any perfidiousness of men, was wholly unreasonable; for Paul holds this as a fixed principle, that
since adoption is gratuitous and based on God alone and not on men, it stands firm and inviolable,
howsoever great the unfaithfulness of men may be, which may tend to abolish it. It was necessary
that this knot should be untied, lest the truth and election of God should be thought to be dependent
on the worthiness of men.
For I am also an Israelite, etc. Before he proceeds to the 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 in his origin an Israelite, not a proselyte, or one lately introduced into the
commonwealth of Israel. As then he was justly deemed to be one of God’s special servants, it was
an evidence that God’s favor rested on Israel. He then assumes the conclusion as proved, which
yet he will hereafter explain in a satisfactory manner.
That in addition to the title of an Israelite, he called himself the seed of Abraham, and mentioned
also his own tribe; this he did that he might be counted 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, inasmuch as Paul sprung from that tribe which had been almost destroyed, seems
forced and far-fetched.
2.God has not cast away, etc. This is a negative answer, accompanied with a qualifying clause;
for had the Apostle unreservedly denied that the people were rejected, he would have been
inconsistent with himself; but by adding a modification, he shows it to be such a rejection, as that
God’s promise is not thereby made void. So the answer may be divided into two parts, — that God
has by no means cast away the whole race of Abraham, contrary to the tenor of his own covenant,
— and that yet the fruit of adoption does not exist in all the children of the flesh, for secret election
precedes. Thus general rejection could not have caused that no seed should be saved; for the visible
body of the people was in such a manner rejected, that no member of the spiritual body of Christ
was cut off.
If any one asks, “Was not circumcision a common symbol of God’s favor to all the Jews, so
that they ought to have been all counted his people?” To this the obvious answer is, — That as
outward calling is of itself ineffectual without faith, the honor which the unbelieving refuse when
offered, is justly taken from them. Thus a special people remain, in whom God exhibits an evidence
of his faithfulness; and Paul derives the origin of constancy from secret election. For it is not said
here that God regards faith, but that he stands to his own purpose, so as not to reject the people
whom he has foreknown.
And here again must be noticed what I have before reminded you of, — that by the verb
foreknow, is not to be understood a foresight, I know not what, by which God foresees what sort
of being any one will be, but that good pleasure, according to which he has chosen those as sons
to himself, who, being not yet born, could not have procured for themselves his favor.^339 So he
(^339) That foreknowledge here includes election or predestination, as Augustine maintains, is evident from what follows in verse
5, where “the remnant” is said to be reserved “according to the election of grace,” or gratuitous election. If it be gratuitous, then
it cannot be according to any foreseen works: and works are expressly excluded in Romans 11:6. Were it otherwise, were foreseen
works the ground of election, there would be no suitableness nor congruity in such terms as foreknowledge and election on the
subject. It would have been much more appropriate in this case for the Apostle to say, “God will receive every Jew who will
render himself worthy by his works.” On this supposition there was no necessity for him to go back to election to remove the
objection which he had stated; he had only to refer to the terms of the gospel, which regard Jews and Gentiles without any
difference. But instead of doing this, which seems adequate to the purpose, he gives an answer by referring to the foreknowledge