Word Biblical Commentary 38B: Romans 9-16

Explanation

Having reintroduced the idea of two epochs—one characterized in terms of the law, the other in terms of faith, with Christ marking and effecting the transition—Paul proceeds to document and undergird it with scriptural justification. Just as he followed the intense theological argument of 9:22–24 with scriptural proof in 9:25–29, so now he looks to scripture to sustain the equally intense argument of 10:2–4. The scriptural proof he finds by juxtaposing two texts from the Torah—Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11–14.

10:5 The righteousness which Israel sought (v 3) is now expressed as “the righteousness which comes from or arises out of the law.” Since v 5 is introduced as a further explanation or justification for the line of argument developed over the preceding verses, Paul’s readers would have no difficulty in reading off the equation, “law of righteousness in terms of works” (9:31–32) = “their own righteousness” (10:3) = “righteousness out of the law” (v 5). So too it can hardly be doubted that “righteousness from the law” would inevitably be seen as the inverse statement of the phrasing in the preceding verse, “the law for righteousness” (v 4). So the reader would be in no doubt as he began this section that Paul was referring to an attitude to the law and to righteousness which he saw to be both typical of his own people and to be now rendered out of date by Christ. “Righteousness out of the law” then is righteousness understood as sustained and dependent upon acts of law keeping, righteousness understood as marking out a relationship with God peculiar to the people of the law and documented and validated by their faithfulness to those ancestral customs in particular which gave them their distinctiveness among the nations.

This attitude, however obsolete now, at least had some justification in the old epoch, as Moses shows: “he who does these things shall live by them” (Lev 18:5). Paul seems to understand the passage in its most obvious sense—that keeping the statutes and ordinances of the law was the way of living appropriate to the covenant, which the covenant required. Moses did not say, and Paul does not understand him to say, that keeping the law was a means of earning or gaining life (in the future; cf. Gal 3:21; Rom 7:10). Rather the law prescribes the life which is to be lived by the covenant people (cf. Hab 2:4). The life sustained by God is life in accordance with the regulations and institutions of the law.

6 In contrast Paul puts forward another speaker—not Christ, but “the righteousness from faith.” The contrast seems to be deliberate, since Paul would regard Moses as the author of the second quotation as well as of the first. Paul must mean therefore to identify the old epoch with Moses, not unnaturally since “the law” and “Moses” would be obvious correlates in his thought (cf. 2 Cor 3). It is less clear what motivates his personification of “righteousness” as the opposite side of the antithesis. Certainly he sees the new epoch introduced by Christ as characterized by “the righteousness from faith,” but quite possibly also he has in mind the vigorous metaphorical use of “righteousness,” even personification of “righteousness,” precisely as one of scripture’s ways of depicting the eschatological salvation of God (as in Isa 45:8). Whatever the reason, this righteousness is clearly the same righteousness which he has been referring to variously since 9:30 as “the righteousness from faith,” “the law of righteousness” (9:31), and “the righteousness of God” (10:3). That is, it denotes God’s giving and sustaining of that relationship with him without which man cannot know salvation, a relationship which on man’s side depends first and foremost on his reliance on God, open to his power in trustful obedience.

The antithesis between law and faith at this point is of course not to be pressed too far: Paul neither confines the law to the old epoch (cf. 8:2; 9:31), nor believes that faith only becomes possible with the new epoch (cf. chap. 4). It is a characterization of the two epochs he is striving for, not a definition, far less a complete description. As a Jew he has no doubt that God’s saving power prior to Christ centered on and worked through his people, and since the law is the obvious identity factor which characterizes his people most distinctively he can describe their relationship with God not unfairly or wholly negatively in terms of “righteousness from the law.” But as a Christian he is also convinced that the eschatological effect of Christ has been to bring God’s purpose to a new and final stage, where relationship with God can no longer be circumscribed by national and ritual boundaries but must be described in terms of “righteousness from faith.”

6-8 The second quotation which the “righteousness from faith” introduces is from Deut 30:11–14. The initial reaction of the commentator, as it must have been of many when they first heard the passage, is that Paul is posing a false antithesis, that the two quotations from Leviticus and Deuteronomy are correlative rather than antithetical. For Deut 30 like Lev 18 is intended to encourage the keeping of the law: the point of Deut 30 is to emphasize that the commandment of God is not too hard; God does not require of his people something unattainable; they know what he wants, and they can do it if they have the mind to do so. For anyone familiar with Deut 30:11–14 the most striking feature of Paul’s citation of the passage is that the last part stops short and misses out the most important phrase (v 8). Where Deut 30:14 says, “The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it,” Paul quotes only, “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.” But what is more surprising still is the way in which Paul’s interpretation of the passage seems to change its sense completely: where Deuteronomy speaks of the commandment as being neither too far away nor too hard, Paul interprets it of Christ—“‘Who will ascend to heaven’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend to the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)”; and where Deuteronomy refers to the commandment when it speaks of “the word,” Paul interprets it of the gospel—“‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach).”

However, the contrast between Deuteronomy’s original meaning and Paul’s interpretation of it is not so sharp as at first appears. We have already noted that the antithesis implied in vv 5–6 between the law and faith should not be pressed (v 6 above). This applies equally to Paul’s use of Deut 30. The point is that for Paul the commandment of the law is not nullified or controverted by the word of faith; on the contrary the commandment is fulfilled in the word of faith (cf. 3:31), the word of faith we might say is the law of righteousness properly understood (9:31–32). What Paul is objecting to throughout this letter is not the law or the commandment as such, but the law and the commandment understood in terms of works (9:32), in terms of national righteousness (10:3). To put the same point another way. Deut 30 can be taken as referring to both epochs of God’s saving purpose, to the epoch of Israel before Christ and the epoch of all the nations brought in by Christ. The contrast between Lev 18 and Deut 30 therefore is not that the former is to be wholly referred to the old epoch while the latter solely to the new. Rather it is that the Leviticus passage emphasizes the discontinuity between the epochs, whereas the Deuteronomy passage can bring out the continuity between the epochs, the continuity precisely between the law and the obedience of faith. In this sense too it can be seen that “the word of God” has not failed (9:6).

We can see the same point emerging from the way Paul focuses attention on the “heart” in this passage. He deliberately introduces Deut 30:12–14 by inserting the words from Deut 8:17 and 9:4, “Do not say in your heart” (v 6)—the Deuteronomist’s repeated warning against presumption on the part of his people, of a forgetfulness that the covenant is sustained solely by God and not by their doing (10:3). And in his elaborated interpretation in vv 9–10, Paul underlines the fact that faith operates from the level of the heart. In view of his repeated emphasis earlier that the real business of the law is “in the heart” (2:15), that the circumcision God wants is “of the heart” (2:29), that the obedience God calls for is “from the heart” (6:17), the repeated reference to the heart here can hardly be accidental. The implication is that when Deut 30:14 speaks of the word in the heart Paul understands it to be speaking of the law written in the heart (Jer 31:33), understands the obedience called for to be the “obedience of faith” and not merely the obedience of works. The point of the contrast with Lev 18, then, is that Deut 30 emphasizes both levels of obedience, heart as well as mouth, inward as well as outward (cf. 2:28–29), whereas Lev 18 seems to emphasize only the “doing,” only the one level which consequently can too easily become merely the level of works. So once again Deut 30 can be said to provide a deeper insight into what the law is about, whereas Lev 18 tends to encourage the shallower interpretation which in Paul’s view characterized most of his kinsfolk’s current understanding of the law.

But how was it possible for Paul to interpret the commandment of Deut 30:11 as a reference to Christ? The answer is probably given in the fact that Deut 30:11–14 seems to have provoked a considerable interest in Jewish thinking at about this time. Baruch had already used the passage in speaking of the hiddenness of divine Wisdom (Bar 3:29–30). Philo, closer to the time of Paul, refers it to “the good” (Post. 84–85; Mut. 236–37; Praem. 80). And Targum Neofiti also elaborates the same two verses (Deut 30:12–13) in reference to the law. The implication is that there was a widespread impression during this whole period that Deut 30:11–14 was referring not simply to the commandment of Moses, not merely to the law as such. Even to suggest that the commandment was “in heaven” or “beyond the sea” was enough to indicate that there was something bigger in view than the written commands of the law, something of cosmic or universal scope. Baruch and Philo both took up the hint and interpreted the passage in terms which would have appealed to a much wider audience—the heavenly wisdom which far more than Israel coveted, “the good” which was the goal of ethical discipline for so many in the ancient world. For both Baruch and Philo, of course, divine wisdom and what is good focused particularly and nowhere else so clearly as in the law. The point is, however, that they saw the law as the focus and embodiment of something more mysterious, more ultimate. Paul evidently shares the same intuition. But for him the something more, of cosmic scope and universal significance, can only be an allusion to Christ. So just as these others saw in Deut 30 a reference to a grander theme which nevertheless comes to clearest articulation in the law, so Paul sees in Deut 30 a reference to Christ who comes to clearest expression in the gospel, the word of faith which defines the deeper meaning of Deuteronomy’s “commandment,” at the level of the heart.

The reference to Christ is facilitated by the fact that the two questions of Deut 30:12–13 match so neatly with two stages of the Christ event—his exaltation to heaven (v 6) and his resurrection from the dead (v 7). It is less than likely that Paul’s readers would understand the first question as a reference to incarnation, since there is no evidence that Christian thought had so far evolved the idea of incarnation, or that the language of preexistence when referred to Christ (1 Cor 8:6) would as yet be taken to imply his personal preexistence, or that talk of his being “sent” (Rom 8:3) was as yet understood to imply a descent from heaven. The order of the two stages of the Christ event in vv 6–7 is fully explained by the order of the clauses in Deut 30:12–13. In the same way in v 9 the order of phrases in Deut 30:14 determines the fact that Paul puts confessing Christ as (exalted) Lord before believing that God raised him from the dead; Paul hardly means us to think that Christ’s exaltation preceded his resurrection, or that confession should precede belief! In neither case is it likely that Paul intends the order of clauses to be understood as a chronological order.

Paul thus takes Deut 30:11–14 seriously. The commandment, properly understood as calling for the obedience of faith, from the heart, does not call for something impossible. Righteousness does not require earthbound man to scale the heights of heaven or to plumb the depths of the abyss; neither does its attainment depend on Christ’s continued (or restored) bodily presence on earth. The word which expresses God’s will is near; it is not unattainable, because as scripture says, it is “in your mouth and in your heart.” That word is “the word of faith,” a word characterized by faith from start to finish, that is, a word which in particular calls for faith from its hearers; though (in line with the ambiguity in his use of “the righteousness from faith”) Paul may also have in mind that the word he preached proclaimed God’s faithfulness. In contrast to the focus of Lev 18 on doing, the emphasis which emerges from Deut 30 for Paul is on believing—not because he wants to set faith and deeds in antithesis, but because whereas Lev 18 lends itself to being understood in terms of ethnic customs and ritual ordinances, Deut 30 points to that deeper level of obedience now called for in the gospel’s call to faith.

In short, Paul’s exegesis here is by no means so arbitrary and unjustified as at first might appear. He can take Lev 18:5 as characterizing “righteousness from the law,” as characterizing righteousness understood in terms of nationalistic practices and rituals, precisely because that is the way the bulk of his own countrymen seem to understand “the law of righteousness” as a whole. And he can take Deut 30:11–14 as characterizing “righteousness from faith,” not only because it speaks of a deeper level of obedience, of the level of obedience which the law properly understood really looked for, of the level of obedience which his gospel in continuity with the law of righteousness now proclaims; but also because its wording invites a reference to the cosmic lordship of Christ proclaimed by the same gospel.

9-10 Paul continues his exposition with a clarification of the two phrases, “in the mouth” and “in the heart.” He has already identified “the word” of Deut 30 as “the word of faith which we preach,” so he could have taken the two phrases as referring to the apostolic message and its proclamation. But, presumably because he remains mindful that Deut 30:11–14 was speaking of the “commandment,” of a word calling for response, he naturally refers the two phrases to the response called for by the gospel—viz., confession of Jesus’ lordship, and belief in his resurrection. This emphasis on belief and its expression in open confession marks out clearly the difference from a response characterized by “works.” This presumably is the reason that the point is put as a conditional clause: the one essential condition of salvation is faith, the acceptance by heart and lip of what God has done in and through Christ. But the emphasis also highlights what Paul clearly regards as the central emphasis of his gospel: the fundamental and indispensable belief that “God raised him from the dead” (cf. 1 Cor 15:17), and the equally firm conviction that “Jesus is Lord” (cf. 1 Cor 8:6 and Phil 2:11). On both points it is almost certain that Paul cites formulae which would be familiar to his readers, formulae which would probably recall their own conversion and initiation into the new movement, formulae in fact which go back to the earliest days of the new movement. In posing the gospel as an alternative to what he sees as the typical Jewish presumption of a favored status before God demonstrated and affirmed by the identifying rituals of the law and ancestral customs, Paul is concerned to describe the gospel in terms which would command the fullest consent from other Jewish Christians as well as from Gentile believers too.

The point is repeated in a generalized assertion in v 10, where the clauses are distinct only for rhetorical effect, as determined by the wording of Deut 30:14. The generalization heightens still further the contrast with righteousness from the law. To talk of the “heart” is to talk of faith; faith operates at and from the level of the heart. To talk of the “mouth” is to talk of confession; confession is the primary and essential outward manifestation corresponding to faith, not a sequence of ritual “works.” If righteousness is in view, faith which cannot hold back from public expression is the way into that gracious relationship with God. If salvation is in view, confession which springs from a wholehearted inner conviction is the means through which God’s final purpose is achieved. This is what Deut 30:11–14 always looked for, as the resurrection and exaltation of Christ have now made clear. In understanding righteousness in terms simply of (Israel’s) keeping the law the bulk of Israel had misunderstood how God’s righteousness is received and had put their ultimate salvation in jeopardy (v 1).

