Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elijah? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
2. God hath not cast away his people ] Lit. did not cast, &c. These words are verbatim (save only the change of tense) with LXX. of Psalms 93 (Heb., 94.):14.
which he foreknew ] See on Rom 8:29. Two interpretations are possible here. The “foreknowledge,” or sovereign antecedent decision of the Eternal Mind, may be ( a) that which designated the nation for privilege, or ( b) that which designated individuals of it for final glory. The words of Rom 11:3-5 favour the latter view; and thus St Paul would say “God never thrust Israel out of the covenant; for He always had among them a foreknown ‘Israel of God’.” The former sense (national designation) would be perfectly legitimate in itself; but it is less in accord with the immediate context, and with the closely kindred reasonings of ch. 9. The question in view here is “Was the nation ever so rejected as that members of it, as such, were rejected?” This St Paul negatives by pointing to the “nation within the nation;” the elect faithful.
of Elias ] Lit. in Elias; i.e. in the narrative of Elijah’s life.
intercession ] On behalf of the Divine Truth and Worship.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2. The whole Olive Tree its root, branches, and all is the Church Universal, in which there is “neither Greek nor Jew;” i.e. in which every real part of the organism, every true believer, shares the sap and life of grace in equal reality. But the special imagery is framed to emphasize not this truth, but another truth in harmony with it; viz. that “salvation is of the Jews;” that with the Hebrew Patriarch began after a distinct break of continuity the more definite life and history of the Church; that for ages the saints were all (practically) found among his sons; and that the universal Saviour was of the seed of David.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
God hath set cast away – This is an explicit denial of the objection.
Which he foreknew – The word foreknew is expressive not merely of foreseeing a thing, but implies in this place a previous purpose or plan; see the note at Rom 8:29. The meaning of the passage is simply, God has not cast off those whom he had before purposed or designed to be his people. It is the declaration of a great principle of divine government that God is not changeable: and that he would not reject those whom he had purposed should be his people. Though the mass of the nation, therefore, should be cast off, yet it would not follow that God had violated any promise or compact; or that he had rejected any whom he had foreknown as his true people. God makes no covenant of salvation with those who are in their sins; and if the unbelieving and the wicked, however many external privileges they may have enjoyed, are rejected, it does not follow that he has been unfaithful to one whom he had foreknown or designated as an heir of salvation. It follows from this, also, that it is one principle of the divine government that God will not reject those who are foreknown or designated as his friends. It is a part of the plan, therefore, that those who are truly renewed shall persevere, and obtain eternal life.
Wot ye not – Know ye not.
What the Scripture saith? – The passage here quoted is found in 1Ki 19:10-18.
Of Elias – Of Elijah. Greek, Elijah en Helia. This does not mean that it was said about Elijah, or concerning him; but the reference is to the usual manner of quoting the Scriptures among the Jews. The division into chapters and verses was to them unknown. (See the Introduction to the notes on Matthew.) Hence, the Old Testament was divided into portions designated by subjects. Thus, Luk 20:37; Mar 12:26, At the bush, means the passage which contains the account of the burning bush; (see the notes on those places.) Here it means, in that passage or portion of Scripture which gives an account of Elijah.
He maketh intercession to God against Israel – The word translated maketh intercession entungchanei means properly to come to the aid of anyone; to transact the business of anyone; especially to discharge the function of an advocate, or to plead ones cause in a court of justice. In a sense similar to this it is applied to Christ in his function of making intercession for us in heaven; Heb 7:25; Isa 53:12. In the English language, the word is constantly used in a good sense, to plead for one; never, to plead against one; but the Greek word may imply either. It expresses the function of one who manages the business of another; and hence, one who manages the business of the state against a criminal; and when followed by the preposition for, means to intercede or plead for a person; when followed by against kata, it means to accuse or arraign. This is its meaning here. He accuses or arraigns the nation of the Jews before God; he charges them with crime; the crime is specified immediately.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.] God has not finally and irrecoverably rejected a people whom he has loved (or approved) so long, , for this is evidently the meaning of the word in this place, as we have already seen, Ro 8:29, and is a very general meaning of the original verb yada in Hebrew and in Greek; as I have had often occasion to notice in different parts of this work, and what none will deny who consults the original. See Schleusner, Parkhust, c.
Wot ye not what the Scripture saith] , Do ye not know what the Scripture saith? The reference is to 1Kgs 19:10; 1Kgs 19:14. And the apostle’s answer to the objecting Jew is to the following effect: God hath not universally thrust away his people, for whom in the promise to Abraham he intended, and to whom decreed, to grant his special favour and blessing but the case is now much as it was in the days of Elijah: that prophet, in his addresses to God, made his complaint against Israel thus:-
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew: here he makes a further answer to the forementioned objection: by way of distinction, he distinguishs the people of God into such as are foreknown, and such as are not foreknown: and as for the former of these, he says, they are not rejected of God. By such as are foreknown of God, he means those that are elected and predestinated to eternal life, Rom 8:29; a foreknowledge with approbation is implied and intended, Joh 10:14; 2Ti 2:19.
Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? Here is a third answer to the objection in Rom 11:1, and it is taken from an instance in Elias, which the Jews were well acquainted with. He cites or brings a book case for it. And he the rather brings this instance, lest the Jews should accuse him of insolency, for that he had spoken before only of himself; and therefore he gives them to understand, that there were many other believing Israelites, as well as himself, though possibly they were unknown to them. You know (saith he) what the Scripture saith of Elias, 1Ki 19:1-21.
How he maketh intercession to God against Israel. i.e. against the ten tribes, who were generally revolted from God, and fallen to idolatry: against those he complained, or those he impeached, ripping up their impieties, as in the following words.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2-4. God hath“did”
not cast away his peoplethatis, wholly
which he foreknewOnthe word “foreknew,” see on Ro8:29.
