3. God’s Calling of a New People: Israel and the Gentiles (9:24–29)

24[Whom] God has called us, not only from among Jews but also from among Gentiles, 25as it says also in Hosea:

“I will call that which is not my people ‘my people,’

and that which is not loved ‘my beloved’;

26and it will be that in the place where it was said to them,

‘You are not my people,’

there they shall be called sons of the living God.”a

27But Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“If the number of the sons of Israel should be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved.

28For the Lord will perform his word on the earth, completing it and cutting it short.”b1

29And it is just as Isaiah foretold:

“If the Lord of hosts had not left for us a seed,

we would have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.”c

These verses return, after the excursus in vv. 14–23, to the theme of vv. 6–13: God’s call is the sole basis for inclusion in the true people of God. Thus we encounter here again the characteristic vocabulary of that earlier paragraph: “sons of God” (v. 26; cf. v. 8); “seed” (v. 29; cf. vv. 7 and 8); and, especially, “call” (vv. 24 and 26; cf. vv. 7 and 12). Another similarity is Paul’s constant appeal to the OT for substantiation of his teaching. In vv. 6–13 Paul mined the patriarchal stories for his citations; now he turns to the prophets. It is probably Paul’s intention to cite the OT in 9:6b–29 in the order of the canon, moving from the patriarchal narratives (vv. 7–13) to the events of the exodus (vv. 14–18) to the time of the prophets (vv. 21, 24–29). Paul also changes his style of scriptural citation: whereas he has in the earlier paragraphs interspersed OT quotations with his own commentary, he now quotes in rapid sequence a series of quotations (vv. 25–29) to confirm his initial thesis statement (v. 24).

While vv. 24–29 pick up the theme of vv. 6b–13, they also move beyond what Paul has said in vv. 6b–13. For Paul now explicitly includes Gentiles among those whom God is sovereignly calling to be part of his people. God’s people are constituted by his call and not by natural descent. Paul now takes this point to its logical and (from the perspective of first-century Judaism) radical conclusion: physical descent from Abraham not only does not guarantee inclusion in the true people of God; it is not even necessary. Verses 14–23, despite their somewhat parenthetical nature, have prepared the way for this conclusion by highlighting so intensely God’s absolute freedom to bestow his mercy on whomever he chooses. Verses 24–29, therefore, bring Paul’s defense of God’s faithfulness to his word to its climax. The small number of Jews who have responded to the gospel fits with the prophetic insistence that only a remnant of the people of Israel would be saved. And the inclusion of Gentiles within the eschatological people of God, while not so clearly predicted in the OT, conforms to God’s character and actions as presented in the Scriptures.

24 The opening words of this verse are difficult syntactically and raise questions about the relationship between vv. 22–23 and 24. We may view v. 24 as the continuation of the sentence begun in vv. 22–232 or as a new sentence that continues in v. 25. Clearly those called in v. 24 are to be identified with the “vessels of mercy” in v. 23, and some connection between vv. 22–23 and 24 must be retained. In fact, we find in vv. 23b–24 a sequence similar to that of Rom. 8:30a, as God’s “call” follows his act of predestination. Still, Paul’s word order suggests what Dunn calls “a pause for breath” here, and it seems best to view v. 24 as beginning a new sentence (and, indeed, a new paragraph).3 The sequence in vv. 23b–24 from God’s “preparing beforehand” vessels of mercy and his calling of them into relationship with himself4 is similar to that in 8:30: “those whom he predestined, he also called.” But Paul’s focus here is not on the antecedents of God’s calling or on its nature, but on its scope: God summons into relationship with himself Gentiles as well as Jews. This is the point Paul supports with the OT quotations that follow.

25–26 These quotations are chiastically related to the final words of v. 245:

A	God calls Jews	v. 24
B	God calls Gentiles	v. 24
B′	OT confirmation of God’s call of Gentiles	vv. 25–26
A′	OT confirmation of God’s call of Jews	vv. 27–29

Paul’s OT support for the calling of Gentiles comes from “the book of Hosea.”6 He quotes freely from Hos. 2:23 (MT and LXX 2:25) in v. 25 and then verbatim from the LXX version of Hos. 1:10a (MT and LXX 2:1b) in v. 26. Paul changes the sequence of the verses, reverses the order of the two clauses he cites from 2:23, and uses wording different from both the LXX and MT.

Hos. 2:23b–d: “And I will have pity on ‘not-pitied,’ and I will say to ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.”

Paul: “I will call that which is not my people ‘my people,’ and that which I have not loved ‘my beloved’;

Hos. 1:10: “Yet the number of the sons of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘Sons of the living God.’ ”

Paul: “and it will be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living God.”

These differences have given rise to the suggestion that Paul has taken these quotations with, perhaps, the others in this series, from a catena already in existence.7 But this is unlikely.8 One of the key differences is Paul’s use of the verb “I will call” in place of the more generic verb, “I will say,” of both the Hebrew and Greek. This is almost certainly Paul’s own change since it matches exactly the point for which he adduces the quotations (cf. “call” in v. 24).9 By reversing the order of the clauses in his quotation of Hos. 2:23, Paul is able to put this verb at the beginning of his composite quotation from Hosea. The same verb comes at the end of the quotation—“they shall be called sons of the living God”—indicating clearly where Paul’s stress lies.

But a potentially more serious instance of what seems to be arbitrary hermeneutics on Paul’s part is his application of these Hosea texts to the calling of Gentiles. For the prophet Hosea is predicting a renewal of God’s mercy toward the rebellious northern tribes of Israel: those whom God rejected and named lō-ruhamah, “not pitied,” and lō-ami, “not my people” (the symbolic names given to Hosea’s children [1:6–9]) are again shown mercy and adopted again as God’s people. The problem disappears if Hosea is including the Gentiles in his prophecy;10 but this is unlikely. Others avoid the difficulty by arguing that Paul applies these passages to the calling of the Jews rather than the Gentiles.11 But the explicit reference to Israel in the introduction to the Isaiah quotations in v. 27 suggests that Paul views the Hosea quotations as related to the calling of the Gentiles. Others think that Paul may imply an analogy: God’s calling of Gentiles operates on the same principle as God’s promised renewal of the ten northern tribes.12 But Paul requires more than an analogy to establish from Scripture justification for God’s calling of Gentiles to be his people. Therefore we must conclude that this text reflects a hermeneutical supposition for which we find evidence elsewhere in Paul and in the NT: that OT predictions of a renewed Israel find their fulfillment in the church.13 Moreover, Paul’s use of these texts may further his effort to break down the boundaries between the Jews and other peoples that were so basic to Jewish thinking.

The geographical references in Paul’s quotation of Hos. 1:10—“in the place where … ,” “there”—are puzzling. In Hosea, these probably refer to the land of Israel’s exile: “in the place” where God said to the exiled Jews, “You are not my people” he will intervene to take them to himself once again.14 If Paul finds any particular meaning in the language (rather than simply preserving it as part of the text he quotes15), he probably intends a similar application but this time with reference to the Gentiles: it is in the land of exile, the dispersion, that God will call out a people for himself.16

27–28 If Hosea speaks allusively to the situation of the Gentiles, Isaiah quite directly “cries out17 concerning18 Israel.” Paul quotes in vv. 27–28 from Isa. 10:22–23. His text is substantially that of the LXX, with only two exceptions worth noting.19 First, while the subject of the verb in the first clause in the LXX (and the MT) is “the people Israel,” Paul has “the number of the sons of Israel.”20 This exact phrase occurs in Hos. 1:10 (the verse Paul has just cited), so Paul’s paraphrase is a clever way to emphasize his juxtaposition of these two texts. Second, in v. 28 Paul omits several words found in the LXX of Isa. 10:22b–23a. It may be that Paul’s Greek text did not have these words;21 or Paul may have omitted them because they were not integral to the point he wanted to draw from the text.

Paul’s purpose in citing what Isaiah “cries out concerning Israel” is not simply, or even mainly, to cite OT support for God’s calling of Jews to be his people—a point that hardly required such substantiation. Rather, his purpose is to establish the truth that God is calling his “vessels of mercy” from among Jews. He thereby ends this section on the note with which it began (vv. 6b–13): the OT itself shows that God chooses only some from among national Israel to be his true spiritual Israel. It is in this way that Paul reconciles the promises of God to Israel and the small number of Jewish Christians (see v. 6a).22 To establish the truth of God’s selectivity from within Israel, Paul cites texts from Isaiah that describe the important OT concept of the “remnant.” Characteristic especially of the prophets, the remnant doctrine contains both a word of judgment and a word of hope.23 The judgment consists in the fact that, though “the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea” only “a remnant will be saved.” In contrast to the smug self-assurance that the Lord’s covenant with Israel insured both the political integrity and spiritual vitality of the people as a whole, the Lord through his prophets announces doom for the people as a whole. In the Hebrew text, this note of judgment is sounded at the end of v. 22 and v. 23: “Destruction has been decreed, overwhelming and righteous. The LORD, the LORD almighty, will carry out the destruction decreed upon the whole land” (NIV). The LXX paraphrases here, however, and it is not therefore clear what Paul means when he takes over its wording. But the idea of judgment, plain in the Hebrew text, is probably intended by Paul also: God will carry out his word [of judgment]; and it is a word that he will carry out “completely”24 and “decisively.”25 For Paul also, then, the remnant doctrine confirms his word of judgment to Israel: it is “not all who are of Israel who are truly Israel” (v. 6b).26

The note of hope in the prophetic remnant doctrine consists in God’s promise that, despite the widespread disobedience of his people, “a remnant will be saved.”27 God’s promise to preserve a remnant signals his continuing faithfulness to his people, however faithless they may have been. That Paul wants us to hear this note in the remnant doctrine also is clear both from the connection between these quotations and v. 24 and from his development of the remnant teaching in chap. 11, where the existence of a remnant (11:1–10), he suggests, is laden with hope for the future of Israel (see esp. 11:16a).28

29 Paul’s catena of quotations ends with a further word of prediction from Isaiah. Paul cites Isa. 1:9 exactly according to the LXX, which faithfully renders the MT. What undoubtedly drew Paul’s attention to this text was the word “seed” (sperma), which was so key in vv. 7–9. While, however, the tone in vv. 7–9 was mainly negative (among all the descendants only those whom God “reckons” as seed will be saved), here it is positive: God’s “leaving” a seed means that he will not allow Israel’s rebellion to bring her to the annihilation experienced by Sodom and Gomorrah. This concluding note of hope paves the way for Rom. 11.

C. UNDERSTANDING ISRAEL’S PLIGHT: CHRIST AS THE CLIMAX OF SALVATION HISTORY (9:30–10:21)

At first glance it seems natural to follow the chapter divisions in isolating the next major stage of Paul’s argument. With 11:1, Paul certainly moves on to a new topic. And the same would seem to be true in 10:1, with its direct address to the readers—“brothers and sisters”—and its expression of concern for Israel, reminding us of the beginning of chap. 9.1 But our first glance is in this case misleading; a more fundamental break comes at 9:30. (1) The question “What then shall we say?” often marks a new argument in Romans.2 (2) Paul signals a shift in focus by a shift in vocabulary. The words “righteousness”3 and “faith”/“believe”4 are central to the argument of 9:30–10:21—yet they are almost entirely missing from 9:1–29 and 11:1–36.5 (3) The integrity of 9:30–10:21 is further seen in the similarity of its beginning and ending. In both 9:30–32 and 10:20–21 Paul contrasts the surprising inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God with the exclusion of Israel.6

The rhetorical question “What then shall we say?” signifies that 9:30–10:21 (like 9:14–23) takes up an issue raised by the main line of Paul’s teaching in 9:6–13, 24–29. As 9:30b–31 reveal, this issue is the surprising turn of salvation history Paul has sketched in 9:24–29: Gentiles, once “not a people,” are now entering into the people of God; Israel, blessed and given so many privileges, is failing to act on her privileges and experience salvation in Christ.7 As Paul has already explained, this situation is due to the sovereign determination of God. But in 9:30–10:21, he argues that it is also the result of human response.8 The manifestation of God’s eschatological righteousness in Christ has been met by Gentiles with faith, by Israel (generally) with disobedience and unbelief. But Gentile inclusion continues (as in 9:6–29) to be the subordinate note, as Paul continues to explore the problem of Israel’s exclusion.9

This new section, 9:30–10:21, is therefore something of an excursus from Paul’s main argument in chaps. 9–11. That argument, as we have seen, seeks to reconcile the privileges granted to Israel in the OT with the plight of Israel that has resulted from her (general) refusal to believe the gospel. In 9:30–10:21, Paul pauses in his argument to explore the latter point: Israel’s plight as a result of the gospel.10 He shows (1) that Israel’s situation is the result of her failure to recognize in the gospel and in the Jesus proclaimed in the gospel the culmination of salvation history (9:30–10:13); and (2) that Israel’s failure to recognize this is inexcusable, because the OT itself points to this culmination (10:14–21 especially).

Paul signifies the first of these concerns by reverting in these verses to the language of the gospel that dominated 1:16–17; 3:21–4:25. Every component of Paul’s “definition” of the gospel in the theme of the letter (1:16–17) is taken up in 9:30–10:21: “gospel” (see 10:15, 16); “salvation”/“save” (see 10:1, 9, 10, 13); “all” (10:4, 11, 12, 13); “Jew and Greek” (10:12); “faith” (passim); and “the righteousness of God” (10:3).11 Matching and often directly related to Paul’s gospel language are quotations of the OT (11 in 25 verses). In this is found Paul’s second key concern: to show that the gospel, as outlined in 1:18–4:25, is in continuity with the OT. Paul shows that the law (10:6–8, 19), the prophets (9:32b–33; 10:15–16, 20–21), and the writings (10:18) all bear witness to “the message of faith,” the gospel that Paul is preaching. Israel is zealous but ignorant: she has not understood that the gospel of Christ brings salvation history to its climax. And she should have understood, for the OT witnesses clearly to the gospel. Paul neatly summarizes this theme in his conflated quotation from Isaiah in 9:33: Israel has stumbled over the stone that God himself has “set in Zion.”

1. Israel, the Gentiles, and the Righteousness of God (9:30–10:13)

The key word in this passage is “righteousness” (dikaiosynē), which occurs ten (or 11; see the variant reading in 10:3) times. Throughout this passage, Paul returns (after using the term to refer to moral righteousness in chaps. 6–8) to the forensic meaning of righteousness that he established in chaps. 1–4: the “right” standing with God that is the product of God’s justifying work in Christ. Earlier in the letter Paul devoted considerable time to showing that a person could experience this right standing with God only through faith (1:17; 3:21–4:25). He now uses this cardinal gospel truth to explain why so many Gentiles, previously excluded from God’s covenant concern, are being saved, while most Jews, the recipients of God’s blessing and promises, find themselves estranged from God. Paul uses three roughly parallel contrasts between two kinds of righteousness to make his point:

(1) “the righteousness based on faith” versus “the law of righteousness” (9:30–31);

(2) “the righteousness of God” versus “their own righteousness” (10:3);

(3) “the righteousness based on the law” versus “the righteousness based on faith” (10:5–6).

Gentiles are being included in God’s true spiritual people because they are experiencing the former, positive, kind of righteousness, a righteousness that is now available to anyone who believes (10:4b, 11–13). Most Jews, on the other hand, are finding themselves outside this true people of God because they are wrongly preoccupied with the other, false, kind of righteousness. They have persisted in seeking to work out their relationship with God through the law (9:31; 10:3, 5) and the works it demands (9:32a; 10:5). They have therefore missed the climax of salvation history, “stumbling” over Jesus Christ (9:32b–33), the embodiment of God’s righteousness (10:3), climax of the law (10:4), and focus of God’s word of grace in the new age of redemptive history (10:6–8).12

The threefold contrast between two kinds of righteousness stands at the heart of each paragraph in this section: 9:30–33; 10:1–4; 10:5–13. The integrity of this section is further marked by an inclusio: Paul both begins (9:30) and ends (10:11–13) with teaching about the inclusion of Gentiles. Note also the quotation of Isa. 28:16 in both 9:33 and 10:12.

a. The Righteousness of God and the “Law of Righteousness” (9:30–33)

30What then shall we say? That Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness attained righteousness, righteousness that is based on faith. 31But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not achieve that law.13 32For what reason? Because it was not on the basis of faith but as if it were on the basis of works.14 Israel stumbled over the stone of stumbling, 33as it is written,

Behold, I am placing in Zion a stone of stumbling

and a rock of offense; and the one who believes15 on it

will not be put to shame.a

In this paragraph Paul uses a critical feature of the gospel—the indispensability of faith in attaining a right relationship with God (cf. 3:27–4:25 especially)—to explain the current state of affairs in salvation history. It is by their faith that Gentiles have attained a righteous status with God (v. 30); and it is because of their lack of faith that Israel has failed to attain the righteousness that the law demanded (vv. 31–32a). By means of a composite quotation from Isa. 8:14 and 28:16, Paul shows that Israel’s failure is ultimately christological: by failing to believe in him, he has become for Israel the cause of her downfall (vv. 32b–33).