11 That the thrust of Paul’s thought is still directed toward exposing and explaining his fellow countrymen’s misunderstanding of their own scripture is confirmed by the way he rounds off the present paragraph. Verse 11 picks up the quotation from Isa 28:16 cited in 9:33, reminding us that the argument from 9:30 is all of a piece. The faith which Deut 30 calls for with its talk of the word in the heart is the same faith of which Isa 28:16 spoke. The mutual applicability of both passages to Christ no doubt served for Paul as confirmation that he was interpreting both correctly. The one alteration Paul makes is significant. He adds “all” at the beginning. Thereby he universalizes what in its narrower context had primary reference to Israel—just as in v 10 he generalized the truth expressed by Deut 30:14. In neither case would Paul think the procedure illegitimate—simply because it is a firmly rooted conviction on Paul’s part that the privileges initially given to the Israelites (9:4–5, including the giving of the law) always had the nations as whole in view. It is the new and climactic stage of God’s purpose achieved in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ which has brought that wider purpose into focus and triggered off its universal implementation.

12-13 The implication of the added “all” in v 11 is spelled out in the sequence of three explanatory clauses. “There is no difference between Jew and Greek.” The assertion so simply made would be astonishing to any members of the Roman congregations less familiar with this basic postulate of the Gentile mission (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28). The distinction between Greek and barbarian had been rendered less widely applicable by the spread of Hellenism, but the distinction between Jew and Gentile was still basic to Jewish thought. And for all that Paul had emphasized “to Gentile as well as Jew” earlier in his letter, he had still emphasized the priority of the Jews (1:16; 2:9–10) and confirmed their special privileges under the covenant (3:1–2; 9:4–5). But here he states the other side of his dialectic, and with a sharpness unmatched even in 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:28. For those, however, who have followed the line of his argument, the point is clear: he who first gave his covenant grace to Israel alone has now broadened it out to include all, and on the same terms—faith; what was always called for by the law, faith from the heart in the one who gave the covenant, can now be reexpressed as faith in the one through whose resurrection and exaltation God has broadened out the same covenant. In terms of historic privilege Israel is still distinctive. In terms of the righteousness of God open to all, there is now no difference between Jew and Greek.

The two following “for” clauses (vv 12b, 13) might also have caused some surprise, for Paul seems deliberately to merge the role of Jesus as Lord with that of God himself. In calling Christ “Lord of all” he echoes, no doubt deliberately, the argument used in 3:29–30: if Jews believe God is one, then he must be God of Gentiles as well as Jews; so if Christ is “Lord of all” he is Lord for both Jew and Greek. Moreover, he speaks of the Lord Christ as “rich to all who call upon him,” where the most obvious connotation is of calling in prayer or entreaty on a divinity who might be expected to provide help from his abundant resources. Paul would hardly be unaware of how frequently the scriptures speak of “calling upon the name of the Lord,” and the appropriateness of talking of God’s richness toward humankind is hardly unfamiliar to him (2:4; 9:23). Most striking of all is the way in which he cites Joel 2:32 [LXX 3:5], evidently with the full intention of referring it to “the Lord Jesus”—“for all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This hope and promise held out in Joel with reference to the God of Israel, Paul refers without any apparent qualm to the exalted Christ.

The point Paul is making is not, however, a Christological one; rather it is a salvation-history point. At its simplest he is stressing the complete continuity between God’s purpose through his covenant with Israel and the climax of that purpose in Christ. The remnant of Judah, who according to Joel will be saved (cf. 9:27–29), are once again to be identified as those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. But there is more involved in Paul’s thought than that, for it is precisely through the exaltation of Christ to his right hand that God can now be seen to exercise his own lordship as a lordship over all, Greek as well as Jew; for in fact it is through Christ’s exaltation that God has extended his effective lordship and covenanted authority to all nations—a point Paul might easily draw from the combination of Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:6 which was already well established in primitive Christian apologetic (cf. particularly 1 Cor 15:25–27). So too as God’s vice-regent and executive he is the one to whom and through whom requests for divine aid should be made; he is the one who can dispense God’s own riches. Now that God has acted in and through Christ to bring in the final stage of his purpose for all humankind, the Jew can no longer claim special rights of access to God which are unavailable to the uncircumcised Greek, but must recognize that God has so disposed himself that access is now henceforth through Christ. Paul does not shrink from the boldness of his conclusions. It is not simply that the extension of God’s grace to all has ended Israel’s special covenant privileges as privileges enjoyed by Jews alone. It is also that the God who committed himself to Israel in covenant can no longer be thought of as simply or primarily the God of Israel. It is also that God, who showed himself to be concerned for all humankind in raising Christ from the dead and exalting him to his right hand, cannot now be understood or recognized other than in terms of this Christ. In committing himself to act so decisively in and through Christ, he obliged men and women to recognize God-in-Christ and to address themselves to God-through-Christ. Thus it is now through this Christ that all will be saved, share in the final wholeness of God’s fulfilled purpose for the world—and that “all” includes Jew as well as Greek. This is the seriousness of Israel’s plight so long as it continues to reject the gospel. To reject the word of faith is to reject its own covenant as now transposed into universal terms by Christ; to turn one’s back on Christ is to refrain from making that appeal to God in and through Christ by which salvation comes, the salvation for which Paul prays (10:1).

3. Israel’s Failure to Respond to the Gospel (10:14–21)

Bibliography

Translation

14How therefore shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how shall they heara without someone preaching? 15And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? Asb it is written, “How timely are the feetc of those who preachd good news.” 16But not all have obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says: “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17So then, faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.e

18But, I say, is it the case that they have not heard? On the contrary:

Their sound has gone out into all the earth

and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.

19But, I say, is it the case that Israel has not known? First,f Moses says:

I will provoke you to jealousy by a not nation;

By a senseless nation I will make you angry.

20And Isaiah is so bold as to say:

I have been found by those who do not seek me;

I have revealed myself to those who do not ask for me.

21But concerning Israel he says:

All the day I stretched out my hands

to a disobedientg and obstinateg people.

Notes

a. The subjunctive should be read throughout, including ἀκούσωσιν here; see SH.

b. For the variation καθάπερ see on 3:4.

c. The expected tendency to assimilate the text to the LXX by inserting τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων εἰρήνην is clearly attested and clearly secondary (Metzger).

d. Whether τά should be read is uncertain; see Cranfield, 535 n.1.

e. There was a similar tendency in the same text tradition (as Note c*) to replace the unique ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ (only here in the NT) with the more familiar ῥῆμα θεοῦ (Luke 3:2; John 3:34; Eph 6:17; Heb 6:5; 11:3) (Metzger). Howard, 78–79, argues in favor of θεοῦ on the hypothesis that (1) κύριε of v 16 was probably initially (as in first-century LXX texts) a transcription of the Tetragram, and (2) its subsequent replacement by κύριε caused an ambiguity (God or Christ?) which resulted in θεοῦ being replaced by Χριστοῦ. But the willingness of NT writers to use the phrase ῥῆμα θεοῦ and the absence of any NT parallel to ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ undermine the logic of (2).

f. πρῶτος should certainly be read with Μωϋσῆς rather than with the question, as Bentley and Zahn have suggested; see Kühl and Cranfield.

g. F G Ambst omit this phrase, presumably in recognition that the MT has a shorter line.

Form and Structure

The chain effect of a developing line of argument linked at each step by a quotation from scripture, begun in v 9, continues through to v 21, with the scriptures themselves actually carrying the line of argument in the final stages.

Statement		Scripture
9–10		11
12		13
14–15a		15b
16a		16b
	conclusion 17
	18
	19
	20
	21

As with the first stage of the discussion in chaps. 9–11, Paul rounds off the argument with a sequence of scriptural quotations closely linked together (9:24–29; 10:18–21).

Although other divisions of the text are possible (in view of the awkwardness of vv 16–17), particularly the suggestion that vv 14–15 go with the preceding context (Lietzmann, Moffatt), it is much more natural to link vv 14–15 with vv 16–17 (as, e.g., Lagrange, Michel, Käsemann), especially when the function of vv 16–17 is properly appreciated (see on 10:16). The unjustifiable nature of wholly speculative emendation is illustrated by the implausibility of Müller’s thesis that the original order of the text was vv 13, 14, 15b, 15a, 17, 16, 18 (see Michel, 333 n.1; Kuss). Particularly notable is the sequence of rhetorical questions in vv 14–15a (cf. 5:4 and 8:29–30), and the verbal link effected by the use of ὑπακούω (v 16), ἀκοή (vv 16–17), and ἀκούω (v 18), which is impossible to reproduce in English, but which the original audiences would no doubt have appreciated. There is also something of an a b c d e e d c b a sequence in vv 14–20 (Leenhardt, 276).

Comment

10:14 πῶς ουν ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν; “how therefore shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” For πῶς in rhetorical questions, which call an assumption into question or reject it altogether, inviting the response “It is impossible,” cf. 3:6; 6:2; and 8:32, and see BGD, 1d. For ἐπικαλεῖν see on 10:12. Since ἐπικαλεῖν does not usually need a preposition, the εἰς certainly goes with ἐπίστευσαν. Paul uses πιστεύειν εἰς only occasionally (Gal 2:16; Phil 1:29; cf. Col 2:5), but it is used elsewhere in the NT (Matt 18:6; Acts 10:43; 14:23; 19:4; 1 Pet 1:8; and frequently in the Gospel and Epistles of John). In this letter Paul usually uses πιστεύειν in the present tense (see on 1:16). Here the aorist with the εἰς points to the act of commitment which expresses itself in ἐπικαλεῖν; the question clearly harks back to v 9. Paul leaves the subject ambiguous, so that a decision between “the Jews” (as Cranfield) and the πάντες of v 12 (Wilckens) is unnecessary. Paul formulates a gospel principle (Munck, Christ, 91–92), and the target of vv 14–18 is as much Jewish(-Christian) objection to the universal (gentile) mission of the gospel (Wright, Messiah, 178–79; Watson, Paul, 166–67; cf. Gaston, Paul, 132), with Israel itself coming to explicit reference only in v 19.

πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν ου οὐκ ἤκουσαν; “and how will they believe on him whom they have not heard?” In accordance with normal grammatical usage the ου must mean the speaker rather than the message (SH, Lagrange; further Schlatter). So presumably Paul still has in mind the imagery of Deut 30:12–13 interpreted in vv 6–7, with Christ as the bearer of the message (cf. v 17—ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ). If weight was to be given to the point we would have to think of Christ as the authority behind the one sent (Barrett; cf. Murray; see on 10:15, ἀποσταλῶσιν). But the syntactical constructions of the parallel questions were probably the chief determinant rather than a theological point. See also on 10:18.

πῶς δὲ ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος; “and how will they hear without someone preaching?” κηρύσσειν (“proclaim aloud, publicly”) is not much used in the LXX, but the surprisingly infrequent usage for the preaching of the prophets is nevertheless significant and no doubt influenced the Christian usage, particularly the messianic and eschatological references (Isa 61:1; Joel 2:1; Zeph 3:14; Zech 9:9; so elsewhere in the NT—Mark 1:4, 7, 14, 38–39; etc.; note, e.g., Luke 4:18–19; Acts 20:25; and 28:31), and not least in Paul’s case those which envisaged a proclamation to the nations (Joel 3:9; Jonah 1:2; 3:2–7; cf. also Sib. Or. 1.128; with different emphasis, Josephus, Ant. 9.214; so in Paul, particularly Gal 2:2 and Col 1:23; cf. Mark 13:10 and 1 Tim 3:16). See further on 10:8. The question reflects a society where the chief means of mass communication was oral; communication of the gospel by written means is not yet envisaged.

15 πῶς δὲ κηρύξωσιν ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσιν; “and how shall they preach unless they have been sent?” The image of the preacher/herald (κῆρυξ) is implicit; fundamental to Paul’s conception is the preacher as spokesman for another, not as someone with his own message authorized by himself—hence the emphasis of 1 Cor 15:9–11; 2 Cor 4:5; 11:4; and Gal 2:2. The link with ἀποστέλλειν is therefore not accidental (as also in Isa 61:1; Mark 3:14; Luke 4:18, 43–44; 9:2; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 2:11; TDNT 3:712), since at this point the κῆρυξ and the ἀπόστολος are largely overlapping concepts (see on 1:1). Cranfield draws attention to Jer 14:14; 23:21; and 27:15. Paul would presumably think of the commission as coming from Christ (1:5; 1 Cor 1:17, the most closely related of Paul’s surprisingly infrequent use of the verb; so, e.g., Michel and Zeller).

καθὼς γέγραπται, “as it is written”; see on 1:17. Lietzmann’s comment that the following quotation is “merely ornamental” has not won support and contradicts the force of the introductory formula (see also Cranfield). For the function of the quotation in vv 14–15, see also on 10:16.

The quotation is from Isa 52:7, with possibly also an echo of Nah 2:1; the text may have been prompted by the connecting links with Joel 2:32 [LXX 3:5] used in v 13 (“Zion” and εὐαγγελίζομαι—but note that Paul had already used Isa 52:5 at 2:24).

