Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 11

Romans 11:1. After τ. λαὸν αὐτοῦ, A D* א** and some Fathers have ὃν προέγνω. So Lachm. in brackets. An addition from Romans 11:2.

Romans 11:2. After Ἰσραήλ Elz. has λέγων, against decisive evidence.

Romans 11:3. τὰ θυσιαστ.] Elz.: καὶ τὰ θυς., against so important witnesses, that καί would appear a connective addition. Comp. the LXX.

Romans 11:6. The addition in Elz., εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις· ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον, is wanting in A C D E F G P א*, 47, Copt. Sah. Arm. Vulg. It. Dam. Rufin., and all the Latin Fathers. An old interpolation (found already in B L א**, Syr. Arr. Chrys.), with a view to the completion of the proof; rejected by Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm.; adopted, indeed, by Tisch. 7, but again omitted in ed. 8; after Beza, Bengel, Matthiae, Rinck, defended most thoroughly by Fritzsche and Reiche (in opp. to his Commentary) in the Comment. Crit. I. p. 68 ff. But considering the preponderance of the opposing testimony, the completely superfluous character of the proposition in the argument, and the anomalous form in which the words appear in the principal Codex which contains them (B: εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι χάρις· ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ʼστιν χάρις), and also the other variations in detail (see Tisch. 8), the defences of them are not convincing. See also van Hengel. The argument for retaining them, on the ground that an interpolator would have framed them more closely in conformity with the first half of the verse, is weakened by the fact that very ancient authorities have ἐστίν instead of γίνεται also in the first half of the verse.

Romans 11:7. τοῦτο] Elz.: τούτου, against decisive evidence. An emendation in accordance with the usual construction.

Romans 11:13. γάρ] Lachm., Tisch. 8 : δέ, according to A B P א, min. Syr. Copt. Damasc. Theodoret. MS.; C has οὖν; Aeth. utr. no particle. With such divided testimony, δέ is the best supported, and to be preferred; it came to be glossed by more definite particles.

μέν] is wanting in D E F G, min., which was occasioned by the apparent absence of reference for the μέν. Lachm., Tisch. 8 : μὲν οὖν, according to A B C P א, Copt., which has therefore the external attestation decidedly in its favour, but is to be explained from the fact that the unrelated μέν was glossed by οὖν (a new sentence was commenced with ἐφʼ ὅσον); therefore these authorities indirectly pass over to the side of the otherwise weakly accredited Recepta.

Romans 11:17. τῆς ῥίζης καί] This καί is wanting in B C א*, Copt. Omitted by Tisch. 8; but how easily it might be suppressed, owing to the homoeoteleuta! In D* F G, codd. It. Ir., τῆς ῥίζης is also wanting from the like cause.

Romans 11:19. κλάδοι] So Rinck, Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 8, according to decisive testimony. But Elz. and Tisch. 7 have οἱ κλάδοι, the article being mechanically introduced in imitation of τῶν κλάδων, Romans 11:17-18. Were οἱ original, and had it been desired through its omission to designate the τινὲς τῶν κλάδων in Romans 11:17 (Matth., Fritzsche), it would have more readily occurred to the mechanical tendency of copyists to insert τινές instead of οἱ.

Romans 11:20. ὑψηλοφρόνει] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ὑψηλὰ φρόνει, according to A B א. Resolution of the word—which is only found besides in 1 Timothy 6:17—into its elements in conformity with Romans 12:16.

Romans 11:21. μήπως] is wanting in A B C P א, min., Copt. Damasc. Ruf. Aug. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the offence which was taken partly at the apparent unrelatedness of μήπως (which is therefore exchanged in Or. for πόσῳ μᾶλλον and πόσῳ πλέον), partly at the following future, readily induced the omission. For φείσηται, which Elz. has instead of φείσεται, is very feebly supported by evidence, and has manifestly come in accordance with the original μήπως; wrongly defended anew by Rinck. See the exegetical notes; comp. also Beng. Apparat. Crit.

Romans 11:22. In the second clause Lachm. and Tisch. have, instead of ἀποτομίαν, ἀποτομία, and instead of χρηστότητα, χρηστότης Θεοῦ; the former according to A B C א*, 67**, Or. Damasc.; the latter according to A B C D* (א has χρηστότητος Θεοῦ), 67**, Arm. Or. Eus. Damasc. Rightly; the common reading is a hasty grammatical emendation. Θεοῦ, too, bears, in its belonging to the reading χρηστότης, the stamp of genuineness.

