A heads up that I accidently said "Israel" when I meant "Jews (at the time of Paul)". It should be pretty clear when I made that mistake. Also: sorry for the runny nose. I haven't been able to kick a longlasting illness. Thanks for watching!
Yup get some quality rest and fluids brother. Your online presence has been excellent as of late, but your health is more important for the long term!!
No problem, brother. I hope you get better. I'm loving the video. I'm watching it in 10-15 minute chunks, but it's great stuff. Do you plan on doing a deep dive on some of the other texts that Calvinists often use to support their position (e.g., John 6:44-45)? I love just how deep this video is going, and I hope to see more like it.
I'm only halfway through, but it is already a better explanation of Romans 9 than I have ever heard. Very consistent and logical, doesn't take any major leaps in logic, and honestly clarifies a lot of what I've always thought about Romans. That Paul has a heavy emphasis on the Old Testament, and not about some strange, and novel, esoteric understanding of the word "Election" thank you so much Dr. Korytko
I understand this is the best explanation you have ever heard, but you have not heard this one from James White which is the biblical understanding..... ua-cam.com/video/i_yngfbXH8c/v-deo.htmlsi=IWTUP6mHe81mY0PK
you do realize how Calvinistic the old testament is??? Arminians literally avoid it because they wanna focus on Jesus drawing all men in John 12 (out of context) vs God picking just one nation and disregarding the rest....
@@jalapeno.tabascoif you watch the full video he breaks down verses in Roman’s while using the OT to show what’s being said within the context of the verses 👍🏼
@@peytonpruett9416 he ignores the rest of Romans..... you're supposed to use immediate context before going to other books and then to the old testament...
Mr Korytko - This video was too short. After decades of bad teachings I think we can sit through detailed videos like this regardless of their length. Finally someone who seems to actually understand a subject. Great job!
Hey brother, my name is Jonathan (using my wife’s account) but I want to thank you for your work and willingness to make these videos. I know life was already full before you started making these. I am so blessed by your insights and it confirms the understanding that the Lord has been leading me too, and you are fortifying those truths with much more detail and scholarly wisdom. Don’t stop! I love you bro
I was incredibly sad this video ended… I could have listened for as long as you wanted! Lol Very interesting…. I am reformed but have never heard this before. Praying and pondering. Would LOVE to hear more. Thank you!!
This was wonderful! Thank you very much. I hope you feel lead to make more videos like this - opening up the scriptures and pointing out all the call backs to the Old Testament scriptures. The colours within the text were REALLY HELPFUL. (Although I don’t know Greek, I really want to see you go into the Greek, but when you do, please also put the English text/translation on the screen as well - this helps me to be able to follow your train of thought (because then I don’t have to hold 2 things in my head at the same time: the English translation AND the conclusion/train of thought you’re drawing from that - so if you have the English on the screen as well, it makes it easier for me to follow what you’re saying/arguing from that). Btw, I wouldn’t worry about length at all - I think the people interested in this type of content have no problem with 2 hour videos. Anything over 2 hours maybe could be split into parts. Part 1 video 2 hours, part 2 video 2 hours, etc. Just my 2 cents. Thank you again so much for this. My only surprise was that you didn’t go to the end of the chapter and verses 30-32. In your final conclusion/minutes you were basically saying that, but I was just surprised you didn’t point out that Paul says that very thing in this chapter - and which Calvinists ignore: God has always made sovereign choices about who will be the good pots - and his ultimate sovereign choice for that was to be through people having faith in Jesus - which is what Romans 9:30-32 says. If anyone resists believing in Jesus, they get hardened/used for dishonourable pots. If anyone has faith in Jesus, they get made into honourable pots. May God bless you and your loved ones abundantly! Hope you feel all better soon! Maybe you could do similar videos about Ephesians 1 and John 6.
Joel, your scholarly commentary offers a refreshing and insightful exploration of the Old Testament in Romans 9. This is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand this rich and challenging passage. Whether a seasoned theologian or someone approaching the text for the first time -- either one who watches your video -- your insightful and practical guide illuminates our study and deepens our faith. Thank you.
I been watching this again, and again to finally get to grips with what I also believe Paul is talking about. A forty year journey out of Calvinism, at last there is light
the sentiments of “i followed all the law, how is this fair for the requirements to change” sounds similar to tone expressed by the brother in the parable of the prodigal son.
the requirements never changed... it's always been by grace thru faith in Christ... Adam and Eve believed in Christ, Abraham believed in Christ, Moses believed in Christ
@@jalapeno.tabasco for salvation, right, but not according to the interlocutors Paul is addressing. i think that’s the point being made. the Hebrew people feel it’s unfair they had to follow the law or else be killed but the gentiles get a free pass
@@scottibreiding except Paul literally says the Gentiles are under the Law that God puts on their hearts by their conscious... if you read all of Romans you would understand this this guy is clearly trying to separate Romans 9 away from the rest of the book to establish his own context
Excellent stuff and makes a lot more sense in seeing the connection with the Old Testament, versus making it about the Reformed vs. Arminian debate hundreds of years later.
Joel this was refreshing!! I’m tired of hearing that Calvinism is only conclusion of a slow, clear, and concise exegesis of Roman’s 9. You just proved that wrong!! Great work!!
@@HappyPenguin75034 A lot of times, Calvinist arguments for Calvinism are basically, "Look, this verse clearly says that God [draws, elects, predestines, etc], so that means the Calvinist doctrine is true and Biblical." The context shows that the meaning of the text is found in more than the definition of a single word, and the Calvinist definition of the word isn't what Paul (or whatever author) was thinking anyway. So yeah, on the popular level at least, Context kills Calvinism.
@@dawudabanoro it says draws, elects, predestines. Even more so in the original language. I’d love to see someone actually give the original language. Let’s get to the truth.
Thank you so much! This was interesting and I learned from it. I especially appreciate you bringing in the Old testament framework for this, it helps with the understanding of what Paul wrote.
Excellent exegesis! Thank you for letting the context lead instead of starting with your presumption that this text is teaching a certain systematic theology. I just have one complaint - only two videos? I am requesting that you could do a video on Romans 8:28-30 and more.
I have seen Romans 9 as speaking about nations (referencing from the O.T.) for quite a while. You have added some great details to explain it even further. Thank you! I also think that believing Gentiles and believing Jews are the true Israel. "..that the Gentiles are fellow members of the body and fellow partakers OF THE PROMISE in Christ Jesus..." Eph. 3:6... Good stuff! Hope you feel better soon!
If you get a chance it would be helpful for you to continue the commentary through Romans 10 & 11 next, showing how this line of reasoning is more cohesive with the entirety of the epistle compared to more Calvinistic interpretations.
Thanks for taking Leightons encouragement and doing a show on Roman's 9. Your insight is refreshing. I have spent all morning sending links to all my friends (Calvinist as well as non calvinists). This was a fabulous way of reading scripture. Context is king as well as understanding the seed of the promise meaning God making a decision as to how He will save the world through this Messiah that will enter into the world God's way to bless men. The real children of God must enter into this new covenant by faith, not by national status.
Positively brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing what you discovered from careful exegesis. And, thank you for going back to the Biblical citations that Paul is taking from. Paul is using them to inform the reader what he's talking about. The same could be said of the book of Hebrews. He quotes a lot of Old Testament and when you go back to where he's quoting from it informs you better about what the author is talking about. It's another book of the Bible that Christians butcher to "prove" their theological understanding is correct. Blessings to you! I pray that you will have the time to bless us with other things that God might want you to share with all of us!
If you think your videos are long, Mike Winger has an 11.5 hour video on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. LOL! Great video, by the way! I found you from your interview with Leighton.
This is truly a well-defined example of proper exegesis and hermeneutics. I thought I was among the few who sees the continuity of Romans from the lens of Old Testament passages. Thank you for being thorough and poised in the explanation of the context.
Joel, thank you so much, brother, for making this video and for deciding to use your knowledge to help non-Calvinists. PLEASE make more videos re other Calvinist "proof" texts! One thing I hope you do in the future. When you cite another scholar, is it possible you can place their work/paragraphs on the screen (along with a citation) the way Leighton Flowers does That way, I can follow the train of thought better and chase down the scholars work/publications. Thanks SOOO much! By the way, my brother watched the video at my suggestion (he had already seen the video you and Leighton did on John 6) and he liked it so much that he's going to try to support your channel financially. Grace & Peace to you.