Nahum:	ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη οἱ πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου . . . εἰρήνην
Isaiah:	ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων, ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης,
Romans:	ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων
(Isa)	ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά . . .
(Rom)	(τὰ) ἀγαθά

Paul’s rendering seems to show knowledge both of the Hebrew (“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’”—the underlining indicating the closeness of the translation with the obvious exception that Paul thinks of not just one but many preaching), but perhaps also of the Greek (Wilckens; and note the appearance of ἀκοή; see vv 16–17). For ὡς, see on 11:33. The basic meaning of ὡραῖος is “timely, produced at the right season,” with the idea of “beautiful, graceful” a natural derivative. So although the other NT references have the latter sense (Matt 23:37; Acts 3:2, 10) and the nearest parallel in the LXX likewise (Sir 26:18), it is very likely that the sense “timely, coming at the right time” is intended here by Paul (BGD). NEB offers a useful compromise, “How welcome . . . .” For Paul’s use of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, see on 1:15, and also on 1:1; cf. TDNT 2:719–20; here it is more or less synonymous with κηρύσσειν (v 14). The omission of εἰρήνη is a little surprising, in view of its importance for Paul (see on 1:7 and 5:1), as perhaps also the omission of mention of Zion (which with 9:33 and 10:13 = Joel 2:32 [LXX 3:5] would have made a striking Zion catena); but Paul presumably felt it necessary to give only an abbreviated reference. That the verse lent itself to a messianic or eschatological sense is self-evident from the original context (the prospective return from exile to the promised land). That such an interpretation was already current in Jewish circles at this time is now confirmed by 11QMelch 15–19, where Isa 52:7 is explicitly interpreted of “the anointed by the Spirit” (for later rabbinic messianic interpretation see Str-B, 3:282–83; Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 148–50). This is perhaps then another case where Paul consciously sees the apostolic mission as one of sharing and completing that of the Messiah (see also on 15:20–21).

16 ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, “but not all have obeyed the gospel.” The οὐ πάντες should perhaps be classified as an example of meiosis (SH) or litotes (Rehkopf, 224); cf. 3:3; 11:17, 25. But it is equally likely that it is formulated simply in antithesis to the πᾶς of v 13 (Michel)—not “all,” without specification of how many. This link back to v 13 suggests that Paul intended vv 14–15 as a rounded statement of all that “calling on the name of the Lord” depended on, with Isa 52:7 intended as a scriptural confirmation of the necessary role of preaching rather than as an assertion that two of the preconditions had been met (sent, and preached) (as Cranfield suggests). V 16 therefore is best understood as a first response to the sequence of vv 14–15, not intended to pick on any particular link in the chain, but simply asserting the fact that it has not worked in the case of “all.” The question why, or how has the breakdown occurred is not actually addressed until v 18. Paul’s use of ὑπακούω here, then, will be deliberate: (1) he wants to sum up the breakdown of the chain of vv 14–15, rather than to focus on any particular broken link (otherwise he would have used πιστεύω; but see below); (2) the wordplay ἀκούειν/ὑπακούειν is irresistible: their ἀκούειν has not been ὑπακούειν (Schlatter); (3) perhaps more important, he sees the opportunity to reinforce the note of obedience which he also sees as fundamental to the gospel (1:5; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; see also 2 Cor 10:5 and 2 Thess 1:8; KÄsemann exemplifies typical Lutheran nervousness on the point), and which could be in danger of being overlooked every time the contrast of law/faith is pressed (as in 10:5 ff.). See further on 1:5; and note also 10:3. For εὐαγγέλιον, suggested, of course, by the preceding quotation, see on 1:1.

Ἠσαιας γὰρ λέγει, “for Isaiah says,” is the third of four scriptural passages drawn from Isaiah with explicit acknowledgment (9:27, 29; 10:16, 20).

Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; “Lord, who has believed our report?” The quotation is verbatim from Isa 53:1 LXX, though the Hebrew lacks the vocative “Lord.” The text is used in John 12:38 for the same purpose; presumably, as a corollary to Isa 53’s being seen to have a Christological reference, Isa 53:1 offered itself as another indication that by and large Israel would not accept the gospel of Jesus Messiah—a conviction likely to emerge first in Hellenistic circles (hence the LXX form). For Paul, therefore, it probably serves as a statement documenting the fact of the breakdown of the chain of cause and effect (vv 14–15), not as pinpointing the link where the break actually occurred. And this will be true even though for Paul ὑπακούω and πιστεύω are closely related, as this verse shows (cf. also 1:5; 16:26), a factor which is the main reason for the confusion as to the role of this verse in the argument (vv 14–18). For ἀκοή, see on 10:17. That ἀκοή occurs also in Isa 52:7 LXX (see on 10:15) is not brought out, but the presence of the same word in two passages from the same part of Isaiah and in consecutive verses here suggests that Paul was conscious of the context of his quotations.

17 ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, “so then, faith comes from hearing.” When the function of v 16 is appreciated—as a statement of the breakdown of the chain (vv 14–15) rather than an analysis of the breakdown itself (see on 10:16)—the ἄρα can be given its proper force as introducing a conclusion or summing up, “so then, consequently,” as in 7:21 and 8:1. Hence there is absolutely no need to treat the verse as a gloss (as Bultmann, “Glossen,” 280; Michel; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 32 n.76; Schmithals, Römerbrief, 207); cf. Cranfield, whose explanation, however, is too complex, and Wilckens.

ἀκοή can have the sense both of “(act of) hearing” and of “that which is heard” (LSJ, BGD). But whereas in v 16 ἀκοή is best taken in the latter sense, as almost all agree, in v 17 the former sense seems to be required (SH, Barrett, NIV, NJB; otherwise, RSV and NEB). (1) What seems unnatural to us because we have to use two different words (“report” and “hearing”) would not seem so to the Greek hearer; the range of meaning of one and the same word is simply being exploited. (2) The distinction from ῥῆμα (= “the word we preach,” v 8) in v 17b almost certainly necessitates the sense “hearing,” otherwise v 17b becomes largely meaningless. (3) It is the sense of “hearing” which the ἤκουσαν of v 18 picks up. (4) In the nearest parallel passage in Paul (Gal 3:2, 5) the natural sense is again “hearing,” since it is precisely faith as the responsive hearing/acceptance of the gospel/Spirit which Paul clearly has in mind.

διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ, “through the word of Christ.” For ῥῆμα, see on 10:8. In this summing-up verse, Paul deliberately recalls v 8 (Lagrange, Gaugler), with perhaps the same sort of ambiguity intended in the genitive (the word of which Christ is content and author), or possibly with the same implication intended as in v 14 (Christ as the bearer of the message; see on 10:14); see Kuss, also Käsemann. Munck, on the basis of the OT parallel ἐγένετο ῥῆμα κυρίου suggests “command” (Christ, 94 and 135n.). Fitzmyer offers as a possible translation “the message of the Messiah.” Schlier’s reference to the “wordevent” of Christ is far too modern to serve as exegesis.

18 ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; μενοῦνγε, “but I say, is it the case that they have not heard? On the contrary.” Paul uses this personal style of engagement in discussion (λέγω) several times in these chapters (10:18–19; 11:1, 11). A question introduced by μή expects a negative answer (as in 9:14), but where the main verb is itself negated (μὴ . . . οὐ) an affirmative answer is anticipated (BDF §427.2). The ἤκουσαν picks up the ἐξ ἀκοῆς of v 17 (Wilckens). It is regrettable that English cannot reproduce the cognate link between ὑπακούω (“obey”), ἀκοή (“hearing, report”) and ἀκούω (“hear”), which is an obvious feature of vv 16–18 and which would of course be evident to the first hearers—all the more so where they were familiar with Hebrew usage, since all three were used in the LXX to represent (see also on 1:5). For μενοῦνγε, see on 9:20.

εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν, “their sound has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.” The quotation is drawn word for word from the LXX of Ps 19:4 [LXX 18:5]. The absence of an introductory formula need not be significant (cf. 9:7; 10:13; 11:34–35; 12:20; 1 Cor 2:16; 10:26; 15:27, 32; 2 Cor 10:17; 13:1; see Ellis, Paul’s Use, 156–85); but it should not be assumed that Paul intends to cite the passage as prophetic, as most seem to (rightly, Lagrange, Bruce). Paul could simply be using the language of the psalmist as providing a hyperbolic vision of the full eschatological sweep of the gentile mission (cf. 1:8; 2 Cor 2:14; 3:2; Col 1:6, 23; 1 Thess 1:8; but hardly an assertion that the mission to the Jews had been completed—so Munck, Christ, 96–99, Black; cf. also on 15:19, 23). On the other hand, he could have been fully aware of the whole psalm, with its second half focused on the law, and intended to imply that the law is an expression of a more transcendent witness, as with Deut 30:11–14 (vv 6–8), and that it is the ῥήματα of the law in its transcendent form that is the ῥῆμα they preach (v 8; cf. also the στόμα/καρδία of Ps 19:14 [LXX 18:15] with vv 8–10). It is this message that has gone “into all the world” in the ῥήμα(τα) of the apostolic preaching. By using such a scripture Paul reminds his readers that “the Gentile mission is not an action apart from Israel but is the act of Israel’s God” (Wilckens). Käsemann reflects on “the rift, between Paul’s apocalyptic hope and earthly reality,” and he points out that “the apostle’s salvation-history is the most vulnerable part of his theology.” Presumably he is recalling the critique of Reimarus on this point referring to this verse (cited by Kuss). But Paul would scarcely be conscious of such a rift as yet (cf. 11:15, 25–27; and see on 15:19); and in his use of a theologia crucis to control the triumphalism at Corinth (2 Cor 4:7—5:5; 12:6–10; 13:3–4) he had already provided a theological means of dealing with that rift. NJB translates ἐξῆλθεν oddly as “stands out.” φθόγγος can denote the sound of an instrument (as in its only other NT reference, 1 Cor 14:7) or of the human voice. For τὰ πέρατα as “the ends, limits (of the earth)” see BGD, πέρας. Οἰκουμένη, “the inhabited earth, the world,” occurs only here in Paul (8 of the 15 NT occurrences are in Luke-Acts); cf. particularly Matt 24:14.

19 ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω; “but I say, is it the case that Israel has not known?” For μὴ . . . οὐ see on 10:18. For Ἰσραήλ see on 9:4. The charge is particularized following the less specific statements of vv 14–18. As in 9:31 the use of Ἰσραήλ (rather than οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) will be deliberate; it is precisely the question of who constitute the covenant people that is at stake. The problem of correlating the use of γινώσκω here with ἀγνοέω in 10:3 (e.g., SH, Michel) is not substantial. The range of meaning possible in γινώσκω makes it much more than a simple antonym of the latter. So it could be intended as a near synonym of ἀκούω in v 18 (given the range of meaning possible likewise in ; see on 10:18), and bear a sense like “acknowledge”; or it could be intended to take a step beyond ἀκούω, and thus mean “understand, comprehend” (so, e.g., Cranfield, Schlier, Wilckens; cf. BGD, γινώσκω 3).

πρῶτος Μωϋσῆς λέγει, “first Moses says.” For πρῶτος, “first,” where there is no following δεύτερος, see on 1:8; perhaps here in the sense, “Moses was the first to say,” “even as early as Moses” (SH). Moses is explicitly cited here not because he characterizes the old epoch (cf. 10:5), but to give weight to the following passage, which will become the key that unlocks the mystery of Israel’s rejection of the gospel in chap. 11.

ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπʼ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπʼ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς, “I will provoke you to jealousy by a not nation; by a senseless nation I will make you angry.” The verse cited is verbatim from the LXX of Deut 32:21, except that Paul replaces the αὐτούς in both lines by ὑμᾶς. Quite why he should do so is not clear, since the change does not modify the sense of the original—the αὐτούς refers to “his sons and daughters” (Deut 32:19); but it may indicate that Paul is still thinking in terms of a diatribe, and, more important, that he sees himself, or rather God, as actually addressing his fellow countrymen. “Paul alters the citation so that this I of God directs itself to the Thou of Israel” (Hübner, Israel, 97). The future tenses were obviously thought to give the verse the force of a prophecy (NJB translates the first as a present tense—perhaps a slip). Various identifications of the “no people” were to be offered—Philistines and Samaritans (Sir 50:25–26), Babylonians (Tg. Yer. I), and the north Africans (see Str-B, 3:284–85). Paul sees it as an eschatological prophecy and naturally thinks of his own mission to the Gentiles (11:13–14). The wording too would be particularly appealing to him: ὀργή and παροργίζω (32:19, 21), υἱοί (32:19, 20), in close conjunction with the only occurrence of πίστις in the Torah (32:20)—the implication being that Israel’s present lack of “faith” is the eschatological equivalent of Israel’s unfaith in its most idolatrous periods. παραζηλώσω also foreshadows 11:11, 14 (see on 11:11). The importance of the verse, not least for Paul, is that it begins to bring together the two strands so far treated separately in chaps. 9–10—God’s purpose to call a “no-people” (9:25) and Israel’s rejection of the gospel: the former will provide the solution to the latter within the purpose of God (ἐγώ emphatic), παροργίζω usually denotes Israel’s provoking God to wrath in OT usage; cf. not least Isa 65:3 (see also T. Lev. 3.10; T. Zeb 9.9; T. Asher 2.6). Paul would probably be conscious of the uniqueness of Deut 32:21b as God’s provoking Israel; the playoff of ideas with Ezek 32:9 and Bar 4:6 is particularly interesting. He would almost certainly be aware that in the two verbs he was taking language used of Israel (ζῆλος—10:2) and in a neat reversal was using it to explain Israel’s present role within God’s overall purpose. The influence (or usefulness) of the Song of Moses in early Christian apologetic and parenesis is indicated by 1 Cor 10:20, 22 (cf. Deut 32:16–17), Phil 2:15 (cf. Deut 32:5) and Heb 1:6 (= Deut 32:43 LXX) (Bruce).

20 Ἠσαιας δὲ ἀποτολμᾷ καὶ λέγει, “Isaiah is so bold as to say” (BGD). In classic Jewish style, a citation from the prophets follows one from the law; for the importance of Isaiah’s quotations for Paul in chaps. 9–11, see chaps. 9–11 Introduction. ἀποτολμάω occurs only here in the Greek Bible (cf. 15:15, 18) and probably indicates the boldness of Isaiah’s prediction, rather than Isaiah’s boldness (Cranfield).