This paragraph bears an importance out of proportion to its length. It announces the themes that Paul will develop in the rest of chap. 10,16 and its interpretation will therefore set the direction for our understanding of many of the debated points in that chapter—especially the nature of Israel’s failure with respect to the law.

30 The question “What then shall we say?” need not suggest that Paul is responding to the objection of an opponent.17 Rather, Paul uses it as a rhetorical device to introduce an implication of his teaching in 9:6b–29 (and esp. vv. 24–29): “Therefore, in light of God’s calling of Gentiles and of only some Jews, what do we find now to be the case?”18 Verses 30–32a give the answer to this question,19 which is then expanded in 9:32b–10:21. Paul’s response comes in two coordinate and parallel clauses, the first focusing on Gentiles (v. 30b) and the second on Israel (v. 31).20 Paul describes Gentiles, as a class,21 as “not seeking righteousness.” The fact—as Paul well knows—that many Gentiles in his day were earnest and diligent in their pursuit of moral “uprightness” is one indication that the “righteousness” Paul speaks of here is not moral righteousness but forensic righteousness: a right standing before God. How have Gentiles attained this status when they were not even seeking it?22 First, as Paul explains in an appositive phrase, the righteousness that Gentiles have attained is a righteousness “that comes by faith.” And faith, as Paul has made clear earlier in the letter (1:16; 3:28–29) and will emphasize again (10:11–13), is a response that any person, Jew or Gentile, can make. But, second, Paul undoubtedly wants us to see the Gentiles’ attainment of a righteous status with God without their having sought it as a specific and important example of the principle that he has enunciated in his previous argument: belonging to the people of God “is not a matter of the person who wills or the person who runs, but of the God who shows mercy” (9:16).23

31–32a The situation of Israel, Paul emphasizes, exhibits a complete contrast24 to that of the Gentiles he has described in v. 30. The Gentiles, who were “not pursuing,”25 have “attained”;26 Israel, which was “pursuing,”27 has not “arrived at its goal.”28 The deliberate parallelism between the verses would lead us to expect that Paul would make “righteousness” the goal of Israel’s pursuit. Instead, however, we find in v. 31 the phrase “law of righteousness” (nomon dikaiosynēs). This phrase has become a storm center of debate, not only because its meaning is inherently unclear29 but also because it has been a focal point in recent discussion about Paul’s teaching on the law. Three main interpretations have emerged.

(1) Nomos might mean “principle” or “rule,” with dikaiosynēs as an epexegetic genitive: “the principle which is righteousness.”30 The effect of giving nomos this purely formal meaning is to put all the weight on the word righteousness. Paul’s criticism of Israel here, then, would be that she pursued a worthy goal—righteousness—in the wrong way, “not on the basis of faith but as if it were on the basis of works” (v. 32a), and so did not attain that goal. This view has more in its favor than many contemporary scholars have recognized. As we will see, there are sound reasons for thinking that righteousness remains a key concept throughout vv. 31 and 32a. Paul has earlier in Romans used nomos followed by a genitive in a formal sense (Rom. 3:27; 7:23; 8:2—for which see the commentary). But we have also argued that in each of these cases nomos takes on such a “formal” sense only through a rhetorical contrast with the law of Moses. Such a contrast is not present here, and this renders the interpretation of nomos in terms of a “principle” or “order” unlikely.

(2) Nomos probably, then, has reference to the OT Scriptures. But in what sense? A number of scholars in recent years have taken the word in a “canonical” sense, to refer to the revelatory dimension of the OT, or the Pentateuch or the Mosaic covenant broadly conceived.31 They usually then interpret the whole phrase in light of Rom. 3:21, where Paul asserts that the righteousness of God is “witnessed to by the law and the prophets.” Paul would then be criticizing Israel for pursuing a worthy goal, the “law that testifies to righteousness,” by the wrong means: as if that law could be fulfilled by works and the righteousness it points to thereby secured. If, on the other hand, Israel had recognized the call to faith found in “the law,” she would have attained that law.

This view suffers also from grave objections. First, the language of “pursuing” and “attaining” seems ill-chosen to describe Israel’s approach to, or attitude toward, the revelatory aspects of the OT.32 Second, we have little, if any, basis for thinking that Paul would view nomos as a witness to righteousness by faith.33 Third, rather than the positive nuance that advocates of this view find in the phrase, Paul’s use of nomos in association with the word dikaiosynē or its cognates points in the opposite direction. Such phrases always have a negative connotation.34 This is true also, I will argue, for the phrase “righteousness based on the law” in 10:5, an important text because it appears to be parallel to “law of righteousness” in v. 31. The consistently negative nuance of the association of righteousness and nomos in Paul renders it improbable that nomon dikaiosynēs is used positively as an appropriate goal for Israel to pursue.

(3) We conclude, therefore, that Paul uses nomos here in his usual sense, “law of Moses,” the commands that God gave to the people of Israel through Moses at Sinai. With this meaning of nomos, and taking account of the apparently parallel phrase “righteousness based on the law” (10:5), it is tempting to reverse the terms in the phrase nomon dikaiosynēs in interpretation: “righteousness of the law” (cf. RSV; NJB).35 Such a reversal is grammatically possible, and its effect of making “righteousness” the key term in the verse fits very well with the context and with Paul’s customary language. For, first, the parallelism with v. 30 shows that Paul wants to contrast the success of Gentiles and the failure of Israel. But this contrast is more effective if the two groups were pursuing the same goal: righteousness. Second, as we noted in the introduction to 9:30–10:13, Paul’s teaching this section is built on three successive and apparently parallel contrasts (9:30–31; 10:3, 5–6). Since both other contrasts are between two kinds of righteousness, we would expect the same to be true in vv. 30–31. And, third, Pauline usage would suggest that the contrast in v. 32 between “on the basis of faith” and “on the basis of works” relates to the attaining of righteousness.36

These arguments carry weight. But a reversal of the terms “righteousness” and “law” is not acceptable. If Paul had intended us to read the phrase this way, he would surely have not gone on to use the word “law” by itself as the object that Israel failed to attain later in the verse.37

If, then, we take nomos to denote the Mosaic law and keep the usual relationship of the terms in the genitive construction, what does the phrase mean? Paul connects righteousness language and the word nomos absolutely in only two other verses in Romans: 2:13 and 10:5.38 In both, Paul pictures righteousness as that which could be gained from the law through “doing.” These parallels suggest that we should understand the phrase to mean “the law whose object is righteousness”:39 the law “promises” righteousness when its demands are met.40 It is this “law that promises righteousness” that must then be carried over as the object of “attain” at the end of v. 31 and of the implied verb “pursue” in v. 32a.41 “Law,” therefore, remains the topic of Paul’s teaching throughout this verse and a half, but law conceived as a means to righteousness. As a result, the term “righteousness” also remains very much in the forefront of Paul’s thinking throughout.42 We may paraphrase: “Israel, pursuing a law that promised righteousness, did not attain that law. For what reason did Israel not attain the law that promises righteousness? Because Israel pursued that law that promises righteousness not on the basis of faith but as if43 it could have been attained on the basis of works.”

Paul therefore explains in v. 32a why Israel’s pursuit of this “law for righteousness” failed: because she sought to “fulfill” that law by works rather than by faith. Now Paul has nothing in principle against Israel’s seeking to do the law; he elsewhere makes clear that the law legitimately demands works.44 Why then does he appear to condemn it here? For two reasons.

The first and probably primary reason why Paul condemns Israel’s pursuit of “the law of righteousness” becomes clear when we take into account the christological emphasis of vv. 32b–33: Israel’s failure came because she “stumbled over” Christ, refusing to put faith in him. Here Paul suggests that it was not only the manner of Israel’s pursuit of “the law of righteousness” that was misguided45; her very choice of a goal was wrong also: “[The Jews] not only deceive themselves as to the goal, but on the pathway on which they set out they come to a fall.”46 Israel has chosen to keep her focus on the law, seeking to find righteousness through it, when Christ, the culmination of that law and the only source of righteousness, has already come (see 10:4).47 For it is only in Christ that the demand of the law is fully met; and only, therefore, by accepting him in faith that a person can find the righteousness that the law promises (Rom. 3:31; 8:4).48

Second, as we have seen, Paul’s point is not simply that Israel was pursuing the law; she was pursuing the law in terms of its promise of righteousness. Yet Paul has been at pains earlier in the letter to demonstrate that the law’s promise of righteousness (2:13) could never be activated in practice (3:20) because of human sin (3:9). Surely, although Paul does not here make it explicit, we must fill out Paul’s logic with this earlier clear and sustained argument. Israel has failed to achieve a law that could confer righteousness because she could not produce those works that would be necessary to meet the law’s demands and so secure the righteousness it promises.49

32a–33 The exclusivity of Christ is the premise of Paul’s next point. For Christ is that “stone” which God has placed in Zion: the foundation for the new people of God; the keystone in the plan of salvation.50 Yet rather than building on that stone, putting their faith in it, Israel has stumbled over it. Paul does not explicitly connect his assertion that Israel has “stumbled over the stone of stumbling” in v. 32b, with its scriptural support in v. 33, to vv. 31–32a.51 It is clear, nevertheless, that they are related; but how? Has Israel’s inappropriate focus on the law led her to stumble over Christ, the stone God has placed in Zion? Or has Israel’s failure to place her faith in Christ led her to focus too exclusively on the law? At the risk of being accused of “having one’s cake and eating it too,” I answer: both. On the one hand, Paul argues that Israel has missed Christ, the culmination of the plan of God, because she has focused too narrowly on the law. Israel is like a person walking a path, whose eyes are so narrowly focused downward on the path itself that she trips over a stone in the middle of that path. On the other hand, Israel’s failure to perceive in Christ the end and goal of the path she has been walking leads her to continue on that path after it had served its purpose.52

The “stone” imagery Paul uses in v. 32b comes from two passages in Isaiah, as the quotation in v. 33 reveals. Paul’s quotation is a conflation of two texts that both speak about a “stone”: Isa. 28:16 and 8:14. The former text reads: “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: ‘One who trusts will not panic’ ” (NRSV). It is unclear what we should identify as the “stone” that Isaiah prophesies will be the foundation for Israel’s hopes;53 but some Jews before Paul’s day were already apparently identifying the stone with the Messiah.54 Isa. 8:14, on the other hand, is a prediction of judgment on Israel, warning that they would stumble and fall over the Lord himself: “He [the LORD of hosts; cf. v. 13] will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over—a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (NRSV).55 Since these same passages are quoted together in 1 Pet. 2:6–8, it is likely that early Christians before Paul’s time had already combined them in a “stone testimonium.”56 However, the particular way they are conflated here is probably Paul’s own work. By replacing the middle of Isa. 28:16 with a phrase from Isa. 8:14, he brings out the negative point about Israel’s fall that is his main point in this context. At the same time, by including the reference to Isa. 28:16, he lays the foundation for the positive exposition of Christ as a “stone” that he will develop in chap. 10 (see esp. v. 11).57 The quotation concluding chap. 10, therefore, provides a significant christological basis for Paul’s continuing discussion of Israel’s failure and the Gentiles’ inclusion in chap. 10. At the same time, it contributes significantly to Paul’s concern to demonstrate that Israel’s exclusion from God’s people as a result of the gospel does not constitute a departure from the OT. Quite the contrary, Paul here implies: Israel’s stumbling over Christ was predicted in the OT.58

b. The Righteousness of God and “Their Own Righteousness” (10:1–4)

1Brothers and sisters, the desire of my heart and my prayer to God on their behalf1 is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have zeal for God, but it is not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant about the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own,2 they have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the culmination of the law, so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes.

This paragraph unfolds in a series of logical steps, each related to the former with the conjunction gar, “for.” Paul begins by reasserting his deep concern for the salvation of his “kindred according to the flesh” (cf. 9:1–3). Assumed in this expression of concern is, of course, the fact that most of his fellow Jews are not finding salvation. It is this assumption that is the basis for v. 2, as Paul explains why Jews have not found salvation: their commendable zeal for the Lord has not been matched by a comparable degree of knowledge. What have the Jews not understood? In a word, righteousness. As Paul shows in v. 3, the Jews have not recognized the manifestation of God’s righteousness in Christ and have sought rather to establish their own, based on the doing of the law (cf. 9:32 and 10:5). That this is truly a serious misunderstanding is demonstrated in v. 4: Christ has brought the law to its culmination; it is in him that righteousness is now available, and for anyone who believes.

Verse 4 is justly famous as one of the most succinct yet significant theological assertions in all of the Pauline letters. Yet v. 3, with its explanation of Israel’s failure in terms of a contrast between two kinds of righteousness, is the conceptual center of the paragraph. It therefore matches the similar contrast that Paul features in 9:30–31 and 10:5–6.

1  The address “brothers and sisters,” as elsewhere in Romans,3 signals a transition. In this case, however, the transition is not from one topic to another but from one aspect of a topic to another. Paul has given a brief explanation of Israel’s failure to find inclusion in the eschatological people of God; now he will expand further on this explanation. At the same time, Paul’s direct address of his mainly Gentile Christian readers serves to underline his sincerity and the importance of what he says in v. 1. He wants his predominantly Gentile Christian readers to know that he takes no delight or satisfaction from Israel’s fall. Quite the contrary, on his part,4 Paul remains passionately committed to the salvation of the Jews. His commitment rests in the desire, or will,5 of his most inmost person, the heart; and it comes to expression in his prayer of petition6 on behalf of Israel,7 that they might experience the salvation that has been made available in the gospel.8 As Murray points out, the juxtaposition of this heartfelt prayer for Israel’s salvation almost immediately after Paul’s teaching about the ultimate determinancy of the will of God in salvation (9:6b–29) carries an important reminder: “We violate the order of human thought and trespass the boundary between God’s prerogative and man’s when the truth of God’s sovereign counsel constrains despair or abandonment of concern for the eternal interests of men.”9

2 “Zeal” emerged as an especially commendable characteristic in the intertestamental period, when the very existence of the Jewish faith was threatened by foreign enemies and internal unconcern.10 It is also uniformly praised in the NT.11 Paul’s “testimony” about Israel begins, then, on a positive note: they have a praiseworthy devotion to God. The problem with Israel and the reason why Paul must continue to pray for their salvation is that, like the pre-Christian Paul (see Acts 22:3; Phil. 3:6), their zeal is not driven by “knowledge.”12 As v. 3 makes clear, what is involved is a discernment of the plan of God that enables one to recognize what God is doing in the world and to respond accordingly.

3 God’s plan has reached its climax in the gospel of Jesus Christ (1:2–4). And at the heart of the gospel Paul has placed the revelation of the righteousness of God (see 1:16–17). It is natural, therefore, for Paul to characterize the Jews’ lack of understanding (v. 2b) as consisting in their ignorance of “the righteousness of God.”13 This does not mean that the Jews did not understand that God was a righteous God. For, as the parallel phrases in 9:31 and 10:6 suggest, “the righteousness of God” here denotes the dynamic activity of God whereby he brings people into relationship with himself.14 This “justifying” activity of God is manifested in Christ (3:21) and proclaimed in the gospel (1:17). The Jews’ ignorance, therefore, involves their failing to understand that God has fulfilled his promise to reveal his saving activity in Jesus Christ.15

“The righteousness of God,” in this sense, as I argued earlier, embraces on one side God’s activity of “declaring right” and on the other the status of “being right” with God that people receive when they respond in faith to that activity.16 Paul’s language in this verse implies the presence of both these concepts. The nuance of divine activity is evident in the language of the last clause of the verse: the Jews “have not submitted to the righteousness of God.” Paul’s use of the verb “submit”17 shows that the righteousness of God is an active force to which one must humbly and obediently subordinate oneself.18 Another way to put the matter would be to say that the Jews have not responded to God’s righteousness in faith.19 So close a relationship does Paul establish between the righteousness of God and faith that one cannot mention the former without thinking of the latter. And that Israel’s “not submitting” is equivalent to their not having faith is evident from the parallel texts in this passage (9:32a; cf. v. 33b; 10:5–6). But the second participial clause in the verse—“seeking to establish their own righteousness”—suggests that “righteousness of God” includes also the nuance of “righteous status.” “Their own”20 must have a generally possessive sense and the righteousness “they” possess accordingly the notion of status. As its opposite, therefore, “the righteousness of God” must also include the idea of a status of righteousness conferred by God.

