# Romans 11:28



## buggy (Oct 27, 2009)

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. - Romans 11:28

Hmmm... can anyone give the Reformed understanding of this verse?
I understand this is a favorite "pet verse" by many dispensationalists (plus their obsession with Israel/Endtimes prophecy).


----------



## Nathan Riese (Oct 27, 2009)

> Verses 28–32 clarify the promise in verses 25–27 that all Israel will be saved, explaining to Gentiles why God will intervene and save his people. The explanation provided also harks back to verses 11–16 in that the benefit for Gentiles of Jewish unbelief is noted again. The flow of thought may be portrayed as follows:
> With reference to the gospel the Jews are enemies of God for the advantage of the Gentiles (i.e., their entrance into salvation; 28a),
> but according to election they are beloved by God because of the fathers (28b).
> The reason that Israel is beloved because of the fathers is that God’s saving gifts and effectual calling can never be withdrawn, since he freely made saving promises to the fathers (29).
> ...



also note this:


> In harmony with verses 25, 26, which speak first of a hardening of part of Israel and then about “all Israel” which will be saved, so here too the apostle first reminds us of those Israelites who, as far as the gospel is concerned, are enemies, and then of those who, as far as election is concerned, are beloved for the sake of the fathers. In reading on (see verses 30, 31), however, we soon become aware of the fact that these “enemies” and these “beloved ones” are the same people, namely, the elect. At first they were hostile to the gospel, but later on, because of the wonderful manifestation of God’s mercy (see verse 25 f.) they become friends.
> Note the following:
> a. “As far as the gospel is concerned … enemies for your sake.” Note “for your sake.”
> The explanation is found in verse 11: “Because of their trespass salvation (has come) to the Gentiles.”
> ...





> Verse 28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. In this and the few following verses, the apostle sums up what he had previously taught. The Jews, he says, were now, as far as the gospel was concerned, regarded and treated as enemies, for the benefit of the Gentiles; but, in reference to the election, they were still regarded as the peculiar people of God, on account of their connection with the patriarchs. They are enemies, whether of the gospel, of the apostle, or of God, is not expressed, and therefore depends on the context. Each view of the clause has its advocates. The last is the correct one, because they are enemies to him, by whom, on one account, they are beloved. The word εχθροί may be taken actively or passively; see 5:10. They are inimical to God, or they are regarded and treated as enemies by him. The latter best suits the context. They are now aliens from their own covenant of promise.
> As concerning the gospel, κατὰ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον, that is, the gospel is the occasion of their being regarded as enemies. This is explained by a reference to vs. 11, 15. By their punishment the progress of the gospel has been facilitated among the Gentiles; and therefore the apostle says, it is for your sakes they are thus treated. On the other hand, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογήν, as it regards the election, or the covenant of God, they are still regarded with peculiar favour, because descended from those patriarchs to whom and to whose seed the promises were made. This is but expressing in a different form the idea which the apostle had previously presented, viz., that the covenant made with Abraham was inconsistent with the final rejection of the Jews, as a people. God foresaw and predicted their temporary defection and rejection from his kingdom, but never contemplated their being for ever excluded; see vs. 16, 25–27.
> 
> Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 590.



Here's a source regarding the translation:


> Romans 11.28.
> The Greek of this verse is much shorter than the TEV rendering, because there are implicit elements in the Greek which must be made explicit for the sake of English readers. Literally this verse may be rendered something like the following:” As far as Good News is concerned, enemies because of you, but as far as choice is concerned, friends because of the patriarchs.” The TEV takes the phrase “as far as the Good News is concerned in the sense of because they reject the Good News (NEB “in the spreading of the gospel”). In this context “enemies” must be taken in the sense of God’s enemies (see Moffatt, Goodspeed, NEB, JB). “Because of you” is understood to mean “for your sake” (so most translations); and the TEV reflects the demands of English discourse structure in requiring the pronoun “you” to be identified as you, the Gentiles.
> There is a potential difficulty in the rendering of the Jews are God’s enemies for the sake of you. This might imply that the Jews purposely became God’s enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, which is obviously not the case. Therefore, one must translate is some languages: “the Jews are God’s enemies, but this turns out to be of help to you, the Gentiles.” However, there is no such contrast in the second sentence of verse 28, since at that place there is no adversative relation between the Jews being God’s friends and this being for the sake of the patriarchs.
> In the second clause “choice” refers to God’s choice (see also Goodspeed and NEB). The word rendered friends is not the usual Greek word for “friends”; it means something like “persons who are loved.” The RSV, Moffatt, and NAB used the archaic “beloved,” while Goodspeed translates “they are dear to him,” and JB “they are still loved by God”; NEB has “friends.”
> ...