The citation is from Isa 65:1 LXX,; with different word order, which makes no difference to the sense:

Isaiah:	ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν
Romans:	εὑρέθην ἐν τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν
Isaiah:	εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν
Romans:	ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν·

The inversion is what one would expect in a quotation from memory. At the same time it should be noted that the LXX had already inverted the Hebrew order (“I was ready to be inquired of by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me”), so that it is equally possible that Paul also had the Hebrew in mind. The most striking difference between the Hebrew and the Greek is the use of ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην for the niphal of = “let oneself be inquired of, consulted.” ἐμφανῆ γενέσθαι, “to become visible”—so ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην, “I have been revealed, that is, revealed myself” (BGD)—could of course refer to God’s self-revelation to Israel and to Moses in particular (Exod 3:14; etc.); and thus Paul could have in mind the argument from Exod 33:19 already picked out at 9:15. In nonbiblical Greek, however, ἐμφανής was used especially of the gods appearing bodily among humans (LSJ)—a more questionable assertion in Jewish ears—though, of course, already for Paul it could be taken to refer to the embodiment of divine Wisdom in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1:24, 30).

The original prophecy had Israel in mind, but the language lends itself to being interpreted of nonIsraelites (cf. 9:30); and for those who thought of themselves as seekers of God (cf. 9:31; 10:2) a reference to those outside the circle of covenant faithfulness would be very attractive or indeed called for. It would then be seen to belong with the stream of Jewish expectation which looked for the eschatological incoming of the Gentiles (see on 9:26). Such emphases need to be borne in mind in the face of the stereotype of Israel’s hatred directed against the Gentiles (as in Dodd, 171). In later rabbinic thought it was in fact referred to Rahab and Ruth (Str-B, 3:285). Paul’s use of the text to refer to the success of his own mission to the Gentiles falls within that tradition, even though it involves pulling Isa 65:1 and 2 (v 21) in different directions. The present tense of ζητοῦσιν and ἐπερωτῶσιν should not be lost in translation (as do most translations). Paul sees here, as in 9:30, definitions of the Gentiles—those who do not (by definition) seek and ask after (the) God (of Israel).

21 πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ λέγει, “but concerning Israel he says.” For πρός = “with reference to,” see BGD, III.5a. Paul specifies Israel as the target, thereby making still clearer the point that v 20 referred to Gentiles. There is no attempt, however, to hide the fact that the second scripture follows from the first in Isa 65 (v 20—Isa 65:1; v 21—Isa 65:2).

ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα, “all the day I stretched out my hands / to a disobedient and obstinate people.” The passage is verbatim from Isa 65:2, with the exception that Paul has pulled the phrase ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν, which comes at the end of the first line in the LXX and MT, to the beginning of the line for emphasis (followed by Barn. 12.4). It is unclear whether the LXX has expanded the too-short line of the MT by adding καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα (cf. 1QIsa^a, and the omission of the phrase from some witnesses to the Pauline text; see Notes), or whether alternatively the LXX and Paul should be counted as witnesses to a longer Hebrew text (but difficilior lectio would suggest otherwise).

The emphasis is on the divine initiative. It is no accident that all three of the concluding OT quotations are in direct speech of God and indeed in first-person language (Michel; Hübner, Israel, 98); hence also the ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν (cf. 8:36) in the place of emphasis—“daily” (Michel), “continually” (Cranfield). The fact that ἐκπετάννυμι τὰς χεῖρας was more proper to man’s appeal to God (Exod 9:29, 33; Ezra 9:5; Sir 48:20; 51:19) would heighten the poignancy of the text. Moreover, it should be recalled that this line of argument leads into a further question regarding God’s responsibility—“Has God rejected his people?”—indicating clearly that it is not merely the guilt of Israel which is in view (Schmidt). In this way Paul continues to elaborate a fundamental aspect of his theme—God’s faithfulness, not to Jew alone, and not to Gentile in disregard of Jew. Both are in view, and it must have been important for Paul that he could express both aspects of God’s outreaching concern by means of the same scripture (Isa 65:1–2), and with the Deuteronomy quotation as well (v 19), thereby tying the whole together in the first anticipatory statement of the resolution of the whole. At the same time it is not entirely accurate to say that “the statement of Israel’s disobedience is strictly incidental” (Cranfield; but see Barrett, “Fall,” in Israelfrage, ed. Lorenzi, 102, criticizing Munck, Christ, 75–79; also 89–91,104). ἀπειθεῖν has a key role in Paul’s analysis of Israel’s failure (11:30–32; see also on 2:8) as the opposite of ὑποτάσσεσθαι (10:3) and ὑπακούειν (10:16), and with ἀντιλέγειν it stands in opposition to the πιστεύειν and ὁμολογεῖν which the word of faith evokes (10:8–10, 14). That divine predestination works through disobedience does not make it any less disobedience (cf. SH, Käsemann, Kuss). The unbelief of an Israel which has heard and understood (vv 18–19) is proof that God’s saving power works through faith (cf. Schlatter).

Explanation

It is becoming steadily clearer that Paul’s intention is to explain the rejection of the gospel by Israel, as rooted in their failure to understand their own law and their own scriptures. The bulk of his fellow Jews have misunderstood the law of righteousness in terms of works; they have focused too much on the level of outward actions and national customs and failed to appreciate what obedience from the heart involves; and most of all they have failed to see how scripture pointed to Messiah as one whose resurrection and exaltation effects the end of the old epoch of Israel’s exclusive privilege and the beginning of the wider extension of God’s saving purpose—an eschatological end that God always had in view from the first promise to Abraham (indeed from the disobedience of the first Adam). But why this misunderstanding and rejection by the majority of Israel of what seems so obvious to Paul himself? Why is Israel not calling on the Lord for salvation as encouraged to do so by Joel? Paul has already hinted at a deeper and more profound answer in 9:14–23. But evidently he is not yet ready to develop that hint into a fuller statement. However, there is an alternative explanation which demands at least a brief treatment. And to this he turns—almost as though he hesitates to plumb that deeper depth of God’s purpose, or at least as though he wishes to clear the ground of alternative explanations, to make it all the more convincing that the explanation of Israel’s failure must lie ultimately in and within the purpose of God.

14-15 Joel’s encouragement to call upon the Lord invites the logical train of thought drawn out in a chain of rhetorical questions: such a calling upon comes from faith, faith from hearing, heating from preaching, preaching from commissioning. To appeal to another is to put oneself in that other’s power; and who would do that unless one believed in that other—believed that he could help, trusted oneself to him for that help? Salvation can only come to a person who believes in God like that, whose faith is not a merely verbal utterance, but who entrusts himself to God without holding anything back, and whose commitment is demonstrated and lived out in his unreserved appeal to God and surrender to God’s mercy. As in vv 9–10, faith and utterance go together: there, faith and confession; here, in vv 14–15, faith and entreaty. In rejecting the outwardness of works, Paul does not make the mistake of opting for a mere inwardness; commitment without outward expression is not commitment, certainly not the commitment of the whole person for which Paul looks.

Such faith comes from hearing—a hearing which is not merely a registering of a sequence of words on the mind, but a hearing with an understanding of the significance of those words and a response appropriate to that significance. The reference to hearing is not simply a logical link in the chain between believing and preaching; it also reflects Paul’s self-consciousness as a preacher, as one who thought in terms of communication by the spoken word and whose success depended on winning the sort of attentive hearing which so often resulted in commitment among his hearers. Paul was well aware of how critical that transaction was between speaker and hearer—when, mysteriously, not merely words are conveyed, but an understanding, a conviction, a life-changing commitment—and of how dependent as a preacher he was on the Spirit to make his word the word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 2:4).

“How shall they hear without a preacher?” The argument has moved far beyond questions of whether there are other sources for knowledge of God (such as might have been appropriate in chaps. 1 and 2). Nor is he thinking of his and others’ missionary proclamation at large. The train of thought is now wholly directed to the question of Israel’s failure to believe in the Lord Christ, and so moves wholly within the common assumption, shared by Paul and his fellow Jews, that God had revealed himself particularly and clearly to Israel. What is now at stake is the fulfillment and completion of that revelation in Christ. For Israel to hear of that climax to God’s purpose in Christ, proclamation of Christ is necessary. All Jews, scattered as they were throughout the world, might not yet have heard the message of their Messiah. Reflected here too then is not only Paul’s concept of spreading the news of Christ by preaching, but also his sense of urgency to get the news out and to ensure its widest possible broadcast as soon as possible, to Jew as well as Gentile.

15 The preacher must be sent; the proclamation presupposes a commission. Here it is even more clearly the case that Paul is not indulging in mere rhetoric or logical word spinning. Fundamental to Paul’s own self-consciousness as an apostle was the conviction that he had been called and commissioned for the task of proclaiming the good news (1:1; 1 Cor 15:8–11; Gal 1:15–16). Without that divine authorization and compulsion his proclamation would not be the power of God to salvation (1:16). What was true for himself was no less true for all preachers. This is the start of the chain; here is the source of the power which leads (by means of preaching, hearing, believing, and appealing) to salvation.

The scripture Paul quotes by way of confirmation, Isa 52:7 slightly adapted, is wholly appropriate. It speaks of evangelizing, perhaps even of a missionary evangelizing (“feet” implying travel?). The “good things” include, not least, “salvation” (Isa 52:7, 10). More important, the good news is for Zion—“Your God reigns”; the message is one of assurance to Jerusalem of the Lord’s mercy, of God’s deliverance of his people for all the world to see. And probably already at this time the passage was understood eschatologically, as a reference to the age to come, when God would reverse Israel’s present inferior and oppressed state. This eschatological note may also be present in the word “timely,” with its overtones of the harvest season. Clearly then the good news to be announced to Israel in the last days is for Paul the good news of God’s eschatological act in Christ. And clearly, too, the quotation well sustains and carries forward a train of thought dealing with Israel’s response to that good news.

16-17 Paul’s immediate reaction to the Isaiah quotation is to recall that not all have obeyed the good news—the first time in this section that he has brought himself to express Israel’s failure so bluntly. Only some Jews have given the response of faith to the gospel, which Isaiah predicted. As indeed Isaiah also predicted—“Who has believed our report?” (Isa 53:1) This sudden interjection reveals that the thought of the remnant, and the anguished puzzle of why all of Israel have not believed the good news of Christ, is still uppermost in Paul’s mind. Also breaking the surface of Paul’s thought once again is the equation between faith and obedience, Paul’s conviction that faith in Christ is the obedience the law now calls for. But probably the main reason for the abrupt comment is that Paul saw a corollary to the Isaiah quotation which came from the same context and which strongly buttressed his conclusion that only a small proportion of Israel would accept his gospel. Isaiah here too predicted a response of disbelief on the part of Israel.

However, this is not the line of thought Paul had intended to develop. The rhetorical chain of vv 14–15 most naturally invited a possible explanation of Israel’s unbelief in terms of their not having heard, or of their not having had preachers sent to them. And that indeed is the way Paul develops the point in v 18. So v 16 is something of an interruption. The link between Isa 52:7 and 53:1 causes him to short-circuit the more sequential response to vv 14–15 and to formulate the first open statement of Israel’s disobedience in failing to believe the evangelists’ message. He could have reverted to the chain of questions by asking, “Why have they not believed? Have they not heard?” But instead he uses the link word (“report”) given him by Isa 53:1 to summarize the progression leading to faith in a way which also draws in the earlier exposition of Deut 30:11–14: “So then faith comes from (hearing) the report, and hearing (the report) through the (preached) word of Christ.” “The word of Christ” is “the report” of the preachers, “the gospel,” “the word of faith” which directs faith to Christ.

18 If the chain connecting the law of righteousness understood in terms of faith with faith in Christ is thus reduced to one link (hearing the report), then one possible explanation of most of Israel’s unbelief is that they have not recognized that link; they have not heard or understood the word of faith. Paul no doubt recalled the effect of “the revelation of Christ” in his own understanding, not only as opening his eyes to who Christ is, but also as transforming his understanding of the law, the realization that the law was the word of faith which called for faith in Christ. It is that link which most of his fellow Jews have missed. Why so? Could it be simply that they have never had the kind of experience which had proved so effective for Jewish Christians, that experience of hearing with understanding which brought a whole new insight into and perspective on the so familiar law? Have they not heard?

But Paul will not accept that as an adequate reason. They have heard. He can put the point in the well-known language of Ps 19:4: “their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.” The psalmist refers, of course, to the testimony of the heavens to the glory of their creator. But the fact that the passage speaks of a revelatory testimony at all is sufficient to explain Paul’s use of it. For he is not quoting it as a proof text or citing it as a prophecy fulfilled, and the absence of an introductory formula (“as it is written,” or some such) may be significant here. It could be simply that Paul’s answer slips easily into the language and rhythm of scripture, his thought and very consciousness on such matters shaped by a lifelong familiarity with the sacred text. Clearly, however, he uses the words to refer to the Christian mission to the diaspora. This outreach had been going on for about 20 years, and since the Jerusalem agreement in a more systematic way (Gal 2:9—probably about 7 years earlier). And if his own tactics as apostle to the Gentiles were typical of the gentile mission as a whole (Jew first and also Gentile), the outreach to the diaspora must have been considerable (the implication of Rom 15:20–24 is that in Paul’s view only the western regions of the Roman Empire remained so far untouched). Consequently there must have been few diaspora synagogues within the Roman Empire or Parthia which had not heard something of the claims made about Messiah jesus. Allowing for an element of hyperbole in the psalmist’s language, Paul’s answer is clear and justified: it cannot be said that Israel has not heard the gospel; the bulk of Israel’s unbelief cannot be explained or excused on the grounds that they have never had the opportunity to believe.

