Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 11:1 - 11:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT COMPLETE
11:1-10. Israel then has refused to accept the salvation offered it; is it therefore rejected? No. At any rate the rejection is not complete. Now as always in the history of Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to disbelief, there is a remnant that shall be saved.
1 The conclusion of the preceding argument is this. It is through their own fault that Israel has rejected a salvation which was fully and freely offered. Now what does this imply? Does it mean that God has rejected His chosen people? Heaven forbid that I should say this! I who like them am an Israelite, an Israelite by birth and not a proselyte, a lineal descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe that with Judah formed the restored Israel after the exile. 2 No, God has not rejected His people. He chose them for His own before all time and nothing can make Him change His purpose. If you say He has rejected them, it only shows that you have not clearly grasped the teaching of Scripture concerning the Remnant. Elijah on Mt. Horeb brought just such an accusation against his countrymen. 3 He complained that they had forsaken the covenant, that they had overthrown God’s altars, that they had slain His Prophets; just as the Jews at the present day have slain the Messiah and persecuted His messengers. Elijah only was left, and his life they sought. The whole people, God’s chosen people, had been rejected. 4 So he thought; but the Divine response came to him, that there were seven thousand men left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. There was a kernel of the nation that remained loyal. 5 Exactly the same circumstances exist now as then. Now as then the mass of the people are unfaithful, but there is a remnant of loyal adherents to the Divine message:—a remnant, be it remembered, chosen by God by an act of free favour: 6 that is to say those whom God has in His good pleasure selected for that position, who have in no way earned it by any works they have done, or any merit of their own. If that were possible Grace would lose all its meaning: there would be no occasion for God to show free favour to mankind.
7 It is necessary then at any rate to modify the broad statement that has been made. Israel, it is true, has failed to obtain the righteousness which it sought; but, although this is true of the nation as a whole, there is a Remnant of which it is not true. Those whom God selected have attained it. But what of the rest? Their hearts have been hardened. Here again we find the same conditions prevailing throughout Israel’s history. 8Isaiah declared (29:10; 6:9, 10) how God had thrown the people into a state of spiritual torpor. He had given them eyes which could not see, and ears which could not hear. All through their history the mass of the people has been destitute of spiritual insight. 9 And again in the book of Psalms, David (69:23, 24) declares the Divine wrath against the unfaithful of the nation: ‘May their table be their snare.’ It is just their position as God’s chosen people, it is the Law and the Scriptures, which are their boast, that are to be the cause of their ruin. They are to be punished by being allowed to cleave fast to that to which they have perversely adhered. 10 ‘Let their eyes be blinded, so that they cannot see light when it shines upon them: let their back be ever bent under the burden to which they have so obstinately clung.’ This was God’s judgement then on Israel for their faithlessness, and it is God’s judgement on them now.
1-36. St. Paul has now shown (1) (9:6-29) that God was perfectly free, whether as regards promise or His right as Creator, to reject Israel; (2) (9:30-10:21) that Israel on their side by neglecting the Divine method of salvation offered them have deserved this rejection. He now comes to the original question from which he started, but which he never expressed, and asks, Has God, as might be thought from the drift of the argument so far, really cast away His people? To this he gives a negative answer, which he proceeds to justify by showing (1) that this rejection is only partial (11:1-10), (2) only temporary (11:11-25), and (3) that in all this Divine action there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogether understand (11:26-36).
1. λγ ον This somewhat emphatic phrase occurring here and in ver. 11 seems to mark a stage in the argument, the ονas so often summing up the result so far arrived at. The change of particle shows that we have not here a third question parallel to the ἀλ λγ of 10:18, 19.
μ ἀώαοὁΘὸ τνλὸ ατῦ ‘Is it possible that God has cast away His people?’ The form of the question implies necessarily a negative answer and suggests an argument against it. (1) By the juxtaposition of ὁΘό and τνλὸ ατῦ Israel is God’s people and so He cannot reject them. Ipsa populi eius appellatio rationem negandi continet. Beng. (2) By the use made of the language of the O. T. Three times in the O. T. (1Sa_12:22; 93 [94], 14; 94 [95], 4) the promise οκἀώεα Κρο τνλὸ ατῦoccurs. By using words which must be so well known St. Paul reminds his readers of the promise, and thus again implies an answer to the question.
This very clear instance of the merely literary use of the language of the O. T. makes it more probable that St. Paul should have adopted a similar method elsewhere, as in 10:6 ff., 18.
μ γνιο St. Paul repudiates the thought with horror. All his feelings as an Israelite make it disloyal in him to hold it.
κὶγρκτλ These words have been taken in two ways. (1) As a proof of the incorrectness of the suggestion. St. Paul was an Israelite, and he had been saved; therefore the people as a whole could not have been rejected. So the majority of commentators (Go. Va. Oltr. Weiss). But the answer to the question does not occur until St. Paul gives it in a solemn form at the beginning of the next verse; he would not therefore have previously given a reason for its incorrectness. Moreover it would be inconsistent with St. Paul’s tact and character to put himself forward so prominently.
