Customer Reviews

The New Chosen People

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As a serious Christian, I am strongly convinced that the doctrine of election is a very important and critical biblical concept. Desiring to understand how all the verses used by Calvinist's to support individual election could be interpreted to support a corporate model, I approached Mr. Klein's book with excitement and interest because I am very unfamiliar with the idea of corporate election, and would like to understand it more fully.

That being said, I believe that Mr. Klein's book is an adequate defense of corporate election. Klein established his argument in a straighforward manner by beginning in the Old Testament. He argues that corporate terminology and corporate language abound in the Old Testament. Furthermore, Klein advocates the position that Israel believed that they were chosen as a nation, and that an individual received the promises of God by being a member of Jewish the nation. Klein examines many applicable Old Testament passages to prove that corporate solidarity was the common mentality among the Old Covenant Palestinain Jews.

Once Klein finishes his examination of the Old Testament he briefly moves into Qumran and Rabbinic sources to show that they also adhered to a corporate mindset. After a brief survey of these sources, Mr. Klein delves into the main sources of his study and investigates the New Testament literature. He breaks up his study into convenient groups and scrutinizes each unit as a whole. His studies of the Synoptic gospels, the Johannine literature, the writings of Paul, and finally the remaining epistles are interesting.

The strength of the book resides in it's organization. Klein does an excellent job of organizing his texts into specific groups. Namely, verses that deal with election to a task, election to salvation, appointment of times, and God's call of individuals and nations. This is just a rough representation of how the texts are broken up, but it illustrates how the author went about arranging his texts. Each section provides commentary and exegesis on the relevant verses and there are plenty of verses to comment about. In his New Testamnet survey, Mr. Klein analyzes any verse where any significant elective them is discussed; Definitely a large and challenging job seeing as the New Testament abounds with such verses.

Nevertheless, this book does suffer from a few flaws. The fact that Klein opted for a rapid-fire proof texting approach, rather than a smaller and more considerate study, seriously detracts from this book. Instead of providing some detailed and insightful commentary on just a handful of key verses, the author chooses to provide sparse commentary on each applicable verse. This leaves the reader wanting for more exegesis because the corporate election concept isn't defended to the extent that it should be.

Likewise, Mr. Klein does not handle the traditional Calvinist proof-texts as well as he should have. His exegesis on Romans 9 is very unconvincing and way too brief. These are some of the most important verses that deal with the idea of election, and Klein just breezes by them without giving a through and solid argument for a corporate mode of election by arguing from the text. Furthermore, Klein's reading of Ephesians 1:3-4 is a very unnatural and awkard interpretation. I just don't see how one can argue for the position that Christ is the chosen one being described in the text. There are many other verses that are not treated fairly and considerately and this really subtracts from the book.

After finishing the book, I will admit that I became more familiar with the idea of corporate election, but I am far from convinced of it's validity. Although the book possesses excellent organization and some decent arguments, it fall short where it matters most. Mr. Klein attempts to convince you by throwing numerous examples at you, but when it comes to seriously wrestling with critical texts he falls way short. If this book provided a solid Arminian interpretation for Romans 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1 it would be much more convining. Unfortunately, The New Chosen People fails to do what it's title states; Although Klein argues for the corporate model, he does not thoroughly convince the reader that corporate election is the standard mode of election found within the Bible.

The previous reviewer has done well in presenting the overall content of this book, so I won't repeat the majority of what he has already stated. However, I do give my approval alongside him about the excellent organization of this title. Klein has broken up the chapters well, and attempts to go to the scripture for his answers. Even though the previous reader has stated that the author begins with too much proof texting, I would slightly disagree given that the exegetical sections do proceed after Klein has given the reader a short background on OT perspectives and OT extrabiblical literature. These sections aren't meant to be exegetical but background work. However, it is clearly your choice whether or not to accept if his scriptural citations strengthen his belief that corporate election was the primary understanding held in the OT scriptures.

I believe the book overall was slightly disappointing. I say 'slightly' because there are some strong moments where I believe Klein gives good biblical proof for his conclusions, though I would agree with the previous reviewer that his exegesis at times is much too brief (such as Romans 8-9). However, I felt he handled the majority of texts well from the corporate viewpoint, such as from the Synoptics, Acts, the general epistles (especially James and 1 Peter), and 2 John.

