Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity

Chapter 11 will present some problems – but those problems all stem from looking at words like “foreknew” “chosen” “hardened” etc from Calvinist presuppositions instead of letting the text itself define what is being spoken of. I will concentrate on what are, from my point of view, the most difficult passages, to avoid the charge of special pleading.

 

Verse 1 – “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He?” Paul is STILL on the subject of Israel, and why their remaking by the Potter into a vessel of wrath does not mean that the word of God has failed. (Rom 9:6)

 

Verse 2a – “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” “Foreknew” from when? Eternity past? It doesn’t say that! A short digression into the word, “foreknew” would be appropriate here.

 

The Greek word is “proginosko.” It is used 5 times in the New Testament. 2 out of 5 times it is used in relation to human beings:

 

Acts 26:4-5: “So then, all Jews know of my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known (proginosko) about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.” Here the word “proginosko” is used when Paul meant, “they knew me before now” or “they knew me before, when I was a Pharisee.” The Jews had “proginosko” of Paul before he became a Christian. They had “previous knowledge.”

 

2 Peter 3:17: “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginosko), be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness…” The NIV translates it thusly: “Therefore, dear friends, since you already know (proginosko) this, be on your guard…” Who had “proginosko” here? The Christians Peter was writing to. He is reminding them of something he had previously taught them, and so at the time of the writing, they already knew it. They had previous knowledge, that is, “proginosko.”

 

Now we come to an instance in which the word “proginosko” is used in relation to God – 1 Peter 1:20: “For He (Christ) was foreknown (proginosko) before the foundation of the world…

 

If one is a Trinitarian, (I've never run across a Calvinist who was not Trinitarian) and believes that Jesus preexisted with God before the foundation of the world, then the foreknowledge is merely prior knowledge of the same kind as the previous two examples and does not require any kind of divine prescience.

 

Romans 8:29: “For those whom He foreknew (proginosko), He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…”

 

WHEN did God foreknow those whom He predestined? This verse doesn’t say. We could just as accurately; maybe MORE accurately, translate it, “For those whom He knew before, He also predestined…” This raises the same question, “before when?” We know that those whom He predestines He foreknew. In other words, those people that God predestines, He knew before He predestinated them. Does this verse require that God know the persons He predestines before they are born? Or in eternity past as Calvinists say? No, it doesn’t. The BASIS of the predestination is NOT the proginosko. The BASIS of the predestination AND ALSO the proginosko is that the person who is foreknown and also predestined loves God (see verse 28). I would suggest that the person loves God, God knows that, and so predestines them to be conformed to the image of His Son. When God predestines the person, He already knows (proginosko) them, because they love Him. For a more detailed exposition of this passage, see the section below titled, ON PREDESTINATION - ROMANS 8:28-30.

 

With all this in mind, let us look once again at Romans 11:1-2: “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (proginosko). Or do you not know what the scripture says in the passage about Elijah…”

 

Can you see the context? The context in which the word proginosko is used? WHEN did God proginosko His people? When Paul was writing the letter to the Romans. What was it that God knew before (proginosko) Paul’s time? Elijah and the 7000 who did not bow the knee to Baal. The descendants of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin etc. God knew Israel before Paul knew Christ. The context suggests something like this translation: “God has not rejected His people whom He knew before [now]. Or do you not know what the scripture says in the passage about Elijah…” We see once again that proginosko is translated foreknew because (I assume) it is used in relation to God, even though the context suggests differently. There is no prescience necessary here, or even supportable from the context.

 

Now back to Romans 11. Verse 2b – “Or do you not know what the scripture says…” Paul is going to use scripture to demonstrate that “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew” or “whom He knew before.” That is, before Christ came, and Israel rejected Him.