(2) It is therefore better to take it as giving ‘the motive for his deprecation, not a proof of his denial’ (Mey. Gif. Lips.). Throughout this passage, St. Paul partly influenced by the reality of his own sympathy, partly by a desire to put his argument in a form as little offensive as possible, has more than once emphasized his own kinship with Israel (9:1-3; 10:1). Here for the first time, just when he is going to disprove it, he makes the statement which has really been the subject of the two previous passages, and at once, in order if possible to disarm criticism, reminds his readers that he is an Israelite, and that therefore to him, as much as to them, the supposition seems almost blasphemous.
Ἰρηίη κτλ Cf. 2Co_11:22; Php_3:5.
ὃ πογω which is added by Lachmann after τνλὸ ατῦ has the support of A D Chrys. and other authorities, but clearly came in from ver. 2.
2. οκἀώαο St. Paul gives expressly and formally a negative answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by repeating the very words he has used.
ὃ πογω The addition of these words gives a reason for the emphatic denial of which they form a part. Israel was the race which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen, and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense (Orig. Chrys. Aug.), ‘that people whom He foreknew,’ i.e. those of His people whom He foreknew; nor again can they possibly refer to the spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to λό different from that in ver. 1. The word πογωmay be taken, (1) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean ‘whom He has known or chosen beforehand.’ So γνσενin the LXX. Amo_3:2 ὑᾶ ἔννἐ πσντνφλ1͂ τςγς And in St. Paul 1Co_8:3 ε δ τςἀαᾷτνΘό, οτςἔνσα ὑʼατῦ Gal_4:9 ννδ γότςΘό, μλο δ γωθνε ὑὸΘο. 2Ti_2:19 ἔν Κρο τὺ ὄτςατῦ Although there is no evidence for this use of ποιώκι it represents probably the idea which St. Paul had in his mind (see on 8:29). (2) But an alternative interpretation taking the word in its natural meaning of foreknowledge, must not be lost sight of, ‘that people of whose history and future destiny God had full foreknowledge.’ This seems to be the meaning with which the word is generally used (Wisd. 6:13; 8:8; 18:6; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 28; Dial. 42. p. 261 B.); so too πόνσςis used definitely and almost technically of the Divine foreknowledge (Act_2:23), and in this chapter St. Paul ends with vindicating the Divine wisdom which had prepared for Israel and the world a destiny which exceeds human comprehension.
ἤοκοδτ: cf. 2:4; 6:3; 7:1; 9:21. ‘You must admit this or be ignorant of what the Scripture says.’ The point of the quotation lies not in the words which immediately follow, but in the contrast between the two passages; a contrast which represented the distinction between the apparent and the real situation at the time when the Apostle wrote.
ἐ Ἠί: ‘in the section of Scripture which narrates the story of Elijah.’ The O. T. Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to which were given titles derived from their subject-matter; and these came to be very commonly used in quotations as references. Many instances are quoted from the Talmud and from Hebrew commentators: Berachoth, fol. 2Ch_1, fol. 4.Col_2 id quod scriptum est apud Michä referring to Isa_6:6. So Taanijoth, ii. 1; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 9; Shir hashirim rabbai. 6, where a phrase similar to that used here, ‘In Elijah,’ occurs, and the same passage is quoted, ‘I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts.’ So also Philo, De Agricultura, p. 203 (i. 317 Mang.) λγιγρἐ τῖ ἀας referring to Gen_3:15. The phrase ἐὶτςβτυMar_12:26; Luk_20:37; Clem. Hom. xvi. 14; Apost. Const. v. 20, is often explained in a similar manner, but very probably incorrectly, the ἐίbeing perhaps purely local. The usage exactly corresponds to the method used in quoting the Homeric poems. As the Rabbis divided the O. T. into sections so the Rhapsodists divided Homer, and these sections were quoted by their subjects, ἐ Ἔτρςἀαρσι ἐ νκί. (See Fri. Delitzsch ad loc., Surenhusius, Ββο κτλαῆ, p. 31.)
ἐτγάε: ‘he accuses Israel before God.’ The verb ἐτγάενmeans, (1) ‘to meet with,’ (2) ‘to meet with for the purposes of conversation,’ ‘have an interview with,’ Act_25:24; hence (3) ‘to converse with,’ ‘plead with,’ Wisdom 8:21, either on behalf of some one (ὑέ τνς Rom_8:27, Rom_8:34; Heb_7:25; or against some one (κτ τνς and so (4) definitely ‘to accuse’ as here and 1 Macc. 11:25 κὶἐεύχννκτ ατῦτνςἄοο τνἐ τῦἔνυ: 8:32; 10:61, 63.
