“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,”
Romans 11:2, KJV
“God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?”
Romans 11:2, ESV
Table of Contents
- Romans 11:2 Meaning – God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew
- Romans 11:2 Meaning – Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?
- Romans 11:2 Meaning – How he maketh intercession to God against Israel
The quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures, which the Apostle here brings to bear on the point in question, fully establishes the view that has been given of the preceding passage.
There was an elected remnant in the days of Elijah, when things were at the worst; and so, at the time when the Apostle wrote, there was also an elected remnant whom God had reserved.
Haldane, Robert – Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (1874)
Romans 11:2 Meaning – God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew
The answer is negative and moderate, for, had the apostle given a flat denial to the rejection of the Jews, he would have contradicted himself.
By adopting this correction, he shows the casting off of the Jews to be of such a character as not to invalidate the promise of the Fountain of all goodness.
The answer is divided into two parts ; first, that the almighty and everlasting Father has by no means cast off, contrary to the fidelity of his covenant, the whole offspring of Abraham; for the effect of adoption does not indeed exist in all the sons of the patriarch by carnal descent, because, in the second place, the secret election of the Giver of all grace precedes adoption.
Thus the general rejection of the Israelites could not prevent the continuance of the salvation of some of the seed of Abraham; for the visible body itself of the Jewish people had been so rejected that no member of the spiritual body of Christ could fail or be destroyed.
Should any of my readers propose the question, whether circumcision were in such a manner a common symbol and sign of the grace of God to all the Jews, that they deserved to be reckoned among the people who alone enjoyed the glory and hope of his children, I return an immediate answer, that the external call is, of itself, altogether inefficacious without faith; and this honour, if rejected on being offered, is deservedly taken from unbelievers.
A special and peculiar people in this way always continues to exist, in whom God exhibits a mark and proof of his own constancy; and Paul derives the origin of this unchanging firmness from the secret election of a propitious and reconciled God.
For the Lord, to whom all honour and glory belong, is not here said to have respect to faith, but to continue firm to his purpose in not casting away the people whom he hath foreknown.
I must here again repeat a former observation, that foreknowledge does not mean a certain speculative view, by which the uncreated Cause of all effects foresaw the character of every individual of the human family, but points to the good pleasure of the decree of the sovereign Disposer of all events, by which he hath chosen for his children those who were not yet born, and had no power to insinuate themselves into the favour of the Author of all happiness.
Thus, (Galatians 4:9) Paul says, they are known of God, because he prevents them by his grace and favour, and calls them to a knowledge of Christ.
We now clearly understand, that although the universal calling of the Most High may not be productive of any fruit, yet the fidelity of our everlasting Father continues unchanged, for he always preserves his church, while the elect remain.
The Head of the church, notwithstanding he invites all people in common, and without consideration, to himself, yet he does not internally draw any except those, who are known by infinite Wisdom to be his own, and who are given by the Father to the Son.
The Lord, full of sweetness and benignity, will continue the faithful guard and guardian of his own to the very end.
Calvin, John – Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans tr. Francis Sibson (1834)
Reason 2. The elect people whom he foreknew is not rejected because of the election, and the unchangeableness of his love: Therefore all are not cast-off.
Dickson, David – An Exposition of All St. Paul’s Epistles (1659)
By “God’s people,” we must not understand here either the spiritual Israel, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, or the believing part of the Jews. It is plain that the Israel he is speaking of is the same Israel mentioned Romans 9:31 and Romans 10:1,19,21 — the Israelitish nation, the majority of which were cast off.
What he asserts, and goes on to prove, is — that the Israehtish people were neither universally nor finally abandoned of God. They are termed “His people, whom He foreknew.”
The word “foreknow,” in Romans 8:29, signifies to foreappoint — to predestinate. But it admits of another rendering, which the context here seems to require.
To know, according to the Hebrew idiom, signifies to acknowledge— as Numbers 16:5; Amos 3:2. To foreknow, in this sense, is to have acknowledged formerly.
There is an opposition between the words “cast off” and “formerly acknowledged.”
He has not abandoned the Jews, though most of them have abandoned Him; He has not wholly, or for ever, rejected them.
There is still a portion of them, in respect of whom, in all the emphasis of the words.
