Chapter # 11 Paragraph # 4 Study # 3
February 10, 2019
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)

• I. Our Theological Setting.
  • A. On one hand, we have "theologians" who claim that a person who has been "saved" by God, can, if the circumstances warrant it, lose that "salvation".
    • 1. In the codified doctrine of almost 2,000 years within Roman Catholicism, the definition of the "circumstances" that "warrant" such loss consists of what they call "mortal sins", which are defined in terms of actions of such a grievous nature that God will revoke His gift of salvation.
    • 2. In the development of doctrine among those who are not Roman Catholic, the same rationale is embraced.
  • B. On the other hand, we have "theologians" who claim that once a person has been "saved" by God, he/she can never, by any action, have his/her "salvation" revoked by God.
    • 1. In the codified dogma of these "theologians", over many centuries, and following the rationale put forth in stark terms by John Calvin at the time of the Reformation, the "salvation" of a person is rooted in "predestination" and, thus, obviously cannot be rescinded.
    • 2. In the on-going development of this dogmatic position, most popularly identified by the words "once saved, always saved", the same rationale is embraced.
• II. The "Problem".
  • A. In our text, Paul argues both that the "presence" of a branch in the tree means that the branch is receiving from the root of the tree the "fatness" of that root, and that that "presence" is not guaranteed to any branch in the tree.
    • 1. Paul pointedly declares that "natural" branches were being "broken off" so that they cannot, any longer, receive the benefits provided by the root.
    • 2. He also argues that "unnatural" branches are being "grafted in" so that they can begin to benefit from the benefits provided by the root.
    • 3. And he says both that those "unnatural branches" can be afterwards "broken off" if they ignore his warning, and that those "broken off natural branches" can be afterwards "grafted back in again" if they "abide not still in unbelief".
  • B. This extended text seems, on the face of it, to provide both a warning to "in-grafted gentiles" and a promise to "broken off Israelites".
    • 1. The essence of the two -- the warning and the promise -- boils down to the reality of what it means "to partake of the root of the fatness of the tree" (11:17).
    • 2. The explained "processes" of "breaking off" and "grafting in" seem to raise a question regarding God's actions: why would God "do" and then "undo what He has done"? on both sides of the issue.
• III. The Text: What Paul Means By What He Says.
  • A. Begins with a cautionary demand.
    • 1. The tense of the prohibition verb is important.
      • a. In prohibitive statements, the Greek text uses "tense" to indicate whether the prohibition is against beginning to do a thing, or is against the continuing doing of a thing.
      • b. In our text, the prohibition is cast in terms of the present tense which, according to Robertson, indicates an on-going issue that needs to be discontinued.
    • 2. The meaning of the verb in the prohibition is crucial.
      • a. This verb, in its emphatic/directional form, is only used by Paul in this one place in all of his writings (there is good evidence that James used it twice in his letter, but no other author in the New Testament uses it at all).
      • b. The basic (unemphatic/non-directional) verb means "to delight in feelings of great confidence" (positively as in Romans 5:2, 3 and 11; and negatively in Romans 2:27, 23) [Kittel says that "confidence" is a major issue in this verb].
      • c. The "emphatic" and "directional" issues both enhance the degree of delight in the feelings, and direct us to the source of the delight (in this case, it is "against" the "natural branches").
        • 1) The "problem" is that "taking great delight against" indicates a level of malice in the heart.
        • 2) Though this "malice" is not always "wrong" (note David's imprecation in 11:8-10), in this prohibitive setting it is significantly "evil" (note Paul's explanation in 11:28 that effectively rules malice out).
  • B. Consists of a warning against continuing an attitude of "malicious contrast" that is rooted in the issue of "confidence".
    • 1. Kittel's claim that "confidence" is the root idea in the verb means that we have to identify the basis for the confidence.
    • 2. This "basis" is always going to boil down to either "God-confidence" or "self-confidence".
    • 3. In "God-confidence" whatever "others" are in the picture, they have no place in the development of "delight" (1 Corinthians 1:31; 4:7; and 2 Corinthians 10:12).
    • 4. In "self-confidence" our only roots are "personal accomplishments" and "comparisons with lesser accomplishments by others".
    • 5. Thus, what Paul is declaring is that the Roman gentiles have already started down a deadly path of thinking that God has "favored" them because of their "superiority" to the "broken branches".
    • 6. The "problem" is that such a path is rooted in "pride of accomplishment" and is in direct opposition to any "claim to believe in grace".