Romans - Lesson 45

Romans 11:16-24

If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If 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, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

A. Image of the Olive Tree: 

In verse 16, Paul uses an analogy here, “If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.” This argument is from something small to something large that has an effect on it. Of course, the idea of the root and the branches is what Paul develops in his famous olive tree imagery that comes next. Most of us are familiar with the imagery here. You have the same idea again. 

You have this tree that sort of represents the people of God and Paul says that some of those branches are broken off, natural branches, Jews who sort of by their own heritage belonged to that tree have been broken off, and unnatural branches that weren’t native to that tree were grafted in, Gentiles. 

Paul makes two points: the first is a kind of theological point, if God has grafted in these branches that aren’t part of the tree, surely, he can graft natural branches back in again. The second point includes a more pastoral concern you see Paul developing again here where he is addressing the Gentiles and saying that they are not to boast over the natural branches; don’t become arrogant. Beware if you have pride and arrogance, you may fall. 

This is where my Arminian friends will start pounding their pulpits and cheering because here you have a text that moves the opposite way than some we saw back in Romans 5 through 8. This is where Paul seemingly addresses branches that are part of the tree warning them that if they don’t continue in God’s kindness (verse 22) they also will be cut off. You have a very strict warning to those who are apparently part of the tree, those who have already been grafted into the people of God; if you don’t remain in the kindness of God, you can be thrown out of the tree again. 

You see how people differ over some of these things. This is not because of obstinacy or because of the traditions that we are locked into but because the biblical evidence is not clearly on one side or the other but you can quote texts, verses that are on each side of that particular matter of what we call eternal security. 

Student:  
The next verse sounds like it’s in out, in out. It makes me curious whether that is applied to the individual or applied to the Israelite people.

Dr. Moo:  
That is one of the arguments that Calvinists use to get around these verses, that it is a corporate thing here. I’m not sure that works here, myself. As a Calvinist, I’d like to think it could. This sounds very individual to me. It talks about faith and remaining in God’s kindness. I don’t think groups believe; I think individuals believe. So, I have a hard time thinking this is talking corporately here.

B. The Speech-Act Theory: 

One of the more important books that tries to argue a Calvinist view of security is Judith Gundry Volf’s book. This is the text she takes in Romans 11.  I’m not myself entirely convinced by it to be honest; I don’t know if that’s the way to go.

I had a dissertation written under me by a very talented, biblically astute woman, Laurie Norris, who took these warning passages in the New Testament and tried to talk about how they were functioning. She was using something called speech-act theory which is a way of thinking about our language in terms of not so much what we’re saying, but what we are trying to accomplishwith the language. 

The illustration I use, if I’m reading a book in the evening while sitting in my easy chair and my wife says, “Honey, the trash can is full.“ I could respond, ”Thanks, dear, for that information.“ But that is not what her words are trying to accomplish; she has made a statement, she has not put it in the form of a command. What is she trying to accomplish with those words? Obviously, she wants me to empty the trash. This is the idea of speech-act theory; when we talk, when we say things, we are trying to accomplish things with our words. So, Scripture is God’s speech-act to us. 

My former colleague at Wheaton, Kevin van Houser has written a lot about this. God addresses his people and His words are trying to accomplish things. So, when we have statements in Scripture, we should always be asking ourselves what is God trying to do by that statement? Not just stand back and say that it was an interesting thing for God to say. But, what is it trying to accomplish? The student Laurie Norris argued that these warning passages are designed to stir Christians up to be more faithful and more obedient. 

So, leaving the theology aside for the moment, she is saying we should recognize what these passages are intended to do. In other words, as a Calvinist, I shouldn’t come to these texts and say, “I know that I am secure.“ My first reaction should be to see there is a warning here, God is saying something that is intended to remind us of how important it is that we stay faithful. This is something that I really to take seriously, and not just as a Calvinist toss overboard and try to explain it away. 

I think her dissertation did really help at one level at least in reminding us of what Scripture is trying to accomplish. Again, I am speaking to my own Calvinist brothers and sisters who often when we come to these New Testament warning passages spend all our time explaining what it doesn’t mean, trying to find ways to fit the texts into our theology, rather than letting the text speak; letting it do its work. Don’t ignore the theology but don’t get so hung up there that we miss what God is intending in this particular portion of His word.

Student:  
I think it is interesting that in Romans 9, the Armenian side tries to explain it away by saying, this is corporate, not individual. Then we get to Romans 11 and the Calvinist says, oh, this is corporate.

Dr. Moo:  
Exactly, and the Calvinist says, clearly this is individual in Romans 9; and then Romans 11, oh let’s make it corporate here.  Good observation.

Student:  
A pastoral reflection, a couple of years ago I had a Sunday School class asked me nine really tricky questions in Scripture. I was really pleased because I went up there nine weeks in a row to teach, and on all of them I said here’s some Scripture that says one side, and here are some that says another side. I want you to understand that there is a difference of opinion about this subject. I was really surprised at how well they received that, that I wasn’t up there to give them answers but I was up there to help them see that the Bible sometimes addresses things from more than one angle.

Dr. Moo:  
I want to be careful myself because I want to avoid saying that it is always both/and, it’s always a mystery. Anytime we confront things in Scripture that we can’t reconcile immediately we say, oh, it’s a mystery.  We end up with a really mushy theology, if I can call it that. I think God is asking us to think through these things and try to come to conclusions. But I am also convinced that we try to force conclusions in a way that doesn’t do justice to all of Scripture. That’s my concern here.

Student:  
But Paul’s definition of mystery is something that was hidden but now is not. 

Dr. Moo:  
Right, it’s not the way we use the word.  We’re going to see that in verse 25 here; that’s exactly right.