Though I am not a strong believer in individual election to salvation (in either the Calvinistic or Arminian sense) I believe there are overtures of it throughout the scriptures, yet I am not particularly convinced of how it is fully understood in relation to corporate election to service and to a task. I believe they are related in a way, yet simple unification of them together, the primacy of Ind. Elec. to salvation, or the omission of corporate elec. to service does the scripture a great disservice in my humble opinion.

That being stated, I feel Klein is overall inconsistent in his treatment, especially in texts such as 2 Pet. 1:5-11. The reason I say this is because while Klein desires to give us the view of the primacy (and even exclusivity) of the corporate model of election, he ends up interpreting one of the most difficult passages (2 Pet. 1:5-11) like a Calvinist seeking his/her personal assurance of salvation by individual perseverance. This passage is simply one example, yet a very strong mark against the purpose of the book. I find a book trying to prove the case for corporate election essentially conceding itself here to the traditional individual election to salvation interpretation since so many passages link election/choseness to perseverance in the Christian life. For that, I feel Klein has failed, though the book is strong on many other levels.

Also, I would agree in passing that overall Klein must do much more in-depth analysis of passages such as Romans 9, Eph.1, etc. to convince Calvinists, though I am not one. I still believe that his overall treatment was strong enough biblically to stand since the language in Romans 9 is strongly corporate and service oriented in nature ('nations in her womb', 'Pharaoh to display His glory to all nations' - Pharaoh as the head of a nation, Egypt; just as Jacob is of Israel, Esau of Edom), though individual understandings within those corporate entities are also present within that broader spectrum. I still see service and being used as God's instruments vocationally more strongly supported than individual election to salvation, though overtures of that is there (John 6), I cannot deny that. Klein ultimately says the same throughout his book - Corporate Election to Service/Task/Vocation is the larger picture of the scriptures, though some understanding of individual election to salvation also seems to run through certain passages.

The previous reviewer is not convinced by the interpretation of Eph. 1:3-4 (I do thank him for his honesty and holding to his convictions from scripture); however, I believe election 'in Him' is the primary and only foundation, not a eternal past choseness where 'WE' are chosen in Him; we are elect only because of the election of Jesus and our relationship to Him by grace through faith. So we are chosen because we are 'IN HIM' the Elect One. The same could be said of the title "Christian". We are called "Christians" because of our relation to "The Christ". Not because we are in any sense primary in view or the substance of that word, but because He alone is that source, He is the essential substance of The Way. Election to me is the same.

Jesus is the only elect one, our election is subservient to the primacy of Christ's election, and we have not been 'elected' apart from faith in Him, or we come close to being elected along with Christ in some manner, which is clearly unbiblical. Our Election seems to be leaning towards the 'historical' JUST as Israel's election was. Only Jesus is the eternal Elect One. To say we have been 'elect' previous to faith/regeneration would mean we have already and always been rightly related to God (which some people actually teach).

For how can we be 'elect in Him before the foundation of the world', yet not related to Him rightly? For if we are elected, and our election is in Christ, we must be related rightly to God for Christ clearly is. This understanding of election clearly has major problems. Is it completely unbiblical? I cannot say dogmatically that there are not shades of it we need to struggle with, but I believe it not to be biblical. Theorizing on this argument (which is the normal approach) is pointless since biblical data does not support that those who are `elect' in Christ have always been elect and rightly related to Him in the since of justification/regeneration as Paul intends.

With all this being said, I would view it very similarly to Klein in the sense that Jesus is the only true elect individual since He is first and primary in all things - no one is 'elect' like He is 'Elect'. We are elect in Him because we have been grafted into Him by the Sovereign grace and mercy of God. God has elected Jesus as His Chosen/Elect one. God has not Chosen individuals in a similar fashion as He has Chosen Jesus, His eternally begotten Son. I say fashion because Christ's election seems to be unique both prophetically and substantively. No one else could do what the Father asked. We are called to imitate that election - it seems that the bible calls this 'the approved one' (2 Tim. 2:15, Jas. 1:12, etc.). I see this theme throughout as Jesus, through His obedience to God, is consistently (and vocally) 'approved' by God. This is seen in His public baptism, His transfiguration, the time before He was handed over as a criminal, in crowds during His faithful work, etc. This is seen especially throughout John's Gospel. We imitate Him through our life of service to Him and for Him, firmly grounded in a saving faith in Him.

