_ISRAEL HOWEVER NOT FORSAKEN_
ROMANS xi. 1-10
"_A people disobeying and contradicting._" So the Lord of Israel,
through the prophet, had described the nation. Let us remember as we
pass on what a large feature in the prophecies, and indeed in the
whole Old Testament, such accusations and exposures are. From Moses to
Malachi, in histories, and songs, and instructions, we find everywhere
this tone of stern truth-telling, this unsparing detection and
description of Israelite sin. And we reflect that every one of these
utterances, humanly speaking, was the voice of an Israelite; and that
whatever reception it met with at the moment--it was sometimes a
scornful or angry reception, oftener a reverent one--it was ultimately
treasured, venerated, almost worshipped, by the Church of this same
rebuked and humiliated Israel. We ask ourselves what this has to say
about the true origin of these utterances, and the true nature of the
environment into which they fell. Do they not bear witness to the
supernatural in both? It was not "human nature" which, in a race quite
as prone, at least, as any other, to assert itself, produced these
intense and persistent rebukes from within, and secured for them a
profound and lasting veneration. The Hebrew Scriptures, in this as in
other things, are a literature which mere man, mere Israelite man,
"could not have written if he would, and would not have written if he
could."[183] Somehow, the Prophets not only spoke with an authority
more than human, but they were known to speak with it. There was a
national consciousness of divine privilege; and it was inextricably
bound up with a national conviction that the Lord of the privileges
had an eternal right to reprove His privileged ones, and that He had,
as a fact, His accredited messengers of reproof, whose voice was not
theirs but His; not the mere outcry of patriotic zealots but the
Oracle of God. Yea, an awful privilege was involved in the reception
of such reproofs: "You only have I known; _therefore_ will I punish
you" (Amos iii. 2).
But this is a recollection by the way. St Paul, so we saw in our last
study, has quoted Isaiah's stern message, only now to stay his
troubled heart on the fact that the unbelief of Israel in his day was,
if we may dare to put it so, no surprise to the Lord, and therefore no
shock to the servant's faith. But is he to stop there, and sit down,
and say, "This must be so"? No; there is more to follow, in this
discourse on Israel and God. He has "good words, and comfortable
words" (Zech. i. 13), after the woes of the last two chapters, and
after those earlier passages of the Epistle where the Jew is seen only
in his hypocrisy, and rebellion, and pride. He has to speak of a
faithful Remnant, now as always present, who make as it were the
golden unbroken link between the nation and the promises. And then he
has to lift the curtain, at least a corner of the curtain, from the
future, and to indicate how there lies waiting there a mighty blessing
for Israel, and through Israel for the world. Even now the mysterious
"People" was serving a spiritual purpose in their very unbelief; they
were occasioning a vast transition of blessing to the Gentiles, by
their own refusal of blessing. And hereafter they were to serve a
purpose of still more illustrious mercy. They were yet, in their
multitudes, to return to their rejected Christ. And their return was
to be used as the means of a crisis of blessing for the world.
We seem to see the look and hear the voice of the Apostle, once the
mighty Rabbi, the persecuting patriot, as he begins now to dictate
again. His eyes brighten, and his brow clears, and a happier emphasis
comes into his utterance, as he sets himself to speak of his people's
good, and to remind his Gentile brethren how, in God's plan of
redemption, all their blessing, all they know of salvation, all they
possess of life eternal, has come to them through Israel. Israel is
the Stem, drawing truth and life from the unfathomable soil of the
covenant of promise. They are the grafted Branches, rich in every
blessing--because they are the mystical seed _of Abraham_, in Christ.
[Sidenote: Ver. 1.] =I say therefore, Did God ever thrust[184] away
His people? Away with the thought! For I am an Israelite, of Abraham's
seed, Benjamin's tribe;= full member of the theocratic race
(Ἰσραηλίτης), and of its first royal and always loyal tribe; in my
own person, therefore, I am an instance of Israel still in covenant.