Romans 11:25. παρʼ ἑαυτ.] Lachm. and Tisch. 7 : ἐν ἑαυτ., according to A B, Damasc. The latter is to be preferred (παρʼ ἑαυτ. was introduced through a comparison of Romans 12:16), and it explains, too, the origin of the bare ἑαυτοῖς in F G; for by the omission of the N the preposition would easily come to be dropped.

Romans 11:30. ὑμεῖς] Elz., Scholz: καὶ ὑμεῖς, against decisive evidence.

Romans 11:31. Before ἐλεηθ. B D* א, Copt. Dam. have νῦν; so Lachm. in brackets, and Tisch. 8. Inappropriate addition, arising from misconception, instead of which some min. have ὕστερον.

Romans 11:32. τοὺς πάντας] Instead of the first τ. π., D. Ir. et al. have τὰ πάντα, and F G πάντα. Also Vulg. It. express the neuter, which, however, is taken from Galatians 3:22.

CONTENTS:

After the humiliation hitherto expressed, there now follows the consolation in respect to the exclusion of a large part of Israel. (1) God has not cast off His people, but has allowed a part of them, according to a gracious election, to attain to salvation, and has hardened the remainder, Romans 11:1-10. (2) Yet God wills not their final destruction; nay, their unbelief subserves the salvation of the Gentiles, and their conversion will have yet more happy consequences. This is matter for hope, and the Gentile Christians may not therefore give way to self-exaltation, Romans 11:11-24. (3) For the hardening of a portion of the people will last no longer than until the whole of the Gentiles have become Christians; and then Israel will obtain salvation, Romans 11:25-32. How unfathomable are the riches, wisdom, and knowledge of God! To Him be glory! Romans 11:33-36.

Romans 11:1. Λέγω οὖν] corresponds to the twofold ἀλλὰ λέγω, Romans 10:18-19, but so, that now this third interrogative λέγω is introduced in an inferential form. In consequence, namely, of what had just been clearly laid down in Romans 10:18 ff., as to the guilt of resistant Israel in its exclusion from salvation in Christ—over-against the Gentiles’ acceptance of it—the difficult question might arise: Surely God has not cast off His people? Surely it is not so tragic a fate, that we must infer it from that conduct of the people? Paul states this question, earnestly negatives it, and then sets forth the real state of the matter. The opinion of Hofmann, that the apostle starts this question because the scriptural passages Romans 10:18 ff. show that it is to be negatived, is the consequence of his incorrect interpretation of those scriptural sayings, and is confuted by the fact that the negation is first given and supported in what follows, not drawn from what precedes, but made good by a quite different scriptural proof, Romans 11:2.

μὴ ἀπώσατο κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Psalm 94:14; Psalm 95:3; 1 Samuel 12:22; on the form, see Winer, p. 86 [E. T. 111]. Reiche thinks, but erroneously, that the question is not expressed sharply enough, and that ἅπαντα is to be supplied. Ἀπώσατο has in truth the emphasis, and is placed first on that account; so that Paul’s simple idea is, that the casting off of God’s people, exclusion from the divine decree of the bestowal of salvation, recall of this destination to salvation, may not be inferred from what has gone before. Rightly, too, Bengel remarks: “Ipsa populi ejus appellatio rationem negandi continet.” This ratio negandi is then, in Romans 11:2, additionally strengthened by ὃν προέγνω.

The μὴ γένοιτο expresses horror at the ἀπώσατο, not at the λέγω (van Hengel), as though Paul had written simply ἀπώσατο without μή.

καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ κ.τ.λ.] For I also, etc., expresses the motive for μὴ γένοιτο! For Paul, as a true Israelite of patriotic feeling, cannot, in virtue of his theocratic self-esteem, admit that ἀπώσατο, but can only repel the suggestion with abhorrence. Comp. de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. A peculiar proof of the οὐκ ἀπώσατο was yet to follow. Usually it is thought that Paul proves the negation by his own example, since he in truth was not cast off. So also Philippi. But apart from the consideration, that the example of a single elected one, however highly favoured, would be far from convincing, we see no reason why Paul should have added ἘΚ ΣΠΈΡΜ. ἈΒΡ., ΦΥΛ. ΒΕΝΙΑΜ.; moreover, it appears from Romans 11:2, where he defines the negation, emphatically reiterates it, and then confirms it from Scripture, that he did not intend till Romans 11:2 to adduce the argument against the ἈΠΏΣΑΤΟ, which he had only provisionally rejected in Romans 11:1. Without the least indication from the text, Hofmann introduces into κ. ἐγώ the reference: Even I, the apostle entrusted with the calling of the Gentile world (which is supposed to imply a sealing of the sacred historical call of Israel); even I, as once upon a time a persecutor, deserving of rejection.

ἐκ σπέρμ. Ἀβρ., φυλ. Βενιαμ.] added, in order to exhibit the just and genuine privileges of his birth. Comp. Php 3:5; Acts 13:21; Test. XII. Patr. p. 746 f. The tribe of Benjamin was in truth, along with that of Judah, the theocratic core of the nation after the exile. Ezra 4:1; Ezra 10:3.

Romans 11:2. Ὃν προέγνω] An element which renders the impossibility of ἀπώσατο at once palpable; comp. Romans 11:29. Others take it as a limiting definition, τὸν λ. αὐτοῦ ὃν πρ. being understood of the spiritual people of God destined to the Christian salvation (Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and others, including Heumann, Semler, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Glöckler). But against this view it is decisive that τ. λαὸν αὐτ. in Romans 11:1, without any limitation, denotes the Jewish nation, and consequently Paul himself would now completely disarrange the point in question; the whole chapter has for its subject, not the spiritual Israel, but the fate of the nation in respect to the salvation of Messiah. Hence, too, we are not to supply, with Philippi, p. 554, after ὃν προέγνω the limitation: as seminary of the spiritual σπέρμα.

The sense of προέγνω has been understood as variously as in Romans 8:29, but is to be taken just as there: God knew His people as such beforehand, before it actually existed; that is to say, it was to Him, to whom the whole future development of sacred history was present in His pretemporal counsel and plan, known and certain: Israel is my peculiar people! And consequently God cannot have afterwards rejected Israel; for this would in truth presuppose that which is inconceivable with God (comp. Acts 15:18), and irreconcilable with the ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ (Hebrews 6:17), namely, that He had been deceived in His προέγνω; comp. Romans 11:30 ff. To suppose the qualitas mala of the people as that which God foreknew (van Hengel) is inadmissible, for the reason that πρόγνωσις must be the premiss of the προορίζειν of the people of God (comp. Romans 8:29); hence, too, it is not to be objected, with Hofmann, against our view, that God would surely have been able to foresee the fact that, and the time when, His people would cease to be His people.

Ἢ ΟὐΚ ΟἼΔΑΤΕ Κ.Τ.Λ., down to Romans 11:4, adduces a proof for ΟὐΚ ἈΠΏΣΑΤΟ from an historical example of Scripture, according to which a case analogous to the present of the resistance of the people to God had once occurred, but God has made the declaration that He had (not indeed cast off His people, but) reserved to Himself, in the midst of the depravity of the mass, a number of faithful ones. So (Romans 11:5) too now there has taken place, not a rejection of the people, but rather a gracious election out of the people.

ἘΝ ἨΛΊᾼ] belongs to ΤΊ ΛΈΓΕΙ, but is not: de Elia (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Castalio, Calovius, and others), which would be linguistically erroneous, but: in the passage treating of Elias. Comp. Thuc. i. 9. 3, where ἐν τοῦ σκήπτρου ἅμα τῇ παραδόσει εἴρηκεν means: at the passage, where he (Homer) treats of the yielding of the sceptre, he has said, etc. Very prevalent is this mode of quotation in Philo, and also in the Rabbinical writings (Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 493). Comp. also Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37, but not Hebrews 4:7.