 

He refers to Elijah and how he pleads with God against Israel. Verse 3 – “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” Elijah thinks that he is the only one left, but God tells him, Verse 4b – “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (RSV) KJV says, “I have reserved to myself…” Romans 11:4b (Direct translation from Greek) - “…Left to me [are] seven thousand men, those who did not bow [a] knee to Baal.” or optionally, “Leave to me seven thousand men, those who did not bow [a] knee to Baal.” Romans 11:5 (Direct translation from Greek) –“So then [at] this time also [a] remnant exists by choice of grace…” Verse 5-7 NASB – “In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened.”

 

Paul says that “IN THE SAME WAY” that 7000 men remained in the time of Elijah SO ALSO there is a remnant of believing Jews.

 

As far as the 7000 go, it would be helpful to look at the Septuagint version of 1Ki 19:15-18:

 

“And the Lord said to him, Go, return, and thou shalt come into the way of the wilderness of Damascus: and thou shalt go and anoint Azael to be king over Syria. And Ju the son of Namessi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisaie the son of Saphat shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. And it shall come to pass, that him that escapes from the sword of Azael, Ju shall slay; and him that escapes from the sword of Ju, Elisaie shall slay. And thou shalt leave in Israel seven thousand men, all the knees which had not bowed themselves to Baal, and every mouth which had not worshipped him.” (1 Kings 19:15-18, BLXX.)

 

It is clear that the “leaving” regards God’s command to spare from the sword, and the basis of the “leaving”, the reason certain men were spared, was that those who were to be spared had not worshiped Baal. So it bears no resemblance to the KJV word “reserved.” Actually this word comes from the Greek “katelipon” the verb to the noun “kataleipon” (also used in the same verse), which means Remnant.

 

The interesting thing about “katelipon” (from kataleipo) is that it appears 25 times in the NT. Of these 25 times, 22 times the KJV renders it as “leave,” two times as “forsake,” and only one time does it render it as “reserve.” Guess which time this is: You guessed it: in Ro 11:4.

 

Now, it is apparent that when God says, “And thou shalt LEAVE in Israel seven thousand men,” that the one who does the “leaving” is Elijah, by not putting them to the sword. And because of that, those left behind are called “Remnant” which in Greek means, “Remainder.” Thus “Remnant” is not those whom God monergistically picks and chooses amongst a population based on nothing but His sovereign will, but those who are left alive in the end, because they remained faithful.

 

That’s why Paul brings up Isaiah in Romans 9: Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved…” (Ro 9:27) “It is the remnant that will be saved,” means: only those left to God (or remaining faithful to God) in the end, only they will be saved.

 

In the NASB, I Kings 19:18 is rendered, “Yet I will leave 7000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” It is clear from this passage in I Kings that not bowing to Baal was the BASIS, the CONDITION, by which God “chose” who would be “left”, that is, saved from the sword. Paul says that IN THE SAME WAY, a Jewish remnant is saved in Paul’s time, not on the basis of a predetermined distinction made by God’s immutable sovereign choice in eternity past, but on the basis of something that the Jewish remnant did – namely by believing in Jesus and not stumbling over the stone the way the rest of the Jews did.

 

“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

 

What is “it”? What is it that is “by grace”? Being a part of the remnant, the Jews who believe in Christ and by doing so obtain righteousness.

 