I couldn't get the source you quoted for Mal 1:2-3 being covenant language, around the 00:52:22 mark! would you happen to have it and perhaps other such sources ? Thank you
Thank you so much. I never could buy into the Calvinist interpretation. This makes so much sense. I appreciate you keeping it fairly simple to understand. Although I will likely watch it 4-5 more times to get everything. lol I look forward to seeing more videos from you.
Do you think you can do a followup or a series like this video. But could you do it with Romans 10 and 11. Cause i feel like Romans 9-11 require so much context in its whole to fully understand everything thats being said. Thank you so much!
Dr. Korytko, do you believe there is a distinction between "The Elect of God" in Romans 8:33 and " the children of the promise" in Romans 9:8? In other words are these two different groups?
To me it seems like Paul really narrows down on his “brethren according to the flesh” in 9:3. Or as he described “Israelites”. If there is a genuine reason to think Paul is not now narrowing in on Israelites as “children of the promise” let me know and I’ll really look into what you say. Always good to dig deeper.
@@tomascastro6716 your observation is 💯% correct in my estimation. But my question was according to Dr. K, are the "elect of God" (8:33) and "children of the promise" 9:8 two distinct groups? there's really only 3 options: 1. Yes, (2) distinct groups 2. No, referring same group 3. Overlap i.e. (all priests are Levites, but not all Levites are priests)
Just turned on bell notifications from you because I’ve been waiting for this video for AGES ever since you spoke to Leighton Flowers! Thank you Joel!!
Big thank-you, Joel for your use of the O.T. references to shed light on the context of this chapter. Keep up the videos. I was greatly blessed by your teaching.
Thanks for that exegesis, brother! There were some insights that I hadn't noticed before. Do you think you would ever do an exegesis of all the warning passages in Hebrews? I am not trained in the greek other than what is self studied, and would find it really helpful to hear your views regarding what is happening in the context there. God bless, Ryan
I think the translation of the Septuagint in Exodus 916 as been “persevered” 1:29:12 1:29:12 is a lot better than the “raised you up” translation in Romans 9:17 .If you grew up in a Calvinist background, raised up sounds like “raised from birth”. Whereas as “preserved “could mean that “I have kept you around and did not destroy you earlier.”
Concerning Hosea, around 1:29:00 and following, that makes a lot of sense. In studying Chronicles a number of commentators note how after the schism the north is treated like one of the foreign nations; Judah's alliances with Israel are just as disastrous as their alliances with the other nations.
I first saw you as a guest of Leighton Flowers. Much of this is a lot like what he says. I remember that he had to stop you and ask "now you and I haven't talked before". He wanted to point out that he had not coached you but that you had independently come to some of the same conclusions. I guess you could call me a "recovering calvinist". Sometimes it's hard to readjust your thinking when you have been working in a particular system of theology for a long time. It's good to see that another deep thinker has independently come to some of the same conclusions.
Thank you so much for this video. I just findinshed it. It is the best work I have seen on this passsge. Excellent presentatuon of the overall theme, Old Testament contexts, and flow of the text. It makes it very clear. Please continue to post. Blessings brother.
Really enjoyed this. Could you help me understand the part about “who can resist his will”? Are you saying they are claiming to be unable to adapt to the change?
God made a sovereign choice to continue the seed promise in Christ. That was his choice, and Paul is saying someone (probably a Jew or Judaizer) will contest that such a choice is unfair. It puts them in the "outside" group.
Wonderful teaching, my only criticism, way too short :) We need more like this, more in depth, more detailed explanations of Paul's use of the OT. Absolutely brilliant!!
I greatly appreciated this post! I found the fact that "hate" is used as ancient near Eastern covenantal language to be extremely interesting and helpful. Can you point me to some citations about that usage so I can learn more about it?
A couple folks asked for a citation for the covenantal language in the ANE concerning "love" and "hate." Check out: William Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77-85. This article is cited often. For example, you can see OT scholar Sandra Richter refer to it in The Epic of Eden (2018) in relation to Romans 9 as well.
he's not to good with using the context of a whole book, it would ruin his argument Romans 1-8 vindicate Calvinism, Romans 9 just drives the point home even further
Im trying to find the verse in Jeremiah that refers to the vessels of wrath being a nation but there is no Jeremiah 27:25 so I think you may have mispoken. Could you tell me the correct verse? Id like to include it in my notes Im compiling on Romans 9.
Oh, haha, thank you! I found it! I really appreciate you getting back to me so fast! This video has been very helpful for me, and one that I have shared.
1:17:16 who are the vessels of wrath that are being shown patience? I read an opinion that this was bringing up the previous categories of gentile vs Israel. And the ones who would be referred to as vessels of destruction, would refer to the unchosen gentles - not that they could not believe but that they were not chosen for the plan of God for redemption to come though.
This is great. A very good Biblical study and some helpful info/definitions along the way. Hope you feel better and make more of these videos soo , Joel!
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the OT connections of Paul's citations and how it probably fit into the context of his letter to the Roman believers. The more I learn about the OT the more magnificent God becomes. He's wonderful.
@JoelKorytko Would you mind commenting on this (because you said this on both Rom 9 videos): Rom 9:19 on both videos you read as "who can resist" (present tense) but the Greek says who has/hath resisted (perfect tense). Any importance on this? The reason I ask is the per Calvinist this is a rhetorical question - who can resist: answer obviously "no one" but for non-Calvinist who has resisted - answer "Israel has resisted". What is your take as both videos you say "can" but you do not comment in details on this. Thanks.
@@JoelKorytko Thanks for your time: agree but in your opinion, if present tense perfect, would it not be “who has resisted” instead of “who can resist” like some translations have it (for example ESV)? Isn’t there a different meaning on the question? Or is it just semantics?
Dr. Korytko - thanks for this video! I was very surprised by your explanation of the "righteousness of God" at 7:54 - that it signifies the salvation of God, that He is acting rightly by His covenant to bring deliverance. I thought, hold on, everyone says that the "righteousness of God" in Rom 3:21ff means the righteousness that He gives to us. But then I noticed that Rom 3:25-26 has two references to God demonstrating HIS righteousness by sending Jesus. What you have said changes the entire focus of this passage, from a focus on ourselves being made righteous, to a focus on God fulfilling His covenant and bringing salvation to everyone who believes. Wow! Could you provide the passages that you are referring to in Psalms and Isaiah regarding the righteousness of God? Thank you!
I don’t think you laid out what Paul was doing in the first 8 chapters well, and that causes you to get the context wrong coming into 9. Paul is not saying in 1-8 that the New Covenant results in right living as the Old Covenant was attempting to provide. To be honest, that’s antithetical to the Gospel, as the Old Covenant was meant to point people to their need in grace (albeit the Old was itself gracious, but I digress), to point people to the work of the coming Messiah. Rather, Paul’s case in the first 8 chapters was to cut everyone down to the same level. That being a Jew doesn’t make one better than a Gentile, that everyone has the same problem and requires the same solution, which is of course Jesus by faith. From what Paul lays out, a Jew might get the idea that all of the promises given to the Israelites in the Old Testament were now being fulfilled in the Gentiles, as though God is going back on what he promised the Jews. So, in 9 Paul begins to lay out that God is faithful to his promises, always had been and always will be, but those promises are his and are fulfilled in his time and in his ways. God’s faithfulness is being defended in chapter 9.
This is why real teachers do verse by verse. Then he said he isn’t a NT scholar and skipped 8 chapters. Why are people making videos who aren’t teachers by calling
@@HappyPenguin75034so anyone that does an exegesis of chapter 9, must first do a complete verse by verse exegesis of the first 8 chapters? And one must be a NT scholar in order to teach anything in the NT?
@@scwienert Yes you need to exegete the book. Are you serious? Do you need to be a NT scholar? I didn’t say that but yes you should know the entire Bible well enough. It’s one not two or 66. It’s all together. Pastors teaching random verses all year have no clue what they are doing. They are afraid of what it says.
@@HappyPenguin75034 no, in this video, or any single video exegeting a passage of scripture, they must first cover all that precedes? That’s the standard you seem to be laying down. He isn’t teaching a random verse, he is very detailed in exegeting an entire chapter.