19 Paul will not leave it at that. For it is not simply that Israel has heard the word of faith, but failed to grasp the connection between the law and Christ which it provided; not simply that Israel’s misunderstanding of the law has caused most of Paul’s fellow Jews to mis-hear the gospel. It is also a fact that Israel has ignored so many of its own scriptures which are now being fulfilled in Israel’s rejection and the nations’ acceptance of the word of faith. He has already used such scriptures to demonstrate that the acceptance of the gospel by the Gentiles and by only a remnant of Israel had long been part of God’s overall purpose (9:25–29). Now he reverts to the same theme to underline the point that Israel ought to have recognized that this was what was to happen. So he asks again, “Have they not known?” Their unbelief cannot be excused on the grounds that they have not heard the gospel. They have. And their knowledge of their own scriptures ought to have informed their hearing. They should have known what to expect. So they are doubly without excuse: they have heard the gospel, and they should have grasped the significance of such scriptures as the following.

Deut 32:21—Moses’ song had spoken of God’s response to Israel’s unfaith (Deut 32:20) in particularly striking terms: God would provoke his wayward sons to jealousy over a “no nation”; he would make them angry over a foolish nation. The future tenses encouraged the readers of Paul’s day to treat the passage as a prophecy, and to see in the phrase “no nation” a reference to other nations of later days—Philistines, Samaritans, Babylonians, and so on. Paul refers it to the current situation, either because he thinks the first claim to fulfillment of such a prophecy has to be eschatological—that is, it refers to the end period or the new age; or because he sees in Deut 32:21 prophecy of a recurring pattern in God’s dealings with his people. Either way, Israel ought to have seen in the positive response of the Gentiles to the gospel of Messiah Jesus a fulfillment of Deut 32:21 (not to mention Hos 1:10 [LXX 2:1]; 2:23 [LXX 25]—Rom 9:25–26).

What is still more significant about Deut 32:21 for Paul is that it also provides him with a clear indication of how God intends to resolve the so distressing riddle of Israel’s failure to believe: he will provoke them to jealousy. This is a first hint of the full resolution Paul will shortly unveil (11:11–16). As with the exposition in 9:14–23, so here he touches briefly on themes which together will provide as complete as possible an answer to the puzzle of Israel’s unfaith and demonstrate even more clearly God’s faithfulness and his righteousness from faith to faith.

20 Paul’s favorite prophet, Isaiah, also gives him another text whose significance Israel ought to have recognized—Isa 65:1–2. For it speaks with surprising boldness of the Gentiles’ discovery of God (by implication, once again, in the end time), despite their previous history of ignorance of God and of failure to seek him out. It speaks also of the Gentiles enjoying one of the primary privileges of the covenant people (experience of the self-revelation of God), despite their not even asking for God as Moses had (Exod 33:18). The passage probably had Israel itself in view originally, but as its wording went, it could be understood as a reference to the Gentiles, especially when read in conjunction with Hos 1:10; 2:23; and Deut 32:21. Within the wider context of the scriptures and “intertestamental” literature as a whole, the expectation was fairly well established that in the end time the Gentiles would recognize Yahweh to be the only God, despite their previously having thought of him no doubt as merely the God of Israel. So Paul’s interpretation is hardly forced and would not be dismissed as an unjustified interpretation of Isaiah even by his more critical readers.

21 Moreover, when so understood, Isa 65:1–2 can be seen to express clearly just the contrast between Gentile belief and Jewish unbelief which is the cause of all Paul’s joy and anguish. For Isa 65:2 speaks without question of Israel’s disobedience and obstinate refusal (in contrast to Gentile obedience and willing confession, vv 16, 9–10)—again as something not short-lived or unusual, but as a persistent response to God. Isaiah speaks also of God’s continued persistence in appealing to unfaithful Israel—a reminder, like 3:3, that God remains pledged to his people and will not give up on them, despite Israel’s persistence in disbelief. Here again Israel ought to have recognized the perfect match between such a scripture and the situation now resulting from the Gentile mission of the believers in Jesus Messiah. Those who rejoice in the scriptures cannot put forward the excuse that they never knew what is so plainly prophesied therein.

In short, having expounded the way in which God’s call and purpose comes into effect (9:6–29), Paul has now exposed the fact and character of Israel’s unbelief in increasingly explicit terms (9:30—10:21). He has explained it as a failure to understand the law as the word of faith pointing to the eschatological significance of Christ (9:30—10:13) and has refused to excuse Israel on grounds that they had never heard the word of faith or had insufficiently clear indication of how God would achieve his purpose in the final days (10:14–21). Presumably it was the interlocking of these two elements in his thought, the way his understanding of the law in terms of faith meshed into these prophecies of Jewish unbelief and Gentile belief, which provided Paul the Jew with one of the central supports for his faith in the Christ.

D. The Mystery of God’s Faithfulness (11:1–32)

1. The Remnant according to Grace and the Others (11:1–10)

Bibliography

Translation

1I ask, therefore, has God repudiated his people?a b Not at all! For I too am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not repudiated his people whom he foreknew. Or do you not know what the scripture says in the section about Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3“Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone have been left and they seek my life.” 4But what says the divine answer to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5Thus therefore also in the present time, there is a remnant in accordance with the election of grace. 6But if by grace, no longerc from works, since otherwise grace would no longer be grace.d

7What then? What Israel sought for, that it did not obtain, but the elect obtained it. And the rest were hardened—8ase it is written,

God gave to them a spirit of torpor,

eyes that they should not see

and ears that they should not hear,

until this very day.

9And David says,

Let their table become a snare and a net,

a trap and a retribution for them;

10Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,

and bend their backs continually.

Notes

a. Some witnesses, including P⁴⁶, read τὴν κληρονομίαν instead of τὸν λαόν—probably an assimilation to Ps 94 [LXX 93]:14 (Metzger).

b. A tendency to assimilate v 1 to v 2 is also indicated in the addition of ὃν προέγνω (again including P⁴⁶).

c. Some witnesses, once again including P⁴⁶, read οὐκ instead of οὐκέτι, presumably to prevent the latter being read with temporal force and so allowing the implication that the election had previously been “from works.”

d. After the final χάρις someone felt it appropriate to add a balancing saying: εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον—an expansion which became established in B and ², hence TR and AV/KJV.

e. Here again the regular confusion between καθώς and καθάπερ (see on 3:4 Notes).

Form and Structure

The section functions both as a summing up of the argument to date of chaps. 9–11, and as an important transition to the final phase of the argument (11:11–32). Thus the underlying issue of God’s faithfulness already posed in 9:6 is reexpressed (vv 1–2a) in still more uncomfortable terms (uncomfortable not least for Paul the Jew): “Has God rejected his people?” And the key arguments of 9:6–13, 27–29, and of 9:31–33, 10:18–21 are recalled in vv 2b–6 (a remnant, by grace, not works) and vv 7–10 (the rest rejected by God) respectively, with vv 1–6 more apologetic and vv 7–10 more polemical in character. Vv 7–10 are not simply a conclusion, but, as so often with Paul’s conclusions, introduce and point forward to the next stage of the argument (see on 5:20–21 Form and Structure).

Worthy of note is the use of passages from all three sections of the OT in vv 8–10—Torah (Deut 29:4 [LXX 3]), Prophets (Isa 29:10), and the Writings (Ps 69:22–23)—in line with Jewish hermeneutics (see Müller, Anstoss, 13–21). That Paul here makes use of an already traditional testimonium or florilegium is possible (Käsemann, Wilckens). The form maintains the argumentative style of this whole section (10:18—11:12) in which semi-rhetorical questions predominate, each answered by an appropriate scripture.

Question	Scripture
10:18a	10:18b
10:19a	10:19b–21
11:1a	11:2a
11:2b	11:3
11:4a	11:4b
11:7a	11:8–10
11:11

The opening question (11:1) is a natural conclusion (ουν) to the preceding answers (10:18b, 19b–21).

Comment

1 λέγω ουν, μὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; “I ask, therefore, has God repudiated his people?” The force of λέγω depends on the context—so, here, “ask”—with the μή pointing to a negative answer. Although Paul uses ἀπωθέομαι only here, the usage “push away, repel, spurn, reject,” is well enough known (LSJ); in the NT elsewhere only Acts 7:27, 39; 13:46; and 1 Tim 1:19. But Paul clearly has in mind the regular OT usage, where the thought of God rejecting his people was entertained as a prospect, or question or conclusion (Judg 6:13; 2 Kgs 23:27; Pss 44:9, 23 [LXX 43:10, 24]; 60:1, 10[59:3, 12]; 74 [73]:1; 78[77]:60, 67; 108:11 [107:12]; Jer 7:29; 31:37 [not in LXX]; Lam 2:7; 5:22; Ezek 5:11; 11:16; Hos 9:17); in view of the use about to be made of the idea of the remnant, 2 Kgs 21:14 is particularly notable. Beside or within this possibility and prospect so frequently and so uncomfortably posed, the assurance that God has not rejected or will not reject his people was voiced much less frequently, at least in the same terms (1 Sam 12:22; Ps 94 [LXX 93]:14; 95 [94]:3(?); Lam 3:31). In picking up and using the OT theme in this way Paul indicates that this is no new issue for Israel. Previous crises had posed the same question before, and Israel’s previous failures had not prevented positive answers being given in the past (cf. particularly 2 Macc 6:12–16).

Paul’s use of the concept “God’s people” strongly reflects Jewish usage, with its distinctive features: λαός as denoting an ethnic or national entity, and in particular Israel as God’s people (λαός) as thus marked out from other nations (ἔθνη); so 1 Chron 17:21—οὐκ ἔστιν ὡς ὁ λαός σου Ἰσραὴλ ἔθνος ἔτι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (TDNT 4:32–35). Paul’s own usage is striking: (1) he uses λαός only in OT quotations (9:25–26; 10:21; 11:1–2; 15:10–11; 1 Cor 10:7; 14:21; 2 Cor 6:16); (2) on each occasion, in Romans at least, the passage quoted is one which provides a sharp challenge to any comfortable assumption that Israel can rest on the fact of being “God’s people.” Paul’s avoidance of the term on his own account and quotation of just these passages adds strongly to the impression that Paul was both reacting against the more typically Jewish idea of God’s people as an ethnic or national entity and attempting by these passages to redefine the people of God and to redraw its boundaries (cf. the comparatively isolated precedent of Amos 9:7–10). All this is lost sight of by the classic view which takes “God’s people” as a “spiritual” entity.

μὴ γένοιτο, “not at all!”; see on 3:4. Paul’s confidence is thoroughly Jewish (e.g., Jer 31:36–37; 2 Macc 6:16), but on different terms.

καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης εἰμί, ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, φολῆς Βενιαμείν “for I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Paul’s claim to the covenant name of his people (see on 9:4) is, of course, deliberate (he does not say ἐγὼ Ἰουδαῖος εἰμί). His concern is to maintain continuity even while redefining “the people of God” (see above), and to avoid any suggestion that in opening up his promises to the Gentiles God has abandoned “his people” or changed his original purpose for Israel. The point is further underscored by the ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, which naturally echoes the argument of 4:13–18 and 9:7–8. Paul speaks from within “Israel,” but as one who sees that the promise was to all the seed. The contrasting points Paul draws from the same relationship to Abraham (9:7; 11:1) illustrate the tension within Paul’s own thought as both Jew and Christian. The usual suggestion (e.g., F. W. Maier, 105; Vischer, 112–14; Gaugler; Barrett; Leenhardt; Black; Mayer, 246–47; Schlier; Villiers, 209; Harrisville) that Paul puts himself forward in a representative capacity (God has not rejected his people because he has not rejected me!) both misses and cheapens the point (cf. SH, Denney, Knox, Zeller). As in 2 Cor 11:22 and Phil 3:5–6 what is at stoke is Paul’s claim to express an authentically Jewish viewpoint and understanding of God’s workings, to be speaking as a Jew. Understood this way the sentence becomes less of an argument for the Gentile character of the Roman Christian community (against Althaus, Schmidt, Kuss with bibliography).

Why he adds φυλῆς Βενιαμίν (as in Phil 3:5) is less clear. More elaborate suggestions based on the later traditions that Benjamin was the first of the tribes to enter the Red Sea (Str-B, 3:286–88; Käsemann), or that Benjamin as one of the two continuing (southern) tribes (Ezra 4:1; 10:9) could represent the hope of the restoration of the lost tribes (Michel), seem unnecessarily contrived from such a brief allusion. More likely Paul simply echoes a more extended self-identification or self-introductory formula, in which tribe as well as father was given; there is sufficient indication that tribal identity, particularly of Judah and Benjamin, was regarded as worth maintaining by some at least (see Jeremias, Jerusalem, particularly 275–83). Paul shows that he is as firmly located within Judaism as anyone can be; he is no first- or even tenth-generation proselyte. Maccoby’s counter suggestion (Mythmaker, 95–96), that Paul was a Gentile whose claim here is totally invented and fictitious, is wildly fanciful and shows no sensitivity to Paul’s whole argument in Romans (see also Introduction § 1).

2 οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “God has not repudiated his people.” The quotation, whose wording has already determined the question of v 1, is from both 1 Sam 12:22 and Ps 94 [LXX 93]:14:

1 Samuel/Psalms:	ὅτι οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ
Romans:	οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ.

The change of tense (“has not rejected” from “will not reject”) simply indicates Paul’s confidence that the scriptural assurance has not been falsified by the present disobedience (10:21) of God’s people. The replacement of ὁ θεὸς for κύριος may be occasioned by the fact that Paul liked to keep κύριος for Christ, and so chose to use ὁ θεὸς in v 1, following suit in the actual quotation itself in v 2. See further on 11:1. This firm assertion will be elaborated in two parts: (1) the remnant (vv 3–6) and (2) the final conversion of “all Israel” (vv 7–32).

ὃν προέγνω, “whom he foreknew”—that is, the whole people, not just part (SH; Lagrange; Murray; Dreyfus, 142; Kuss). The language is firmly rooted in the Jewish concept of Israel’s election (see on 8:29). Paul shares the confidence of other Jews that nothing could alter the basic fact of God’s choosing Israel to be his own (cf. Mayer, 247–48). This was to reach classic expression in m. Sanh. 10.1: “All Israelites have a share in the world to come.” Paul differs from this not in the matter of the assurance which derives from the belief in election, but in the self-definition of the elect; see further below 11:5.