What is Israel seeking? Righteousness. (Rom 9:31) On what basis is Israel seeking righteousness? On the basis of conformity to Mosaic Law, that is, on the “basis of works”. (Rom 9:31,32) When Paul uses the term “works” he is speaking of WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW. What Paul addressed in using the word “works” was very narrow in scope, and specific to the external sign of circumcision. He does not use the phrase “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28) or “but if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace” to mean that there is nothing a man can do to effect his own personal salvation. All he is saying is that righteousness is not obtained by works of the Mosaic Law, i.e. circumcision. Paul consistently uses the word “works” in his writings in this specialized, technical sense, and more often than not, the immediate context of Paul’s use of the word “works” has to do with physical circumcision and his opposition to the teaching that Gentile Christians had to be circumsized in order to participate in the promises to Abraham. (See Eph 2:8-15, Ro 2: 24-29, 1Cor 7: 17-20, Gal 2: 1-4, Gal 5: 2-12, Gal 6: 11-13, Philippians 3:1-6, Col 3: 8-17.) (BTW, for those who might know what I’m talking about - James is NOT using the word “works” in this sense. Paul and James are not talking about two different kinds of justification (forensic/authenticating), but about two different kinds of “works”.) Paul is saying that there is a remnant of Jews who realize that righteousness is not obtained by conformity to the Mosaic Law, the Old Covenant, (Esau/Ishmael/Israel) but by grace, the New Covenant (Jacob/Isaac/the Gentiles). The term “grace” does NOT mean God does it all and man “cannot” and “will not” do anything. We are saved by grace through faith. It is grace because God has provided the Lamb. He did that unilaterally. Man was not capable of providing an appropriate sacrifice. God is gracious and merciful, and has provided the atoning sacrifice for sin, and so it does not depend on he who wills or runs. But now that God has graciously provided the sacrifice, man must do something - “through faith.” “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved…” We must believe – and confess with the mouth - we have the choice and the power to believe or not believe. Remember, Israel stumbled over the Stone BECAUSE of unbelief. (Rom 9:32,33) The Jewish remnant that Paul is talking about obtained righteousness by faith. “He who believes will not be disappointed.” This is exactly what Paul said previously in chapter 10. The ability to believe, that is, the word of faith that Paul preaches, is very near, in our hearts and mouths. The choice is not too difficult, nor is it far away.

 

The watchword of the Reformation is “Sola Fide” – Faith Alone. Man is justified by faith alone apart from works.

 

When Calvinists say, “We’re saved by Grace, not works” what they mean by “works” is ANY human effort whatsoever. In my opinion this is the result of the Reformer’s doctrinal overreaction to the abuses of the Catholic Church of that time, i.e. selling salvation for money, and subsequent generations, including ours, applying that doctrinal overreaction to a context (the present time) to which it is not valid. I would argue that the Reformer’s doctrinal overreaction was not even valid for their own time (but I can understand how it happened), it’s just plain error because Paul most certainly validated human “works” as essential to salvation when he said that God “…will render to each according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life…” (Rom 2:6) Eternal life is not something that is received by faith apart from “works” that is, perseverance in doing good. This passage didactically and EXPLICITLY says that to those who persevere in DOING GOOD, on the basis of their DEEDS, God will grant ETERNAL LIFE.

 

There is only one place in the Bible where the phrase, “faith alone” is used: James 2:24: “You see that a person is pronounced righteous by his works and not on account of FAITH ALONE.” This passage didactically and EXPLICITLY says FAITH ALONE will not result in the pronouncement, “righteous”! James also says, “faith without works is dead.”

 

Peter says in Acts 10: “…in every nation the man who fears Him (God) and DOES WHAT IS RIGHT is welcome to Him.” This passage didactically and EXPLICITLY says that the man who fears God and DOES WHAT IS RIGHT is acceptable to God.

 

Calvinists need to recognize the distinction when reading the New Testament between WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW, which save no one, and works by which we are granted eternal life – i.e. “perseverance in doing good.” Paul says in Philippians 3:11 that the resurrection from the dead, i.e. eternal life, is something that is ATTAINED. The word “attained” implies that we must do something to attain it. The RSV says, “…that IF POSSIBLE I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” The KJV says, “If by any means I MIGHT attain the resurrection from the dead.” NEB – “…if only I may finally arrive at the resurrection from the dead.” Keep in mind that this is the Apostle Paul himself doing all this qualifying. This tells us that human “works” are most certainly essential for salvation – I’m defining salvation as the resurrection from the dead. This attainment is not something immutable or automatic. If you read the context in Philippians you will see that Paul did not consider it a done deal, even for himself.

