Misunderstanding, Nationalism, or Legalism. Richard Wellons Winston
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.