Lange Commentary - Romans 11:1

Lange Commentary - Romans 11:1 - 11:36

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Romans 11:1 - 11:36

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

11:1 - 11:36

Third Section.—The final gracious solution of the enigma, or the overruling of judgment for the salvation of Israel. God’s judgment on Israel is not one of reprobation. God’s saving economy in His Providence over Jews and Gentiles, over the election and the great majority of Israel, and over the concatenation of judgment and salvation, by virtue of which all Israel shall finally attain to faith and salvation through the fulness of the Gentiles. The universality of judgment and mercy. Doxology

Rom_11:1-36

A

¹I say then, Hath [Did] God cast away his people? God forbid. [Let it not be!] For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of ²Benjamin. God hath [did] not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot [Or know] ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias [ ἐí Ἠëßᾳ , in the story of Elijah]? how he maketh intercession to [pleadeth with] God against Israel, ³saying [omit saying], Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and [omit and; insert they have] digged down thine altars; and I am left alone [the only one], and they seek my life. ⁴But what saith the answer of God [the divine response] unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not [who never] bowed the knee to the image of [omit the image of] Baal. ⁵Even so then at [ ἐí , in] this present time also there is a remnant according to⁶the election of grace. And [Now] if by grace, then is it no more [no longer] of works: otherwise grace is no more [no longer becomes] grace. But if it be of works, then Isaiah 8 it no more [longer] grace: otherwise work is no more [longer] work.

B

⁷What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for [That which Israel seeketh for, he obtained not]; but the election hath [omit hath] obtained ⁸it, and the rest were blinded [hardened], ([omit parenthesis] According as it is written, God hath given [gave] them the [a] spirit of slumber [or, stupor], eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto ⁹[not hear, unto] this day. And David saith,

Let their table be made [become] a snare, and a trap,

And a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them:

¹⁰Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see

And bow down their back alway.

C

¹¹I say then, Have they stumbled that [Did they stumble in order that] they should fall? God forbid: [Let it not be!] but rather through [but by] their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke [in order to excite] them to jealousy [or, emulation]. ¹²Now if the fall of them [their fall] be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them [their diminishing] the riches ¹³of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak [I am speaking] to you Gentiles [;], inasmuch [then] as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify [glorify] mine office: ¹⁴If by any means I may provoke [excite] to emulation them which are [omit them which are] my [own] flesh, and might save some of them. ¹⁵For if the casting away of them be the reconciling [reconciliation] of the world, what shall the receiving [reception] of them be, but life ¹⁶from the dead. For [Moreover] if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy [so also is the lump]: and if the root be holy, so are the branches [also].

D

¹⁷And [But] if some of the branches be [were] broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed [grafted] in among them, and with them partakest [and made fellow-partaker] of the root and fatness of the olive tree; ¹⁸Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. ¹⁹Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that Imight be graffed [grafted] in. ²⁰Well; because of unbelief they were broke off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: ²¹For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed [fear] lest he also spare not thee. ²²Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which [those who] fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness [God’s goodness], if thoucontinue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. ²³And they also [moreover], if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed [grafted] in: forGod is able to graff [graft] them in again. ²⁴For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed [grafted] contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed [grafted] into their own olive tree?

E

²⁵For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness [hardening] in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be [omit be] come in. ²⁶And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the ²⁷Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant [the covenant from me, ðáὀ ἐìïῦ ] unto them, when I shall take away their²⁸sins. As concerning [touching] the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes:²⁹but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the³⁰gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed [were disobedient to] God, yet have now obtained mercythrough their unbelief [the disobedience of these]: ³¹Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy [i.e., mercy shown to you] they also mayobtain mercy. ³²For God hath concluded them all [shut up all] in unbelief [disobedience], that [in order that] he might [may] have mercy upon all.³³O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom [riches and wisdom] and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! ³⁴For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his ³⁵counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? ³⁶For of him, and through him, and to [unto] him, are all things: to whom [him] be glory for ever. Amen.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Summary.—A. Israel is not rejected; the kernel of it—the election—is saved; Rom_11:1-6. B. The great proportion of Israel, all except the essentially important remnant, the “rest,” are hardened, as was described by the Spirit in the Old Testament beforehand; but its hardness has become a condition for the conversion of the Gentiles; Rom_11:7 to Rom_11:31 C. Yet, on the other hand, the conversion of the Gentiles is in turn a means for the conversion of Israel, and thereby for the revivification of the world. The saving effect of their rejection gives ground for expecting a still more saving effect of their reception. The significance of the first-fruits and of the root; Rom_11:12-16. D. The very fact that the Gentiles believe, and the Jews do not believe, is largely conditional. Gentiles, as individuals, can become unbelievers; and Jews, as individuals, can become believers. For: a. The Gentiles are grafted on the stem of the Jewish theocracy among believing Jews. b. They can just as readily be cut off by unbelief, as the Jews can be grafted in by faith, because the latter have a greater historical relationship with the kingdom of God; Rom_11:17-24. E. The last word, or the mystery of Divine Providence in the economy of salvation. Every thing will redound to the glory of God. God’s saving economy for the world: The unbelieving Gentiles have been converted by believing Israel; unbelieving Israel shall be converted by believing Gentiles. The judgment on all, that mercy might be shown to all. Praise offered to God for His plan of salvation, for its execution, for its end, and for its ground; Rom_11:25-36. [Dr. Hodge divides the chapter into two parts: Rom_11:1-36. (1) The rejection of the Jews was not total. A remnant (and a larger one than many might suppose) remained, though the mass was rejected. (2) This rejection is not final. The restoration of the Jews is a desirable and probable event; Rom_11:11-24. It is one which God has determined to bring about; Rom_11:25-32. A sublime declaration of the unsearchable wisdom of God, manifested in all His dealings with men; Rom_11:33-36. So Forbes.—R.]