 

Reformed theology, following Martin Luther’s lead, has projected Luther’s struggle with the Catholic Church onto Paul’s struggle with Christian Jews who were teaching Gentile Christians that they must be circumcised in order to be saved. Circumcision was the main issue in Galatians but it appears in a great deal of his other correspondence. Paul’s complete and total rejection of circumcision as being necessary for salvation is in NO WAY analogous to the idea that faith ALONE without any human effort whatsoever is the thing, and the only thing, that is necessary for salvation. Even the demons believe (James 2:19). Why then aren't they saved? They are not saved because of what they DO. Luther got this whole area very wrong - among other things he called James an "epistle of straw" - and no wonder, James explicitly contradicts what Luther THOUGHT Paul was saying!

 

It should be obvious that Paul CANNOT mean by “works” what Reform Theology means by “works” i.e. any human effort whatsoever. As I noted above, in Romans 2:6 Paul says that God “will render to each according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life…” Then in Romans 3:20 he says, “…by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight…” And in 3:28 he says, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”

 

In the space of a few paragraphs WITHIN THE SAME LETTER Paul says,

 

1) “…to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life…”

2) “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”

 

It is embarrassingly clear that Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the Law” cannot mean all human effort whatsoever. What it means is, “circumcision.” I would also include Jewish Sabbath-keeping and Jewish dietary laws under the rubric of “works of the Law” but will forego that rabbit trail for now. I will only say that those two issues are less important to Paul than the issue of circumcision. If a Christian is circumcised as a matter of conscience he falls BACKWARDS into bondage to something that will not save him, it will only condemn him. A Christian who must keep the Sabbath and/or observe dietary laws as a matter of conscience is merely a "weaker brother" - he is not condemned.

 

Paul says the Jewish remnant of his (Paul’s) day resembles the 7000 in Elijah’s time, and the remnant of Isaiah’s era. Just like there were those who did not bow the knee to Baal, and God consequently chose to show grace by leaving them unslaughtered (1Kings 19:9-18), so also in Paul’s day, according to Paul, there are those Jews who have believed, and consequently God showed grace by not hardening them. God has kept those Jews who believe for Himself, even as God kept for Himself 7000 men who did not bow the knee to Baal in the time of Elijah. It does not say that it was God who kept those men from bowing the knee to Baal. In Elijah’s time, the remnant was kept BECAUSE they did not bow the knee to Baal. Likewise, God kept the Jewish remnant Paul is speaking of BECAUSE of their faith, the rest were hardened BECAUSE they did not believe. It is clear from this context concerning the comparison of the 7000 to the believing Jewish remnant that Paul is NOT using the words “chosen” “hardened” “grace” and “works” the way Calvinists do.

 

“In the same way then [as the 7000 were chosen because they did not bow], those who were chosen obtained it, [a remnant of Jews are chosen because they believed in Christ and obtained righteousness] and the rest were hardened [because of unbelief].”

 

To support his statement, “What Israel is seeking it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it…” Paul has referred to the 7000 that did not bow to Baal. Based on the context in which it is used this is Paul’s paradigm for the word, “chosen” - It’s conditional.

 

To support the second half of his statement, “…and the rest were hardened.” Paul refers to 2 OT texts.

 

First, he paraphrases Isaiah 29:10 – “For the Lord has poured over you a deep sleep, He has shut your eyes, the prophets; and He has covered your heads, the seers.” (Is 29:10) If one continues reading, one will discover in verse 13 the reason WHY the Lord has done this. “Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote…” (Is 29:13) Paul is merely restating what Jesus had already said. Jesus, in Mathew 15:3-9, refers to exactly the same text in Isaiah to support His statement to the Pharisees, “…you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

 

Paul also paraphrases Psalm 69:22,23. The immediate context of Psalm 69 is a messianic prophecy. In verse 26 we discover WHY their (the Jews) table has become a snare and WHY their eyes are darkened, and WHY, in Paul’s words, “…the rest were hardened.” “For (because) they have persecuted him whom You Yourself have smitten…”

 

So we see, from the contexts of the OT verses that Paul quotes, that Israel was hardened BECAUSE they removed their hearts far from God and their reverence consisted of tradition learned by rote, and BECAUSE they persecuted Christ. We see that the scripture clearly teaches that when God hardens a people (Israel) it is conditional and is a response to man’s actions and decisions. The reasons given for the hardening originate with man, not God. “They removed” and “they persecuted” and so consequently they “were hardened.” Based on the context in which it is used this is the paradigm from which Paul uses the word “hardened” - It’s conditional.