Wotthat is, “Know”
ye not that the scripturesaith ofliterally, “in,” that is, in the sectionwhich relates to
Elias? how he makethintercession“pleadeth”
against Israel(Theword “saying,” which follows, as also the particle “and”before “digged down,” should be omitted, as withoutmanuscript authority).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew,…. The apostle goes on with his answer to the objection, by distinguishing and explaining who he meant by the people God had not cast away, namely, which were “foreknown” by him; for all mankind are in a sense his people, being made, maintained, and supported in their beings by him, yet they are not all foreknown; for were they, they would be all predestinated, called, conformed to the image of Christ, justified and glorified; but some of them will be cast away, being bad and wicked, and will be sent into everlasting punishment: and though the people of the Jews in general were the people of God, being in a sense chose, known, and distinguished by him from the rest of the world, yet they were not all a “foreknown” people, in the sense the apostle uses the word; wherefore a great number of them were cast away, of which afterwards the apostle speaks largely in this chapter: but then there were a people among them, that were the people of God in a more special sense; they were chosen by him from everlasting to be his people; they were taken into the covenant of his grace as such; they were given to Christ as his people, and were redeemed and saved by him on that account; and were, or were to be called, with an holy calling, when they are openly declared to be the people of God, whom he foreknew: he not merely knew them before, by his general prescience and foreknowledge, which extends to all persons and things; or foresaw their faith, holiness, and good works, and so chose them for himself; for faith, holiness, and good works, are fruits and effects of electing grace; but he so knew them before, even from all eternity, as that he approved of them, liked them, loved them, and took delight and complacency in them: now these his people he never did, nor never will cast away. Their numbers may be but very small in some periods of time, yet none of them are cast away; God may not immediately arise to their help and assistance in time of distress, or so soon as they desire and expect; he may withdraw his presence, hide himself, and stand at a distance from them; he may afflict them in a fatherly way, when they may think he has cast them off, or cast them away; whereas he never casts any of them away, nor out of his heart’s love, nor out of his sight, nor out of the covenant of his grace, nor out of the hands of his Son, nor out of his family, or so as that any of them shall perish eternally; so far from it, that he takes the utmost delight in them, grants them the greatest nearness to himself, bears the strongest affection for them, and takes the most diligent care of them; whoever casts them out of their affection and company, he will not; the reasons are, because his love to them is unchangeable, his purpose concerning their salvation stands firm and sure, his word and oath are unalterable, his gifts and calling are without repentance; and they are his jewels, portion, and inheritance; they are as the apple of his eye, and continually held by his right hand. The apostle next replies to this objection, by putting them in mind of the case and state of the church of God, in the times of Elijah; and what judgment that prophet formed of it, and in which he appeared to be mistaken:
wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? do ye not know? ye cannot be ignorant who have, and read the Scripture, what it says of Elias, or “in Elias”; that is, as the Arabic version renders it, “in the history of Elias”; in the account it gives of his life and times:
how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying: that is, how he spoke to God in prayer concerning Israel; and instead of praying for them, as the prophets were wont to do, he was obliged to bring a complaint against them for their idolatry, contempt of the worship of God, and violent persecution of his true followers. The apostle chose to mention this instance because there was some likeness between his case and Elijah’s; and the state of the people of Israel at the then present time, and as in the times of Elijah; for as the Jews in his time killed and persecuted the prophets of the Lord, so in the present time they had killed the Lord Jesus Christ, and persecuted his apostles; and as Elijah, though one of their own prophets, was obliged to make intercession against them, so the apostle, though one of their own countrymen, could not but speak against them, and of their just rejection by God: and this he observes, to soften their resentments against him, when so great a prophet had done so before him: and this the Jews themselves own p, for they say that Elijah , “brought an accusation against Israel”: and it is observed by another q that
“coals are said of Isaiah and Elijah, because they delivered an accusation against Israel: one called them a people of unclean lips, and the other said, for they have forsaken thy covenant:”
which is the apostle’s sense.
p Laniado in 1 Kings xix. 14. q Jarchi in Isa. vi. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whom he foreknew ( ). The same form and sense as in 8:29, which see. Probably the Hebrew sense of choice beforehand. The nation of Israel was God’s chosen people and so all the individuals in it could not be cast off.
Wot ye not? ( ?). “Know ye not?” Why keep the old English “wot”?
Of Elijah ( ). “In the case of Elijah.” Cf. “in the bush” (Mr 12:26).
He pleadeth (). See on 8:27. means to happen on one and so to converse with (Ac 25:24), to plead for (Rom 8:27; Rom 8:34), to plead against as here with , but the “against” is in .
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Foreknew. See on ch. Rom 8:29.
Or [] . Compare ch. 6 3; Rom 7:1. Confirming what precedes by presenting the only alternative in the cave. Or is omitted in the A. V.
Wot ye not [ ] . Why should the Revisers have retained the obsolete wot here, when they have rendered elsewhere, know ye not? See Rom 6:16; 1Co 3:16; 1Co 5:6, 1Co 6:2, etc. The phrase indicates that this cannot be thought of as true.
Of Elias [ ] Wrong; though Rev. has retained it : of Elijah, with in in margin; probably in order to avoid the awkward circumlocution in the passage treating of Elijah, or the ambiguous in Elijah. See on in the bush, Mr 12:26. Thucydides (1. 9) says : “Homer, in ‘The handing down of the sceptre, ‘ said,” etc.; i e., in the passage describing the transmission of the sceptre in the second book of the Iliad. A common form of quotation in the rabbinical writings. The passage cited is 1Ki 19:10, 14. He maketh intercession [] . See on ch. Rom 8:26. Rev., pleadeth.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “God has not cast away,” (ouk aposato ho theos) God has not discarded, set aside forever, or abandoned;” This is a positive reply to the “cast away” question Paul raised in Rom 11:1. The answer is a positive, absolute, “no”! Rom 11:29.
2) “His people whom he foreknew,” (ton laon autou he proegno) “The people of him, those (national Israel) whom he foreknew,” Rom 8:29; his people whom he knew beforehand, in the sense that he gave to them the Law and made custodians of his worship and service for so long a time, Rom 3:1-2.
3) “Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?” (e ouk didate en Elia ti legei he graphe); “Do you all not comprehend, perceive, or realize what the scripture says in Elias?” or with regards or reference to Elias, in giving the history of Elias.
4) “How he maketh intercession to God,” (hos entugchanei to theo) “How he supplicates to or toward God;” pleads with God against Israel, in the sense that he plead with him in bringing charges against Israel for her slaying God’s prophets, forsaking his covenant, and destroying his altars, 1Ki 19:10.
