Study

11. Have they stumbled, etc. You will be greatly hindered in understanding this argument, except you take notice, that the Apostle speaks sometimes of the whole nation of the Jews, and sometimes of single individuals; for hence arises the diversity, that onewhile he speaks of the Jews as being banished from the kingdom of God, cut off from the tree and precipitated by God’s judgment into destruction, and that at another he denies that they had fallen from grace, but that on the contrary they continued in the possession of the covenant, and had a place in the Church of God.

It is then in conformity with this difference that he now speaks; for since the Jews for the most part rejected Christ, so that perverseness had taken hold almost on the whole nation, and few among them seemed to be of a sane mind, he asks the question, whether the Jewish nation had so stumbled at Christ, that it was all over with them universally, and that no hope of repentance remained. Here he justly denies that the salvation of the Jews was to be despaired of, or that they were so rejected by God, that there was to be no future restoration, or that the covenant of grace, which he had once made with them, was entirely abolished, since there had ever remained in that nation the seed of blessing. That we are so to understand his meaning is evident from this, — that having before connected a sure ruin with blindness, he now gives a hope of rising again; which two things are wholly different. They then, who perversely stumbled at Christ, fell and fell into destruction; yet the nation itself had not fallen, so that he who is a Jew must necessarily perish or be alienated from God.

But by their fall salvation has come to the Gentiles, etc. The Apostle asserts two things in this place, — that the fall of the Jews had turned out for salvation to the Gentiles; but to this end — that they might be kindled by a sort of jealousy, and be thus led to repentance. He no doubt had an eye to the testimony of Moses, which he had already quoted, where the Lord threatened Israel, — that as he had been provoked by them to emulation through their false gods; so he also, according to the law of retaliation, would provoke them by a foolish nation.

The word here used denotes the feeling of emulation or jealousy with which we are excited, when we see another preferred before us. Since then it was the Lord’s purpose that Israel should be provoked to emulation, they were not so fallen as to be precipitated into eternal ruin; but that God’s blessing, despised by them, might come to the Gentiles, in order that they might at length be also stirred up to seek the Lord, from whom they had fallen away.

But there is no reason for readers to weary themselves much as to the application of this testimony: for Paul does not dwell on the strict meaning of the word, but alludes only to a common and well-known practice. For as emulation stimulates a wife, who for her fault has been rejected by her husband, so that she strives to be reconciled again; so it may be now, he says, that the Jews, seeing the Gentiles introduced into their place, will be touched with grief for their divorce, and seek reconciliation.

12. And if their fall, etc. As he had taught us that after the Jews were repudiated, the Gentiles were introduced in their place, that he might not make the salvation of the Jews to be disliked by the Gentiles, as though their salvation depended on the ruin of the Jews, he anticipates this false notion, and lays down a sentiment of an opposite kind, that nothing would conduce more to advance the salvation of the Gentiles, than that the grace of God should flourish and abound among the Jews. To prove this, he derives an argument from the less, — “If their fall had raised the Gentiles, and their diminution had enriched them, how much more their fullness?” for the first was done contrary to nature, and the last will be done according to a natural order of things. And it is no objection to this reasoning, that the word of God had flowed to the Gentiles, after the Jews had rejected, and, as it were, cast it from them; for if they had received it, their faith would have brought forth much more fruit than their unbelief had occasioned; for the truth of God would have been thereby confirmed by being accomplished in them, and they also themselves would have led many by their teaching, whom they, on the contrary, by their perverseness, had turned aside.

Now he would have spoken more strictly correct, if, to the fall, he had opposed rising: ³⁵¹³⁵¹     This is not quite correct: the first part is a mere announcement of a fact — the fall of the Jews; and then in what follows, according to the usual style of Scripture, the same thing is stated in other words, and a corresponding clause is added; and the antithesis is found to be suitable — the diminution and the completion. The reason for the restatement of the first clause seems to be this, — that the fall might not be deemed as total, but in part; it was ἣττημα, a less part, a diminution, a lessening of their number in God’s kingdom. A contrast to this is the πλήρωμα, the full or complete portion, that is, their complete restoration, as it is said in Romans 11:26. To preserve the antithesis, the first word must have its literal meaning, a diminution or lessening, that is, as to the number saved. Hammond renders the phrase, “their paucity.” — Ed. of this I remind you, that no one may expect here an adorned language, and may not be offended with this simple mode of speaking; for these things were written to mold the heart and not the tongue.

