John Calvin Commentary Romans 11

I say then, etc. What he has until now said about the blindness and obstinacy of the Jews might seem to imply that Christ, at His coming, had transferred God's promises elsewhere and deprived the Jews of all hope of salvation. He anticipates this objection in this passage, and he so modifies what he had previously said concerning the rejection of the Jews, that no one might think that the covenant formerly made with Abraham is now abolished, or that God had so forgotten it that the Jews were now so entirely alienated from His kingdom as the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ.

He denies all this, and he will soon show that it is completely false. But the question is not whether God had justly or unjustly rejected the people; for it was proved in the previous chapter that when the people, through false zeal, had rejected God's righteousness, they suffered a just punishment for their presumption, were deservedly blinded, and were finally cut off from the covenant.

Therefore, the reason for their rejection is not now under consideration. Instead, the dispute concerns another matter: even though they deserved such punishment from God, was the covenant God formerly made with the fathers abolished? It was completely unreasonable that it should fail through any faithlessness of men. For Paul holds this as a fixed principle: since adoption is freely given and based on God alone and not on men, it stands firm and inviolable, however great the unfaithfulness of men might be that could tend to abolish it. It was necessary to untie this knot, so that God's truth and election would not be thought to depend on human worthiness.

For I am also an Israelite, etc. Before he proceeds to the main subject, he proves, in passing, by his own example, how unreasonable it was to think that the nation was utterly forsaken by God. For he himself was by origin an Israelite, not a proselyte, or one recently introduced into the commonwealth of Israel. Since he was then justly considered one of God’s special servants, it was evidence that God’s favor rested on Israel. He then assumes the conclusion as proved, though he will later explain it satisfactorily.

That he called himself the seed of Abraham and also mentioned his own tribe, in addition to the title of an Israelite—he did this so that he might be considered a genuine Israelite; and he did the same in his Epistle to the Philippians (Philippians 3:4). But what some think, that it was done to commend God’s mercy because Paul came from that tribe which had been almost destroyed, seems forced and far-fetched.

God has not cast away, etc. This is a negative answer, accompanied by a qualifying clause. For if the Apostle had 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 that God’s promise is not thereby made void. So the answer may be divided into two parts: first, that God has by no means cast away the whole race of Abraham, contrary to the tenor of his own covenant; and second, that yet the fruit of adoption does not exist in all the children of the flesh, because secret election precedes. Thus, general rejection could not have meant that no seed would be saved, for the visible body of the people was rejected in such a manner that no member of the spiritual body of Christ was cut off.

If anyone asks, “Was not circumcision a common symbol of God’s favor to all the Jews, so that they ought to have all been 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 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, we must note what I have reminded you of before: that by the verb foreknow is not to be understood a foresight—I know not what—by which God foresees what sort of being anyone will be, but that good pleasure according to which he has chosen those as sons to himself, who, not yet being born, could not have procured his favor for themselves.

So he says to the Galatians that they had been known by God (Galatians 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 you not, etc. As there were so few Jews who had believed in Christ, hardly any other conclusion could have been drawn from this small number than that the whole race of Abraham had been rejected. This thought might also creep in: 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 together under the protection of God, it was by no means probable that the people would be so miserably and wretchedly dispersed, unless that bond had ceased. To remove this offense, Paul adopts a most suitable example. He relates that in the time of Elias there was such a desolation that there remained no appearance of a Church; and yet, when no vestige of God’s favor appeared, the Church of God was, as it were, hidden in the grave and was thus wonderfully preserved.

It follows from this that those who form an opinion of the Church according to their own perceptions egregiously mistake. And surely, if that celebrated Prophet, who was endowed with so enlightened a mind, was so deceived when he attempted by his own judgment to form an estimate of God’s people, what will be the case with us, whose highest clarity of insight, when compared with his, is mere dullness? Let us not then determine anything 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 us also remember that those who calculate the number of the elect according to the extent of their own perception are foolish and presumptuous, for God has a way—easy for himself, though hidden from us—by which he wonderfully preserves his elect, even when all things seem to us beyond 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 today which the holy Fathers had not formerly experienced. For novelty, we know, is a grievous instrument to torment weak minds.

As to the words, In Elias, I have retained Paul’s expression, for it may mean either “in the history of Elias” 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 Greek by ἐν, in, is often taken in Hebrew for of.

How he appeals to God, etc. It was certainly a proof of how much Elias honored the Lord that, for the glory of his name, he did not hesitate 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 punished. However, in this passage which Paul quotes, there is no imprecation, only a complaint. But as he complains in such a way as to despair of the whole people, there is no doubt 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 number for an indefinite one, 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.

But so 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 only those 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 only those 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 purity of mind, but also points out that they had kept their body from being polluted by any filthiness of superstition.

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 among 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.

In order more fully to confirm this, he expressly calls them a remnant that survived through the grace of God. 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. 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.

If through grace, it is no more by works, etc. This amplification is derived from a comparison between things of an opposite character, for such is the case between God’s grace and the merit of works, that whoever establishes the one overturns the other.

But if no regard for works can be admitted in election without obscuring the gratuitous goodness of God, which He designed by this means to be so highly commended to us, what answer can be given to Paul by those infatuated persons, (phrenetici — insane,) who make the cause of election to be that worthiness in us which God has foreseen? For whether you introduce future or past works, this declaration of Paul opposes you, because he says that grace leaves nothing to works.

