In this article, I offer a series of brief but critical reflections on Dr. Joel Korytko’s recent interpretation of Romans 9, particularly his rejection of the Calvinist view of divine election. Dr. Korytko argues that Paul’s use of “seed” (σπέρμα) refers not to individuals chosen for salvation, but to a covenantal-historical group tasked with carrying God’s revelation. While his reading draws attention to important Old Testament background and corporate dimensions, it ultimately reduces Paul’s argument to functional categories and fails to account for the grammatical, theological, and lexical features of the text. What follows is a Reformed response to these claims, centered on the meaning of “seed,” the identity of the “children of the promise,” and the true scope of divine election in Romans 9. He seems like a well-intentioned good scholar:

A significant hermeneutical debate has emerged regarding Paul’s use of Old Testament texts in Romans 3:10-18, where he strings together a catena of quotations primarily from the Psalms to support his claim that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom. 3:9). At the center of this controversy is Dr. Joel Korytko’s challenge to the traditional Reformed interpretation, arguing that Paul’s application of these texts represents an “interpretive leap” that potentially misappropriates their original context.

Korytko specifically argues: “These are texts that in their original context are contrasting the wicked with the righteous… Paul takes texts that are meant to describe the wicked, and then he uses them to describe everyone. That’s an interpretive leap.” His concern centers on whether Paul legitimately universalizes what were originally context-specific denunciations of particular unrighteous groups—either corrupt rulers, unfaithful Israelites, or pagan nations—and applies them indiscriminately to all humanity.

Dr. Korytko contends that when examined in their original contexts, these passages do not support the doctrine of universal human depravity as commonly understood in Reformed theology. Rather, he suggests, Paul is using these texts in a more limited way to establish the guilt of specific groups—first the nations (Gentiles) and then Israel—without necessarily making sweeping anthropological claims about human nature itself.

At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: Does Paul’s use of the Psalms in Romans 3 support the Reformed doctrine of universal human sinfulness, or is he making a more limited point about the guilt of specific groups within a covenant framework?

Psalm 14 and the Question of Universal Depravity

Psalm 14 serves as a primary text in Paul’s argumentation. The psalm opens with a divine investigation: “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away… there is no one who does good, not even one” (Ps. 14:2-3). Paul quotes this passage directly in Romans 3:10-12.

Dr. Korytko specifically highlights what he sees as an inconsistency within the psalm itself: “So there’s some of that language, right… ‘Yahweh looks down from heaven upon the children of Adam… they are corrupt… there is none who does good.’ But then… it says ‘God is with the generation of the righteous.’ But I thought he just said that there’s no one who does good, there’s no one who’s righteous. But there are righteous a few verses later—how does that work exactly?”

Based on this apparent contradiction, Korytko concludes that Psalm 14 must be directed primarily against “the nations”—Gentiles—rather than making a universal anthropological claim: “I think it’s about the nations… So yes, all the nations are guilty. And then he hones in… and says ‘you’re also guilty.’ So he’s establishing the guilt of the nations and of Israel.” He further clarifies his position: “These verses are often just cited… ‘no one righteous, no not one, no one seeks for God.’ Period. Absolute theological statement about all of humankind. To which I say: is that the context of the psalm that Paul is citing? Arguably no.”

However, this reading overlooks the psalm’s theological structure and intent. As Tremper Longman notes in his scholarly analysis: “The psalmist has pronounced that humanity is characterized by pervasive depravity. In these verses, he claims God’s agreement in this assessment. He describes God examining humanity from heaven… Rather than seeking him, people are running away from him. No one is good.” Longman further acknowledges the categorical nature of this statement while placing it in proper context: “While such a categorical statement is surely hyperbolic (after all, the psalmist himself would be one who sought God), God’s evaluation reminds us of the situation on the eve of the flood…”

The mention of “the generation of the righteous” later in the psalm (v.5) doesn’t contradict this assessment but rather highlights a crucial theological distinction that Dr. Korytko fails to recognize: in themselves, all are corrupt; those who are righteous are such only because “God is with” them. The righteous exist—but only by divine grace, not by nature. This distinction is fundamental to Reformed anthropology and soteriology, and Paul’s utilization of Psalm 14 preserves rather than distorts this theological nuance.

As Douglas Moo explains in his commentary on Romans: “Paul appears to be looking at all human beings as they appear before the Lord apart from his saving grace. Even Abraham and David, then, are, in themselves, ‘unrighteous.'” This insight is crucial—Paul is not denying the existence of the righteous; he is denying that any are righteous in themselves apart from divine grace.

Psalm 58 and Inherent Sinfulness

Korytko similarly challenges interpretations of Psalm 58:3-5 that support the idea of innate human depravity. He states emphatically: “These are adults who are hardened judges… These aren’t infants; these are rulers who have turned aside. He’s not saying all people are like this from the womb.” He further dismisses the application of this text to universal human sinfulness: “This is not saying everyone’s a sinner… This is about the wicked. It’s a contrast with the righteous. You’re reading that through the lens of original sin.”

Yet the psalmist’s poetic imagery deliberately emphasizes the early onset and pervasive nature of corruption: “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” As Allen Ross explains in his detailed exegesis: “The psalmist now will describe their character in more detail. First, they have gone astray from the beginning of their lives… the point seems to be the same, i.e., that from the beginning they have gone astray.” Ross further notes that “The parallel line says they are wayward from the beginning. And this going astray is then identified most importantly with ‘speaking lies.'”

The Hebrew phrase “from the womb” (מִרֶחֶם) functions as a poetic metonymy for the entire course of life, from birth. Tremper Longman likewise notes that the text teaches they “were born that way,” emphasizing the danger of corruption rooted deep within. This isn’t merely describing corrupt officials but is making a deeper anthropological statement about the pervasiveness and inherent nature of sin—a claim Paul recognizes and incorporates into his larger theological framework.

Dr. Korytko’s attempt to restrict the application of Psalm 58 to corrupt rulers misses the theological significance of the “from the womb” language. The psalm is not making a simple historical observation about specific corrupt individuals but is using poetic language to describe the profound depth and early origin of human wickedness. Paul’s incorporation of such texts into his argument in Romans 3 reveals his recognition of their deeper anthropological implications.

Paul’s Intent and Hermeneutical Approach

Paul’s hermeneutical strategy in Romans 3:10-18 is more sophisticated than simple proof-texting or decontextualization. The apostle explicitly states his purpose in Romans 3:9: “We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” As Thomas Schreiner explains in his comprehensive analysis: “Verse 9 declares that Jews who sin cannot claim an advantage… Paul informs us how he understood his argument in the previous sections when he says, ‘We have previously accused all people, both Jews and Greeks, to be under the power of sin’… [and] Paul does not prove that all are sinners: he accuses all of sin.”

Contrary to Dr. Korytko’s claim that Paul is merely establishing the guilt of two ethnic categories (first Gentiles, then Jews), the apostle is clearly presenting a universal indictment of humanity. As Schreiner further elaborates: “The OT texts that distinguished between the righteous and wicked are now applied to Jews who believed they were righteous, to prosecute the theme that all are guilty before God. By abolishing the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, Paul overturns the Jewish concept of covenant protection.” This represents not a misappropriation of the texts but a profound theological insight into their implications.

Douglas Moo similarly observes: “By citing texts that denounce the unrighteous and applying them to all people, including all Jews, he underscores the argument of 2:1-3:8 that not even faithful Jews can claim to be ‘righteous.'” Paul isn’t misappropriating these texts but revealing their deeper implications within his comprehensive understanding of salvation history and covenant theology.

Dr. Korytko’s claim that Paul is using Psalm 14 to convict only Gentiles and the rest of the catena to target Israel (“This is a text arguably about the nations… Then the following citations… are about Israel. He starts with the nations and moves into Israel and says ‘you’re also guilty.'”) overlooks the unified structure of Paul’s argument. As Moo pointedly notes: “Paul’s purpose throughout Rom. 1:18–3:20 is not to demonstrate that Gentiles are guilty… but that Jews bear the same burden and have the same need.”

Paul’s approach mirrors established Jewish hermeneutic patterns of his day, where texts are recontextualized to expose new theological insights. His method resembles the prophetic approach of Amos, who moves from judgment of the nations to judgment of Israel to show that all stand guilty before God. Paul extends this logic further: no one—Jew or Gentile—possesses inherent righteousness before God.

The Reformed Understanding: A Biblical-Theological Synthesis

Paul’s use of these texts represents a faithful biblical-theological synthesis, not an interpretive distortion. His conclusion aligns perfectly with Ecclesiastes 7:20, which declares unambiguously: “Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins.” As Tremper Longman comments on this passage: “Qohelet does not deny the presence of the righteous. There are righteous people, but these righteous people are not consistently good. They do sin, at least occasionally. This opinion may be found throughout the OT… and the NT (Rom. 3:10–18).”

Paul’s argument in Romans 3:9-20 draws these biblical threads together into a coherent theological anthropology: apart from divine grace, all humanity stands under sin’s power. His catena of quotations systematically demonstrates the pervasiveness of unrighteousness in heart, speech, actions, and sight (Rom. 3:10-18), culminating in the conclusion that “the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom. 3:19).