5) “Against Israel, saying,” (kata tou Israel); “How in behalf of Israel, against her enemies, he supplicates,” as follows:
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. God has not cast away, etc. This is a negative answer, accompanied with a qualifying clause; for had the Apostle unreservedly denied that the people were rejected, he would have been inconsistent with himself; but by adding a modification, he shows it to be such a rejection, as that God’s promise is not thereby made void. So the answer may be divided into two parts, — that God has by no means cast away the whole race of Abraham, contrary to the tenor of his own covenant, — and that yet the fruit of adoption does not exist in all the children of the flesh, for secret election precedes. Thus general rejection could not have caused that no seed should be saved; for the visible body of the people was in such a manner rejected, that no member of the spiritual body of Christ was cut off.
If any one asks, “Was not circumcision a common symbol of God’s favor to all the Jews, so that they ought to have been all counted his people?” To this the obvious answer is, — That as outward calling is of itself ineffectual without faith, the honor which the unbelieving refuse when offered, is justly taken from them. Thus a special people remain, in whom God exhibits an evidence of his faithfulness; and Paul derives the origin of constancy from secret election. For it is not said here that God regards faith, but that he stands to his own purpose, so as not to reject the people whom he has foreknown.
And here again must be noticed what I have before reminded you of, — that by the verb foreknow, is not to be understood a foresight, I know not what, by which God foresees what sort of being any one will be, but that good pleasure, according to which he has chosen those as sons to himself, who, being not yet born, could not have procured for themselves his favor. (339) So he says to the Galatians, that they had been known by God, (Gal 4:9); for he had anticipated them with his favor, so as to call them to the knowledge of Christ. We now perceive, that though universal calling may not bring forth fruit, yet the faithfulness of God does not fail, inasmuch as he always preserves a Church, as long as there are elect remaining; for though God invites all people indiscriminately to himself, yet he does not inwardly draw any but those whom he knows to be his people, and whom he has given to his Son, and of whom also he will be the faithful keeper to the end.
Know ye not, etc. As there were so few of the Jews who had believed in Christ, hardly another conclusion could have been drawn from this small number, but that the whole race of Abraham had been rejected; and creep in might this thought, — that in so vast a ruin no sign of God’s favor appeared: for since adoption was the sacred bond by which the children of Abraham were kept collected under the protection of God, it was by no means probable, unless that had ceased, that the people should be miserably and wretchedly dispersed. To remove this offense, Paul adopts a most suitable example; for he relates, that in the time of Elias there was such a desolation, that there remained no appearance of a Church, and yet, that when no vestige of God’s favor appeared, the Church of God was, as it were, hid in the grave, and was thus wonderfully preserved.
It hence follows, that they egregiously mistake who form an opinion of the Church according to their own perceptions. And surely if that celebrated Prophet, who was endued with so enlightened a mind, was so deceived, when he attempted by his own judgment to form an estimate of God’s people, what shall be the case with us, whose highest perspicuity, when compared with his, is mere dullness? Let us not then determine any thing rashly on this point; but rather let this truth remain fixed in our hearts — that the Church, though it may not appear to our eyes, is sustained by the secret providence of God. Let it also be remembered by us, that they are foolish and presumptuous who calculate the number of the elect according to the extent of their own perception: for God has a way, easy to himself, hidden from us, by which he wonderfully preserves his elect, even when all things seem to us past all remedy.
And let readers observe this, — that Paul distinctly compares here, and elsewhere, the state of things in his time with the ancient condition of the Church, and that it serves in no small degree to confirm our faith, when we bear in mind, that nothing happens to us, at this day, which the holy Fathers had not formerly experienced: for novelty, we know, is a grievous engine to torment weak minds.
As to the words, In Elias, I have retained the expression of Paul; for it may mean either in the history or in the business of Elias; though it seems to me more probable, that Paul has followed the Hebrew mode of speaking; for ב, beth, which is rendered in the Greek by ἐν, in, is often taken in Hebrew for of
How he appeals to God, etc (340) It was certainly a proof how much Elias honored the Lord, that for the glory of his name he hesitated not to make himself an enemy to his own nation, and to pray for their utter ruin, because he thought that the religion and worship of God had perished among them: but he was mistaken in charging the whole nation, himself alone excepted, with that impiety, for which he wished them to be severely visited. There is however in this passage, which Paul quotes, no imprecation, but a complaint only: but as he complains in such a way as to despair of the whole people, there is no doubt but that he gave them up to destruction. Let us then especially notice what is said of Elias, which was this, — that when impiety had everywhere prevailed, and overspread almost the whole land, he thought that he was left alone.
I have reserved for myself seven thousand, etc. Though you may take this finite for an indefinite number, it was yet the Lord’s design to specify a large multitude. Since then the grace of God prevails so much in an extreme state of things, let us not lightly give over to the devil all those whose piety does not openly appear to us. It also ought to be fully imprinted on our minds, — that however impiety may everywhere prevail, and dreadful confusion spread on every side, yet the salvation of many remains secured under the seal of God. (341) But that no one may under this error indulge his own sloth, as many seek hiding-places for their vices in the hidden providences of God, it is right to observe again, — that they only are said to be saved who continue sound and unpolluted in the faith of God. This circumstance in the case ought also to be noticed, — that those only remained safe who did not prostitute their body, no, not even by an external act of dissimulation, to the worship of idols; for he not only ascribes to them a purity of mind, but that they had also kept their body from being polluted by any filthiness of superstition. (342)
So then also at this time, etc. He applies the example to his own age; and to make all things alike, he calls God’s people a remnant, that is, in comparison with the vast number in whom impiety prevailed: and alluding at the same time to the prophecy he had quoted from Isaiah, he shows, that in the midst of a miserable and confused desolation the faithfulness of God yet shone forth, for there was still some remnant: and in order more fully to confirm this, he expressly calls them a remnant that survived through the grace of God: and thus he bore witness that God’s election is unchangeable, according to what the Lord said to Elias, — that where the whole people had fallen away to idolatry, he had reserved for himself seven thousand: and hence we conclude, that through his kindness they were delivered from destruction. Nor does he simply speak of grace; but he now calls our attention also to election, that we may learn reverently to rely on the hidden purpose of God.