“Their own righteousness” can be understood in two different ways. If we give “their own” a distributive sense—“each of their own”—Paul will be referring to the attempt of individual Jews to establish a relationship with God through their own efforts.21 However, if we give “their own” a corporate sense—“Israel’s own”—Paul would presumably be referring to Israel’s misunderstanding of righteousness as something that applied to Israel alone.22 With the former meaning, Paul is scolding the Jews for self-righteousness—the attempt to establish a relationship with God based on one’s own works. On the latter view, Paul is scolding them from for national righteousness—the attempt to confine a relationship with God to Israel to the detriment of all other nations. The “national righteousness” view can find some support in Paul’s stress in vv. 4b and 9–13 on the universal dimensions of God’s righteousness in Christ: against Israel’s attempt to keep righteousness to themselves, Paul proclaims the availability of righteousness “for all” in Christ. But the more immediate contrast to “their own righteousness” is “God’s righteousness.” This suggests that “their own,” like the contrasting term, “God’s,” is not simply possessive, but has the nuance of source. And this, in turn, favors an individualizing rather than a corporate interpretation: a righteousness that comes from one’s own efforts. Three additional considerations also favor this view.

First, this meaning of “their own righteousness” stands in continuity with OT references to “one’s own” righteousness. Particularly significant is the Lord’s reminder to Israel in Deut. 9:4–6 that it was not because of “their own” righteousness that they were about to occupy the promised land but because of the Lord’s gracious choice of Israel to be his own possession.23 Second, interpreting “their own righteousness” as “self-righteousness” suits the context best since the parallel references to righteousness in 9:31–32a and 10:5 have roughly this same meaning.24 Third, the only other time Paul contrasts “God’s righteousness” and a righteousness of “one’s own,” he qualifies the former as “based on faith” and the latter as “based on the law” (Phil. 3:6–9). This suggests that Paul thinks of “one’s own” righteousness as a righteousness tied to human effort rather than a righteousness confined to Israel.25

The Jews failed to “submit” to God’s righteousness not only because they did not recognize God’s righteousness when it arrived but also because they were too narrowly focused on seeking a righteousness in connection with their obedience to the law.26

4 This verse, containing one of the most famous of all of Paul’s theological “slogans,” grounds (cf. “for,” gar) what Paul has said about the Jews in v. 3. Specifically, he shows that the Jews’ pursuit of a righteousness of their own, based on the law, is wrong because Christ has brought the law to its culmination and thereby made righteousness available to everyone who believes. We must now justify this reading of the verse by looking at (1) the meaning of the word “law”; (2) the syntactical relationship between the first part of the verse and the second; and (3) the meaning of the word telos (which I have translated “culmination”).

(1) Scholars have argued for four different meanings of the word nomos in this verse: “law” in general, in whatever form;27 “OT revelation” broadly;28 “legalism”;29 and Mosaic law. The first and second of these interpretations are unlikely since neither meaning is found in the immediate context. The third, on the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere,30 is unattested in Paul and cannot be accepted here. With the great majority of scholars, therefore, I conclude that nomos refers in this verse, as usually in Paul, to the Mosaic law.

(2) Verse 4 contains an assertion—“Christ is the telos of the law”31—and a prepositional phrase—“eis righteousness for everyone who believes.” How are we to connect the prepositional phrase to the assertion? A number of scholars argue that it should be connected directly to the word “law.” Paul would then be claiming that Christ is the telos of the law in its relationship to righteousness, or as a means of righteousness (“for everyone who believes” would then be attached to the statement as a whole); see NASB: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (KJV is similar). Most who construe the syntax in this way also think that telos means “end,” “termination.” They therefore conclude that Paul is proclaiming here the end of the (false) understanding of the law as a means of securing righteousness with God32 or the end of Israel’s misunderstanding of the law and its righteousness as confined to Israel.33 But the syntax does not favor attaching the prepositional phrase directly to the word “law.”34 It is much more likely that the prepositional phrase introduced by eis functions as a purpose or result clause attached to the assertion as a whole: “Christ is the telos of the law, with the result that there is (or with the purpose that there might be) righteousness for everyone who believes”35 (so, essentially, most modern English translations).

(3) This leaves the question of the meaning of the word telos. All major English versions translate this word “end.” But this translation contains a crucial ambiguity: does “end” mean (1) “termination,” as in the sentence “The end of the class finally came!” or (2) “goal,” as in the sentence, “The end of government is the welfare of the people”; or (3) “result,” as in the sentence “She did not foresee the end of her actions.” Each of these meanings is possible for the Greek word telos,36 and each is attested in Paul.37 If we accept the first meaning, Paul’s point will be a purely temporal one: the coming of Christ means that, in some manner, the period of the law’s significance and/or authority is at an end.38 If we choose either the second or the third meaning, however, Paul will be presenting the law and Christ in a dynamic relationship, with the law in some sense directed toward, or pointing forward, to Christ.39

Neither lexical nor contextual data point unambiguously toward one or the other of these two main options. R. Badenas has shown that telos usually means “goal” or “intent” (a teleological sense) in nonbiblical Greek.40 But in both the LXX and the NT the temporal meaning (“closing part,” “termination”) of telos dominates.41 The context uses language of pursuing and attaining with reference to the law (9:31–32a); and this might lead us to expect that Paul would now present Christ as the true “goal” of the law, that goal that Israel sought but could not attain. In the same way, Paul’s use of OT texts to describe Christ and the righteousness he has brought (9:32b–33; 10:6–8, 11, 13) might indicate that Paul is thinking of Christ as the true meaning or intent of the law. However, there is much in both the immediate and wider context to favor a temporal translation. The relationship between v. 4 and v. 3 shows that Paul wants to stress the discontinuity between Christ and the law. The Jews’ striving for a righteousness of “their own,” based on the law (v. 3), is wrong (among other reasons) because (“for” [gar]) Christ has brought an end to the law and to the era of which it was the center. This is the same point that Paul has made in Rom. 3:21: God’s righteousness has been made manifest “apart from the law.”42 Indeed, the salvation-historical disjunction between the era of the law and the era of Christ is one that is basic to Paul’s teaching in Romans (see also 6:14, 15; 7:1–6). Moreover, while Paul certainly emphasizes in this passage the continuity between the OT generally and Christ and the righteousness he has brought (e.g., 9:32b–33; 10:6–8, 11, 13), he consistently emphasizes the discontinuity between Christ and the law (9:30–32a; 10:3; 10:5–8).

These considerations require that telos have a temporal nuance: with the coming of Christ the authority of the law of Moses is, in some basic sense, at an end. At the same time, a teleological nuance is also present. This is suggested not only by the contextual factors mentioned above but also by the fact that similar NT uses of telos generally preserve some sense of direction or goal. In other words, the “end” that telos usually denotes is an end that is the natural or inevitable result of something else.43 The analogy of a race course (which many scholars think telos is meant to convey) is helpful: the finish line is both the “termination” of the race (the race is over when it is reached) and the “goal” of the race (the race is run for the sake of reaching the finish line). Likewise, we suggest, Paul is implying that Christ is the “end” of the law (he brings its era to a close) and its “goal” (he is what the law anticipated and pointed toward).44 The English word “end” perfectly captures this nuance; but, if it is thought that it implies too temporal a meaning, we might also use the words “culmination,” “consummation,” or “climax.”

As Christ consummates one era of salvation history, so he inaugurates a new one. In this new era, God’s eschatological righteousness is available to those who believe; and it is available to everyone who believes. Both emphases are important and reflect one of the most basic themes of the letter (cf. 1:16; 3:22, 28–30; 4:16–17). Because the Jews have not understood that Christ has brought the law to its culmination, they have not responded in faith to Christ; and they have therefore missed the righteousness of God, available only in Christ on the basis of faith. At the same time, Christ, by ending the era of the law, during which God was dealing mainly with Israel, has made righteousness more readily available for Gentiles.45 Verse 4 is, then, the hinge on which the entire section 9:30–10:13 turns. It justifies Paul’s claim that the Jews, by their preoccupation with the law, have missed God’s righteousness (9:30–10:3): for righteousness is now found only in Christ and only through faith in Christ, the one who has brought the law to its climax and thereby ended its reign. It also announces the theme that Paul will expound in 10:5–13: righteousness by faith in Christ for all who believe.46

Two theological reflections on this much quoted verse are in order before we leave it. First, while I have argued that Paul is teaching that Christ brought an “end” to the law, it is important to clarify what this means and, perhaps, more important, what it does not mean. Paul is thinking in this verse in his usual category of salvation history. He is picturing the Mosaic law as the center of an epoch in God’s dealings with human beings that has now come to an end. The believer’s relationship to God is mediated in and through Christ, and the Mosaic law is no longer basic to that relationship. But Paul is not saying that Christ has ended all “law”; the believer remains bound to God’s law as it now is mediated in and through Christ (see Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:19–21). Nor is he saying that the Mosaic law is no longer part of God’s revelation or of no more use to the believer. The Mosaic law, like all of Scripture, is “profitable” for the believer (2 Tim. 3:16) and must continue to be read, pondered, and responded to by the faithful believer.

Second, we find in Paul’s teaching about Christ as the culmination of the law another evidence of the beautiful unity of the NT message. For what Paul says here is almost exactly what Jesus claims in one of his most famous theological pronouncements: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).47 Each text pictures Christ as the promised culmination of the OT law. And together they sound a note of balance in the Christian’s approach to the OT and its law that is vital to maintain. On the one hand, both Jesus and Paul warn us about undervaluing the degree to which Christ now embodies and mediates to us what the OT law was teaching and doing. Our relationship with God is now found in Christ, not through the law; and our day-to-day behavior is to be guided primarily by the teaching of Christ and his apostles rather than by the law. On the other hand, Jesus and Paul also caution us against severing Christ from the law. For he is its fulfillment and consummation and he cannot be understood or appreciated unless he is seen in light of the preparatory period of which the law was the center.48

c. Gospel and Law (10:5–13)

5For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law:1 “The person who does these things will live in them.”a2 6But the righteousness based on faith speaks in this manner: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (That is, to bring Christ down.) 7Or “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (That is, to bring Christ up from the dead.) 8But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”:b that is, the word of faith that we are preaching. 9For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes for righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses for salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “No one who believes on him will be put to shame.”c 12For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call upon him. 13For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”d

Central to the Reformers’ teaching about salvation was their distinction between “law” and “gospel.” “Law” is whatever God commands us to do; “gospel” is what God in his grace gives to us. The Reformers uniformly insisted that human depravity made it impossible for a person to be saved by doing what God commands; only by humbly accepting, in faith, the “good news” of God’s work on our behalf could a person be saved. This theological “law”/“gospel” antithesis is at the heart of this paragraph, as Paul contrasts the righteousness that is based on “doing” the law (v. 5) with the righteousness that is based on faith (vv. 6–13). Significantly, Paul finds this distinction in the OT itself, manifesting his concern to prove that the gospel that has proved a stumbling block for so many Jews and a foundation stone for so many Gentiles is in continuity with the OT. In the earlier two paragraphs (9:30–33; 10:1–4) where Paul contrasted two kinds of righteousness, he was especially interested in explaining the plight of unbelieving Jews. The Gentiles’ involvement was mentioned only briefly (9:30) or allusively (10:4b: “for all who believe”). In 10:5–13, however, Paul’s focus shifts and he now gives special attention to the way in which the revelation of God’s righteousness, the righteousness that is based on faith, opens the door wide to the inclusion of Gentiles. This focus becomes especially evident at the end of this paragraph (vv. 11–13). Paul thereby creates an inclusio, with concern for the Gentiles’ acceptance both beginning (9:30) and ending this section.

Verses 5–13 exposit the final words of v. 4: “so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes.”3 Paul begins by anchoring the connection between righteousness and faith in Scripture (vv. 5–8). His appeal to Scripture here suggests that, for all his interest in the Gentiles, he still has Israel very much in mind. For it is particularly the Jews who need to understand that the righteousness of the law that they are seeking is a righteousness based on “doing” (v. 5, quoting Lev. 18:5). Such a righteousness, as Paul has already shown (9:31–32a; 10:3), is a phantom righteousness, for it cannot bring a person into relationship with a holy God. If the Jews would only see the message of the OT as Paul sees it, they would recognize that the OT itself proclaims the indispensability of faith—the very message that Paul and the other apostles are preaching (vv. 6–8, quoting Deut. 9:4 and 30:12–14). Verses 9–10 are transitional. They highlight the point that Paul has discovered in Deut. 30: a person experiences righteousness and salvation simply by believing the message. Since salvation is therefore not bound to the law but to faith, “anyone” can believe and be saved (vv. 11–13, quoting Isa. 28:16 and Joel 2:32). Thus the way is opened for Gentiles. At the same time, we should not diminish the genuine “universalism” Paul teaches here: if the way is opened for Gentiles, it is certainly not closed to Jews. They, especially, should recognize from their own Scriptures the importance of submitting to God’s new work in Christ in humble faith.

5 The “for”4 at the beginning of this verse connects v. 5, or vv. 5ff., to v. 4. But what is the nature of this connection? We can only answer this question once we have established the meaning of the phrase “the righteousness based on the law,” which, Paul claims, “Moses writes about.”5 There are three main possibilities.

(1) “The righteousness based on the law” might be the same as the righteousness made available in Christ through faith (vv. 4b and 6a). Verse 5 is then in positive relationship to v. 4, and vv. 5 and 6 are not antithetical but complementary. The “righteousness of the law” is nothing but the righteousness of faith, for, rightly understood, the law itself calls for faith: “the person who does the law,” mentioned in the quotation from Lev. 18:5, is the person who submits to the law’s deepest demand, “circumcises his heart,” and trusts in the Lord.6 Advocates of this view generally think that telos in v. 4a means “inner meaning” or “goal” and that vv. 5–8 provide a practical demonstration of that truth. For it is faith in Christ (v. 6) that is the true meaning of the law’s requirement.

But such a complementary relationship between vv. 5 and 6 is not likely. Twice already in this passage Paul has contrasted two kinds of righteousness: “the righteousness based on faith” with “the law of righteousness” (9:30–31); “the righteousness of God” with “their own righteousness” (10:3). We are led to expect that the two righteousnesses of vv. 5 and 6 will likewise be contrasted. Confirming this expectation is the fact that v. 5 highlights “doing” and v. 6 faith. Faith and believing on the one hand and works and doing on the other are one of the most pervasive contrasts in the Pauline letters. For him to place them in a complementary relationship here would be for him to discard one of the most important building blocks in his theology.7 A final indicator that vv. 5 and 6 are in contrast rather than in continuity is Phil. 3:6–9. This is the only other passage in Paul in which “righteousness based on the law” and “righteousness based on faith” are both found; and they are set in direct contrast to one another.

(2) A second interpretation of “righteousness based on the law” posits a mild contrast between it and “the righteousness based on faith.” Advocates of this approach identify “the one who does these things” as Christ. By doing the law perfectly, he activates the promise of life found in Lev. 18:5 and makes that life available for all who believe (vv. 6–13).8 Again, therefore, Paul provides evidence that Christ is indeed the “aim” of the law.

Christ’s satisfaction of the law’s requirements as a basis for securing righteousness for those who are his is a Pauline concept (see 3:31 and 8:4); but there is no good basis in the text to introduce it here. Moreover, accepting this interpretation would put Paul’s application of Lev. 18:5 here in conflict with his application of the same text in Gal. 3:12. And, while not impossible, a difference between the two would be unlikely because the texts have a great deal in common.9

(3) “The righteousness based on the law,” then, is a negative conception, in direct contrast to “the righteousness based on faith” (v. 6).10 It is that “right standing with God,”11 bound up with the law and one’s own works, that Israel had pursued but not attained (cf. 9:31–32a; 10:3) and which Paul discarded in favor of the “righteousness from God” (Phil. 3:9). Such an antithetical understanding of vv. 5–6 could be intended to illustrate the way in which Christ “brings to an end” the law (v. 4a). But the focus on righteousness and faith in vv. 6ff. suggests rather that for Paul the connection is with v. 4b: “so that there might be righteousness for all who believe.”12 The “for” in v. 5 therefore introduces all of vv. 5–8 (or 5–13) as an elaboration of the connection between righteousness and faith and its significance. Verses 6 and following give a positive argument for this connection; v. 5 a negative one.