The Reformed tradition affirms precisely this distinction: in ourselves, we are totally depraved; in Christ, we are counted righteous. The presence of “the righteous” in Psalm 14 doesn’t negate universal sinfulness but rather highlights the necessity of divine grace to produce any righteousness whatsoever. As Frank Thielman observes: “Paul appears to be looking at all human beings as they appear before the Lord apart from his saving grace. Even Abraham and David, then, are, in themselves, ‘unrighteous.'”

Dr. Korytko’s concern that Paul misapplies texts that “in their original context are contrasting the wicked with the righteous” fails to appreciate the theological depth of Paul’s argument. The apostle is not ignoring the distinction between righteous and wicked found in the Psalms; rather, he is questioning the assumption that anyone can claim the status of “righteous” apart from divine grace. As Schreiner explains, Paul “uses the OT texts in a more sophisticated way… [He] now applies them to Jews who believed they were righteous, to prosecute the theme that all are guilty before God.”

The Flow of Paul’s Argument in Romans

To fully appreciate Paul’s use of the Psalms in Romans 3, we must consider the broader context of his argument in Romans 1-3. He begins by establishing the guilt of the Gentile world (Romans 1:18-32), then turns his attention to those who judge others while practicing the same things (2:1-16), and finally addresses those who rely on the law yet break it (2:17-29). The catena of quotations in 3:10-18 serves as the culmination of this rhetorical strategy, demonstrating from Scripture itself that all—both Jews and Gentiles—stand under sin’s power.

Dr. Korytko’s claim that Paul is merely establishing “the guilt of the nations and of Israel” as separate categories misses the theological thrust of the apostle’s argument. Paul is not simply assigning blame to two ethnic groups but demonstrating the universal condition of humanity apart from grace. His conclusion in Romans 3:19-20 makes this clear: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.”

The purpose of Paul’s scriptural catena is not merely to establish that both Jews and Gentiles have sinned, but to demonstrate that sin is a universal human condition that renders all incapable of achieving righteousness through their own efforts. This is precisely the theological anthropology that forms the foundation of Reformed soteriology.

The Theological Significance of Paul’s Hermeneutic

Dr. Korytko’s concern that Paul misuses these texts by universalizing what were originally particular condemnations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the Psalms themselves and Paul’s hermeneutical approach. The Psalms often make universal anthropological claims, even while acknowledging that some are counted among “the righteous” by divine grace. Psalm 14:2-3 explicitly states that “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away…” This is not a statement about a particular group but about humanity as a whole.

Paul’s hermeneutic doesn’t flatten or distort these texts but brings out their deeper implications within his comprehensive understanding of salvation history. As James Dunn and Thomas Schreiner argue, he applies OT texts that do distinguish between righteous and wicked against those who presume to be righteous (i.e., Jews resting in Torah observance). He collapses the supposed distinction by recontextualizing it within his understanding of universal human sinfulness and the need for divine grace.

This isn’t eisegesis—it’s covenantal logic that flows directly from the prophetic tradition. The same method is seen in Amos, where judgment moves from the nations to Israel in order to show that all are guilty. Paul takes this a step further by using his catena of quotations to demonstrate that no one—Jew or Gentile—has inherent righteousness before God.

Universal in Scope, Revelatory in Intent

Paul’s use of the Psalms in Romans 3 isn’t illegitimate or misguided—it’s revelatory and theologically profound. He exposes a universal condition by drawing on covenantal categories of righteousness and demonstrating how none can claim that status apart from grace. His approach doesn’t flatten or ignore the original contexts but rather synthesizes their theological implications in service of his larger argument about the universal need for the gospel.

Far from misappropriating these texts, Paul unveils their deeper theological witness to universal human sinfulness—a witness that prepares the way for his proclamation of righteousness by faith apart from works of the law. As Schreiner notes, Paul “prosecutes the theme that all are guilty before God,” not to condemn humanity without hope, but to demonstrate why the gospel is necessary for all—Jew and Gentile alike.

Dr. Korytko rightly highlights that the Psalms mention a “generation of the righteous,” but he wrongly concludes that Paul’s use of these texts misapplies their context. Paul’s point is exactly what these Psalms imply when read theologically: no one is righteous by nature, and all need redemption. Some are made righteous with God, but none are righteous apart from Him.

Paul’s catena is not misreading; it is midrashic synthesis at its finest. It takes multiple witnesses from Israel’s Scriptures and draws the one conclusion they all point to: “that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom. 3:19). This understanding forms the essential foundation for Paul’s subsequent proclamation of justification by faith—the heart of the gospel message and the cornerstone of Reformed theology.

Romans 8 and the Realm of Flesh: A Response to Dr. Joel Korytko

Dr. Joel Korytko offers a distinctive reading of Romans 8:6–8 that challenges traditional Reformed interpretations of the passage. His argument centers on how Paul uses the phrase “in the flesh” (ἐν σαρκί) and what theological implications flow from that use. According to Korytko, this phrase should not be read as describing a person’s ontological condition (i.e., as being unregenerate), but rather as referring to a covenantal and redemptive-historical sphere of existence.

“To be in the flesh means in the domain of flesh, which is what they [Israelites] were in before the new covenant… It’s not about being controlled by the flesh—it’s being in the realm of the flesh.”

Korytko interprets the dative phrase ἐν σαρκί as a dative of sphere, a Greek syntactical category he believes Paul uses to describe redemptive-historical positioning rather than innate spiritual status. He frames this as a referent to Israel’s situation under the law, prior to the indwelling of the Spirit promised in the new covenant.

“He just set this up. He told us what in the flesh means: it’s in the domain of flesh without the Spirit, because the Spirit is the new covenant promise.”

Korytko believes Paul’s primary concern is covenantal contrast, not anthropological distinction. He reads Paul as describing a transition from life “in the flesh” (under Torah, lacking the Spirit) to life “in the Spirit” (empowered by the indwelling Spirit under the new covenant).

“David was in the realm of the flesh. Solomon was in the realm of the flesh. Everyone in the Old Testament was in the realm of the flesh. Yet they still did do things that were pleasing to God.”

Here, Korytko rejects the Reformed conclusion that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8) entails total moral inability. Instead, he interprets it as a qualified ethical limitation—not an intrinsic depravity that precludes God-pleasing action in all forms, but an incapacity to fulfill the new covenant life promised through the Spirit.

“It’s a change in realms—not ability. The text doesn’t mean they could never please God—it means they couldn’t live out the new covenant life that fulfills God’s righteous requirement.”

He is explicit that Paul’s focus is not to describe the permanent status of unregenerate humanity, but to exhort the Roman believers to live consistently with their new realm of existence.

“Paul is not establishing a binary ontology of saved and unsaved, but exhorting believers to remain consistent with their new identity.”

This leads Korytko to argue that even believers can lapse into being ‘in the flesh’ if they fall back into a Torah-based or sin-oriented lifestyle.

“Being in the flesh is something even believers can lapse into.”

In line with this, Korytko critiques the Reformed tradition for supposedly reading systematic theology into the text:

“To read in the flesh as a cipher for total depravity imposes a theological framework not demanded by the syntax or context.”

---

Clarifying the Debate

In sum, Korytko’s reading involves several key claims:

1. ἐν σαρκί refers to a covenantal sphere, not an unregenerate condition.
2. Romans 8:8 does not teach total moral inability; it refers to an incapacity to fulfill the new covenant life.
3. The dichotomy between “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit” in Romans 8:5–9 is not ontological or absolute but historical and exhortative.
4. Christians may temporarily revert to being “in the flesh.”
5. The traditional Reformed view imports foreign systematic categories onto Paul’s text.

The Inadequacy of Dr. Korytko’s Restriction of “Seed” to Historical Covenant Function

Throughout his discussion of Romans 9:6–9, Dr. Korytko repeatedly insists that Paul’s use of the word σπέρμα (seed) must refer strictly to a covenant-carrying lineage through whom revelation comes, not to those who are saved. As he says:

“This is so important… The seed is a very specific thing and it’s a theological concept that comes from the Old Testament… It’s not about who’s saved, who’s not saved. This is about where the locus of God’s revelation is—who is the seed.”

This view severely truncates Paul’s actual usage of σπέρμα across his letters. In Romans 4:13–18, Paul identifies the seed not only with Isaac or a historical covenantal channel, but with those who believe:

“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring [τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ] that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13).

“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham…” (Rom 4:16)

Likewise, in Galatians 3:16, Paul identifies the seed with Christ, and then in Gal 3:29, with all who are united to Him:

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring [σπέρμα], heirs according to promise.”

Here, σπέρμα is no longer a merely instrumental lineage—it is salvific and eschatological. It defines who belongs to Christ and who inherits the Abrahamic promise.

Paul also equates the “children of promise” (Rom 9:8) with “children of God”—a phrase used consistently throughout Romans 8 to describe the regenerate, Spirit-indwelt elect. Yet Dr. Korytko says of children of God in Romans 9:

“Now here I don’t think you need to think ‘children of God’ as in saved—that’s not how Paul’s using this language.”