13. For to you Gentiles I speak, etc. He confirms by a strong reason, that nothing shall be lost by the Gentiles, were the Jews to return again to favor with God; for he shows, that the salvation of both is so connected, that it can by the same means be promoted. For he thus addresses the Gentiles, — “Though I am peculiarly destined to be your Apostle, and ought therefore with special care to seek your salvation, with which I am charged, and to omit as it were all other things, and to labor for that only, I shall yet be faithfully discharging my office, by gaining to Christ any of my own nation; and this will be for the glory of my ministry, and so for your good.” ³⁵²³⁵²     The meaning attached here to the words τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω, is somewhat different from what is commonly understood. Its classical sense, “highly to estimate,” is what is generally given here to the verb: but Calvin takes it in a sense in which it is mostly taken in Scripture, as meaning, “to render illustrious,” or eminent, “to render glorious.” The construction of the two Romans 11:13 and 14, is somewhat difficult, and the meaning is not very clear. To include the words, “as I am indeed the Apostle of the Gentiles,” in a parenthesis, as it is done by some, would render the sense more evident, and to add “this” after “say,” and “that” before “I render.” The version then would be as follows, —
   13. For I say this to you Gentiles (as I am indeed the Apostle of the Gentiles,) that I render my ministry glorious,
   14. If I shall by any means excite to emulation my own flesh and save some of them.
   The sentiment in the last clause is the same as that at the end of Romans 11:11. The Vulgate, and some of the Latin Fathers, and also Luther, read δοξάσω in the future tense; which would make the passage read better, — “that I shall render,” etc. These two verses are not necessarily connected with the Apostle’s argument; for in the following verse he resumes the subject of Romans 11:12, or rather, as his usual manner is, he states the same thing in other words and in more explicit and stronger terms. So that the γὰρ in the next verse may very properly be rendered “yea,” or as an illative, “then.” — Ed. For whatever served to render Paul’s ministry illustrious, was advantageous to the Gentiles, whose salvation was its object.

And here also he uses the verb παραζηλῶσαι, to provoke to emulation, and for this purpose, that the Gentiles might seek the accomplishment of Moses’ prophecy, such as he describes, when they understood that it would be for their benefit.

14. And save, etc. Observe here that the minister of the word is said in some way to save those whom he leads to the obedience of faith. So conducted indeed ought to be the ministry of our salvation, as that we may feel that the whole power and efficacy of it depends on God, and that we may give him his due praise: we ought at the same time to understand that preaching is an instrument for effecting the salvation of the faithful, and though it can do nothing without the Spirit of God, yet through his inward operation it produces the most powerful effects.

15. For if their rejections, etc. This passage, which many deem obscure, and some awfully pervert, ought, in my view, to be understood as another argument, derived from a comparison of the less with the greater, according to this import, “Since the rejection of the Jews has availed so much as to occasion the reconciling of the Gentiles, how much more effectual will be their resumption? Will it not be to raise them even from the dead?” For Paul ever insists on this, that the Gentiles have no cause for envy, as though the restoration of the Jews to favor were to render their condition worse. Since then God has wonderfully drawn forth life from death and light from darkness, how much more ought we to hope, he reasons, that the resurrection of a people, as it were, wholly dead, will bring life to the Gentiles. ³⁵³³⁵³     Some view the last words, “life from the dead,” as understood of the Jews and not of the Gentiles. But the antithesis seems to require the latter meaning. The rejection or casting away, ἀποβολὴ of the Jews was the occasion of reconciliation to the world, that is, the Gentiles; then the reception, πρόσληψις, of the Jews will be “life from the dead” to the Gentiles or to the world. He expresses by stronger terms the sentiment in Romans 11:12, “the riches of the world,” only intimating, as it appears, the decayed state of religion among the Gentiles; for to be dead sometimes means a religious declension, Revelation 3:1,2; or a state of oppression and wretchedness, as the case was with the Israelites when in captivity, Ezekiel 37:1-14; Isaiah 26:19. The phrase is evidently figurative, and signifies a wonderful revival, such as the coming to life of those in a condition resembling that of death. The restoration of the Jews unto God’s favor will occasion the revival and spread of true religion through the whole Gentile world. This is clearly the meaning.
   Some of the fathers, such as Chrysostom and Theodoret, regarded the words as referring to the last resurrection: but this is wholly at variance with the context. — Ed. It is no objection what some allege, that reconciliation differs not from resurrection, as we do indeed understand resurrection in the present instance, that is, to be that by which we are translated from the kingdom of death to the kingdom of life, for though the thing is the same, yet there is more force in the expression, and this a sufficient answer.

