I say then, Has God cast away his people? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin.
Romans 11 opens with a question about a nation that had just rejected its own Messiah. The answer comes back at once and with force. Paul's first proof is himself — a living Israelite standing inside the grace he preached.
The question comes at a set point in Paul's argument. He has finished with the gospel itself and turned to God's dealings with nations.
We have, in Romans 11:1, this question put by the apostle about Israel: "Has God cast away His people?" Up to Romans 8 he has been telling the history of us all as men, whether Jews or Gentiles. He has fully stated the gospel of the grace of God — that is, the reconciliation of man by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After establishing this point, he begins in Romans 9 the history of God's dealings through the ages. He shows the way God has acted towards the Jews and the Gentiles.
Everything depends on what Paul is asking. He does not ask whether individual Jews can be saved. He asks whether God has dropped a whole nation for good. (Older translations read "cast away" where the ESV reads "rejected.")
By casting them off, the apostle clearly means this: God has rejected them as a nation for ever, never to take them up again. This part of Scripture is not asking about individual salvation. It speaks of them as a nation. Has He then cast them off? The answer is most distinct.
Paul's answer rests on one word in the next verse: God foreknew this people.
Note the word "foreknew," for it covers everything. It explains all God's dealings with Israel from first to last. He "foreknew" His people. So when He pledged Himself to Abraham, He already knew how ungrateful and evil Abraham's descendants would be. Yet He gave the father of the faithful both His word and His oath (Heb. 6:13; Gal. 3:15-18). So His purposes are delayed, but they are not abandoned. Israel must yet possess every inch of the land promised to Abraham. They must yet enjoy every promised blessing in that land, and for ever. God's own character makes this absolutely sure.
Gaebelein names what would be at stake if the answer went the other way.
If it were so, God's gifts and calling would be subject to change and He would not be the faithful, covenant-keeping God.
Paul answers by pointing at himself. Each part of how he describes himself carries weight.
He has not done so, as Paul's own case proved. Paul was no small example. He had shared in the nation's guiltiest prejudices, its bitterest unbelief, and its rejection of Jesus. Yet God had called him. His love lingered over His poor unworthy people even now... Yet he was also an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Abraham recalls the ancient promises; Benjamin recalls the sin that came later. And Paul himself was God's electing mercy at work in the present — a pledge of the future grace that would save the people fully. If the shutting out were total, God could never have brought Paul into His favour.
The choice of witness is deliberate: the worst possible case makes the strongest possible proof.
There can be no question that Paul by birth was an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, and that there had been no greater opponent of the gospel than himself; nevertheless he is chosen for blessing.
Paul's case is more than a happy exception. Commentators see in it a picture of what is coming for his people.
God had shown him mercy, and he was an Israelite. He was a sample of the remnant God was calling then, and a pledge that his nation would be restored in the end. God is still calling a remnant today, just as He kept one in the days of Elijah.
Gaebelein goes a step further. He sees in Paul's conversion the pattern of one still to come:
We must see his unique conversion as a prophetic picture of the conversion of the remnant of Israel when the Lord comes. Saul of Tarsus saw Him in the glory-light. In the same way, the Israel living at the second coming of Christ will see Him (Zechariah 12:10; Revelation 1:7).
Verse 1 opens a case that Paul builds in three stages.
The apostle gives three proofs of this truth. First, there was a remnant according to election. Next, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make the Jews jealous. Third, the Deliverer will come out of Zion to turn away the ungodliness of Israel.
- Question. Has God dropped Israel as a nation for good? That is Paul's question — not whether single Jews can be saved.
- Foreknowledge. God knew His people's whole history before He pledged Himself to Abraham. So His purposes are delayed, not dropped.
- Proof. Paul offers himself. The gospel's fiercest opponent, an Israelite of Abraham's line and Benjamin's tribe, was brought into God's favour.
- Pledge. He is a sample of the remnant God calls now. His meeting with Christ in the glory-light previews what the nation will see when Christ comes.
- Certainty. The chapter proves it in three steps: a remnant now, salvation reaching the Gentiles to stir Israel's jealousy, then the Deliverer coming out of Zion.
God has not cast away his people whom he foreknew. Know ye not what the scripture says in [the history of] Elias, how he pleads with God against Israel?
At first sight God seems finished with Israel: the nation rejected its Messiah, and God set it aside. Paul denies this flatly, then proves it twice — from his own conversion, and from a page of Israel's history where a faithful prophet misread what God was doing.
The whole verse rests on one word. God knew His people in advance. Nothing they did later could surprise Him or change His mind about them.
"God," he says, "has not rejected His people whom He foreknew." That foreknowledge took in the whole history of the people He chose. He at least could not be disappointed, and the evil in them could not change Him. He could never be deceived.