This is special pleading. It requires redefining “children of God” within the same chapter where Paul just described those “led by the Spirit” as “sons of God” and those predestined as “called… justified… glorified” (Rom 8:14–30). There is no exegetical justification to treat the phrase τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ differently in 9:8 than in 8:16 or 8:21. Paul’s whole point in Romans 9:6–9 is to explain who truly belongs to the covenant family—and who does not. And he explicitly says: “It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring [λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα].”

Thus, contrary to Dr. Korytko’s insistence that the seed is merely a revelatory line, Paul insists that the seed is reckoned based on divine election and saving promise, not merely ethnic descent or historical role. The promise is salvific, not merely institutional.

In summary, Korytko’s rigidly non-soteriological view of σπέρμα fails to account for:

• The context of Romans 4, 8, and 9, where “children of God,” “heirs,” and “seed” are overlapping concepts.
• Galatians 3’s Christological and participatory definition of the seed.
• The clear implication that God’s promise to Abraham’s seed results in justification and inheritance—not merely in transmitting revelation.

Korytko’s reading cannot explain why Paul introduces the promise theme at all if its referents are not beneficiaries of salvation. The Reformed reading sees in Paul’s language an unbroken theological line: God’s electing love from Abraham through Isaac, fulfilled in Christ, and now applied to those united to Christ by faith—Jew or Gentile. This is not about who carries the mail of revelation, but about who receives the inheritance.

The True Seed Is the Elect: Rebutting Dr. Korytko’s Restriction of σπέρμα

Dr. Korytko’s restriction of σπέρμα (seed) to covenant-historical instrumentality is not only theologically reductionistic—it also fails to account for the grammatical and lexical features of Paul’s argument in Romans 9:6–8. As Douglas Moo explains in his commentary on Romans, the term σπέρμα is not just grammatically central, but theologically weighty—both within this passage and across Paul’s broader corpus:

“Σπέρμα is the theologically significant term in vv. 7b and 8—a connotation the term has elsewhere in Paul (see, in connection with Abraham, Rom. 4:13, 16, 18; Gal. 3:16, 19, 29).” (Moo, Romans, p. 762)

Moo even critiques the NIV rendering of verse 7 (“Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children”), which makes τέκνα (“children”) the decisive term. Instead, Moo argues that σπέρμα functions as the predicate and carries theological weight, parallel to the structure in verse 6. The grammar and syntax thus favor the interpretation that σπέρμα refers to the true, elect line—those whom God counts as heirs of the promise.

As Moo puts it:

“Since the interpretation that gives σπέρμα the same force in v. 7a is grammatically unobjectionable, it should be preferred.”

The conclusion follows naturally: not all of Abraham’s physical descendants (τέκνα) are his true seed—and it is this true seed that corresponds to the “children of the promise” (v. 8), whom God reckons (λογίζεται) as His covenant people. This is not merely a functional or historical designation—it is a salvific identity grounded in divine election.

Furthermore, Paul’s use of λογίζεται in verse 8 cannot be ignored. It is the same term used repeatedly in Romans 4 to describe the imputation of righteousness to believers (e.g., Rom 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22–24). The word carries a forensic, redemptive force—not mere categorical designation. Thus, when Paul says that the children of the promise are reckoned as seed, he is speaking of divine election and inclusion into the line of promise through faith—not mere historical participation in covenantal mediation.

Is “in the flesh” a Dative of Sphere?

Korytko’s central claim hinges on taking ἐν σαρκί in Romans 8:8 as a dative of sphere—that is, describing the realm or domain in which a person exists, rather than a state of being or inherent condition. This is not without precedent in Greek grammar, as standard reference grammars, like Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, affirm that the dative of sphere can be used metaphorically to indicate a non-physical domain (e.g., “in faith,” “in fear,” “in sin”).

Wallace defines the dative of sphere as follows:

“The dative of sphere indicates the sphere or realm in which something occurs. It is similar to the dative of reference, but more confined to the idea of a domain or dimension… The basic idea is that the action or state is somehow confined within the realm or limits of the dative.” (Wallace, p. 145)

A common NT example is Ephesians 2:1 — “dead in trespasses and sins” — where ἐν marks the realm in which their spiritual death is situated. Korytko applies this same category to Romans 8:8, arguing:

“In the flesh doesn’t mean a fixed ontological status. It’s the covenantal realm of Torah and sin—life without the indwelling Spirit.”

In short, he treats ἐν σαρκί as describing an external context, not an internal moral state.

Is This Grammatically Sustainable?

While it’s true that ἐν + dative can express sphere, this is not the only—or even dominant—semantic role in Paul’s use of ἐν σαρκί. Several problems arise when Korytko applies this meaning narrowly and exclusively to Romans 8:

1. The Context of Romans 8 is Not Neutral or Ambiguous.
   Paul is not describing overlapping realms of Jewish history but distinct personal identities. Verse 9 immediately draws a stark contrast: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.”
   The contrast here is positional and absolute. Moo rightly observes:
   “To be a Christian means to be transferred from the realm dominated by the flesh to the realm dominated by the Spirit.” (NICNT, p. 508)
2. Paul Uses Ontological Language.
   Paul does not merely say “walking in the flesh,” but “being in the flesh” (ὁι ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες), emphasizing nature or condition. As Schreiner notes: “The preposition ἐν replaces the κατὰ of verse 5, emphasizing even more distinctly the nature, condition, and state of the people in question.” (BECNT, p. 406)
3. Paul Does Not Exhort, He Describes.
   The passage lacks imperatives and instead uses third-person present tense verbs to describe the natural state of unbelievers. This suggests Paul is making a doctrinal assertion, not giving a covenantal history lesson or warning. Moo notes: “We are warranted in concluding that Paul’s interest here is descriptive rather than hortatory.” (NICNT, p. 509)
4. “Cannot Please God” Denotes Moral Inability.
   Paul says, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (v. 8), not simply that they do not. This is not a redemptive-historical inability to please God via Torah observance. It is a spiritual-moral inability grounded in hostility to God and resistance to His law (v. 7). Schreiner calls this a matter of: “moral inability… Paul doesn’t conclude that those of the flesh are not responsible for their sins because of their inability. Rather, he holds them responsible even though they cannot keep God’s law.” (BECNT, p. 407)

Theological Assessment: Redemptive-Historical or Ontological?

Korytko proposes that Romans 8:5–9 should be read not as describing the universal human condition apart from grace, but as reflecting the covenantal contrast between the Old Covenant (Torah/flesh) and the New Covenant (Spirit). He argues:

“Before the New Covenant, Israel was in the flesh. This doesn’t mean they were evil by nature or totally depraved—it means they were in a covenant where the Spirit wasn’t poured out.”

This view leads Korytko to interpret Paul’s language about inability (vv. 7–8) not as a total moral incapacity rooted in fallen human nature, but as a covenantal limitation: those “in the flesh” are simply people who do not yet have the Spirit, and thus cannot fulfill the New Covenant life.

Clarifying His Framework

Korytko states:

“It’s a change in realms—not ability. The text doesn’t mean they could never please God—it means they couldn’t live out the New Covenant life that fulfills God’s righteous requirement.”

He attempts to align this reading with prophetic promises (e.g., Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) that the Spirit will be given in the New Covenant to enable obedience. For him, “pleasing God” in Romans 8:8 means living a full covenant life—something even David or Solomon could not do prior to Pentecost.

“David was in the realm of the flesh. Solomon was in the realm of the flesh. Everyone in the Old Testament was in the realm of the flesh. Yet they still did do things that were pleasing to God.”

Thus, Korytko downplays the anthropological implications of the passage, treating it more as a redemptive-historical summary of Israel’s former limitation than a doctrine of the universal depravity of fallen man.

---

Reformed Response: Ontology and the Moral State of Man

The traditional Reformed view interprets Romans 8:5–9 not merely as a commentary on the stages of redemptive history but as a description of two spiritual states: regenerate and unregenerate. As Moo explains:

“Paul is contrasting two groups of people: the converted and the unconverted.” (NICNT, p. 509)

Schreiner echoes this when he writes:

“Paul’s argument is that behavior stems from the being or nature of a person. These terms should certainly be interpreted in redemptive-historical categories, but redemptive history should not be pitted against ontology.” (BECNT, p. 405)

Indeed, Paul’s use of “mindset of the flesh” (τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς) is consistently negative. In verse 7 it is said to be:

• Hostile to God
• Not subject to God’s law
• Incapable of submitting

This leads directly to verse 8’s conclusion: such people cannot (οὐ δύνανται) please God. This is not merely an external covenantal limitation but an internal disposition of the will, incompatible with spiritual submission.

Moreover, Paul explicitly defines believers as those who are not in the flesh:

“You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” (v. 9)

There is no suggestion that one might go back and forth between “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” Rather, these are two mutually exclusive categories, determined by the indwelling Spirit—i.e., regeneration.