Rom_11:1-6 : Israel is not rejected. The real kernel of it is already saved.

Rom_11:1. I say then [ ÁÝãù ïῦ ̓ í ]. The ïῦ ̓ í may appear to be merely an inference from what was said last: All day long God stretched forth His hand. But as, in Rom_11:11, he makes a further assertion, designed to forestall a false conclusion, it has here the same meaning, in antithesis to the strong judgment pronounced on Israel at the conclusion of the previous chapter. Meyer maintains a more definite reference to the ëÝãù in Rom_11:10; Rom_11:18-19.

[Did God cast away his people? ìὴ ἀðþóáôï ὁ èåὸò ôὸí ëáὸí áὐôïῦ ; When Reiche remarks the absence of an ἅðáíôá from ëáὸí , and Semler an omnino from ἀðþóáôï , they both fail to appreciate the emphasis of the expressions. The people and his people are different ones, just as an economic giving over to judgment and an eonic casting away (Psa_94:14; Psa_95:7). Bengel: Ipsa populi ejus appellatio rationem negandi continet. The Apostle repels such a thought with religious horror: ìὴ ãÝíïéôï .

For I also [ êáὶ ãὰñ ἐãþ ]. According to the usual acceptation, he adduces his own call as an example; but Meyer, with De Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius, on the contrary, hold that Paul, on account of his patriotic sense as a true Israelite, could not concede that casting away. But it was just this inference from a feeling of national patriotism that was the standpoint of his opponents. A single example, it is said, can prove nothing. But by Paul’s using the êáß , he refers to the other examples which were numerously represented by the Jewish Christians among his readers.

Am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin [ Ἰóñáçëßôçò åἰìß , ἐê óðÝñìáôïò ἈâñáÜì , öõëῆò Âåíéáìåßí . The spelling Âåíéáìßí (LXX., Rec.) is poorly supported here and in Php_3:5.] As a true scion of Abraham and Benjamin—the tribe which., together with Judah, constituted the real substance of the people which returned from the captivity—he is conscious that he does not belong to the election as a mere proselyte; if he would speak of a casting away of God’s people, he must therefore deny himself and his faith (Php_3:5). [Alford distinguishes between the popular view, and another which implies, “that if such a hypothesis were to be conceded, it would exclude from God’s kingdom the writer himself, as an Israelite.” This agrees, apparently, with Lange’s view, but implies also that “his people” is used in the national sense, not of the spiritual Israel. See below.—R.]

Rom_11:2. God did not cast away [ ïὐê ἀðþóáôï ὁ èåὸò ]. He follows with a solemn declaration founded upon the testimony of his own conscientiousness and of examples.

His people [ ôὸí ëáὸí áὐôïῦ ]. He is as definite in characterizing His people, ὅí ðñïÝãíù , as he is grand in his declaration of the not casting away. On the idea of ðñïãéíþóêåéí , see Rom_8:29. Two explanations here come in conflict with each other:

1. The spiritual people of God are spoken of, the Ἰóñáὴë èåïῦ ; Rom_9:6; Gal_6:16 (Origen, Augustine, Luther, Calvin [Hodge], &c.).