One thing then that is laid down is, — that few are saved in comparison with the vast number of those who assume the name of being God’s people; the other is, — that those are saved by God’s power whom he has chosen with no regard to any merit. The election of grace is a Hebrew idiom for gratuitous election.
(339) That foreknowledge here includes election or predestination, as [ Augustine ] maintains, is evident from what follows in Rom 11:5, where “the remnant” is said to be reserved “according to the election of grace,” or gratuitous election. If it be gratuitous, then it cannot be according to any foreseen works: and works are expressly excluded in Rom 11:6. Were it otherwise, were foreseen works the ground of election, there would be no suitableness nor congruity in such terms as foreknowledge and election on the subject. It would have been much more appropriate in this case for the Apostle to say, “God will receive every Jew who will render himself worthy by his works.” On this supposition there was no necessity for him to go back to election to remove the objection which he had stated; he had only to refer to the terms of the gospel, which regard Jews and Gentiles without any difference. But instead of doing this, which seems adequate to the purpose, he gives an answer by referring to the foreknowledge and free election of God. There is no way to account for this, except by admitting, that election is an efficacious purpose which secures the salvation of those who are its objects, who have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. — Ed.
(340) “ Quomodo appellet Deum adversus Israel — how he appeals to or calls on God against Israel;” ὡς ἑντυγχάνει τῷ Θεῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ισραὴλ; “how he solicits ( interpellet) God against Israel,” [ Beza ]; “when he pleadeth with God against Israel,” [ Doddridge ]; “when he complaineth to God against Israel,” [ Macknight ]. To “complain to God against, or, with respect to, Israel,” would probably be the most suitable rendering. See Act 25:24
The quotation in the following verse is from 1Kg 19:10, and is not taken literally, either from the Hebrew, or from the Septuagint. The order of the two first clauses is changed; “prophets,” and not “altars,” are mentioned first; in these he has adopted the words of the Septuagint, but in this clause which follows he has changed the terms; instead of καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος, the Apostle has κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος; and he has left out the words, “to take it away” after life. The case is similar with the quotation in Rom 11:4, from 1Kg 19:18. The sense is given, but not exactly the words, either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint. — Ed.
(341) [ Pareus ] observes, that these seven thousand had no public ministry, for that was idolatrous; and that yet they were preserved by such instruction as they derived from the written word. — Ed.
(342) [ Calvin ], as some others, has supplied “image” before “Baal,” as the feminine article τὣ is by Paul prefixed to it. In the Septuagint it is τῷ, and a masculine pronoun is found at the end of the verse in 1Kg 19:18, so that it could not have been a female deity, as some have supposed. It is indeed evident, especially from a passage in Tob 1:5, that there was a female deity of this name, but the text in Kings will not allow us to regard this goddess to be intended. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) Which he foreknew.This must not be pressed too far, as implying an absolute indefectibility of the divine favour. God, having in His eternal counsels set His choice upon Israel as His peculiar people, will not readily disown them. Nor is their case really so bad as it may seem. Now, as in the days of Elijah, there are a select few who have not shared in the general depravity.
Of Elias.Literally, in Eliasi.e., in the section which contains the history of Elias. So in Mar. 12:26; Luk. 20:37; in the bush and at the bush, mean, in the paragraph relating to the bush.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. His people foreknew By the same prescience with which God first foreknew and predicted the faithfulness of Abraham, (see note on Rom 9:13,) he foreknows that in the future Israel will survive the dark ages of his history and ultimately join the fulness of the Gentiles gathered into Christ. (On foreknowledge see note on Rom 8:29.)
Of Elias Rather, in Elias, (Elijah,) that is, in that section of the Old Testament in which the history of Elijah is given, (1Ki 19:10.) The division into chapters and verses is of modern origin. The ancient mode was to designate the section by its topic.
Intercession Appeal. Under the terrible reign of Ahab and Jezebel it seemed as if the worship of Jehovah had been extinct in his own chosen land, and idolatry was completely and forever the established religion. The great defender of the faith, Elijah, awoke to find himself alone, and complained to Jehovah that even his life was sought. Of this now present and parallel dark crisis in Israel’s history the Elijah is St. Paul. Israel has not indeed now abolished Jehovah and established Baal. The age of the world is too advanced for that stupidity. But he rejects the incarnate Jehovah of the New Testament, authenticated by the oracles of the Old. The ancient Elijah bewailed that no worshipper of Jehovah remained; but the modern Elijah well knows and prizes the chosen remnant. The darkest view of our own age, too often taken by the nervous man, jealous for God, is not always the wisest. God’s secret elect may be more numerous than his fears suggest, and from that very fewness may spring the future abundance.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 . Yet what would have been the condition of the human race if continued without the Redeemer is a very theoretical question. It would apparently have been in a state of spiritual death, without power of self-recovery, which, if perpetuated by a natural immortality, would have become a necessary, eternal, living death. The whole, being imposed despotically upon the race, would have been irreconcilable with the benevolence and justice of God; and it is for this very reason that we may hold that the race would not have been thus perpetuated. The condemnation (Rom 5:18) of the race, theoretically viewed, would have consisted in the absence of the Divine Spirit, the want of all those moral qualifications which Divine Holiness could approve, and the natural impossibility of any true happiness or blessedness. But the whole, being necessitated, could not amount to a real desert of judicial penalty from a just God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘God did not cast off his people whom he foreknew.’
The idea of God casting off His people is taken from Psa 94:14 where it says, ‘YHWH will not cast off His people, nor will He forsake His inheritance’, but this is then defined as referring to ‘the upright in heart (Rom 11:15), in contrast with ‘the workers of iniquity’. Thus it indicates that God will not cast off the faithful in Israel, the Israel within Israel (Rom 9:6).