Thanks for the video and walk through. A couple questions for you since your focus is the Septuagint and left Calvinism, what is your opinion on the Apocrypha and the core books of the "protestant" bible? And did you take on a more traditional sense of Protestantism or something else?
@JoelKorytko I have slowly been making my way through chapters 9-11, so forgive me for continuing to ask questions. Would you agree that the same objects being prepared for wrath (unbelieving Jews who were hardened for the sake bringing salvation to Gentiles) are the same subjects that Paul refers to in Chapter 11 as those who can still be grafted in if they do not continue in their unbelief? In other words, an object of God's wrath can still become a vessel of mercy? Paul even referred to himself in Ephesians 2 as having once been an object of wrath.
Thank you for presenting your interpretation of Romans 9, particularly in making connections with the Old Testament. I've been seeking to understand Romans 9. I have three questions: 1- I re-watched this section a few times, but I did not hear you talk about verse 16. How does verse 16 fit within those verses? 2- During your discussion of verses 23-26, you said that it is not about God electing individuals, but about choosing a group a people to prepare before hand. Isn't that still God electing or choosing according to his own will? Why exactly the distinction between individuals and groups of individuals? 3- During that same discussion why did you change your language that individuals would not be arbitrarily chosen, but you didn’t use the same language for the group? Thank you for your time.
To your questions: 1. Verse 16 elaborates on the OT citation of Exodus 33. No one can force his hand about which group he will continue to have mercy on. That's his choice. 2. I am referring to groups. God chooses/elects the group. That is the sovereign choice. 3. I probably made a mistake in how I phrased some things. I noted that in my pinned comment. My point is that the passage is not about individual, predetermined damnation but instead about which group God has chosen to continue the abrahamic promise through. That group is now Israelites in Christ (including grafted Gentiles). How you get in that group is faith. Sorry if I misspoke at some point.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. In summary, it is God's sovereign choice as to who gets his Abrahamic promise. But where in Romans 9 it says that we get in that group through faith? And is faith given by God according to His will or a choice made by the group? Or perhaps the choice made by the individual?
As a Calvinist, I think a lot of this was well done and I could agree with a lot. So this isn’t meant to be an overall negative comment, but a couple thoughts: I don’t have any stats on the common Calvinist belief, but I think it’s quite apparent that the Jacob and Esau citation isn’t about election to salvation and damnation (so I agree there). I haven’t seen any big name Calvinist emphasize that as an argument though, so perhaps too much time was spent on that. Again, maybe a lot of Calvinists do believe that and I’m just missing it. Also Calvinists agree Pharaoh wasn’t neutral. That would contradict total depravity directly. Where I have issue is in the objector’s question in verse 19. There I don’t see Dr. Korytko’s understanding. Is he saying the objector wants to resist God’s choice of showing mercy on believers rather than biological or working Israel? Then why would he say, “Why does he still find fault?” Wouldn’t that be off topic? This (perhaps the most important verse of the controversy) is the part where I don’t understand Dr. Korytko’s interpretation.
It is someone saying "how can God fault me for being in the wrong group now when he made the choice (for the seed to be in Christ) by his own sovereign decree? How am I the bad guy now? How is it fair that I'm in the wrong lump and actually opposed to his covenant now?"
@@JoelKorytko Thank you for your response! I’m still confused though. Would a fair paraphrase of your interpretation be “How can God fault me for being in the out group? After all, I can’t resist and control what God decides is the seed group?” The two thoughts don’t seem to flow together. How would the objector’s inability to resist what God declares the seed group affect the fairness of God blaming him for being in the out group? I’m trying to make sense of the idea, but I just can’t get the two thoughts to jive. Would it be kind of like saying, “How can the dictator find fault with me for being an outlaw? After all, I can’t decide what is considered lawful”?
@@levifox2818 Your paraphrase is getting the idea. "Why does he blame me, why am I guilty, when I didn't make the choice to be in the out group?" The question isn't unrelated at all IMO
What part of "Calvinism" are you unable to stay with? As a scholar, you are undoubtedly aware of the plethora of scripture in context that supports Calvinism - if the part you are rejecting is election. I appreciate that you also caveat that your view is your view and allow that your view may not be the only view. Of course, those who don't understand the doctrines of grace are always looking for someone to tell them that the Bible doesn't teach "Calvoinism". Of course, Calvin, didn't invent his view, but derived it from a contextual reading of the text. Neverthless, I am grateful that you are willing to expose your listeners to a Bible study that they can benefit from. At 8:24, you mention the classic "for all who will believe." What I never hear discussed outside of the reformed camp is "who can believe?" John 6 is instrumental in making this clear and this is one of the texts that led me out of Armenianism/Pelagianism and into reformed thinking. John 3:16 is always quoted, but never John 1:12-13, or even John 3:18, and what does it mean that those who don't believe are already condemned. I won't tie up your comment section with all of this. Blessings.
You are correct . Only the elect will understand the scriptures. He natural man can not! ”Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.“ John 6:29 KJV For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;“ Philippians 1:27-29 KJV ”Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.“ Isaiah 43:10 KJV ”looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.“ Hebrews 12:2 KJV
If you haven't done so, you should go and listen to Kevin Thompson's channel, 'Beyond The Fundamentals'. Kevin very astutely interprets every verse and doctrine you've mentioned above and then some. He even has an entire video where he walks through every single biblical use of the words election, choose, chosen, called, etc.
@@manofthekingdom Thanks for the advice, brother. I have studied the topic for 28 years and heard many arguments against it. Just can't get there. But I love my brothers and sisters that don't agree with me. I'm sure whe we get to heaven, we will all be surprised!
Joel, thank you! Excellent exposition. I like your surname btw, in czech it means “little stream-bed”. Do you have czech ancestors? Also, I loved your interpretation of the righteousness of God revealed (Rom 1:17). Please, could you speak what in your opinion “the wrath of God is revealed” means? How, where, is it related to v 17, etc.? Thank you!
This was fantastic! Thank you so much for this! I've read some things about Paul's use of the OT but I learned several things. Especially the part about "Jacob I loved,Esau I hate" being ANE covenant language. To me, this is a much clearer explanation and makes much more sense with the whole of Scripture. It's really a lot richer, too, and really demonstrates the depth of the Bible and how we can never exhaust it. In my opinion, it makes the interpretation of individual election to salvation appear so simplistic by comparison and really robs the passage of its depth and richness. Thanks again! Hope you are feeling better!
@JoelKorytko Thank you for making this video! I thank God for all the knowledge He gives to you, and thank you for being willing to share with us! It makes a lot of sense. Now, let's wait for James White to make a rebuttal video of this one. I would be surprised if he doesn't! Haha! ;-)
This verse by verse is excellent. I appreciate your efforts and time to edify the church and refute the errors of Calvinists. I have subscribed and look forward to more of your videos.
Joel, thank you very much for this great video and clear explanations and connection to the OT! Would you please do another video concentrating more on the vessels of mercy and wrath part and the transition to individual salvation…this part seems to be a real sticking point for Calvinistic-thinking friends and I’ve not yet found a thorough enough explanation to satisfy me or them. It seemed like you just got started and a more thorough and detailed explanation could be given. Thanks so much!
Well done, thank you Joel! That was very insightful and helpful. I have a few thoughts to share, but take them with a grain of salt since I’ve only seen you do one video and I don’t know you. I think the level of detail that you went into was great. Your target audience seems like it could best be people that are knowledgeable, but would like to be challenged to think critically and be challenged to further understand a text that they are already familiar with. It was really easy to open a Bible and stare at it while you articulated clearly what to pay attention to. You didn’t have much fluff or rabbit trails, but it was focused on the subject. I enjoyed that. Yet that isn’t to say that you didn’t have fun with it, too, but just not in a distracting way. Your comment that “Jacob and Esau kind of suck as people” was a good, funny example. I liked that you went into detail on the context behind the Old Testament references. That could be something to do more on OT heavy texts of the New Testament, such as Hebrews 1. Also, the historical context behind the letter of Romans helped the whole analysis as well, thank you. I like that you put some disclaimers more up front to get some of the debates out of the way, then generally you just went through the text to show what it does say, not mentioning the Calvinist interpretation much during the analysis let of the video. Though, you did that intermittently as needed, which was good. You seemed nervous at the start, and got more confident as the video progressed. I assume that’s attributed to first video jitters, but it was good to see you confident in the middle of the video. It seems like you could work on your stage presence, though I know it’s your first video and you’re just getting used to it. You had a sense of timidness in what you were presenting, but giving more confidence in your tone would go a long way. I think you had more confidence and were bolder in your interviews with Leighton Flowers and with What Your Pastor Didn’t Tell You. Thanks again for this great video, I think that any time a person is able to bridge the gap between the scholarly world and the lay person, it is great. Many of us love scholarly work and want to be exposed to it, but don’t have the time to parse through the literature.