And here's Mounce on the matter:


> 11:28–32 In terms of the spread of the gospel, Israel’s failure to respond made them an enemy of God.125 That worked for the advantage of the Gentile. Although unbelieving Jews were temporarily at odds with their God, they were, after all, his elect people and were loved by him “on account of the patriarchs.” In accordance with his eternal plan, God continues to welcome them for the sake of their ancestors. Paul was not supporting the idea that merit is passed on from the patriarchs to their descendants. But they were the ones who received his call (Gen 12:1–2; Deut 7:6–7), and it was to them that he first gave his gifts. And God’s gifts and call are irrevocable (cf. 1 Sam 15:29; Isa 31:2).126 He does not change his mind regarding the nation he called and sustained with gracious acts of provision and protection.127
> Verses 30–31 compare Gentile and Jew in terms of their disobedience and the mercy that follows.128 The Gentile believers were at one time in a state of rebellion, but now they had received mercy as a result of Israel’s disobedience. In the same way, Israel’s present disobedience opened the possibility of their receiving mercy as a result of God’s present mercy to the Gentiles. Mercy was extended to the Gentiles because of Israel’s disobedience. Mercy would be extended to Israel because of the mercy shown to the Gentiles. The theological conclusion is that God has “locked up all in the prison of disobedience” (Montgomery).129 Now he is able to show mercy to all alike.130 Since “there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:22b–23), no one can lay claim on the mercy of God. It is a free gift for all who believe regardless of ethnic background or ethical performance.
> 
> Robert H. Mounce, vol. 27, Romans, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1995), 225.



And Leon Morris:



> 28. There is no connective to link this with the preceding; Paul moves abruptly to a new aspect of his subject. He sees the Jews in two relationships to God—one linked to the gospel, the other to the fathers. As far as125 the gospel (see the note on 1:1) is concerned, the Jews are enemies. There has been some discussion as to whether we should understand this term passively (i.e., the Jews are the objects of God’s hostility), or actively (the Jews are hostile to God). What turns the scale is probably the fact that enemies stands over against loved, and loved must mean “loved by God”. In such a context Paul must be saying that in connection with the gospel the Jews are the objects of divine hostility. They have refused to believe in Christ, they have turned their backs on the divinely appointed way of forgiveness, so what else could the situation be? This does not mean that the gospel makes them God’s enemies, a suggestion that is immediately negatived by the fact that Jews like Paul himself had responded to the gospel and entered into salvation. It is “with reference to” (not “because of”) the gospel that they are enemies. As a whole they did not receive it, and this opened the way for it to be preached to the Gentiles so that a large Gentile church emerged. It is in order to bring about this spread of the gospel that they are enemies. They are enemies on your account; in the providence of God their rejection of the gospel was not aimless. It was the means of bringing salvation to others. God’s purpose was carried on through it. This carries with it the possibility that when the gospel has had its effect among the Gentiles they will come back, and that is precisely the point that Paul is making.
> So he goes on to refer to a different set of relationships, as far as election is concerned. For as far as see the note on the opening to this verse (the construction is identical) and for election see that on 9:11. Paul is emphasizing the divine plan; though Israel had been faithless and thus the object of God’s hostility, God had nevertheless worked through this faithlessness to bring about his will. And he had not forgotten that Israel was his people; their refusal to accept the gospel did not alter the fact that he had chosen them to be in a special relationship to him, the people through whom he would make his revelation and to whom he would send his Son. Election is an important concept even when the nation had not lived up to all that is involved in its calling. And election means that they are loved on account of the patriarchs. It does not mean that they are all elected to eternal salvation; Paul is talking about the place of the nation in God’s plan, not the fate of individuals. The reference is to the nation (as in v.*2), not to the remnant (as in v.*7). The nation is loved (cf. 9:25), and Paul links this with the patriarchs (he says “the fathers”). We should not understand this in the sense of the rabbinic doctrine of the merits of the fathers that won all sorts of benefits for their descendants. Rather, Paul is appealing to the covenant God had made with Abraham and the promises he had made again and again to Abraham’s descendants. God will carry his purposes out (as Paul will insist in v.*29).
> Käsemann makes an important point when he says of verses 28–32 “The justification of the ungodly, which is announced in various places in our chapters, emerges now as the dominant theme of the whole portion” (p.*314). We must bear in mind that chapters 9–11 are part of Paul’s treatment of justification, not a historical essay or an exercise in Jewish patriotism. Paul is showing that the doctrine he has been expounding in the earlier part of the epistle is not vitiated by what had happened to Israel. God had made promises to Israel, and these promises would be kept. Israel’s refusal to accept the gospel did not mean either that the gospel was a failure or that God would not perform all he had promised to his ancient people. But we make sense neither of the Old Testament Scripture nor of the history of Israel nor of the place of the Christian church unless we see that justification by faith is central. Here the point is that God justifies Israelites who believe just as he justifies Gentiles who believe, and the whole history of Israel is to be seen in the light of that fact.
> 
> Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 422.



Sproul, Gentry, Bahnsen, Pipa, etc.---a lot of reformed theologians interpret Romans 11 to be referring to ethnic Jews, not a spiritualized Israel. I do not know what the majority view is though. All I know is that dispensationalists use this verse as their "cureall" for their theological system, when in fact their interpretation of national Israel getting saved has been believed historically by reformed theolgians and fits just fine in reformed theology. Dispensationalists just add their theology of this happening specifically after the rapture, during the tribulation.


----------



## Bern (Oct 27, 2009)

The difficulty that can arise in churches that understand these verses to mean national Israel (I'm not saying thats incorrect), is that they can be influenced by members who are dispensational in their eschatology, even though the fellowship in question does not officially agree with dispensationalism. Often these difficulties arise from the teaching being focused too much on end times events, leaving the congregation with a patchy understanding of how the bible relates to itself and how scripture interprets scripture.

In this way you can develop an eschatalogical position which is a strange hybrid of historic premillenialism and dispensationalism. Usually dispensationalism minus the belief in "dispensations", and sometimes the rapture... but still expecting a literal 3rd temple to be built etc.

How confusing... and a bit off topic sorry.


----------