‘His people Whom He foreknew.’ On the basis of Rom 8:29 this could be seen as referring to the remnant, and be saying that those whom God foreknew, i.e. had entered into relationship with beforehand (the true Israel), He did not cast off. In other words the ones he cast of were those whose unbelief and disobedience demonstrated that they were not of the elect, that they were not a part of the true Israel. This can be seen as supported by his argument in Rom 2:28-29 that the only true Jews were those who were circumcised in heart, in the spirit, a firmly established Old Testament principle (Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6; Jer 4:4; Jer 9:26). And we should note that it had always been the case that those in Israel who broke the covenant would be ‘cut off from among the people’ (e.g. Gen 17:14; Exo 12:15; Exo 12:19; Exo 30:33; Exo 30:38; Exo 31:14; Lev 7:20; Lev 17:4; Lev 9:14; Lev 8:29; Lev 19:8; Lev 22:3; Lev 23:29; and often). Thus it could be argued that by refusing to accept God’s Messiah, it was the unbelieving in Israel who were cutting themselves off from Israel. The rejecting of the Messiah was a crime far more heinous than those described in the references given. And this interpretation can be seen as supported by the illustration that follows where Paul demonstrates that among the nation of Israel there had always been a righteous remnant.
Some, however, see ‘foreknew’ as referring to Israel as a whole, with the idea being that they were still as an entity His ‘chosen people’, a people whom He had known before He chose them (Amo 3:2 a), and that Paul is saying that they have not been wholly cast off, but have had their election temporarily suspended. This on the basis of verses like 12, 15-16, 23-24, 26. They then cite Rom 11:28 which says, ‘as touching election they are beloved for the fathers’ sake, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance’, which, according to their interpretation, is seen as indicating God’s concern for unbelieving Israel, for the first part of the verse refers to ‘the enemies of the Gospel’. But even if that interpretation was accepted it would merely be saying that these unbelievers, who have been cast out of Israel, are still loved by God in a certain way because of their connection with the fathers. They are like the lost sheep. It is not, however, saying that they belong now to what God sees as the nation of Israel. They are rather seen as those who, having been cast out, are still beloved of God because of their connection with the fathers whom God loved so dearly. Thus they are those whom He still longs to win them to Himself
We must not overlook the fact that the true Israel was seen by Paul as in existence. He saw it as the nucleus of Israel which had believed in the Messiah and had become ‘the church’ (ekklesia), the word which was also used in LXX for ‘the congregation of Israel’. They were the branches of the olive tree as described in Rom 11:17-24 which had not been cut off. It was not, therefore, that God had cast off Israel. Rather He had cut off those who had proved themselves not to be ‘true Jews’ (Rom 2:25-27). Israel itself, consisting of all who had responded to the Messiah, had been built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and His teaching concerning His Messiahship (Mat 16:18), and their incorporation of Gentiles into Israel, was just what Israel had always done. So those who had been ‘cast off’ were merely those who had refused to believe in the Messiah, a heinous enough crime against God, and they were cast off in the same way as many who claimed to be His people had been throughout their history in consequence of their disobedience, even though they were often in the majority. It should be kept in mind that ‘the nation of Israel’ is not a New Testament expression. Israel are simply spoken of as ‘Israel’, a notion which, as we have seen, is much more fluid. Indeed Paul speaks of an ‘Israel after the flesh’ referring to those who still partake of sacrifices, presumably in contrast to ‘Israel after the Spirit’ who partake of the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion – 1Co 10:18). This was necessary as there was no way of speaking of the old nation except as Israel. But that did not mean that they were the Israel of the promises. For that Israel was made up of the elect, as Paul has already demonstrated (Rom 9:6-24). The concept is illustrated in 1Co 10:1-13. For the whole question see excursus at the end of the chapter.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Paul then illustrates the fact that not the whole of Israel has been cast off by reference to 1Ki 19:10; 1Ki 19:14; 1Ki 19:18. It was in the portion read in the synagogues under the heading ‘Elijah’ (compare Mar 2:26, ‘epi Abiathar’). There the Scripture states that when Elijah had thought that he was left on his own as the only one who was faithful to God, God had replied that ‘I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ These were the faithful, the elect remnant who constituted the true Israel with whom God was ready to deal. It is significant that, as Paul was well aware, a hundred or so years later the nation as a whole would be swept away in a number of captivities, with large numbers soon no longer owing allegiance to YHWH. And we must remember that they had been swept away because of their idolatry which demonstrated that they had turned their backs on YHWH. Only the upright in heart would take steps to continue their allegiance to YHWH in the conditions which ensued. Note that Paul’s citation is an abbreviation of the relevant verses in LXX.
‘Baal’ has the feminine article. This was a practise among the Jews. The purpose of it was in order to warn a reader not to pronounce the name but to substitute it, possibly by ‘bosheth’ (thing of shame). At one stage using the name of Baal was considered a thing of shame. As it is doubtful if Paul followed the practise it must have been in the copy of the LXX that he was utilising.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An example from history:
v. 2. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias, how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
v. 3. Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life?
v. 4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
v. 5. Even so, then, at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
v. 6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.
v. 7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for. St. Paul quotes a Scripture-passage from Elijah, from the section of the Old Testament which treats mainly of the life and deeds of Elijah, in confirmation of his contention. Even in the darkest days of Israel there was ever a remnant, a small number of such as remained true to the Lord and were saved. The Prophet Elijah at that time had addressed himself to the Lord in a word of pleading against Israel, a form of accusation, stating in brief that the children of Israel had killed the Lord’s prophets, that they had utterly destroyed His altars, and that he, the prophet, had been left as the only one of the true believers, and even his life was in constant danger on account of their enmity and hatred, 1Ki 19:10. King Ahab and his adulterous wife Jezebel were especially active in their efforts to extirpate the true religion in Israel. And therefore Elijah was totally discouraged, believing that the worship of the true God was practically abandoned, and that no true worshiper of God remained. But the divine oracle, or answer, showed that the situation was altogether different from his conception of it. For the Lord had left for Himself, had retained for His own, seven thousand men that had not bowed their knee to Baal, in the cult of the Phoenician goddess Baaltis, or Astarte. In the midst of general apostasy and persecution the Lord had reserved for Himself these faithful few. And thus at the present time also, so St. Paul argues in conformity with Old Testament experience, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. The people of Israel in general have spurned the grace of the Lord and have been in turn rejected by Him; but a few of the nation have proved themselves true Israelites; they have accepted the Savior, they have entered the Church of Christ. And this they have done because of the election of grace, because God, in His wonderful grace and mercy, chose them to that end. Out of the mass of the children of Israel, all of them redeemed by the blood of Christ, God has selected them to become partakers of His salvation.