The TR. adds λγνat the end of this verse with א al. pler., it is omitted by א A B C D E F G P min. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh., and most Fathers.
3. Κρε τὺ ποήα κτλ The two quotations come from 1Ki_19:10, 1Ki_19:14, 1Ki_19:18; the first being repeated twice. Elijah has fled to Mt. Horeb from Jezebel, and accuses his countrymen before God of complete apostasy; he alone is faithful. God answers that even although the nation as a whole has deserted Him, yet there is a faithful remnant, 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. There is an analogy, St. Paul argues, between this situation and that of his own day. The spiritual condition is the same. The nation as a whole has rejected God’s message, now as then; but now as then also there is a faithful remnant left, and if that be so God cannot be said to have cast away His people.
The quotation is somewhat shortened from the LXX, and the order of the clauses is inverted, perhaps to put in a prominent position the words τὺ ποήα συἀέτια to which there was most analogy during St. Paul’s time (cf. Act_7:52; 1Th_2:14). The κίbetween the clauses of the TR. is read by D E L and later MSS. Justin Martyr, Dial. 39. p. 257 D, quotes the words as in St. Paul and not as in the LXX: ΚὶγρἨίςπρ ὑῶ πὸ τνΘὸ ἐτγάω οτςλγι Κρε τὺ ποήα συἀέτια κὶτ θσατράσυκτσαα κγ ὑεεφη μνςκὶζτῦιτνψχνμυ κὶἀορντιατ, Ἔιεσ μιἑτκσίιιἄδε, ο οκἔαψνγν τ Βα.
4. ὁχηαιμς ‘the oracle.’ An unusual sense for the word, which occurs here only in the N. T., but is found in 2 Macc. 2:4; Clem.Rom; xvii. 5 and occasionally elsewhere. The verb χηαίενmeant (1) originally ‘to transact business’; then (2) ‘to consult,’ ‘deliberate’; hence (3) ‘to give audience,’ ‘answer after deliberation’; and so finally (4) of an oracle ‘to give a response, taking the place of the older χά; and so it is used in the N. T. of the Divine warning Mat_2:12, Mat_2:22 χηαιθνε κτ ὄα: Luk_2:26; Act_10:22; Heb_8:5; 11:7: cf. Jos. Antt. V. i. 14; X. i. 3; XI. iii. 4. From this usage of the verb χηαίωwas derived χηαιμς as the more usual χημςfrom χά. See also p. 173.
τ Βα: substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, loc. cit.) for the LXX τ Βα, according to a usage common in other passages in the Greek Version.
The word Baal, which means ‘Lord,’ appears to have been originally used as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as such became a part of many Jewish names, as for example Jerubbaal (Jud_1:6:32; Jud_1:7:1), Eshbaal (1Ch_9:39), Meribbaal (1Ch_9:40), &c. But gradually the special association of the name with the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician god caused the use of it to be forbidden. Hos_2:16, Hos_2:17 ‘and it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.’ Owing to this motive a tendency arose to obliterate the name of Baal from the Scriptures: just as owing to a feeling of reverence ‘Elohim’ was substituted for ‘Jehovah’ in the second and third books of the Psalms. This usage took the form of substituting Bosheth, ‘abomination,’ for Baal. So Eshbaal (1Ch_8:33, 1Ch_9:39) became Ishbosheth (2Sa_2:8; 2Sa_3:8); Meribbaal (1Ch_9:40) Mephibosheth (2Sa_9:6 ff.); Jerubbaal Jerubbesheth (2Sa_11:21). See also Hos_9:10; Jer_3:24; Jer_11:13. Similarly in the LXX ασύηrepresents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3 Kings 18:19, 25. But it seems to have been more usual to substitute ασύηin reading for the written Βα, and as a sign of this Qeri the feminine article was written; just as the name Jehovah was written with the pointing of Adonai. This usage is most common in Jeremiah, but occurs also in the books of Kings, Chronicles, and other Prophets. It appears not to occur in the Pentateuch. The plural τῖ occurs 2Ch_24:7; 2Ch_33:3. This, the only satisfactory explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by Dillmann, Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 1881, p. 601 ff. and has superseded all others.
The LXX version is again shortened in the quotation, and for κτλίωis substituted κτλπνἐατ, which is an alternative and perhaps more exact translation of the Hebrew.
5. οτςον The application of the preceding instance to the circumstances of the Apostle’s own time. The facts were the same. St. Paul would assume that his readers, some of whom were Jewish Christians, and all of whom were aware of the existence of such a class, would recognize this. And if this were so the same deduction might be made. As then the Jewish people were not rejected, because the remnant was saved; so now there is a remnant, and this implies that God has not cast away His people as such.