[Sidenote: Ver. 2.] =God never[184] thrust away His people, whom He
foreknew= with the foreknowledge of eternal choice and purpose.[185]
That foreknowledge was "not according to their works," or according to
their power; and so it holds its sovereign way across and above their
long unworthiness. =Or do you not know, in Elijah,= in his story, in
the pages marked with his name, =what the Scripture says? How he
intercedes before God,= on God's own behalf, =against Israel, saying=
(1 Kings xix. 10), [Sidenote: Ver. 3.] ="Lord, Thy prophets they
killed, and Thy altars they dug up; and I was left solitary, and they
seek my life"?= [Sidenote: Ver. 4.] =But what says the oracular answer
(ὁ χρηματισμὸς) to him? "I have left for Myself seven thousand
men, men who (οἵτινες) bowed never knee to Baal"= (1 Kings
xix. 18). [Sidenote: Ver. 5.] =So therefore at the present season also
there proves to be (γέγονεν) a remnant,= "_a leaving_" (λεῖμμα),
left by the Lord for Himself, =on the principle of (κατὰ) election
of grace;= their persons and their number following a choice and gift
whose reasons lie in God alone. And then follows one of those
characteristic "foot-notes" of which we saw an instance above (x. 17):
[Sidenote: Ver. 6.] =But if by grace, no longer of works;= "_no
longer_," in the sense of a logical succession and exclusion; =since
the grace proves (γίνεται),= on the other principle, =no longer
grace. But if of works, it is no longer grace; since the work is no
longer work.[186]= That is to say, when once the grace-principle is
admitted, as it is here assumed to be, "_the work_" of the man who is
its subject is "_no longer work_" in the sense which makes an
antithesis to grace; it is no longer so much toil done in order to so
much pay to be given. In other words, the two supposed principles of
the divine Choice are in their nature mutually exclusive. Admit the
one as the condition of the "election," and the other ceases; you
cannot combine them into an amalgam. If the election is of grace, _no_
meritorious antecedent to it is possible in the subject of it. If it
is according to meritorious antecedent, _no_ sovereign freedom is
possible in the divine action, such freedom as to bring the saved man,
the saved remnant, to an adoring confession of unspeakable and
mysterious mercy.
This is the point, here in this passing "foot-note," as in the longer
kindred statements above (ch. ix.), of the emphasized allusion to
"_choice_" and "_grace_." He writes thus that he may bring the
believer, Gentile or Jew, to his knees, in humiliation, wonder,
gratitude, and trust. "Why did I, the self-ruined wanderer, the
self-hardened rebel, come to the Shepherd who sought me, surrender my
sword to the King who reclaimed me? Did I reason myself into harmony
with Him? Did I lift myself, hopelessly maimed, into His arms? No; it
was the gift of God, _first_, last, and in the midst. And if so, it
was the choice of God." That point of light is surrounded by a
cloud-world of mystery, though within those surrounding clouds there
lurks, as to God, only rightness and love. But the point of light is
there, immovable, for all the clouds; where fallen man chooses God, it
is thanks to God who has chosen fallen man. Where a race is not
"_thrust away_," it is because "_God foreknew_." Where some thousands
of members of that race, while others fall away, are found faithful to
God, it is because He has "_left them for Himself on the principle of
choice of grace_." Where, amidst a widespread rejection of God's Son
Incarnate, a Saul of Tarsus, an Aquila, a Barnabas, behold in Him
their Redeemer, their King, their Life, their All, it is on that same
principle. Let the man thus beholding and believing give _the whole_
thanks for his salvation in the quarter where it is all due. Let him
not confuse one truth by another. Let not this truth disturb for a
moment his certainty of personal moral freedom, and of its
responsibility. Let it not for a moment turn him into a fatalist. But
let him abase himself, and give thanks, and humbly trust Him who has
thus laid hold of him for blessing. As he does so, in simplicity, not
speculating but worshipping, he will need no subtle logic to assure
him that he is to pray, and to work, without reserve, for the
salvation of all men. It will be more than enough for him that His
SOVEREIGN bids him do it, and tells him that it is according to His
heart.
To return a little on our steps, in the matter of the Apostle's
doctrine of the divine Choice: the reference in this paragraph to the
seven thousand faithful in Elijah's day suggests a special reflection.
To us, it seems to say distinctly that the "election" intended all
along by St Paul cannot possibly be explained adequately by making it
either an election (to whatever benefits) of mere masses of men, as
for instance of a nation, considered apart from its individuals; or an
election merely to privilege, to opportunity, which may or may not be
used by the receiver. As regards national election, it is undoubtedly
present and even prominent in the passage, and in this whole section
of the Epistle. For ourselves, we incline to see it quite simply in
ver. 2 above; "_His people, whom He foreknew_." We read there, what we
find so often in the Old Testament, a sovereign choice of a nation to
stand in special relation to God; of a nation taken, so to speak, in
the abstract, viewed not as the mere total of so many individuals, but
as a quasi-personality. But we maintain that the idea of election
takes another line when we come to the "_seven thousand_." Here we are
thrown at once on the thought of individual experiences, and the
ultimate secret of them, found only in the divine Will affecting the
individual. The "seven thousand" had no aggregate life, so to speak.