 

The above interpretation of Romans 11:2 – 7 is consistent with our interpretation of chapter 10, which is consistent with our interpretation of chapter 9 and is consistent with ALL of the OT passages Paul quotes from or alludes to. He is speaking of the NATION of Israel. Indeed, God foreknew them and chose them.

 

Genesis 26:4,5 tells us WHEN and gives us the reason WHY God chose or adopted Israel as a people, as a nation. God, speaking to Isaac, says, “I will multiply your descendents as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendents all these lands; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” This explicitly states that God “chose” Israel BECAUSE of what Abraham did. This occurred AT A SPECIFIC TIME and was the result of a man’s actions, not God’s. He chose them, not in eternity past for no other reason than His sovereign choice, but BECAUSE of Abraham’s obedience.

 

This is significant because God later dealt with Israel not monergistically but on the basis of His promise to Abraham. Moses’ intercession for Israel in Exodus 32 was based in part on appealing to God’s promise to the fathers. Moses begged God: “REMEMBER ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND ISRAEL, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Ex 32:13,14.) Here is yet another example of God changing His mind because of something man does.

 

This intercession Moses later reiterated to Israel, saying: “I prayed therefore unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand. REMEMBER THY SERVANTS, ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB; look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:” (Deuteronomy 9:26,27.)

 

The Lord Himself says in the Pentateuch: “IF THEN their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: THEN WILL I REMEMBER MY COVENANT WITH JACOB, AND ALSO MY COVENANT WITH ISAAC, AND ALSO MY COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM WILL I REMEMBER; and I will remember the land… I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and TO BREAK MY COVENANT WITH THEM: for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes REMEMBER THE COVENANT OF THEIR ANCESTORS, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 26:41-45.)

 

Here we see if/then (conditional) relating and also the possibility that God would break covenant, repeat: GOD CAN BREAK COVENANT, because of the pride of Israel and the refusal to accept the punishment of their iniquity. In other words, it takes two to tango. The relationship between God and man is NOT monergistic. The very word, “relationship” is COMPLETELY inappropriate if God has monergistically predetermined EVERYTHING.

 

God’s choice occurred BECAUSE of Abraham’s faith, and his action in not withholding his only son. “…because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed will posses the gates of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” My point is that the REASON God chose Israel is in Abraham, because of Abraham’s obedience, not God’s monergistic choice. All this will be important when we come to verse 28.

 

Now, in verse 11ff, Paul says something about which there is much misconception.

 

“But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!”

 

Some take this to mean that the predetermined plan of God for the salvation of the Gentiles involved the necessity of the Jews rejecting Jesus. As further support for this idea they point to 11:19,20 – “You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.” They also use 11:25b – “…a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in…”

 

The Calvinist proposition is that Israel was predestined by God in eternity past to reject Jesus – (allegedly) monergistically hardened a la Pharaoh - because through that rejection salvation is made available to the Gentiles. Israel had no choice in the matter and had no real option of accepting her messiah, and that this illustrates that God sovereignly hardens and shows mercy according to His own purposes totally apart from any distinctive in man.