The question is not whether individual Jews can be saved. It is whether the nation has been dropped for good.
When the apostle speaks of casting them off, he clearly means this: God rejecting them as a nation once and for all, and never taking them up again. This part of Scripture is not dealing with individual salvation. It speaks of them as a nation.
Paul is his own first proof. If the rejection were total, God could never have brought in the man who fought Christ hardest.
God foreknew His people when He chose and called them. He knew all their evil beforehand, and He will not cast them off. He has not done so, as Paul's own case proved. Paul was a fitting example: he had shared in the nation's worst prejudices, its most bitter unbelief, and its rejection of Jesus. Yet God called him... If the exclusion were total, God could never have brought Paul into His favour.
Paul's wording sounds odd today. He is naming a section of Scripture, not a person's speech.
Back then the books were not divided into chapters and verses as they are now. That explains several unusual expressions. As in Mark 2:26, a quotation is from '[the section] of Abiathar the high priest.' 1 Sam. 21:1-6. In Luke 20:37, 'Moses showed in [the section on] the bush.' Ex. 3. In Rom. 11:2, 'the scripture says in [the history of] Elijah.' 1 Kings 17 - 1 Kings 19.
Elijah pleads against his own nation. The facts he reported were real. The judgment he drew from them was not God's.
The contrast between the prophet's plea against the nation and God's reply is as instructive as it is wonderful. Man looks at what he can see. The plain facts move his heart and lead his mind to a verdict. Even when his heart is true to God, that verdict always falls short of God's will. God's purposes are wider and deeper than human action can express or human thought can grasp.
Elijah's plea against Israel brought a result he did not ask for. God's answer named his successor.
Elijah's plea to God against Israel (Rom. 11:2) led to the anointing of Elisha as prophet in his place... In his remarkable claim, "I, even I only, am left," the prophet seems to have made the mistake of thinking that not one other loyal heart was left in the land.
At Horeb God gave Elijah a number. The lesson reaches far beyond one prophet.
The main lesson he learned at Horeb was that the LORD had seven thousand in Israel who were still true to Him and refused Baal. Elijah had seen the terrible evils that covered the land, but somehow he had overlooked the good that was there... Being taken up with yourself ruins you spiritually, whatever form it takes. It is especially bad when it leads any servant of God to imagine that he is the last true man on earth! The testimony of God has never yet depended on the slender thread of a human life, and it never will.
Israel's condition has changed many times. Their standing with God has not.
"God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew." (Rom. 11:2) They are His people still, whether they obey or disobey, whether gathered together or scattered abroad, whether visible to the nations or hidden from their sight. They are His people, and He is their God.
- Foreknew — God chose Israel knowing every failure ahead. Their sin could not surprise Him, so it cannot change Him.
- Nation — The question is about the nation, not about one person's salvation. Paul denies that God has dropped Israel for good.
- Pattern — Mercy called Paul, the fiercest enemy Jesus had in the nation. If God reached him, the door is not shut.
- Elijah — A true servant read the facts right and God's mind wrong. Human judgment always falls short of God's purposes.
- Remnant — God had seven thousand the prophet never saw. His testimony never hangs on one man's life, and He is still their God.
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have dug down thine altars; and *I* have been left alone, and they seek my life.
Paul has just insisted that God has not thrown away His people. To prove it he goes back to a dark hour in Israel's history: Elijah at Horeb, sure he is the last believer alive. The startling thing is what Paul calls this speech: not a prayer for Israel, but a plea against them.
The words themselves are a list of real grievances. But Paul's name for the act is severe. One writer sets Elijah beside Moses:
Elijah was taken up with himself, and that gave him very wrong feelings about the failing people of God around him. Prayer against Israel! Speaking well of himself and ill of God's people! Is this the right role for a witness of God? Did this language truly express the feelings of that heart which is patient with His people, and never gives them up despite all their waywardness and sin? Moses was very different. It is moving to listen to him pleading with God for Israel after they worshipped the golden calf. He felt the insult to the Lord deeply, yet in His presence not one bad word about them escaped his lips.
This is the same prophet who defended God on Mount Carmel. Now the subject of his speech has changed from God to himself:
His reply to God's question shows us the real state of the prophet's soul... How different this language is from what he said on Mount Carmel! There he defended God; here he defends himself. There he tried to win his brothers back by setting God's truth before them. Here he accuses them and lists their sins before God.