2. Meyer says, on the contrary: The subject of the whole chapter is not the spiritual Israel, but the fate of the nation in regard to the salvation effected by the Messiah. Tholuck and Philippi [De Wette, Stuart, Alford], are of the same view. But the idea of “people” which the Apostle presents is so very dynamical, that it might be said: to him the election is the people, and God’s true people is an election. This is evidently the thought in chap. 9, and also in Rom_11:4-5 of the present chapter. But if we emphasize properly the idea of casting away, the idea of election does not any more stand in antithesis to it; that is, it is not thereby settled that there is an election. But as the defenders of view (1) mistake the full import of the further elaboration, especially Rom_11:26, so do the defenders of (2) pass too lightly over the gradations made by the Apostle. [Against the interpretation: spiritual people, it may well be urged, that all along the Apostle has been speaking of the nation; that this very chapter treats of the final salvation of Israel as a nation, and Paul says he is an Israelite, &c., of this historical (not spiritual) people. Besides, the Scriptures have suffered very much from assumptions respecting spiritual references. The only argument in favor of this meaning is the phrase: “Whom he foreknew.” It is held that this defines the people as those referred to in Rom_8:29 ff.; but may there not be a foreknowledge of a nation resulting in national privileges, such as the Jews enjoyed, as really as foreknowledge of an individual and consequent blessing? The whole current of thought in the chapter—in fact, in chaps. 9–11—is against any such interpretation as shall make “His people” = His spiritual Israel, over against Israel as a nation. If any limitation be made, it should be thus expressed: the real people of God among the Jewish people, recognizing them as the pith and kernel of the nation, not as isolated individuals from out the mass. This seems to be Dr. Lange’s view, and is probably that of many who are quoted in favor of (I). We thus retain the weight of the Apostle’s proof: For I also am an Israelite, and avoid weakening the main thought of the chapter, which undoubtedly is: the ultimate national restoration of the Jews. Were it not this, the whole argument of chaps. 9–11 ends with a non sequitur. Comp. Alford, in loco.—R.]

What is meant by God casting away His people? 1. There is an election of believers, and it is far greater than one of little faith may think. (How many Jews themselves, of all periods, would like to have been friends of Jesus!) 2. The call of the Gentiles is even designed indirectly for the conversion of Israel, and individuals can always be gained. 3. The whole Divine disposition is designed for the final salvation of all Israel. Here, therefore, the thought of the mercy controlling this whole economy, comes in contrast with the thought of the great economical judgment of hardening. If, however, the expression all Israel be urged, and there be found in individuals of it an assurance of the salvation of the empirical totality, we would have to be indifferent to the idea of election with reference to Israel as a people, and let it consist in the idea of an absolute restoration.

Which he foreknew [ ὃí ðñïÝãíù ]. This limits the meaning, in so far as the empirical mass of the people is not meant; but, on the other hand, the small empirical number of believing Jews is also not meant, but the people in their whole regal idea and nature. In this eternal destination of Israel, God cannot contradict himself. [Alford (so Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer) thus paraphrases: “which, in His own eternal decree before the world, He selected as the chosen nation, to be His own, the depositary of His law, the vehicle of the theocracy, from its first revelation to Moses, to its completion in Christ’s future kingdom.” Toward this national reference later commentators generally incline. See Hodge, on the other side.—R.]

Or know ye not, &c. [ Ἤ ïὐê ïἴäáôå ἐí Ἠëßᾳ , ê . ô . ë . Ἤ introduces a new objection to the matter impugned (Alford). Comp. Rom_9:21; Rom_6:3.—R.] Tholuck: “ Ἐí Ἠëßᾳ , quotation of the section treating of Elijah, as Mar_12:26 : ἐðὶ ôῆò âÜôïõ . Examples from the classics in Fritzsche, to which may be added Thucydides i.9, and proofs from Philo, in Grossmann,” &c. (see 1Ki_19:10; 1Ki_19:14). Incorrect view: ἐí Ἠëßᾳ , of Elijah (Erasmus, Luther [E. V.], and others). [Upon this point all modern commentators and translators agree, though they differ about the proper word to be supplied, whether section, history, or story; the last is simplest.—R.]

Rom_11:3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, &c. [ Êýñéå , ôïὐò ðñïöÞôáò óïõ ἀðÝêôåéíáí , ê . ô . ë . See Textual Note².] The Apostle has quoted freely the real meaning of the words of the text. It makes no difference in the thing itself that, in the complaint which Elijah makes, he understands by the ìüíïò the only remaining prophet, while the present passage understands the only worshipper of God. For the prophet, in his state of mind, was not inclined to acknowledge dumb or absconding worshippers of God as God’s true worshippers. But Paul, in conformity with his view, has transposed the words meaning altars and prophets. Meyer pays attention to the plural, the altars, “as the temple at Jerusalem was the only place exclusively designed for service.” But even in the temple at Jerusalem there were two altars. Yet the question here is concerning the kingdom of Israel, and therefore the remark of Estius is almost superfluous, that it was even blasphemy to throw down God’s altars on the high places.

Rom_11:4. But what saith the Divine response unto him? ἀëëὰ ôß ëÝãåé áὐôῷ ὁ êñçìáôéóìüò ; On êñçìáôéóìüò , see the Lexicons. [The substantive occurs only here in the New Testament. The cognate verb is used in Mat_2:12; Mat_2:22; Act_10:22; Heb_8:5; Heb_11:7, in the sense: to be warned of God, as the E. V. expresses it. The obvious meaning here: Divine response, seems to have been thus derived: the word first meant business, then formal audience given to an ambassador, and then an oracular response, though this was not the classical sense. See 2Ma_2:4; 2Ma_11:17.—R.]