Korytko’s view flattens Paul’s existential divide into a historical stage. While it is true that redemptive history climaxes in the gift of the Spirit, Romans 8 does more than merely describe the transition from Old to New Covenant—it describes the inward transformation of the believer from one spiritual nature to another. Paul’s point is not that pre-Pentecost saints lacked covenant power to obey, but that unregenerate persons, whether Jew or Gentile, are enslaved to sin and hostile to God.

In other words:

Reformed View	Korytko’s View
“In the flesh” = Unregenerate state	“In the flesh” = Pre-Pentecost covenant
Inability = Moral corruption and bondage	Inability = Lack of Spirit-empowered ability
Categories are ontological and fixed	Categories are covenantal and overlapping
Only regeneration moves one to “Spirit”	Spirit is a stage, not a dividing line

Romans 8:9–11 — The Definitive Break Between Flesh and Spirit

Romans 8:9 — “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.“

This verse introduces a hard either-or:

• You are either in the flesh (which is defined by the absence of the Spirit),
• or in the Spirit (which is defined by the indwelling of the Spirit).

This is not a description of covenant history or a metaphor for Israel’s prior condition. Paul applies it directly to present believers (“you”) and unbelievers (“anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ”).

Critical Implications:

• Paul does not say, “You are not in the flesh anymore,” as though this were just a covenantal shift. He says, “You are not in the flesh if the Spirit dwells in you.”
• That makes “flesh” not about ethnic covenant status, but about spiritual indwelling.
• This means that even a Gentile today without the Spirit is “in the flesh,” just as a Jew under the law was.
• If Korytko’s interpretation were right, this verse would be incoherent. Paul would be telling Spirit-indwelt Gentiles that they are no longer in Israel’s covenant — a claim that misses the mark entirely.

Ontology or Behavior? Korytko’s Misreading of the Flesh-Spirit Divide

Dr. Joel Korytko consistently argues that the contrast in Romans 8:5–8 between “those who are according to the flesh” and “those according to the Spirit” is fundamentally a behavioral or covenantal distinction, not an ontological one. He suggests that the verb phronein (to set the mind) means “to take the side of” or “to allow oneself to be determined by,” thus casting the passage as an exhortation to moral realignment rather than a description of two spiritual states.

Korytko: “The flesh/Spirit distinction isn’t about fixed nature but covenantal participation. Even believers can operate according to the flesh if they let it determine their perspective or habits.”

But as Schreiner argues, this reading both misrepresents the grammar and reverses Paul’s logical flow:

“Cranfield mistakenly blunts the ontological character of the text by saying that those who ‘are’ of the flesh are equated with those who ‘walk’ according to the flesh… In doing this he actually reverses the argument of the text. What Paul communicates in verses 5–11 is that those who ‘walk’ by the flesh or the Spirit do so because they are of the flesh or the Spirit.” (Schreiner, Romans, 405)

In other words, Paul’s logic is not: “You walk according to the flesh, therefore you are flesh.” It is: “You are flesh, therefore you walk accordingly.” Being determines action — not vice versa.

This is reinforced by the nature of the verbs and nouns Paul employs. Phronēma (mindset) and phronein (to think/set the mind) denote more than mental orientation — they express a person’s total existential direction:

“Strictly speaking, phronein and phronēma signify the direction of the will in human beings. The terms cannot be confined to the mind alone but refer to the whole existence of a person.” (Schreiner, 406)

Thus, when Paul says the phronēma of the flesh is death, he is not simply warning believers to avoid bad habits. He is describing the internal, habitual, spiritual orientation of the unregenerate person. That’s why he says bluntly in verse 8:

“Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Dr. Korytko attempts to soften this by arguing that inability here means that such persons cannot live out the new covenant life, not that they cannot do any good at all. But this fails to reckon with the force of Paul’s grammar:

“The preposition en in ‘in the flesh’ (v. 8) emphasizes even more distinctly the nature, condition, and state of the people in question… Paul argues that those who have the Spirit manifest the mindset of the Spirit.” (Schreiner, 406)

To say that one cannot please God (οὐ δύνανται) while in the flesh is not to say “they won’t do better under the new covenant,” but that their basic moral incapacity is rooted in who they are without the Spirit. Korytko’s reading reduces moral inability to a matter of misplaced effort — an unfortunate choice rather than a deeply entrenched state of spiritual death.

Paul, by contrast, views this inability as flowing from the corruption of fallen human nature. This is why he links regeneration with the gift of the Spirit, drawing on texts like Ezekiel 36 and 37:

“Paul mines Ezekiel, alluding to the great chapter where the Spirit of the Lord is the means by which the resurrection would be accomplished in Israel.” (Schreiner, 409)

Far from weakening the ontological reading, the new covenant promises confirm it: without the Spirit, there is no transformation, no power to obey, and no ability to please God. The covenantal shift in redemptive history requires a change in being, not just a change in behavior.

---

Ontological Status, Not Behavior

Romans 8:10 — “If Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”

Here Paul draws on the now/not-yet tension of Christian existence:

• The body is still mortal (subject to death because of sin).
• But the Spirit imparts zoe — resurrection life, real spiritual vitality.

This parallels Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 (as seen earlier) and makes it impossible to reduce “in the Spirit” to mere covenant membership or post-exilic status.

Moreover, this “life” is contrasted with the “death” of the flesh (v.6), reinforcing that being “in the Spirit” entails a radical change in spiritual condition, not merely a move from Mosaic Torah to Messianic fulfillment.

---

The Spirit’s Role: Not Merely Covenant Shift, but Regenerative Transformation

Dr. Korytko appeals repeatedly to the promise of the New Covenant as a way to argue that “in the flesh” refers to a redemptive-historical era — life under the law, prior to the arrival of the Spirit (cf. Ezek. 36:26–27; Jer. 31:33). But this appeal undermines his case when examined more carefully.

Why? Because the content of those prophetic promises is not merely about transitioning covenants but about transforming persons.

“I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.” (Ezek. 36:26–27)

This is not simply a promise of new conditions or external blessings — it is a change in spiritual nature. The giving of the Spirit in the New Covenant is precisely what Paul says makes a person no longer “in the flesh” (Rom. 8:9). As Schreiner rightly points out:

“Those who ‘walk’ by the flesh or the Spirit do so because they are of the flesh or the Spirit. In other words, his argument is that behavior stems from the being or nature of a person.” (BECNT, p. 405)

Thus, even if we agree with Korytko that Paul is engaging New Covenant themes, those very themes require an ontological shift — from death to life, enmity to obedience, stone to flesh — wrought by the Spirit. The believer is not merely in a new covenantal arrangement, but a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

Ontology and Redemptive History: Not Enemies

Schreiner puts it best when he cautions that:

“Redemptive history should not be pitted against ontology.”

Paul’s redemptive-historical framework — flesh vs. Spirit, law vs. grace, Adam vs. Christ — is not a denial of human nature, but its explanation. The “flesh” does not cease to be a corrupt condition of human beings simply because it also functions within a historical sequence. The New Covenant doesn’t just announce new terms; it creates new persons.

So while Korytko tries to deflect Paul’s argument toward covenantal epochs, the prophetic sources he draws from work against his reading. The Spirit’s coming is the reason believers are no longer “in the flesh” — not because their location on a redemptive-historical timeline changed, but because their hearts were changed.

Romans 8:11 — Future Resurrection Grounds the Present Reality

“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”

This again contradicts Korytko’s reading:

• The flesh is not just “Old Covenant.” It is mortal. It must be overcome by the Spirit through resurrection.
• If “in the flesh” simply meant “under the Old Covenant,” then why would Paul be talking to Spirit-indwelt believers about the future resurrection that the Spirit guarantees?
• This passage moves beyond covenantal categories to metaphysical ones — mortality, corruption, and the Spirit’s role in re-creating life.

---

What About David and Solomon?

Korytko argues:

“David was in the realm of the flesh. Solomon was in the realm of the flesh. Everyone in the Old Testament was in the realm of the flesh. Yet they still did do things that were pleasing to God.”

This objection fails on several levels:

1. Category Mistake: Paul is not saying in Romans 8:8 that no one ever performed externally righteous acts. Rather, he is saying that no one in the flesh — i.e., without the Spirit — can do what is truly pleasing to God in a salvific or redemptive sense (cf. Heb. 11:6).
2. Typological Function of OT Saints: Old Testament believers like David were indeed regenerate — by grace through faith (cf. Rom 4:6–8). The Spirit did not permanently indwell them as in the New Covenant (John 7:39), but He certainly regenerated and sanctified them (see Psalm 51:11 for fear of the Spirit departing).
3. False Parallel: Saying “David was in the flesh” (if meaning unregenerate) directly contradicts Scripture. Paul says in Romans 8:9, “You are not in the flesh, if the Spirit dwells in you,” and David prays, “Take not your Holy Spirit from me” — acknowledging the Spirit’s presence.

Thus, the claim that David was “in the flesh” in the sense of Romans 8:8 is simply wrong. Korytko equivocates on the meaning of “in the flesh,” misapplying it to saints who, by Paul’s own criteria, were not “in the flesh” because they had faith wrought by the Spirit.

Does Romans 7:5 Support a Redemptive-Historical Reading of “In the Flesh”?