The failure was not in his facts about the nation. It was in the words "I alone am left":
Elijah fled from Jezebel's threat and came at last to Horeb, to plead with God against Israel (1 Kings 19:14). So much of this was true. But Elijah was wholly taken up with his own faithfulness to God, so he could not take account of what was not hidden from the eye of God. Obadiah, and the hundred prophets of the Lord he had rescued from Jezebel, were plainly not men of the same kind as Elijah. They did not have his zeal for God, or his energy in testimony. Still, they did not belong among those who had thrown down the Lord's altars.
God's reply does not argue about the nation's sin. It tells Elijah of seven thousand he never met — a remnant God had kept for Himself. His accusation ends up serving the opposite purpose:
Elijah pleaded against Israel, but it only drew God out on their side. It brought to light a whole remnant, hidden until then, whom the prophet had failed to see.
The answer also puts the credit in the right place. Seven thousand men did not hold out on their own:
God does not say they have reserved, or preserved, themselves; no, He says, "I have reserved."
The story is not an aside about a discouraged prophet. It is the pattern Paul needs, because the same thing was happening in his own day:
In the days of Ahab, Israel had all but abandoned God. Even then He reserved for Himself no fewer than seven thousand who were true to Him at heart, though only Elijah stood out as a public witness. This was the fruit of His grace, and the same grace still works. The result is "a remnant according to the election of grace" (v. 5).
Elijah's mistake is one any believer can repeat. One writer turns it into a warning for us:
Elijah failed in this, and in failing he failed God, because these people were very precious to God. Elijah had not seen one of them, did not know one of them, did not suspect that one existed. If Elijah had not thought so much about himself he would have seen some of these seven thousand before, and so too with ourselves... we must not forget that there are others we do not see, do not meet, and never deal with. We must leave room for them in our hearts and in our faith. We must carry them on our souls before God.
- Against. Paul calls Elijah's prayer a plea against his own people. Moses had pleaded for the same people after they worshipped the golden calf.
- Alone. "I alone am left" was the one false line in an otherwise true complaint. Elijah was so taken up with himself that he never saw the hundred prophets Obadiah had rescued.
- Reserved. God's answer credits Himself, not the seven thousand. He kept them; they did not keep themselves.
- Reversed. The plea against Israel only drew God out on Israel's side. It uncovered a remnant the prophet had failed to see.
- Remnant. That is Paul's point. The same grace still works today, so a remnant chosen by grace proves God has not cast off His people.
But what says the divine answer to him? I have left to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed knee to Baal.
Elijah told God he was the last loyal man left in Israel, and this verse is God's reply. Paul uses that reply to answer a larger question: has God finished with His people?
Paul sets the prophet's plea and God's reply side by side.
The prophet pleaded against the nation, and God answered. The contrast is as instructive as it is wonderful. Man looks at what he can see, and the facts move his heart. They guide his mind to a judgment. Even when his heart is true to God, that judgment always falls short of the will of God. God's counsels are wider and deeper than human action can express or human thought can grasp.
Elijah asked God to act against Israel. What came back was news of mercy already at work.
But when a man pleads against his fellow man, it brings out the deep response of God's power and grace: "I have reserved." God had been acting while He made it look as though He was not acting... Yet God had a remnant of mercy then. It was a large and fine band next to the one man who had filled the prophet's whole view — "I alone am left." Still they were only a few among the many thousands of Israel.
The weight of the sentence falls on the first word. God claims the keeping as His own work.
"But what does God's answer say to him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." God does not say that they reserved or preserved themselves. No — He says, "I have reserved."
What was true in Elijah's day was true in Paul's own:
The apostle quotes the case of Elijah. Israel was in such a state that even Elijah pleaded against them. Yet God had still not rejected them. He had reserved for Himself seven thousand men. This was the election of sovereign grace. It was the same now. But it was by grace, and not by works.
Elijah was not lying when he said he stood alone. He was mistaken. He had read the nation in one direction only.
Elijah had indeed been very jealous for God, but he had not been able to find God's seven thousand hidden ones. He could see the evil in the mass of the people. He could see what God was doing in judgment. But he could not see what God was doing in grace.
The verse lists no achievements. One refusal names them. In a land where everyone else bowed, that refusal was everything.
A great thing in God's sight is not calling down fire from heaven, as Elijah did. It is being faithful while everyone around is unfaithful. So it did not seem to say much for the seven thousand who refused to join the gross act of worshipping Baal, to say only that they had "not bowed the knee to Baal." But in truth it said everything for them. All the people around them did bow the knee to Baal.
Paul is arguing one case: God has not cast away His people. The seven thousand are his proof.
The apostle illustrates the remnant of his own day by pointing back to Elijah's day. Elijah was the most energetic of faithful men in Israel, yet he knew of no one but himself who acknowledged the Lord. But that was lack of faith. God knew 7,000, and their existence proved God's love and faithful care. Elijah pleaded against Israel, and his plea only drew out God for them. It brought to light a complete though hidden remnant that the prophet had failed to see.