They formed, _as_ the seven thousand, no organism or quasi-personality.
They were "_left_" not as a mass, but as units; so isolated, so little
grouped together, that even Elijah did not know of their existence.
They were just so many individual men, each one of whom found power,
by faith, to stand personally firm against the Baalism of that dark
time, with the same individual faith which in later days, against
other terrors, and other solicitations, upheld a Polycarp, an
Athanasius, a Huss, a Luther, a Tyndale, a De Seso, a St Cyran. And
the Apostle quotes them as an instance and illustration of the Lord's
way and will with the believing of all time. In their case, then, he
both passes as it were through national election to individual
election, as a permanent spiritual mystery; and he shews that he means
by this an election not only to opportunity but to holiness. The
Lord's "_leaving them for Himself_" lay behind their not bowing their
knees to Baal. Each resolute confessor was individually enabled, by a
sovereign and special grace. He was a true human personality, freely
acting, freely choosing not to yield in that terrible storm. But
behind his freedom was the higher freedom of the Will of God, saving
him from himself that he might be free to confess and suffer. To our
mind, no part of the Epistle more clearly than this passage affirms
this individual aspect of the great mystery. Ah, it is a mystery
indeed; we have owned this at every step. And it is never for a moment
to be treated therefore as if we knew all about it. And it is never
therefore to be used to confuse the believer's thought about other
sides of truth. But it is there, as a truth among truths; to be
received with abasement by the creature before the Creator, and with
humble hope by the simple believer.
He goes on with his argument, taking up the thread broken by the
"foot-note" upon grace and works: [Sidenote: Ver. 7.] =What therefore?
What Israel,= the nation, the character, =seeks after,= righteousness
in the court of God, =this it lighted not upon (οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν),[187]=
as one who seeks a buried treasure in the wrong field "lights not
upon" it; =but the election,= the chosen ones, the "seven thousand" of
the Gospel era, =did light upon it. But the rest were hardened,= (not
as if God had created their hardness, or injected it; but He gave it
to be its own penalty;) [Sidenote: Ver. 8.] =as it stands written=
(Isai. xxix. 10, and Deut. xxix. 4[188]), ="God gave them a spirit of
slumber, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, even to this day."= A
persistent ("_unto this day_") unbelief was the sin of Israel in the
Prophets' times, and it was the same in those of the Apostles. And the
condition was the same; God "gave" sin to be its own way of
retribution. [Sidenote: Ver. 9.] =And David says= (Psal. lxix. 22), in
a Psalm full of Messiah, and of the awful retribution justly ordained
to come on His impenitent enemies, ="Let their table turn into a trap,
and into toils (θήρα), and into a stumbling-block, and into a
requital to them;= [Sidenote: Ver. 10.] =darkened be their eyes, not
to see, and their back ever bow Thou together."=
The words are awful, in their connexion here, and in themselves, and
as a specimen of a class. Their purpose here is to enforce the thought
that there is such a thing as positive divine action in the self-ruin
of the impenitent; a _fiat_ from the throne which "gives" a coma to
the soul, and beclouds its eyes, and turns its blessings into a curse.
Not one word implies the thought that He who so acts meets a soul
tending upwards and turns it downward; that He ignores or rejects even
the faintest enquiry after Himself; that He is Author of one particle
of the sin of man. But we do learn that the adversaries of God and
Christ may be, and, where the Eternal so sees it good, are,
_sentenced_ to go their own way, even to its issues in destruction.
The context of every citation here, as it stands in the Old Testament,
shews abundantly that those so sentenced are no helpless victims of an
adverse fate, but sinners of their own will, in a sense most definite
and personal. Only, a sentence of judgment is concerned also in the
case; "_Fill ye up then the measure_" (Matt. xxiii. 32).
But then also in themselves, and as a specimen of a class, the words
are a dark shadow in the Scripture sky. It is only by the way that we
can note this here, but it must not be quite omitted in our study.