Dr. Korytko claims that Romans 7:5 proves Paul uses the phrase “in the flesh” to describe Israel’s life under the Mosaic Law:

Korytko: “Romans 7:5 defines the ‘we’ as those who were under the law — that’s what it means to be ‘in the flesh.’ This isn’t about being unregenerate, it’s about being in the old covenant.”

Indeed, Paul writes:

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.” (Rom. 7:5)

But several problems arise in treating this verse as support for a purely covenantal understanding of “in the flesh.”

“In the flesh” here still refers to moral incapacity and bondage to sin

Even if Paul is referring to Jewish believers’ former state under the law, his point is that their condition under the law was one of bondage to sin — i.e., a spiritually dead and morally enslaved state. As Paul continues:

“But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive.” (7:6)

The language of captivity, passions “bearing fruit for death,” and spiritual liberation is not merely about historical location — it’s about the inward condition of the person. That’s why Romans 7:5 and 8:8 belong together: both describe a state of powerlessness to obey and to please God.

Romans 8 makes “in the flesh” a present and universal condition of unbelievers, not just Jews

Korytko’s reading would mean that only Jews were ever “in the flesh” — but this ignores how Paul uses the same language of the Gentiles throughout Romans:

• Gentiles, not just Jews, are “hostile to God” and “cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7–8).
• Paul earlier concluded “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom. 3:9).
• In Ephesians 2:3, Paul applies “by nature children of wrath” to “we all” — not just Jews.

So while Romans 7:5 may reference Jews under the law, it does not limit “in the flesh” to a covenantal epoch. Paul’s logic in Romans 8 unfolds a broader anthropology — one that includes all people outside of Christ.

Redemptive-Historical and Ontological Dimensions Coexist

To affirm that Israel’s former condition under the law is described as “in the flesh” is not to deny that this condition describes the unregenerate. On the contrary, Paul’s point is that being under the law exposed and exacerbated this condition (Rom. 7:8–13), but the condition itself is universal and rooted in Adamic nature (Rom. 5:12–21).

So the redemptive-historical angle actually serves to highlight the deeper ontological bondage to sin that only the Spirit can overcome — not to reduce the discussion to covenantal arrangements.

Can Believers Be “In the Flesh”? Interpreting Romans 8:13

A cornerstone of Dr. Korytko’s position is the claim that “in the flesh” is not a permanent ontological status, but a behavioral or covenantal sphere that even believers may momentarily re-enter:

Korytko: “Paul is not establishing a binary ontology of saved and unsaved, but exhorting believers to remain consistent with their new identity… Being ‘in the flesh’ is something even believers can lapse into.”

He likely sees support for this in Romans 8:13:

“For if you live according to the flesh, you will die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

At first glance, this might suggest that believers face the real threat of spiritual death if they return to “fleshly” living. But when considered in context, Paul’s language makes a crucial distinction between being in the flesh and walking according to the flesh.

Paul distinguishes ontological status from moral exhortation

Verses 8–9 had already declared:

“Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

Here Paul draws a sharp line. The believer is not in the flesh. The grammar is indicative, not imperative — a statement of fact, not an invitation to remain or become something. As Moo notes, Paul’s language is “positional,” not hypothetical:

“To be a Christian is to be indwelt by God’s Spirit; and to be indwelt by God’s Spirit means to be ‘in the Spirit’ and not ‘in the flesh.’” (Moo, Romans, 511)

Thus, Romans 8:13 must be interpreted in light of this prior assurance. The warning does not imply a possible reversion of status from “in the Spirit” to “in the flesh,” but a call to live in line with that new spiritual reality.

The Warning Functions as a Means of Perseverance

Reformed interpreters understand passages like Romans 8:13 not as hypothetical threats against regeneration, but as means by which God preserves His people. Paul is not suggesting that regenerate believers might lapse ontologically into the flesh, but that their sanctification involves the active mortification of sin.

This aligns with Paul’s wider use of warnings throughout his letters — not as signals of instability in one’s new identity, but as instruments God uses to spur perseverance (cf. 1 Cor. 10:12–13; Phil. 2:12–13).

Ontological Identity Grounds the Exhortation

As Schreiner puts it:

“Those who ‘walk’ by the flesh or the Spirit do so because they are of the flesh or the Spirit. Behavior stems from the being or nature of a person.” (Romans, 405)

The point of Romans 8:13 is not to suggest that a believer could truly be “in the flesh,” but to highlight the incompatibility between that former realm and the life of the Spirit. The believer who fails to mortify sin gives evidence that he never truly belonged to the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:14–17; 1 John 2:19).

Parallel Structures in 1 Corinthians 2 and Ephesians 2

Paul’s anthropology is not confined to Romans. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, he makes an unambiguous contrast between the ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (“natural man”) and the one who is πνευματικός (“spiritual”):

“But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able [οὐ δύναται] to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The parallel to Romans 8:7–8 is unmistakable:

• In Romans 8:7, the mindset of the flesh is hostile to God.
• In 1 Corinthians 2:14, the natural man finds the things of God foolish and cannot accept them.
• In both, the inability (οὐ δύναται) is moral and spiritual, not merely situational or behavioral.

Like Romans 8, there is no third category. Paul doesn’t say some unregenerate people might understand spiritual truth if they tried harder or changed habits. He draws a totalizing contrast: those without the Spirit are incapable of receiving the things that pertain to the Spirit.

Further, the contrast is framed in terms of wisdom — the “wisdom of this age” vs. the “wisdom from the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:6–13). This directly parallels Romans 8:5–6, where the mindset of the flesh results in death, and the mindset of the Spirit leads to life and peace. Both texts contrast two competing worldviews, two minds, two destinies — not two fluctuating behavioral states.

As Schreiner notes:

“Paul describes the actual mind-set of those who are according to the flesh and Spirit. This is not to deny that believers battle against the flesh… but such a struggle should not be read into verses 5–8.” (BECNT, 406)

Ephesians 2: Children of Wrath by Nature

Paul’s theology of moral incapacity is even more explicitly ontological in Ephesians 2:1–3:

“We all once lived in the passions of our flesh… and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

Here, “by nature” (φύσει) denotes a fixed disposition or condition determined from birth — not a temporary alignment with sinful behavior. The Greek term carries connotations of origin and constitution, as BDAG defines it: “condition or circumstance determined by birth, natural endowment or condition, nature.” Paul places every human under the same condition prior to regeneration.

Dr. Korytko’s reading of Romans 8 would have to imply that Paul means “we were only children of wrath when behaving badly” — but Ephesians won’t allow that. The very reason grace is “amazing” is that it meets people in their spiritual deadness, not just in their bad behavior.

Likewise, Ephesians 2:5–6 affirms that God “made us alive” with Christ — using resurrection imagery that directly parallels Romans 8:10–11. This is not a moral pep talk. It is the announcement of a divine act that raises the dead.

Thus, Paul’s anthropology remains consistent:

• Those without the Spirit are “in the flesh,” “natural,” “dead,” and “unable” to receive, believe, or please God.
• Those with the Spirit are “in Christ,” “spiritual,” “alive,” and enabled to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Rom. 8:4).

Korytko’s model dissolves these distinctions into behavioral fluidity. But Paul’s own words maintain rigid ontological lines, rooted in the soteriological distinction between the old age of sin and death and the new age inaugurated by Christ and the Spirit.

How Korytko’s Reading Undermines Paul’s Redemptive-Historical Argument in Romans 8:1–11

Paul’s argument in Romans 8 is built on a sharp redemptive-historical contrast: the decisive change that has occurred in salvation history through the coming of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. This contrast structures the entire chapter and is evident from the very first verse:

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:1)

This is not merely a new moral opportunity — it is the declaration of a new eschatological era. Paul’s flow of thought in vv. 2–4 traces the reason for this transformation:

• The law of the Spirit of life has set believers free from the law of sin and death (v. 2),
• Because God condemned sin in the flesh through Christ (v. 3),
• In order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (v. 4).

Paul’s logic depends on two clear realms:

• In the flesh → death, enmity with God, lawlessness, condemnation.
• In the Spirit → life, peace, fulfillment of the law, justification.

Dr. Korytko wants to read “in the flesh” not as an ontological state but as a behavioral pattern or redemptive-historical sphere that even believers can temporarily enter. But this collapses Paul’s entire logic. If “in the flesh” simply refers to being in the old covenant, or to a sinful phase that even believers can re-enter, then the dramatic salvation Paul celebrates in Romans 8 loses its force.

The Argument’s Structural Fragility under Korytko’s View

If believers can be “in the flesh” at times, then:

• There is no clear line between those who are justified and those who are condemned (v. 1),
• The fulfillment of the law in v. 4 becomes a conditional ideal, not a Spirit-wrought reality,
• The warning that “those in the flesh cannot please God” (v. 8) becomes exhortation rather than declaration,
• The statement “you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit” (v. 9) becomes wishful encouragement, not ontological reassurance.

But Schreiner is right to say:

“The intention of verses 5–11, then, is scarcely to say that believers are partly dominated by the flesh and partly by the Spirit. Instead, Paul argues that those who have the Spirit manifest the mind-set of the Spirit.” (BECNT, 406)

Korytko’s approach unintentionally reverts Paul’s eschatological gospel into a legalistic model: try to live up to your new identity or risk falling back under condemnation. Paul, by contrast, is celebrating a definitive ontological transfer — “He has transferred us out of the domain of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13).