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε, “or do you not know?”—a variant on ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε (6:3; 7:1).

ἐν Ἠλίᾳ, “in Elijah”—a familiar way of referring to a passage = in the section about Elijah (cf. Mark 12:26; Rom 9:25; see further SH, Str-B 3:288). The connection of thought would be strengthened if Paul shared the view attested in some later rabbinic traditions that Elijah was of the tribe of Benjamin (Str-B 4:782).

τί λέγει ἡ γραφή, “what the scripture says”—“the scripture” probably referring here to the individual passage about to be cited (BGD, γραφή 2a); but a collective designation, scripture as a whole, is also quite possible (see on 4:3).

ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, “how he appeals to God against Israel.” For ἐντυγχάνω in this sense cf. 1 Macc 8:32; 10:61, 63; 11:25; and 3 Macc 6.37; “pleads with God against Israel” (RSV, NEB) is less satisfactory (Black). The specification of Israel as the object of Elijah’s complaint is not given by the Elijah story itself (in the Elijah sequence “Israel” occurs only in 1 Kgs 17:1, 14, and 18:36, in positive formulations); Paul’s use of it here is thus determined more by his own line of thought. In which case it functions as an expression of his dialectic of continuity/discontinuity: Paul as an Israelite (11:1) echoes Elijah’s complaint against Israel. To that extent Paul sees himself, with a mixture of self-assertion and self-mockery, as a latter-day Elijah (cf. Munck, Christ, 109; Käsemann), appealing to God to vindicate his understanding of Israel’s role within God’s saving purpose over against the bulk of his fellow countrymen, and expecting a similar rebuke and reassurance that God’s purpose for Israel is still “on course.” But Wilckens rightly notes that the whole reference to the Elijah story serves to undergird the thesis of v 2a, not to explicate v 1b (cf. Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 81; Zeller, Juden, 126–27). For Ἰσραήλ, see on 9:4.

3 κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος, καὶ ζητοῦσιν τὴν ψυχήν μου, “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone have been left, and they seek my life.” The quotation is of Elijah’s repeated complaint in 1 Kgs 19:10, 14, with the κύριε perhaps drawn unconsciously from Elijah’s first self-pitying lament in 19:4. The first two clauses are inverted (perhaps since threat to life is the more pressing for Paul [Käsemann]), the third expressed differently but with the same effect, and the fourth abbreviated. That Paul here quotes from memory (Cranfield) is quite likely.

4 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; “but what says the divine answer to him?” The use of the unusual χρηματισμός at this point (only here in the NT) is striking. Used of a decree or ordinance made by a sovereign or public authority, or of a public document, it is also attested in the sense of an oracular or divine utterance (see LSJ; NDIEC 4:176), often in a dream (cf. Matt 2:12, 22; Acts 10:22). In this sense it occurs in 2 Macc 2:4 of a divine injunction given to Jeremiah that he should go to Mount Sinai. It probably is not accidental that these two usages (2 Macc 2:4 and here) are both linked with visits to Mount Sinai (Jeremiah and Elijah): there may have been some tendency in Jewish circles to use this word in connection with the divine injunction which recalled Judaism to the revelation given at Sinai (cf. 1 Clem 17.5; see further Hanson, “Oracle”); moreover, it was at Sinai that Moses received the fundamental salvation-history revelation of God as “merciful” (Harrisville; see on 9:15). In form and effect the phrase is parallel to τί λέγει ἡ γραφή (v 2).

κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ, “I have kept for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” The sense is clearly that of 1 Kgs 19:18, but the Greek shows no dependence on the LXX, and is only slightly closer to the MT If Paul is quoting from memory (see on 11:3) it shows both that the memory could produce a version quite divergent in detail and that such divergence would presumably cause Paul no qualms. For κατέλιπον in the sense “left over, seen to it that something was left (for the future)” cf. Sir 24:33; the first person follows the Hebrew rather than the LXX (BGD, καταλείπω). The addition of the reflexive (ἐμαυτῷ) strengthens the sense both of divine act and of covenant faithfulness (cf. Lietzmann)—a good example of elaborative or paraphrastic translation.

Since the number seven probably bore the connotation of completion (the seven days of creation) it may be that the number used in 1 Kgs 19:18 had this overtone—the 7,000 as representing the completeness of Israel (TDNT 2:628–29; Cranfield; otherwise Hübner, Israel, 101)—though it poses the key issue of remnant theology with some sharpness (whether the faithful few are the complete number or constitute a promise of some larger whole [Israel] being preserved or restored in the future; see further on 11:5). Cranfield draws attention to Matt 18:22—the seventy times seven indicating a forgiveness which knows no limit. If such overtones were present to Paul it would serve his own apologetic well—7,000 as an open, not closed, number indicating the open-endedness of God’s covenant promise (“apocalyptic wholeness” [Michel]). But since Paul merely quotes and makes nothing of the number here, we cannot be sure that such overtones were present to him or intended by him. Only men are named, as in Mark 6:44 (Michel); contrast Matt 14:21.

The use of the feminine (τῇ Βάαλ), unlike LXX (τῷ) probably reflects the Hebrew custom of reading (= αἰσχύνη, “shame”) instead of (Dillmann in Munck, Christ, 109). Paul may indeed have had in mind the two examples of this in the Elijah stories (1 Kgs 18:19, 25). For examples of the feminine form with Βάαλ see in the LXX 2 Kgs 21:3, Jer 2:8, and 12:16 (BGD); see further SH and Str-B 3:288). Paul uses the scriptural text as one accustomed to reading aloud and making such alterations in the process.

5 οὕτως ουν καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, “thus therefore also in the present time.” The initial tripling of connectives is found only here in Paul. The force of the οὕτως is to indicate that the preceding verses do not merely provide a compelling argument (ουν), but also a typical example of God’s dealings. When ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, “in the present time,” is added, a specifically eschatological note is sounded (see on 3:26), giving the typical case of Elijah typological significance. That is to say, the present phase of God’s purpose (involving a reaffirmation of election but in “remnant” terms) is understood not simply as one further example of God’s way of working, far less as an afterthought, or adjustment of God’s plans to take account of an unexpected turn of events. Rather it is the eschatological point of all his dealings up till “the now time”: election and remnant as “now” being experienced in and through Paul’s ministry are part of the climax of salvation-history thus foreshadowed in the Elijah episode. It is in terms of the eschatological outcome that such a puzzling episode can be at last fully understood (“puzzling” since “election” of Israel and “remnant” do not cohere in an obvious way). See further Goppelt, Typos.

λεῖμμα κατʼ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν, “there is a remnant in accordance with the election of grace.” The fact that λεῖμμα is cognate with κατέλιπον (v 4) cannot be reproduced in English; Barrett helpfully translates, “there has come into being such a remnant.” λεῖμμα as such occurs only here in the NT, and in the LXX only in 2 Kgs 19:4. But underlying it is the much more common “remnant” idea (, variously translated into Greek). See on 9:27b–28, Hasel, IDBS 735–36, and Wilckens. It came particularly into prominence at the great Assyrian and Babylonian crisis points of Israel’s (Judah’s) history (2 Kgs 19:4, 31 = Isa 37:4, 32; frequently in Jer [6:9; 15:9; 23:3; 24:8; etc.]; Ezek 9:8; 11:13; Ezra 9:8; Neh 13:15; see further particularly Clements). Since the “crisis of faith” now confronting Israel was of a similar order, and more critical in eschatological terms, Paul would recognize the typological parallels. The aggressively positive character of such promises as Mic 5:7–8 and Zech 8:12 would cause Paul less problem, since the concept here is governed by that of election (κατʼ ἐκλογήν) which he was in process of redefining (v 7). For ἐκλογή see on 9:11; cf. 1QS 8.6—“those chosen by divine benevolence” (Fitzmyer). After a long absence χάρις reappears (last used in this sense in 6:15), reminding Paul’s listeners that Israel only understands its election when it understands it as an act of God’s free and unconditional choice (9:11); see on 1:5 and 3:24. The concept of “remnant” is in accordance with that understanding of election; the emphasis on God’s grace reinforcing the κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ of the Elijah quotation (v 4). The perfect tense (γέγονεν), as usual, indicates an original action (God’s choice of Israel) establishing a situation which still pertains. God’s original choice of Israel still holds true into the “now time,” precisely because it was an election of grace; that is, it did not depend on Israel’s performance of covenant obligations, and so it was not restricted by them either. Michel’s observation that “the understanding of the doctrine of justification in terms of grace interprets also that of election” puts Paul’s point somewhat in reverse. Paul’s argument is rather that the understanding of righteousness is determined by the fact that Israel’s election was in terms of grace (rightly Dahl, “Future,” 156). On the issue of who is to be counted as Israel, the elect, see on 9:6, 27b–28, and Dreyfus.

6 εἰ δὲ χάριτι, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων, ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις, “but if by grace, no longer from works, since otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” For χάρις see on 1:5 and 3:24. οὐκέτι provides a logical rather than temporal connection, as in 7:20, 14:15, and Gal 3:18 (BGD). ἐξ ἔργων is, of course, short for ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (see on 4:2). The point is polemical, as are the earlier uses (3:20, 27–28; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32), which Paul clearly recalls in summary fashion; NEB’S very varied rendering of the phrase considerably obscures its leitmotif function in the letter. The context here confirms the earlier observation that the “works” referred to are a way of understanding election which Paul firmly rejects (election of grace, not from works)—“works” understood as the hallmark of election, as that which marks out the elect as such. The point being that the remnant is not constituted as a group within Israel by their faithfulness to the law (“the righteous” of the Psalms of Solomon, or the covenanters at Qumran; see on 1:17 and 9:6), but as a group sustained by God’s grace; that is how election is to be understood and how it is sustained. NJB’S rendering of ἔργα as “good actions” perpetuates the classic misunderstanding that Paul is objecting to a belief that justification can be earned by good works (which also wholly determines Gaugler’s discussion, responding to Lagrange). See further on 3:20 and 9:32. ἐπεί here has the sense “since otherwise”—as in 3:6 and 11:22 (see BDF §456.3). The fourfold repetition of χάρις in vv 5–6 puts it beyond doubt where the key to Paul’s understanding of Israel and of the gospel is to be found; χάρις by definition precludes the kind of limitation which ἐξ ἔργων involves.

7 τί ουν; “what then?”; see on 6:15.

ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ, τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν, “what Israel sought for, that it did not obtain.” The thought is in effect a rephrasing of 9:31, with διώκω replaced by ἐπιζητέω and φθάνω by ἐπιτυγχάνω. The ἐπι- prefix in ἐπιζητέω intensifies the idea of seeking, but does not import the idea of “striving” (against BGD, Schlier); cf. particularly Paul’s other use of it in Phil 4:17. ἐπιτυγχάνω means properly “hit the mark,” hence “attain, obtain”—usually with the genitive (as in its other NT occurrences: Heb 6:5; 11:33; James 4:2), but occasionally with the accusative (LSJ, BGD), which makes possible the neat ὃ . . . τοῦτο construction. Ignatius was to make much use of it in reference to martyrdom as an attaining to God (θεοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν); see references in BGD.

ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν, “but the elect attained it.” As the former clause echoes 9:31, so this clause echoes 9:30. Because of the parallel, ἐκλογή is usually taken as a reference to the Gentile Christians (cf. also 10:20), but since v 5 is also being taken up, and ἐκλογή is balanced by οἱ λοιποί (cf., v 20), there is an equally strong argument for ἐκλογή to be referred to the Jewish Christians (F. W. Maier, 112; Nygren—ἡ ἐκλογή = τὸ λεῖμμα; Wilckens; Heil). Certainly it cannot but be significant that the word occurs in Romans only within chaps. 9–11 (9:11; 11:5, 7, 28) and so is closely related to the particular issue of these chapters (What then of Israel?). So the primary reference is most likely the Jews who have believed in Jesus Messiah. But since Paul undoubtedly regarded the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles as part of God’s purpose of election, and had already transferred the closely related category ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ to the new reality of believing Jews and Gentiles (see on 8:33), it would be unjustified to argue that only Jewish Christians are in view here.

What was sought and (not) obtained is not expressed here. Obviously it is not “election” itself (= initial acceptance by God), but must be something like the benefits of a sustained covenant relationship, including final vindication (= righteousness in that sense, or νόμος δικαιοσύνης [9:31]).

οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν, “but the rest were hardened.” The substantive οἱ λοιποί of course means simply “the others,” without indication of whether “the others” are a small or large proportion of the whole (cf. Matt 22:6; 27:49; Luke 18:9; Eph 2:3). So it is not entirely fair to accuse Paul of concealing the fact that the reference is to the overwhelming majority of the people Küsemann; though note the use of τίνες in 3:3 and 11:17). On the other hand, Paul might well be aware that the LXX occasionally used οἱ λοιποί for the remnant (particularly Jer 43:5 [LXX 50:5 A]; 52:16 S); so there may be a deliberate play on words here, perhaps with the further implication that in the final count οἱ λοιποί will be also counted among the λεῖμμα κατʼ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος (so 11:26–32).