He is “their God,” and they are “His people;” and there is a period in futurity, when the great body of the nation shall again acknowledge Him, and be acknowledged by Him.
He has not cast off all His people; He has not cast them off, as a people, for ever. These are the two heads of the remaining part of the apostle’s discussion.
Brown, John – Analytical exposition of the epistle of Paul the apostle to the Romans (1857)
In the preceding verse Paul had asked if God had cast away His people. This he had strongly denied; and the reasons by which he supports this denial form the subject of nearly the whole of the remainder of the chapter. He first proves, from the beginning of the 2d verse to the end of the 10th, that a remnant was at present preserved, although the rest were blinded; and, from the 11th to the 33d verse, that the whole nation shall at last be restored.
The term people, in the preceding verse, refers to the whole of Israel as the typical people of God, but is here restricted to the elect among them who were His true people, and are distinguished as ‘His people which He foreknew.’ God had cast off the nation, but even then He had a people among then whom from eternity He foreknew as His people.
The word foreknow, as formerly observed, signifies to know before, or it denotes a knowledge accompanied by a decree, or it imports a preconceived love, favour, and regard. Divine foreknowledge, in the first of these senses, is God’s foresight of future existence and events, and His eternal prescience of whatever shall take place in all futurity. This foreknowledge is not only to be distinguished from God’s decree, by which everything future comes to pass, but must be considered in the order of nature as consequent and dependent upon the determination and purpose of God. For the futurity of all things depends on the decrees of God, by which every created existence and event, with all their circumstances, are ordered, fixed, and ascertained. Being thus decreed, they are the objects of foreknowledge; for they could not be known to be future unless their futurity was established, and that by the Divine decree. God foreknew all things that were to come to pass, by knowing His own purposes and decree! Had God determined or decreed nothing respecting future existences by creation and providence, there could have been no foreknowledge of anything whatever. Because, therefore, this foreknowledge of God necessarily implies and involves His decrees, His foreknowledge is in the inspired writings sometimes accompanied by the mention of His decrees; as, for example, ‘Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain,’ Acts 2:23. And it is sometimes put for the decree, as in the following passage, where the word here translated foreknew is rendered fore-ordained: ‘Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world,’ 1 Peter 1:20. In the third sense, as taken for a knowledge of love and approbation, it signifies, as in the verse before us, to choose and recognise as His own. God had not cast away His people whom He had before loved and chosen, for the Apostle alleges this foreknowledge as the reason why God did not cast away His people.
The people of God, whom He foreknew, were those whom He chose from all eternity, according to His sovereign pleasure; and in this sense the expression is clearly explained, when they are declared, in the 5th verse, to be a ‘remnant according to the election of grace,’ and when it is said, in the 4th, that God had ‘reserved’ to Himself His true worshippers in the time of Elijah. This proves the correctness of Calvin’s observation, ‘that foreknowledge does not mean a certain speculative view, by which the uncreated Cause of all effects foresaw the character of every individual of the human family, but points to the good pleasure of the decree of the Sovereign Disposer of all events, by which He hath chosen for His children those who were not yet born, and had no power to insinuate themselves into the favour of the Author of all happiness. Thus (Galatians 4:9), Paul says, they are known of God, because He prevents by His grace and favour, and calls them to a knowledge of Christ.’
Haldane, Robert – Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (1874)
Romans 11:2 Meaning – Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias?
Since the number of believers in Christ was so very few among the Jewish people, they would necessarily conclude from this circumstance, that the whole race of Abraham was rejected, and the thought would steal across their minds, that no sign and symbol of divine grace existed in such a scene of ruin, desolation, and deformity.
For, since adoption was the sacred bond, by which the sons of Abraham were kept collected under the faith of the Sovereign of the universe, it was altogether improbable that the Jewish people would be dispersed and scattered in so miserable and unhappy a manner, provided the fatherly love of the God of the patriarchs had not been withdrawn from the support and blessing of their descendants.
Paul removes this stumbling-block by quoting the very appropriate example of Elias, during whose restoration of the law so dreadful a desolation is reported to have taken place in the number of believers, that no appearance of the church of God remained, and every vestige of divine grace seemed to be obliterated: still, however, the church of the great Ruler and Preserver of the world was wonderfully saved, as if it had been concealed in the safeguard of a tomb.
It is the height of folly, therefore, to ascertain the number of the church by means of our senses and judgment.