The redemptive-historical argument in Romans 8 only works if the phrases “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit” refer to real categories of personhood rooted in divine action. They are not fluctuating conditions; they are new-creational identities.

Colossians 1 and the Spirit-Wrought Ontological Shift

Far from supporting a merely “covenantal reorientation” view, Colossians 1 provides profound support for the ontological categories of Romans 8 by highlighting the transformative, Spirit-driven change believers undergo. Dr. Korytko wants to frame Paul’s contrast between flesh and Spirit as a “covenantal framework” that is primarily behavioral and historical. But Paul’s theology is much deeper: it is ontological, cosmic, and creational.

A New Creation Temple and a New Humanity

As G. K. Beale shows, Colossians 1:9–10 describes believers as being “filled” with spiritual wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, with direct allusions to temple craftsmanship in Exodus 31 and 35. This is not a surface-level behavioral change. The believer is being reshaped by God through Spirit-empowered wisdom in a manner parallel to the construction of the tabernacle. They are being reconstituted as new creation temple-workers, bearing fruit and building up the body of Christ, the eschatological temple (Col. 1:6, 1:10; cf. Eph. 2:20–22).

This directly parallels Romans 8:1–4, where believers fulfill the righteous requirement of the law by walking “according to the Spirit.” The transformation is not legal status alone—it is vocational and ethical. It is the realization of Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31. As Schreiner writes of Romans 8, “Paul mines Ezekiel,” alluding to the Spirit who causes resurrection and obedience (cf. Ezek. 36:26–27; 37:5–10)【Schreiner, BECNT, 409】.

The Sphere of Dominion: From Darkness to Light

Colossians 1:13 says believers were “rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of his beloved Son.” This is Paul’s language of realm—but not merely covenantal administration. This is the same categorical shift we see in Romans 8:9–11:

“You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

To be “in the Spirit” is to be in a new dominion, just as to be “in the Son” in Colossians is to be in the new creation. The two realms—flesh and Spirit, death and life—are mutually exclusive and comprehensive.

The Role of the Spirit and Wisdom: Not Available to the Flesh

Beale also observes that the “wisdom, knowledge, and understanding” given to believers in Colossians 1:9–10 is sourced from the Spirit and distinct from false Jewish ‘wisdom’ rooted in human tradition (Col. 2:8, 2:23). This parallels 1 Corinthians 2:14, where the natural man (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he cannot understand them. This epistemic inability reflects the same ontological inability Paul speaks of in Romans 8:8: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

The “knowledge” and “wisdom” of Colossians 1 is not something one chooses to accept while in the flesh. It is Spirit-given. It is a fruit of regeneration. As Beale emphasizes:

“The knowledge of God is essential for the fulfillment of the commission. And if there is true ‘knowledge,’ then it will inevitably be accompanied by ‘good works.’”【BECNT, 59】

This reinforces Romans 8:5–6: the mind set on the Spirit leads to life and peace; the mind set on the flesh is death. There is no intermediate category.

Ethical Result as Evidence of Ontological Change

Colossians 1:10 speaks of “walking in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him,” and this walking results from being “filled” by God. Just like Romans 8:4, the result is not the ground—Spirit-enabled walking is the evidence of prior transformation. This teleology only makes sense if Paul assumes the ethical fruit follows a Spirit-wrought ontological shift. Otherwise, we’re back to moralism and covenantal legalism.

Romans 8:3–4 — The Spirit, the Law, and the Purpose of Christ’s Death

The interplay between Christ’s atoning death and the Spirit’s transformative work is central to Romans 8. Paul is not merely discussing justification in the abstract—he is explaining how the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in believers through union with Christ and life in the Spirit.

“For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3–4).

This last phrase—“in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us”—cannot be reduced to forensic justification alone. As Schreiner rightly notes, Paul’s language indicates real obedience as the outcome of God’s saving work:

“There are good reasons for saying that Paul has in mind the actual obedience of Christians. The passive plērothē (‘be fulfilled’) and the prepositional phrase en hēmin (‘in us’) signal that the obedience described is the work of God, but Paul communicates thereby that believers don’t keep the law in their own strength”【BECNT, 400–401】.

Thus, while the obedience is Spirit-wrought and grace-enabled, it is nevertheless real. The fulfillment of the law’s righteous ordinance (dikaiōma tou nomou) occurs in those who “walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” The participle peripatousin (walk) denotes concrete ethical activity, not mere legal status.

“If Paul had merely desired to describe those who are in Christ forensically, he could have written ‘to those who are not in the flesh but in the Spirit.’ The use of the participle ‘walk’ shows that the concrete obedience of believers is in view”【BECNT, 401】.

This brings us full circle back to the promise of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. The righteousness the law demanded is now fulfilled not by the believer’s merit, but in the believer through the Spirit:

• Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.”
• Jeremiah 31:33: “I will write my law on their hearts.”

These prophetic hopes find their realization in the new covenant people, whose Spirit-enabled obedience confirms that they are no longer under wrath, no longer slaves to sin, and no longer “in the flesh”.

“By the work and power of the Holy Spirit, they are able to keep the law. Paul turns the tables on his Jewish critics… Only those who belong to the Messiah have received the power to obey God’s commandments”【BECNT, 403】.

This raises a serious problem for Korytko’s reading. If being “in the flesh” simply refers to a covenantal regime, then it’s unclear why those in that regime “cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8) or why only those who receive the Spirit (i.e., regeneration) fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. Korytko’s non-ontological reading blurs the line between natural and spiritual man, flattening Paul’s categories and undermining his entire theological framework.

Romans 8:28–30 – Personal Comfort, Not Corporate Abstraction

Dr. Joel Korytko argues that Romans 8:28–30 should be read in covenantal-historical terms. He suggests that “foreknew” means something like “knew beforehand” in the sense of temporal familiarity (cf. Acts 26:5), and that “glorified” might refer to some kind of present or communal status rather than final eschatological transformation. But this reading fails on textual, theological, and pastoral grounds.

1. Kruse Is Right: Paul Is Offering Comfort to Believers

As Colin Kruse rightly notes, this passage is not a doctrinal abstraction but pastoral encouragement for Christians suffering in the “already-not-yet” tension of redemptive history. The flow from verses 26–27, where the Spirit intercedes, leads to a new ground of hope in verse 28: “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” Paul then defines that purpose by tracing the believer’s journey from eternity past to future glory.

Kruse puts it clearly:

“His primary purpose was to provide comfort and encouragement for vulnerable believers caught in the overlap of the ages and exposed to suffering and persecution” (PNTC, 358).

This is not about old covenant believers, abstract communities, or symbolic stages of covenantal identity. It is about people—those God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

2. “Foreknew” Cannot Be Merely Temporal

Korytko’s appeal to Acts 26:5, where Paul refers to people having known his life “from the beginning,” misses the mark. Acts 26 is about human knowledge of Paul’s biography. Romans 8:29 is about divine initiative toward “those whom he foreknew.” The object of προέγνω (foreknew) is personal and specific, and its use in a theological chain of salvation cannot be reduced to “God previously knew about these people.”

Schreiner and Moo rightly insist this is Old Testament covenantal language (Amos 3:2; Jer. 1:5). To “foreknow” in Scripture often means to set love upon someone in advance. Moo is blunt:

“It is unlikely that [foreknew] simply means foresight of faith. Rather, it carries the relational and electing force of God’s prior love” (NICNT, 555).

Moreover, if Korytko’s reading were correct—“I knew Bob in the past, therefore I predestined him”—the logical connection in Paul’s chain would be nonsensical. Past awareness of someone is not a meaningful ground for future predestination.

If he were to fall back on the notion that it refers to foresight, another issue would emerge. Moo notes that even if the verb can mean temporal foreknowledge, that would render the passage tautological (“God knew in advance that believers would believe, so he predestined them…”), which strips it of its comforting power. Paul’s point is not that God reacts to human choices but that God initiates redemptive action by electing individuals in love before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph 1:4–5; 2 Tim 1:9).

3. The Aorist Tense in “Glorified” Is Proleptic, Not Historical

Korytko seems to resist taking ἐδόξασεν (“he glorified”) as a reference to future eschatological glory, favoring instead a present or communal interpretation. But this misses the entire eschatological build-up of the chapter:

• Verse 17: we suffer with Christ “in order that we may also be glorified with him.”
• Verse 18: “the glory that will be revealed in us.”
• Verse 23: “we wait eagerly for… the redemption of our bodies.”

Glorification, in Paul’s thought, is the final stage of redemption—the bodily resurrection and sharing in Christ’s glory (cf. Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49). The aorist tense is used here proleptically, speaking of a future certainty as if it has already happened, because it is secured by God’s purpose.

Moo explains:

“This ‘glorified’ is eschatological. It refers to the final resurrection glory believers will receive… but spoken of in the aorist to emphasize its certainty” (NICNT, 556–57).