16. For if the first-fruits, etc. By comparing the worthiness of the Jews and of the Gentiles, he now takes away pride from the one and pacifies the other, as far as he could; for he shows that the Gentiles, if they pretended any prerogative of honor of their own, did in no respect excel the Jews, nay, that if they came to a contest, they should be left far behind. Let us remember that in this comparison man is not compared with man, but nation with nation. If then a comparison be made between them, they shall be found equal in this respect, that they are both equally the children of Adam; the only difference is that the Jews had been separated from the Gentiles, that they might be a peculiar people to the Lord. ³⁵⁴³⁵⁴     There were two kinds of first-fruits: the sheaf, being the first ripe fruit, Leviticus 23:10; and the dough, the first kneaded cake, Numbers 15:20. It is to the last that the reference is here made.
   The first-fruits are considered by some, such as Mede and Chalmers, to have been the first Jewish converts to Christianity — the apostles and disciples; but this is not consistent with the usual manner of the Apostle, which is to express the same thing in two ways, or by two metaphors. Besides, the whole context refers to the first adoption of the Jewish nation, or to the covenant made with Abraham and confirmed to the patriarchs. — Ed.

They were then sanctified by the holy covenant, and adorned with peculiar honor, with which God had not at that time favored the Gentiles; but as the efficacy of the covenant appeared then but small, he bids us to look back to Abraham and the patriarchs, in whom the blessing of God was not indeed either empty or void. He hence concludes, that from them an heredity holiness had passed to all their posterity. But this conclusion would not have been right had he spoken of persons, or rather had he not regarded the promise; for when the father is just, he cannot yet transmit his own uprightness to his son: but as the Lord had sanctified Abraham for himself for this end, that his seed might also be holy, and as he thus conferred holiness not only on his person but also on his whole race, the Apostle does not unsuitably draw this conclusion, that all the Jews were sanctified in their father Abraham. ³⁵⁵³⁵⁵     That the holiness here mentioned is external and relative, and not personal and inward, is evident from the whole context. The children of Israel were denominated holy in all their wickedness and disobedience, because they had been consecrated to God, adopted as his people, and set apart for his service, and they enjoyed all the external privileges of the covenant which God had made with their fathers.
   Pareus makes a distinction between what passes from progenitors to their offspring and what does not pass. In the present case the rights and privileges of the covenant were transmitted, but not faith and inward holiness. “Often,” he says, “the worst descend from the best, and the best from the worst; from wicked Ahaz sprang good Hezekiah, from Hezekiah descended impious Manasse, from Manasse again came good Josiah, and from Josiah sprang wicked sons, Shallum and Jehoiakim.” But all were alike holy in the sense intended here by the Apostle, as they were circumcised, and inherited the transmissible rights and privileges of the covenant.
   “The holiness,” says Turrettin, “of the first-fruits and of the root was no other than an external, federal, and national consecration, such as could be transferred from parents to their children.”
   “The attentive reader,” says Scott, “will readily perceive that relative holiness, or consecration to God, is here exclusively meant. [...] Abraham was as it were the root of the visible Church. Ishmael was broken off, and the tree grew up in Isaac; and when Esau was broken off, it grew up in Jacob and his sons. [...] When the nation rejected the Messiah, their relation to Abraham and to God was as it were suspended. They no longer retained even the outward seal of the covenant; for circumcision lost its validity and baptism became the sign of regeneration: they were thenceforth deprived of the ordinances of God.” — Ed.

Then to confirm this view, he adduces two similitudes: the one taken from the ceremonies of the law, and the other borrowed from nature. The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what proceeded from the covenant. It may be truly said, I allow, that the Jews were naturally holy, for their adoption was hereditary; but I now speak of our first nature, according to which we are all, as we know, accursed in Adam. Therefore the dignity of an elect people, to speak correctly, is a supernatural privilege.