God keeps people we cannot see. So writing off everyone outside our own circle repeats the error He corrected in Elijah.
Elijah failed there, and in failing he failed God. These seven thousand were certainly very precious to God. Elijah had not seen one of them, did not know one of them, and never suspected that one existed. If Elijah had not thought so much about himself, he would have seen some of these seven thousand before... We must not forget that there are people we do not see, do not meet, and are not used to dealing with. We must leave room for them in our hearts and in our faith. We must carry them on our souls before God.
- The complaint. Elijah's plea against Israel was sincere but short-sighted. He read the nation's evil, but not what God was doing in grace.
- The answer. God's reply did not back the prophet's verdict. It uncovered mercy already at work, while He looked as if He was doing nothing.
- The keeping. The seven thousand did not preserve themselves. God says, "I have kept for myself." So the remnant stands by grace, not by works.
- The mark. One refusal names them: they never bowed to Baal. God prizes faithfulness while everyone around is unfaithful.
- The lesson. Their existence proved God had not cast off Israel. It warns us to leave room in our hearts for the hidden ones we have never met.
Thus, then, in the present time also there has been a remnant according to election of grace.
Is God finished with Israel? Paul answers by pointing away from the nation as a whole to a few who are left — and to the ground those few stand on.
Paul does not give one answer to that question but three. The remnant is the first.
The apostle gives three proofs that God has not rejected His people. First, he is himself an Israelite. There is a remnant whom God has reserved, as in the days of Elijah. That is proof of the constant favour of the Lord, and of the interest He takes in His people, even when they are unfaithful. Second, the call of the Gentiles, and their taking Israel's place, was not God's final rejection of Israel in His purposes. He did it to make Israel jealous. Third, the Lord would come out of Zion and turn away the sins of Jacob.
Kelly presses the question from the other side. Why is anyone left at all?
He points out that there is a remnant of grace in the worst of times. If God had completely cast away His people, would there be such mercy? There would be no remnant if justice took its course. So the remnant proves that even under judgment the rejection of Israel is not complete. It is a pledge of future favour.
Who keeps a remnant in existence when a whole nation turns away?
If there is a remnant preserved among them at all, it is an election of grace, and so it does not rest on works — on works of any kind. Grace, he adds, stops being grace if works are mixed with it. All through their history there was always a remnant, even when the nation had turned away from God most completely... God had still reserved for Himself 7,000 men who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. That was His work, so no power of the enemy could overthrow it. The prophet says the remnant in Israel is the sap of the tree. Even when the tree is cut down, the sap shows there is life in it.
Stanley applies this to the reader, and to Gentiles as well as Jews.
Just as in the days of Elijah, there was then an election of grace — of the free, unearned favour of God. Dear young believer, you will be strongly tempted to reject this abounding, electing, free favour of God... Is it not clear that both Israel and we Gentiles are so bad, and reject the grace of God so completely, that no one would have been saved apart from His election, His free favour, His grace? All would have been like Sodom. Yes, the total ruin of man, and the election of God, stand or fall together.
The nation's failure and the remnant's preservation rest on two different footings.
The nation as a whole is scattered today because they rejected Christ. Yet God still has a remnant "chosen by grace." On the ground of works they had completely broken down, and God had rejected them. On the ground of grace He reserved a remnant in whom the nation will be restored.
Is this small number all that God intends for Israel?
He is also saving now a remnant chosen by grace. That is in contrast to the saving of all Israel later on.
Those saved in this way do not stay where they were.
This remnant, chosen by grace and called out from the mass of the Jews, exists today. Yet the very fact of its calling cuts it off from Judaism and its hopes on earth... We have to read Ephesians 2, especially the last part of it, to learn the new position of heavenly favour and blessing they are brought into, together with those called from among the Gentiles by the gospel that is being preached today.
Elijah never saw the seven thousand. Kelly turns that into a warning for us.
If Elijah had not thought so much about himself, he would have seen some of these seven thousand before, and it is the same with us... We must not forget that there are those we do not see, and those we never meet. We must leave room for them in our hearts, in our faith. We must carry them on our souls before God. If we do not, the Lord has a complaint against us, as He had against Elijah then.
- Question — Has God cast away His people? The remnant is the first of three answers, The call of the Gentiles and the Lord coming out of Zion follow.
- Grace — God keeps the few by free, unearned favour, not by works. Mix works in and grace stops being grace.
- Reserved — Elijah's seven thousand were God's own work. No enemy power can overturn what He keeps.