Question about context - is it appropriate to consider when this letter was written to help with interpretation? I read that Romans was likely written 5-10 years after Jerusalem council where circumcision among other things were decided to not be required of Gentiles to be saved. Could the historical context play a part in interpretation or am I way off? I was told that is a dangerous hermeneutic and reading too much into it.
Thank you for taking the time to go through this hard passage verse by verse. I see how this interpretation fits the context much better than the common reformed view. They miss Israel and making it individualistic and thereby turning it into God choosing who is saved and not. God is sovereign in choosing the means of salvation. Salvation is not of birthright or by works but only by faith. Romans 9:32
@24:23 and poof salvation is removed from what is being explained. It was up until then but when convenient it is removed as what all the other terms are being used to portray.
Hi Dr. Korytko, I have a question: Is there any reason why verse 6 "not all who are from Israel belong to Israel" demands more meaning other than it just saying "not all who are from Jacob's bloodline belong to the current nation of Israel?" I find that this is more supported by the next verse, as another example, than over spiritualizing verse 6.
I’m not Dr. Korytko, but I did make an earlier comment on my view of verse 6. I believe “not all Israel are from Israel” is referring to the 10 lost tribes that were conquered by the Asseryians. The only remaining tribes were Judah and Benjamin (with some Levites) in the south. Initially “all” Israel was 12 tribes. By the time Paul wrote this letter there were only 2 tribes left (3 if you count the Levites that came back from Babylon, but they never had an inheritance as they were the Priestly tribe).
I'm on my fourth viewing of this video taking notes like a graduate student. It's great! If you ever make a John 6 video, I'll watch it multiple times too!
Aahh man awesome really great. Not to get too personal but if you felt let to share more of your background that could be really a blessing. For example in one context, Ive done some out reach in prisons and i believe theres many "scholars" there who have the mental acumen to become scholarly but just dont believe that they can or that such change is even possible or exists, so i jiet feel like your testimony could particularly impact a wide range of bwckgrounds-thanks for all the work! Godspeed
So "seed" refers those descendants of Abraham to whom the promise is given and through whom it is carried forward, and then eventually applies to all (Gentiles included) who are "in Christ", children of Abraham by faith? Am I getting that right?
Romans 7:1-14 is written in the past tense speaking of the Jewish/Paul’s experience under the Law (which he makes clear else where was incapable of actually saving). Starting in verse 15 Paul starts writing in what seems like the present tense and his own, still corrupted flesh, and his now renewed spirit, and the conflict of the two in his new, indwelled state. Is there some indication within the text that he is not talking about himself in the present tense? The question at the end of chapter 7 seems to be about our failure in the war, and what the solution is, which is answered in chapter 8.
Great video, Dr. Korytko. I just disagree with your kinda replacement theology take on Israel's identity, I would take a different conclusion about Israel and the Church; for instance, Michael Vlach's book “Has the Church replaced Israel?” would be a reference to my position. But still, I appreciate the commentary a lot. It's helpful for it to be out there in video format. Like you said, this is not about calvinism. The Old Testament context of the references that Paul used, makes it clear. God bless you, Dr.
Thanks! Definitely not trying to say Israel has been replaced. Rather, Israel is reconstituted around Christ, with believing ethnic Jews being within that (and also Gentiles get grafted in).
‘Reconstituted’ is an interesting word choice. I’ve read Dr. Vlach’s book referenced above and held to that view for most of my Christian walk. Have been studying under Steve Gregg and appreciate his perspective of referring to the Church as a fulfillment of the promises God gave and fulfilled in Christ. Seems to me to fit the Scripture more clearly than Dr. Vlach’s Progressive Dispensationalism. Always studying to understand more precisely, tho. 😊
I'm not finding it anywhere in Rom. 7 where it says if you live in thre Spirit you fulfill the Law, but are you talking about Rom. 8:4? Or is there another reference?
This is the reason I stopped considering Calvinism. The OT texts + context of Rom. 9 have nothing to do with individual elections to salvation. I love my Calvinist brothers/sisters but that isn’t what ‘election’ is defined as, even in this very text. Great job Joel 👍 Thx!
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 Yes and yes! Are you trying to say because subjects such as salvation and glorification are in view therefore Calvinism?
@@ryanparris1021 Why does the word Calvinism even come up, I am not even a Calvinist. So when the verse explains that God shows the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy - that were AFORE prepared for GLORY, why then say this has nothing to do with individual election unto salvation ?
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 Well..the subject of this video that I commented on and then you responded to my comment is about Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches meticulous, divine determinism in the most forceful way. It teaches double predestination if Calvinism is true. This is what I found in discussions like this unless we define what we do and don’t believe and refrain from being super evasive, it’s not fruitful at all. I am not a Calvinist the closest category I could be thrown into would be provisionism. I’m also open to Molen ism although I’m not 100% committed to that. OK now if you’re not a Calvinist, but you’re arguing for the things you’re arguing what is it that you do and don’t believe briefly please? I didn’t have any problem telling you what I believe. Therefore, if you disagree, you can go ahead and tell me how isn’t it just fair that you would do the same?
![Is Israel's Unbelief Inconsistent with God's Plan? Part 3 (Romans 9:19-24) [Audio Only]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qh0SD5uBOy8/mqdefault.jpg)
A heads up that I accidently said "Israel" when I meant "Jews (at the time of Paul)". It should be pretty clear when I made that mistake.
Also: sorry for the runny nose. I haven't been able to kick a longlasting illness. Thanks for watching!
Hope you get better soon! Rest up and God bless
Yup get some quality rest and fluids brother. Your online presence has been excellent as of late, but your health is more important for the long term!!
Thank you for taking the time to teach us!
No problem, brother. I hope you get better. I'm loving the video. I'm watching it in 10-15 minute chunks, but it's great stuff. Do you plan on doing a deep dive on some of the other texts that Calvinists often use to support their position (e.g., John 6:44-45)? I love just how deep this video is going, and I hope to see more like it.
get better soon!
I'm only halfway through, but it is already a better explanation of Romans 9 than I have ever heard. Very consistent and logical, doesn't take any major leaps in logic, and honestly clarifies a lot of what I've always thought about Romans. That Paul has a heavy emphasis on the Old Testament, and not about some strange, and novel, esoteric understanding of the word "Election"
thank you so much Dr. Korytko
I understand this is the best explanation you have ever heard, but you have not heard this one from James White which is the biblical understanding.....
ua-cam.com/video/i_yngfbXH8c/v-deo.htmlsi=IWTUP6mHe81mY0PK
Old Testament use in New Testament exegesis is immensely refreshing to see, especially from a bonafide scholar. Thank you!
I would like to see this "bonafide scholar" debate the real bonafide scholar Dr. James White.
you do realize how Calvinistic the old testament is??? Arminians literally avoid it because they wanna focus on Jesus drawing all men in John 12 (out of context) vs God picking just one nation and disregarding the rest....
@@jalapeno.tabascoif you watch the full video he breaks down verses in Roman’s while using the OT to show what’s being said within the context of the verses 👍🏼
@@peytonpruett9416 he ignores the rest of Romans..... you're supposed to use immediate context before going to other books and then to the old testament...
@@jalapeno.tabasco okay
Mr Korytko - This video was too short. After decades of bad teachings I think we can sit through detailed videos like this regardless of their length. Finally someone who seems to actually understand a subject. Great job!
Hey brother, my name is Jonathan (using my wife’s account) but I want to thank you for your work and willingness to make these videos. I know life was already full before you started making these. I am so blessed by your insights and it confirms the understanding that the Lord has been leading me too, and you are fortifying those truths with much more detail and scholarly wisdom. Don’t stop!