I have reserved to myself [ ÊáôÝëéðïí ἐìáõôῷ . See Textual Note.⁵To myself, as my possession and for my service, over against the apostasy into idolatrous service (Meyer).—R.] The original expression: “I will leave me,” has been changed by the Apostle into the past tense, without thereby altering the sense, as has been done by the LXX.

Seven thousand men [ ἑðôáêéæ÷éëßïõò ἄíäñáò ]. It is sufficient to regard the number seven as the sacred number in relation to the services, and the number thousand as a designation of a popular assembly. Tholuck, after Kurtz (p. 591), considers the number seven as the perfect and covenant number. There are different ideas of perfection, according to which the Numbers 3, 4, 7, 10, , 12, may be together regarded as numbers denoting perfection. The Mohammedan saying, quoted by Tholuck, is interesting: that “God never allows the world to be without a remainder of seventy righteous people, for whose sake He preserves it.”

[Who never bowed, ïἵôéíåò ïὐê ἔêáìøáí . Alford remarks on ïἵôéíåò , which is a variation from the original, that it gives “the sense of the saying, as far as regards the present purpose, viz., to show that all these were faithful men; in the original text and LXX., it is implied that these were all the faithful men.”—R.]

To Baal. The feminine ôῇ ÂÜáë has given occasion for much discussion. In the LXX. the name has sometimes the masculine and sometimes the feminine article. Why does it have the latter? As the LXX. of this passage has ôῷ ÂÜáë , Meyer has admitted a mistake of Paul’s memory; Fritzsche holds that the codex which Paul read, contained a different reading. According to Olshausen, Philippi, Meyer [Stuart, Hodge], and others, the feminine form may be explained by the fact that Baal was regarded as an androgynous deity; but this is not sufficiently proved. According to Gesenius, the feminine form was understood as a contemptuous expression of idols; which view is also favored by Tholuck. The elder critics (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius) understood the word as applying to the statue of Baal. [So E. V.] Tholuck replies to this, by saying: without analogy. But the idol is the contemptible image or statue of the false god. Yet, if we hold that Baal had no reality as god to the Jews, but merely as an idol, the whole series of feminine forms used in designating Baal becomes clear at once (1Sa_7:4; Zep_1:4; Hos_2:8). Meyer is of the opinion that, in that case, it would have to read ôῇ ôïῦ ÂÜáë ; but this would fully destroy the probably designed effect of the feminine form. Tholuck observes: “In the Gothic language, Guth, as masculine, means God; but gud, as neuter, means idols;” and by this means he again approaches the explanation which, in passing, he has rejected. He does the same thing in his preceding remark: “In the rabbinical writings, idols are contemptuously called äֶàֶìåֹú .” On Baal, comp. Winer, das Wörterbuch für das christliche Volk, and the Hebrew Antiquities, by De Wette, Ewald, and Keil.

Rom_11:5. Even so then in this present time [ ïὕôùò ïῦ ̓ í êáὶ ἐí ôῷ íῦí êáéñῶ . Alford suggests: “even in the present time, sc., of Israel’s national rejection.—R.] God, according to that example, secures for himself a certain remnant [ ëåῖììá ] of the elect, according to His constant law of election—that is, according to the election of grace [ êáô ’ ἐêëïãὴí êáñéôïò . Comp. Rom_9:11. Stuart: “an election, not on the ground of merit, but of mercy.—R.]

Ver 6. Now if by grace [ åἰ äὲ êÜñéôé . ÄÝ logical, now.—R.] Namely, that a ëåῖììá existed, and always continues to exist. Grace, or the gift of grace, cannot be divided and supplemented by, or confounded with, a merit of works. Augustine: Gratia, nisi gratis sit, gratia non est.

[Then it is no longer of works: otherwise grace no longer becomes grace, ïὐê ἔôé ἐî ἔñãùí , ἐðåὶ ἡ êáñéò ïὐê ἔôé ãßíåôáé ÷Üñéò .—But if it be of works, then it is no longer grace: otherwise work is no longer work, åἰ äὲ ἐî ἔñãùí , ïὐê ἔôé ÷Üñéò , ἐðåὶ ôὸ ἔñãïí ïὐê ἔôé ἐóôὶí ἔñãïí . The critical questions respecting the second clause are discussed in Textual Notes^{7, 8, 9,} and at some length below. The discussion requires us to insert the verse in full.—R.] We may now ask how we must understand the parallel clauses? The usual explanation places the following in antithesis to each other: Now if it is by grace (that remnant, or its causality, the election), then it is simply not by the merit of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.—But if it be by works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work would be no true work, but mercenary work. In connection with this antithesis, clear and significant in itself, there arise, however, three questions: 1. Why does the Apostle enlarge the first proposition by the second, since the latter seems to be quite self-evident from the former? 2. What should the ãßíåôáé ( ÷Üñéò ) mean, where ἐóôé should be so positively expected that the Vulgate [E. V.], and other versions, have even substituted ?Esther 3. Why is ÷Üñéò used instead of ἐê ÷Üñéôïò [to correspond with ἐî ἔñãùí ] in the second sentence?