- Now — "At the present time" means believing Jews today, cut off from hopes on earth and joined with Gentile believers in heavenly blessing.
- Pledge — Like sap in a felled tree, the remnant proves life remains. On this ground of grace God will yet restore the nation.
But if by grace, no longer of works since [otherwise] grace is no more grace.
Paul has just pointed to a small group in Israel who still believed. God kept them by His own choice, not by anything they had earned. Verse 6 gives the rule behind that: add works to grace, and grace stops being grace.
The verse is not a stray saying. It explains why God saved any Israelite at all when the nation as a whole had rejected Christ. One writer sets the two grounds side by side, reaching back to the days of the prophet Elijah:
It is now as it was in the days of Elijah. The nation as a whole is scattered because it rejected Christ. Even so, God still has "a remnant, chosen by grace." And if it is by grace, then it is "no longer on the basis of works." On the ground of works they had failed completely, and God had rejected them. On the ground of grace God had reserved a remnant in whom the nation will be restored.
The same writer's point about God's side is pressed further elsewhere: the preserved remnant is God's own doing, and therefore safe.
If there is a remnant preserved among them at all, it is an election of grace, and therefore independent of works, as the apostle says here — of works of any kind. Grace, he adds, becomes grace no longer if works are mingled with it.
The logic of the verse is the logic of ordinary life. Earned pay and a free present work in opposite ways.
The two cannot be mixed. If I work for wages it is no grace on the part of my employer to pay me my wages. And if someone freely offers me a gift, and I insist on working to earn it, it stops being a gift. I insult it. I turn it into a wage. I show no appreciation of grace.
The question is not how much work is added, but whether any is added at all. One image makes the amount irrelevant:
Let one drop of the poison of man's works fall into a vessel full of God's grace, and grace loses its character. God will not allow man to spoil His gracious act of forgiveness by any mixture of works.
The principle is plain, so why do people push back? One writer points to what each side does with the credit:
The human heart rebels against the principle of grace. "To the one who does not work" jars on many ears. "Without money and without price" sounds unpleasant to the self-righteous and proud… The principle of works gives man the glory; the principle of grace gives God the glory. Grace must win the day. All the glory must go to God, now and forever.
This is not a small matter of wording. One writer describes what he saw it cost ordinary Christian teaching:
Many people deny just as strongly that a believer can be sure of salvation. Many others cut salvation down to a forgiveness that depends on conditions. For a soul who sees its real state, that puts peace with God out of reach. Wherever this happens, grace is still unknown. And wherever grace is unknown, some system of works — that is, of law — always comes with it.
Some believers hesitate at the word "election," yet the verse is written to steady them, not to unsettle them. One writer addresses the hesitation directly:
Dear young believer, you will be strongly tempted to reject this overflowing, electing, free favour of God. Today few believe it with their whole heart. We want you to take hold of it with your whole soul. Look at the facts. Both Israel and we Gentiles are so bad, and we reject God's grace so completely, that if it had not been for His election — His free favour, His grace — no one at all would have been saved… Note this: these scriptures show that God is not unwilling. It is man who will not have the grace of God.
Older English Bibles carry a second half to the verse — "but if it be of works, then it is no more grace" — which most newer Bibles leave out. Commentators differ on whether it belongs, and one weighs it without alarm:
This gives Paul the chance to state that grace shuts works out. The Holy Spirit never lets such a chance slip. If we accept the older reading, each one shuts the other out. But I do not see that the bracketed clause adds to the precision of the truth.
- Grace alone. Israel's remnant survived on grace, because on the ground of works the nation had completely broken down.
- Grace unmixed. A single drop of human works poisons the whole vessel; God will not let any mixture spoil His forgiveness.
- Grace unearned. Wages and gifts are different transactions; working to merit a gift turns it into a wage and insults the giver.
- Grace resisted. The heart rebels because works glorify man while grace glorifies God — and God must have the glory.
- Grace or law. Where grace is unknown, assurance dies and a system of works always moves in to replace it.
What [is it] then? What Israel seeks for, that he has not obtained; but the election has obtained, and the rest have been blinded,
Paul has just pointed back to Elijah's day, when God kept seven thousand for Himself while the nation drifted. Now he draws the same line in his own time. Israel as a whole missed what it chased, while a chosen few received it. Two questions follow: what was Israel looking for, and why did most fail to find it?
Israel pursued righteousness, but tried to get it by keeping the law. That road ended one way:
As a nation Israel had despised grace and sought righteousness by keeping the law, only to miss it and be blinded (v. 7). The remnant bowed to grace, and so was saved.
The failure was not for lack of trying:
We have already seen that the most eager seekers seemed to be the ones furthest from meeting the conditions of a successful search.