I love you bro
I was incredibly sad this video ended… I could have listened for as long as you wanted! Lol Very interesting…. I am reformed but have never heard this before. Praying and pondering. Would LOVE to hear more. Thank you!!
That is such an awesome attitude! The Lord bless you as you study his Word!
This was wonderful!
Thank you very much.
I hope you feel lead to make more videos like this - opening up the scriptures and pointing out all the call backs to the Old Testament scriptures. The colours within the text were REALLY HELPFUL.
(Although I don’t know Greek, I really want to see you go into the Greek, but when you do, please also put the English text/translation on the screen as well - this helps me to be able to follow your train of thought (because then I don’t have to hold 2 things in my head at the same time: the English translation AND the conclusion/train of thought you’re drawing from that - so if you have the English on the screen as well, it makes it easier for me to follow what you’re saying/arguing from that).
Btw, I wouldn’t worry about length at all - I think the people interested in this type of content have no problem with 2 hour videos.
Anything over 2 hours maybe could be split into parts. Part 1 video 2 hours, part 2 video 2 hours, etc.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you again so much for this.
My only surprise was that you didn’t go to the end of the chapter and verses 30-32.
In your final conclusion/minutes you were basically saying that, but I was just surprised you didn’t point out that Paul says that very thing in this chapter - and which Calvinists ignore:
God has always made sovereign choices about who will be the good pots - and his ultimate sovereign choice for that was to be through people having faith in Jesus - which is what Romans 9:30-32 says.
If anyone resists believing in Jesus, they get hardened/used for dishonourable pots. If anyone has faith in Jesus, they get made into honourable pots.
May God bless you and your loved ones abundantly!
Hope you feel all better soon!
Maybe you could do similar videos about Ephesians 1 and John 6.
Yes please do Ephesians 1-2 and John 6.
Joel, your scholarly commentary offers a refreshing and insightful exploration of the Old Testament in Romans 9.
This is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand this rich and challenging passage.
Whether a seasoned theologian or someone approaching the text for the first time -- either one who watches your video -- your insightful and practical guide illuminates our study and deepens our faith.
Thank you.
I been watching this again, and again to finally get to grips with what I also believe Paul is talking about. A forty year journey out of Calvinism, at last there is light
the sentiments of “i followed all the law, how is this fair for the requirements to change” sounds similar to tone expressed by the brother in the parable of the prodigal son.
That is a great insight. They were expecting their due through their work, even though they were close to God, didn't meant they loved Him.
@@elrogers1555 i think you’re right
the requirements never changed... it's always been by grace thru faith in Christ...
Adam and Eve believed in Christ, Abraham believed in Christ, Moses believed in Christ
@@jalapeno.tabasco for salvation, right, but not according to the interlocutors Paul is addressing. i think that’s the point being made. the Hebrew people feel it’s unfair they had to follow the law or else be killed but the gentiles get a free pass
@@scottibreiding except Paul literally says the Gentiles are under the Law that God puts on their hearts by their conscious... if you read all of Romans you would understand this
this guy is clearly trying to separate Romans 9 away from the rest of the book to establish his own context
Wish I’d seen this 5 years ago. You e given me peace that Calvinism had robbed. Thank you
I was hoping you would go on and put out something!!!! Happy to see this this morning in my feed.
Excellent stuff and makes a lot more sense in seeing the connection with the Old Testament, versus making it about the Reformed vs. Arminian debate hundreds of years later.
Joel this was refreshing!! I’m tired of hearing that Calvinism is only conclusion of a slow, clear, and concise exegesis of Roman’s 9. You just proved that wrong!! Great work!!
Not if he did it incorrectly
Outstanding explanation! I have been told, and I agree, that context kills Calvinism.
No it doesn’t.
@@HappyPenguin75034 A lot of times, Calvinist arguments for Calvinism are basically, "Look, this verse clearly says that God [draws, elects, predestines, etc], so that means the Calvinist doctrine is true and Biblical." The context shows that the meaning of the text is found in more than the definition of a single word, and the Calvinist definition of the word isn't what Paul (or whatever author) was thinking anyway. So yeah, on the popular level at least, Context kills Calvinism.
@@dawudabanoro give me the original laminate translation for these verses you dispute.
This will be interesting. In the context it means what it says.
@@dawudabanoro it says draws, elects, predestines. Even more so in the original language. I’d love to see someone actually give the original language. Let’s get to the truth.
your specific context that leads to your conclusion* you mean
Thank you, brother! I want to encourage you to continue to bless the body of Christ with your knowledge of the Greek language!
Thank you so much! This was interesting and I learned from it. I especially appreciate you bringing in the Old testament framework for this, it helps with the understanding of what Paul wrote.
Excellent exegesis! Thank you for letting the context lead instead of starting with your presumption that this text is teaching a certain systematic theology. I just have one complaint - only two videos? I am requesting that you could do a video on Romans 8:28-30 and more.
I have seen Romans 9 as speaking about nations (referencing from the O.T.) for quite a while. You have added some great details to explain it even further. Thank you! I also think that believing Gentiles and believing Jews are the true Israel. "..that the Gentiles are fellow members of the body and fellow partakers OF THE PROMISE in Christ Jesus..." Eph. 3:6... Good stuff! Hope you feel better soon!
This one will go down in the books as a great resource for people!
Thank you so much for doing this - so appreciate the teaching, but also your approach to teaching. Thanks again
If you get a chance it would be helpful for you to continue the commentary through Romans 10 & 11 next, showing how this line of reasoning is more cohesive with the entirety of the epistle compared to more Calvinistic interpretations.
Yes!
Thanks for taking Leightons encouragement and doing a show on Roman's 9. Your insight is refreshing. I have spent all morning sending links to all my friends (Calvinist as well as non calvinists). This was a fabulous way of reading scripture. Context is king as well as understanding the seed of the promise meaning God making a decision as to how He will save the world through this Messiah that will enter into the world God's way to bless men. The real children of God must enter into this new covenant by faith, not by national status.
Positively brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing what you discovered from careful exegesis. And, thank you for going back to the Biblical citations that Paul is taking from. Paul is using them to inform the reader what he's talking about. The same could be said of the book of Hebrews. He quotes a lot of Old Testament and when you go back to where he's quoting from it informs you better about what the author is talking about. It's another book of the Bible that Christians butcher to "prove" their theological understanding is correct. Blessings to you! I pray that you will have the time to bless us with other things that God might want you to share with all of us!
Thanks for all your work here @JoelKorytko Very helpful!
Great teaching. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Outstanding job.
If you think your videos are long, Mike Winger has an 11.5 hour video on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. LOL! Great video, by the way! I found you from your interview with Leighton.
This is truly a well-defined example of proper exegesis and hermeneutics. I thought I was among the few who sees the continuity of Romans from the lens of Old Testament passages. Thank you for being thorough and poised in the explanation of the context.
Joel, thank you so much, brother, for making this video and for deciding to use your knowledge to help non-Calvinists. PLEASE make more videos re other Calvinist "proof" texts!
One thing I hope you do in the future. When you cite another scholar, is it possible you can place their work/paragraphs on the screen (along with a citation) the way Leighton Flowers does That way, I can follow the train of thought better and chase down the scholars work/publications. Thanks SOOO much!
By the way, my brother watched the video at my suggestion (he had already seen the video you and Leighton did on John 6) and he liked it so much that he's going to try to support your channel financially.
Grace & Peace to you.
I was thoroughly blessed by this work, thank you for putting so much time into this analysis.
I couldn't get the source you quoted for Mal 1:2-3 being covenant language, around the 00:52:22 mark! would you happen to have it and perhaps other such sources ? Thank you
Thanks for taking the time to share your scholarship!!!
Thank you so much, Dr. Korytko. Very well explained, and I look forward to more in the future!
God bless you exceeding abundantly and also those listening
This makes a lot more sense in context than the Calvinistic interpretation.
Thank you so much. I never could buy into the Calvinist interpretation. This makes so much sense. I appreciate you keeping it fairly simple to understand. Although I will likely watch it 4-5 more times to get everything. lol I look forward to seeing more videos from you.
Do you think you can do a followup or a series like this video. But could you do it with Romans 10 and 11. Cause i feel like Romans 9-11 require so much context in its whole to fully understand everything thats being said.
Thank you so much!
Thank you so much! Where can we read your work you mentioned?