Before we can understand what this negative point is, we need to know how Paul’s quotation of Lev. 18:5 contributes to the argument. In its context, Lev. 18:5 summons Israel to obedience to the commandments of the Lord as a means of prolonging her enjoyment of the blessings of God in the promised land.13 The verse is not speaking about the attainment of eternal life; and Paul clearly does not believe that the OT teaches that righteousness is based on the law (see Rom. 4). Paul is not, therefore, claiming that Christ has replaced the old way of salvation—by obedience to the law—with a new one—by faith in Christ.14 But Paul does think that the law embodies, in its very nature, the principle that perfect obedience to it would confer eternal life (see 2:13 and 7:10). It may be this principle that Paul intends to enunciate here via the words of Lev. 18:5.15

However, we think that Paul’s point is a more nuanced one. His purpose in quoting Lev. 18:5 is succinctly to summarize what for him is the essence of the law: blessing is contingent on obedience.16 It is the one who does the works required by the law17 who must find life through18 them. The emphasis lies on the word “doing” and not on the promise of “life.”19 Paul states this principle here as a warning. The Jew who refuses to submit to the righteousness of God in Christ, ignoring the fact that the law has come to its culmination in Christ and seeking to establish a relationship with God through the law, must be content in seeking that relationship through “doing.”20 Yet human doing, imperfect as even the most sincere striving must be, is always inadequate to bring a person into relationship with God—as Paul has shown in Rom. 1:18–3:20.21 Throughout salvation history, faith and doing, “gospel” and “law” have run along side-by-side. Each is important in our relationship with God. But, as it is fatal to ignore one or the other, it is equally fatal to mix them or to use them for the wrong ends. The OT Israelite who sought to base his or her relationship with God on the law rather than on God’s gracious election in and through the Abrahamic promise arrangement made this mistake. Similarly, Paul suggests, many Jews in his day are making the same mistake: concentrating on the law to the exclusion of God’s gracious provision in Christ, the “climax” of the law, for their relationship with the Lord.22

6 Verse 6 is connected to v. 5 with the Greek word de. Our interpretation of v. 5 requires that we give the word an adversative meaning: “Moses writes about the righteousness based on the law (v. 5) … but the righteousness based on faith speaks in this manner.…”23 By attributing to the righteousness based on faith the ability to “speak,” Paul follows the biblical pattern of personifying activities and concepts that are closely related to God.24 The “righteousness based on faith” is active and powerful because it is also “the righteousness of God” (see v. 3)—in contrast to the righteousness based on the law that Moses wrote about.25 Paul relates what this righteousness based on faith “says” in vv. 6b–8, using language drawn from Deuteronomy. The introductory warning, “Do not say in your heart,” is taken from Deut. 9:4. Paul’s quotation of this clause is not haphazard; he wants his readers to associate these words with the context from which they are drawn.26 For in Deut. 9:4–6 Moses warns the people of Israel that when they have taken possession of the land God is bringing them to, they must not think that they have earned it because of “their own righteousness.” Paul therefore adds implicit biblical support to his criticism of the Israel of his day for its pursuit of their own righteousness (see v. 5).

After this fragment of Deut. 9:4, Paul then adds directly to it a clause from Deut. 30:12: “Who will ascend into heaven?”27 He then adds an explanatory phrase, claiming that the object of this ascent into heaven is “to bring Christ down.” If Paul’s attribution of Deut. 9:4 to the righteousness based on faith is particularly apropos, the same cannot be said about his use of this clause from Deut. 30:11–14. For Deut. 30:11–14 is about God’s law:

Surely, this commandment28 that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. ¹²It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” ¹³Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” ¹⁴No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (NRSV; the fragments Paul quotes are in italics)

Moses’ purpose is to prevent the Israelites from evading responsibility for doing the will of God by pleading that they do not know it. In God’s laws, mediated through Moses and set forth in Deuteronomy, God has made his will for his people known to them. How, then, can Paul take a passage that is about the law of God and find in it the voice of righteousness by faith? And how, in his explanatory comments, can he claim that what the text is talking about is not the commandment but Christ?

Some scholars are content simply to accuse Paul of arbitrary exegesis: he has no warrant for the application of Deut. 30 other than his general conviction that the OT everywhere testifies of Christ.29 Other scholars have overcome this apparent hermeneutical problem by arguing that Paul is not quoting Deut. 30; he is only using biblical language to express his meaning.30 But this solution will not work: v. 6a looks like the introduction to a quotation; the number of verbal similarities between Deut. 30:12–14 and vv. 6b–8 suggests that Paul intends us to recognize and make use of the context; and the three “that is” explanations imply that Paul is here applying a text he is quoting. Can we, then, find a hermeneutical rationale for Paul’s application of this text?

One possibility would be to find in Deut. 30:11–14 a continuation of the prophecy in Deut. 30:1–10 about God’s restoration of Israel after the Exile. It is at this time, when God himself circumcises the hearts of his people (v. 6), that he will bring his word near to Israel (v. 14). Paul would therefore legitimately be applying Lev. 18:5 to the Old Covenant and Deut. 30:11–14 to the New, when God writes his law on the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:31–34).31 While an attractive alternative, this way of explaining Paul’s use of Deut. 30:12–14 cannot be accepted: at v. 11 in this chapter, there is a clear transition from the prophecy of future restoration in vv. 1–10 to the situation of Israel as she prepares to enter the promised land.32 Another possibility, then, is to find in intertestamental traditions a bridge between the text of Deut. 30 and Paul’s application of it. Specifically, scholars posit an identification of Christ with the figure of wisdom. They reconstruct the process in three steps: (1) law and wisdom were frequently associated in intertestamental Judaism; (2) one intertestamental text, Bar. 3:29–30, describes wisdom with some of the same language from Deut. 30 that Paul uses here; (3) Paul often associates Christ with the figure of wisdom.33 But Paul’s reliance on the Baruch text is not clear;34 and the association of Christ with wisdom is perhaps not as widespread nor as important to Paul’s Christology as some have made it.

The best explanation for Paul’s use of the Deut. 30 text is to think that he finds in this passage an expression of the grace of God in establishing a relationship with his people.35 As God brought his word near to Israel so they might know and obey him, so God now brings his word “near” to both Jews and Gentiles that they might know him through his Son Jesus Christ and respond in faith and obedience. Because Christ, rather than the law, is now the focus of God’s revelatory word (see 10:4), Paul can “replace” the commandment of Deut. 30:11–14 with Christ. Paul’s application of Deut. 30:12–14, then, is of course not a straightforward exegesis of the passage. But it is a valid application of the principle of that passage in the context of the development of salvation history. The grace of God that underlies the Mosaic covenant is operative now in the New Covenant; and, just as Israel could not plead the excuse that she did not know God’s will, so now, Paul says, neither Jew nor Gentile can plead ignorance of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

As Paul therefore uses Lev. 18:5 to summarize the essence of “the law,” so he quotes Deut. 30:12–14 to encapsulate “the gospel.” Throughout salvation history, these two “words” from the Lord have operated side-by-side: God making his demand of his people on the one hand and providing in his grace for their deliverance on the other.36 Viewed against this larger scriptural background, Paul’s contrast of Lev. 18:5 and Deut. 30:12–14 does not violate their root theological significance; nor does it call into question the unity of Scripture. Rather, he is reminding the Jews of his day that righteousness before the Lord can never come from the law, involving as it does human effort, but from the gospel of God’s grace.

In the OT, the language of “ascending into heaven” becomes almost proverbial for a task impossible for human beings to perform.37 In Deut. 30, this impossible task is the bringing of God’s commandment to his people. Paul, however, eliminates any reference to the commandment and applies the language to Christ. Paul’s use of the phrase “that is”38 to introduce his application may signal his intention to provide a “pesher” interpretation.39 This method of exegesis, characteristic of the Qumran community, applies details of the biblical text to contemporary events and persons in a “this [the contemporary event or person] is that [what the OT author wrote about]” format. But the phrase “that is” does not clearly signal the Qumran “pesher” technique;40 nor is it evident that Paul views his explanations of Deuteronomy as an exegesis of the “real” meaning of the text.41 More likely, Paul uses these explanatory comments to suggest a contemporary application of the significance of the Deuteronomy text in the light of the movement of salvation history. Viewed in the light of what God has done in and through his Son, “going into heaven” takes on a new and more literal significance. As the Israelite did not need to “ascend into heaven” to find God’s commandment, so, Paul suggests, there is no need to ascend into heaven to “bring down Christ.” For in the incarnation, the Messiah, God’s Son, has been truly “brought down” already.42 God, from his side, has acted to make himself and his will for his people known; his people now have no excuse for not responding.

7 The particle “or”43 connects the following quotation from Deut. 30 with the previous one, both being dependent on the introductory “Do not say in your heart.” In this second quotation of language from Deut. 30 we find a significant difference between Paul’s wording and the original: for Deuteronomy’s “Who will go across the sea?” Paul has “Who will descend into the abyss?” This difference has led some scholars to think that Paul may here be quoting Ps. 107:26 rather than Deut. 30:13.44 But this is unlikely since Paul’s language is generally parallel to that of Deuteronomy and since it is sandwiched between two other references to Deut. 30. In fact, the “sea” and the “abyss” were somewhat interchangeable concepts in the OT and in Judaism;45 and some Aramaic paraphrases of the Deut. 30:13 used the language of the abyss.46 Therefore, Paul could very easily change the horizontal imagery of the crossing of the sea in Deut. 30:13 to the conceptually similar vertical imagery of descent into the underworld. His purpose for making such a change was to facilitate his christological application. As he could use the fact of the incarnation to suggest the foolishness of “going into heaven” to bring Christ down, so now he can use the fact of the resurrection to deny any need to “go down to the abyss” to bring Christ up from “the realm of the dead.”47

8 The introductory formula “But what does it say?” reiterates the initial introduction to the series of quotations from Deut. 30 in v. 6a—the subject of the verb being, then, “the righteousness based on faith.” Paul uses the adversative “but” because he now tells us what the righteousness based on faith does say, in contrast to what it warns us not to say (vv. 6–7). This positive assertion about the nature of the righteousness based on faith is therefore the key point that Paul wants to get across through his use of Deut. 30.48 What is this point? That the message about the righteousness of faith, preached by Paul and the other apostles, is, like the law of God, accessible and understandable: “the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.”49 The word in Deuteronomy takes the form of a word of command; here in Romans, that word of God is “the word of faith that we are preaching.” But both words have in common that God has brought them “near.” Yet there is in the gospel that Paul and the other apostles are preaching an added sense in which the word is “near.” For not only does the gospel proclaim and embody the fulfillment of God’s promise to bring his righteousness “near” to his people; it also provides for the writing of God’s law on the heart, in fulfillment of the New Covenant prophecy.50 In Christ, the culmination of the law, God’s word is near in a way that it has never been before. And all that is now required of human beings is the response of faith. For the gospel is “the word of faith”: a message51 that calls for faith.52

9 The word that connects v. 9 to v. 8 (hoti) could be translated either “that” or “because.” If we translate it with “that,” v. 9 would specify the content of “the word of faith” that Paul and the other apostles are preaching.53 If, however, we translate it “because,” v. 9 would explain how it is that “the word is near you.”54 The latter alternative should probably be adopted because it would be awkward to have two “content” clauses in a row (e.g., “that is the word of faith … ,” “that if you confess …”). Paul is therefore explaining the “nearness” of the word of faith, the gospel, by emphasizing that it demands only a simple response and that, when responded to, it mediates God’s salvation. This simple response, surprisingly in light of Paul’s stress on faith in this context, is a twofold one: “if you confess with55 your mouth” and “if you believe in your heart.” Both the presence of these two conditions and the order in which they occur are due to Paul’s desire to show how his “word of faith” precisely matches the description of the word in Deut. 30:14, as being “in your mouth” and “in your heart.”56 Paul’s rhetorical purpose at this point should make us cautious about finding great significance in the reference to confession here, as if Paul were making oral confession a second requirement for salvation. Belief in the heart is clearly the crucial requirement, as Paul makes clear even in this context (9:30; 10:4, 11). Confession is the outward manifestation of this critical inner response.57

The content of what we are to confess and to believe reflects basic early Christian proclamation. The acclamation of Jesus as Lord is a very early and very central element of Christian confession;58 as is the conviction that God raised Jesus from the dead.59 Paul’s focus here on Christ’s resurrection is not, of course, intended to detract from his death or from other aspects of his work; as Calvin explains, the resurrection alone is “often set before us as the assurance of our salvation, not to draw away our attention from his death, but because it bears witness to the efficacy and fruit of his death.”60 Paul may also focus on our belief in the resurrection as a final answer to the question “Who will descend into the abyss? (That is, to bring Christ up)” in v. 7. The gospel, then, is “near” to us because it requires only what our own hearts and mouths can do; and when we respond, it brings near to us God’s salvation.61

10 Verse 10 provides corroboration of the connection between confession and faith on the one hand and salvation on the other: “For with the heart one believes for righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses for salvation.”62 This general way of stating the matter prepares the way for Paul’s universalizing application in vv. 11–13. Verse 10 is, then, transitional. Paul again writes rhetorically: the wording of the two parallel clauses follows the same order; and each clause reiterates one of the conditions of v. 9, but in reverse order (thus forming a chiasm). This evident rhetorical interest suggests that Paul would not want us to find any difference in the meanings of “righteousness” and “salvation” here.63 Each expresses in a general way the new relationship with God that is the result of believing “with the heart” and confessing “with the mouth.”64

11 Paul’s quotation of Isa. 28:16 in this verse has two purposes. First, it provides further scriptural support for his critical connection of faith and salvation. For “not being put to shame” refers to deliverance at the time of judgment.65 Second, by adding the word “no one”66 at the beginning of the quotation, Paul is able to cite the text to support his contention that the salvation now made available in Christ is for anyone who believes. This verse therefore finally picks up the element of universality in 10:4b: “for everyone who believes.”

12 Paul unpacks the universality inherent in “everyone” in this verse. As so often in Romans, Paul is particularly concerned with the equal footing given to both Jews and Gentiles by the gospel. As there is “no distinction” between the two groups of people in sin and judgment (3:23), so there is “no distinction” between them as far as the Lord who rules over them or in the grace that the Lord offers to them. Paul has earlier in the letter shown that the confession that there is only one God leads naturally to the conclusion that God must rule both Jews and Gentiles (3:29–30). His insistence here that “the same Lord is Lord of all,”67 might be making the same point, in which case we would understand “Lord” to refer to God the Father.68 But “Lord” (kyrios) in v. 9 refers to Jesus, and Christ is also the implicit antecedent of “him” in whom people believe in v. 11. Moreover, Paul’s language here probably echoes again an early Christian acclamation of Jesus as “Lord of all.”69 The “Lord” here will then be Jesus.70 As Lord, Jesus not only demands allegiance from all; he graciously showers his “riches” on all who “call upon him.” Paul frequently uses the language of “wealth” to connote the unlimited resources of God71 that he makes available to his people in and through his Son.72 Often, these riches are defined in terms of God’s grace or mercy (2:4; Eph. 1:7; 2:7), and this is certainly Paul’s intention here as well. “Call upon” with a personal object is used in secular Greek for asking someone for assistance, and especially of asking God, or the gods, for help or intervention.73 But “calling on the Lord” is also quite common in the LXX and Jewish literature,74 and was taken over by the early Christians with reference both to God the Father and to Christ.75

13 Paul brings to a close this paragraph with an implicit quotation from Joel 2:32 (LXX 3:5). The catchword “call upon” is clearly the link between the context and the quotation, which was important in early Christian preaching.76 But perhaps even more important for Paul was its emphasis on the universal availability of salvation. The quotation brings together two crucial terms from this context: “everyone” (cf. vv. 4, 11, 12) and “salvation” (cf. vv. 1, 9, 10). In the OT, of course, the one on whom people called for salvation was Yahweh; Paul reflects the high view of Christ common among the early church by identifying this one with Jesus Christ, the Lord.77

2. Israel’s Accountability (10:14–21)

14Therefore, how shall they call on one in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How timely are the feet1 of those who bring good news!”a

16But not all have obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”b 17Therefore, faith comes from hearing, and hearing is through the word of Christ.2 18But I say, have they not heard? Indeed they have:

Into all the earth their voice has gone forth,

their words unto the ends of the inhabited world.c

19But I say, has not Israel known? Moses first says,

I will make you jealous with what is not a nation, with

a nation that is without understanding, I will make you angry.d

20And Isaiah also boldly says,

I will be found by those who are not seeking me, I will make

myself manifest to those who are not asking for me.e

21But about Israel he says,

All the day long I have held out my hands to a people

who are disobedient and obstinate.f

Verse 14, with its “therefore”3 followed by a question, marks the beginning of a new unit of thought.4 The immediate point of contact is with the word “call upon” in the quotation of Joel 2:28 in v. 13. That quotation asserts that salvation is a matter of calling on the Lord. In vv. 14ff., Paul asks whether such calling on the name of the Lord is really possible. He begins by analyzing the conditions that are necessary for such calling on the Lord in a series of rhetorical questions (vv. 14–15a). He then makes clear that every condition—except one—has been met. First, the gospel, “the word of faith” (cf. v. 8), has been preached (v. 15; cf. v. 14c). Second, that message of the gospel, “the word of Christ” has been heard; indeed, the voices of its messengers have been heard throughout the inhabited world (v. 18; cf. vv. 14b and 17). Not only has the gospel been made known; it has, to at least some extent, been understood (vv. 19–20). What is the missing ingredient? Faith. For calling on the name of the Lord is another way of saying “believe”; and it is this humble acceptance for oneself of the gospel that is missing (v. 16). Verse 16 is therefore the center of this paragraph and expresses its main point.