πωρόω, from πῶρος (a kind of marble), means basically “petrify,” or in medical terms “cause a stone to form (as in the bladder) or a callus” which unites a fractured bone (LSJ; J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, 2d ed. [London: Macmillan, 1907] 264; TDNT 5:1025–26). The metaphorical application of the passive (“become insensible or deadened”) is particularly biblical, as in all its NT usage, usually of the heart (Mark 6:52; 8:17; John 12:40; 2 Cor 3:14). John 12:40 uses it when citing Isa 6:10, where the LXX (as also Matt 13:15 and Acts 28:27) uses the near synonym παχύνομαι (“become impervious, insensitive, dull”). As these last three NT references indicate, the Isa 6:10 passage was much used by the first Christians as they sought illumination from the scriptures to explain the puzzling obtuseness of most Jews’ response to the gospel (see also Mark 4:12//Luke 8:10). Here a “divine passive” is certainly intended (Barrett; Mayer, 255–56; Cranfield; Barth, People, 41; Wilckens; see particularly Hofius, “Evangelium,” 303–4; though see also Michel). The thought is obviously similar to that of σκληρύνω in 9:18, reinforcing the character of v 7 as a summary of the earlier argument but also providing a thematic link between God’s treatment of Pharaoh (Exodus) and God’s dealings with “the rest (of Israel),” as foreshadowed in Israel’s own scripture, including Isa 6:10. By translating, “The rest were made blind to the truth,” NEB reinforces the link with v 8 at the expense of the link back to 9:18. See further on 9:18, 11:8, and 11:25.

8 καθὼς γέραπται, “as it is written”; see on 1:17. The texts as usual round off the argument.

The text cited is basically a reworked citation of Deut 29:4 [LXX 3], quoted quite properly once again from memory.

Deuteronomy:	καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς
Romans:	ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως ὀφθαλμούς
(Deut):	βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἔως της ἡμέρας ταύτης
(Rom):	τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν ἔως τῆς σήμερου ἡμέρας

The change from negative to positive, as well as the genitive and infinitive construction, certainly strengthens the sense of deliberate intent. The modification of the final words hardly alters the sense, but by citing the verse as from his own perspective the obtuseness of Israel in the wilderness is presented as continuing to characterize the bulk of the people till his own day; the element of eschatological correspondence is still in play (see on 11:5). For the phrase ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας cf. particularly Matt 28:15 and 2 Cor 3:14 (see further BGD, σήμερον). Cranfield suggests that the phrase may also imply a time limit set to this divine hardening (up to, but not beyond); cf. 11:11–32.

The major departure from the Deuteronomy text is the insertion of πνεῦμα κατανύξεως from Isa 29:10, the only place where the phrase occurs in the LXX. κατάνυξις itself is very rare (in the LXX only otherwise in Isa 60:3 [LXX 59:5]), and probably means something like “stupefaction” or “torpor” (see SH, Cranfield). Müller, Anstoss, 19–20 argues that v 8 is not a mixed citation, but is drawn exclusively from Isa 29:10a in a form not preserved for us in the LXX. But the closeness of v 8 to Deut 29:4 [LXX 3], and the likelihood that v 9a also contains an insertion from another passage (see on 11:9–10) suggest otherwise (so also Hübner, Israel, 104, who dismisses Müller’s arguments as “highly artificial”). The note of divine judgment is more strongly marked in Isa 29:10 than in Deut 29:3, so that the insertion of the phrase underscores the claim that the rest of Israel’s present failure is the result of divine action and part of God’s purpose. We should also note that Isa 29:10 comes from the middle of a section of the prophet much used in early Christian reflection regarding Jewish blindness: 28:16 (Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6), 29:13 (Mark 7:6–7 par.), 29:14 (1 Cor 1:19); also 28:11 (1 Cor 14:21) (Lindars, Apologetic, 164). There is no specific allusion to Isa 6:9–10 as such here, but the theme is so close, the ἐπωρώθησαν of v 7 probably contains an allusion to it, and with the importance of the apologetic theme in earliest Christianity’s self-understanding (see on 11:7) it would be surprising if Isa 6:9–10 was not in Paul’s mind at this point (see Dodd, Scriptures, 38; Maillot).

9–10 καὶ Δαυὶδ λέγει, “and David says”; see on 4:6 and 10:5.

γενηθήτω ἡ τράπεζα αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα καί εἰς θήραν

καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον καὶ εἰς ἀκνταπόδομα αὐτοῖς,

σκοτισθήτωσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν,

καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτῶν διὰ παντὸς σύγκαμψον,

“let their table become a snare and a net,

a trap and a retribution for them;

let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,

and bend their back continually.”

The quotation is more or less from Ps 69:22–23 [LXX 68:23–24], with καὶ εἰς θήραν, “and for a trap,” replacing ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, “before them,” in the first line, and the prepositional phrases in line 2 inverted. The καὶ εἰς θήραν may have been drawn in deliberately or subconsciously from the very similar maledictory passage in Ps 35 [LXX 34]:8—

ἐλθέτω αὐτοῖς παγίς . . .

καὶ ἡ θήρα . . . συλλαβέτω αὐτούς,

καὶ ἐν τῇ παγίδι πεσοῦνται ἐν αὐτῇ.

That Paul is following the Greek here rather than translating directly from the Hebrew is probably indicated by the fact that the fourth line of the Greek differs from the Hebrew:

Hebrew: “and make their loins tremble continually”;

Greek/Paul: “and bend their back continually.”

Ps 69 seems to have been greatly used in early Christian apologetic: specific quotations—

Ps 69:9	John 2:17; Rom 15:3;
Ps 69:22–23	Rom 11:9–10;
Ps 69:25	Acts 1:20;

with a number of allusions also probable—

Ps 69:4	John 15:25
Ps 69:8	Mark 3:21
Ps 69:9	Heb 11:26
Ps 69:21	Mark 15:23 pars.
Ps 69:24	Rev 16:1
Ps 69:25	Luke 13:35
Ps 69:28	Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5

(see also on 15:3).

There is disagreement on how much weight should be given to the specific details of the text. Is it cited for its overall polemical thrust, or did Paul intend his readers to see significance in the terms used? The most likely example of heavy overtone would be the word τράπεζα. Is Paul alluding to the cultic table, the altar (Müller, Anstoss, 23–27; Käsemann; Wilckens)? On the one hand, such an allusion would depend more on pagan parallels, which we see also reflected in 1 Cor 10:21 (TDNT 8:211, 213–14; BGD, τράπεζα 2); prior to the destruction of the temple τράπεζα seems to have been used only for the table of showbread (so particularly Exod 39:36 [LXX 18]; 1 Chron 28:16; 2 Chron 29:18; 1 Macc 1:22); the transfer of the function of atonement from altar to table (see particularly b. Ber. 55a; Str-B, 3:289) is a solution to the problem of the temple’s destruction. At the same time, the association of ideas was natural since sacrificial meat was so regularly consumed in all sacrificial systems, and we can already see the association elsewhere (particularly 1QM 2.4–6 and 1 Cor 10:18). So such an allusion certainly cannot be excluded. In which case Paul would be alluding to the central importance of the cult in the Judaism of his time. His fellow Jews’ dependence on atonement through the sacrificial system, and assumption that atonement was assured for those living within the covenant, had become a snare and delusion to them. (Käsemann’s further onslaught on “pious works” and “religiosity,” however, moves well beyond the point.) On the other hand, a more general allusion to the meal table (Barrett, Michel, Schlier) would gain its force from the importance of table fellowship for Paul’s fellow Pharisees in particular (see on 14:2 and further Dunn, “Pharisees”). It was just that attempt to maintain purity and standing within the covenant by emphasis on such “works” and the halakoth which undergirded them, which was proving a stumbling block for the typical Jewish piety that Paul remembered so well. The issues of 14:1—15:6 may already be in view (Minear, Obedience, 78–79).

Only in Ps 35 [LXX 34]:8 does the LXX use θήρα to translate (“net”), which is used elsewhere as a figure of divine judgment (Ezek 12:13; 17:20; 32:3; Hos 7:12). παγίς (“trap, snare”), elsewhere used to translate , quite often refers to a trap made for oneself, as in the two psalms cited here (see also Pss 9:15 [LXX 16]; 57:6 [LXX 56:7]; Prov 6:2; 12:13; 18:7; 29:6; Tob 14:10; Sir 27:26, 29; 1QH 2.29); but it is also used in reference to divine judgment (Jer 48 [31]:43–44; Ezek 29:4), on Israel as well (Isa 8:14). For σκάδαλον see on 9:33; as a translation of , εἰς σκάνδαλον may be translated “as a lure or trap” and appears quite often in the LXX (Josh 23:13; Judg 2:3; 8:27 A; 1 Sam 18:21; Ps 106[105]:36; Wisd Sol 14:11; 1 Macc 5:4). The thought of “recompense, repayment,” is more clearly in ἀνταπόδομα, in the LXX usually referring to punishment (e.g., Gen 50:15; Ps 28 [LXX 27]:4; Lam 3:64; Joel 3 [LXX 4]:7; Jud 7:15; Sir 14:6). See further Müller, Anstoss, 27–31. The piling up of the four εἰς phrases (including the inserted εἰς θὴραν) is particularly effective, and heightens the note of intended judgment. Paul in effect is attacking the confidence of the “righteous” among the Jews that they would be saved from such snares (Pss. Sol.. 4.23) or that they would be a snare or recompense to hostile sinners (1QH 2.8; 1QM 4.12).

For the different ways of taking the last line (backs bent under slavery, a heavy burden, cowering with fear, bowed with grief, too weak to stand, groping through blindness) see Cranfield. Whether Paul would have wanted an allegorical meaning to be read out from the line, or at least a specific allegorical meaning, is far from clear. But presumably it would be the other side of his “liberty” theme: it is such a bowed-down-ness from which the believer has been liberated (e.g., 8:2; Gal 5:1; see also on 6:18). διὰ παντός is better translated “continually” than “for ever” (Cranfield; against RSV, NIV, NJB), though either way the phrase provides the best case for the view that Paul was not particularly interested in the details of the text (since he is about to stress his confidence that Israel’s blindness will be short-lived) (Gaugler).

Explanation

1 Paul, caught up as ever in the flow of his argument, and sensitive to how his readers would respond, asks the obvious question. If Israel has shown itself so ignorant of the righteousness of God according to its own scriptures, and so oblivious to the word of Christ as preached to it, does that mean that God has in fact repudiated Israel? The implication being either that God’s patience will last only so long with such a recalcitrant people, or that God has now pushed Israel aside irrevocably in favor of the Gentiles. Not for the first time an Israelite posed this fearful possibility which cut so deeply at his self-understanding. God’s choice of Israel to be his people was so fundamental to everything which the typical Jew stood for that he could contemplate nothing more terrible. As most of his readers would have no difficulty in recognizing, Paul here deliberately picks up the language so often used at times of Israel’s deepest shame, particularly prior to and during the exile (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:14; Jer 7:29). Has what the prophets spoke of generations ago happened again, or rather happened now at last with eschatological finality? Has God rejected his covenant people once and for all?

Paul poses the possibility only to reject it—“Not at all! For I too am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” The answer at first seems rather ludicrous, as though Paul was saying, “The fact that I have understood and believed the word of faith is sufficient proof that God has not rejected Israel,” as though Paul was setting himself up as a representative of his whole people, or even as progenitor of a reconstructed people! But that is almost certainly not what Paul meant. The effect of such posturing, in studied disregard for all the other Jewish Christians, not an insignificant number, would be to trivialize the assertion. Certainly what comes to expression is Paul’s consciousness of being one of the covenant people (“Israelite”—9:4), of being one of the seed of Abraham in whom God’s promise and purpose is fulfilled (4:13–18; 9:7–8), of his tribal identity (cf. Phil 3:5). But this is not an expression of egotistical aggrandizement, rather of indignation that a Jew could conceive of such a horrifying outcome. This is the utterance not of one self-confident in his own status over against his people, but of one confident in God on behalf of his people. Not as one outside the covenant, one for whom the covenant is no longer of significance, does Paul here speak, but precisely as a member of the covenant people. It is not because he is a Christian that Paul can dismiss the suggestion that God has repudiated his people (by implication, in favor of the Gentiles), but because he is an Israelite, because he is so conscious that he belongs to God’s people. It is precisely as a Jew that Paul reaffirms God’s faithfulness to the Jews.

2 The real answer to the question of v 1 is given in the direct rebuttal which uses precisely the same words as the question: “God has not repudiated his people.” Paul does not introduce the words as a quotation of scripture, but those of his first readers familiar with Israel’s oft-repeated fear of divine repudiation would probably recognize here that Paul was using the language of other scriptures which rendered the fear groundless: “the Lord will not repudiate his people” (1 Sam 12:22; Ps 94:14). The promise would be particularly appropriate since it came as a reassurance to Israel despite its sin (1 Sam 12:20) and despite the Lord’s chastening (Ps 94:12).

Paul adds “whom he foreknew.” God knew the character of his people before he chose them as his people, and that means also foreknew their frequent unfaithfulness to God, including now their large-scale rejection of the gospel. That is why their rejection of the gospel makes no difference to God’s commitment to them. Had it been the case that their unfaithfulness was going to make any difference to God’s faithfulness, he would never have chosen them in the first place. Paul’s confidence is twofold: that Israel is not acting in any way unforeseen by God; and that consequently God remains faithful to Israel notwithstanding Israel’s failure. Just as the choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau was without regard to their future conduct (9:10–13), so Israel’s status as God’s people remains unaffected by Israel’s latest and most serious failure.

2b-4 To substantiate his point Paul once again focuses on the theme of the remnant, not because that is the whole answer (as he will soon reveal), but because it is the first part of the whole. The prophecies of Isaiah had already shown that as at the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, so now, God could maintain and fulfill his purpose for his people as a whole through a remnant (9:27–29). Another example is the famous episode in the Elijah cycle, where Elijah at Mount Horeb, full of self-pity, laments the fact that only he remains faithful to God, while Israel under Ahab and Jezebel has turned against both prophets and sanctuaries of the Lord, and where God reassures Elijah that he is not alone, there are still 7,000 faithful men, a substantial minority. Significant here is the modification Paul makes at the beginning of the second part of the abbreviated quotation, “I have kept for myself. . . .” The emphasis once again, as consistently in 9:6–29, is on the divine initiative. The assurance to Elijah is not simply that 7,000 men have retained their faith in the Lord, but that the Lord has sustained their faith; their continuing faithfulness is a demonstration of God’s continuing faithfulness to his covenant promise and people. As God sustained and carried out his covenant purpose through such a minority then, so now.