 

If one accepts this proposition - in spite of the fact that in context Paul is arguing that what happened to Israel is the result of Israel’s actions, not God’s will, and that God has consequently and justly hardened them - one has to deal with scriptures like Luke 19:41-44 – “When He (Jesus) approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

 

Why would Jesus weep over people who had been predetermined by God to reject Him? The things that make for peace are hidden from their eyes BECAUSE they did not know them, BECAUSE they did not recognize the time of their visitation. This leaves open the REAL possibility that Israel COULD have known the things which make for peace, COULD have recognized Jesus as their messiah, and avoided the judgment of God in 70AD, and not been formed into a vessel of wrath. To this very day, Israel knows only the things that make for war, not peace.

 

Scripture tells us that Jesus marveled at the unbelief of the Jews. If God predetermined the Jews to not believe, why would Jesus marvel at their unbelief? Why the surprise?

 

Mathew 23:37 – “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.”

 

This verse EXPLICITLY shows that Israel had the REAL option of receiving Christ as their messiah, but they were unwilling – unwilling, not unable. God wanted them to, over and over again (“How often I wanted …”). They could have accepted their messiah, and the Gentiles would have still been included. The difference would have been that the Gentiles would have been included through Israel’s obedience as opposed to Israel’s disobedience. The fact that Gentiles are included is because of Israel’s failure only in the sense that Israel failed to retain what she was given because of disobedience, and so God gave it to another who did not deserve it, a la Esau and Jacob. And so, it is through Isaac, (children of promise) that Abraham’s descendants are named. And THAT is true no matter what the nation of Israel did, or does. If Israel would’ve believed and accepted Christ, then THEY would have been the children of promise and through them the promise would have been extended to the Gentiles.

 

The main problem the non-Calvinist has in the 3 scriptures from Romans given above is the seemingly explicit statement in 11:19, 20 – “You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.”

 

The problem is the phrase, “Quite right.” This seems to acknowledge the validity of the previous statement, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” However, the statement following “Quite right” does not affirm the previous statement but gives another reason that the original branches were broken off, which is, “…they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.” What is Paul really saying here?

 

The phrase in question is “Quite right” (NASB) or “Thou sayest well!” (KJV). The word “right” or “well” comes from the Greek word “kalôs” which can also mean: rightly or justly. So in this case Paul is saying: “Justly for unfaithfulness they were broken off, and by faith you stand.” or more plainly “For their unfaithfulness they were rightly broken off, but by your faith you stand.” This interpretation lines up with chapter 9 where, in answer to the question, “ God is not unjust, is He?” the answer is given that Israel lost her election BECAUSE of disobedience, and that God is indeed just in taking the kingdom from Israel and giving it to the Gentiles, or, as is said in Jeremiah, making Israel into a vessel of wrath BECAUSE of her disobedience.

 

If we retain the phrase, “Quite right” as given in the NASB, we must divide each sentence. The first part of the 2nd sentence, “Quite right” refers to the first part of the 1st sentence, “Branches were broken off.” The 2nd part of the 2nd sentence, “they were broken off for their unbelief” refers to the 2nd part of the 1st sentence, “so that I might be grafted in.” Paul is saying, “Quite right, branches were broken off, however, they were broken off not that you might be grafted in, but because of unbelief, and you stand only by faith.”

 

The Jerusalem Bible renders 11:19, 20 as, “Those branches were cut off on purpose to let me be grafted in.’ True, they were cut off, but for their unbelief; if you still hold firm it is thanks only to your faith.”

 

This interpretation gives the impression that Paul is indeed contradicting the idea that the reason the Jews were cut off was to make room for the Gentiles. Paraphrase: “Yes, they were cut off, but they were justly cut off because they didn’t believe.” So the reason the Jews were cut off was not to make room for the Gentiles, but because they didn’t believe.

 

This leaves the option open that the Jews could have remained on the tree, for after all in the end God will be able to hold both the Jews and the nations on one tree, without a problem. It wasn’t necessary for the original branches to be broken off so that the wild branches could be grafted in. Now Paul does say, “…a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in…” (Rom 11:25) Does Paul hint of predetermined and limited atonement here? No. The phrase, “fullness of the Gentiles” doesn’t mean that there is a predetermined number of Gentiles who will be saved; it means that Israel is partially hardened (as a punishment – see comments on verse 7 above) until all the Gentiles who will be saved, or can be saved, are saved.