But of whom is Paul speaking in this paragraph? He explicitly identifies “Israel” as the object of his criticism in v. 19. But up to that point, Paul has used indefinite third person plural verbs, making it likely that at least in vv. 14–15, and perhaps in all of vv. 14–18, he is thinking of people generally.5 However, there are also indications that Paul is thinking of Israel particularly in this paragraph.6 The third person plural verbs in v. 14 take the reader back inevitably to the last use of such verbs in chap. 10, in Paul’s indictment of the Jews for their ignorance of, and failure to submit to, God’s righteousness in vv. 2–3.7 Verses 14–21 seem to continue that indictment, as Paul removes any possible excuse that the Jews might have for their failure to respond to God’s offer of righteousness in Christ. Probably, then, Paul writes generally in vv. 14–18 about the relationship of all people to the message of the gospel while at the same time thinking especially of the application of these points to Israel. His point, then, is that Israel cannot plead ignorance: God has made his purposes clear in both the OT (note the six OT quotations in vv. 14–21) and the worldwide proclamation of the gospel. So the fault rests with Israel: she has been “disobedient and obstinate” (v. 21; cf. v. 16).

14–15 Verse 14 and the first part of v. 15 contain a series of four parallel rhetorical questions, each beginning with the interrogative “how.”8 By repeating the verb from the end of one question at the beginning of the next, Paul creates a connected chain of steps that must be followed if a person is to be saved (v. 13).9 Paul in v. 13 has asserted a universally applicable principle: that salvation is granted to all who call on the Lord. But people cannot call on the Lord if they do not believe in him.10 They cannot believe in him if they do not hear the word that proclaims Christ.11 And that word will not be heard unless someone preaches it. But a preacher is nothing more than a herald, a person entrusted by another with a message. Thus preaching, finally, cannot transpire unless someone sends the preachers.

The quotation of Isa. 52:712 at the end of v. 15 serves two functions. First, it provides scriptural confirmation of the necessary role of preaching. Second, however, it implicitly suggests that the last condition for salvation listed by Paul in vv. 14–15a has been met: God has sent preachers.13 Significant for this latter point is the use of the verb “preach good news” in the Isaiah text. Paul’s use of this passage would inevitably suggest an allusion to the preaching of the gospel by himself and other “authorized messengers” sent out by God (e.g., apostles)—especially since the passage was widely viewed as prophetic of the messianic age.14 It is also possible that the Greek word hōraioi should be translated “timely,” rather than “beautiful,”15 lending further support to the eschatological focus on the apostolic preaching.

16 In this verse Paul identifies the link in the chain of requirements leading to salvation that is missing for so many people: faith (cf. v. 14a).16 While Paul has been speaking generally of all people in vv. 14–15, here he probably focuses especially on Jews.17 The verse therefore is central to Paul’s argument in vv. 14–21 and, indeed, in 9:30–10:21, reasserting as it does Paul’s basic accusation of his Jewish brothers and sisters (see also 9:32 and 10:3).18 The “not all”19 is a litotes: “only a few.”20 One of the reasons Paul chooses to put the matter this way is to echo the “remnant” theology he has introduced in 9:6b (cf. also 9:27): “not all those who belong to Israel are Israel.”21 Paul’s identification of the break in the chain of vv. 14–15a seems a bit premature, since in vv. 18–21 he continues to do what he began in v. 15b, identifying links in the chain that are in place.22 But Paul could not resist the natural contrast between the truth of the publication of the good news (v. 15b) and the Jews’ tragic reaction to it. Surprisingly, Paul characterizes this reaction as “disobedience” rather than unbelief. But Paul has linked faith and obedience since the beginning of the letter (see 1:5, “the obedience of faith”), and he is especially concerned in this context to show that Israel’s situation is the result not simply of a relatively passive unbelief, but of a definite and culpable refusal to respond to God’s gracious initiative (see 10:3 and 21).

Nevertheless, Paul considers Israel’s disobedience and unbelief as two sides of the same coin, as the quotation from Isa. 53:1 in v. 16b makes clear: “Lord, who has believed our report?”23 As he does on three other occasions in Rom. 9–11 (see also 9:27, 29; 10:20), Paul names Isaiah as the biblical author.

17 This verse seems awkwardly placed. The introductory “therefore”24 and its content suggest that it is a conclusion drawn from the chain of salvation requirements in vv. 14–15a. Some scholars therefore think the verse is out of place25 or even that it was a later addition to the text of Romans.26 These desperate measures are not, however, necessary. As we have seen, the identification of the one point in the chain at which Israel has fallen short in v. 16 is premature, interrupting Paul’s assertion of those points that have found fulfillment. What Paul says in v. 17 is therefore a necessary transition back into this topic. It picks up immediately the connection between “believing” and “hearing/report” that the quotation of Isa. 53:1 in v. 16b assumes and restates the second step in the series of salvation requirements: faith comes as a result of “hearing” (cf. v. 14b).27 The last part of v. 17 then restates and expands on the third step in that sequence (v. 14c): hearing, the kind of hearing that can lead to faith, can only happen if there is a definite salvific word from God that is proclaimed.28 That word through which God is now proclaiming the availability of eschatological salvation and which can awaken faith in those who hear it is “the word of Christ”: the message whose content is the lordship and resurrection of Christ (see 10:8–9).29

18 Verse 17 has focused attention on the critical step of “hearing” in the sequence of steps leading to salvation. Paul now goes back to this step and asks “have they not heard?” Probably here again (as in vv. 14–15) Paul is speaking generally about all people but with special reference to Jews.30 Paul puts his question in a form that makes it legitimate to paraphrase it with an assertion: people have heard.31 In keeping with his concern throughout this paragraph and Rom. 9–11 generally, Paul substantiates this assertion with an appeal to Scripture: “Indeed,”32 Paul says, they have heard, for Ps. 19:4 asserts that “their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words unto the ends of the inhabited world.”33 Paul’s use of this text raises two questions. First, what is Paul’s purpose in using a passage that extols God’s revelation in nature (as Ps. 19:1–6 does) in this context? The implied object of the verb “heard” in Paul’s question must be “the word of Christ”; “their voice” and “their words” in the Psalm verse must then refer to the voices and words of Christian preachers (see vv. 14–16). Paul is not, then, simply using the text according to its original meaning.34 His application probably rests on a general analogy: as God’s word of general revelation has been proclaimed all over the earth, so God’s word of special revelation, in the gospel, has been spread all over the earth.35 His intention is not to interpret the verse of the Psalm, but to use its language, with the “echoes” of God’s revelation that it awakes, to assert the universal preaching of the gospel.36

But this brings us to our second question: How could Paul assert, in A.D. 57, that the gospel has been proclaimed “to the whole earth”? Two implicit qualifications of Paul’s language are frequently noted. First, as the word oikoumenē in the second line of the quotation might suggest, Paul may be thinking in terms of the Roman Empire of his day rather than of the entire globe.37 Second, Paul’s focus might be corporate rather than individualistic: he asserts not that the gospel has been preached to every person but to every nation, and especially to both Jews and Gentiles.38 Both these considerations may well be relevant. But perhaps it would be simpler to think that Paul engages in hyperbole, using the language of the Psalm to assert that very many people by the time Paul writes Romans have had opportunity to hear.39 It cannot be lack of opportunity, then, that explains why so few Jews have come to experience the salvation God offers in Christ.

19 The repetition of the opening words of v. 18—“but I say”—marks out v. 19 as a second step in Paul’s argument that began in v. 18. There he showed that it was not lack of opportunity to hear that prevented Jews from being saved. Now he takes a step further and, abandoning the opening sequence of steps, probes deeper into the nature of the Jews’ “hearing.” Specifically, he raises and rejects the possibility that this hearing was a merely superficial hearing, not accompanied by genuine understanding. No, Paul affirms, Israel has “known.”40 Paul explicitly uses the word “Israel” to make clear for the first time his “real” subject in this paragraph. At the same time, the use of the word adds emphasis to his point: Can it really be that Israel, the recipient of God’s numerous and detailed prophecies about his plans and purposes, does not “know”?41 What it was that Israel “knows,” as the subsequent context suggests, is that God could very well act in such a way that the preaching of Christ would result in the inclusion of the Gentiles and in judgment upon Israel (see the OT quotations in vv. 19b–21). This Israel knows from her own Scriptures; her “ignorance,” then (v. 3), consists in her willful refusal to recognize the fulfillment of these texts in the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ. Israel, Paul suggests, “sees, but does not perceive; hears, but does not comprehend” (Isa. 6:9; cf. Mark 4:12 and pars.; John 12:40; Acts 28:26–27).

Paul quotes Deut. 32:21b as the first step (“Moses first42 says”) in his demonstration from Scripture of what Israel knew.43 The verse is part of Moses’ “song” to Israel, in which he rehearses the history of God’s gracious acts on Israel’s behalf and Israel’s stubborn and sinful response to those acts. The words Paul quotes state God’s “equivalent” response to Israel’s idolatry: because Israel has made God jealous with “what is no god” (v. 21a), God will make Israel “jealous”44 with what is “no people.” The phrase “no people” was probably the catch phrase that drew Paul’s attention to this text, since he quotes the Hosea prophecy about those “not my people” becoming the people of God in 9:25–26.45 Paul sees in the words a prophecy of the mission to the Gentiles:46 the inclusion of Gentiles in the new people of God stimulates the Jews to jealousy and causes Israel to respond in wrath against this movement in salvation history. From their own Scriptures, then, Israel should have recognized that God was at work in the gospel.

20 But it is not only the “law” that anticipates the gospel and Israel’s negative reaction to it; the “prophets” bear witness to the same truth. In fact, Paul suggests, the prophetic text testifies even more clearly to these points: “Isaiah boldly47 says, ‘I will be found by those who are not seeking me, I will make myself manifest to those who are not asking for me.’ ”48 Paul quotes from Isa. 65:1, a verse that in its context refers to God’s making himself known to the people of Israel.49 As he did with Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in 9:25–26, Paul takes OT texts that speak of Israel and applies them, on the principle of analogy, to the Gentiles. Paul’s application of this text to the Gentiles could be based on the language of “those who did not seek me.” The wording of the quotation therefore brings us back to where this whole passage began: Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have attained a right relationship with God (9:30).

21 Having applied Isa. 65:1 in v. 20 to the Gentiles, Paul now applies Isa. 65:2 to Israel,50 an application that matches the original meaning of the text.51 The passage stresses both God’s constant offer of grace to his people and their stubborn resistance to that grace. But which is uppermost? God’s continuing gracious concern for Israel?52 Or Israel’s disobedience?53 The question that this verse sparks in 11:1 might suggest that the latter is closer to the truth. But we should probably not choose between the two. Both the grace of God in revealing himself and in reaching out to Israel and Israel’s refusal to respond to that grace are important for Paul’s argument.

D. SUMMARY: ISRAEL, THE “ELECT,” AND THE “HARDENED” (11:1–10)

1I say, therefore: God has not rejected his people,1 has he? By no means! For even I am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected 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?

3Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.a

4But what does the divine answer say to him?

I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.b

5In this manner, therefore, there has also come into being at the present time a remnant, based on the election of grace. 6And if by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; for otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.2

7What then? What Israel is seeking, this she has not attained; but the elect have attained it. But the rest have been hardened, 8even as it is written,

God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, until the present day.c

9And David says,

Let their table become for them a snare and a trap and a stumbling block and a retribution.

10Let their eyes be darkened so that they do not see and cause their backs to be bent continually.d

A single basic theme can be traced throughout 11:1–32, stated at the beginning and at the end of the section: “God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew” (v. 2a); “from the standpoint of election they [Israelites] are beloved because of the patriarchs.” At the same time, Paul provides clear evidence that an important transition in his argument takes place at 11:11, and I prefer therefore to view 11:1–10 and 11:11–32 as separate literary units.3 Each of these units is introduced the same way: “Therefore, I say,”4 followed by a question expecting a negative answer,5 which is reinforced with the emphatic response “by no means.”6 Each also displays the ending typical of the other major literary units in chaps. 9–11: a mixed quotation, or series of quotations, from the OT (cf. 9:25–29; 10:19–21; 11:26b–27).

As he does so often in Romans, Paul uses a rhetorical question to introduce this next stage of his argument: “I say, therefore: God has not rejected his people, has he?” Paul raises this question because of what he has just said about Israel in 10:21: they are a “disobedient and contrary people.” But this accusation summarizes Paul’s main point in the whole section 9:30–10:21. At the same time, Paul’s answer to his initial rhetorical question picks up important themes from 9:6–29 also. As he did there, Paul here divides Israel into two groups: a “remnant,” enjoying the blessings of salvation and existing by virtue of God’s gracious election (vv. 5–6; cf. 9:6b–13; 15–16, 18a, 22–23, 27–29), and “the rest,” hardened by God in spiritual obduracy (vv. 7b–10; cf. 9:13b, 16–17, 18b, 22–23).7 In this section, therefore, and especially in vv. 7–10, Paul gathers together the threads of his teaching about Israel to this point. Despite the refusal of most Jews to recognize in Christ the culmination of salvation history (9:2–3; 9:30–10:21)—a refusal that mirrors God’s own act of hardening—God continues, in faithfulness to his word (9:4–5, 6a), to treat Israel as a whole as his people, manifesting his continuing concern for them in the preservation of a remnant of true believers. At the same time, 11:1–10 lays the foundations for what Paul will teach about Israel’s future in 11:11–32. For the concept of the remnant, used negatively in 9:27–29—only a remnant will be saved—serves a positive purpose in the movement from 11:1–10 to 11:11–32—there is a remnant, a pledge of God’s continuing faithfulness to Israel and the promises he has made to her. 11:1–10, therefore, functions as a transition between Paul’s discussion of Israel’s past and present (9:6–10:21) and her future (11:11–32).8

The paragraph unfolds in three sections. The rhetorical question and Paul’s answer to it (vv. 1–2a) introduce its main thesis: God has not rejected his people. Paul defends this thesis in vv. 2b–6 with his remnant teaching. Verses 7–10 respond to the implications of this situation with a reprisal of Paul’s understanding of Israel’s present situation, with particular emphasis on the hardening of many Jews.

1 The verb “I say” in the rhetorical introduction to this section forges a link with 10:14–21, where Paul twice uses the same verb to signal transitions in his argument (vv. 18 and 19). At the same time, the “therefore” shows that Paul now draws an implication from what he has said there. Or, to be more accurate, Paul denies an implication that his readers might have drawn from the previous section. He does so by using a rhetorical pattern very typical of Romans: a question expecting a negative answer—“God has not rejected his people, has he?”9—followed by the strong negative response “By no means!”10 The question is certainly a natural one. Israel’s refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ, the culmination of salvation history (10:4) and sole mediator of God’s righteousness (10:5–13), would seem to mean that she could no longer claim to be “God’s people.” But, as in 3:1, where Paul raises a similar question, Paul refuses to admit the “logical” conclusion. Despite her disobedience, Israel remains “the people of God”—in what sense, Paul will explain in the rest of the chapter.

As he did also at the beginning of his discussion of Israel (“my kindred according to the flesh,” 9:3), Paul now again reminds his readers of his identification with Israel: “even I am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”11 Paul may refer to his Jewish identity to explain his motivation in rejecting the notion that God might have rejected Israel so vehemently: as a Jew who still identified with his people, he could hardly countenance God’s abandonment of Israel.12 However, the “for”13 introducing the sentence is more likely to introduce a reason for Paul’s denial. Cranfield thinks that Paul refers to himself in his role of apostle to the Gentiles, a role that God chose a Jew to fill precisely in order to suggest his continuing commitment to the people as a whole.14 But the importance of the remnant concept in this context (vv. 2b–6) makes it more likely that Paul intends here to associate himself with this entity. Paul himself, as a Jewish Christian, is living evidence that God has not abandoned his people Israel.15 Jews, like Paul, are continuing to be saved and to experience the blessings God promised to his people.