λῖμ (on the orthography cf. WH. ii. App. p. 154, who read λμα ‘a remnant.’ The word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and in the O. T. only twice, and then not in the technical sense of the ‘remnant.’ The usual word for that is τ κτλιθν
κτ ἐλγνχρτς Predicate with γγνν ‘There has come to be through the principle of selection which is dependent on the Divine grace or favour.’ This addition to the thought, which is further explained in ver. 6, reminds the reader of the result of the previous discussion: that ‘election’ on which the Jews had always laid so much stress had operated, but it was a selection on the part of God of those to whom He willed to give His grace, and not an election of those who had earned it by their works.
6. ε δ χρτ κτλ A further explanation of the principles of election. If the election had been on the basis of works, then the Jews might have demanded that God’s promise could only be fulfilled if all who had earned it had received it: St. Paul, by reminding them of the principles of election already laid down, implies that the promise is fulfilled if the remnant is saved. God’s people are those whom He has chosen; it is not that the Jews are chosen because they are His people.
ἐε ἡχρςοκτ γντιχρς ‘this follows from the very meaning of the idea of grace.’ Gratia nisi gratis sit gratia non est. St. Augustine.
The TR. after γντιχρςadds ε δ ἐ ἔγν οκτ ἐτ χρς ἐε τ ἔγνοκτ ἐτνἔγνwith א (B) L and later MSS., Syrr., Chrys. and Thdrt. (in the text, but they do not refer to the words in their commentary). B reads ε δ ἐ ἔγν οκτ χρς̀ἐε τ ἔγνοκτ ἐτ χρς The clause is omitted by אA C D E F G P, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Arm., Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst Patr.-latt. There need be no doubt that it is a gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western addition such as this against such preponderating authority. This is considered by WH. to be the solitary or almost the solitary case in which B possibly has a Syrian reading (Introd. ii. 150).
7. τ ον This verse sums up the result of the discussion in vv. 2-6. ‘What then is the result? In what way can we modify the harsh statement made in ver. 1? It is indeed still true that Israel as a nation has failed to obtain what is its aim, namely righteousness: but at the same time there is one portion of it, the elect, who have attained it.’
ἡδ ἐλγ: i. e. ο ἐλκο. The abstract for the concrete suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea rather than on the individuals.
ο δ λιο ἐωώηα: ‘while the elect have attained what they sought, those who have failed to attain it have been hardened.’ They have not failed because they have been hardened, but they have been hardened because they have failed; cf. 1:24 ff., where sin is represented as God’s punishment inflicted on man for their rebellion. Here St. Paul does not definitely say by whom, for that is not the point it interests him to discuss at present: he has represented the condition of Israel both as the result of God’s action (ch. 9) and of their own (ch. 10). Here as in κτριμν 9:22, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the cause: the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author, ἔτια in ver. 11 suggests that they are free agents.
The verb πρω(derived from πρςa callus or stone formed in the bladder) is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in the bladder. Hence metaphorically it is used in the N. T., and apparently there only of the heart becoming hardened or callous: so Mar_6:52; Joh_12:40; Rom_11:7; 2Co_3:14: while the noun πρσςoccurs in the same sense, Mar_3:5; Rom_11:25; Eph_4:18. The idea is in all these places the same, that a covering has grown over the heart, making men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making them oblivious of the wrong they are doing. In Job_17:7 (ππρνα γρἀὸὀγςο ὀθλο μυ the word is used of blindness, but again only of moral blindness; anger has caused as it were a covering to grow over the eyes. There is therefore no need to take the word to mean ‘blind,’ as do the grammarians (Suidas, πρς ὁτφό: ππρτι ττφωα: Hesychius, ππρμνι ττφωέο) and the Latin Versions (excaecati, obcaecati). It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with πρς(see on κτνξω below) which was perhaps occasionally used of blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1892, p. 305), although probably then as a specialized usage for the more general ‘maimed.’ Although the form πρωoccurs in some MSS. of the N. T., yet the evidence against it is in every case absolutely conclusive, as it is also in the O. T. in the one passage where the word occurs.
8. κθςγγατι St. Paul supports and explains his last statement ο δ λιο ἐωώηα by quotations from the O. T. The first which in form resembles Deu_29:4, modified by Isa_29:10; Isa_6:9, Isa_6:10, describes the spiritual dulness or torpor of which the prophet accuses the Israelites. This he says had been given them by God as a punishment for their faithlessness. These words will equally well apply to the spiritual condition of the Apostle’s own time, showing that it is not inconsistent with the position of Israel as God’s people, and suggesting a general law of God’s dealing with them.