As far as the first point is concerned, Tholuck says: “The genuineness of the antithesis ‘ åἰ äὲ ἐî ἔñãùí ,’ &c., is more than doubtful. Its oldest authorities are Cod. B., Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret (in the text). On the contrary, it is wanting in A. C. D. F. G., Origen (according to Rufinus), Vulgate, the Coptic Translation, and others. Yet Fritzsche has undertaken to defend this reading, and lately Reiche also, in the Comm. Crit., p. 67; Tischendorf has preserved it in the text,” &c. According to Tholuck, the addition has the character of a glossarial reflection. This appearance of such a self-evident amplification could, however, have also occasioned the omission.

The ãßíåôáé in the first sentence means, according to Tholuck: to result, to come out as. This explanation is just as doubtful as that of Meyer: “in its concrete appearance it ceases to be what it is by nature.” [So De. Wette, Alford, Philippi. The distinction between ãßíåôáé and ἐóôßí is ignored by many commentators.—R.] The ÷Üñéò , in the second sentence, must be understood, according to the current explanation, as the effect of the ÷Üñéò in the first sentence. In addition to this, we have the question: What is the meaning of “work is no more work?” Does the Apostle regard only mercenary work as a true work? We attempt the following explanation: If it is of grace, then it is no more of works; for grace does not first exist, or is not first in process of existence by works. Grace, according to its very nature, must be complete before works. But if of works, then no further grace exists, because the work is not yet complete, and never will be complete as meritorious work. Works, considered as meritorious, are always an incomplete infinitude. But if grace should first be the result of works, it would not be present until the boundless future. If we accept this view, the literal expression is saved; and to the first declaration, that grace and the merit of works preclude each other, there is gained a second: Grace is naturally a prepared ground before the existing work, &c. (see also the continuation in Rom_11:7). The reading of Cod. B.: åἰ äὲ ἐî ἔñãùí , ïὐêÝôé ÷Üñéò , ἐðåὶ ôὸ ἔñãïí ïὐêÝôé ἐóôὶ ÷Üñéò , seems also to be a special attempt at an explanation. The real purpose of the antithesis is, that the Apostle proves that the election of the people could only consist of those who establish themselves on grace, but not in the party which establishes itself on works. If the matter were as those who rely on the righteousness of works desire, there would not be any grace; and grace would never be accomplished, because the righteousness of works is never accomplished, just as little as the tower of Babel was ever finished.

Rom_11:7-11. The great body of unbelievers who have not been able to obtain grace by works, are not the real substance of the people. They are essentially an apostate remnant of hardened ones. Yet their stumbling was not designed for their ruin, but for the salvation of the Gentiles.

Rom_11:7. What then. Ôß ïῦ ̓ í . This inference, as well as the ἐðéæçôåῖ , becomes quite definite, if we refer to the conclusion of the previous verse.—That which Israel seeketh for, he obtained not [ ὃ ἐðéæçôåῖ óñáÞë , ôïῦôï ïὐê ἐðÝôõ÷åí . The latter verb is usually followed by the genitive; rarely, in the classics, by the accusative, as here. Hence we find, in Rec. (no MSS.), ôïýôïõ . See Meyer for the authorities for this use of the accusative. The meaning is not: to find, but to attain to, to obtain.—R.] Israel did not obtain that which it sought to obtain by works—grace, as the end of the finished work. Like a phantom beyond the ever unfinished work, grace had to recede ever further in the distance. The ἐðéæçôåῖí can, at all events, also mean zealous striving [Fritzsche, Philippi, Hodge]; but it is clear that this idea would not be in place here. [Meyer says it indicates the direction.—R.] The present properly denotes “the permanence of the effort”—the permanence of the effort to find the city of grace at the end of the long road of self-righteousness.

But the election obtained it [ ἡäὲ ἐêëïãὴ ἐðÝôõ÷åí . The election for the elect, as the circumcision for those circumcised. Vivacious expression.—R.] Meyer says: “For they were subjects of Divine grace.” Paul has already said, in other words: For the elect are distinguished by having received God’s grace in faith.

And the rest were hardened [ ïἱ äὲ ëïéðïὶ ἐðùñþèçóáí . The verb is rendered blinded in the E. V., here, and 2Co_3:14; in other places, hardened, which is decidedly preferable.—R.] Israel is divided into two parts. One part is the ἐêëïãÞ , although it is the minority; the other is the ëïéðïß , the ôéíÝò , although they are the majority. Meyer says, they were hardened by God. [So Hodge, Stuart, Philippi (with a reservation), and Tholuck, in later editions; comp. Rom_9:18. The passive certainly, includes this thought.—R.] Paul says, they have been hardened by a reciprocal process between their unbelief and God’s judgments. The sense undoubtedly is, that those who remain for the incalculable periods of judgment have become, “in understanding and will, insusceptible of the appropriation of salvation in Christ” (Meyer), and insusceptible, above all, in their heart and spirit; because the last sparks of the spiritual life in them, which alone can understand the gospel of the Spirit, have expired; just as a sapless plant is no more supported by the sunshine, but is reduced to a dried-up stalk.