2 Paul asserts positively what he denied in v. 1a: “God has not rejected his people.” The wording reflects Ps. 94:14 and 1 Sam. 12:22.16 The relative clause Paul adds to this assertion—“whom he foreknew”—does not simply define “his people” but adds a reason for the assertion. For the “know” in the verb “foreknow” refers to God’s election: as Amos puts it, “You [people of Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth” (3:2a).17 The temporal prefix, “fore-” (pro-), indicates further that God’s choosing of Israel took place before any action or status on the part of Israel that might have qualified her for God’s choice. How could God reject a people whom he in a gracious act of choice had made his own? As Paul has made clear earlier in the letter (3:3–4), human sinfulness and disobedience cannot cancel his pledged word.

Who are the recipients of this gracious choice of God’s? If the clause “whom he foreknew” is restrictive, Paul would be asserting only that God had not rejected a certain body of elect persons from within Israel.18 This view has the benefit of bringing strict consistency into Paul’s use of the verb “foreknow”: in both this verse and in 8:29, it would refer to God’s choosing individuals for salvation. And Paul certainly argues for an election to salvation of individuals within the larger body of national Israel (9:6–29). But the context demands that Paul here be speaking of God’s election of the people as a whole.19 For it is this national entity whose status is called into question by what Paul has said in 9:30–10:21 and about whom Paul then asks in v. 1. Furthermore, v. 28, which appears to reassert the point Paul makes here in v. 2, ascribes election to Israel as a nation also. Paul, then, uses the verb “foreknow” to indicate God’s election, the purpose of that election being determined by the context. In 8:29, where all those “foreknown” are also justified and glorified, the election is clearly to salvation. In this verse, however, Paul reflects the common OT and Jewish corporate sense of election, according to which God’s choosing of the nation Israel guarantees blessings and benefits (as well as responsibility; note the continuation of Amos 3:2, cited above) to the people as a whole but does not guarantee salvation for every single Israelite (see again the argument of 9:6–29).20

Paul has already hinted at his reason for denying the notion that God has rejected his people Israel: in his own person, an Israelite who is saved by faith in Christ, he gives evidence of God’s continuing concern for Israel (v. 1a). Paul now makes explicit this line of reasoning and broadens it by reference to the concept of a remnant. He first provides biblical support for the concept. “Or do you not know” implies that Paul thinks his readers will be familiar with “the Scripture”21 and its implications that he is about to cite. Paul identifies the passage with a formula similar to ones found in Jewish literature: “in the section about Elijah.”22 He further specifies the text as the one in which “Elijah appeals23 to God against Israel.”

3–4 The passage to which Paul refers is the story of King Ahab’s attack on the prophets of Yahweh (1 Kings 19:1–18). After learning of Ahab’s slaughter of the prophets, Jezebel threatens her nemesis Elijah with the same fate (vv. 1–2). Elijah then flees to the wilderness, where he bemoans his fate (vv. 3–14) and where the Lord comforts him with the assurance that he is working out his plan for Israel and the surrounding nations (vv. 15–18). From this passage, Paul quotes Elijah’s lament about being left alone after the slaughter of the prophets (v. 3—1 Kings 19:10 and 14) and the Lord’s concluding reassurance to Elijah: “I have left for myself seven thousand men24 who have not bowed the knee to Baal”25 (v. 4—1 Kings 19:18b). Paul tailors the texts to suit his purpose without, however, changing their meaning.26 He also supplies a suitable introduction to each citation, adding the vocative “Lord” in v. 3 to make clear to whom Elijah’s words are addressed and using the rhetorical question “But what does the divine answer27 say to him?” in v. 4 to announce the Lord’s reply to Elijah.

The 1 Kings passage, which is one of the seminal “remnant” texts in the OT,28 suits Paul’s purpose admirably, with its contrast between the apparent hopeless state of Israel and God’s assurance of his continuing care for the people through his preservation of a remnant of true believers. It is possible that Paul also finds a parallel between Elijah and himself: each is a key salvation-historical figure, is confronted with the apparent downfall of spiritual Israel, but finds new hope in God’s preservation of a remnant of true believers.29 For God’s preservation of a remnant is not only evidence of his present faithfulness to Israel; it is also a pledge of hope for the future of the people.30

5 Paul now makes the comparison between Elijah’s situation and his own explicit. As God had “left31 for himself” a solid body of faithful worshipers in Elijah’s time, so “at the present time,” the time of eschatological fulfillment,32 he has brought into existence33 a “remnant.”34 No more than the defection of Israelites to the worship of Baal in Elijah’s time could the widespread Jewish indifference to the fulfillment of God’s promises in Paul’s day invalidate God’s faithfulness to Israel and thereby cause his word to “fall” (cf. 9:6a). But, Paul is quick to add—reminding us of the principle that he developed at great length in 9:6–29—this remnant has come into being as the result of God’s gracious election.35 There surfaces here again the careful balance that Paul preserves throughout Romans when dealing with Israel. He affirms the continuing significance of Israel in the stage of salvation history that the gospel has inaugurated. But he denies that this continuing significance owes anything to Israel’s intrinsic merit or to her achievement in obeying the law (note a similar balance in 2:17–3:8; 9:1–29; 11:17–32). Jews are no different from Gentiles at this point: only by God’s gracious intervention can they be transformed from sinners doomed to die into righteous people destined for eternal life (cf. 3:9, 23–24; 5:12–21).36

6 The polemical force of “based on the election of grace” becomes clearer in this verse, as Paul explains just what such a gracious election entails. The principle of grace is antithetical to that of “works”; if God has elected the individuals who make up the remnant “by grace,”37 it follows that he could not have elected them on the basis of works. The word “works”38 refers to anything that human beings do. Since Paul’s focus is on the basis for the election of Israel, it is quite likely that he would think of these human actions as done specifically in obedience to the Mosaic law. But, as I have insisted before, it is not the fact that these works are “torah”-works that prevents them from being a basis for election.39 As Paul’s references to the “works” of Abraham (4:2–8) and Jacob and Esau (9:10–13) suggest, his problem with “works” lies not in the fact that they are “torah”-works but in the fact that they are human works. Paul’s polemic, while focused on Israel because of his particular situation, is applicable to all human beings and finds its ultimate basis in the human condition.40 Because of their sin but also simply because of their creaturely status, people can make no claim on God.

“For if it were otherwise,”41 if human beings could by their works secure the blessing of God (as Paul points out in the second part of the verse), grace would “no longer”42 be grace. For grace demands that God be perfectly free to bestow his favor on whomever he chooses. But if God’s election were based on what human beings do, his freedom would be violated and he would no longer be acting in grace. For Paul, however, the gracious character of God’s activity is a theological axiom, automatically ruling out any idea that would conflict with it.43

7 The rhetorical question “What then?” marks the beginning of the last section in this paragraph. Here Paul takes up an implication of his teaching about the remnant in vv. 2b–6.44 Paul has asserted that the existence of a remnant, Jews who are Christians, demonstrates that God has not rejected his people. In 9:26–29, Paul uses the remnant concept with a negative nuance: though all Jews are “Israelites” (9:4), it is only “the remnant that will be saved.” In 11:2b–6, however, Paul cites the remnant with a positive purpose: the continuing validity of God’s election of Israel is manifested in the fact that there is a remnant. Nevertheless, the very notion of a remnant who are receiving the blessings of God’s election implies that many other Israelites are not. It is to this group that Paul draws particular attention in vv. 7–10.

Paul begins generally with a summing up of the situation of Israel as he has outlined it thus far in chaps. 9–11.45 He distinguishes three entities: Israel as a corporate whole, the elect, and the hardened. As a corporate entity, Israel has “not attained”46 what she “was seeking.”47 Paul here repeats in similar terms what he said about Israel as a whole in 9:31: “Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain that law.” This parallel allows us to fill in the missing object of the verbs in this assertion: it was “righteousness,” a right standing with God, that Israel sought but failed to attain. What Israel as a whole did not attain, however, “the elect”48 did. Here again Paul echoes his earlier teaching, where he contrasted Israel’s failure to attain righteousness (9:31) with the Gentiles’ success in doing so (9:30). This earlier contrast leads many commentators to assume that in this verse also “the elect” are composed of Gentiles, or perhaps Gentiles and Jews (all the elect) together.49 But the context favors a restriction to Jews here since Paul’s concern seems to be to distinguish two groups within Israel.50

Contrasted, then, with “the elect,” who have by virtue of God’s gracious choice attained a right standing with him, are “the rest,” who have been “hardened.” Despite a change in verbs in the Greek, the hardening Paul speaks of here is the same as that which he has described in 9:18: a spiritual insensitivity that prevents people from responding to God or to his message of salvation.51 And since in both 9:18 and in the following verse Paul ascribes this hardening to God, it is clear that God is also the implied agent of the passive verb in this verse: “the rest have been hardened (by God).”52 Calvin understood this hardening as a pretemporal decree of God by which he destined some to eternal damnation.53 And Reformed theologians have usually followed Calvin’s lead, finding in this verse support for the doctrine of reprobation. As I noted in my comments on 9:18, this conclusion is often denied because Paul suggests in 11:11ff. that God’s hardening need not be a permanent condition: a day is coming when God will remove his hardening from Israel (cf. v. 25).54 But, in contrast to vv. 7b–10, Paul is in vv. 11–32 clearly thinking about Israel from a corporate perspective. The hardening of Israel as a national group, Paul argues, is temporary; but this says nothing about the permanence of his hardening of individuals within Israel. And we have seen reason to conclude (see the notes on 9:22–23) that God’s hardening permanently binds people in the sin that they have chosen for themselves.55

8 In vv. 8–10 Paul supports his reference to hardening with two OT quotations. He follows Jewish precedent in using each of the three main divisions of the Hebrew canon: the “law” (Deut. 29:4), the prophets (Isa. 29:10), and the “writings” (Ps. 69:22–23).56

The quotation in v. 8, introduced with Paul’s typical formula, “even as it is written,” takes most of its wording and its basic structure from Deut. 29:4.57 This verse comes from one of Moses’ final exhortations to the people of Israel before they crossed the Jordan to take possession of the promised land. Moses reminds them of the great acts of God on their behalf but recognizes that they cannot fully appreciate what the Lord has done for them, for “the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.” Paul changes the original negative statement—“the LORD has not given”—into a positive one—“God has given.” This change suits better the purpose for which Paul cites the verse, for he is supporting the notion of a positive act of hardening on God’s part (v. 7b). But Paul is probably also influenced in making this change by another OT text from which he takes some of the wording of his quotation. The phrase “spirit of stupor”58 comes from Isa. 29:10: “For the LORD has poured upon you a spirit of deep sleep, he has closed your eyes, you prophets, and covered your heads, you seers.” Paul’s attention was probably drawn to this verse by both the similarity in content with Deut. 29:4 and by the verbal parallel, involving “eyes” that are blinded to the reality of spiritual things.59 In addition, the text comes in a passage that supplies many NT references and quotations.60

9–10 The second quotation comes from another passage that has played a prominent role in helping early Christians understand Jesus, Ps. 69.61 This interpretive tradition, according to which David’s own sentiments in the psalm are applied to Jesus, makes it natural for Paul to apply to the enemies of Jesus Christ what David says about his own enemies. Paul’s attention was probably drawn to these verses also by their reference to “darkened eyes,” a verbal link to Deut. 29:4 and Isa. 29:10. Verses 22–23 in the psalm introduce David’s prayer that the Lord might bring disaster on those who are persecuting him: “Let their table be a trap for them, a snare for their allies. Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually.”62 What David prayed would happen to his persecutors, Paul suggests, God has brought upon those Jews who have resisted the gospel. Paul probably did not intend to apply the details in the quotation to the Jews of his own day.63 Thus it is fruitless to inquire about what the “table” might stand for,64 or what “bending the backs” might connote.65

E. DEFINING THE PROMISE (2): THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL (11:11–32)

With a rhetorical question parallel to the one in v. 1, Paul moves into the next—and final—stage of his discussion of Israel and the gospel. As he has summarized the matter in vv. 7–10, the gospel has divided Israel into two parts: a “remnant,” who through the electing grace of God has attained the righteousness revealed in the gospel, and “the rest,” hardened by God in their sin and excluded from this righteousness. Paul now asks whether this situation is permanent. His answer? It is not. For the “rejection” of Israel as a whole is not God’s last word to Israel. This rejection, Paul argues, is but the first step in an unfolding process. Its second step is of special relevance to the Gentiles: Israel’s repudiation of the blessings naturally belonging to her has caused them to be diverted into another, wider, channel, in which they are are now flowing to the whole world. But this is not the end of the story. For this flood of blessings will one day be turned again toward Israel. At the climax of this age, her hardening will be removed, and the present tiny remnant of Jewish believers will be expanded to include a much greater number of Jews obedient to the gospel. And so, as Paul puts it in his famous assertion, “all Israel will be saved.”1 Israel’s rejection is neither total (11:1–10) nor final (11:11–32).

The three-stage process by which God’s blessing oscillates between Israel and the Gentiles is at the heart of this entire section,2 as the following summary reveals:

vv. 11–12: “trespass of Israel”—“salvation for the Gentiles”—“their fullness”

v. 15: “their rejection”—“reconciliation of the world”—“their acceptance”

vv. 17–23: “natural branches” broken off—“wild shoots” grafted in—“natural branches” grafted back in

vv. 25–26: “Hardening of Israel”—“fullness of Gentiles”—“all Israel will be saved” (?)

vv. 30–31: Disobedience of Israel—Mercy for Gentiles—Mercy to Israel

The presence of this pattern throughout these verses points to the underlying unity of this section.3 However, it falls into three clearly distinguishable paragraphs: vv. 11–15, vv. 16–24, and vv. 25–32. In each of these paragraphs Paul directly addresses Gentile Christians: cf. v. 13, “I am speaking to you Gentiles,” and the continuation of this address with the second person singular in vv. 17–24 and the second person plural in vv. 25–32. This address reveals the specific hortatory purpose of Paul’s sketch of salvation history: to stifle the tendency among Gentile Christians to “boast over” Jews and Jewish Christians (cf. vv. 18 and 25; note also 14:3).4 Paul knew that Gentile Christians in Rome were engaging in such inappropriate bragging; and the need to curb this sinful pride was one of his main motivations in writing chaps. 9–11 and, indeed, the letter as a whole.5 But, in keeping with the nature of Romans, Paul also knew that the problem he was tackling here was endemic in the early Christian church. For the problem was an understandable outgrowth of the shift of salvation history that had taken place. The Gentiles’ rejoicing at being included with Jews in God’s people would all too easily lead to boasting that they had replaced the Jews as the people of God. Sorry to say, such an assumption is still rampant in the Christian church: witness the typical contrast “Jew”/“Christian.” Paul therefore warns us, as he warned the first-century Gentile Christians in Rome: don’t assume that Gentile preponderance in the church means that God has abandoned his people Israel. God has brought salvation to the Gentiles without violating any of his promises to Israel and without retracting his election of Israel as a corporate whole: an election that, like all God’s gifts, is “irrevocable” (v. 29).

1. God’s Purpose in Israel’s Rejection (11:11–15)

11I say therefore, they have not stumbled so as to fall, have they? By no means! But through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, in order to make them jealous. 12Now if their trespass means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness mean?

13Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Therefore, in so far as I am apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry, 14if, in some way, I might stimulate my kinspeople to jealousy and save some of them.

15For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean, if not life from the dead?

The opening question shows that Paul wants to deny an inference that his readers might draw from what he has just said. According to most commentators, this potential inference is that God’s hardening of the “remainder”6 (v. 7b) of Israel is permanent. Paul corrects this possible misunderstanding by denying that these hardened Jews have fallen into irretrievable spiritual ruin.7 But the antecedent to the third person possessive pronouns in v. 12—“their”8—must be Israel as a whole and not the hardened “remainder” only. And the continuity between vv. 11 and 12 demands that the implied subject of the third person plural verbs in v. 11 be the same: Israel as a whole.9 Paul’s question in v. 11, therefore, is not related to vv. 7b–10 but to v. 7a, which restates a key point that Paul has made earlier: Israel (as a whole) has not attained the righteousness that it was seeking (see esp. 9:31–32; also 10:3, 21). The issue in vv. 11ff. is therefore not “Can the hardened within Israel still be saved?” but “Can Israel as a whole still be saved?” As the contrast with the Gentiles throughout vv. 11–32 suggests, Paul is thinking mainly in terms of corporate bodies, not in terms of individuals within those bodies.

The structure of this paragraph follows a familiar model: rhetorical question, emphatic denial (v. 11a), and explanation (vv. 11b–15). The explanation uses the pattern of oscillation between Israel and the Gentiles that is basic to this whole section (see above). Paul introduces this sequence in v. 11b and then develops it fully in v. 12. After a parenthetical remark about his own ministry (vv. 13–14), Paul repeats the sequence in different terms in v. 15.