Ὡς ἘΝΤΥΓΧ. Τ. Θ. ΚΑΤᾺ Τ. ἸΣΡΑΉΛ] dependent on ΟὐΚ ΟἼΔΑΤΕ, as a more precisely defining parallel of ἘΝ ἨΛ. ΤΊ ΛΈΓΕΙ Ἡ ΓΡ. Comp. Luke 6:4; Luke 22:61; Acts 11:16; Acts 20:20, et al.; Göller and Krüger on Thuc. i. 1. 1. On ἐντυγχάνειν (Romans 8:27; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25), with dative of the person concerned (frequently in Plutarch, Polyb., Lucian, etc.), comp. Acts 25:24; Wis 8:21; Wis 16:28. On ΚΑΤΆ (accusing), comp. 1Ma 8:32; 2Ma 4:36.

Romans 11:3. 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 19:14, freely from the LXX.

ἀπέκτ.] The Israelites, namely, under Ahab and Jezebel. 1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 13:22.

κατέσκαψ.] have thoroughly destroyed, have razed. Comp. Soph. Phil. 986: Τροίαν … κατασκάψαι. Eur. Hec. 22 (of the domestic altar); Dem. 361. 20; Plut. Popl. 10; 2Ma 14:38 (τὸ θυσιαστήριον).

τὰ θυσιαστ.] On the plural, as the temple in Jerusalem was the place exclusively destined for worship, the view of Estius suffices: “Verisimile est, Eliam loqui de altaribus, quae passim in excelsis studio quodam pietatis Deo vero erecta fuerant; maxime postquam decem tribus regum suorum tyrannide prohibitae fuerunt, ne Jerusolymam ascenderent sacrificii causa. Quamvis enim id lege vetitum esset [see Leviticus 17:8-9; Deuteronomy 12:13-14] ac recte fecerint Ezechias et Josias, reges Judae, etiam ejusmodi aras evertendo, tamen impium erat eas subvertere odio cultus Dei Israel.” Comp. Grotius, also Keil, on the books of Kings, p. 262, Archäol. I. § 89.

ὑπελείφθ. μόνος] in the sense of Elias: alone of the prophets; but according to the application designed by the apostle, as Romans 11:4 shows: as the only one of Thy faithful. But in this case we are not to assume, as Hofmann and others wish to do, that Paul, in order to suggest this sense, has transposed the original order of the two clauses of the verse—which is rather to be regarded as accidental; and this, considering the freedom of citation otherwise used, we need the less hesitate about, since Paul could not, even in the original order, see the reference of the verse which was in his thoughts to be excluded.

On ζητεῖν τ. ψυχ. τινος, to seek after one’s life, see on Matthew 2:20.

Romans 11:4. Ἀλλά] But, although Elijah complained that he had been left sole survivor.

ὁ χρηματισμός] the divine oracular utterance (replying to this accusation). Found here only in N. T. (in the Apocrypha, 2Ma 2:4; 2Ma 11:17); but see Diod. Sic. i. 1, xiv. 7, and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1532; and respecting χρηματίζω, on Matthew 2:12.

κατέλιπον κ.τ.λ.] 1 Kings 19:18, with free deviation, bearing on his object, both from the LXX. and from the original. It means: I have left remaining, so, namely, that they are not slaughtered with the rest. Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 3. 5 : ὀκτῶ μόνους κατέλιπον (superstites, vivos reliquerunt); 1Ma 13:4. Hofmann incorrectly takes κατέλ. as the third person plural, having the same subject as ἀπέκτειναν. A groundless departure from the Hebrew text and from the LXX., according to which God is the subject. And it is God who has guided and preserved those who remained over.

ἐμαυτῷ] i.e. to myself as my property, and for my service, in contrast to the idolatrous abomination.

οἵτινες κ.τ.λ.] ita comparatos ut, etc.

γόνυ] Not a knee has been bowed by them; hence the singular, comp. Php 2:10.