Rom_11:8. According as it is written. [Stuart is disposed to find in êáèὼò ( à . B., Tregelles: êáèÜðåñ ) ãÝãñáðôáé a declaration of analogy, rather than a citation of prophecy. So Tholuck; but Fritzsche, Meyer, and others, hold the latter view. “The perspective of prophecy, in stating such cases, embraces all the analogous ones, especially that great one, in which the words are most prominently fulfilled” (Alford). See below, note on Rom_11:10. On the free citation, see Textual Notes^{9, 10}.—R.] The citation is freely collated from Isa_29:10; Isa_6:9; Deu_29:4. Meyer denies that Isa_6:9 is taken into consideration; but if we compare the two other passages, they do not suffice for Paul’s citation, since the assertion in Deu_29:4 contains merely negations.

God gave them. By no means a mere permission (Chrysostom), but likewise not simply activity, without something further. The ground of the judgment of a spirit of slumber [ ðíåῦìáêá ôáíýîåùò ], or of deep sleep ( øåּçַ úַּøְãֵּîָä ), on Israel, is definitely declared, in Isa_29:10, to be the guilt of the people; Rom_11:13 ff.—But the passage in Isa_6:9 ff., which constitutes the principal part of the present quotation, is explained immediately afterward in the conduct of Ahaz, in chap. 7. The third passage from Deuteronomy brings out more definitely the negative element in this hardening process: “Yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive,” &c. On the meaning and interpretations of êáôÜíõîéò , see Meyer, p. 420; Tholuck, p. 596.—[Unto this day; to be joined with what immediately precedes, since they are substantially from Deu_29:4. So modern editors and commentators generally.—R.]

Rom_11:9. And David saith. The second passage is taken freely from Psa_69:22 (LXX.). Meyer says: “David is not the author of this Psalm (against Hengstenberg), which must be judged analogously to the expression in Mat_22:43.” Comp. on that passage the Commentary on Matthew, p. 404. First of all, it is quite easy to prove that the sufferings of the people in exile could not have been in mind in writing either the lamentations of Psalms 19., or the “imprecations” on enemies. First, the theocratic exiles did not say that they had to suffer for the Lord’s sake (Rom_11:7), and for zeal for His house (Rom_11:9). But they said just the contrary (see Psalms 106; Isaiah 64; Daniel 9.). And though the exile could also invoke God’s wrath on the heathen, and wish them evil (Psa_79:6; Psa_137:9), the prophetic imprecations are very different, for they portray the judgments of blindness that are invoked on the spiritual adversaries of the theocratic faith, and of the house and name of the Lord, who proved their enmity by persecuting God’s servant. Comp., in this respect, Psalms 59; Psalms 64; Psa_69:22-28; Psalms 109. In such Psalms, either the personal, collective, or ideal David chiefly speaks, because David has become the type of God’s suffering servant. We therefore hold, with Luther, Rosenmüller, and others, that the concluding words (from Rom_11:32) are a later addition.

The imprecations themselves are a propheticoethical view, clad in the sombre drapery of the Old Testament. [Dr. J. Add. Alexander remarks, on this verse of Psalms 69 : “The imprecations in this verse, and those following it, are revolting only when considered as the expression of malignant selfishness. If uttered by God, they shock no reader’s sensibilities; nor should they, when considered as the language of an ideal person, representing the whole class of righteous sufferers, and particularly Him who, though He prayed for His murderers while dying (Luk_23:34), had before applied the words of this very passage to the unbelieving Jews (Mat_23:38), as Paul did afterwards.”—R.]

Let their table become a snare [ ÃåíçèÞôù ἡ ôñÜðåæá áὐôῶí åἰò ðáãßäá ]. Philippi, with Origen, Tholuck, and others, has referred the table to the law and its works. But when Melanchthon says: doctrina ipsorum, the latter must be very carefully distinguished from the law itself. Chrysostom: their enjoyments; Michaelis, and others: the Jewish passover meal, at which the Jews were besieged, and which was followed by the destruction of Jerusalem; Grotius: the altar in the temple itself. The point of the figure becomes blunted, if we hold, with Tholuck, that table is mentioned, because it is at the table that surprise by an enemy is most dangerous. Rather, the table, or the enjoyment of life by the ungodly, becomes itself their snare, &c. Now this table can be something different at different times; generally, it is the symbol of comfortable banqueting in wicked security over the ungodly enjoyment of life (see Mat_24:38). With the Jews of the Apostle’s day, this table was their statutes, and, above all, their illusion that the earthly glory of the kingdom of Israel would be manifested by triumph over the Romans. It is a fact that the table, the ungodly enjoyment of life, becomes a snare for the ruin of the adversaries of the Holy One; just as the pious man’s table becomes a sign of blessing and victory (Psalms 23.). While they think they are consuming the spoils of their earthly sense, they become themselves a spoil to every form of retribution; just as the bird is led into the snare, and the deer is hunted, or perishes by a stumbling-block—that is, a trap.