And the fact that this election is made on the basis of God’s grace only is brought out in its full strength by the apostle: But if out of grace, then no more out of works, since otherwise grace is no more grace. Grace ceases to be grace just as soon as the work and conduct of man is mingled with it in any nay whatsoever. The terms “grace” and “works” are mutually exclusive. If the thoughts, acts, and conduct of men influenced God in His election of grace, then this election ceases to be one of grace, and the doctrine no longer belongs to the Gospel, but to the Law. If out of works, then there is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. If one wants to speak of works and of grace also, at the same time and in the same connection, there is again a contradiction in itself, because a work that does not actually obtain its object in the form of a reward no longer has merit, cannot be considered a performance which has intrinsic value. What, then, is the conclusion of the entire argument, if the assumption of v. 1. cannot stand, if it cannot be true that God has rejected His own people? The situation is this: Israel, the nation as such, has not obtained that after which it strove so earnestly. The people as a whole, the nation as such, was determined to merit eternal salvation by works; but since this method is not God’s way, and since they refused to accept the method which He held out to them in the Gospel, salvation was lost to them on account of their own perverseness; their rejection is their own fault, just as it is that of all such as place their trust in their own work and self-chosen way to heaven.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Rom 11:2 . ] An element which renders the impossibility of at once palpable; comp. Rom 11:29 . Others take it as a limiting definition, . . being understood of the spiritual people of God destined to the Christian salvation (Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and others, including Heumann, Semler, Rosenmller, Flatt, Glckler). But against this view it is decisive that . . in Rom 11:1 , without any limitation, denotes the Jewish nation, and consequently Paul himself would now completely disarrange the point in question; the whole chapter has for its subject, not the spiritual Israel, but the fate of the nation in respect to the salvation of Messiah. Hence, too, we are not to supply, with Philippi, p. 554, after the limitation: as seminary of the spiritual .
The sense of has been understood as variously as in Rom 8:29 , but is to be taken just as there: God knew His people as such beforehand , before it actually existed; that is to say, it was to Him, to whom the whole future development of sacred history was present in His pretemporal counsel and plan, known and certain: Israel is my peculiar people! And consequently God cannot have afterwards rejected Israel; for this would in truth presuppose that which is inconceivable with God (comp. Act 15:18 ), and irreconcilable with the (Heb 6:17 ), namely, that He had been deceived in His ; comp. Rom 11:30 ff. To suppose the qualitas mala of the people as that which God foreknew (van Hengel) is inadmissible, for the reason that must be the premiss of the of the people of God (comp. Rom 8:29 ); hence, too, it is not to be objected, with Hofmann, against our view, that God would surely have been able to foresee the fact that, and the time when, His people would cease to be His people.
. . . , down to Rom 11:4 , adduces a proof for from an historical example of Scripture, according to which a case analogous to the present of the resistance of the people to God had once occurred, but God has made the declaration that He had (not indeed cast off His people, but) reserved to Himself, in the midst of the depravity of the mass, a number of faithful ones. So (Rom 11:5 ) too now there has taken place, not a rejection of the people, but rather a gracious election out of the people.
] belongs to , but is not: de Elia (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Castalio, Calovius, and others), which would be linguistically erroneous, but: in the passage treating of Elias . Comp. Thuc. i. 9. 3, where means: at the passage, where he (Homer) treats of the yielding of the sceptre , he has said, etc. Very prevalent is this mode of quotation in Philo, and also in the Rabbinical writings (Surenhusius, . p. 493). Comp. also Mar 12:26 ; Luk 20:37 , but not Heb 4:7 .
. . . . ] dependent on , as a more precisely defining parallel of . . Comp. Luk 6:4 ; Luk 22:61 ; Act 11:16 ; Act 20:20 , et al.; Gller and Krger on Thuc. i. 1. 1. On (Rom 8:27 ; Rom 8:34 ; Heb 7:25 ), with dative of the person concerned (frequently in Plutarch, Polyb., Lucian, etc.), comp. Act 25:24 ; Wis 8:21 ; Wis 16:28 . On ( accusing ), comp. 1Ma 8:32 ; 2Ma 4:36 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Ver. 2. Saith of Elias ] A man of such transcendent zeal, that to heighten the expression thereof some have legended of him, that when he drew his mother’s breasts, he was seen to suck in fire.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 .] God did not cast off his people which he foreknew ( as in reff.: ‘ 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 .’ It is plain that this must here be the sense, and that the words must not be limited, with Orig [97] , Aug [98] , Chrys., Calv., al., to the elect Christian people of God from among the Jews, with Paul as their representative: see on Rom 11:1 . On this explanation, the question of Rom 11:1 would be self-contradictory , and this negation a truism . It would be inconceivable, that God should cast off His elect ).
[97] Origen, b. 185, d. 254
[98] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
Or (see ch. Rom 9:21 al.: introduces a new objection to the matter impugned) know ye not what the Scripture saith in (the history of) Elias (better thus than ‘ with regard to ,’ as Luth., Erasm., Calv., Beza, al. Tholuck gives examples: from Pausan. viii. 37. 3, , i.e. in that part of the Iliad ( . 278) where Hera swears by the Titans: from Thucyd. i. 9, . , i.e. in that part of the Iliad ( . 108) where the transmission of the sceptre is related)? how (depends on ) he pleads with see reff. and note, ch. Rom 8:26 ) God against Israel , &c. The citation is a free one from the LXX. The clauses ., and . are inverted, is omitted, and . is put for . The altars, as De W. observes, were those on the high places, dedicated to God.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 11:2 f. : formal denial of what the heart has indignantly protested against in Rom 11:1 . must contain a reason which makes the rejection incredible or impossible. This excludes the interpretation of Weiss, who thinks that Paul means to say that God knew what Israel was before He chose it, and therefore cannot cast it off as if its unbelief had disappointed Him; He knew from the first what it would be. To plead thus for God is too paltry. We must take as in Rom 8:29 : the meaning is, Israel stood before God’s eyes from eternity as His people, and in the immutableness of the sovereign love with which He made it His lies the impossibility of its rejection. The idea is the same as in Rom 11:29 below. : this is the alternative. He who says, God has cast off Israel, must be ignorant of what Scripture says in the passage which gives the history of Elijah. The sections of the Bible were designated, not as now by chapter and verse, but by some descriptive phrase: cf , Mar 12:26 : and in Philo = Gen 3:15 . Many references are made in this form by Hebrew writers. For cf. 1Ma 8:32 : it means to plead (not intercede) with God against Israel. is one of the indications that in Elijah’s time there was no law requiring only one altar for Jehovah. The words are quoted from 1Ki 19 Rom 11:10 or 14. In Elijah’s mood, Paul might have said something similar of his own time, for their circumstances were not alike. The Apostle, like the prophet, was lonely and persecuted, and Israel as a whole seemed to have abandoned God or been abandoned by Him. But he understands God’s way (and His faithfulness) better.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
not. App-105.