One group did succeed, and not by trying harder. The seven thousand of Elijah's day explain the believing remnant of Paul's day:
When Paul quotes the case of Elijah, he shows that God had not rejected Israel. The nation was in such a state that even Elijah pleaded against them. Yet God had kept seven thousand men for Himself. This was the election of sovereign grace. It was the same thing now. But it was by grace, and not by works. The election then has obtained the blessing, and the rest was blinded.
They did not obtain a different prize. They obtained the same one, in a Person:
The election the apostle speaks of is plainly what the grace of God drew out of a nation that had turned away and been blinded. What separated this saved remnant from the rejected nation was their faithful confession of Christ. In Him the election had obtained the very thing the nation was still groping for in the darkness of their unbelieving hearts.
Paul's labels run against expectation. He calls the believing minority "the election," and hands the majority the very name readers usually reserve for the faithful few:
Notice that the people we usually call the remnant, the righteous part of Israel, are here named "the election," while the mass of the nation is called the rest, or remnant. "Hardened" is also the right sense here rather than blinded, though blinding is taught elsewhere.
Commentators differ over the best word here. Some keep "blinded," others prefer "hardened."
This hardening was not a mood the nation drifted into. Writers describe it as a sentence passed by God, one their own prophets had already announced:
They have fallen under God's judicial sentence, as their prophets again testified. God had given them eyes that did not see and ears that did not hear.
"The election" reaches beyond one generation. And the sentence on "the rest" has a time limit:
reason
- Sought. Israel chased righteousness by keeping the law. Zeal alone left the most eager seekers furthest from what they wanted.
- Missed. Israel despised grace, so the prize stayed out of reach. Chasing is not the same as receiving.
- Obtained. The election received the very thing the nation groped for. They received it in Christ, by grace and not by works.
- Hardened. The rest fell under a sentence from God, one their own Scriptures had announced long before.
- Not forever. The blindness is not permanent. A believing remnant has existed in every age, past, present and still to come.
according as it is written, God has given to them a spirit of slumber, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, unto this day.
Paul has just said that Israel as a nation missed what it was chasing. A chosen few within it received the blessing. The rest were hardened. Verse 8 is his proof from Scripture, and it raises two hard questions. If God Himself gave the spirit of stupor, is that unfair? And does it last forever?
Verse 8 backs up what Paul said in verse 7, so the wording of verse 7 matters. One writer says the right word there is "hardened", not "blinded", and points out who Scripture calls the elect.
How does the case stand, then? "Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened." Notice this. The group we usually call the remnant, the righteous part of Israel, is here called "the elect." The mass of the nation is called the rest, or remnant. "Hardened" is also the right sense here, rather than blinded — though blindness is taught elsewhere.
The words Paul cites do not come from one passage. He weaves several strands of the Old Testament together.
This leads the apostle to bring in the witness of Scripture. He uses words that seem to be blended from Isaiah 29:10 and Deuteronomy 29:4. Then comes David's even more terrible curse in Psalm 69:22-23. All of them speak of the ungodly in Israel. Here again the law, the psalms and the prophets gave their joint, overwhelming evidence. Their words are so severe that the apostle first had to bring in "strong consolation" from the unfailing faithfulness of God for at least a remnant, as we have seen. Only then did he settle every word by these "two or three witnesses" about the general state of Israel.
To say God gave the stupor sounds like God caused the unbelief. Commentators answer that the order runs the other way. The nation shut its own eyes first. Then God confirmed that choice as a sentence passed on them.
The blinding here is clearly a judgment — God Himself has given them sightless eyes and unhearing ears. But why? It is no arbitrary judgment. Matthew 13:13-15 shows plainly that Israel's willful blindness came first, and the judgment of blindness came after... It is the same with their ears. Mercy was offered to them, even after the resurrection of Christ, and they would not hear. They "stopped their ears" against the preaching of Stephen, and sealed their rejection of Christ by stoning His witness to death. So God has put His mark of judgment upon them. He has confirmed their deafness to this very day — a solemn warning to everyone who dares to treat Him lightly.
Isaiah foretold this blindness long before it came. One writer points to its cause, and to what the nation could no longer see.
Rejecting Christ, and the grace of God proclaimed by the Holy Spirit through His servants, the nation falls into the spiritual blindness foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Because they willfully reject Christ, they can no longer see their need, or the grace of God that can meet that need.
One writer sees a pattern here, not a one-off event. God has acted this way before, and He may act this way again — even with Christendom, the part of the world that bears Christ's name.