τῇ Βάαλ] Dative of worship. Bernhardy, p. 86. Comp. Romans 14:11. The Phoenician divinity בַּעַל, the adoration of which was very widely diffused (Keil, § 91) amongst the Jews, especially under the later kings, though not of long subsistence (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 304), is most probably to be regarded as the sun-god (Movers, Phönicier, I. p. 169 ff.; J. G. Müller in Herzog’s Encyklop. I. p. 639 f.), not as the planet Jupiter (Gesenius in the Hall. Encyklop. VIII. p. 384 ff.). It is remarkable—seeing that בעל (according to different local and ritual forms also in the plural) is a masculine noun—that in the LXX. and in the Apocrypha it has sometimes, and most frequently, the masculine article (Numbers 22:41; Jdg 2:13; 1 Kings 16:31, et al.), sometimes the feminine (Zephaniah 1:4; Hosea 2:8; 1 Samuel 7:4; always in Jer.; Tob 1:5, et al.). That the LXX. should have thought בעל to be of the common gender, and to denote also Astarte (Reiche), is not probable for this reason, that in the LXX. not merely are the masculine Baal and Astarte often mentioned together (Jdg 2:13; Jdg 10:6, et al.), but also the feminine Baal and Astarte (1 Samuel 7:4). The view that the feminine article was assigned to Βάαλ contemptuously (Gesenius, in Rosenmüller’s Repert. I. p. 139), as also Tholuck and Ewald, Alterth. p. 302, assume, finds no sufficient support—seeing that בעל was a very well known divinity—in the feminine designation of idols unknown to them in the LXX. at 2 Kings 17:30-31; cannot be justified by comparison of the Rabbinical designation of idols as אֶלהוֹת; and cannot be made good in the particular passages where the LXX. have the masculine or the feminine. To refer the phenomenon solely to an opinion of the LXX., who held בעל to be the name of a god and also that of a goddess, and therefore, according to the supposed connection, used now the masculine and now the feminine article,—the latter particularly, where the word occurs along with עַשְׁתָּרוֹת (Fritzsche), as in Jdg 2:13; Jdg 10:6, 1 Samuel 7:4,—is improbable in itself (because of the unity of the Hebrew name), and cannot be maintained even in passages like Jdg 3:7, 2 Kings 21:3 (comp. with 1 Samuel 12:10; Hosea 2:10; Hosea 2:15), without arbitrariness. An historical reason must prevail, and it appears the most feasible hypothesis that Baal was conceived as an androgynous divinity (Beyer, ad Selden. de Diis Syr. p. 273 f., Wetstein, Koppe, Olshausen, Philippi), although more precise historical evidence is wanting. The feminine article has been also explained by supplying a substantive (εἰκόνι by Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others; στήλῃ by Glass, Estius; θρησκείᾳ by Cramer; even δαμάλει by Drusius, after Tob 1:5, but see Fritzsche on Tob.); but this is both erroneous and arbitrary, because at least the expression must have run τῇ τοῦ Βάαλ, since בעל has always the article. This linguistic incongruity van Hengel avoids only by the precarious conjecture that ἡ Βάαλ signifies the column of Baal, and ὁ Βάαλ the god Baal.

We have to remark, moreover, that the LXX. have in our passage the masculine article; but Paul, acquainted with the use also of the feminine article, has, in quoting from memory, changed the article. According to Fritzsche and Ewald, he had found τῇ in his copy of the LXX.; but τῇ is now found only in more recent codd. of the LXX., into which it has found its way merely from our passage.

Romans 11:5. In this way, corresponding to this Old Testament historical precedent, therefore (in order to make the application of Romans 11:3-4), there has been (there has come into existence, and actually exists—perfect) also in the present time, in consequence of an election made out of grace, a remnant, namely, a small part taken out of the hardened mass of the people, i.e. the comparatively insignificant number of believing Jews, whom God’s grace has chosen out of the totality of the people. It is related to the latter as a remainder (Herod. i. 119; 2 Kings 19:4) to a whole, from which the largest part is removed (Romans 11:3-4; Romans 9:27; Romans 9:29), notwithstanding Acts 21:20. The point of comparison is the notion of the λεῖμμα in contrast to the remaining mass; the latter in the typical history has perished, but in the antitypical event has forfeited saving deliverance.

κατʼ ἐκλ. χάρ.] opposed to the presumption in reference to works of the Jewish character; hence, too, the emphatic declaration in Romans 11:6. It is to be connected not with λεῖμμα as its more precise definition (Hofmann), but with γέγονεν as its mode. This is evinced by the following εἰ δὲ χάριτι, sc. γέγονεν, where χάριτι is equivalent to the κατʼ ἐκλογ. χάριτος.