Korytko’s hesitance to apply this same logic here—even though he admits similar aorists can point to future realities like “death has been destroyed” in 1 Cor. 15:26—is inconsistent. You cannot deny future glory here without derailing the momentum of Paul’s entire argument.

4. The Golden Chain Is Personal, Not Merely Covenantal

Korytko wants to corporatize the chain—reading “foreknew” as a previously identified group, “called” as a covenantal moment, and “glorified” as symbolic of shared status. But this flattens Paul’s point.

The repeated relative pronouns (οὓς… τούτους) mean the same individuals pass through each stage. All those foreknown are predestined, all predestined are called, all called are justified, all justified are glorified. No break. No reduction. No hypothetical links.

And verse 28’s “those who love God” refers to actual people, not abstractions. Paul’s comfort hangs on the idea that believers can look back through this chain and know they are secure because they are caught up in God’s plan.

As Schreiner notes:

“The calling must be effectual and must create faith, for all those who are called are justified” (BECNT, 443).

This is deeply personal. Not a shifting covenantal overlay but a sovereign orchestration of individual salvation.

5. Korytko’s View Undermines the Entire Pastoral Purpose

Paul’s aim is to show that nothing can sever the believer from God’s love (v. 39). But Korytko’s view turns the passage into a kind of historical commentary—“God knew some people in the past and entered into a relationship with them.” That doesn’t help present-day believers. As you put it:

“God being kind to others in the past doesn’t mean anything for me today. That’s not assurance; that’s nostalgia.”

If “foreknew” just means historical recognition, then why does Paul present it as the starting point of comfort for those suffering now (v. 18)? Why does he say that this group is guaranteed to be glorified?

Moreover, Isaiah 46:10 reminds us that God declares the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is not passive observation—it’s sovereign ordination. As Moo writes, the “before” in “foreknew” functions not to recognize what will happen, but to ordain what will happen. God’s love is not a response to foreseen faith—it is the fountain of all that follows.

Dr. Korytko’s Use of Seed in Romans 9: A Critical Analysis

Dr. Korytko’s argument centers on interpreting seed (σπέρμα) in Romans 9 as referring to a covenant-historical or corporate function rather than to individuals chosen for salvation. He frames Paul’s citations of the Old Testament—particularly the promises to Abraham and the identity of Israel—as tracking God’s redemptive plan in history, not as timeless decrees concerning individual destinies.

His approach appeals to seed as a metaphor for corporate identity and covenantal vocation—not an elect subset within Israel or humanity, but rather a historically identifiable group designated for a particular function in God’s unfolding plan. Within this schema, individual salvation is not necessarily in view, and election is recast as selection for service rather than salvation.

1. Reduction of Seed to Historical Instrumentality

The first major issue is that Korytko reduces the term seed to historical instrumentality. He treats the concept as if God is merely tracing out a lineage to carry forward redemptive history (e.g., Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau), not bestowing salvific grace. This strips Paul’s argument of its theological weight in a chapter explicitly about God’s freedom in showing mercy.

This misreads Paul’s rhetorical trajectory. Paul isn’t merely retracing redemptive history to explain who carried the promise forward; he’s explaining why so many ethnic Israelites are not saved, even though the promises were made to them. That’s why he says, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”—a statement which only makes sense if he is dealing with the question of ultimate salvation, not just covenant role.

By reducing seed to a mere historical channel, Korytko evades the actual tension Paul is resolving: the difference between physical descent and divine calling unto salvation. His reading cannot account for Paul’s appeal to mercy and wrath, vessels prepared for destruction, or the remnant according to grace—none of which make sense if seed is just functional lineage.

2. Disregard for the Individualizing Context

Korytko’s interpretation fails to take seriously Paul’s grammatical precision. When Paul says “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed,” he makes an explicit contrast between groups defined not merely by covenant status but by divine action. Those who are “counted as seed” are not just historical links in a genealogical chain—they are recipients of a divine promise that brings spiritual life.

Moreover, Paul uses individual examples to support this claim—Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau—and underscores that these distinctions were made before the individuals had done anything good or bad. Korytko wants these examples to be about national or covenantal election, but Paul drives the point toward God’s freedom to choose whom He will—not based on works but on Him who calls. This calling is not to service alone; it is to inclusion in the promise that leads to eternal life.

If seed simply meant those tasked with carrying forward God’s historical plan, the language about being “children of God” and “heirs” would lose all its spiritual significance. Paul would not need to distinguish between types of seed or explain the rejection of some Israelites as part of God’s sovereign mercy.

3. Avoidance of Paul’s Theological Polemic

Korytko’s treatment of seed abstracts the term from the polemical and pastoral force of Romans 9. Paul is explaining a perceived theological crisis: why has Israel, God’s chosen people, failed to attain righteousness? If Korytko’s reading were right—that Paul is merely explaining corporate roles in history—then the emotional urgency and theological depth of Paul’s lament (Rom. 9:1–3) and his defense of God’s justice (9:14–23) would be unmotivated.

Paul’s anguish makes sense only if some Israelites are truly lost—excluded from salvation—even though they were born into the covenant community. And the response he gives is not “God used them to bring about history” but “God has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills.” This hardening and mercy directly bear on salvation, not merely national function.

So when Paul says “the children of the promise are counted as seed,” he isn’t explaining who got to carry the Messiah’s lineage. He’s explaining who truly inherits the promises—those united to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. Korytko’s schema detaches this from salvation and frames it as historical role-playing, gutting the relevance of the entire section for the assurance of believers and the justice of God.

4. Semantic Narrowing

Finally, Korytko artificially narrows the semantic range of seed in Romans 9, ignoring the broader Pauline usage. Elsewhere, Paul makes clear that seed refers to those who are in Christ by faith—not by ancestry (cf. Galatians 3). For Paul, being Abraham’s seed is not about biology or historical participation in the covenant; it is about union with the promised Messiah.

Korytko seems to want to keep the term seed fixed within a narrative-historical framework. But Paul expands and redefines seed in light of Christ. Those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed—not because they were Israelites or bore Torah-identity markers, but because they were called by grace and brought into the family of God.

Misreading the “Seed”: Paul’s Use of σπέρμα Extends Beyond Historic Function

Dr. Korytko repeatedly grounds his interpretation of Romans 9 in the concept of the seed (σπέρμα), claiming it refers to God’s sovereign choice of a lineage for historic covenantal purposes—not to individual salvation. He argues:

“The seed is the line through which God will bring His promises… It’s not about who’s saved. It’s about who carries the revelation, who is part of the corporate structure through which God works.”

This artificial limitation ignores the fuller Pauline usage of σπέρμα across Romans and Galatians, where the term clearly takes on soteriological—and even Christological—dimensions, particularly within New Covenant fulfillment.

In Romans 4:13–18, Paul declares that the promise to Abraham’s σπέρμα was that he would be “heir of the world,” not through the law but through the righteousness of faith. He then defines the seed not as a genealogical group, but as:

“those who share the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all” (Rom 4:16).

Likewise, in Galatians 3:16, Paul radically personalizes the term:

“Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ referring to many, but referring to one: ‘And to your seed,’ who is Christ.”

From there, he expands the meaning corporately but salvifically:

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29).

This is not about a neutral covenant-carrier lineage. It is about people united to Christ by faith who inherit the promise and are counted as true Israel.

Dr. Korytko’s historical-covenantal limitation—where seed merely designates the vehicle of revelation—fails to account for this vital Pauline development. In Romans 9 itself, the “children of the promise” are not merely the physical line through which promises are carried, but those whom God counts as seed—language loaded with salvific connotation and parallel to Paul’s earlier usage in Romans 4 and 8.

Thus, to reduce σπέρμα to a purely functional or instrumental role in salvation history is to miss Paul’s consistent pattern: seed language culminates in Christ and includes all who are united to Him by faith. The “children of God” in Romans 9:8 are not abstract corporate instruments, but the very elect whom God has effectually called into union with the true Seed, Christ (cf. 9:24).

Inconsistent Application of Original Context: Hosea, Gentiles, and the Alleged “Reconstitution” of Israel

Dr. Korytko offers an elaborate explanation of Paul’s use of Hosea in Romans 9:25–26, where Paul cites:

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

Korytko concedes that “the text does not talk about Gentiles initially”, but then immediately constructs a justification for why Paul can nevertheless apply it to Gentiles:

“What happens to Israel? Where do they go for 700 years? To exile. They become the nations, right? … So I think what’s going on is that the Gentiles coming in is the fulfillment of Israel coming back—because Israel became the nations.”

This is a clever narrative move, but it’s hermeneutically arbitrary and self-defeating under his own stated principles. Korytko has been insistent that one must respect the original Old Testament context—particularly when rejecting the Calvinist reading of other texts like Malachi 1 (“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”) or Genesis 25 (“the older will serve the younger”). In fact, he critiques Calvinists for “ripping citations out of their context.” But here, he effectively grants that Hosea refers to Israel and not Gentiles, and then makes a creative historical claim to allow for its Gentile application anyway.