If, indeed, this distinguished prophet, so strikingly endowed with the abundant light of the Spirit of holiness, of consolation, and of truth, when desirous to reckon the number of God’s people by his own judgment, laboured under such a deception, what may we not expect to be our lot, whose keenest perspicacity is dulness itself, when compared with the knowledge of this servant of the Most High? Let us, therefore, draw no rash conclusion on this subject, but let this remain fixed in our hearts — that the church, which appears to our eyes nothing, is cherished and preserved by the secret providence of the alone Refuge of the afflicted.
Never let us forget the folly and pride of those, who determine the number of the elect by the measure of their own sense and judgment.
For the Protector and Comforter of his people can, by means attended with no difficulty on his part, and wholly concealed from our view, preserve his elect in a surprising manner, when all seems involved in one common ruin.
We are desirous to impress upon the attention of our readers, that no event has befallen us, which was not experienced by the holy patriarchs of old, and this consideration has a powerful effect in confirming our faith ; hence Paul, both in this and other parts of his epistles, carefully compares the state of his own time with the ancient condition of the church.
Such a plan prevents us from looking on any change with novelty, and we know how weak and unprepared minds are distressed by any new event.
The phrase, in Elijah, means, in the history or transactions of this prophet; but I think Paul adopted an Hebraism in this passage, for the Hebrew particle, corresponding to the Greek, frequently signifies of or concerning Elias.
Calvin, John – Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans tr. Francis Sibson (1834)
Reason 3. As in the times of Elias, when the whole nation seemed to him to be lost and cast away, God reserved to himself seven thousand of his elect. So in this temporal rejection of the Jews, God hath reserved some, according to the election of grace. Therefore all are not cast off.
Dickson, David – An Exposition of All St. Paul’s Epistles (1659)
The first of these [“two heads”] he illustrates by a striking incident in the history of Israel in former times. This passage is from 1 Kings 19:10. It is quoted, not verbally, but in an abridged form from the LXX [Septuagint], probably from memory. At the period referred to, the great body of the ten tribes had abandoned the true worship of God, and He could not acknowledge them as His people. But, from among them. He still had a people who acknowledged Him, and whom He acknowledged — a small number in comparison of the apostates, yet still a considerable number, and greatly exceeding what the prophet supposed to exist.
Brown, John – Analytical exposition of the epistle of Paul the apostle to the Romans (1857)
Romans 11:2 Meaning – How he maketh intercession to God against Israel
Elijah proves his great affection for the Lord by not hesitating to become opposed to his nation on account of the glory of his everlasting Shepherd, and to pray for its destruction, because he considered the religion and worship of God had been lost among the Israelites.
The error of the prophet consisted in condemning the whole nation, himself only excepted, as guilty of impiety, and in praying for its severe punishment at the hand of the Lord.
The 1 Kings 19:10, cited by Paul, contains no imprecation, but a mere complaint. Since, however, his complaint implies a total despair of the religion of the whole Jewish nation, we may rest assured that he devoted it to destruction.
Elijah proclaimed the spread of impiety to be so extensive over all Judea, as to have taken possession of all its borders, since he thought no worshipper of the God of heaven and earth remained but himself.
Calvin, John – Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans tr. Francis Sibson (1834)
‘First Kings 19:10, cited by Paul,’ says Calvin, ‘contains no implication, but a mere complaint. Since, however, his complaint implies a total despair of the religion of the whole Jewish nation, we may rest assured that he devoted it to destruction.’
But Paul’s comment may assure us that Elijah, at the time referred to not only complained but interceded against Israel. The Apostle spoke by the Spirit that indicted the words in which Elijah’s complaint is recorded, and we should not look for a voucher for such testimony. Such a mode of strengthening the Scriptures is only to weaken them. It teaches us to undervalue the inspired commentary of the New Testament, unless we can produce some other confirmation.
Elijah, when solemnly interrogated by the Lord why he was in the place where he was then found, away from the proper scene of his ministry, accounted for his flight to save his life, which seems to have been without any Divine admonition, by complaining of the apostasy of the nation. As this was an exposure of their wickedness, and, had it been true in all its extent, would have led to their destruction, it was in effect intercession against Israel. But the answer of God showed that he was mistaken.
Haldane, Robert – Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (1874)