The following extracts, in which the words that St. Paul has made use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the quotation. Deu_29:4 κὶοκἓωε Κρο ὁΘὸ ὑῖ κρίνεδνικὶὀθλοςβέενκὶὦαἀοενἕςτςἡέα τύη. Isa_29:10 ὅιππτκνὑᾶ Κρο πεμτ κτνξω: cf. Isa_6:9, Isa_6:10 ἀο ἀοστ κὶο μ σντ κὶβέοτςβέεεκὶο μ ἴηε …κὶεπ Ἓςπτ, Κρε While the form resembles the words in Deut., the historical situation and meaning of the quotation are represented by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring.
πεμ κτνξω: ‘a spirit of torpor,’ a state of dull insensibility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by drunkenness, or stupor. Isa_29:10 (RV.) ‘For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.’
The word κτνξςis derived from κτνσοα. The simple verb νσωis used to mean to ‘prick’ or ‘strike’ or ‘dint.’ The compound verb would mean, (1) to ‘strike’ or ‘prick violently,’ and hence (2) to ‘stun’; no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common (3) especially in the LXX of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan. 10 (Theod.); of strong grief Gen_34:7; Ecclus. 14:1; and so Act_2:37 κτνγσντ κρί of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness: Isa_6:5 ὢτλςἐὼὄικτννγα: Dan_10:15 ἔωατ πόωό μυἐὶτνγνκὶκτνγν and so the general idea of torpor would be derived. The noun κτνξςappears to occur only twice, Isa_29:10 πεμ κτνξω, 59:4[4]οννκτνξω. In the former case it clearly means ‘torpor’ or ‘deep sleep,’ as both the context and the Hebrew show, in the latter case probably so. It may be noticed that this definite meaning of ‘torpor’ or ‘deep sleep’ which is found in the noun cannot be exactly paralleled in the verb; and it may be suggested that a certain confusion existed with the verb νσάω which means ‘to nod in sleep,’ ‘be drowsy,’ just as the meaning of ἐιεαwas influenced by its resemblance to ἔι (cf. 2:8). On the word generally see Fri. ii. p. 558 ff.
ἔςτςσμρνἡέα: cf. Act_7:51 ‘Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.’ St. Stephen’s speech illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie St. Paul’s quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and a power of resisting the Holy Ghost; and God has throughout punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual blindness.
9. κὶΔβδλγικτλ quoted from the LXX of 68 [69]. 23, 24 γνθτ ἡτάεαατνἐώινατνεςπγδ, κὶεςἀτπδσνκὶσάδλν σοιθτσνκτλ (which is ascribed in the title to David) with reminiscences of 34:8 [8], and 27:4[4]. The Psalmist is represented as declaring the Divine wrath against those who have made themselves enemies of the Divine will. Those who in his days were the enemies of the spiritual life of the people are represented in the Apostle’s days by the Jews who have shut their ears to the Gospel message.
ἡτάεαατν ‘their feast.’ The image is that of men feasting in careless security, and overtaken by their enemies, owing to the very prosperity which ought to be their strength. So to the Jews that Law and those Scriptures wherein they trusted are to become the very cause of their fall and the snare or hunting-net in which they are caught.
σάδλν ‘that over which they fall,’ ‘a cause of their destruction.’
ἀτπδμ: 27:4 [4.]. ‘A requital,’ ‘recompense.’ The Jews are to be punished for their want of spiritual insight by being given over to blind trust in their own law; in fact being given up entirely to their own wishes.
10. σοιθτσνκτλ ‘May their eyes become blind, so that they have no insight, and their backs bent like men who are continually groping about in the dark!’ They are to be like those described by Plato as fast bound in the cave: even if they are brought to the light they will only be blinded by it, and will be unable to see. The judgement upon them is that they are to be ever bent down with the weight of the burden which they have wilfully taken on their backs.
It may be worth noticing that Lipsius, who does not elsewhere accept the theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that vv. 9, 10 are a gloss added by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Holsten, Z. f. w. T. 1872, p. 455; Michelsen, Th. T. 1887, p. 163; Protestanten-bibel, 1872, p. 589; E. T. ii. 154). It is suggested that δαατςis inconsistent with ver. 11 ff. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 11 we have a change of metaphor, ἔτια, which would be singularly out of place if it came immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is suggested and accounted for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver. 9 If we omit vv. 9, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought running from verse to verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossible. (See Introduction, §9.)
The Doctrine of the Remnant
The idea of the ‘Remnant’ is one of the most typical and significant in the prophetic portions of the O. T. We meet it first apparently in the prophetic narrative which forms the basis of the account of Elijah in the book of Kings, the passage which St. Paul is quoting. Here a new idea is introduced into Israel’s history, and it is introduced in one of the most solemn and impressive narratives of that history. The Prophet is taken into the desert to commune with God; he is taken to Sinai, the mountain of God, which played such a large part in the traditions of His people, and he receives the Divine message in that form which has ever marked off this as unique amongst theophanies, the ‘still small voice,’ contrasted with the thunder, and the storm, and the earthquake. And the idea that was thus introduced marks a stage in the religious history of the world, for it was the first revelation of the idea of personal as opposed to national consecration. Up to that time it was the nation as a whole that was bound to God, the nation as a whole for which sacrifices were offered, the nation as a whole for which kings had fought and judges legislated. But the nation as a whole had deserted Jehovah, and the Prophet records that it is the loyalty of the individual Israelites who had remained true to Him that must henceforth be reckoned. The nation will be chastised, but the remnant shall be saved.