This sixty-ninth Psalm is a leading instance of the several Psalms
where the Prophet appears calling for the sternest retribution on his
enemies. What thoughtful heart has not felt the painful mystery so
presented? Read in the hush of secret devotion, or sung perhaps to
some majestic chant beneath the minster-roof, they still tend to
affront the soul with the question, Can this possibly be after the
mind of Christ? And there rises before us the form of One who is in
the act of Crucifixion, and who just then articulates the prayer,
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Can these
"imprecations" have HIS sanction? Can HE pass them, endorse them, as
His Word?
The question is full of pressing pain. And no answer can be given,
surely, which shall relieve all that pain; certainly nothing which
shall turn the clouds of such passages into rays of the sun. They
_are_ clouds; but let us be sure that they belong to the cloud-land
which gathers _round the Throne_, and which only conceals, not wrecks,
its luminous and immovable righteousness and love. Let us remark, for
one point, that this same dark Psalm is, by the witness of the
Apostles, as taught by their Master, a Psalm full of Messiah. It was
undoubtedly claimed as His own mystic utterance by THE LAMB of the
Passion. HE speaks in these dread words who also says, in the same
utterance (ver. 9), "The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up." So the
Lord Jesus did endorse this Psalm. He more than endorsed it; He
adopted it as His own. Let this remind us further that the utterer of
these denunciations, even the first and non-mystical utterer,--David,
let us say,--appears in the Psalm not merely as a private person
crying out about his violated personal rights, but as an ally and
vassal of God, one whose life and cause is identified with His. Just
in proportion as this is so, the violation of his life and peace, by
enemies described as quite consciously and deliberately malicious, is
a violation of the whole sanctuary of divine righteousness. If so, is
it incredible that even the darkest words of such a Psalm are to be
read as a true echo from the depths of man to the Voice which
announces "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, to every
soul of man that doeth evil"? Perhaps even the most watchful assertor
of the divine character of Scripture is not bound to assert that no
human frailty in the least moved the spirit of a David when he, in the
sphere of his own personality, thought and said these things. But we
have no right to assert, as a known or necessary thing, that it was
so. And we have right to say that in themselves these utterances are
but a sternly true response to the avenging indignation of the Holy
One.
In any case, do not let us talk with a loose facility about their
incompatibility with "the spirit of the New Testament." From one side,
the New Testament is an even sterner Book than the Old; as it must be
of course, when it brings sin and holiness "out into the light" of the
Cross of Christ. It is in the New Testament that, "the souls" of
saints at rest are heard saying (Rev. vi. 10), "How long, O Lord, holy
and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell
on the earth?" It is in the New Testament that an Apostle writes
(2 Thess. i. 6), "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense
tribulation to them which trouble you." It is the Lord of the New
Testament, the Offerer of the Prayer of the Cross, who said (Matt.
xxiii. 32-35) "Fill ye up the measure of your fathers. I send unto you
prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill
and crucify; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon
the earth."
His eyes must have rested, often and again, upon the denunciations of
the Psalms. He saw in them that which struck no real discord, in the
ultimate spiritual depth, with His own blessed compassions. Let us not
resent what He has countersigned. It is His, not ours, to know all the
conditions of those mysterious outbursts from the Psalmists'
consciousness. It is ours to recognize in them the intensest
expression of what rebellious evil merits, and will find, as its
reward.
But we have digressed from what is the proper matter before us. Here,
in the Epistle, the sixty-ninth Psalm is cited only to affirm with the
authority of Scripture the mystery of God's action in sentencing the
impenitent adversaries of His Christ to more blindness and more ruin.
Through this dark and narrow door the Apostle is about to lead us now
into "a large room" of hope and blessing, and to unveil to us a
wonderful future for the now disgraced and seemingly rejected Israel.
[183] I borrow the phrase from the late Prof. H. Rogers' _Supernatural
Origin of the Bible inferred from Itself_, a book of masterly thinking
and reasoning.
[184] We attempt to express the aorist thus, with hesitation.
[185] See above, p. 237.
[186] This last sentence, "_But if of works, etc._," is only
doubtfully supported by documents. But it bears, to our mind, strong
internal marks of genuineness. It is at once too difficult, and too
_deeply_ related to the context, to look like the insertion of a
scribe.
[187] The aorists _sum up_ the manifold history.
[188] Such a combination of citations is a significant witness to the
Apostle's view of the O. T. as, from its divine side, _one Book_
everywhere.