Читать книгу Misunderstanding, Nationalism, or Legalism - Richard Wellons Winston - Страница 10

Thesis

This dissertation examines Paul’s exegetical and theological argument in Rom 9:30—10:13, with special attention to his use of the Old Testament. Paul declares at the beginning of Romans that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Rom 1:16). His confidence in the gospel’s power to save is based upon the fact that it reveals the righteousness of God which is obtained by faith (Rom 1:17a). The OT itself teaches that the righteous live by faith (Rom 1:17b citing Hab 2:4). Together, Rom 1:16–17 announce the theme of Romans: the gospel which reveals the righteousness of God for all who believe.1

Paul develops this theme throughout the major sections of Romans: 1:18—3:20 establish humanity’s need of righteousness; 3:21—4:25 develop the provision of justifying righteousness by Christ for all who believe; 5:1—8:39 explain the reality of sanctifying righteousness for all who have believed, and 12:1—15:13 give practical exhortations that illustrate the nature of the sanctified life.2 Interpreters, however, dispute the role that 9:1—11:36 play in the overall argument of Romans.3

C. H. Dodd famously argued that these chapters were the remnants of an old sermon on Israel’s rejection that Paul carried around with him and inserted here in order to fully answer questions raised in 3:1–9.4 Rom 9–11 does address questions raised in 3:1–9,5 but it does not logically follow that the material contained therein was merely inserted into the flow of an otherwise tightly constructed letter. Rom 9–11 flows directly from 8:31–39.6 Since Paul promises that God’s people suffer no condemnation in Christ and cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ, what are they to make of God’s OT people, Israel, who are presently accursed and separated from Christ (implied in 9:3)?7

On the opposite side of the equation, some argue that Rom 9–11 constitute the climax of Paul’s theological argument in Rom 1–11.8 While this approach gives coherence to Rom 1–11 (and anticipates 14:1—15:13),9 Rom 9–11 has a different emphasis than Rom 1–8. Rom 1–8 develops the righteousness of God; Rom 9–11 focuses on those who have received and on those who have rejected the righteousness of God (esp. 9:30–10:21). Rom 4:1–25 highlights continuity in God’s means of crediting righteousness to his people; Rom 9–11 focuses on the recipients of this righteousness (esp. 9:1–29 and 11:1–33). The more sound approach is that Rom 9–11 addresses an integral part of the overall theme of the letter, but not its climax.10

Paul uses Rom 9–11 to answer the potential objection that Israel’s present exclusion from salvation means that Paul’s gospel may not be the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.11 If the Christian gospel is that power, and if it is the fulfillment of the OT promises, then what does Israel’s exclusion imply about God’s power and promises? Have they in some way failed Israel? And if they have failed Israel, will they fail Christians (cf. 8:31–39)? The purpose of Rom 9–11 is to demonstrate that the word of God has not failed (9:6a).12 The gospel really is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.13

Paul uses a two-pronged approach throughout Rom 9–11 to prove God’s faithfulness to his word. In 9:6b–29, Paul attributes Israel’s lack of salvation (9:1–5) to the sovereignty of God to save whomever he wishes to save. God’s promises have not failed (9:6a) because God never promised to save every ethnic Israelite (9:6b–13). In fact, God has even purposed to save many gentiles (9:14–29). This sovereign purpose is one reason many gentiles have obtained a right standing with God whereas many Jews have not.

However, this is not the only reason, and in 9:30—10:13 Paul addresses from the human standpoint14 why Israel has not obtained a right standing with God.15 Paul gives two reasons: (1) their lack of faith in Jesus as Messiah (9:30, 32b–33; 10:4, 9–13), and (2) their error with reference to the law (9:31–32a; 10:2–3, 5–8). For the most part, interpreters of Paul do not dispute the reality or seriousness of the first reason (Israel’s lack of faith in Jesus as Messiah).16 The more disputed question concerns the identification of Israel’s error with reference to the law.17 Does Paul criticize Jewish misunderstanding of the true message of the law (they failed to see that the law ultimately demands faith), a nationalistic approach to righteousness (salvation is only available within the confines of Israel and the law), or a legalistic attempt to earn a right standing with God through obedience to the law? What is Israel’s chief error with reference to the law in Rom 9:30—10:13? This dissertation argues that Paul criticizes Israel for pursuing a right standing with God by obeying the Mosaic law when they should have discerned within their own Scriptures both humanity’s inability to keep the Mosaic law and the necessity of salvation by faith alone.

Justification of the Study

Paul begins Rom 9:30—10:13 with a question: “What therefore should we say?” (Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν). Rather than bringing 9:6b–29 to a conclusion,18 Paul’s language indicates that he is now beginning a new paragraph, and therefore introducing the next stage in the discussion of God’s faithfulness.19 He identifies the limits of this next section by beginning and ending the passage with a reference to the gentiles (9:30; 10:11, 13), as well as a citation of Isa 28:16 (9:33; 10:12).20 Paul also resumes the familiar language of righteousness, law, faith, and works.21

The passage develops a threefold contrast between righteousness by works and righteousness by faith (9:30–33; 10:1–4, 5–13).22 The first paragraph (9:30–33) states the thesis, and the rest of the passage (10:1–13) develops it.23 While Paul begins by highlighting gentile inclusion in God’s saving purposes (9:30), the reference to gentile inclusion does not establish the main theme of the passage.24 Rather, the reference to gentile inclusion flows from the conclusion to the previous section (9:24–29), and provides the necessary foil for unbelieving Israel (9:31—10:13). Paul focuses in 9:30—10:13 on Israel’s plight (9:30—10:3) and its solution (10:4–13).25

Rom 9:30—10:13 carries a weight in Pauline studies out of proportion to its length. The amount of secondary literature on the passage is enormous. This abundance of literature raises the question of the necessity of another study on the passage. The following factors justify the addition of a full-length research project to the library of studies on Rom 9:30—10:13.

First, the content of Rom 9:30—10:13 indicates its own importance with reference to discussions on the relationship between the law and faith, righteousness and the law, Moses and Christ, and the Old and New Testaments. Consider the following: 9:30 refers to the righteousness which is from faith; 9:31 refers to Israel pursuing a law of righteousness and not attaining the law; 9:32 refers to pursuing the law not by faith but as if from works; 10:1 refers to salvation; 10:2 refers to zeal for God; 10:3 refers to Israel’s ignorance of the righteousness of God, their attempt to establish their own righteousness, and their failure to submit to the righteousness of God; 10:4 refers to Christ as the τέλος of the law, and righteousness for all who believe; 10:5 refers to the righteousness which comes from the law and the life that comes to those who do it; 10:6–8 refers to the righteousness of faith; 10:9 refers to faith and salvation; 10:10 refers to believing unto righteousness and confessing unto salvation; 10:11 refers to whoever believes; 10:12 refers to all who call upon God; 10:13 refers to salvation. The interaction of all these topics in this short passage testifies to the importance of understanding this passage in order to understand the larger topic of Paul and the law.

