Misunderstanding, Nationalism, or Legalism. Richard Wellons Winston
rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_606ad880-dde8-54aa-afe3-52064404a417">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,