The consistent Calvinist says He has elected a set number of individuals in Christ, yet this election usually pans out solely focused on salvation, which is different than God's Chosen purpose in Christ. The reason I have so much trouble with election primarily seen as salvific is because God's election of Christ was for service (Isa. 42), as well as was Israel's. The nation was Chosen as the Servant of YHWH, yet not all were saved. That's corporate election, essentially. In Eph. 1 the traditional interpretation seems to run contrary to the fact that in view is 'US' (The Church), 'IN HIM', and the mystery of God summing up all things in Christ through the Church. Thus the corporate group is in view, not a previous set number of individuals as the Individual Elec. advocate holds to. The focus of Eph. seems to be the mysterious plan of summing up all things in Christ through the Church, not the individual election of a set number from eternity past. I do say all this in grace because I cannot be dogmatically certain of this interpretation at every scriptural level, but neither can the consistent Calvinist.

In the end, I feel Klein, though strong on many points, is inconsistent and unbalanced. He is inconsistent because his thesis for the book at times is not presented strongly enough (or at all) in some of the most famous (and difficult) passages dealing with election. He is unbalanced because there needs to be more exegesis on the grandest (and most difficult) passages of all in election: Rom. 8:28-30; Rom.9, John 6; Eph. 1; and Matt. 22. Though I feel he has done a good job at points in all these passages, I feel they must be deeper and even more thorough because he is writing contrary to centuries of Protestant (and Jewish-in the sense of election as a nation to salvation, ex. John 8) thought and history. Though those things clearly don't make something correct, it does mean that the opposition will have to be even more diligent in their study and even more articulate in their propagation of it.

A good study companion book that supports the corporate view (yet is not Arminian in the sense of losing your election), is James Daane's book "The Freedom of God: A Study of Election and Pulpit" which primarily puts forth the view of Christ as the Elect One in singleness, primacy and a foundational fashion. Though Daane's book is more of a response to classic Reformed and Lutheran teaching on election and the single decree, where he critiques them in the vein of Karl Barth, the book is short (200 pp.) yet thorough and pointed enough for the corporate discussion. The book is biblical and not simply philosophical (like Barth much of the time). Daane was Reformed (and taught at Fuller Seminary), yet was a critic of the Reformed Church as a whole when it can to the single decree and the blurring of election, foreknowledge, and predestination into a single entity being seen as a shadow of the essence of God Himself. I would still pick up a copy of Klein's book, for there is a lot in it that contributes to our study of how we have been `Elected in Christ'.

Excellent survey examining the appropriate and controversial Biblical (and a few extra-biblical) texts showing that the majority, if not all, affirm divine election to be not individual but corporate and contemplating not salvation but appointment for service.

An illuminating aspect is the author's discussion that the act of God calling does refer to an invitation to salvation but reflects what the people of God are, that is, they are "the called". He contends that that nuance of the Greek verb "call" is in the sense of "to give a name" (p.274).

The author proviedes a thorough examination of all the relevant texts. This study is a serious (although not technical) refutation of the Calvinistic doctrine of election and affirms the Biblical proclamation of Christ's saving work being accomplished for all men although only believers experience its benefits.

I have noticed the pointless reviews of some who regard other's views that are not their own as erroneous. According to Calvinism our total being is 'fallen' and therefore no one can claim a monopoly on the truth. I always thought Bible college challenged and stretched the individual to understand where people are coming from. I still cannot understand why people get so caught up with their own presuppositions and then when someone with a different point of view pens a book, they are criticised beyond measure. I thought we had moved on from the Remonstrance of Dort. In my opinion this book was brilliant in conveying his ideas on a controversial subject. Yes there were some negatives, as all books have. But we must remember this is one of the leading theological scholars in the quagmire of hermeneutics. A good exegete will look at the passage on its merit rather than read in his own opinions. This book took courage to write as it seems that anyone who does not toe the Reformed line is committing professional suicide. To all those Reformed reviewers: Please get a life and look at other's opinions on their merits rather than as a theological target!