Second, Paul’s heavy use of the OT indicates the passage’s importance with reference to the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Paul cites the OT eight times throughout these sixteen verses: Isa 8:14; 28:16 in 9:33; Lev 18:5 in 10:5; Deut 8:17a; 9:4a; 30:12–14 in 10:6–8; Isa 28:16 in 10:11; and Joel 2:32 in 10:13.26 Paul believes that his argument is in continuity with the OT and can be proven by frequent appeal to it.27 Therefore, a right understanding of the passage plays a large role in understanding how the NT uses the OT.

Third, students of Paul and the law highlight the central significance of the passage in understanding Paul and the law. As early as 1977, John Toews observed the growing importance of Rom 8–10 in discussions on Paul and the law.28 Jason Meyer calls it “one of the most hotly contested passages in all of Paul.”29 In addition, advocates of different theological approaches to Paul and the law usually appeal to this passage to justify their approach. For example, William Dumbrell uses this passage to illustrate how “a salvation-history approach to biblical theology provides an understanding of what was at stake in Paul’s continuing clash with Jewish Christianity.” He chooses this section “because, in a relatively small context, major questions of Pauline approach to Israel, law and covenant are present.” The passage addresses “the macrodynamics of Pauline theology.”30

Fourth, students of Paul and the law often highlight Paul’s seemingly contradictory statements about the law.31 Since this passage contains both positive (9:32a) and negative (10:4) statements about the law, it gives a clue to how both perspectives work together. Paul even cites the law as a witness to the righteousness of faith (10:6–8). Some degree of coherence must hold these statements together.

Fifth, the amount of secondary literature on the passage testifies to its own importance. Articles, essays, and commentaries often address the question of Israel’s chief error with reference to the law in Rom 9:30—10:13. However, whereas articles, essays, and commentaries are limited in how much attention they can give to this passage, a full-length research project can probe the relevant issues in depth. Furthermore, the way the different paragraphs within the passage reinforce one another necessitates a project that can study the entire passage in depth.

Sixth, although three dissertations have been written on this passage,32 this dissertation takes a different approach. The main differences include the meaning Paul discerns in the OT passages he cites, the relationship between faith and the law, the validity of the new perspective on Paul, and the identification of Paul’s main critique of Israel.

Romans 9:30—10:13 is central to discussions on Paul and the law. Many have addressed the passage, but there exists still the need to explore the section in depth in order to understand Paul’s critique of Israel and his proposed solution. Attention must be given to the exegesis of the passage, Paul’s use of the Old Testament, rival interpretations of Paul’s critique, and the overall theological point that Paul is making.

Previous Literature

The following survey highlights major studies on Rom 9:30—10:13 as a whole (or significant portions of the passage).33 In 1971, Ragnar Bring published “Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the Ideas of Faith, Election, and Law in Paul, with Special Reference to Rom. 9:30–10:13.”34 Bring authored the first extensive study that pioneered a new approach to the relationship between law and faith in Paul. For Paul, law refers to revelation.35 Many misinterpret Paul’s view on the law because they confuse the law with its misuse.36 Both the OT and the NT teach that God elects his people, and expects from them the response of faith.37 The law exists to demonstrate the faith and faithfulness God demands from his covenant people, and to bring them back to the right path when they stray.38 Humans err when they try to keep the law and glory in their obedience.39 In Rom 9:30—10:13, Paul faults Israel for zealously trying to keep the law because their zeal is based on false assumptions about how to obtain God’s promised blessing.40 “Works” refers to following the law with the wrong intent.41 Law and faith are not opposites, for faith is the fulfillment of the law.42

In 1975, C. E. B. Cranfield published “Some Notes on Romans 9:30–33.”43 Cranfield previously addressed the issue of Paul and the law in “St. Paul and the Law,”44 but failed to discuss Rom 9:30–33.45 For Cranfield, the νόμον δικαιοσύνης (9:31) refers to the law which promises a status of righteousness before God.46 The law was given to show Israel the way to a righteous status before God, but they have failed “to grasp its real meaning and to render it true obedience.”47 Paul criticizes Israel not for pursuing the law, but for the way they have pursued it.48 Israel should have responded to the claim to faith which God makes through the law.49

In 1977, C. K. Barrett published “Romans 9.30–10.21: Fall and Responsibility of Israel.”50 Barrett follows the trajectory established by Bring and Cranfield. Israel tried to keep the law and to achieve the righteousness it required, but failed to do so.51 The reason for their failure was that they misunderstood the law, thinking that it required works, when the obedience it truly demanded was faith.52 Israel was scandalized by this true meaning of the Law,53 but Paul uses Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11–14 to show that there is a right and wrong response to the law.54

John Toews’s dissertation constitutes the first academic full-length examination of Rom 9:30—10:13.55 Toews first gives a history of biblical scholarship on the law in Paul,56 and then examines Rom 9:30—10:13 in order to test his hypothesis on the direction of Paul’s law-theology in Romans. He argues that “Rom. 9.30–10.13 read as a unit affirms the fulfillability of the law in faith, affirms the law accepted in faith as a way to righteousness for the Jews, while at the same time declaring that Christ has fulfilled the law.”57 The passage “asserts two ways to righteousness, faith in God via the law and faith in God via Jesus Christ.”58

In 1981, C. Thomas Rhyne published Faith Establishes the Law.59 The bulk of Rhyne’s monograph focuses on Rom 3:21—4:25, but includes a chapter on 9:30—10:21 because the central concepts of the earlier passage reappear here.60 Attaining the law is the same thing as receiving righteousness by faith.61 Israel did not understand that the law promises righteousness to those who believe.62 Instead, they used it as a tool of personal achievement.63 All who believe in Christ receive God’s righteousness and achieve the goal of the law.64 Rhyne writes, “the heart of Israel’s failure lies in their refusal to believe.”65 Paul cites Lev 18:5 to represent Israel’s mistaken notion of the way to righteousness.66