The idea is a new one, but it is one which we find continuously from this time onwards; spiritualized with the more spiritual ideas of the later prophets. We find it in Amos (9:8-10), in Micah (2:12, 5:3, in Zephaniah (3:12, 13), in Jeremiah (23:3), in Ezekiel (14:14-20, 22), but most pointedly and markedly in Isaiah. The two great and prominent ideas of Isaiah’s prophecy are typified in the names given to his two sons,—the reality of the Divine vengeance (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) and the salvation of the Remnant (Shear-Jashub) and, through the Holy and Righteous Remnant, of the theocratic nation itself (7:3; 8:2, 18; 9:12; 10:21, 24); and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call (6:9-13) ‘Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes …Then said I, Lord, how long? And He answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant and homes without men, and the land become utterly waste.’ But this is only one side. There is a true stock left. ‘Like the terebinth and the oak, whose stock remains when they are cut down and sends forth new saplings, so the holy seed remains as a living stock and a new and better Israel shall spring from the ruin of the ancient state’ (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 234). This doctrine of a Remnant implied that it was the individual who was true to his God, and not the nation, that was the object of the Divine solicitude; that it was in this small body of individuals that the true life of the chosen nation dwelt, and that from them would spring that internal reformation, which, coming as the result of the Divine chastisement, would produce a whole people, pure and undefiled, to be offered to God (Isa_65:8, Isa_65:9).
The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. It appealed to St. Stephen, in whose speech one of the main currents of thought seems to be the marvellous analogy which runs through all the history of Israel. The mass of the people has ever been unfaithful; it is the individual or the small body that has remained true to God in all the changes of Israel’s history, and these the people have always persecuted as they crucified the Messiah. And so St. Paul, musing over the sad problem of Israel’s unbelief, finds its explanation and justification in this consistent trait of the nation’s history. As in Elijah’s time, as in Isaiah’s time, so now the mass of the people have rejected the Divine call; but there always has been and still is the true Remnant, the Remnant whom God has selected, who have preserved the true life and ideal of the people and thus contain the elements of new and prolonged life.
And this doctrine of the ‘Remnant’ is as true to human nature as it is to Israel’s history. No church or nation is saved en masse, it is those members of it who are righteous. It is not the mass of the nation or church that has done its work, but the select few who have preserved the consciousness of its high calling. It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has been chosen, that God has worked equally in religion and in all the different lines along which the path of human development has progressed.
[On the Remnant see especially Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in Romans ii. p. 290; and Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel, pp. 106, 209, 234, 258. The references are collected in Oehler, Theologie des alten Testaments, p. 809.]
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT FINAL
11:11-24. The Rejection of Israel is not complete, nor will it be final. Its result has been the extension of the Church to the Gentiles. The salvation of these will stir the Jews to jealousy; they will return to the Kingdom, and this will mean the final consummation (vv. 10-15).
Of all this the guarantee is the holiness of the stock from which Israel comes. God has grafted you Gentiles into that stock against the natural order; far more easily can He restore them to a position which by nature and descent is theirs (vv. 16-24).
11The Rejection of Israel then is only partial. Yet still there is the great mass of the nation on whom God’s judgement has come: what of these? Is there no further hope for them? Is this stumbling of theirs such as will lead to a final and complete fall? By no means. It is only temporary, a working out of the Divine purpose. This purpose is partly fulfilled. It has resulted in the extension of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles. It is partly in the future; that the inclusion of these in the Kingdom may rouse the Jews to emulation and bring them back to the place which should be theirs and from which so far they have been excluded. 12And consider what this means. Even the transgression of Israel has brought to the world a great wealth of spiritual blessings; their repulse has enriched the nations, how much greater then will be the result when the chosen people with their numbers completed have accepted the Messiah? 13In these speculations about my countrymen, I am not disregarding my proper mission to you Gentiles. It is with you in my mind that I am speaking. I will put it more strongly. I do all I can to glorify my ministry as Apostle to the Gentiles, 14and this in hopes that I may succeed in bringing salvation to some at any rate of my countrymen by thus moving them to emulation. 15And my reason for this is what I have implied just above, that by the return of the Jews the whole world will receive what it longs for. The rejection of them has been the means of reconciling the world to God by the preaching to the Gentiles; their reception into the Kingdom, the gathering together of the elect from the four winds of heaven, will inaugurate the final consummation, the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal life that follows.