In the time before destruction, the people choose to be ignorant. After that God shuts up their understanding and pours a deep sleep over them. This will happen to Christendom also. There will be "strong delusion" because they did not want the truth... It had been the same with the nations that did not keep the knowledge of God, and were given over to a state of blindness (Romans 1:22-24). God had already said of Israel, "Make the heart of this people dull," a word used for the last time in Acts 28. So it holds true for the nations, the Jews and Christendom, and it will be true for the Jews again.
The verse says the blindness has lasted to this day. It does not say it will last forever. Later in the same chapter Paul sets two limits on it — how far it reaches, and how long it lasts.
This, indeed, is what will happen, for the blindness that has come on Israel is only blindness in part. The nation is not blinded so as never to see again. It has not fallen so as never to be restored, or been cast off so as never to be received back. Their time of being cast off will end when the full number of the Gentiles has been brought into blessing.
- Refusal first. The nation shut its own eyes first. God only confirmed the choice they had already made.
- Sentence second. God then sealed that choice, giving eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. The mark is still on them today.
- Scripture third. Paul stacks law, psalms and prophets together, so the verdict rests on more than one witness.
- Warning fourth. The same pattern reaches beyond Israel. Choosing not to know invites the deep sleep, and Christendom is not exempt.
- Mercy last. The blindness is only partial, and it lasts only until the full number of the Gentiles is brought in. Israel is not blinded forever, nor cast off forever.
And David says, Let their table be for a snare, and for a gin, and for a fall-trap, and for a recompense to them
Paul sets David's words from Psalm 69 beside Isaiah and Deuteronomy to explain why most of Israel missed what it sought. The verse raises hard questions about whose voice speaks, what the "table" means, and why God blinds anyone.
The prayer belongs to David, but commentators trace it further back. One writer traces the words to the Lord Jesus Himself, and sets this call for retribution against what He prayed on the cross.
Psalm 69 is quoted also in verses 9 and 10 — the words written by David, but actually coming from the lips of the Lord Jesus... These are solemn words of retribution. They stand in marked contrast to the lowly words from the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But that forgiveness could only apply to the remnant who would receive it — as many did, even after the crucifixion. The rest cannot remain a matter of indifference to Him: He pleads against them for present governmental judgment.
A table is where a person is fed and safe. So why does David ask for Israel's table to become a trap?
So David foretells that their very privileges would become a snare to them. Boasting in their outward privileges they despise the grace of God. As a result their eyes are darkened, so they cannot see the goodness of God, and their backs bow in bondage to their enemies.
The Greek word behind "stumbling block" is exact. It ties this verse back to Romans 9, where Christ Himself is the stone men trip over.
When the Lord was on earth He became this stone of stumbling to the Jews. He is still the same to them and to the house of Israel, where their disobedient unbelief still rejects Him. Romans 9:32-33; 1 Peter 2:8... Scripture uses the word skandalon for the same thing: it literally means "the catch of a trap," which snares you the moment you touch it. Romans 9:33 (offence); Romans 11:9; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Peter 2:8 (offence).
The blinding in these verses comes from God's hand. But it is a sentence on a path the nation had already chosen.
The blinding here is plainly judicial. God Himself has given them eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. But why is this? It is no arbitrary judgment. Matthew 13:13-15 shows clearly that Israel's wilful blindness came before their judicial blindness.
Some read these quotations as proof that God condemned certain people before they ever existed. One writer rejects that:
It is excellent and right that Scripture calls hardening something God inflicts after men have already proved their ungodliness. It is false and bad to say that Paul argues here that the blinding was not deserved, but came from an eternal decree of rejection. Scripture teaches no such doctrine. It nowhere says that anyone is rejected before the foundation of the world.
Paul does not rest his case on a single passage. Verse 9 is the third witness in a stack of them.
This leads the apostle to bring in the testimony of Scripture. He uses the words (apparently mingled) of Isaiah 29:10 and Deuteronomy 29:4. Then comes the still more terrible prayer for judgment from David in Psalm 69:22-23. All of them speak of the ungodly in Israel. Here again the law, the psalms, and the prophets gave their combined and overwhelming evidence.
The chapters Paul quotes hold more than threats. Commentators read the judgment and the promise together.
Judicial blindness has come upon them for their unbelief. The apostle gives three quotations from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 29:4; Isaiah 29:10 and Psalm 69:22-24). They show that the Lord knew their unbelief beforehand and foretold the judgment coming on the nation. A careful study of these chapters will show that the threatened judgments and the judicial blindness are not permanent... The curses spoken over them have come true word for word. The promises of blessing and glory are still unfulfilled, and they too will come true literally.
Verse 9 asks God for judgment. So may a Christian pray it? Writers separate the cry of God's earthly people, Israel, from the Christian's calling.