What I find interesting on the subject of Romans 9 is both the arguments put forward by MOST Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists are right in stating God chooses people and Arminians are right in that God chose the nation from the loins of Jacob (Jews) and not the nations from the loins of Esau (including Amalek Gen 36:16 and Edom) . Unfortuantely Calvinists often fail to read past verse 23 of Romans 9 and therefore take what has been said out of the context of what Paul was conveying in the entirety of Romans 9-11 (See Piper's The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23). However, MOST Arminians also do not understand that God did infact choose Jacob and not Esau from the womb.

Klein's book fits with many other biblical scholars who claim that the use of the second person plural (2pp) mandates that the action or activity described does not refer to individuals but only to groups. I will call this the 2PP Theory.
In The New Chosen People Klein sets out to clarify NT teaching on election. Drawing on their Hebrew heritage, NT writers envisioned election to salvation as corporate. Previously God chose Israel; in the messianic era God has chosen the church. After surveying the OT, Qumran, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, the Rabbis, as well as the entire NT, Klein concludes, "Our study of the New Testament documents demands that we view election to salvation corporately. We found in the synoptics, John, Peter, James, and Paul evidence that God has chosen a people--a community. Plural language dominates election texts" (p 258).

In 2 Thess 2:13 Paul says, for example, that "God chose you ['ì'ò] as the first fruits for salvation." Therefore Klein specifies that this was God's choice, not of individuals, but of a "group of Christian believers" (p. 182).
It is important to stress here that Klein's framing is totally disjunctive and based primarily on morphology of a pronoun or verb. First, there is no middle ground, no third way, between the corporate and the individual. Since, in his view, election to salvation is corporate, individual election is not simply being deemphasized; it is being completely excluded. Second, Klein's framing is based primarily on morphology in that the mere presence, for instance, of the plural you ('ì'ò) as a direct object excludes the individual (óε) from discussion. But can there be a third way which is not so inherently disjunctive?

It appears that Klein is using an enthymeme which is based on an implausible premise. We can reconstruct his logic with a syllogism:

1. All "NT mentions of election to salvation" are "NT teachings referring to a group or plural."
2. No "NT teachings referring to a group or plural" are "NT teachings that refer to individuals."
3. Therefore, No "NT mentions of election to salvation" are "NT teachings that refer to individuals."

For our discussion, only Premise Two is relevant. Further, no other form of Premise Two will provide Klein's desired conclusion (Premise Three: No Individual Election). For the argument to be valid, Premise Two must assert that use of the plural always excludes individual application.
Yet if Premise Two must be accepted, then further questions arise: since every time Paul refers to adoption he uses the plural (Rom 8:15 (we); 8:23 (we); 9:4 (Israelites); Gal 4:5 (we); Eph 1:5 (we)), should one draw the conclusion that God does not adopt any individual believer? Since every time the NT refers to redemption it uses the plural (Matt 20:28 (many); Mark 10:45 (many); Luk 1:68 (his people); 2:38 (those waiting); 21:28 (your people); Rom 3:24 (all); 8:23 (we); 1 Cor 1:30 (us); Eph 1:7 (we); 1:14 (God's possession); 4:30 (you [pl]); Tit 2:14 (we); Heb 9:12 (Jesus obtained redemption); 9:15 (redemption for transgressions); 11:35 (others refused redemption); 1Pet 1:18 (you [pl]), should one draw the conclusion that God does not redeem any individual believer but only a group? Since every time Paul refers to reconciliation he uses the plural (Rom 5:10 (we); 5:11 (we); 11:15 (they); 2 Cor 5:18 (us, 2x); 5:19 (us); 5:19 (world); 5:20 (you[pl]); Eph 2:16 (both groups); Col 1:20 (all things); 1:22 (you [pl])), should one draw the conclusion that God does not reconcile any individual believer but only a group? Since almost every reference to resurrection of the church uses the plural, one is left with only Rev 20:6 as a clear indication that an individual is resurrected. Should we conclude that, in the NT, resurrection is primarily a corporate conception?