This results in several problems:

The Inadequacy of Dr. Korytko’s Restriction of “Seed” to Historical Covenant Function

Throughout his discussion of Romans 9:6–9, Dr. Korytko repeatedly insists that Paul’s use of the word σπέρμα (seed) must refer strictly to a covenant-carrying lineage through whom revelation comes, not to those who are saved. As he says:

“This is so important… The seed is a very specific thing and it’s a theological concept that comes from the Old Testament… It’s not about who’s saved, who’s not saved. This is about where the locus of God’s revelation is—who is the seed.”

This view severely truncates Paul’s actual usage of σπέρμα across his letters. In Romans 4:13–18, Paul identifies the seed not only with Isaac or a historical covenantal channel, but with those who believe:

“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring [τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ] that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13).

“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham…” (Rom 4:16)

Likewise, in Galatians 3:16, Paul identifies the seed with Christ, and then in Gal 3:29, with all who are united to Him:

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring [σπέρμα], heirs according to promise.”

Here, σπέρμα is no longer a merely instrumental lineage—it is salvific and eschatological. It defines who belongs to Christ and who inherits the Abrahamic promise.

Paul also equates the “children of promise” (Rom 9:8) with “children of God”—a phrase used consistently throughout Romans 8 to describe the regenerate, Spirit-indwelt elect. Yet Dr. Korytko says of children of God in Romans 9:

“Now here I don’t think you need to think ‘children of God’ as in saved—that’s not how Paul’s using this language.”

This is special pleading. It requires redefining “children of God” within the same letter where Paul just described those “led by the Spirit” as “sons of God” and those predestined as “called… justified… glorified” (Rom 8:14–30). There is no exegetical justification to treat the phrase τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ differently in 9:8 than in 8:16 or 8:21. Paul’s whole point in Romans 9:6–9 is to explain who truly belongs to the covenant family—and who does not. And he explicitly says: “It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring [λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα].”

Thus, contrary to Dr. Korytko’s insistence that the seed is merely a revelatory line, Paul insists that the seed is reckoned based on divine election and saving promise, not merely ethnic descent or historical role. The promise is salvific, not merely institutional.

In summary, Korytko’s rigidly non-soteriological view of σπέρμα fails to account for:

1. The context of Romans 4, 8, and 9, where “children of God,” “heirs,” and “seed” are overlapping concepts.
2. Galatians 3’s Christological and participatory definition of the seed.
3. The clear implication that God’s promise to Abraham’s seed results in justification and inheritance—not merely in transmitting revelation.

Korytko’s reading cannot explain why Paul introduces the promise theme at all if its referents are not beneficiaries of salvation. The Reformed reading sees in Paul’s language an unbroken theological line: God’s electing love from Abraham through Isaac, fulfilled in Christ, and now applied to those united to Christ by faith—Jew or Gentile. This is not about who carries the mail of revelation, but about who receives the inheritance.

Theological Weight of σπέρμα: Rebutting Korytko’s Functional Reading

Dr. Korytko insists that σπέρμα in Romans 9:7–8 refers to a historically functional concept—the covenant-carrying line through whom God’s revelation is delivered—rather than to those who receive salvation. However, this is at odds with the broader Pauline usage and the grammar and structure of Romans 9:6–8 itself.

As Douglas Moo (NICNT) argues, the term σπέρμα carries strong theological significance in Pauline thought—especially in connection with Abraham—and this meaning should control how we understand its use in Romans 9:

“σπέρμα is the theologically significant term in vv. 7b and 8—a connotation the term has elsewhere in Paul (see, in connection with Abraham, Rom. 4:13, 16, 18; Gal. 3:16, 19, 29).” (Moo, Romans, p. 762)

Moo acknowledges that the Greek syntax in verse 7 allows two possible structures, but decisively favors the one that gives σπέρμα the theological weight, not τέκνα (children). This counters Korytko’s claim that Paul is merely speaking about a non-salvific “group that God is going to be working with.” On the contrary, Paul is identifying those who are truly Abraham’s seed in the redemptive, salvific sense: those to whom the promise belongs and through whom God’s eschatological purposes are fulfilled.

Moreover, Moo notes that although σπέρμα is grammatically singular, it functions as a collective, as it clearly does in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, referring to a group—but not a merely ethnic group. It refers to believers who are united to Christ (Gal 3:29) and thus heirs according to the promise:

“Because σπέρμα is singular, some commentators (e.g., Meyer; Murray) think that the reference is to Isaac as the ‘true seed’ of Abraham. But σπέρμα is clearly collective in the first part of the verse, and this sense probably carries over into the quotation.” (Moo, p. 762)

In other words, Paul is not simply stating that Isaac was the instrument of covenant transmission. He is using Isaac typologically to identify the elect—the true σπέρμα—not defined by biology (τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς) but by the promise and its fulfillment in Christ. Moo’s reading affirms what the Reformed tradition has long held: that Romans 9 is not a commentary on how God chooses instruments of revelation, but on how God sovereignly defines the scope of saving election.

The Double Standard: Requiring Context for Calvinists, Suspending It for Himself

Korytko’s entire critique of the Calvinist reading rests on the claim that Paul is not dealing with individual election but corporate, covenantal categories as originally intended in the OT texts. He insists:

“If you want to make this about predestination and individual salvation you have to ignore Genesis 25:23. I’m sorry, that’s just not what it’s about.”

But then when Hosea clearly speaks of Israel and not Gentiles, he says:

“I think in this text, Hosea, he’s not actually arbitrarily applying the verse to the Gentiles… but rather he’s looking at the whole span of Israelite history and going, ‘Ah, here we go.’”

This is theological special pleading. If Calvinists can’t appeal to broader canonical or typological developments to justify their reading of Genesis or Malachi, then Korytko cannot appeal to post-exilic redemptive-historical typology to turn an Israel-centered prophecy into a Gentile application. He has violated his own canon of contextual consistency.

5.2. The Eisegetical “Israel Became the Nations” Claim

Korytko’s claim that Israel became the nations is highly speculative and has no direct biblical warrant. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the northern tribes ontologically transformed into Gentile nations, such that OT promises to Israel can be fulfilled by including non-Israelite Gentiles.

This maneuver is a theological bait-and-switch: Hosea says God will restore Israel and Judah (Hosea 1:11), not that He will absorb ethnic Gentiles to fulfill His promise to Israel. Dr. Korytko’s typological claim—”Israel became the Gentiles”—functions as a reinterpretive override of the actual OT text, not a reading informed by context.

5.3. It Backfires: Paul’s Use of Hosea Then Supports Gentile Election, Not “Reconstitution of Israel”

Ironically, if Hosea is allowed to speak about Gentiles in Romans 9, it actually supports the Calvinist argument. Paul explicitly says:

“Even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom 9:24)

Paul then quotes Hosea to justify Gentile inclusion. So even if Hosea didn’t originally speak of Gentiles, Paul is applying it to Gentiles—and that’s the whole point. If Korytko grants that Paul can do this typologically, then he has undercut his main objection to other OT citations being interpreted typologically or theologically (e.g., Pharaoh and Esau). It shows Paul is free to expand the application of OT texts in redemptive-historical light—which is exactly what Calvinists say he does in Romans 9.

---

A False Premise About Paul’s Opponent and the Collapse of Persuasive Force

Dr. Korytko’s view hinges not only on a speculative historical framework but also on a debatable psychological reconstruction of Paul’s opponent in Romans 9. He repeatedly frames the interlocutor as a disillusioned ethnic Israelite who is upset about the “redefinition” of Israel in terms of covenantal faith and inclusion of Gentiles. But there is no textual necessity to assume this interlocutor holds the exact views Dr. Korytko assigns to him—particularly the belief that Hosea cannot apply to Gentiles. This assumption is imported to shield his position from the obvious tension that Hosea, in its plain context, refers to Israel, yet Paul applies it to Gentiles.

By anchoring his argument in the supposed mindset of an objector, Dr. Korytko faces a trilemma:

1. He must give up his theory, admitting that Paul is indeed applying Israelite prophecy to Gentile believers in a way that transcends strict original-context interpretation.
2. He must undermine the data, proposing (without warrant) that Paul and his opponent share some complex redemptive-historical typology in which Gentiles are former Israelites.
3. Or he must abandon the persuasive force of Paul’s argument, since it would no longer have rhetorical or exegetical traction against an objector who doesn’t share the assumptions required for Korytko’s reconstruction to work.

By contrast, the Reformed reading makes no such speculative detour. It simply recognizes that Paul, under inspiration, applies Hosea typologically and eschatologically—just as he does with Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, and the potter-clay imagery. It maintains both the integrity of the text and the argumentative logic of Paul’s response to objections. In short, Korytko’s framework is not only ad hoc; it renders Paul’s argument unpersuasive and collapses under the weight of its own artificial constraints.

Dr. Korytko’s move in interpreting Hosea is hermeneutically unstable. He violates his own insistence on “original OT context” to avoid admitting that Paul uses Hosea typologically for Gentile election. The result is a special-pleading narrative (“Israel became the Gentiles”) that conveniently saves his non-Calvinist framework but lacks textual grounding. If Paul can use Hosea typologically, then why can’t he use Genesis and Malachi typologically as well?