In 1985, Sanders addressed Rom 9:30—10:13 in Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.67 Building on his new approach to Paul and the law in Paul and Palestinian Judaism,68 in this work Sanders devotes eight pages to a discussion of Rom 9:30—10:13.69 While he credits Cranfield with coming close to rightly understanding the passage, he disagrees with Cranfield’s assessment that Israel pursued the law in a legalistic manner.70 Instead, Sanders argues, “Israel’s failure is not that they do not obey the law in the correct way, but that they do not have faith in Christ.”71 They are preoccupied with the righteousness that Jews exclusively possess because they possess the law, and they stumble over the fact that God in Christ has now ended the law and provided righteousness for all believe.72 Israel’s greatest error is that they did not believe in Christ.73

The same year saw Robert Badenas publish Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. As part of Badenas’s study of the meaning of τέλος in Rom 10:4, Badenas offers a detailed exposition of Rom 9:30—10:13.74 Badenas defines νόμος generally as divine revelation.75 Israel has not attained the goal of Torah, and they have not attained righteousness by faith because they have looked at Torah as a legal code rather than a record of God’s saving interactions with his people.76 Israel’s failure to attain the law is their failure to recognize from Scripture Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.77 Their refusal to submit to the righteousness of God is their refusal to submit to the Christ-event.78 In Christ is manifested the righteousness to which the law witnessed.79

James Dunn contributed to the discussion in 1988 with “‘Righteousness from the Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10.”80 Dunn locates himself within the New Perspective on Paul, yet approaches the passage differently from Sanders. Dunn argues that Israel is zealous to protect their distinctives, the covenant righteousness which is theirs because they are the chosen people of God.81 Christ has ended the era during which righteousness was focused on ethnic Israel.82 This attitude towards righteousness as belonging only to Israel is summed up in Lev 18:5, which Paul now regards as passé.83 God, not Israel, establishes the covenant, and he does this in response to faith, as Deut 30:12–14 demonstrates.84 The contrast between the two texts is essentially salvation-historical.85

Frank Thielman surveys Rom 9:30—10:8 in From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans.86 Thielman surveys the major interpretations of the passage and argues that the simplest explanation is the correct one: Israel tried to keep the precepts of the law but failed to do so, and exists under the curse of the law.87 Paul’s criticism of Israel’s own righteousness is a criticism of their insufficient righteousness (9:32; 10:3 echoing Deut 9:4—10:10) and a failure to submit to God’s gracious provision for solving her plight.88

In 1990, Glenn Davies published Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4.89 Like Byrne, Davies’s monograph focuses on an earlier section of Romans yet addresses 9:30—10:13 at the end since that section revisits the main topics of the earlier part of Romans.90 With a growing tide of interpreters, Davies argues that Israel failed to read the law properly and thought they could follow it in their own strength rather than by faith.91 They did not realize that the righteousness the law requires consists in trusting and believing.92 Christ accomplished the righteousness promised in the law to those who believe.93 The obedience which Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11–14 command is that which flows from faith.94

In 1991, Stephen Bowser Pattee wrote “Stumbling Stone or Cornerstone? The Structure and Meaning of Paul’s Argument in Romans 9:30–10:13.”95 Pattee studies Paul’s use of the OT in 9:30—10:13, and makes much application to the theology of the passage. He argues that the nature of Israel’s error is that they have misunderstood the law’s fundamental goal and requirement. The law’s goal was to save all people, Jew and gentile alike. Its most fundamental requirement, therefore, was that Israel love the gentiles as they loved themselves and grant them the same privileges that they themselves enjoyed under the law. Israel, in her pride and hypocrisy, failed to do this, and thus by misunderstanding the law, the law has become her downfall. Christ, however, accomplished the goal of the law in his death on the cross, and all may be saved by faith in Christ.

In 1991, Thomas Schreiner published “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9.30–10.3.”96 Schreiner’s essay describes Rom 9:30—10:8 as a “pivotal text for understanding Paul’s theology of law.”97 He identifies Israel’s failure to achieve righteousness via the law as the most controversial issue in 9:30—10:3.98 Schreiner argues that Israel pursued the law in order to obtain a right standing before God, but they did not obtain that right standing with reference to the law.99 Israel failed to obtain this right standing because they did not perform the requirements of the law.100 The OT law, in the sense of both commandments and revelation, points to Christ.101 If Israel had pursued the law by faith, they would have believed in Christ, for the law points to him.102 Paul thus faults Israel both for legalism (thinking they could gain righteousness by their works) and for inability to obey the law (οὐκ ἔφθασεν [9:31]).103 Righteousness by works is a wrong pursuit of the law because no one can obey law perfectly.104

In 1994, Steven Richard Bechtler wrote “Christ, the Τέλος of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4.”105 Bechtler argues that Israel imagined they could disregard Christ and attain righteousness by observing the law, but that is to misunderstand both God’s act in Christ and the nature of the law itself. Such a mistaken pursuit of the law results in failure to obtain the law and its righteousness.106 More specifically, Israel’s “zealous commitment to its exclusivistic view of the covenant precludes the possibility of God’s offer of salvation to Gentiles outside the covenant.”107 Thus Israel excludes themselves from the grace God offers in Christ.108 They are ignorant of the fact that God’s righteousness is eschatologically manifested in Christ, not the law.109 Paul uses Lev 18:5 to represent Israel’s nationalistic misunderstanding of the law, and Deut 9:4; 30:12–14 to demonstrate that the locus of God’s righteousness is not the law but Christ.110 Paul concludes his argument by underscoring the universality of salvation, not primarily the means to it.111 Bechtler believes that the true contrast in this passage is between universal and limited salvation.

In “YHWH and His Messiah: Pauline Exegesis and the Divine Christ,”112 David Capes examines the passage as a whole and especially Paul’s use of the OT. He argues that Israel is zealously trying to gain saving righteousness by works of the law, but they are missing the right way to righteousness before God. The essence of the law has always been righteousness through faith not performance. God makes this clear in Christ.113 Capes argues that Lev 18:5 depicts “a negative assessment of the outcome of a performance-based righteousness derived from the Law.”114

In 1999, Edith Humphrey wrote “Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30–10:21.”115 Humphrey’s essay focuses on the rhetorical effect of Rom 10:6–8 yet relates those verses to Paul’s larger argument in Rom 9:30—10:21. She argues that Israel has erred by trying to establish their unique covenant membership by observing the Mosaic Covenant’s boundary makers.116 This mistaken pursuit errs on two fronts: (1) the Mosaic Covenant was to be pursued by faith and not boundary markers, and (2) God has ended the era of the Mosaic Covenant by demonstrating righteousness in Christ.117 Paul uses the OT to show that the righteousness witnessed to by the law and the prophets (Lev 18:5) is the righteousness of faith (Deut 30:12–14).118

In Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, A. Andrew Das devotes a chapter to Rom 9:30—10:8.119 He first surveys the New Perspective reading of this passage and offers a critique of the New Perspective’s understanding of “works of the law” and Paul’s polemic against human effort. He then offers his own reading of the passage which argues that Israel mistakenly pursued the law by works and did not recognize the law’s witness to righteousness by faith.120 Christ empties the law of its gracious significance; he reconstructs Judaism’s gracious framework around himself.121 Lev 18:5 represents how Paul now views the law (as empty obligations) apart from Judaism’s gracious context.122 Deut 30:12–14 proves that the law bears witness to righteousness by faith in Christ.123 The two citations express antithetical perspectives on the law.124

The same year John Paul Heil published “Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30–10:8).”125 Heil investigates Rom 9:30—10:8 in order to prove his interpretation of Rom 10:4 that Christ terminates the law as the way of attaining righteousness before God by obeying its works.126 He explains from 9:30–33 that Israel has committed two errors: they sought the impossible goal of righteousness through obedience to the law (impossible due to human sinfulness), and they failed to believe in Christ.127 From 10:1–4, he explains that Christ has ended Israel’s futile attempt to gain righteousness through obedience to the law.128 He then uses the OT citations in 10:5–8 to contrast works-based attempts to fulfill the law with God’s way of righteousness through faith.129

In 2001, Douglas Carl Mohrmann wrote “Semantic Collisions at the Intertextual Crossroads: A Diachronic and Synchronic Study of Romans 9:30–10:13.”130 Mohrmann argues that Israel’s problem is not their approach to the law. For Paul, the works of the law are a matter of indifference until they become essential for salvation.131 Rather, Israel has failed to realize that Christ stands at the center of God’s administration of righteousness in the present age.132 Paul emphasizes typological patterns between the OT Scriptures and his universal gospel in order to demonstrate continuity between the two, but he also opens up these same scriptural references to new meanings.133 He utilizes this latter strategy “to redefine Isaiah’s stumbling stone and Israel’s test of faith, to supplant the law with Christ in God’s administration of righteousness, to challenge Jewish presumptive boasting over the law and their historical relationship with God, and to invite all humanity to a new confession of faith in God in Christ.”134

In 2004, William Dumbrell published “Paul and Salvation History in Romans 9:30–10:4.”135 Dumbrell uses Rom 9:30—10:4 to illustrate his salvation history approach to biblical theology.136 He argues that Paul criticizes Israel for continuing to obey the Jewish law when the Mosaic Covenant’s validity ceased with the death of Christ.137 Although Israel followed a law that was designed to express covenant membership, they did not obtain membership in the new covenant.138 The Mosaic Covenant was a legitimate means of expressing the obedience of faith before the cross; Israel was supposed to pursue the law of righteousness (the law which demonstrated the maintenance of the covenant).139 Israel’s problem is that they are “seeking to keep the Sinai covenant by law-based conduct not prompted by faith in Christ at a time when the Sinai covenant itself had been replaced by the new covenant inaugurated by the death of Christ.”140

In 2007, Francis Watson published a revised edition of his earlier Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles (1986), with the new subtitle, Beyond the New Perspective.141 Watson argues that Paul is not concerned in this passage to identify Israel’s fault. Rather, in 9:30—10:21 Paul articulates a scripturally based hope for the future transformation of Israel “in which the apparent rigidity of the image of the potter (9:19–21) gives way to a more dynamic account of the relation between the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath.”142 He argues that Israel is presently rejected “on account of their zealous pursuit of righteousness as defined by the law—a righteousness that God chooses not to accept in order that another way of righteousness may be opened up to the hopelessly unrighteous Gentiles.”143

In 2009, Jason Meyer published The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology.144 Meyer joins those interpreters who argue that the law demands faith.145 Paul faults Israel for not understanding the law of righteousness rightly.146 They were right to pursue the law, but they pursued it by works instead of by faith.147 This mistaken pursuit caused them to stumble over Christ.148 They did not recognize God’s provision of righteousness in Christ, and that the law pointed to him as its culmination all along.149 Leviticus 18:5 represents Israel’s misguided pursuit of the law, and Deut 30:11–14 represents the pursuit of the law by faith.150

Finally, in 2013, N. T. Wright again addressed Rom 9:30—10:13 in Paul and the Faithfulness of God.151 Wright argues that Israel sought the law of righteousness in the wrong way: they used particular nationalistic works (sabbath, food-laws, circumcision) as a way of establishing themselves exclusively as God’s people and keeping everyone else at bay.152 The true keeping of the Torah that God was aiming at all along was the universal confession of Jesus as Lord, and faith that God raised him from the dead.153 The person who does this will live; this is the fulfillment of the Torah now made possible for all nations in Christ.154

Taxonomy of Views

The literature review reveals three major positions on Israel’s chief error with reference to the law in Rom 9:30—10:13.

Misunderstanding

First, some argue that Israel essentially misunderstood the true demand of the law and sought to fulfill it in the wrong way. At its core, the law actually demands faith. The Jews misunderstood this fundamental requirement of the law, and thus rejected Christ because they were preoccupied with lesser forms of obedience.155

N. T. Wright summarizes this view with these words: “To confess Jesus as lord and to believe that God raised him from the dead is to ‘attain the Torah’, the nomos dikaiosynēs, the ‘law of covenant membership’, the point towards which the whole Pentateuch was heading. Conversely, to reject the Messiah is to fail to attain Torah, to stumble over the stone.”156 Similarly, John Toews writes, “Israel perceived the law as a demand for human performance instead of a call to faith.”157 Charles Cranfield asks, “What then is this pursuit of the law ἐκ πίστεως? The answer must be, surely, that it is to respond to the claim to faith which God makes through the law.”158

Nationalism

Second, Israel limited the expression of righteousness to their nationalistic symbols. The Jews think that righteousness is available only for Jews. The work of Christ which makes righteousness available to all is a stumbling-block to them.159

James Dunn articulates this view well: “The trouble with Israel is that they have confused the law and the righteousness it speaks of with works like circumcision which serve to make righteousness a function of Jewish identity rather than of God’s gracious outreach to and through faith. This failure came to eschatological expression and climax in their refusal to recognize Christ as Messiah.”160 Stephen Pattee summarizes his approach with these words:

Rom 10:5 is actually an interpretive paraphrase of Lev 18:5, in which Paul uses Lev 19:18 to assist in articulating the true meaning of “the righteousness of the law.” Because of this connection, Paul was able to conclude that the demand of Lev 18:5 to keep the entire law was met when the impartial love described in Lev 19:18 is practiced. The significance of this conclusion is that it enabled Paul to define precisely the nature of Jewish hypocrisy. By their failure to grant gentiles co-equal status before God, the Jews had violated the most succinct summation of the law’s requirements.161