Paul introduces the quotation with quasi-legal language, as an appeal or petition to the sovereign authority against Israel. He clearly sees himself in a position very similar to that of Elijah at Horeb—not for the first time had an Israelite taken a stand which seemed to isolate him from and put him on the defensive over against the rest of Israel. Again the implication is probably not that Paul felt himself to be the only Jew faithful to the covenant God. To divert the firm assurance that God had not repudiated his people (v 2) into a rebuke of his own presumption would weaken the force of his argument. The protestation of his own membership of the covenant people (v 1) is not an expression of vainglorious pride (God has not repudiated his people because his purpose still continues in me), far less an echo of Elijah’s self-pitying lament. It is rather an expression of firm assurance that as an Israelite he could rest confidently on Israel’s scriptures and draw deductions about God’s faithfulness to Israel from the precedents clearly attested in the scriptures.

5 Paul proceeds to draw out the parallel. The situation confronting Elijah was typical of God’s dealings with his people. Paul sums it up with the word “remnant,” no doubt intending to remind his readers also of the Isaiah passage already quoted (9:27 = Isa 10:22). In the face of these two witnesses no Jew or Gentile sympathizer could deny that in the past God had preserved his covenant faithfulness to his people through a remnant, or deny the possibility of his doing so again in the present. Moreover, as one conscious of living in the new epoch introduced by Christ (“in the present time”; cf. 3:26), Paul no doubt saw such patterns in God’s previous dealings with Israel as having not merely typical, but typological significance—prefiguring the way in which he would deal with his people at the end time, at the climax of the ages (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–11). It may even be that he specifically mentioned “Elijah” in v 2 precisely because the name would evoke thought of the eschatological events (Mal 4:4–5; Sir 48:9–10). For Paul then the parallel is soundly based: as then, so now. That only a minority of Jews have believed the word of faith about Messiah Jesus is only to be expected by those who can read the ways of God in the history of his people.

But the parallel is even closer, the type more complete. As the 7,000 at the time of Elijah were preserved by God himself (“I have kept for myself”), so the covenant principle is reaffirmed (again typically and typologically). God’s covenant always has depended on God’s electing power. By reintroducing this strong word (“election”) Paul no doubt intends to recall his readers to its use earlier in the argument (9:11), where he had pointed out that the line of covenant promise through Jacob rather than Esau was a matter of divine selection. Here too then the reference to Elijah has the effect of recalling and confirming a key point made earlier: that God’s covenant is a matter of election from start to finish.

So too the reintroduction of the word “grace” recalls its important role at a still earlier stage of the argument (3:24—6:15; 12 times), particularly its prominence in the climax to the first main theme (5:15—6:1). For the first time Paul introduces the word “grace” in his treatment of God’s faithfulness to Israel; for the first time he links the two concepts, “election” and “grace.” Clearly there is here on Paul’s part a deliberate attempt to bring together these two key concepts which between them could be said to sum up the two main thrusts of his overall argument: “election” which quintessentially expresses Israel’s self-understanding as the chosen people of God; “grace” which so richly expresses Paul’s understanding of his experience of the gracious power of God through faith in Christ. The fact that Paul did not describe divine election in terms of “grace” earlier in chaps. 9–11 should not be misunderstood, as though he somehow wanted to deny that grace had effected God’s electing purpose prior to Christ (however well such an interpretation might seem to fit 6:14–15, it would run counter to 4:16). On the contrary, there is no real distinction in Paul’s mind between the merciful God (9:15–18) and the gracious God (cf. 11:30–32; 15:9). Nevertheless, it is probably true that for Paul and for many other Jewish Christians, belief in Jesus Christ had been a rediscovery of the experience of the grace of God which had been obscured for them while they remained within the limits of more traditional Judaism. But for Paul conversion was precisely a rediscovery of what he now realized more clearly had always been at the heart of Judaism rightly understood—a rediscovery of God’s choice not on the basis of good or evil deeds (9:11) but as an act of sheer generosity. Conversion to Jesus Messiah was not a moving away from the faith of patriarchs and prophets, but a rediscovery of its pristine power.

6 If v 5 reaffirms the continuity between God’s election of Israel and the Jewish Christians’ experience of grace now through Christ, v 6 highlights once again the element of discontinuity—discontinuity, that is to say, not between God’s original choice of Israel and his present call of the Gentiles (that is an element of continuity, provided by the remnant), but discontinuity between Israel’s present understanding of that original choice and Paul’s awakened understanding of it through his new faith in Christ. The discontinuity lies in Israel’s misunderstanding of its election, Israel’s failure to recognize that it was always a matter of sheer grace on God’s part. The bulk of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries had (in Paul’s view) made the mistake of understanding their status as God’s chosen people in terms of works, in terms of the national customs and ritual acts which defined their identity as God’s holy people, both ethnically and religiously (circumcision, sabbath, food laws, etc.). For Paul the mistake is self-evidently a mistake, for if God’s choice of Israel was a matter of election, of sheer grace (as he had already demonstrated from scripture—9:6–18), then it cannot in any sense depend on such works, it cannot depend in particular on a Gentile having to assume the ethnic and religious identity of a Jew by committing himself to observe the customs and ritual obligations peculiar to the Jews—“otherwise grace would not be grace.”

The reintroduction of the phrase “of works,” as with the reintroduction of the word “grace” in v 5, recalls important statements of Paul’s argument earlier in the letter (3:20, 27–28; 9:32). Clearly in vv 5–6 Paul is trying to achieve a summary statement which draws together the most important elements of his whole thesis so far. In so doing, for the first time, somewhat surprisingly, he brings “works” and “grace” into direct antithesis. Thereby we are given confirmation that Paul’s understanding of divine grace is not antithetical to law as such (despite the possible implication of 6:14–15), but to law understood in terms of “works.” “Law” after all can be linked in Paul’s mind with grace’s correlates, “faith” and “righteousness” (“law of faith”—3:27; “law of righteousness”—9:31), in a way inconceivable for “works” (contrast 3:27–28 and 9:30–32). Likewise, precisely because “of works” summarizes Israel’s misunderstanding of the law within the election of grace, we are also given confirmation that “works” for Paul do not denote “works of merit” which “earn” God’s favor (despite the possible implications of 4:4). Rather what Paul objects to is “works” understood as a qualification for God’s favor simply because it is they which qualify for membership of the covenant people and which sustain that identity as God’s elect. It is this reduction of God’s election to matters of ethnic and ritual identity which Paul sees as the fatal misunderstanding and abandonment of God’s grace and of the election of grace.

7-10 This neat synthesis and summary of his argument so far (vv 5–6) now provides Paul with a platform on which to build his definitive answer to the problem posed to his own faith by Israel’s disobedience and even antagonism to the gospel. Here at last he evidently feels able to develop the various hints already dropped and to build up to the final denouement, the climactic unveiling of the divine mystery. First of all (vv 7–10), the hint dropped in 9:22–23 and 9:33 that Israel’s failure was not only foreseen by God, but rather intended by God, and in fact actually brought about by God.

7 Verse 7 looks at first simply like a (further) summing up of the argument. But, as so often earlier, Paul makes his conclusion the first step into the next stage of his exposition, and here he begins to draw together the threads into his final pattern. “What Israel sought for, it did not attain” picks up and repeats what Paul had already said in 9:31 and 10:3. “But the elect attained it” draws together 9:30 and 11:5—“the elect” being first and foremost the remnant within the chosen people (11:5—the Jewish Christians), but also by implication the Gentiles who without pursuing righteousness came upon it and grasped it (9:30)—Jew first and also Gentile. However, these earlier assertions are recalled only in order to take the exposition that further final step—the sting coming in the tail. “But the others were hardened, became insensible.” What had been hinted in 9:22–23, 33 is now spelled out. The readers would now realize why it was that Paul had persisted in developing both sides of the doctrine of election in 9:13 and 9:18, even when it seemed unnecessary to the point then being made, and even despite the awkward questions it raised for his understanding of judgment. The reason is now clear. Paul insisted that the corollary of election of one was hardening of another because it helped explain Israel’s present obtuseness in the face of the gospel. Now that election is to be seen as election of the remnant, the corollary this time applies to the rest of Israel apart from the remnant. The misunderstanding and unbelief of most of Paul’s fellow Jews is no accident; it is God’s doing; it is the obverse of his extending his electing grace to Gentile as well as Jew, just as rejection of Esau and hardening of Pharaoh was the obverse of his election of Israel.

8 Paul does not draw back from this awkward corollary, any more than he drew back in chap. 9. But he has reached his conclusion simply as a logical deduction both from the way God’s election has worked in history and from the identification of Jewish Christians with the remnant spoken of by the prophets. Now he seeks to confirm and establish it not simply as a corollary, but as something directly spoken of as such in scripture.

The first scriptural proof is basically a quotation of Deut 29:4, elaborated consciously or unconsciously with a phrase from Isa 29:10 (“spirit of torpor”) and perhaps a sideways glance to Isa 6:9–10. Rather more striking is the way Paul has turned what was presented as an excuse for Israel’s obtuseness (“the Lord God has not given you . . . eyes to see . . .”) into an act of deliberate intent (“God gave them eyes that they should not see”). However, Paul’s audiences would hardly think of this as an unjustified modification, particularly in the light of the supplementation from Isaiah. “Spirit of torpor” is a phrase unique to and within the LXX, so that at least those well versed in the LXX would not fail to pick up the cross-reference. Moses does ascribe Israel’s obtuseness to God, even if as an act of omission rather than of commission. And Isaiah speaks of God’s part in his own generation’s dullness in terms every bit as forceful as Paul’s: “the Lord has poured out on you a spirit of sleep and will close their eyes . . .” (LXX).

The effect of the conflated text is to reinforce the point that what is happening to the rest of Israel now is no different from what happened more than once in the past. Israel now is showing no greater obtuseness than it did in the past. And each time it was God’s doing. Israel cannot deny the testimony of its own scriptures that within God’s election purpose for Israel there have been times when God himself prevented Israel from recognizing the course and character of God’s purpose. Moreover, the implication which Paul no doubt intended by continuing the quotation to the last line is that it is the same obtuseness (“until the present day”). Israel’s misunderstanding of and disobedience to the word of faith is but the continuation and eschatological climax of a sustained lack of perception on Israel’s part. At the same time the Jews (Jewish Christians) among Paul’s first readership might also justifiably infer that if God so dealt with his people while they were indeed the exclusive focus of his covenant concern, then there can be good hope that his present punitive action toward Israel does not signify a complete change in God’s purpose for Israel or abandonment of Israel. Here too the last line could be fairly taken to imply that the obtuseness laid upon Israel was only “until the present day” and would as part of the end events soon be lifted. Whether Paul himself intended all this wealth of meaning is less clear, but it certainly accords with the view he develops throughout this chapter.

9-10 The second scriptural proof is a straight quotation from the LXX of Ps 69:22–23 with (possibly subconscious) conflation from Ps 35:8. Some of Paul’s earliest readers might well be puzzled by the use of this text, for the original psalm was directed against David’s enemies, a curse invoked on Israel’s opponents (the same applies to Ps 35:8). As in 3:10–18, Paul turns David’s imprecations against his own people! However, those familiar with the more atomistic exegesis of the rabbis would probably consider the interpretative use of the psalm acceptable. Just as the link provided by the appearance of “snare” in both psalms made possible their conflation, so the link provided by talk of “unseeing eyes” would constitute a validation for drawing in Ps 69:22–23 as a way of elaborating and clarifying Deut 29:4. More important, those more fully instructed in the new faith in Jesus Messiah would be aware that Ps 69 was widely regarded in Christian circles as a prophetic text which spoke beforehand of the sufferings of their Messiah, David himself presaging in experience and word what his greater son would undergo (Paul himself was certainly aware of this Christian understanding of the psalm, as Rom 15:3 demonstrates). As Israel by its liturgical use of the psalms over the centuries had taken David’s words as an expression of their own distress and of their own hostility to Israel’s enemies, so now in the eschatological transposition effected by Christ, Christians felt justified in taking David’s words as an expression of the sufferings endured by Messiah Jesus, albeit ironically at the hands of his own people.

Yet even for those who were more familiar with the traditional Jewish reference of the psalm and less familiar with its Christian interpretation, Paul’s use of it would by no means lack sense or justification. For in the argument of chaps. 9–11 Paul has now clearly established the point, that what Israel earlier thought was true of the Gentiles (as a corollary to Israel’s election) is now proving true of Israel itself (as a corollary to that same election focusing upon the remnant within Israel, as well as broadening out to include the Gentiles). And this includes the curse Israel invoked upon its enemies: by their resistance to “the election of grace” (v 5) the rest of Israel had put themselves in the position of those on whom David originally invoked his curse; they turned their own imprecation back upon themselves.

As to the details of the text, Paul may well be content to understand them in general terms, without specific reference. But it is possible that he would take “their table” as a reference to the cult (cf. 1 Cor 10:21), and so would think of Jewish devotion to their distinctive cultic rituals, or of the importance Pharisees placed on the ritual purity of table fellowship, as the stumbling block. And the last line would quite likely evoke in him the sense of oppression and even slavery with which he now looked back on his own Pharisaic zeal for works and scrupulosity in things of the law (cf. Gal 4:21—5:1; Phil 3:6–9). Christ became a stumbling block to most of the Jews (9:33) only because they had already tripped and ensnared themselves in a ritual practice which handicapped rather than helped them in the pursuit of righteousness (9:31–32) and which so reinforced their religious self-identity in nationalistic terms that they were unable to recognize the eschatological and universal significance of the word of Christ.