Romans 11:28-29

‘As touching the gospel, enemies for your sake, but as touching the election, beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of.'

As has already been noted this statement is not connected with what has been said previously by any connecting word, something which is much more significant in ancient Greek than in English. For where there was no punctuation such devices were necessary.

One way of seeing these words is as signifying that God has not forsaken His people, because while in respect of the Gospel one part of the Jews are enemies so that the Gentiles might benefit by receiving the Gospel, in respect of God's election (‘for your sake'), another part of the Jews (the elect) are beloved because God has remembered His promises to the fathers (‘for the father's sake'), the latter demonstrating that the gifts and calling of God are not repented of. In them He has fulfilled His promises to the fathers, and as promised has saved a remnant out of Israel (Romans 9:27). This interpretation might be seen as confirmed by Romans 15:8 where it is said that the promises are confirmed to those who respond to the truth of God.

As has been noted this verse does not open with a connecting word. It is not, therefore, referring directly to something spoken of previously. Rather it is commencing a new subject. The first part clearly refers to unbelieving Jews, and indicates either their enmity ‘to the Gospel' or their enmity ‘in the light of the Gospel', or simply to the fact that they are enemies of God. Whichever way it is they are opposed to God and His Gospel, and are His enemies. More in question is the remainder. Is it indicating that God has not wholly cast off the unbelieving part of ‘Israel' for the fathers' sake, even though, as Messiah rejecters, He does not see them as the true Israel? Or is it speaking only of ‘the elect' and their ‘election' and indicating that they as the true Israel are beloved of God?

This latter interpretation would be seen as supported by the following:

1) The fact that in Romans the ‘beloved of God' are believers (Romans 1:7).

2) The fact that those who were to be called ‘beloved' were those who were now His believing people (Romans 9:27), whereas (also in Romans 9:27) the unbelievers were not to be ‘called beloved'. This last would be a contradiction if beloved indicated the unbelievers.

3) It would tie in with the fact that in Romans 11:7 ‘the election' signifies ‘the elect', thus we would expect to relate it here to believers. We should note in this regard that the noun for ‘election' (ekloge) is never used in the New Testament except in respect of believers, and is found nowhere in LXX. Thus to speak of ‘the election' of unbelieving Israel would be without precedent in the New Testament.

4) In Romans 11:7 ‘the election' refers to ‘the body of the elect'. If we use that here then it is the body of the elect only who are said to be beloved of God (per Romans 1:7).

5) In Romans 15:8 Christ is described as the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God that He might confirm the promises given to the fathers. Here the promises are confirmed to those who receive the truth of God.

Thus the terminology used in the phrase ‘concerning the election beloved for the fathers' sake' all favours reference to believers.

Note. Do The Two Parts Of Romans 11:28 Refer To Two Different Sections Of Israel?

What is often seen as militating against this idea is that ‘concerning the election' is in parallel with ‘concerning the Gospel'. It is argued that both must therefore refer to ‘the principle of'. But there is no real reason why Paul (or his amanuensis) should not have used parallel phrases for stylistic purposes whilst at the same time having intended two different nuances, especially as in the context ‘With respect to the election they are beloved for the fathers sake', if we take it as seeing the ‘election' as ‘the elect' as in Romans 11:7, makes extremely good sense. Indeed we could counter argue that the idea of ‘the gifts and calling of God' refers to the gifts of the Gospel and the election, and that the calling refers to God's call to those who are His, i.e. the elect, for in Paul, and especially in Romans, God's calling is always seen as effectual calling.