Doug Mohrmann argues that Paul aimed “to supplant the law with Christ in God’s administration of righteousness, to challenge Jewish presumptive boasting over the law and their historical relationship with God, and to invite all humanity to a new confession of faith in God in Christ.”162

Legalism

Third, Israel tried to keep the law in order to attain righteousness by works instead of by faith. However, sinful humans cannot adequately perform the law’s righteous demands, and exist under the curse of the law. Because of their preoccupation with their own works, Israel rejected Christ’s gift of righteousness.163

Thomas Schreiner summarizes this view in the conclusion to his article on Rom 9:30—10:3:

The Jews pursued the law in order to obtain right standing with God, but they failed to attain that righteousness with reference to the law because they did not obey the law perfectly. Why is it that Israel did not obtain righteousness by pursuing the law? It is not because pursuing the law, properly understood, is evil or misguided, but because the law was pursued “as from works” instead of by faith. To pursue the law from works is to use the law as a means of establishing one’s own righteousness, but employing the law to establish one’s own righteousness is a delusive enterprise precisely because no one can obey the law perfectly. To pursue the law in faith is to recognize that the law cannot be obeyed sufficiently to obtain salvation, and that salvation can only be obtained by believing in Christ.164

Similarly, John Calvin writes, “they sought to be justified by works, and thus laboured for what no man could attain to; and still further, they stumbled at Christ, through whom alone a way is open to the attainment of righteousness.”165 Peter Stuhlmacher also observes, “Instead of living before God on the basis of faith, Israel stands before the Law and attempts to follow the path which is—as Paul already indicated in 3:20 (cf. Gal. 2:16)—condemned by God to fail, namely, to be justified on the basis of works.”166

This dissertation argues the third view: Paul criticizes Israel for pursuing a right standing with God by obeying the Mosaic law when they should have discerned within their own Scriptures both humanity’s inability to keep the law and the necessity of salvation by faith alone. Throughout the passage, Paul contrasts righteousness by faith with righteousness by works, and uses the OT to prove his theological argument. The result is a dense argument against the folly of works-righteousness based on the law and the necessity of salvation by faith alone as witnessed by the OT as a whole.

Structure of the Argument

Successive chapters study Rom 9:30—10:13 section by section. Chapter 2 examines the foundational paragraph of 9:30–33 and Paul’s use of Isa 8:14; 28:16 in Rom 9:33. Special attention is given to interpreting the phrase νόμον δικαιοσύνης (9:31), and Paul’s statement that Israel pursued the law by works instead of by faith (9:31–32a). Since Paul concludes each paragraph in 9:30—10:13 with an OT citation to prove his argument, special attention is given throughout to Paul’s use of the OT.167 All OT citations are studied under the following methodology: the original OT context; the use of the OT passage in Jewish literature; textual factors; Paul’s hermeneutics and theological point.168

Chapter 3 examines the second stage of Paul’s argument in 10:1–4. This paragraph echoes 9:30–33 but develops the main idea further. Special attention is given to the interpretation of Rom 10:4.

The OT citations in 10:5–8 flow out of the argument in 10:1–4 but are too complex to address in a single chapter. Therefore, chapter 4 examines Paul’s use of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, and chapter 5 examines Paul’s use of Deut 8:17a; 9:4a; 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8. The two citations contrast the differing approaches to righteousness offered by the law and the gospel.

Chapter 6 concludes the exegesis of the passage by examining Rom 10:9–13 and Paul’s use of Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11 and Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13. Here Paul moves from criticism to cure as he articulates the proper response to the gospel. Chapter 7 concludes the study and offers areas of further research.

We offer this dissertation with the goal of demonstrating that a traditional Law-Gospel (Lutheran) approach to Paul is defensible within one of Paul’s most important discussions of the law. In addition, it is consistent with the Old Testament’s approach to the issues of faith and righteousness. No full length-study has attempted to prove that point by focusing on this particular passage; this dissertation meets that need.

1. Based on Moo who identifies the theme or main topic of Romans simply as “the gospel” (Epistle to the Romans, 29–30), and Stuhlmacher who elaborates the theme as follows: “according to Romans 1:1–17 this theme must be the gospel carried by Paul, i.e., the gospel of the divine righteousness in and through Christ, by virtue of which those who believe from among the Jews and Gentiles (according to the promise from Hab. 2:4) obtain life” (“Theme of Romans,” 335, emphasis original). While not disputing 1:16–17 as the theme of the epistle, Wright argues that the Christological theme of 1:3–4 gives coherence to Paul’s argument in Romans (“Messiah”).

2. This approach to Romans reflects a traditional Lutheran approach to Paul, and is well-defended by Gathercole, “Justified by Faith,” 147–84; Moo, “Israel and the Law,” 185–216; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 548–52; Schreiner, Romans; Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 35–76; Seifrid, “Unrighteous By Faith,” 105–45; Westerholm, Perspectives, 384–401. Key sources that reflect the New Perspective on Paul’s approach to Romans include Dunn, “Letter to the Romans,” 842–50; Dunn, Romans; Wright, Justification, 177–248; Wright, Romans. For an overview of the major literature on the topic of Paul and the law, see Moo, “Paul and the Law,” 287–307; Toews, “Law,” 3–104; Westerholm, “New Perspective at Twenty-Five,” 1–38.

3. Wright observes, “Many have given it [Rom 9–11] up as a bad job, leaving Romans as a book with eight chapters of ‘gospel’ at the beginning, four of ‘application’ at the end, and three of puzzle in the middle” (Climax, 231). For a dated but still very useful summary of the history of interpretation of Rom 9–11, see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 269–75.

4. Dodd, Romans, 148–50. Sanday and Headlam argue that Paul finishes his main argument at the end of chapter 8, but they also highlight the importance of chapters 9–11 in defending God’s justice in the light of Israel’s present exclusion from salvation (Romans, 225).

5. Schreiner, Romans, 469.

6. Calvin, Romans, 332–33.

7. Longenecker finds Dodds proposal “highly likely,” but still admits “it must always remain largely conjectural” (Romans, 831–32).

8. Wright, Climax, 234; Fitzmyer, Romans, 541. In his most recent assessment of Rom 9–11, Wright puts forth a similar argument, viewing the section as Paul’s explanation of how God has redefined the elect people of God around the Messiah in fulfillment of his promise to Abraham to create a worldwide family of faith (Paul, 1156–257). Dunn claims that viewing Rom 9–11 “as the real climax of Paul’s attempt to understand the place of Jew and Gentile within the purpose of God” is the dominant view (Theology, 501).