Great content! Thank you for taking us to class!
Thank you so much for presenting this! It really helps move beyond a flat reading of the text. The OT contextualization makes all the difference.
Dr. Korytko, do you believe there is a distinction between "The Elect of God" in Romans 8:33 and " the children of the promise" in Romans 9:8?
In other words are these two different groups?
To me it seems like Paul really narrows down on his “brethren according to the flesh” in 9:3. Or as he described “Israelites”. If there is a genuine reason to think Paul is not now narrowing in on Israelites as “children of the promise” let me know and I’ll really look into what you say. Always good to dig deeper.
@@tomascastro6716 your observation is 💯% correct in my estimation. But my question was according to Dr. K, are the "elect of God" (8:33) and "children of the promise" 9:8 two distinct groups?
there's really only 3 options:
1. Yes, (2) distinct groups
2. No, referring same group
3. Overlap i.e. (all priests are Levites, but not all Levites are priests)
Just turned on bell notifications from you because I’ve been waiting for this video for AGES ever since you spoke to Leighton Flowers! Thank you Joel!!
Thanks for this! Would you ever consider doing some of the other calvanist proof texts?
Big thank-you, Joel for your use of the O.T. references to shed light on the context of this chapter. Keep up the videos. I was greatly blessed by your teaching.
I saw you with Leighton Flowers, so came here. Subscribed. God bless you.
Thanks for that exegesis, brother! There were some insights that I hadn't noticed before.
Do you think you would ever do an exegesis of all the warning passages in Hebrews? I am not trained in the greek other than what is self studied, and would find it really helpful to hear your views regarding what is happening in the context there.
God bless,
Ryan
There are so many quotations from the Septuagint in Hebrews. I agree that any commentary/insights from Hebrews would be fascinating and helpful.
I think the translation of the Septuagint in Exodus 916 as been “persevered” 1:29:12 1:29:12 is a lot better than the “raised you up” translation in Romans 9:17 .If you grew up in a Calvinist background, raised up sounds like “raised from birth”. Whereas as “preserved “could mean that “I have kept you around and did not destroy you earlier.”
Concerning Hosea, around 1:29:00 and following, that makes a lot of sense. In studying Chronicles a number of commentators note how after the schism the north is treated like one of the foreign nations; Judah's alliances with Israel are just as disastrous as their alliances with the other nations.
I first saw you as a guest of Leighton Flowers. Much of this is a lot like what he says. I remember that he had to stop you and ask "now you and I haven't talked before". He wanted to point out that he had not coached you but that you had independently come to some of the same conclusions. I guess you could call me a "recovering calvinist". Sometimes it's hard to readjust your thinking when you have been working in a particular system of theology for a long time. It's good to see that another deep thinker has independently come to some of the same conclusions.
This is very helpful! Thank you! I would love to hear your understanding of Romans 8:29-30. Do you have any resources on that?
If you're this lucid while sick, I can't imagine how clear and helpful you are when well!
Thank you so much for this video. I just findinshed it. It is the best work I have seen on this passsge. Excellent presentatuon of the overall theme, Old Testament contexts, and flow of the text. It makes it very clear. Please continue to post. Blessings brother.
Really enjoyed this. Could you help me understand the part about “who can resist his will”? Are you saying they are claiming to be unable to adapt to the change?
God made a sovereign choice to continue the seed promise in Christ. That was his choice, and Paul is saying someone (probably a Jew or Judaizer) will contest that such a choice is unfair. It puts them in the "outside" group.
Wonderful teaching, my only criticism, way too short :) We need more like this, more in depth, more detailed explanations of Paul's use of the OT. Absolutely brilliant!!
I greatly appreciated this post! I found the fact that "hate" is used as ancient near Eastern covenantal language to be extremely interesting and helpful. Can you point me to some citations about that usage so I can learn more about it?
A couple folks asked for a citation for the covenantal language in the ANE concerning "love" and "hate." Check out:
William Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in
Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77-85.
This article is cited often. For example, you can see OT scholar Sandra Richter refer to it in The Epic of Eden (2018) in relation to Romans 9 as well.
Will you do a walk through of Roman’s 5 next?
he's not to good with using the context of a whole book, it would ruin his argument
Romans 1-8 vindicate Calvinism, Romans 9 just drives the point home even further
36:43 who is like Israel... So biological Israel is in the comparison of Ishmael... I think I have thought this before but couldn't put it into words.
Im trying to find the verse in Jeremiah that refers to the vessels of wrath being a nation but there is no Jeremiah 27:25 so I think you may have mispoken. Could you tell me the correct verse? Id like to include it in my notes Im compiling on Romans 9.
@jasminecharpentier1901 I never misspeak. Ever. 😆
You need to look at Jer. 27:25 in the Septuagint not the Hebrew Bible. It is numbered differently
Oh, haha, thank you! I found it! I really appreciate you getting back to me so fast! This video has been very helpful for me, and one that I have shared.
1:17:16 who are the vessels of wrath that are being shown patience? I read an opinion that this was bringing up the previous categories of gentile vs Israel. And the ones who would be referred to as vessels of destruction, would refer to the unchosen gentles - not that they could not believe but that they were not chosen for the plan of God for redemption to come though.
This is great. A very good Biblical study and some helpful info/definitions along the way.
Hope you feel better and make more of these videos soo , Joel!
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the OT connections of Paul's citations and how it probably fit into the context of his letter to the Roman believers. The more I learn about the OT the more magnificent God becomes. He's wonderful.
@JoelKorytko Would you mind commenting on this (because you said this on both Rom 9 videos): Rom 9:19 on both videos you read as "who can resist" (present tense) but the Greek says who has/hath resisted (perfect tense). Any importance on this? The reason I ask is the per Calvinist this is a rhetorical question - who can resist: answer obviously "no one" but for non-Calvinist who has resisted - answer "Israel has resisted". What is your take as both videos you say "can" but you do not comment in details on this. Thanks.
@@M.R.-for-Jesus Perfect tense can be translated as a present. Think "it is written" which is perfect tense
@@JoelKorytko Thanks for your time: agree but in your opinion, if present tense perfect, would it not be “who has resisted” instead of “who can resist” like some translations have it (for example ESV)? Isn’t there a different meaning on the question? Or is it just semantics?
@M.R.-for-Jesus who is resisting is a fine translation. Same thing is conveyed by who can
@@JoelKorytko thank you. I appreciate!
Dr. Korytko - thanks for this video! I was very surprised by your explanation of the "righteousness of God" at 7:54 - that it signifies the salvation of God, that He is acting rightly by His covenant to bring deliverance. I thought, hold on, everyone says that the "righteousness of God" in Rom 3:21ff means the righteousness that He gives to us. But then I noticed that Rom 3:25-26 has two references to God demonstrating HIS righteousness by sending Jesus. What you have said changes the entire focus of this passage, from a focus on ourselves being made righteous, to a focus on God fulfilling His covenant and bringing salvation to everyone who believes. Wow! Could you provide the passages that you are referring to in Psalms and Isaiah regarding the righteousness of God? Thank you!
I don’t think you laid out what Paul was doing in the first 8 chapters well, and that causes you to get the context wrong coming into 9. Paul is not saying in 1-8 that the New Covenant results in right living as the Old Covenant was attempting to provide. To be honest, that’s antithetical to the Gospel, as the Old Covenant was meant to point people to their need in grace (albeit the Old was itself gracious, but I digress), to point people to the work of the coming Messiah.
Rather, Paul’s case in the first 8 chapters was to cut everyone down to the same level. That being a Jew doesn’t make one better than a Gentile, that everyone has the same problem and requires the same solution, which is of course Jesus by faith. From what Paul lays out, a Jew might get the idea that all of the promises given to the Israelites in the Old Testament were now being fulfilled in the Gentiles, as though God is going back on what he promised the Jews. So, in 9 Paul begins to lay out that God is faithful to his promises, always had been and always will be, but those promises are his and are fulfilled in his time and in his ways. God’s faithfulness is being defended in chapter 9.
Hey hey. He is a biblical scholar. 😬
This is why real teachers do verse by verse. Then he said he isn’t a NT scholar and skipped 8 chapters. Why are people making videos who aren’t teachers by calling
@@HappyPenguin75034so anyone that does an exegesis of chapter 9, must first do a complete verse by verse exegesis of the first 8 chapters?