foreknew. App-132.
Wot = Know. App-132.
of Elias = in (Greek. en) Elijah: i.e. in the section which gives Elijah’s history. Compare Mar 12:26. Luk 20:37.
maketh intercession. See Rom 8:27.
against. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] God did not cast off his people which he foreknew ( as in reff.: 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 Christs future kingdom. It is plain that this must here be the sense, and that the words must not be limited, with Orig[97], Aug[98], Chrys., Calv., al., to the elect Christian people of God from among the Jews, with Paul as their representative: see on Rom 11:1. On this explanation, the question of Rom 11:1 would be self-contradictory, and this negation a truism. It would be inconceivable, that God should cast off His elect).
[97] Origen, b. 185, d. 254
[98] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
Or (see ch. Rom 9:21 al.:-introduces a new objection to the matter impugned) know ye not what the Scripture saith in (the history of) Elias (better thus than with regard to, as Luth., Erasm., Calv., Beza, al. Tholuck gives examples: from Pausan. viii. 37. 3,- ,-i.e. in that part of the Iliad (. 278) where Hera swears by the Titans: from Thucyd. i. 9,- . , i.e. in that part of the Iliad (. 108) where the transmission of the sceptre is related)? how (depends on ) he pleads with see reff.-and note, ch. Rom 8:26) God against Israel, &c. The citation is a free one from the LXX. The clauses ., and . are inverted, is omitted, and . is put for . The altars, as De W. observes, were those on the high places, dedicated to God.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 11:2. ) foreknew, as a people peculiar to Himself, Rom 11:29.- , in Elias) in the history of Elias, who was in the greatest straits, and thought himself to be alone; when Israel had become fewer than at any time before or since, [1Ki 20:15].-, Hesychius, , ; comp. Act 25:24; 1Ma 8:32.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 11:2
Rom 11:2
God did not cast off his people which he foreknew.-God has not wholly cast off his people whom he formerly chose, but that he has rejected them as a nation is indisputable. [Prior to the coming of Christ, Israel were the people of God by virtue of their descent from Abraham ; but so soon as Christ sent forth his apostles with a world-wide commission, the ground of acceptance changed. Descent was not the ground of acceptance. Faith in Christ alone secured favor. Without rendering obedience to him, the most devout Jew was rejected; with it, none was.]
Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel:-Elijah charged the Israelites with crime against God, and pleaded with him for their rejection.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
which he foreknew: Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, Rom 9:6, Rom 9:23, Act 13:48, Act 15:18, 1Pe 1:2
Wot: Gen 44:15, Exo 32:1, Act 3:17, Act 7:40, Phi 1:22
of Elias: Gr. in Elias, Or, by Elias; [Strong’s G1722], corresponding to the Hebrew , not infrequently having this signification. Neh 9:30; Luk 4:1; 1Co 6:2; Heb 1:1
how he maketh: Or “how he addresses God respecting Israel;” [Strong’s G2596] having frequently this meaning. (See 1Co 15:15). Num 16:15, Jer 18:19-23, Joh 4:1-3, Joh 4:11
Reciprocal: Lev 26:44 – I will 1Ki 17:1 – Elijah 1Ki 19:10 – I only 2Ki 14:27 – blot out 2Ki 17:20 – rejected 1Ch 17:22 – thy people 2Ch 15:2 – if ye forsake Psa 60:1 – O God Psa 74:1 – O God Psa 77:7 – the Lord Psa 94:14 – For Psa 110:3 – Thy Isa 2:6 – Therefore Isa 6:12 – a great Isa 24:13 – there Isa 40:27 – sayest Isa 41:9 – I have chosen Isa 63:8 – Surely Jer 31:37 – I Jer 51:5 – Israel Eze 11:19 – I will put Joh 3:32 – and no Joh 17:6 – thine Rom 3:2 – Much Rom 4:3 – what Rom 11:15 – the casting 1Co 8:3 – is Gal 4:30 – what 1Ti 5:18 – the scripture 2Ti 2:19 – The Lord Jam 2:23 – the scripture Jam 5:17 – and he
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2-3
Rom 11:2-3. While the nation had departed from God, he had not cast it off nor regarded its departure as final. Which he foreknew refers to the promise to Abraham to make of him “a great nation” (Gen 12:2). The apostle then cites a former time when Elias (Elijah) thought the whole nation was gone (1Ki 19:10).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 11:2. His people whom he foreknew. Here, too, the reference is to the nation, and not to the spiritual remnant, the elect. If the latter part of the chapter were wanting, this might be the sense. The phrase which He foreknew need not be taken in its individual reference, as in chap. Rom 8:36, where a plural pronoun is joined with the verb. To limit it to those elected is not only contrary to the sweep of the argument, but to the historical position of the theocratic nation: a foreknowledge resulting in such theocratic privilege is as consistent with the tenor of Scripture as the more individual reference.
Or know ye not. Or introduces a new answer to the question (comp. chaps. Rom 6:3; Rom 9:21), namely, the historical case from the Scripture.
In the story of Elijah; lit, in Elijah; comp. Mar 12:26 : at the Bush, the passage treating of that occurrence. Of Elias (E. V.) is inaccurate. This method of reference is common in Philo and in Rabbinical authors; some instances occur in the classics. The occasion was after the fast of the prophet at Horeb (1 Kings 19).
