metaphor on purpose. Why? So he could illustrate the complexity of the predestination Cory points out in Romans 9.
As discussed above, Romans 9:22 reads, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?” Or to put it another way, what if God put up with offending branches before pruning them from the tree? In other words, the tree is not merely God’s elect. There are offensive but natural branches that God allows to remain for a time. They are predestined to be pruned, but they are not pruned right away. And what happens in the meantime? Well, they are branches… they grow. And how do they grow? Well, if we are talking about branches God knows He will prune, then they are certainly not growing in a way that pleases God, otherwise He’d keep them around forever. But, He doesn’t. He does prune them eventually. I think this describes the dinosaurs very well.
The dinosaurs make up branches in the Evolutionary Tree. God knew He would destroy them eventually (65 million years ago in fact), but in the meantime He “bore with great patience the objects of His wrath,” objects He had “prepared for destruction.” They are branches that grew naturally on the Evolutionary Tree, with the eventual fate of being pruned.
On the other end of the spectrum are the Gentiles whom God grafts. Those are all people who God knew would choose Him. But notice something. The Gentiles were not created on the Olive Tree of Abraham. The metaphor is silent on where they formed, calling them only “wild” branches when the Jews are referred to as “natural”. But for that branch to grow wildly, it had to first grow… and God obviously knew that branch “in its mother’s womb” if I may combine imagery for a moment. Well, I believe it is the same with some of the Evolutionary gaps we see in the fossil record. God planned to graft certain species into the Evolutionary Tree, species that weren’t being produced “naturally”, and so here they are today… but if we try to trace back their ancestry to the tree’s root, we will only find an abrupt appearance, from that tree’s perspective. And this brings us to why Evolution appears so random to Christians who study it.
If you were to trace back the buds of the Olive Tree, and see how it grew out of the root of the tree, a few faithful Jews will clearly trace back to the root. These are the natural branches. These days however, very few of the branches we see are in fact natural, because the Church is made primarily of grafted-in Gentiles. In general, the branches we see today only trace back to where they were grafted in (the moment of salvation), and no further. Interestingly, they look similar to other branches, because faithful people have many similarities to each other — God knows what He likes — but they do not always trace back to each other, or even to a common branch. How would such a tree be characterized by someone unfamiliar with the process?
One group will discover the branches, see that they do not lead back to each other, and say that God simply created each one uniquely and wonderfully. Another group will see the similarity betwen the branches, and conclude they must be from the same tree, or at least the same process. If one didn’t know about the grafting, one might even conclude that one branch mutated to create another. Well, I suppose we are a new creation in Christ, but the real point is that the continuity down the tree is interrupted at the point of the graft. Yet, we know there are natural branches that trace back to the roots… those are the faithful Jews who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
As I hope you can see, the interaction of predestination with God’s will, as illustrated in the Olive Tree, is a very good model for how Evolution appears to work. We see branches and trace them back. Some easily trace back to each other, and some do not. Some trace back to the root, and some do not, and frankly we cannot always tell just by looking.
So, scientists see simlarities between the species and assume a common ancestor. Are they right? They could be. After all, an olive branch will grow and bud as God designed it to. Or they could be wrong. God might have grafted it in when the time was right. Can we know which is which? Perhaps not with certainty, but the similarities between branches have got to mean something. For example, two species that both have lungs might not have a common ancestor. However, two species that have needless canine teeth might actually have a common ancestor that needed their canines for survival. As a technical person interested in science, I am interested in how well the fossil record can be explained through an evolutionary process, because I think that some amount of evolution (divine selection as I call it) took place. As a Christian, I find the presence of gaps in the fossil record to be expected, because grafting is something God would do. So, when we see a gap, are we seeing God? Or was the missing species just never fossilized? Can we know? And does it matter? After all , we should see God in it all, gaps or no gaps.
Scientifically, here is my conclusion: the fossil record is real. The fossils’ ages are what they seem to be. Their sequence in the record is what it appears to be. Those are the only solid scientific conclusions that I advocate be part of someone’s belief system. Beyond that, one has only theory, though there are very few theories to consider. But do not knock theory. It is the good theories yield further discovery!
Biblically, I know that it is within God’s nature to create a descendency tree that has both natural branches and grafted. After all, He created one, and Paul wrote of it. Therefore, an evolutionary theory suggesting the accumulation of changes over time is not an outrageous theory. An evolutionary theory that has God grafting species in as He wills is not outrageous either. Therefore, some combination of the two is what I propose, though I have no grounds for suggesting what the exact balance should be.
One parting thought. If you are still uncomfortable with the idea of God letting evolution occur unchecked for a time, because you think it removes God’s control, then perhaps you are misunderstanding what God really did. I suggest you re-orient yourself when you view Evolution, and meditate on Romans 9:22 as God’s real attitude. What am I suggesting? that God did not ever, even ofr a moment, relinquish His control while species evolved on the earth. Rather, He “bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction.”