Misunderstanding, Nationalism, or Legalism. Richard Wellons Winston
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