[And a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them, êáὶ åἰò èÞñáí êáὶ åἰò óêÜíäáëïí êáὶ ἀíôáðüäïìá áὐôïῖò . See Textual Note¹¹.—R.] Paul has freely elaborated the original forms still further, by inserting êáὶ åἰò èÞñáí . Likewise óêÜíäáëïí follows ἀíôáðüäïóéò in the LXX. The Vulgate interprets èÞñá by captio; Fritzsche and Meyer adopt the same, while Tholuck and Philippi prefer the instrument [Ewald, Alford: net] of hunting, which applies to both the other means of capture, and not merely as a “hunting-spear.” Meyer is incorrect in saying that this ruin is explained in what follows. For the following words describe the inward relations of the judgment of the ungodly, in antithesis to the judgment in the outward relations of life, which have been described by the foregoing words.

Rom_11:10. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see [ áêïôéóèÞôùóáí ïἱ ὀöèáëìïὶ áὐôῶí ôïῦ ìὴ âëÝðåéí ]. Spiritual blindness is one form of the inward judgment, and total despondency of spirit is the other.

And bow down their back alway [ êáὶ ôὸí íῶôïí áὐôῶí äéὰ ð . áíôὸò óýãêáìøïí . See Textual Note¹².—R.] The LXX. has translated the words of the original text, “and make their loins continually to shake,” by: “make their backs crooked always;” a change to which the Apostle adheres, probably because it gives the expression of permanent dejection a somewhat more general character.—By bowed-down backs, Meyer understands spiritual slavery, while the early expositors understood Roman slavery. Yet this would be an important deviation from the original text. But, in reality, the bowed-down backs should mean the same thing as shaking or tottering loins.

Tholuck and Philippi have correctly observed, against Fritzsche, and others, that in Rom_11:8 (and the same thing applies also to Rom_11:9) the question is not the citation of a prophecy, according to which the unbelief of the Jews at the time of Christ must be a necessary result. Yet this remark does not suffice to show that the quotation takes place as in the citations in Mat_13:14; Joh_12:40; Act_28:26; which “refer, vi analogiœ, to the classical passage for the unbelieving conduct of Israel toward God, in Isaiah 6.” The most direct practical purpose of these citations in the New Testament is to prove to the Jews, from their own Holy Scriptures and history, that there was always in Israel an inclination to apostasy; and that it is therefore not contrary to faith in prophecy to charge the present Israel with apostasy (see the defence of Stephen). But then a really typical prophecy also underlies this purpose; yet it is not a fatalistic prophecy, but the idea of the consequence of ruin even to its historical consummation (see Mat_23:32 ff.).

Rom_11:11. I say then, Did they stumble in order that they should fall? [ ëÝãù ïὖí , ìὴ ἔðôáéóáí ἵíá ðÝóùóéí ;] A qualification to guard against a false conclusion. They have certainly stumbled and fallen; but the purpose of their guilty stumbling and falling under the previously described judgment of hardness was not that they should fall, in the absolute sense, into the ruin of the ἀðþëåéá . Their falling is economically limited, and economically turned and applied, to the salvation of the Gentiles (see Rom_9:17; Rom_9:23). The stumbling of the ëïéðïß took place against the stone of offence (Rom_9:32-33; Rom_10:11). The ἵíá denotes the final purpose of the Divine judicial government, and is not merely ἐêâáôéêῶò , as Chrysostom, Augustine, and others, would have it. Tholuck makes the noteworthy remark, that ðôáßåéí , to stumble (which must not be referred, with De Wette, and others, to the óêÜíäáëïí mentioned in Rom_11:9, but rather to the ëßèïò ðñïòêüììáôïò in Rom_9:33), has the sense of moral stumbling; Jam_2:10; Jam_3:2; and that ðßðôåéí , on the contrary, has this ethically figurative sense neither in the Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, but only the sense of yielding to, sinking under.

But by their fall [ ἀëëὰ ôῷ áὐôῶí ðáñáðôþìáôé . On ðáñÜðôùìá , see p. 184, Dr. Schaff’s note.—R.] Meyer has no ground for not finding in ðáñáðô . the meaning of falling, but only the delictum (Vulgate) [so Alford], for they have really fallen, yet that was not the object (see also Tholuck, p. 600). Tholuck properly opposes, also, the view that here the principal thought is, that Israel should be restored, although an intimation of the restitution of Israel is included in the words. It is evident that the conversion of the Gentiles is primarily designated as the final object of Israel’s fall; with this final object there is, indeed, again associated the final object of the preliminarily isolated and of the finally total conversion of Israel. The ðáñáðô . here can as little mean a mere “passing away,” as a mere infortunium, which Reiche and Rückert, with others, would render it.