 

Concerning the hardening of Israel, 2 Corinthians 3:12-16 tells us that the hardening originated at the time that Moses put a veil over his face, and that to this day at the reading of the old covenant the veil remains unlifted - it is only removed in Christ. This does not mean that God predestines who has the veil removed and who doesn’t. Verse 16 says, “…but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” The person turns first, and then the veil is taken away. A person can turn to the Lord, even with the veil in place. This contradicts the idea that because of the veil, because of the hardening of Israel, they couldn’t accept Christ. No, the scripture says they would not. The jealousy that God stirs them with is not that He brought in the Gentiles, but that He at the same time excluded them (Israel). “I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation, by a nation without understanding I will anger you.” The verse in Greek doesn’t say, “They fell that salvation might come unto the Gentiles, and to provoke them to jealousy,” but “in their trespasses, the salvation of the nations [is/should/was meant] to inflame them.” This speaks not of why the Gentiles were saved, but what effect it should have on Israel.

 

In light of all this we now consider Paul’s metaphor of the olive tree. Branches were broken off (Jews) and wild branches were grafted in (Gentiles). WHY were the branches broken off? Immutable, predestined decree in eternity past? Nope! Verse 20 – “…they were broken off for their unbelief…” This is a reiteration of chapter 9 verse 32, “Why? Because they did not pursue it (righteousness) by faith…” On what basis do the wild olive branches remain grafted to the tree? Verse 20 – “…you stand by your faith.” Verses 21-23 – “…for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, IF they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”

 

What am I to do with all this conditional language? The Calvinist position creates massive conflict with whole sections of text like the above. Not to mention the direct opposition to ALL the OT contexts Paul uses to support his argument. Everything I’ve said, all my interpreting/exegeting, is totally consistent with and supports/enhances my interpretation of chapter 9. The ONLY reason we run into problems in chapter 11 is because of eisegesis, Calvinist eisegesis, Reformed eisegesis, concerning the words “foreknown” (11:2) “chosen”(11:7) “hardened” (11:7,25) and “God’s choice”(11:28). It is CLEAR from ALL the surrounding immediate text, and from every OT text that Paul quotes from, that God “chooses” and “hardens” BASED ON man’s responses to His decrees. I would posit that Reformed Theology has redefined these words in a non-Biblical, non-Pauline way.

 

In verse 28, Paul says, “…from the standpoint of God’s choice they (Israel) are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” THIS “God’s choice” is the SAME “God’s choice” that is referred to in Rom 9:11. It’s a choice concerning a nation, not an individual. Why is Israel beloved from the standpoint of God’s choice? For the sake of the fathers. When and why did God love and choose Israel? BECAUSE OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH! (Genesis 26:4,5) How is it that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable and yet Israel has been cut off? Keep reading.

 

Verses 30 – 32 paraphrased – In the same way that Jacob was shown mercy because of Esau’s disobedience, you Gentiles, though undeserving, have been shown mercy because of Israel’s disobedience - Israel stumbled over the Stone (Jesus) because of unbelief – and so now the Jews have also been disobedient. Because of the mercy shown to you Gentiles the Jews may (possibly) become jealous and so desire to be shown mercy. All have been disobedient, and God has provided a way that He may show mercy to all. That way is the way of faith in Christ. The word of faith is near you, in your hearts and in your mouths. Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and you will be saved. It’s the same for Jews and Gentiles alike. Romans 10:12:13 - “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” He who stumbles over the stone stumbles because he does not believe (not because he was predestined to do so). He who believes will not be disappointed. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable; for the sake of the fathers, that is, because of His promise to Abraham, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to the fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Deut 9:4,5) He has provided a way of salvation for Israel, though it appears that He has rejected them, for it is not as though the word of God has failed.

 

NEXT: A Succinct Summation