And one must be a NT scholar in order to teach anything in the NT?
@@scwienert Yes you need to exegete the book. Are you serious?
Do you need to be a NT scholar? I didn’t say that but yes you should know the entire Bible well enough. It’s one not two or 66. It’s all together. Pastors teaching random verses all year have no clue what they are doing. They are afraid of what it says.
@@HappyPenguin75034 no, in this video, or any single video exegeting a passage of scripture, they must first cover all that precedes? That’s the standard you seem to be laying down.
He isn’t teaching a random verse, he is very detailed in exegeting an entire chapter.
Thanks for the video and walk through. A couple questions for you since your focus is the Septuagint and left Calvinism, what is your opinion on the Apocrypha and the core books of the "protestant" bible? And did you take on a more traditional sense of Protestantism or something else?
The Septuagint is a fraud. Wrought with corruption. The apocryphal books are not scriptures. Not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The Septuagint is a fraud. Wrought with corruption. The apocryphal books are not scriptures. Not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
@JoelKorytko I have slowly been making my way through chapters 9-11, so forgive me for continuing to ask questions. Would you agree that the same objects being prepared for wrath (unbelieving Jews who were hardened for the sake bringing salvation to Gentiles) are the same subjects that Paul refers to in Chapter 11 as those who can still be grafted in if they do not continue in their unbelief? In other words, an object of God's wrath can still become a vessel of mercy? Paul even referred to himself in Ephesians 2 as having once been an object of wrath.
Thank you for presenting your interpretation of Romans 9, particularly in making connections with the Old Testament.
I've been seeking to understand Romans 9. I have three questions:
1- I re-watched this section a few times, but I did not hear you talk about verse 16. How does verse 16 fit within those verses?
2- During your discussion of verses 23-26, you said that it is not about God electing individuals, but about choosing a group a people to prepare before hand. Isn't that still God electing or choosing according to his own will? Why exactly the distinction between individuals and groups of individuals?
3- During that same discussion why did you change your language that individuals would not be arbitrarily chosen, but you didn’t use the same language for the group?
Thank you for your time.
To your questions:
1. Verse 16 elaborates on the OT citation of Exodus 33. No one can force his hand about which group he will continue to have mercy on. That's his choice.
2. I am referring to groups. God chooses/elects the group. That is the sovereign choice.
3. I probably made a mistake in how I phrased some things. I noted that in my pinned comment. My point is that the passage is not about individual, predetermined damnation but instead about which group God has chosen to continue the abrahamic promise through. That group is now Israelites in Christ (including grafted Gentiles). How you get in that group is faith. Sorry if I misspoke at some point.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
In summary, it is God's sovereign choice as to who gets his Abrahamic promise. But where in Romans 9 it says that we get in that group through faith? And is faith given by God according to His will or a choice made by the group? Or perhaps the choice made by the individual?
@@franciscorodriguez-sosa6385 Rom 9:32 and the rest of Romans talking about faith in Christ making you in Christ
Again, thank you very much. This was very useful to me. I hope you have a blessed day.
Thank you! Keep these coming as best you can. Truly enlightening and certainly a blessing!
As a Calvinist, I think a lot of this was well done and I could agree with a lot. So this isn’t meant to be an overall negative comment, but a couple thoughts:
I don’t have any stats on the common Calvinist belief, but I think it’s quite apparent that the Jacob and Esau citation isn’t about election to salvation and damnation (so I agree there). I haven’t seen any big name Calvinist emphasize that as an argument though, so perhaps too much time was spent on that. Again, maybe a lot of Calvinists do believe that and I’m just missing it.
Also Calvinists agree Pharaoh wasn’t neutral. That would contradict total depravity directly.
Where I have issue is in the objector’s question in verse 19. There I don’t see Dr. Korytko’s understanding. Is he saying the objector wants to resist God’s choice of showing mercy on believers rather than biological or working Israel? Then why would he say, “Why does he still find fault?” Wouldn’t that be off topic? This (perhaps the most important verse of the controversy) is the part where I don’t understand Dr. Korytko’s interpretation.
It is someone saying "how can God fault me for being in the wrong group now when he made the choice (for the seed to be in Christ) by his own sovereign decree? How am I the bad guy now? How is it fair that I'm in the wrong lump and actually opposed to his covenant now?"
@@JoelKorytko
Thank you for your response! I’m still confused though. Would a fair paraphrase of your interpretation be “How can God fault me for being in the out group? After all, I can’t resist and control what God decides is the seed group?”
The two thoughts don’t seem to flow together. How would the objector’s inability to resist what God declares the seed group affect the fairness of God blaming him for being in the out group?
I’m trying to make sense of the idea, but I just can’t get the two thoughts to jive. Would it be kind of like saying, “How can the dictator find fault with me for being an outlaw? After all, I can’t decide what is considered lawful”?
@@levifox2818 Your paraphrase is getting the idea.
"Why does he blame me, why am I guilty, when I didn't make the choice to be in the out group?" The question isn't unrelated at all IMO
@@JoelKorytko
Thank you for the clarification!
Thanks
Thank you SO much!
How do you send someone money on here?
What part of "Calvinism" are you unable to stay with? As a scholar, you are undoubtedly aware of the plethora of scripture in context that supports Calvinism - if the part you are rejecting is election. I appreciate that you also caveat that your view is your view and allow that your view may not be the only view. Of course, those who don't understand the doctrines of grace are always looking for someone to tell them that the Bible doesn't teach "Calvoinism". Of course, Calvin, didn't invent his view, but derived it from a contextual reading of the text. Neverthless, I am grateful that you are willing to expose your listeners to a Bible study that they can benefit from. At 8:24, you mention the classic "for all who will believe." What I never hear discussed outside of the reformed camp is "who can believe?" John 6 is instrumental in making this clear and this is one of the texts that led me out of Armenianism/Pelagianism and into reformed thinking. John 3:16 is always quoted, but never John 1:12-13, or even John 3:18, and what does it mean that those who don't believe are already condemned. I won't tie up your comment section with all of this. Blessings.
You are correct . Only the elect will understand the scriptures. He natural man can not!
”Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.“
John 6:29 KJV
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;“
Philippians 1:27-29 KJV
”Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.“
Isaiah 43:10 KJV
”looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.“
Hebrews 12:2 KJV
All of the so-called proof texts of Calvinist's can be explained with context. Remember Calvinism and context never go together.
@@scottlong5093 When one finds 10:verses that teach exactly the same thing through the scriptures , then you are comparing scripture with scriptures
If you haven't done so, you should go and listen to Kevin Thompson's channel, 'Beyond The Fundamentals'. Kevin very astutely interprets every verse and doctrine you've mentioned above and then some. He even has an entire video where he walks through every single biblical use of the words election, choose, chosen, called, etc.
@@manofthekingdom Thanks for the advice, brother. I have studied the topic for 28 years and heard many arguments against it. Just can't get there. But I love my brothers and sisters that don't agree with me. I'm sure whe we get to heaven, we will all be surprised!
Joel, thank you! Excellent exposition. I like your surname btw, in czech it means “little stream-bed”. Do you have czech ancestors?
Also, I loved your interpretation of the righteousness of God revealed (Rom 1:17).
Please, could you speak what in your opinion “the wrath of God is revealed” means? How, where, is it related to v 17, etc.?
Thank you!
Very helpful video for
me in my journey.
Thank you for your devotion , diligence, and sharing of your expertise in such a concise manner.
Joel , I have been blessed by this and your other videos. Bless you and your family brother.
Excellent! I hope you do more!! Blessings!
Thanks for the effort, it was enlightening for me. Romans 9-11 are often neglected for the earlier chapters.
This was fantastic! Thank you so much for this! I've read some things about Paul's use of the OT but I learned several things. Especially the part about "Jacob I loved,Esau I hate" being ANE covenant language.
To me, this is a much clearer explanation and makes much more sense with the whole of Scripture. It's really a lot richer, too, and really demonstrates the depth of the Bible and how we can never exhaust it. In my opinion, it makes the interpretation of individual election to salvation appear so simplistic by comparison and really robs the passage of its depth and richness.
Thanks again! Hope you are feeling better!
What do you think about the weaker brother in Romans 14?