Salvation is come. Ἡ óùôçñßá . ÃÝãïíåí must be supplied, according to the connection. The Apostle cannot have regarded this tragical condition as an absolute necessity; but he may very well have considered it an historical one. Israel, having been placed in its existing condition by its own guilt, did not desire the Gentiles, under the most favorable circumstances, to participate in the messianic salvation, except as proselytes of the Jews; and still more did it indulge the thought of vengeance on, and dominion over, the Gentiles; but it was impossible for Christianity, as Jewish Christianity, to become universal in the Gentile world. In addition to this came the experience of the Apostle, that he was always driven more decidedly to missionary labors among the Gentiles by the unbelief of the Jews; Mat_21:43; Act_13:46; Act_28:28. The negative condition of this transition was apostolic preaching, and especially that of Paul.

In order to excite them to jealousy [ åἰò ôὸ ðáñáæçëῶóáé áὐôïýò . Instead of jealousy, we may substitute emulation, as the word is not used in a bad sense (Hodge). The clause is telic; the purpose was not the total fall, but that their moral fall might be used to further the salvation of the Gentiles, and this, in turn, bring about their own salvation as a nation.—R.] This purpose was associated from the outset, and the mention of it is here in place for the removal of the fatalistic thought, that their fall was decreed for their ruin.

Rom_11:12-16. As the unbelief of the Jews has been the means of effecting the conversion of the Gentiles, so shall the conversion of the Gentiles be still more not only the means of effecting the belief of the Jews, but, with this return of Israel, still greater things shall occur.

Now if their fall … and their diminishing the riches of the Gentiles [ åἰ äὲ ôὸ ðáñÜðôùìá áὐôῶí ... ôὸ ἥôôçìá áὐôῶí ðëïῦôïò ἐèíῶí . In order to explain this difficult verse, we must start with the ἥôôçìá in Isa_31:8, which does not occur in classical language, but is there represented by ἧôôá [Attic for ἧóóá , a defeat], the contrary of íßêç . In the passage cited, ἥôôçìá means not merely the being overcome, but the military diminution which is the result of defeat. At all events, it is to be taken here as diminution in captivity, according to the original text, for menial servitude. Likewise, in 1Co_6:7, the word means a moral loss, a diminution of the power of believers in opposition to the world. We therefore hold that the expression ἥôôçìá places the two other ideas in a more definite light, and that the whole expression alludes to the scene of a routed army. Even in military affairs, the dynamical antithesis of broken power and of the full sense of power is connected with the ideas of numerical diminution and numerical fulness; as, in the present instance, the weakening is connected with the loss of men, and full power with the complete number. Tholuck bases his explanation on the meaning of ðëÞñùìá in Rom_11:25.

Explanations of the ἥôôçìá : diminutio (Vulgate); minority, defectus (Chrysostom, and most commentators); injury, loss, fall (De Wette, and others). De Wette brings this explanation in exclusive antithesis to the first, with reference to 2Co_12:13. Fritzsche: Diminution of messianic salvation. Philippi: The damage to God’s kingdom by their falling away. But Meyer remarks, with good reason, that the thrice-repeated áὐôῶí is in the same relation, the subjective genitive. Tholuck: Reduced state. According to Tholuck, Meyer’s explanation is: the minority; but Meyer himself pronounces against this explanation, and understands the word to mean, sinking and ruin. Ulfilas has interpreted the word, which means at the same time the loss of men and the weakening, by the deficiency. There is a real difference made by the reference to the believing Jews as the minority of believers (paucitas Judœorum credentium; Grotius), and the antithetical body of unbelievers, the moral field of the dead, or the captured, those subjected to slavery. But here, too, both parts cannot be separated. The áὐôïß are the whole people; the believers are the sound remainder of the army; while the unbelievers, the same as the fallen, or captives, are its ἥôôçìá .

How much more their fulness [ ðüóῳ ìᾶëëïí ôὸ ðëÞñùìá áὐôῶí ]. The ðëÞñùìá . Explanations: The whole body (Tholuck); the full number (Meyer); the restoration of Israel to its proper position (Rückert, Köllner); [Hodge: their full restoration or blessedness; Alford: their replenishment.—R.] Philippi: the filling up of the gap caused in God’s kingdom by their unbelief. The latter view, which was first set forth by Origen, is discussed at length by Tholuck, p. 606 ff. But this view confounds in a twofold way: 1. The idea of the full number of God’s eternal community in general, and the idea of material fulness ( ðëÞñùìá ), the whole number of the Jewish people; 2. The idea of the economic completeness in the present passage, and that of eonic completeness.^hyperli