9. Wright, Climax, 235.

10. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 547; Naselli, “Paul’s Use,” 225.

11. Aune, “Romans,” 159; Byrne, Romans, 307; Cranfield, Romans, 446–47; Longenecker and Still, Thinking Through Paul, 186; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 323–25; Moo, “Israel and the Law,” 196–98; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 547–49; Osborne, Romans, 259–60; Piper, Justification of God, 19, 46; Schreiner, Romans, 470–71; Thielman, Law, 28. For an overview of the argument of Rom 9–11, see Westerholm, “Paul and the Law,” 215–37.

12. Piper, Justification of God, 19; Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness, 152–53.

13. On the unity of Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11, see Johnson, “Romans 9–11,” 211–39; Moo, “Theology,” 240–58; Theobald, “Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder,” 135–77; Thielman, “Unexpected Mercy,” 169–81. Our assessment of Paul’s argument is as follows: 9:1–5: Paul’s anguish over Israel’s present separation from Christ; 9:6–18: defense of God’s faithfulness on the grounds that God never promised to save every ethnic Israelite, but has the sovereign right to elect whomever he wills to salvation (and this is in continuity with Israel’s Scriptures); 9:19–29: defense of God’s faithfulness on the grounds that he has elected many gentiles to salvation and a remnant of Israelites (and this is in continuity with Israel’s Scriptures); 9:30–10:21: defense of God’s faithfulness on the grounds that whereas gentiles have sought righteousness by faith, Israel has failed to keep the terms of God’s covenant with them (and this is in continuity with Israel’s Scriptures); 11:1–32: defense of God’s faithfulness on the grounds that God has not rejected his people; all Israel will be saved (and this is in continuity with Israel’s Scriptures); 11:33–36: concluding doxology extolling the wisdom and knowledge of God. For a similar assessment, see Schreiner, Romans, 472–75. Aletti highlights the similarity of progression in thought between Rom 9–11 and the prayer of Azariah in the Greek additions to Daniel: (1) the supremacy of God’s works, (2) human condition the result of human sin, and (3) the faithfulness of God to save his people (“Romans,” 1589).

14. While Rom 9–11 is more than a doctrinal treatise on predestination and human responsibility, such themes are an integral part of Paul’s explanation of why many gentiles are experiencing salvation while many Israelites are not.

15. Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness, 159; Wilckens, Römer, 2:210.

16. Some exceptions exist. Gaston writes, “Romans 9 is not about the unbelief of Israel nor the rejection of Israel. Paul does refer elsewhere to Israel’s lack of understanding (10:3, 19), to Israel’s disobedience (10:21; 11:11–12, 31) and to Israel’s lack of faithfulness (3:3; 11:20), all with respect to the Gentile mission. In Rom 2:17–24 Paul refers bitterly to Israel’s task of being a light to the Gentiles, a task in which they have failed in his opinion. But he really does not, in Romans 9–11 or elsewhere, charge Israel with a lack of faith or a concept of works-righteousness” (Paul and the Torah, 99). Likewise, Stendahl admits that non-Christian Jews do not believe in Messiah but does not think this is a problem to Paul: “Paul does not say that when the time of God’s kingdom, the consummation, comes Israel will accept Jesus as the Messiah. He says only that the time will come when ‘all Israel will be saved’ (11:26)” (Paul Among Jews, 4). We address these arguments in our discussion of Rom 10:1.

17. Schreiner writes, “Locating the precise reason why the Jews failed to obtain righteousness via the law is the most controversial issue in Rom 9:30–10:3” (“Israel’s Failure,” 209).

18. As argued by Haacker, Römer, 223; Hendriksen, Romans, 333; and Lambrecht, “Caesura,” 141–47.

19. Paul uses the phrase Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν five other times in Romans, and in each occurrence it opens a new paragraph (4:1; 8:31; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14). Grieb, Romans, 97; Kruse, Romans, 393; Longenecker, Romans, 829–30. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 206n803, also observes that 9:30–33 focuses more on the present than on the past, indicating that it belongs more with 10:1–13 than 9:6b–29.

20. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 619–20. Grieb observes that Paul also uses an inclusio to mark off the previous section: the reference to “seed” (σπέρμα) in 9:7, 29 (Romans, 97). Commentators rightly recognize that Paul continues to discuss themes raised in 9:30—10:13 in 10:14–21 (e.g., Longenecker and Moo treat Rom 9:30–10:21 as one section [Romans, 827, and Epistle to the Romans, 616, respectively]). Longenecker even notes that the quotation of Isa 65:1–2 in 10:20–21 functions to close the subsection 9:30–10:21 just as the citation of Isa 10:22–23 and 1:9 earlier in 9:27–29 functioned to close the subsection 9:6–29 (Romans, 834). However, the πῶς οὖν which begins 10:14 shifts the focus from the necessity of calling upon Christ for salvation (9:30—10:13, particularly 10:9–13) to the means of doing so (10:14–17). Furthermore, 9:30—10:13 is held together by several occurences of γὰρ and ὅτι, whereas 10:14 features οὖν, just as 9:30 (the beginning of the new subsection) does.

21. Dunn, Romans, 2:577; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 618; Toews, Romans, 258.

22. Dunn, Romans, 2:577; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 619; Toews, Romans, 258. Several interpreters argue that the OT citations in 10:5–8 are complementary rather than contrastive, but do not dispute the overall contrast throughout the passage.

23. Badenas, End of the Law, 101; Barth, Dogmatics, 242; Barrett, Romans, 192; Cranfield, Romans, 2:505; Dunn, Romans, 2:579; Käsemann, Romans, 276; Longenecker, Romans, 831; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 152; Toews, “Law,” 106. Other commentators such as Dodd, Fitzmyer, and Wilckens view 9:30–33 as transitional to the main argument in 10:1–13 (Romans, 160; Romans, 576; and Römer, 2:211, respectively). However, two factors warrant against this. First, since 9:30–33 contains the same contrast one finds in 10:1–13, one would expect the latter paragraphs to develop what is stated in the first. Second, the occurrence of μὲν without other particles indicates that μὲν functions in 10:1 as a marker of continuation (BDAG, 630). Paul begins his argument in 9:30–33 and continues it in 10:1–13. The content of 9:30–33 is foundational and essential, not just transitional.

24. As argued by Barth, People of God, 39–40; Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 99, 142; Wright, Paul, 1166; Wright, Romans, 646–47. For the argument that the theme of gentile inclusion receives equal emphasis with the explanation of Israel’s failure, see Kaylor, Paul’s Covenant Community, 166; Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 268; Toews, Romans, 257; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 322–33.