16But what ground is there for thus believing in the return of the chosen people to the Kingdom? It is the holiness of the race. When you take from the kneading trough a piece of dough and offer it to the Lord as a heave-offering, do you not consecrate the whole mass? Do not the branches of a tree receive life and nourishment from the roots? So it is with Israel. Their forefathers the Patriarchs have been consecrated to the Lord, and in them the whole race; from that stock they obtain their spiritual life, a life which must be holy as its source is holy. 17For the Church of God is like a ‘green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit,’ as the Prophet Jeremiah described it. Its roots are the Patriarchs; its branches the people of the Lord. Some of these branches have been broken off; Israelites who by birth and descent were members of the Church. Into their place you Gentiles, by a process quite strange and unnatural, have been grafted, shoots from a wild olive, into a cultivated stock. Equally with the old branches which still remain on the tree you share in the rich sap which flows from its root. 18Do not for this reason think that you may insolently boast of the position of superiority which you occupy. If you are inclined to do so, remember that you have done nothing, that all the spiritual privileges that you possess simply belong to the stock on which you by no merit of your own have been grafted. 19But perhaps you say: ‘That I am the favoured one is shown by this that others were cut off that I might be grafted in.’ 20I grant what you say; but consider the reason. It was owing to their want of faith that they were broken off: you on the other hand owe your firm position to your faith, not to any natural superiority. 21It is an incentive therefore not to pride, as you seem to think, but to fear. For if God did not spare the holders of the birthright, no grafted branches but the natural growth of the tree, He certainly will be no more ready to spare you, who have no such privileges to plead. 22Learn the Divine goodness, but learn and understand the Divine severity as well. Those who have fallen have experienced the severity, you the goodness; a goodness which will be continued if you cease to be self-confident and simply trust: otherwise you too may be cut off as they were. 23Nor again is the rejection of the Jews irrevocable. They can be grafted again into the stock on which they grew, if only they will give up their unbelief. For they are in God’s hands; and God’s power is not limited. He is able to restore them to the position from which they have fallen. 24 For consider. You are the slip cut from the olive that grew wild, and yet, by a process which you must admit to be entirely unnatural, you were grafted into the cultivated stock. If God could do this, much more can He graft the natural branches of the cultivated olive on to their own stock from which they were cut. You Gentiles have no grounds for boasting, nor have the Jews for despair. Your position is less secure than was theirs, and if they only trust in God, their salvation will be easier than was yours.
11. St. Paul has modified the question of ver. 1 so far: the rejection of Israel is only partial. But yet it is true that the rest, that is the majority, of the nation are spiritually blind. They have stumbled and sinned. Does this imply their final exclusion from the Messianic salvation? St. Paul shows that it is not so. It is only temporary and it has a Divine purpose.
λγ ον A new stage in the argument. ‘I ask then as to this majority whose state the prophets have thus described.’ The question arises immediately out of the preceding verses, but is a stage in the argument running through the whole chapter, and raised by the discussion of Israel’s guilt in 9:30-10:21.
μ ἔτια, ἵαπσσ; ‘have they (i.e. those who have been hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall?’ Numquid sic offenderunt, ut caderent? Is their failure of such a character that they will be finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation? ἵαexpresses the contemplated result. The metaphor in ἔτια (which is often used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deu_7:25; Jam_2:10; Jam_3:2; 2Pe_1:10) seems to be suggested by σάαο of ver. 9. The meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between παενand πσῖ; a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may fall completely. Hence πσσνis here used of a complete and irrevocable fall. Cf. Isa_24:20 κτσυεγρἐʼατςἡἀοί, κὶπσῖα κὶο μ δντιἀατνι Ps. Sol. 3:13 ἔεε ὅιπνρντ πῶαατῦ κὶοκἀατστι Heb_4:11. It is no argument against this that the same word is used in vv. 22, 23 of a fall which is not irrevocable: the ethical meaning must be in each case determined by the context, and here the contrast with ἔτια suggests a fall that is irrevocable.