Indeed, do individual believers believe? This emphasis on the corporate to the exclusion of the individual leads some to assert that faith, admittedly a central issue for Paul, is really about corporate values and standards rather than about an individual's trust in God (D. M. Bossman, "Paul's Mediterranean Gospel: Faith, Hope, Love," BTB 25 [1995] 71-8).

Moreover, what becomes of second person plural commands followed by "one another" ('λλήλουò)? If the plural refers to corporate, rather than individual action, we are left with the unlikely conclusion that the writers do not envision any individual loving (or encouraging or bearing with) any other individual. These questions make clear that the 2PP Theory creates more problems than it solves.

Further, Premise Two assumes an unlikely social situation: no individual listeners to Paul's 2pp exhortations need to be socialized toward group values, for the exhortations do not apply to individuals only to groups. Besides being counter-intuitive, the 2PP Theory will not fit with the I-X-S model cogently defended by Engberg-Pedersen. As in Stoicism, so also in Paul's paraneasis, it is the individual who must be moved from solely individual perception (I) to group perception (S) by way of being `struck' by something outside the self (X).

So, corporate election needs a much better defense than Klein has given.

I have learned greatly over the years the importance of hermeneutics from many scholars. I realized there are some that just plain uses poor hermeneutics and some really know what they are doing. With this book I noticed the following that I thought were concerns:

1. This book covers a lot of verses however I immediately noticed that the book did not comment nor cover key passages pertaining to this topic I was hoping it would such as John 3:3-8 or Titus 3:5.

2. The author's comments of passages were scattered. In order to check for continuity and flow in his comments of a passage of scripture, I had to retype the authors comments in the same order as it is in the Bible. After doing this to chapter 9 of Romans, I noticed his interpretations were unnatural and jagged which might explain why his comments were so scattered and out of order in the chapters of his book. Paul is writing a letter to the Christians in Rome, and when retyping Kleins comments, it no longer appears to be a normal letter, but rather appears to be a letter making Paul out to be a bi-polar person. I understand William wanted to separate his comments by topic or what he thought was the topic of the passages but again there is no flow and continuity to Pauls letters when bringing back Kleins comments into Pauls letters and appears unnatural.

3. The author has the tendency to superimpose his own ideas into the Bible text to support his ideas. The author rarely compared scripture with scripture, let alone in a natural way.

4. I noticed Klein picked and chose only greek words that supported his ideas, and ignored greek words in the same passage that gives a more complete picture as to what the text is saying. This resulted is spin of what the author (John) was really trying to say.

5. He often took the idea of salvation out of the picture in passages when it seems unnatural to do so. I can't imagine one bearing fruits of the Spirit without having salvation or God chooses some out of the saved elect to bear fruit & not others. This resulted in his comments to be unnatural and raised questions if a writer such as the apostle Paul had mood swings etc., if William Kleins interpretations are correct.

6. He often ignored audience relevance, as to who the primary speaker is speaking to and substituted himself as the primary audience rather than the audience already provided. This is called "self centered literalism" which is unfortunately common today.

7. I thought his conclusions were not always consistent with the rest of the Bible especially passages like Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, (which he never brought up in the book) & John 6:44 (which he commented on and added his own ideas into the text that isn't there, and simply can not be supported).

8. Often the beginning of a book or chapter helps guide the reader through the rest of the book or chapter in the bible. Based on his comments the author did not recognize this and is a basic rule of hermeneutics.

9. One time he did compare a verse to another passage of scripture, took the idea of nations from it, however when looking at the grammar which is singular (him, man, whomever, whom, you - these are not nations) throughout the chapter which does not allow the idea of nations (plural) to be in the passage and therefore misses the point Paul was trying to make. But because his comments verse by verse in the chapter are so scattered it makes it difficult for the reader to notice the grammatical errors unless they retype everything he says about a chapter and put it back in order as it is in the bible.