25. Aquinas, Romans, 277–78; Black, Romans, 136; Byrne, Romans, 307; Calvin, Romans, 376; Dumbrell, Romans, 102; Dunn, Romans, 2:576–77; Fitzmyer, Romans, 576; Hultgren, Romans, 376–77; Johnson, Romans, 166–68; Käsemann, Romans, 276; Keck, Romans, 242; Kruse, Romans, 392–93; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 617–18; Mounce, Romans, 205; Nygren, Romans, 376–77; Osborne, Romans, 259–61; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 301; Schreiner, Romans, 531; Seifrid, “Romans,” 650; Stowers, Romans, 302–3; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 151; Thielman, Theology, 368–69; Witherington, Romans, 249–51.

26. While we are confining our inquiry to Rom 9:30–10:21, Longenecker notes that Paul uses more OT quotations, biblical allusions, and proverbial materials based on OT Scripture in Rom 9:30—10:21 than he does in 9:6–29 (Romans, 830).

27. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 618. Pattee observes, “looking at the wider parameters of Romans 9 and 10, the influence of the OT is clearly discernable at almost every juncture” (“Stumbling Stone,” 155).

28. Toews, “Law,” 101.

29. Meyer, End, 210.

30. Dumbrell, “Paul,” 286.

31. Hübner, Law; Hultgren, “Paul,” 205–6; Moyise, Paul, 60; Räisänen, Paul, 1:29.

32. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions”; Pattee, “Stumbling Stone”; Toews, “Law.”

33. This literature review focuses on articles, essays and monographs. We interact with the commentary literature in the exegesis.

34. Bring, “Paul,” 21–60.

35. Bring, “Paul,” 22.

36. Bring, “Paul,” 25.

37. Bring, “Paul,” 26.

38. Bring, “Paul,” 26–27.

39. Bring, “Paul,” 27.

40. Bring, “Paul,” 44.

41. Bring, “Paul,” 44.

42. Bring, “Paul,” 48.

43. Cranfield, “Some Notes,” 35–43.

44. Cranfield, “St. Paul,” 43–68. Now Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 148–72.

45. A failure Cranfield identifies as “a reprehensible omission” (“Some Notes,” 40n10).

46. Cranfield, “Some Notes,” 37.

47. Cranfield, “Some Notes,” 38.

48. Cranfield, “Some Notes,” 39.

49. Cranfield, “Some Notes,” 40.

50. Barrett, “Romans 9.30–10.21,” 99–121. Now Barrett, “Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” 132–53.

51. Barrett, “Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” 140.

52. Barrett, “Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” 141.

53. Barrett, “Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” 144.

54. Barrett, “Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” 147–48.

55. Toews, “Law.”

56. Toews, “Law,” 3–104.

57. Toews, “Law,” 106.

58. Toews, “Law,” 106.

59. Rhyne, Faith.

60. Rhyne, Faith, 95–115, 165–73. This chapter reappears in Rhyne, “Nomos Dikaiosynēs,” 486–99.

61. Rhyne, Faith, 100–101.

62. Rhyne, Faith, 101.

63. Rhyne, Faith, 101.

64. Rhyne, Faith, 103–4.

65. Rhyne, Faith, 111.

66. Rhyne, Faith, 106.

67. Sanders, Paul, 36–43.

68. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

69. There is no sustained discussion of the passage in Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

70. Sanders, Paul, 36–37.

71. Sanders, Paul, 37.

72. Sanders, Paul, 37–38.

73. Sanders, Paul, 42.

74. Badenas, Christ, 101–44.

75. Badenas, Christ, 103.

76. Badenas, Christ, 104–5.

77. Badenas, Christ, 107.

78. Badenas, Christ, 110.

79. Badenas, Christ, 118.

80. Dunn, “Righteousness,” 216–28.

81. Dunn, “Righteousness,” 221–22.

82. Dunn, “Righteousness,” 222.

83. Dunn, “Righteousness,” 223.

84. Dunn, “Righteousness,” 224.

85. Dunn, “Righteousness,” 225.

86. Thielman, Plight, 111–15.

87. Thielman, Plight, 111–12.

88. Thielman, Plight, 113.

89. Davies, Faith.

90. Davies, Faith, 177–204.

91. Davies, Faith, 181–82.

92. Davies, Faith, 183.

93. Davies, Faith, 188.

94. Davies, Faith, 192–201.

95. Pattee, “Stumbling Stone.”

96. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure.”

97. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 209.

98. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 209.

99. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 213.

100. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 214.

101. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 215.

102. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 215.

103. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 219–20.

104. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 220.

105. Bechtler, “Christ,” 288–308.

106. Bechtler, “Christ,” 295.

107. Bechtler, “Christ,” 298.

108. Bechtler, “Christ,” 298.

109. Bechtler, “Christ,” 302.

110. Bechtler, “Christ,” 304–6.

111. Bechtler, “Christ,” 306.

112. Capes, “YHWH,” 121–43.

113. Capes, “YHWH,” 125.

114. Capes, “YHWH,” 125.

115. Humphrey, “Rhetoric,” 129–48.

116. Humphrey, “Rhetoric,” 141.

117. Humphrey, “Rhetoric,” 141–42.

118. Humphrey, “Rhetoric,” 142.

119. Das, Paul, 234–67.

120. Das, Paul, 245.

121. Das, Paul, 251.

122. Das, Paul, 255.

123. Das, Paul, 258.

124. Das, Paul, 262.

125. Heil, “Christ,” 484–98.

126. Heil, “Christ,” 486.

127. Heil, “Christ,” 487–88.

128. Heil, “Christ,” 489–90.

129. Heil, “Christ,” 490.

130. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions.”

131. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 209–16.

132. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 267.

133. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 268.

134. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 268.

135. Dumbrell, “Paul.”

136. Dumbrell, “Paul,” 286–312.

137. Dumbrell, “Paul,” 286.

138. Dumbrell, “Paul,” 307.

139. Dumbrell, “Paul,” 308.

140. Dumbrell, “Paul,” 308.

141. Watson addresses Rom 9:30—10:13 on pp. 322–33. References are from the 2007 edition.

142. Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 333.

143. Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 333, emphasis original.

144. Meyer, End.

145. Meyer, End, 207–29.

146. Meyer, End, 211.

147. Meyer, End, 211.

148. Meyer, End, 211.

149. Meyer, End, 212.

150. Meyer, End, 212.

151. Wright, Paul, 1156–257. Previous assessments include Wright, Climax, 231–57; Wright, Romans, 620–26; and Wright, Justification, 240–48.

