Discussion of Romans 11: 11 and the NIV Problem

Posted : 11 Oct, 2011 11:16 AM

On a Christian forum a guy said: "It's the faithful remnant that God is after, the remnant that will truly be saved. The fallen ones are not. And yet what is the question Paul asks and answers in Romans 11:11? "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!"Why is this verse always missed? Paul has distinguished between remnant Israel and fallen Israel, faithful Israel and unfaithful Israel, and yet here Paul states that fallen Israel has not fallen beyond recovery, that all Israel will be saved (v. 26). If he were speaking only of faithful remnant Israel being saved, why then does he even ask the question of fallen Israel? Certainly remnant Israel is not the subject of his question."



Romans 11: 11: "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.



Romans 11: 19-21: "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee."



On the surface in Romans 11: 11 Paul would appear to contradict himself, because he says in the first sentence, "Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid." But then in the second sentence he says "but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles..." He asked if they have stumbled that they should fall and seems to say no. But in the next sentence he says through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles. In one place he says they didn't fall and in another place he says they did fall. There is more going on here than what appears on the surface.



II Peter 3: 15-16 warns us about not understanding Paul: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."



One scripture like Romans 11: 11, which is not immediately clear in its surface wording, cannot be used to support a man-made theology. Romans 11: 11 has to be interpreted by other scriptures. Look above at what he says in Romans 11: 19-21. Who is 'they" who were broken off?

If Paul is saying that the Israelites who rejected Christ were broken off in verses 11: 19-20, is he saying in verses 11: 11 and 11: 26 that those broken off will some day be brought back in?



There are other verses in the New Testament which are also relevant here. Matthew 8: 11-12: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."



And John 1: 11: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."



And even the parable of the vine in John 15: 5-6 is relevant because Christ pruned down physical Israel, as a tree is pruned so that it produces more fruit. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." And in Matthew 3: 10 John the Baptist says "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."



In the parable of the vine of John 15: 5-6 the time when physical Israel is pruned down to a small remnant is not indicated. Why would not this pruning down occur in part after the Cross and after the Day of Pentecost, as well as before the Cross? And Matthew 8: 11-12 indicates those pruned away are not brought back in.



The theology which honors "all Israel" is a more radical departure from New Testament doctrine than many would like to believe.



I noticed that the guy on the forum whose comment I quoted above is using the New International Version for Romans 11: 11. Lets see what the problem might be with this verse in the NIV.



New Revised Standard: "So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."



American Standard Version: "I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy."



New American Standard Version: "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous."



King James Version: "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."



New International Version: "Again I ask; Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all. Rather, because of their transgression, salvation is come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."



The NIV claims to have used the Nestle-Aland Greek text, which is based on Tischendorf, and Westcott-Hort, which, in turn are based on the Alexandarian type manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Greek texts.

Lets see if there is any difference in the Greek text between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort for Romans 11: 11:



Textus Receptus Romans 11: 11: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτους



Westcott-Hort Romans 11: 11: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτου



There is no substantial difference in these two Greek texts. The Textus Receptus ends with "autous" and the Westcott-Hort has "autou," for "them, " being the Israelites.



The problem is that the NIV interpreted Romans 11: 11 instead of translating it word for word as does the King James Version, followed mostly by the other recent translations shown above. The NIV says "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all. " "Beyond recovery" is not in the Greek. The next sentence in the Greek says "μη γενοιτο,"

or "May it not be." This statement of Paul, "May it not be," could be significant in understanding what he is saying here. "May it not be" is a little different from "Not at all" in the NIV.



Could it be that the NIV is trying to push Romans 11: 11 toward a dispensationalist view, that "All Israel shall be saved," meaning all those who appear to be broken off because of unbelief are really to be saved sometime?

Post Reply