10. Lastly I don't think the bible tool "chronology" (paying attention to the order things happen to the original audience) was ever used in the book. This is important in helping with the tool "audience relevance" & understanding authors intent.

11. I think it is silly to say God chose His people without having any control over the individuals who make up His people when there are passages that uses singular grammar such as John 3:3 (one), 6:44 (one) and Romans 9:14-21 (whom, the man, you [first person referring ot Pharoah], the thing molded, one vessel). If people became His people based on something they did then wouldn't mercy be dependant on the person who needs mercy rather than the mercy giver? Isn't this contrary to Romans 9:15-18 & Titus 3:5?

I recommend comparing Kleins hermeneutic to others such as Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Dr. James R. White, Dr. Gary Demar, or Dr. R.C. Sproul to name a few. One in particular if you already have this book, compare Kleins comments on Romans 9 to James White, do a Google search for "Romans 9 - An Exegesis to Share", then look for a page with the name "Monergism" in it then click on "view link" and it will download a 47 minute mp3 for you. The hermeneutical contrast between the two becomes pretty clear and you can see for yourself some of the issues with this book if you haven't already. Also I recommend a book called "Biblical Hermeneutics" by Milton Terry.

Here is an example of using bible tools such as chronology, audience relevance, grammar, and setting. Lets look at 2 Peter 2:9. As a third person perspective audience such as myself a good question is 'what is the authors intent?'. In 2 Peter 3:9 Peter is addressing the elect (audience relevance)as shown in 2 Peter 1:1 and if we go back a little in chronology it was prophesied in Isaiah 42:6, 49:6, 60:3 the Jews were going to be a light unto the gentiles and this is what Jesus was preparing them to do in John 3:16 when he was talking to Nicodemus whom was the ruler of the Jews. Remember Jesus said to Peter to "feed My sheep.". Peter is continuing what Jesus started in John 3:16 and we have to understand the mindset the Jews had and the mindset they had to overcome. For 2000 years the Jews under the line of Jacob were Gods chosen people (not the line of Ishmael nor Esau), but then not to long after Jesus came on the scene this changed (Acts 10, Romans 9:6-8) and now the gentiles were being grafted into the house of Israel or Israel of God (Romans 11:17). So in 2 Peter 3:1-2 we see he is addressing his audience as "beloved" (sign he was primarily talking to Jews) and when he says "words which were spoken before by the holy prophets" this is also a sign he was primarily talking to the Jews and again they were to be a light unto gentiles. We have to be careful not to superimpose our culture into their culture which was the opposite of ours. Where our culture is obsessed with racism theirs was obsessed with ethnicity so we have to look at it in the culture it was written in. So when it says "all men" it is all in terms of the culture they were in, not the culture we are in today but all in terms of ethnicity not just the Jews under the line of Jacob like it was the prior 2000 years but now it goes to all people (ethnicity). Lastly it is according to His mighty power that one believes anyway Eph 1:19, Acts 16:14 (When it talks about believe it is not talking about believing what is in your head [Matt 7:21-23] but rather what you believe in your head as a result of an inner change [Eph. 1:19]). Finally were they a light unto the gentiles? Yep, Luke 2:32, Acts 13:46-47, 26:23, Romans 1:16. Think about it, if you were Jesus and you were going to prepare them to be a light unto the gentiles, what other words would you have used if not what He used in John 3:16? Now take Kleins interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 is it consistant with 2 Thes. 2:11 and Exodus 32:10 if God wants every single human being to be saved or is it God wants the elect or all those He forechose to be saved from all walks of life? Could it be when God made His creation, He wanted to display all of His attributes including justice?

It amazes me how one will acknowledge this book/view is imperfect, yet walk way being satisfied with it. Again this is no surprise as Paul knew majority of people were going to respond negatively to the idea it is according to His mercy not man in Romans 9. Another reason I am not surprised is due to majority of Christians being used to playing silly putty with scripture today and are poor in the area of hermeneutics. Before the era of the cults (early 1800's) more commentators used bible tools in a much more consistant way unlike today. Hermeneutics should drive conclusions not what we want to believe drive our hermeneutics.