Paul does not speak here of our reconciliation with God, nor of the means or the proximate causes of our salvation; but he ascends higher, even to this—why God, before the foundation of the world, chose only some and passed by others. And he declares that God was led to make this difference by nothing other than His own good pleasure; for if any place is given to works, he maintains, that much is taken away from grace.

It therefore follows that it is absurd to blend foreknowledge of works with election. For if God chooses some and rejects others, as He has foreseen them to be worthy or unworthy of salvation, then, with the reward of works being established, God's grace cannot reign alone but must be only partly the cause of our election. For as Paul has reasoned before concerning the justification of Abraham, that where reward is paid, there grace is not freely bestowed; so now he draws his argument from the same fountain—that if works are taken into account when God adopts a certain number of people to salvation, reward is a matter of debt and therefore not a free gift.

Now, although Paul speaks here of election, this is a general line of reasoning that he adopts. Therefore, it should be applied to the whole of our salvation.

This helps us understand that whenever it is declared that there are no merits of works, our salvation is ascribed to the grace of God. Or rather, we may believe that the righteousness of works is annihilated whenever grace is mentioned.

What then? What Israel seeks, etc. As he is here engaged on a difficult subject, he asks a question, as if he was in doubt. He intended, however, by expressing this doubt, to make the answer, which immediately follows, more evident, for he intimates that no other can be given. And the answer is—that Israel labored in vain to seek salvation, because his attempt was absurd.

Though he mentions no cause here, yet since he had expressed it before, he certainly meant it to be understood in this place. For his words are the same, as if he had said—that it should not seem strange that Israel gained nothing in striving after righteousness.

And from this is proved what he subsequently adds concerning election—for if Israel has obtained nothing by merit, what have others obtained whose case or condition was not better? From where has so much difference come between equals? Who does not see here that it is election alone which makes the difference?

Now, the meaning of the word election here is doubtful, for to some it seems that it should be taken in a collective sense for the elect themselves, so that there may be a correspondence between the two clauses. I do not disapprove of this opinion, provided it is allowed that there is something more in the word than if he had said, "the elect"—namely this: that he intimates there was no other reason for their obtaining election, as if he said, “They are not those who strive by relying on merits, but those whose salvation depends on the gratuitous election of God.”

For he distinctly compares the whole of Israel, or the body of the people, with the remnant which was to be saved by God’s grace. It therefore follows that the cause of salvation does not exist in men but depends on the good pleasure of God alone.

And the rest have been blinded. As the elect alone are delivered by God’s grace from destruction, so all who are not elected must necessarily remain blinded. For what Paul means with regard to the reprobate is—that the beginning of their ruin and condemnation comes from this: that they are forsaken by God.

The quotations he cites, collected from various parts of Scripture and not taken from one passage, all seem foreign to his purpose when you closely examine them according to their contexts. For you will find that in every passage, blindness and hardening are mentioned as scourges by which God punished crimes already committed by the ungodly. But Paul labors to prove here that not those were blinded who deserved it because of their wickedness, but rather those who were rejected by God before the foundation of the world.

You may briefly untie this knot as follows: the origin of the impiety that provokes God’s displeasure is the perversity of nature when forsaken by God. Paul, therefore, while speaking of eternal reprobation, has with good reason referred to those things which proceed from it, like fruit from the tree or a river from the fountain.

The ungodly are indeed visited with blindness by God’s judgment for their sins. But if we seek the source of their ruin, we must come to this conclusion: that being cursed by God, they cannot by all their deeds, sayings, and purposes obtain anything but a curse.

Yet the cause of eternal reprobation is so hidden from us that nothing remains for us but to wonder at the incomprehensible purpose of God, as we shall eventually see in the conclusion.

But those reason absurdly who, whenever proximate causes are mentioned, strive by bringing these forward to obscure the first cause, which is hidden from our view. It is as if God had not, before the fall of Adam, freely determined to do what seemed good to Him concerning the whole human race for this reason: because He condemns his corrupt and depraved seed, and also because He repays to individuals the reward which their sins have deserved.

Given them has God, etc. There is no doubt, I think, that the passage quoted here from Isaiah is the one Luke refers to in Acts, as quoted from Isaiah, though the words are somewhat altered. He does not record here what we find in the Prophet, but only gathers this sentiment from him—that they were imbued from above with a spirit of maliciousness, so that they remained dull in seeing and hearing.

The Prophet was indeed commanded to harden the heart of the people. But Paul penetrates to the very source—that a brutal stupor seizes all the senses of people after they are given over to this madness, so that they stir themselves up with virulent stimulants against the truth.

For he does not call it the spirit of giddiness, but of compunction, when the bitterness of gall shows itself; indeed, when there is also a fury in rejecting the truth. And he declares that by the secret judgment of God the reprobate are so demented that, being stupefied, they are incapable of forming a judgment. For when it is said, that by seeing they see nothing, the dullness of their senses is thereby indicated.

Then Paul himself adds, to this very day, lest anyone should object and say that this prophecy had been previously fulfilled, and that it was therefore absurd to apply it to the time of the gospel. He anticipates this objection by adding that it was not only a blindness of one day which is described, but that it had continued, together with the unhealable obstinacy of the people, until the coming of Christ.