How he pleadeth with God against Israel. This is the object of do ye not know, Pleading against is equivalent to complaining of. Saying is an unnecessary addition, supported by few authorities.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here we have a second argument to prove that God would not wholly cast off the Jewish church and people; namely, because he had foreknown them; that is, had chosen the body of them to be a special and peculiar people to himself, above and before all the people of the earth; and had also foreknown, that is, foreseen, that many of them would, through the assistance of his Holy Spirt, savingly believe on the promised Messias. God never did, never will cast away such, either among Jews or Gentiles.
Another instance is here produced, to prove that God had not suffered all the Jews to apostatize and fall away through unbelief; and that is, the instance of Elias, in whose days there was such a general revolt among the Jews from the worship of the true God to Jeroboam’s idolatry, that he thought himself alone. But God assures him, there was not such a dearth of saints as he feared, he having reserved to himself seven thousand true and faithful worshippers of himself, who had never bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Learn hence, That even in times of universal apostacy and epidemical degeneracy, God has a number to stand up for, and witness to, his name and truth, and that the number of them is more than we either imagine or believe. God has ever had, and always will have, a seed to serve him, which shall be accounted to him for a generation; and although the number of revolters be great, yet the number of the righteous is not small.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 2, 3. God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Or wot ye not what the Scripture saith in the passage about Elijah; how he maketh intercession to God against Israel:Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, they have digged down Thine altars, and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
The formal denial which begins Rom 11:2 is intended to introduce the more general proof, the exposition of which begins with the words: Or wot ye not? Several commentators (Or., Aug., Chrys., Luth., Calv., etc.) have explained the words: whom He foreknew, as a restriction narrowing the general notion of the people of Israel: He could undoubtedly cast away the mass of the people, but not the foreknown elect who form, strictly speaking, His people. This meaning is inadmissible; for, as we have already seen in Rom 11:1, the matter in question here is not the lot of this elect portion, but that of the people as a whole. Is it not of the entire people that the apostle speaks when, in Rom 11:28-29, he says: As touching the election, they are loved for the Father’s sake; for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance? These words are the authentic explanation of the expression in Rom 11:2 : His people whom He foreknow. Of all the peoples of the carth one only was chosen and known beforehand, by an act of divine foreknowledge and love, as the people whose history would be identified with the realization of salvation. In all others salvation is the affair of individuals, but here the notion of salvation is attached to the nation itself; not that the liberty of individuals is in the least compromised by this collective destination. The Israelites contemporary with Jesus might reject Him; an indefinite series of generations may for ages perpetuate this fact of national unbelief. God is under no pressure; time can stretch out as long as He pleases. He will add, if need be, ages to ages, until there come at length the generation disposed to open their eyes and freely welcome their Messiah. God foreknew this nation as believing and saved, and sooner or later they cannot fail to be both.
As usual, the form: or know ye not, signifies: Or if ye allege the contrary, do ye forget…
The expression , literally, in Elias, is a form of quotation frequent in the N. T. (Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37) and in the Rabbins to denote: in the passage of the Scriptures which contains the history of Elias.
The preposition can signify nothing else here than against. To intercede against is a strange expression, but fitted to bring out the abnormal state of the people in regard to whom the prophet could only pray thus, that is to say, protesting before God against their conduct. Comp. 1Ki 19:10; 1Ki 19:14; 1Ki 19:18.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. [Here is the second proof that God did not cast off his people. It is in the nature of an axiom, a statement which is so palpably true that it needs no corroboration. God’s foreknowledge can not fail, therefore that nation which in the eternity before the world he knew to be his own nation, can not ultimately fail to become his nation. “Of all the peoples of the earth,” says Godet, “one only was [published and openly designated as] chosen and known beforehand, by an act of divine foreknowledge and love, as the people whose history would be identified with the realization of salvation. In all others salvation is the affair of individuals, but here the notion of salvation is attached to the nation itself; not that the liberty of individuals is in the least compromised by the collective designation. The Israelites contemporary with Jesus might reject him; an indefinite series of generations may for ages perpetuate this fact of national unbelief. God is under no pressure; time can stretch out as long as he pleases. He will add, if need be, ages to ages, until there come at length the generation disposed to open their eyes and freely welcome their Messiah. God foreknew this nation as believing and saved, and sooner or later they can not fail to be both.” Comp. Act 15:15-18; Isa 45:17; Isa 59:20; Jer 31:31; Jer 31:34; Eze 34:22; Eze 37:23; Eze 39:25; Rom 11:26] Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? [Literally, in Elijah. Anciently Scripture and other writings were not divided into chapters and verses, but into sections. These among the Jews were called Parashah. Instead of being numbered, they had titles to them, describing the contents. Thus it came to pass that any one wishing to refer to a passage of Scripture would quote enough of the Parashah’s title to identify it. So Paul here quotes words found “in [the Parashah about] Elijah”; viz., 1Ki 19:10-18 . Comp. Mar 12:26; Luk 20:37] how he pleadeth with God against Israel:
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
2. God did not cast away his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah when he communed with God against Israel?
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 2
Maketh intercession against; pleads against. The passage referred to is found in 1 Kings 19:10,14,18.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
11:2 {3} God hath not cast away his people which he {a} foreknew. {4} Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
(3) The second proof: because God is faithful in his league or covenant, even though men are unfaithful: so then, seeing that God has said that he will be the God of his own to a thousand generations, we must take heed that we do not think that the whole race and offspring is cast off, by reason of the unbelief of a few, but rather that we hope well of every member of the Church.
(a) Whom he loved and chose from eternity past.
(4) The third proof taken from the answer that was made to Elijah: even then also, when there appeared openly to the face of the world no elect, yet God knew his elect and chosen, and also that they were a great amount and number. Whereupon this also is concluded, that we ought not rashly to pronounce of any that he is a reprobate, seeing that the Church is often brought to that state, that even the most watchful and sharp-sighted pastors, think that it is completely extinct and put out.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The faith of Paul and other believing Jews, though relatively few compared to the total number of ethnic Jews, proves that God has not completely rejected the people whom He had elected (i.e., foreknew, cf. Rom 8:29). In Elijah’s day Israel’s departure from God was widespread.