There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission of a laxer use of ἴα a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head (§liii. 10. 6, p. 573 E. T.) maintain that it always preserves, even in N. T. Greek, its classical meaning of purpose; on the other hand, English commentators such as Lightfoot (on Gal_5:17), Ellicott (on 1Th_5:4), and Evans (on 1Co_7:29) admit the laxer use. Evans says ‘that ἴα like our “that,” has three uses: (1) final (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go), (3) subjectively ecbatit (have they stumbled that they should fall)’; and it is quite clear that it is only by reading into passages a great deal which is not expressed that commentators can make ἵαin all cases mean ‘in order that.’ In 1Th_5:4 ὑεςδ, ἀεφί οκἐτ ἐ σόε, ἵαἡἡέαὑᾶ ὡ κέτςκτλβ where Winer states that there is ‘a Divine purpose of God,’ this is not expressed either in the words or the context. In 1Co_7:29 ὀκιὸ σνσαμνςἐτ, τ λιὸ ἴακὶο ἔοτςγνῖα ὡ μ ἔοτςὧι ‘is it probable that a state of sitting loose to worldly interests should be described as the aim or purpose of God in curtailing the season of the great tribulation?’ (Evans.) Yet Winer asserts that the words ἵακὶο ἔοτςκτλ express the (Divine) purpose for which ὁκιὸ σνσαμνςἐτ. So again in the present passage it is only a confusion of ideas that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used a passive verb such as ἐωώηα then we might translate, ‘have they been hardened in order that they may fall?’ and there would be no objection in logic or grammar, but as St. Paul has written ἔτια, if there is a purpose in the passage it ascribes stumbling as a deliberate act undertaken with the purpose of falling. We cannot here any more than elsewhere read in a Divine purpose where it is neither implied nor expressed, merely for the sake of defending an arbitrary grammatical rule.
μ γοτ. St. Paul indignantly denies that the final fall of Israel was the contemplated result of their transgression. The result of it has already been the calling of the Gentiles, and the final purpose is the restoration of the Jews also.
τ ατνπρπώαι ‘by their false step,’ continuing the metaphor of ἔτια.
ἡστρατῖ ἔνσν St. Paul is here stating an historical fact. His own preaching to the Gentiles had been caused definitely by the rejection of his message on the part of the Jews. Act_13:45-48; cf. 8:4; 11:19; 28:28.
εςτ πρζλσιατύ: ‘to provoke them (the Jews) to jealousy.’ This idea had already been suggested (10:19) by the quotation from Deuteronomy Ἐὼπρζλσ ὑᾶ ἐʼοκἔνι
St. Paul in these two statements sketches the lines on which the Divine action is explained and justified. God’s purpose has been to use the disobedience of the Jews in order to promote the calling of the Gentiles, and He will eventually arouse the Jews to give up their unbelief by emulation of the Gentiles. Ετ κτσεάε, ὄιτ πασαατνδπῆ οκνμα ἐγζτι τ τ γρἔν ἀτιάε κὶατὺ δ πρκίο κὶἐθζνἐιτέε, μ φρνα τντσύη τνἐνντμν Euthym.-Zig.
12. St. Paul strengthens his statement by an argument drawn from the spiritual character of the Jewish people. If an event which has been so disastrous to the nation has had such a beneficial result, how much more beneficial will be the result of the entrance of the full complement of the nation into the Messianic kingdom?
ποτςκσο: the enriching of the world by the throwing open to it of the kingdom of the Messiah: cf. 10:12 ὁγρατςΚρο πνω, ποτνεςπνα τὺ ἐιαομνυ ατν
τ ἤτμ ατν ‘their defeat.’ From one point of view the unbelief of the Jews was a transgression (πρπωα from another it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom, since they had failed to obtain what they sought.
ἤτμ occurs only twice elsewhere: in Isa_31:8 ο δ ναίκιἔοτιεςἥτμ, πτᾳγρπρλφήοτιὡ χρκ κὶἡτθσνα: and in 1Co_6:7 ἤημνονὅω ἤτμ ὑῖ ἐτν ὅικίααἔεεμθ ἑυῶ. The correct interpretation of the word as derived from the verb would be a ‘defeat,’ and this is clearly the meaning in Isaiah. It can equally well apply in 1 Cor., whether it be translated a ‘defeat’ in that it lowers the Church in the opinion of the world, or a ‘moral defeat,’ hence a ‘defect,’ The same meaning suits this passage. The majority of commentators however translate it here ‘diminution’ (see especially Gif. Sp. Comm. pp. 194, 203), in order to make the antithesis to πήωαexact. But as Field points out (Otium Norv. iii. 97) there is no reason why the sentence should not be rhetorically faulty, and it is not much improved by giving ἤτμ the meaning of ‘impoverishment’ as opposed to ‘replenishment.’
τ πήωαατν ‘their complement,’ ‘their full and completed number.’ See on 11:25.
The exact meaning of πήωαhas still to be ascertained. 1. There is a long and elaborate note on the word in Lft. Col. p. 323 ff. He starts with asserting that ‘substantives in -μ formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of the action: but in any case they give the result of the agency involved in the corresponding verb.’ He then takes the verb πηονand shows that it has two senses, (i) ‘to fill,’ (ii) ‘to fulfil’ or ‘complete’; and deriving the fundamental meaning of the word πήωαfrom the latter usage makes it mean in the N. T. always ‘that which is completed.’ 2. A somewhat different view of the termination -μ is given by the late T. S. Evans in a note on 1Co_5:6 in the Sp. Comm. (part of which is quoted above on Rom_4:2