152. Wright, Paul, 1177–78.

153. Wright, Paul, 1179.

154. Wright, Paul, 1173.

155. Achtemeier, Romans, 167–71; Badenas, Christ, 107; Barrett, Romans, 192–200; Barrett, “Romans 9.30–10:21,” 141–43; Barth, Shorter Commentary on Romans, 124; Bell, Provoked, 187–88; Boor, Römer, 239; Bring, “Paul and the Old Testament,” 21–60; Cranfield, Romans, 2:505, 510; Das, Paul and the Jews, 90; Das, Paul, 246–47; Davies, Faith, 181–82; Fuller, Gospel, 65–88; Käsemann, Romans, 277–81; Keener, Romans, 124–27; Lohse, Römer, 287–88; Meyer, End, 210–15; Rhyne, “Nomos Dikaiosynēs,” 490; Toews, Romans, 258; Toews, “Law,” 143, 245, 332–39; Wright, Climax, 240; Wright, Justification, 245; Wright, Paul, 1173–79; Wright, Romans, 649.

This list of advocates shows that this dissertation’s specific question unites and divides interpreters in a way that they may not otherwise be united or divided. For example, James Dunn and N. T. Wright agree that Israel was guilty of nationalistic righteousness and not works righteousness, but they disagree on the chief error Paul highlights in Rom 9:30—10:13. On the other hand, Jason Meyer opposes the New Perspective’s interpretation of works of the law, but agrees with Wright that Israel’s chief error is that they misunderstood the law’s call for faith.

156. Wright, Paul, 1179.

157. Toews, “Law,” 143.

158. Cranfield, Romans, 2:510.

159. Barnett, Romans, 217–22; Bryan, Romans, 165–67; Dumbrell, “Paul,” 308–9; Dumbrell, Romans, 102–3; Dunn, Romans, 2:576–77; Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 141–42; Humphrey, “Rhetoric,” 141–42; Jewett, Romans, 611, 618; Johnson, Romans, 167–69; Keck, Romans, 247; Longenecker, Eschatology, 216–17; Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 209–16, 267–68; Pattee, “Stumbling Stone,” 317–18; Sanders, Paul, 37–38; Stowers, Romans, 302–3; Witherington, Romans, 259–61.

At first glance, Sanders sounds like he views Israel’s chief error as lack of faith in Christ rather than preoccupation with their own righteousness (this would be consistent with his solution-to-plight view of Paul [Paul, 37]). However, his full discussion reveals that he views Israel’s lack of faith in Christ as at least bound up with their preoccupation with their own righteousness. Therefore, he is categorized here rather than under a separate category. Interestingly, Moo argues that Israel’s chief error in Rom 9:30—10:13 is a failure to perceive the salvation-historical shift that has come about in Christ, a view that sounds similar to Sanders (Epistle to the Romans, 619). However, he also argues that their failure to perceive this shift is bound up with their legalism, and perhaps even caused by their legalism. Therefore, he properly belongs to the category of interpreters who argue that Israel’s chief error is their inability to achieve righteousness by obeying the law. Bryan is like Sanders in that he indicates that Israel’s chief error is lack of faith of Christ, but he also argues that their lack of faith is bound up with their preoccupation with their own righteousness (Romans, 165–67). Finally, Jewett initially appears to disagree with this position, but later reveals that he properly belongs here (Romans, 611). On p. 618, he interprets “their own righteousness” as a reference to Israel’s ethnic and sectarian righteousness. On p. 611, he argues that Jewish ethnocentrism is not yet in view in Paul’s reference to seeking the law by works (9:32a), but still asserts that Israel erroneously believes that righteousness can be reached by performing the works of the law.

160. Dunn, Romans, 2:576–77.

161. Pattee, “Stumbling Stone,” 317–18.

162. Mohrmann, “Semantic Collisions,” 268.

163. Aquinas, Romans, 273–79; Barth, People of God, 40–41; Black, Romans, 136; Bruce, Romans, 186–87; Byrne, Romans, 307–11; Calvin, Romans, 377; Dodd, Romans, 164–66; Edwards, Romans, 245–47; Fitzmyer, Romans, 576–78; Heil, “Christ,” 485–86; Heil, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 110; Heil, Romans, 70–71; Hendriksen, Romans, 334; Hodge, Romans, 298; Huby, Romains, 361; Hultgren, Romans, 377; Kaylor, Paul’s Covenant Community, 177–78; Kuss, Römerbrief, 744; Kruse, Romans, 393–95; Lange and Fay, Romans, 325–26; Luther, Commentary, 144–48; Luther, Lectures on Romans, 86–91, 405–10; Michel, Römer, 322; Moo, Romans, 326; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 619; Mounce, Romans, 205–6; Morris, Romans, 375; Munck, Christ, 84; Murray, Romans, 2:43; Nygren, Romans, 377–79; Origen, Romans, 135–36; Osborne, Romans, 89–90, 261–62; Pelagius, Romans, 121–22; Pesch, Römerbrief, 81; Royster, Romans, 257–59; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 275–76; Schlatter, Romans, 210–12; Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 220; Schreiner, Romans, 533; Seifrid, Christ, 120–23; Seifrid, “Romans,” 650; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 152; Thielman, Plight, 111–15; Thielman, Paul, 205–7; Thielman, Law, 29–30; Thielman, Theology, 368–69; Westerholm, Justification, 21; Wilckens, Römer, 2:220.

Dodd belongs here more than in the other two positions, but he attributes Israel’s inability to keep the law to the ceremonial and mechanical nature of the Law of Holiness and Priestly Code contained in Leviticus (Romans, 164–66). Dodd congratulates Paul on recognizing in Deuteronomy (and this “without the aid of modern criticism”) a stratum that goes deeper than the legalism of Leviticus “and comes very near in spirit to Christianity” (166). Bring, “Paul,” 21–60, speaks of unbelief as disobedience to the law, and faith as the true fulfillment of the law, but he also defines the law as the Old Testament, arguing that the Old Testament as a whole witnesses to righteousness by faith, and that the law is given to reveal humanity’s sinfulness and direct their attention to Christ in order to be justified by faith. That accords more with this third view than the first.

164. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure,” 220.

165. Calvin, Romans, 377.

166. Stuhlmacher, Romans, 152.

167. Pattee observes, “Nowhere in Paul’s writings does he refer to the OT more frequently than in Romans, and nowhere in Romans are OT citations and allusions found as often as in chapters 9–11” (“Romans 9:30–10:13,” 106).

168. Based on Beale and Carson, Commentary, xxiv–xxvi. Sometimes the order of analysis varies, or multiple aspects are addressed at once, but the basic process is the same throughout.