Misunderstanding, Nationalism, or Legalism. Richard Wellons Winston
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