Romans 11:6. This thought is not merely by the way and incidental (Koppe, Rückert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Maier, and others), but it belongs essentially to the development of the apostle’s thought to set forth the mode according to which λεῖμμα γέγονε, not only positively (κατʼ ἐκλ. χάρ.), but also negatively (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργ.); because he then, in Romans 11:7, goes on to argue: ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ κ.τ.λ., which ἐπιζητεῖν, in fact, took place exactly ἐξ ἔργων, Romans 9:32.

εἰ δὲ χάριτι] but if through grace, sc. λεῖμμα γέγονε.

οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων] As previously the individuals who compose the λεῖμμα are conceived as the objects of the divine grace, through which they belong to the λεῖμμα; so are they also (not the people generally, as Hofmann takes it) conceived in this contrasted negative statement as the subjects, who do not owe it to legal works that in them is present the λεῖμμα composing the true community of God. On the logical οὐκέτι, see on Romans 7:17. Of ἐξ ἔργων there can be nothing more said.

ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις κ.τ.λ.] because (otherwise) grace ceases to be grace (namely, if ἐξ ἔργων λεῖμμα γέγονε)—since in truth “gratia nisi gratis sit, gratia non est,” Augustine. Ἡ χάρις is the definite grace, which has made the election, and γίνεται (not equivalent to ἐστί) means: it ceases, in its concrete manifestation, to become, i.e. to show itself as, that (comp. on Luke 10:18, et al.) which according to its nature it is. Positively expressed: it becomes what according to its essence it is not; it gives up its specific character.

Romans 11:7. Τί οὖν] infers the result from Romans 11:5-6. Since a λεῖμμα has been constituted according to the election of grace, and therefore not possibly from the merit of works: accordingly Israel (as regards the mass) has not obtained that which it strives after (namely, δικαιοσύνη, as is known from Romans 9:30 ff.)—for it strives, in fact, ἐξ ἔργων—the election, on the other hand, namely, that chosen λεῖμμα, has obtained it (for they were the objects of the divine χάρις); but the rest were hardened. In this manner the true state of the case is now set forth, in contrast to ἀπώσατο, without its being necessary on this account to refer τί οὖν to the whole preceding Romans 11:2-6 (de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others); since the reference to Romans 11:5-6 is quite sufficient, and quite in keeping with the logical progression. Reiche (comp. Lachm., who places a note of interrogation after τί οὖν and after ἐπέτυχεν) makes the question extend to ἐπέτυχεν, to which question of wonder Paul then answers by ἡ δὲ ἐκλ. κ.τ.λ. But the futility of Israel’s endeavour has already been long (Romans 9:31-32) known to the reader, and is therefore not appropriate as the subject of such a question. Hofmann also takes ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ … ἐπέτυχεν as a question, but in the sense whether that which Israel has not obtained is the same thing as that to which its quest and striving tends (namely, its own righteousness)? To the self-evident negation of this question δέ then relates in the sense of nevertheless, and after the second ἐπέτυχεν there is to be supplied, not ὃ ἐπιζητ. Ἰσραήλ, but merely ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ (namely, to be, out of grace, the people of salvation). This complete distortion of the sense falls to the ground from the very fact, that for the second ἐπέτυχεν, since ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ is not appended, no other object can be thought of without the greatest arbitrariness than that of the first ἐπέτυχεν, namely ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ; and also, as respects the contents of the question, from the consideration, that if we should not be able to say that Israel has not obtained that for which it strove, this would stand in contradiction to the universal Pauline dogma of the impossibility of righteousness by the law.

ἐπιζητεῖ does not denote the zealous pursuit (Fritzsche, Philippi), but its direction, correlative to ἐπέτυχεν. See on Matthew 6:33; Php 4:17. By the present, the continuance of the endeavour is admitted.

The τοῦτο (on the accusative instead of the customary genitive, see Matthiae, § 328; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 861) has tragic emphasis: even this it has not reached.

ἡ δὲ ἐκλογή] that is, here “reliquiae illius populi, quas per gratiam suam Deus elegit,” Estius. Comp. the use of περιτομή, etc., Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 469.

The πώρωσις, hardening (not blinding, as Hofmann thinks; see on 2 Corinthians 3:14), is the making unsusceptible in understanding and will as respects the appropriation of salvation in Christ. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 78; Winzer, Progr. 1828, p. 8. The subject who hardens is God. Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:14, and on Romans 9:8.