@JoelKorytko Thank you for making this video! I thank God for all the knowledge He gives to you, and thank you for being willing to share with us! It makes a lot of sense. Now, let's wait for James White to make a rebuttal video of this one. I would be surprised if he doesn't! Haha! ;-)
This verse by verse is excellent. I appreciate your efforts and time to edify the church and refute the errors of Calvinists. I have subscribed and look forward to more of your videos.
Joel, thank you very much for this great video and clear explanations and connection to the OT!
Would you please do another video concentrating more on the vessels of mercy and wrath part and the transition to individual salvation…this part seems to be a real sticking point for Calvinistic-thinking friends and I’ve not yet found a thorough enough explanation to satisfy me or them. It seemed like you just got started and a more thorough and detailed explanation could be given.
Thanks so much!
Well done, thank you Joel! That was very insightful and helpful. I have a few thoughts to share, but take them with a grain of salt since I’ve only seen you do one video and I don’t know you.
I think the level of detail that you went into was great. Your target audience seems like it could best be people that are knowledgeable, but would like to be challenged to think critically and be challenged to further understand a text that they are already familiar with. It was really easy to open a Bible and stare at it while you articulated clearly what to pay attention to. You didn’t have much fluff or rabbit trails, but it was focused on the subject. I enjoyed that.
Yet that isn’t to say that you didn’t have fun with it, too, but just not in a distracting way. Your comment that “Jacob and Esau kind of suck as people” was a good, funny example.
I liked that you went into detail on the context behind the Old Testament references. That could be something to do more on OT heavy texts of the New Testament, such as Hebrews 1. Also, the historical context behind the letter of Romans helped the whole analysis as well, thank you.
I like that you put some disclaimers more up front to get some of the debates out of the way, then generally you just went through the text to show what it does say, not mentioning the Calvinist interpretation much during the analysis let of the video. Though, you did that intermittently as needed, which was good.
You seemed nervous at the start, and got more confident as the video progressed. I assume that’s attributed to first video jitters, but it was good to see you confident in the middle of the video. It seems like you could work on your stage presence, though I know it’s your first video and you’re just getting used to it. You had a sense of timidness in what you were presenting, but giving more confidence in your tone would go a long way. I think you had more confidence and were bolder in your interviews with Leighton Flowers and with What Your Pastor Didn’t Tell You.
Thanks again for this great video, I think that any time a person is able to bridge the gap between the scholarly world and the lay person, it is great. Many of us love scholarly work and want to be exposed to it, but don’t have the time to parse through the literature.
Question about context - is it appropriate to consider when this letter was written to help with interpretation? I read that Romans was likely written 5-10 years after Jerusalem council where circumcision among other things were decided to not be required of Gentiles to be saved. Could the historical context play a part in interpretation or am I way off? I was told that is a dangerous hermeneutic and reading too much into it.
Thank you for your efforts preparing this teaching. Very helpful! We need more thoughtful teachers.
Thank you for taking the time to go through this hard passage verse by verse. I see how this interpretation fits the context much better than the common reformed view. They miss Israel and making it individualistic and thereby turning it into God choosing who is saved and not. God is sovereign in choosing the means of salvation. Salvation is not of birthright or by works but only by faith. Romans 9:32
@24:23 and poof salvation is removed from what is being explained. It was up until then but when convenient it is removed as what all the other terms are being used to portray.
Hi Dr. Korytko, I have a question: Is there any reason why verse 6 "not all who are from Israel belong to Israel" demands more meaning other than it just saying "not all who are from Jacob's bloodline belong to the current nation of Israel?" I find that this is more supported by the next verse, as another example, than over spiritualizing verse 6.
I’m not Dr. Korytko, but I did make an earlier comment on my view of verse 6. I believe “not all Israel are from Israel” is referring to the 10 lost tribes that were conquered by the Asseryians. The only remaining tribes were Judah and Benjamin (with some Levites) in the south. Initially “all” Israel was 12 tribes. By the time Paul wrote this letter there were only 2 tribes left (3 if you count the Levites that came back from Babylon, but they never had an inheritance as they were the Priestly tribe).
Which Bible version/translation are you using?
I'm on my fourth viewing of this video taking notes like a graduate student. It's great! If you ever make a John 6 video, I'll watch it multiple times too!
ua-cam.com/users/liveWQeazD3PWX8?si=etTJFca7IxrXu1Xv
Check this out, too
Aahh man awesome really great. Not to get too personal but if you felt let to share more of your background that could be really a blessing. For example in one context, Ive done some out reach in prisons and i believe theres many "scholars" there who have the mental acumen to become scholarly but just dont believe that they can or that such change is even possible or exists, so i jiet feel like your testimony could particularly impact a wide range of bwckgrounds-thanks for all the work! Godspeed
Wow Joel, really good stuff!
So "seed" refers those descendants of Abraham to whom the promise is given and through whom it is carried forward, and then eventually applies to all (Gentiles included) who are "in Christ", children of Abraham by faith? Am I getting that right?
Romans 7:1-14 is written in the past tense speaking of the Jewish/Paul’s experience under the Law (which he makes clear else where was incapable of actually saving).
Starting in verse 15 Paul starts writing in what seems like the present tense and his own, still corrupted flesh, and his now renewed spirit, and the conflict of the two in his new, indwelled state. Is there some
indication within the text that he is not talking about himself in the present tense?
The question at the end of chapter 7 seems to be about our failure in the war, and what the solution is, which is answered in chapter 8.
Although not without it's problems, it makes a lot more sense than the typical Calvinist interpretation. Thanks for offering your insights.
Great video, Dr. Korytko. I just disagree with your kinda replacement theology take on Israel's identity, I would take a different conclusion about Israel and the Church; for instance, Michael Vlach's book “Has the Church replaced Israel?” would be a reference to my position. But still, I appreciate the commentary a lot. It's helpful for it to be out there in video format. Like you said, this is not about calvinism. The Old Testament context of the references that Paul used, makes it clear. God bless you, Dr.
Thanks! Definitely not trying to say Israel has been replaced. Rather, Israel is reconstituted around Christ, with believing ethnic Jews being within that (and also Gentiles get grafted in).
‘Reconstituted’ is an interesting word choice. I’ve read Dr. Vlach’s book referenced above and held to that view for most of my Christian walk. Have been studying under Steve Gregg and appreciate his perspective of referring to the Church as a fulfillment of the promises God gave and fulfilled in Christ. Seems to me to fit the Scripture more clearly than Dr. Vlach’s Progressive Dispensationalism. Always studying to understand more precisely, tho. 😊
Thank you for the very insightful video. I learned a lot and I think many many enjoyed it. We are grateful for your time preparing the video.
I'm not finding it anywhere in Rom. 7 where it says if you live in thre Spirit you fulfill the Law, but are you talking about Rom. 8:4? Or is there another reference?
Letsss gooo💪🏼
soooooooooo amazing! Best ever! Thankyou so much! I look forward to more from you.
This is the reason I stopped considering Calvinism. The OT texts + context of Rom. 9 have nothing to do with individual elections to salvation. I love my Calvinist brothers/sisters but that isn’t what ‘election’ is defined as, even in this very text. Great job Joel 👍 Thx!
Will you appear with him in glory? Is glorification a result of your salvation ?
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 Yes and yes! Are you trying to say because subjects such as salvation and glorification are in view therefore Calvinism?
@@ryanparris1021 Why does the word Calvinism even come up, I am not even a Calvinist. So when the verse explains that God shows the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy - that were AFORE prepared for GLORY, why then say this has nothing to do with individual election unto salvation ?
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 Well..the subject of this video that I commented on and then you responded to my comment is about Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches meticulous, divine determinism in the most forceful way. It teaches double predestination if Calvinism is true. This is what I found in discussions like this unless we define what we do and don’t believe and refrain from being super evasive, it’s not fruitful at all. I am not a Calvinist the closest category I could be thrown into would be provisionism. I’m also open to Molen ism although I’m not 100% committed to that. OK now if you’re not a Calvinist, but you’re arguing for the things you’re arguing what is it that you do and don’t believe briefly please? I didn’t have any problem telling you what I believe. Therefore, if you disagree, you can go ahead and tell me how isn’t it just fair that you would do the same?
@@ryanparris1021 I hold to sovereign grace - Romans 9 handles the objector clearly but the doctrine is from Gen to Rev.