11 The opening of this paragraph parallels the opening of vv. 1–10 exactly: “I say therefore,”10 a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer,11 followed by emphatic rejection: “By no means!”12 Paul’s question, as we have seen, picks up his summary assertion about Israel as a whole in v. 7a: “They [Israelites generally] have not stumbled so as to fall, have they?” Israel’s “stumbling”13 refers to her rejection of Christ and the righteousness of God offered through him (9:31–33; 10:3), while “fall” denotes irretrievable spiritual ruin.14 The relation between these two verbs is not clear. The Greek word connecting them can denote either purpose or result.15 If it denotes purpose, Paul is asking whether it was God’s intention that Israel’s stumbling should lead to her fall;16 if result, whether it has actually been the case that Israel’s stumbling has led to her fall.17 As so often in the NT, the two are difficult to distinguish here—if Israel’s stumbling has not resulted in her downfall, it is because God did not intend that it do so.

In contrast (“but”18) to the inference that Israel’s rejection of Christ has forever excluded her from any special place in God’s purposes is the actual situation: Israel’s sin is the starting point of a process that will lead back to blessing for Israel. The middle stage of this process involves the Gentiles. It is “because of”19 Israel’s “trespass”20 that salvation has come21 to the Gentiles. Paul probably has in mind the way in which he and other preachers of the gospel would turn to the Gentiles after being spurned by the Jews.22 But the salvation of Gentiles leads in turn back to Israel. Borrowing the concept from Deut. 32:21, which he quoted in 10:19, Paul indicates that one of the purposes of the salvation of the Gentiles is to stimulate Israel to jealousy.23 Paul apparently thinks that the Jews, as they see the Gentiles enjoying the messianic blessings promised first of all to them, will want those blessings for themselves.

12 Paul now elaborates on the process he has introduced in v. 11b, using the familiar “how much more” logic (see 5:9, 10, 15, 17) to contrast the benefits of Israel’s rejection of Christ with the blessing that will come with Israel’s “fullness.” His purpose is thus to accentuate the importance of this final stage in the process. And, as his way of referring to Israel reveals—their trespass, their dimunition, their fullness—he seems already to have in mind Gentile readers.24 Paul wants Gentile Christians to recognize the significance for themselves of Israel’s restoration to divine favor.

The first part of the verse (the “if” clause) repeats the first two steps Paul outlined in v. 11b. Paul speaks again of Israel’s “trespass,” but characterizes it a second time with the term hēttēma. This rare word is sometimes given a qualitative meaning—KJV: “diminishing”—in order to preserve a more effective contrast with the word plērōma, which, it is argued, must be translated “full number.”25 But hēttēma seems to have a basically quantitative nuance, denoting a “defeat” or “loss,”26 and this sense also fits the context well: Israel’s trespass in rejecting Christ has been for her a signal spiritual defeat.27 But Israel’s loss has been the Gentiles’ gain: her trespass has meant “riches28 for the world”; her defeat “riches for the Gentiles.”29 Yet the logic of Paul’s sentence implies that the blessing that will come to the Gentiles at the time of Israel’s “fullness” will be much greater.30 What is implicit here is made explicit in v. 15, where Paul identifies this blessing as “life from the dead.”

But what specifically does Paul mean when he speaks of “their [the Jews’] fullness”? The Greek word is plērōma, and it denotes “full measure,” “completeness.”31 Like hēttēma, the “fullness” denoted by plērōma is sometimes understood in a qualitative sense—“fulfillment,” “completeness” (cf. NASB)—and sometimes a quantitative sense—“full number” (cf. TEV: “the complete number of Jews”). With a qualitative connotation, plērōma, as the opposite of Israel’s “trespass” and “defeat,” would refer to her “completion,” the full restoration to Israel of the blessings of the kingdom that she is now, as a corporate entity, missing.32 If, on the other hand, we give a quantitative sense to plērōma, Paul’s reference would be to the “full number” of Jews. The implication in this case would be that to the present remnant there will be added a much greater number of Jewish believers so as to “fill up” the number of Jews destined for salvation.33 Unlike hēttēma, plērōma is found with a quantitative meaning,34 and the parallel occurrence of the word in v. 25—“when the plērōma of the Gentiles comes in”—strongly favors a numerical sense: “the full number of Jews.” However, occurrences of plērōma with a straightforward numerical sense are rare, and entirely absent in biblical Greek elsewhere.35 Perhaps, however, we need not choose between the qualitative and quantitative options. While plērōma probably has a qualitative denotation—“fullness”—the context and the parallel with v. 25 suggest that this “fullness” is attained through a numerical process. Paul would then be suggesting that the present “defeat” of Israel, in which Israel is numerically reduced to a small remnant, will be reversed by the addition of far greater numbers of true believers: this will be Israel’s destined “fullness.”36

13 In vv. 11b–12 Paul has justified his denial of the idea that Israel might be permanently excluded from the plan of God. He does so by arguing that Israel’s present spiritual “defeat” will give way to a “fullness” of spiritual blessing once again. And this renewed state of blessing will be brought about through the medium of the Gentiles’ salvation. It is this role played by the salvation of the Gentiles in Israel’s future blessing that is the jumping off point for Paul’s remarks about his own ministry in vv. 13–14.37 Paul points out that the role played by Gentiles in the ultimate blessing of Israel means that his own ministry, largely devoted to the Gentiles, has nevertheless a significant indirect impact on Israel. These verses are something of an aside, a parenthesis that anticipates the hortatory direction that Paul takes his argument in vv. 17–24.38

Verse 13a—“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles”—reveals Paul’s concern to apply what he is saying in this passage to the Gentile Christian majority in the church at Rome.39 In vv. 13–14 he is specifically concerned to correct any misapprehension among the Gentile Christians about the implications for Israel in his concentration on Gentiles in his ministry. For we can understand how Gentile Christians might appeal to Paul himself, “the apostle to the Gentiles,”40 as further reason to disdain Jews and Jewish Christians. “You see,” they might argue, “Paul himself, though a Jew, has given up on his own people and is devoting all his efforts to us, the Gentiles.” True, Paul responds, in accordance with God’s particular call on my life,41 I have spent most of time ministering to Gentiles. But contrary to what you might expect,42 to the degree that43 I am apostle to the Gentiles, I “glorify my ministry”—I take pride in it and work very hard at it—44 with the hope that it will indirectly serve to bring Jewish people into the kingdom of God (cf. v. 14).45

14 Paul’s hope46 that his preaching to Gentiles will have a positive impact on Jews is based on the “jealousy” theme that he introduced in v. 11b. As God uses Paul’s preaching to bring more and more Gentiles to salvation,47 Paul hopes that Jews, his own “flesh and blood,”48 will become jealous and seek for themselves the blessings of this salvation. In these verses Paul reveals his sense of being a significant figure in salvation history. As “apostle to the Gentiles,” he has a critical—and controversial—role to play in the unfolding plan of God for the nations and for Israel. But Paul’s modesty in the last part of v. 14 shows that we must not overestimate the importance that he assigned to his own ministry.49 By limiting the hoped-for fruits of his ministry to “some of them” (e.g., Jews), Paul suggests that he does not see himself (as some imagine) as the figure whom God will use to bring Israel to its destined “fullness.”50

15 This verse “takes up v. 12 and establishes vv. 13f.”51 The latter relationship is indicated by the “for”52 at the beginning of the verse: Paul earnestly seeks to stimulate Israel to jealousy and save “some of” his fellow Jews (vv. 13–14), “for” Israel’s return to divine favor will mean unprecedented blessing for the world (v. 15). At the same time, v. 15 restates the process that Paul has introduced in vv. 11b–12. This restatement, however, uses a different syntactical and logical structure—the “if … how much more” sequence of v. 12 gives way to an “if … what” sequence in v. 15—and different terminology. This different terminology brings two emphases in comparison with vv. 11b–12. First, whereas the earlier text implied, by means of the “jealousy” motif, the importance of human response, v. 15 stresses God’s initiative in the process. Second, the final and climactic stage of the process, only hinted at in v. 12, is now spelled out: “life from the dead.”

Paul’s focus on God’s superintendence of the process is indicated first in the phrase “their rejection.” The word translated “rejection” means “a throwing away” or “loss.”53 It could refer here to the Jews’ “loss” of salvation or to their “throwing away,” or “rejection,” of salvation or of the Lord himself.54 But two points favor the rendering “their [the Jews’] rejection [by God].”55 First, Paul uses the word “acceptance” in the second half of the verse as a direct contrast to “rejection.” And, while the word Paul uses here does not occur anywhere else in the NT, Paul uses a verb related to it in Rom. 14:3 and 15:7 to refer to God’s and Christ’s “accepting” of believers.56 This strongly suggests that “acceptance” refers to “God’s acceptance of the Jews”57; “rejection,” by contrast, would refer to “God’s rejection of the Jews.” A second reason for adopting this rendering is the emphasis Paul places throughout this section on God’s responsibility for Israel’s present spiritual obduracy. “God has given them a spirit of stupor” (v. 8); they have been “cut off [by God]” (v. 17).

Echoing vv. 11b and 12, Paul indicates that God’s rejection of the Jews has meant “the reconciliation of the world.” “Reconciliation,” as in Rom. 5:11 (and note the corresponding verb in 5:10), refers to God’s act of bringing sinners into a peaceful relationship with himself.58 Paul is again speaking in corporate categories; the “reconciliation of the world” does not mean that every human being has been saved. As in v. 12, “world” refers to the Gentiles, and Paul’s point is that Israel’s rejection has made it possible for Gentiles, as a group, to experience Christ’s reconciling work.

If, then, Paul argues, God’s “casting away” of Israel has led to this extension to Gentiles of God’s salvation, what will be the result of God’s taking Israel to himself again?59 Nothing less than “life from the dead.”60 Debate over the meaning of this phrase has been intense; nothing in chap. 11 except “All Israel will be saved” in v. 26 has sparked more disagreement. The logic of the verse shows that it must refer to a blessing even greater or more climactic than the extension of reconciliation to the Gentiles. For Paul argues from the lesser to the greater: if something negative like Israel’s rejection means that Gentiles are being reconciled to God, how much greater must be the result of something positive like Israel’s acceptance? Opinions about what this greater blessing might be fall into two general categories.

(1) We can interpret “life from the dead” literally, understanding the phrase to refer to the general resurrection that will take place after the return of Christ in glory, or to the blessed life that will follow that resurrection.61

(2) We can interpret “life from the dead” metaphorically, as a way of referring to a great and unprecedented blessing, whether this be a spiritual quickening of the whole world62 or the spiritual “coming back to life” of Israel.63

Three considerations favor the former. First, while the actual phrase “life from the dead” never occurs elsewhere in the Bible, the phrase “from the dead” is found 47 times in the NT; and every occurrence except one comes in a phrase referring to the resurrection. To be sure, the one exception is an important one, for it involves the closest parallel in Paul to the phrase he uses here, “those who are alive out of the dead”64 (Rom. 6:13). This phrase refers to Christians who are spiritually “living,” having been brought out of a state of death. However, it is important to note that Paul prefaces the phrase with the word “as.”65 By thereby adding an explicit indicator that he is giving the phrase a metaphorical nuance, he seems to bear witness indirectly to the normal literal force of the words. It is also argued that, had Paul wanted to refer to resurrection here, he would have explicitly used that word; see, for example, “resurrection of the dead”66 in 1 Cor. 15:12. There is some point to this objection; it is likely therefore that “life from the dead” refers to the new life that comes after resurrection rather than to resurrection itself.67

A second reason to prefer a literal rendering of this phrase arises from a consideration of Paul’s other descriptions of the process that he depicts here in v. 15. These descriptions suggest that “life from the dead” must be an event distinct from Israel’s restoration, involving the whole world, and occurring at the very end of history. The logic of v. 12 implies that the event that follows the “fullness” of Israel will have, like Israel’s “trespass,” an impact on the (Gentile) world. And vv. 25–26 suggest that the salvation of Israel comes only after God has brought into the kingdom all the Gentiles destined to be saved. No room is therefore left for a spiritual quickening of the world; all that remains is the consummation.68

A third factor favoring a reference to the end of history is the apocalyptic worldview that lies behind Paul’s teaching at this point. To be sure, the nature of apocalyptic and the degree of its influence on Paul are debated; but Paul gives many explicit indications in both the structure of his argument and in his vocabulary that he is deeply influenced by apocalyptic conceptions in Rom. 9–11, and especially in 11:12–32.69 Yet most Jewish apocalyptic thinking focused on the events leading to, and bringing in, the end of history. A standard apocalyptic pattern featured the restoration of Israel as the event that would bring in the eschatological consummation.70 Since we are justified in thinking that Paul builds his teaching here on apocalyptic, a reference to resurrection at the end of history seems likely.

Therefore, as Israel’s “trespass” (vv. 11, 12) and “rejection” (v. 15) trigger the stage of salvation history in which Paul (and we) are located, a stage in which God is specially blessing Gentiles, so Israel’s “fullness” (v. 12) and “acceptance” (v. 15) will trigger the climactic end of salvation history. Paul insists on the vital, continuing significance of Israel in salvation history, against tendencies among Gentile Christians to discard Israel from any further role in the plan of God. However, Paul is silent about the timing of these events. Indeed, many commentators think that Paul’s own role in this process (vv. 13–14) suggests that he was sure that the culmination of this process would take place within his lifetime.71 But, as we have seen, Paul’s view of his role in the process was much more modest. Like the rest of the NT, Paul leaves the timing of these events in the hands of God.

2. The Interrelationship of Jews and Gentiles: A Warning to Gentile Believers (11:16–24)

16Now if the first fruits are holy, then so is the lump. And if the root is holy, then so are the branches.

17Now if some of the branches have been cut off, and you, a wild olive branch, have been grafted in among them and become partakers of the rich root1 of the olive tree, 18do not boast over the branches. But if you are to boast, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root that supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches have been broken off in order that I might be grafted in.” 20True. They were broken off because of lack of faith, and you stand because of faith. Do not think highly of yourselves, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither2 will he spare you. 22See therefore the goodness and the severity of God. For those who have fallen, there is severity, but for you, the goodness of God—if indeed you remain in that goodness; otherwise you, too, will be cut off. 23And those also, if they do not persist in their lack of faith, will be grafted in again. For God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you, who have been cut from the wild olive tree you belonged to by nature, have been, against nature, grafted into the cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree.

The argument of v. 16, that the “part” of something can convey holiness to the “whole,” is transitional.3 On the one hand, it reinforces the hope for a spiritual renewal of Israel that vv. 11–15 have implied: the holiness of “part” of Israel is good reason to anticipate a “fullness” and “acceptance” for the whole of Israel. On the other hand, v. 16 paves the way to vv. 17–24 by introducing the metaphor of the root and the branches that dominates these verses. As Paul develops this metaphor, he compares the root of the tree to the patriarchs and the promise of God to them, the “natural branches” to Jews, and “wild olive tree shoots” to the Gentiles. As these identifications suggest, the tree itself represents the people of God in the broadest sense of that concept—a people spanning both ages of salvation history and both major ethnic/religious groups, Jews and Gentiles. Paul makes two points with this olive tree image.

The first, and most obvious, is hortatory. Throughout this text he continues (cf. v. 13) to address the Gentile Christians in Rome directly, using the second person singular to make his address all the more pointed.4 The olive tree image makes clear that the Gentiles’ very spiritual existence depends on their partaking of the tree whose indispensable nourishing roots are planted in the soil of Jewish patriarchs and promises and to which, therefore, Jews naturally belong. This being the case, any boasting on the part of the Gentile Christians is clearly out of place: whether it be boasting over Jews (v. 18) or boasting about their own spiritual accomplishments (vv. 19–22).5

Paul’s second purpose is didactic. By emphasizing the ease with which natural branches can be grafted back into “their own” olive tree (vv. 23–24), Paul provides further support for his key theme in 11:11–32: hope for a spiritual future for Israel.

16 The imagery of root and branches forges an obvious connection between this verse and what follows. The connection with vv. 11–15 is not as obvious but can be readily supplied.6 For Paul’s sketch of the future of salvation history includes one critical stage that is introduced without explanation or substantiation: the spiritual restoration of Israel (“their fullness” [v. 12]; “their acceptance” [v. 15]). This Paul now provides by arguing that the holiness that characterized the beginnings of Israel is an indelible mark on that people, fraught with significance for her present and her future.