They rightly cry for judgment when God is at work in them in living power. We are one with Christ in heaven. We look for Him to take us there to Himself. And we pray for grace as He did, even for His blinded murderers.
- Privilege — the table is what fed and secured Israel. Boasting in that privilege, while despising grace, turned their food into a snare.
- Trap — "stumbling block" translates a word for the catch of a trap. What they tripped over was Christ Himself.
- Sentence — the blindness is God's sentence, but it is not random. Israel's wilful blindness came first. God hardens men after they have proved their ungodliness, not by a decree passed before they existed.
- Witnesses — Paul stacks the law, the prophets, and the psalms. The verdict rests on all of Scripture, not one text.
- Limit — the curses came true word for word, and the promises of blessing will too. Meanwhile the Christian prays not for judgment but for grace, as Christ did for those who killed Him.
let their eyes be darkened not to see, and bow down their back alway.
Paul closes his chain of quotations with two hard images: darkened eyes and a back bent down "forever." Two questions press on any reader. Is God punishing people for a blindness He Himself caused? And does "forever" mean Israel is finished for good?
Paul does not argue Israel's condition from his own observation. He stacks up quotations drawn from across the Scriptures.
This leads the apostle to bring in the testimony of Scripture. He uses the words (seemingly mixed together) of Isaiah 29:10 and Deuteronomy 29:4. Then comes the still more terrible curse David calls down in Psalm 69:22-23. All of these speak of the ungodly in Israel. Here again the law, the psalms, and the prophets gave the same overwhelming evidence together.
These words come from Psalm 69. Who is really speaking them changes how they sound.
Verses 9 and 10 also quote Psalm 69. David wrote the words, but they really came from the lips of the Lord Jesus... These are solemn words of retribution. They stand in sharp contrast to the lowly words from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But the forgiveness could only apply to the remnant who would receive it — and many did, even after the crucifixion. He cannot treat the rest as if they did not matter. He pleads against them for God's judgment on them now, in this present life.
The darkening is not random. It fits what Israel had done with the gifts God gave them.
So David foretells that their very privileges would become a snare to them. Boasting in their outward privileges they despise the grace of God. As a result their eyes are darkened, and they cannot see the goodness of God. Their backs are bowed down in bondage to their enemies.
The darkening is God's act. Commentators are careful to say what came before it.
The blinding here is plainly judicial. God Himself has given them sightless eyes and ears that do not hear. But why is this? It is no arbitrary judgment. Matthew 13:13-15 shows clearly that Israel's willful blindness came before their judicial blindness... God offered them mercy, even after the resurrection of Christ, and they would not hear. They "stopped their ears" against the preaching of Stephen. They confirmed their rejection of Christ by stoning His witness to death.
The same order appears in God's dealing with Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.
God did not make Pharaoh wicked. God leads no one into sin. But when Pharaoh had proved himself wicked and stubborn, God hardened his heart in judgment. This hardening, however, never takes place until man has proved himself to be wicked.
"Forever" reads like a life sentence. The chapter itself sets a limit on it.
Blindness is on Israel till the Church is complete. Then Israel's judicial blindness will cease... the nation as a whole was in outer darkness; for a time blindness was on it, and a veil lay on their hearts. When the full number of the Gentiles has come in, their condition as a nation will change.
And even in the darkness, the blindness never covered everyone. Grace kept a remnant.
When Israel had all but abandoned God in the days of Ahab, God kept for Himself no fewer than seven thousand who were true to Him at heart, though only Elijah stood out as a public witness. This was the fruit of His grace, and the same grace still works... As a nation, Israel despised grace and tried to gain righteousness by keeping the law. They missed it, and blindness fell on them. The remnant bowed to grace and was saved.
This is not only Israel's story, closed and filed away. The same warning falls on whoever holds the privileges now.
If Israel's willful blindness has brought down the blindness God has laid on them for nearly 2000 years, what shall we say of the Gentile Church? She closes her eyes more and more against the truth of God. Will God spare this willful blindness? No. When the full number of Gentiles is saved, God will open Israel's eyes.
- Eyes closed. God's blindness is a judgment, never a whim. Israel closed their own eyes first.
- Eyes darkened. They got what they chose. They cannot see the goodness of God, and the privileges they boasted in became their trap.
- Eyes still open. The blindness never covered everyone. Grace kept seven thousand in Elijah's day, and grace keeps a remnant still.
- Eyes to be opened. "Forever" has a limit. When the full number of Gentiles has come in, Israel's blindness will cease.
- Eyes on yourself. The same warning stands now. Those who hold the privileges today can close their eyes the same way, and God will not spare that blindness.