And besides, even if we translate ‘in respect of the principle of the Gospel' and ‘in respect of the principle of election' that does not prevent the possibility that the references ‘enemies' and ‘beloved' are to two parts of the entity of Israel. The parallel may indicate contrast rather than similarity. ON the other hand it should be noted that the verse does NOT say ‘the principle of the Gospel', it says ‘in respect of the Gospel', thus the two parts are not parallel anyway. For a). the purpose of the enmity was in order that the Gospel might benefit by gaining adherents, whilst the purpose of the belovedness was not in order that the election (which is an act of God) might in some way benefit. Rather the benefit was the other way round. They were beloved because of the fathers. Thus the phrases are not parallels. b). ‘enemies for your sake' does not strictly parallel ‘beloved for the fathers' sake', except gramatically. The first indicates that the believing Gentiles (for your sake) benefit from the enmity (as has been constantly indicated), but the second is not indicating that the fathers benefit from the election. Again it is the other way round. It is the beloved who benefit from the election. Thus whatever way we relate the two clauses, they are not strictly parallel thoughts. They have been made to look parallel grammatically. So this criticism that our suggested interpretation takes no account of the parallel is true for all interpretations.

Probably the majority of scholars, however, do see both parts of the verse as referring to the same people. The situation being referred to is then that, although at present many Jews are antagonistic towards those who believe in the Messiah, (or that God is antagonistic towards them), with the result that they are thereby excluded from Israel, they are not wholly cast off. They have stumbled but not necessarily so that they will fall irrevocably (Romans 11:11). For they were still those who had once belonged ‘to the elect people' (Exodus 19:6; elect in the purposes of God, not elected to salvation), and, although they have been cast off, they are beloved for the sake of the Patriarchs, i.e. because of the promises made to the Patriarchs, with the result that God's mercy does still reach out towards them. And this is because God's gift and calling are not repented of. But there is no way in which this can literally be applied to all Israel, for there is nothing that is made more clear in the Old Testament than that a large part of Israel were not beloved. Thus the idea can simply be that Israel as an unparticularised continuing entity is beloved, without it signifying all Israelites..

The argument would thus be that the Gentile Christians are to avoid antagonism towards unbelieving Jews, recognising God's continuing interest in Israel as an entity, and are therefore to love them as God loves them, hoping to win them to the Messiah. (Our argument has not been that the conclusions are not true. Clearly God does want His people to reach out to the Jews. It is only that they are not obtainable from this verse).

‘As touching the election.' There are five possible interpretations of this phrase. It could refer to:

1) ‘The elect of Israel' as in Romans 9:6.

2) The election of believers who are the beloved of God (Romans 9:11; Romans 11:5).

3) The election of potential believers, that is, of those who will in the future believe, although at present among the unbelieving.

4) The election of the fathers which has been referred to in Romans 9:6, with the idea being that these unbelieving Jews had been identified with the fathers in the old Israel, and were thus, as an entity, an elect people because of their relationship to the fathers. That is why God's love still reaches out to them.

5) The election of Israel as an entity (but not in its totality).

We have already argued above for 1). and 2). As regards 4). and 5). they are said to have been beloved for the fathers' sake, not beloved because they had once belonged to Israel. Thus 4). would seem preferable to 5).

End of Note.

‘For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of.' This clearly has reference to the ‘election' of the previous verse. It could signify God's gifts of the Gospel and of election, with the calling' referring to effectual calling of believers, as it always previously has. Or it could indicate the fact that God had made gifts to His people (see Romans 9:4; the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the priestly service, the priesthood, the promises, the land, the promise of numerous descendants, the coming of kings, the Law) and, having called Abraham so that through his descendants all the world may be blessed, has chosen and called Israel as an entity to be a blessing to the world. None of this will be repented of. Indeed, it is fulfilled by the success of the Gospel. His true people enjoy these gifts as never before, including ‘the land' in the new Heaven and the new earth (2 Peter 3:13).

But what may now be being seen as revealed is that God has greater gifts for Israel on top of these, namely the gift of the fullness of the Gentiles, and the gift of new branches for the olive tree, something certainly indicated in the Old Testament, although not quite to the same extent. The concept of Gentiles benefiting by Israel's ministry is not, of course new. There were many proselytes and God-fearers who had turned to Judaism with its strict moral code, and who had been accepted, and the Old Testament continually indicates blessing to the Gentiles (e.g. Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 60:3). What is new is the nature of it. This is the mystery that has now been revealed. And that mystery is summed up in the Messiah, Christ in us the hope of glory (Colossians 1:26).