Paul uses two parallel metaphors, each arguing from the part to the whole, to make this point. The first is drawn from Num. 15:17–21. In this passage, the Lord commands the people of Israel, after they enter the promised land, to offer to the Lord a donation from the “first fruits”7 of the “lump of dough”8 that they use to bake their bread. Paul’s point is that the holiness of this first part of the dough extends to the whole lump of dough.9 To what set of circumstances does Paul intend this metaphor to apply? Since Paul gives no hint, it seems reasonable to look for our answer to the second metaphor in the verse, which appears to be parallel to the first. Here we are given help in interpreting the elements in the metaphor by the context and by other Jewish texts. The “branches,” as vv. 17–18 reveal, are the Jews.10 Paul does not so clearly identify the “root,” and this has given scope to various suggestions, including Christ,11 Jewish Christians (the remnant),12 and the patriarchs. But the last of these receives decisive support from the imagery of vv. 17–18, the somewhat parallel concept in v. 28—God loves Israel “because of the fathers” (cf. also 9:5)—and from Jewish texts in which Abraham and the patriarchs are called a root.13

But is this also what Paul is teaching in his first metaphor? Can we conclude from the apparent parallelism that “first fruits” represents the patriarchs and “lump of dough” the Jewish people? Almost all scholars agree on the second point: “lump of dough” stands for the Jews.14 Opinion on the identification of the “first fruits” is more divided. Most scholars are led by the parallelism to identify the “first fruits” with the patriarchs.15 But some think that the “first fruits” is Adam16 or Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20, 23),17 while a significant (and growing) number think it is Jewish Christians, the remnant.18 Advocates of this last view note that Paul elsewhere uses the word “first fruits” to refer to “first converts” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Thess. 2:13), and that the OT and Jewish thinkers view the remnant as a down payment on a greater blessing of the Jewish people. If we make this identification, then v. 16 would have even more transitional force than we have recognized, with v. 16a picking up the argument of vv. 1–10 and v. 16b leading into vv. 17ff. While the choice is a difficult one, I think that the traditional identification of the “first fruits” with the patriarchs is more likely. The parallelism, while not decisive, is certainly important; but more important is the lack of solid support in the OT or in Jewish theology for the idea that the remnant would have a “sanctifying” effect on the people of Israel as a whole.

Both of the metaphors in v. 16, then, assert that the “holiness” of the patriarchs conveys to all of Israel a similar holiness. In according such significance to the patriarchs, Paul of course does not mean that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possessed any qualities that earned spiritual benefits for themselves and their descendants. As both the OT and Paul make clear (see esp. Rom. 4 and Gal. 3), the patriarchs convey spiritual benefits on their descendants only as recipients and transmitters of the promises of God. Their “holiness” consists in their having been set apart by God for this salvation-historical role.19 Moreover, the word “holy” (hagios) is taken from OT sacrificial language. The word will not, then, have the technical sense of “set apart by God for salvation” that it usually has in Paul but will connote a being “set apart” by God for special attention in a more general way.20 Paul is not here asserting the salvation of every Israelite but the continuing “special” identity of the people of Israel in the eyes of the Lord.

17 This continuing special relationship between God and Israel is, however, reason to hope that Israel might one day be spiritually renewed, hope that Paul enunciates in vv. 23–24. First, however, he exploits the metaphor of root and branches to chastise and warn Gentile Christians (vv. 17–22).

Verse 17 is the protasis (the “if” clause) of a conditional sentence, whose apodosis (the “then” clause) comes in v. 18a: “do not boast over the branches.” The condition in this case is one that Paul obviously views as fulfilled (note that TEV turns the condition into an assertion).21 There are two parts of this condition. First, “some22 of the branches have been cut off.” Here in a new image Paul restates the essential tragedy that sparks Rom. 9–11: Jews, the recipients of God’s blessings through their ancestry, have been severed from those blessings—through both God’s hardening (cf. vv. 7b–10)23 and their own unbelief (cf. v. 20). Second, however, we find “grafted in”24 among the branches that remain25 other branches—branches that come from “a wild olive tree.”26 With this image, as Paul’s direct address makes clear (see v. 13), he refers to Gentile Christians. As Gentiles, they have no “natural” relationship to the patriarchs and the promises given to them. Only by God’s grace (v. 22) and their faith (v. 20) have they been able to become “fellow participants” (with Jewish Christians)27 of the “rich root of the olive tree.”28

Two aspects of Paul’s metaphor in v. 17 require further comment. First is the significance of Paul’s choice of the olive tree to fill out the imagery of root and branches. This probably reflects both its use as a symbol of Israel in the OT and Judaism29 and the fact that the olive tree was “the most widely cultivated fruit tree in the Mediterranean area.”30 The “wild olive tree,” by contrast, was notoriously unfruitful, and Paul’s comparison of Gentiles to it may be intended to prick the Gentiles’ pride and sense of superiority.31 The second point calling for attention is Paul’s reference to the practice of grafting branches from a wild, or uncultivated, tree into a cultivated one—the reverse of the usual process. Some scholars find here evidence of Paul’s urban roots—he simply did not know arboriculture.32 Others have rushed to Paul’s defense, citing evidence in ancient sources showing that farmers did occasionally graft a wild olive shoot into a cultivated tree.33 Still others argue that Paul has knowingly cited a practice that is “contrary to nature” as a way of illustrating the grace of God at work in the incorporation of Gentiles into the people of God (see “against nature” in v. 24).34 None of these conclusions is warranted. Writers and speakers frequently transgress the natural boundaries of a metaphor in their application of it. We should therefore be content to recognize that Paul has allowed the theological process he is illustrating to affect the terms of his metaphor. We cannot be sure, then, whether he knows he is citing an actual arboricultural practice or not; and we certainly cannot draw any theological conclusions from the fact.35

18 The prohibition “do not boast over the branches” completes the conditional sentence begun in v. 17. The verb “boast over” combines the ideas of sinful pride and arrogant superiority: “boast in triumphant comparison with others.”36 The “others” over whom the Gentile Christians are not to exult are “the branches.” But does Paul have in mind the branches that have been broken off the tree (unbelieving Jews),37 the branches that remain in the tree (Jewish Christians), or both?38 Probably both. Paul’s comparison between the Gentile Christians who stand in God’s grace by their faith with Jews who have been cut off because of their unbelief (vv. 20–22) shows that he must have unbelieving Jews in mind. Yet 14:1–15:13 manifests a concern to reconcile Jews and Gentiles within the church; and Paul almost certainly has this situation in mind even here.

Gentile-Christian boasting over Jews is probably not the result of anti-Semitism generally,39 but of a mistaken reading of the course of salvation history. These Gentile Christians appear to have concluded that the unprecedented degree in which the doors of salvation were open to Gentiles after the coming of Christ meant the closing of those same doors to Jews. At the same time, these Gentile believers were apparently convinced that they belonged to a new people of God that had simply replaced Israel. Those Jews who believed, they apparently assumed, could become part of their community and on their terms (see 14:1–15:13). It is to this kind of attitude that Paul responds in vv. 18b–22, where he expands on the basic imagery of v. 17 to back up his prohibition of Gentile-Christian boasting.

He begins with another conditional sentence, in which, for the sake of argument, he assumes that, despite his prohibition, the Gentile Christians will insist on continuing to boast over Jews. In that case, Paul warns: “remember40 that it is not you who supports the root, but the root that supports you.” Gentile Christians who boast over Jews are demonstrating an attitude of disdain for the Jewish heritage. Yet it is that very heritage upon which the Gentile Christians themselves depend for their own spiritual standing. For “the root” that gives spiritual nourishment to Jewish and Gentile believers alike is the patriarchs as recipients and transmitters of the promises of God. And that root is not only of historical interest. As the present tense Paul uses here indicates, the root of the patriarchs continues to be the source of spiritual nourishment that believers require.41 There is only one root and only one tree; branches, whether Jewish or Gentile, that do not remain attached to that tree are doomed to wither and die. Here again we see the careful balance of Paul’s argument in Romans. Physical descent from the patriarchs does not, in itself, bring salvation (2:25–29; 9:6b–29); Jews are in the same position as Gentiles, held under sin’s power (2:1–3:20) and needing to respond to God in faith to be saved (3:21–4:25). Yet salvation comes only to those who are of “Abraham’s seed”: the people of God are one, and that people has both a Jewish root and a continuing Jewish element.

19–20 In good diatribe style, Paul now puts a further argument on the lips of a hypothetical Gentile Christian who seeks to justify his feeling of superiority over the Jews: “Branches have been broken off in order that I42 might be grafted in.” Paul responds in v. 20 with a qualified agreement.43 He does not straightforwardly deny the point that the Gentile Christian has made; for, indeed, as Paul himself has argued, the hardening of Jews has led to the extension of salvation to Gentiles (vv. 11–15). But Paul also argues that this salvation is, in turn, designed to stimulate Jews to jealousy as the means of their spiritual restoration. God’s purposes in “cutting off” natural branches extend far beyond the inclusion of Gentiles. It is the egotism of Gentile Christians who present God’s manifold plan as having the salvation of themselves as its focus that Paul wishes to expose and criticize.

Another facet of the egotism of the Gentile Christians is their sense of pride in having attained a place in the people of God. This attitude Paul seeks to deflate by reminding them that it is faith that makes the difference. It is because of their lack of faith44 that so many Jews have been “cut off”; and it is through faith45 that the Gentile Christian has attained a standing46 within the people of God. What Paul says here to the Gentile Christian echoes what he said earlier to the Jews.47 In response to the Jews’ tendency to boast in their status and accomplishments, Paul emphasized that the gracious nature of God’s dealings with human beings excluded all boasting. It is faith, and faith alone—characterized by humility and receptivity—that is the only way to establish or to maintain a relationship with God (3:27–4:5). Recognizing that every spiritual benefit comes as a sheer gift from our gracious God, the Gentile Christian must stop thinking so highly of his or her accomplishments48 and take up an attitude of fear. This basic biblical concept combines reverential respect for the God of majesty and glory with a healthy concern to continue to live out of the grace of God in our lives (see esp. Phil 2:12; also 2 Cor. 5:1; 7:1, 11, 15; Col. 3:22).

21 Paul now explains49 why the Gentile Christian should fear: “if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.” A failure to continue in faith—thus a failure to display an appropriate “fear” of God—has led to judgment50 for many Jews. And if God so judged Jews, who had a natural connection to the tree and its sustaining root, he will surely judge those who have been grafted in as alien branches.

22 In this verse, Paul states in more theological language an implication51 that picks up a number of points he has made in vv. 17–21. His emphasis on God’s “goodness”52 makes clear that the representative Gentile Christian Paul addresses has been “grafted into” God’s people (vv. 17 and 19) and thus “stands” (v. 20) in faith through God’s gracious initiative. The reference to God’s “severity,” on the other hand, reinforces the note of condemnation found in the “not spared” of v. 21.53 By denoting those upon whom God’s severity is visited as “those who have fallen,” Paul draws our attention back to an even earlier verse (v. 11).54 But Paul’s main purpose in this verse appears at its end: to repeat his warning to the Gentile believer who may (like the Jew; cf. 2:4–5) presume on God’s goodness. For the goodness of God is not simply a past act or automatic benefit on which the believer can rest secure; it is also a continuing relationship in which the believer must remain. “Otherwise”55—that is, if56 the believer does not continue in the goodness of God—the believer will, like the Jew, be “cut off”—severed forever from the people of God and eternally condemned. In issuing this warning, Paul echoes a consistent NT theme: ultimate salvation is dependent on continuing faith; therefore, the person who ceases to believe forfeits any hope of salvation (cf. also Rom. 8:13; Col. 1:23; Heb. 3:6, 14).57

23 Paul has stressed God’s equal treatment of both Jew and Gentile in judgment: just as Jews who do not believe are “cut off,” so Gentiles who do not continue in God’s goodness will be “cut off.” In vv. 23–24, he uses this same principle of equal treatment positively to offer hope for the eventual spiritual renewal of Jews. “Those also”58 can be grafted back into the olive tree “if they do not persist in their lack of faith.” In speaking of such a regrafting, Paul again reveals how little he is concerned to stick to the details of actual olive cultivation in his metaphor. It is not the logic of nature that explains this regrafting, but the theologic of the God who “gives life to the dead and calls things that do not exist as if they did” (4:17; cf. also dynatos in v. 21); the “power of God” that is work in the gospel (1:16).59 Paul’s stress on God’s ability here may seem redundant; but he is probably thinking of the attitude of certain Gentile Christians who might question the appropriateness of God extending his grace to those who had already been cast off.60

24 Even though Paul has stretched the limits of his metaphor to the breaking point, he continues to exploit it to give further reason61 for God’s ability to restore Jews who turn from unbelief to belief. Paul utilizes the familiar “how much more” argument. He reminds Gentile Christians that they, who belong to a wild olive tree62 by nature,63 have been cut off from that tree and grafted into the cultivated olive tree (cf. v. 17).64 Now if God can so graft branches into the cultivated olive tree that do not naturally belong to it,65 he is certainly able to graft back into this tree those branches who do belong to that tree by nature—the Jews. For it is, after all, “their own”66 tree.

We must allow for Paul’s hortatory purpose in evaluating this “how much more” argument. For just as Paul dwelt on Jewish sin in chap. 2 to counter Jewish boasting over Gentiles, so he now accentuates Jewish advantages to counter Gentile boasting over Jews. Paul does not mean that it is easier to save a Jew than a Gentile or that the Jew, by reason of being a Jew, can make any claim on God; for this would be to give the Jew an “advantage” in salvation that Paul has plainly denied (see chap. 2). Every person, Jew or Gentile, stands under sin’s power (3:9) and can be saved only by a special act of God’s grace. Just like Gentiles, Jews can be saved only if they are grafted by God into the tree. But even when cut off from the parent tree because of unbelief, they retain the stamp of their origin. They belong to that people which God has chosen, through which he has manifested himself to the world, and to which he remains committed (11:1–2). Their quality as “natural branches” does not itself qualify them for grafting onto the tree. But, as branches that trace their origin to a “holy” root (v. 16), their regrafting is easier to understand than the grafting in of those alien, wild olive branches.

Paul skillfully mixes theology and exhortation in this paragraph. His olive tree metaphor makes an important contribution to our understanding of the people of God. It is notoriously easy to squeeze more theology out of such a metaphor than it is intended to convey. But basic to the whole metaphor is the unity of God’s people, a unity that crosses both historical and ethnic boundaries. The basic point of the metaphor is that there is only one olive tree, whose roots are firmly planted in OT soil, and whose branches include both Jews and Gentiles. This olive tree represents the true people of God.67 The turn of the ages at the coming of Christ brought an important development in the people of God: the object of one’s faith became clearer and more specific and the ethnic makeup of that people changed radically, as God extended his grace in vastly increased measure to Gentiles.68 But Paul’s metaphor warns us not to view this transition as a transition from one people of God to another. Gentiles who come to Christ become part of that community of salvation founded on God’s promises to the patriarchs. And “messianic Jews,” following in the footsteps of their believing ancestors, belong to this same community.

The picture Paul sketches reveals the danger of the simple and popular notion that the church has “replaced” Israel. For this formula misses the stress Paul places on historical continuity in the people of God. Paul suggests that the church, defined as the entire body of believers in Jesus Christ, is simply the name for the people of God in this era of salvation history—as “Israel” was the name of that people in the previous age. To be sure, the dual nature of OT Israel—both spiritual and national—complicates the matter, but in neither sense does the church simply “replace” Israel. As a spiritual entity, Israel is organically connected to the church; and as a national entity, as Paul has made clear (11:1–2), Israel continues to exist as the object of God’s care and attention. Perhaps a better word to describe the movement from OT Israel to NT church is the same word that the NT so often uses to denote such relationships: “fulfillment.”69 We thereby capture the necessary note of continuity—the church is the continuation of Israel into the new age—and discontinuity—the church, not Israel, is now the locus of God’s work in the world.

What is particularly pernicious in the “replacement” model is the assumption so easily made that “church” = Gentiles. This assumption was apparently beginning to be made by Paul’s contemporaries. And it has certainly been embraced by many Christians throughout history, contributing (albeit often inadvertently) to the anti-Semitism that has too often stained the name of Christ.70 To be sure, the gospel, with its exclusive claim about salvation, is unavoidably a “stumbling block” to Jews. The NT can justly be said, therefore, to be “anti-Judaic,” in the sense that its claims leave no room for the claims of “Judaism” to mediate salvation through torah. But the NT is not “anti-Semitic,” that is, hostile to Jews as such.71 We must remember that, for Paul, the church was both rooted in the Jews and heavily populated by Jews. The coming of Christ did not for him involve ethnic subtraction, as if Jews were now eliminated, but addition, with Gentiles now being added to believing Jews. Paul’s boundary for the people of God is a religious one—faith in Jesus Christ—not an ethnic one. We must not become so focused on the theology of Paul’s teaching here that we miss its purpose: to criticize those of us who are Gentiles for arrogance toward believing and unbelieving Jews and to remind us that our own spiritual heritage is a Jewish one.