Journal: Westminster Theological Journal

Volume: WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011)

Article: Zeal Without Knowledge: For What Did Paul Criticize His Fellow Jews In Romans 10:2-3?
Author: Dane C. Ortlund
Zeal Without Knowledge: For What Did Paul Criticize His Fellow Jews In
Romans 10:2-3?
Dane C. Ortlund
Biblical Studies
Dane Ortlund (Ph.D., Wheaton College Graduate School) is Senior Editor in the Bible Division at Crossway in
Wheaton, Ill.
I. Introduction
Dscussions continue to proliferate concerning the nature of Pauls break with the Judaism in which he had
been immersed from youth. A key component to this area of investigation is the precise nature of Pauls
criticism of his fellow Jews as he looked back on their life, which was once his. One fruitful window into this
discussion is Pauls use of zeal-language in describing the Judaism he had known from the inside. Paul
describes his own pre-Damascus
1
life in terms of zeal in Gal 1:14 (being extremely zealous for the
traditions of my fathers) and Phil 3:6 (as to zeal, persecuting the church). In Rom 10:2 Paul looks from the
vantage point of his new life in Christ not at his own past but at his fellow Jews: They have a zeal for God,
but not according to knowledge.
2
It is this latter text with which we deal in this essay, concentrating on the
first three verses of Rom 10 en route to understanding precisely what Paul means when he says that his
fellow countrymen possess zeal but not knowledge.
Utilizing a distinction made by some, though mindful that any strict disjunction between these categories is
artificial, we approach this text asking whether the zeal mentioned by Paul has primarily a horizontal or
vertical denotation.
3
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 24
Is the zeal for God of Rom 10:2 preponderantly a zeal that seeks to obey and thus contribute to ones own
standing before God (vertical) or a zeal that seeks to protect the ethnic set-apartness of the Jewish nation
(horizontal)? One must bear in mind the salutary reminders of some that vertical and horizontal
dimensions to Pauls thought ought not to be played off against each other as mutually exclusive options.
4
After all, circumcision, dietary regulations, and sabbatarianism were themselves, for the Jew, acts of
obedience as well as actions that set them off from Gentiles. Still, with appropriate cautions against artificial
bifurcations in place, recent scholarship dictates that greatest clarity will come if we proceed with this
categorization.
A focus on zeal in Rom 10 as a fruitful avenue into the heart of current Pauline discussions is particularly
apt in that with the exception of James Dunn, no one has given concentrated and recurring attention to zeal
in Paul.
5
Dunn argues in numerous places that the zeal of which Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) is
nationalistic, involving three interrelated dimensions.
6
First, this zeal seeks to uphold Israels ethnic
distinctiveness. Second, such aggressive loyalty may require the use of violence. Third, this violence may
need to be directed not only toward encroaching Gentiles but also compromising fellow Jews.
7
It is the first
of these, in particular, on which Dunn repeatedly focuses.
Based upon a close reading of Rom 10:2-3, we argue that inter-cultural exclusivism fueled by concern for
corporate ethnic set-apartness is undeniably a concern at numerous points in Pauls letters, not least Rom
9-11.
8
Pauls very identity is apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13; cf. Gal 2:7-9; 1 Tim 2:7). Yet this theme is
secondary in Rom 10:2-3. Pauls primary critique of his fellow Jews here is not their resistance to Gentile
inclusion but the mindset with which they approach God. In what follows we examine Rom 10:1-3 in detail,
beginning with
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 25
some contextual remarks and concluding with three synthetic observations about this text. Our thesis is that
Dunn has emphasized an admittedly crucial dimension to Jewish zeal (the horizontal) to the neglect of the
more fundamental meaning of zeal in Rom 10:2 (the vertical). This is a zeal to obeyincluding, but not to
be centrally defined as, ethnic set-apartness.
II. Exegesis Of Romans 10:1-3
1. Contextual Remarks
In Rom 9:6, Paul asserts that Gods word to Israel has not failed, of which the rest of 9-11 is demonstration.
9
The apostle defends Gods faithfulness first by affirming Gods absolute right to do as he wills (9:6-29) and
then by identifying Israels own failure (9:30-10:21). Romans 9:30-10:3 forms a bridge between these two
components of Pauls theodicy. After establishing OT support for Gentile-inclusion from Hosea and Isaiah,
Paul pauses to reflect ( ) on what he has been saying. He articulates the paradox that
despite not pursuing righteousness, Gentiles have attained itthe righteousness of faith (9:30). Israel, on
the other hand, pursuing a law of righteousness,
10
has not attained what they anticipated (9:31), for they
pursued the law as if it could be lived out by a principle of works rather than faith (9:32a).
11
This led them to
stumble over Christ, who became for Israel a stone over which they tripped rather than the culmination of all
their hopes and that toward which the law led (9:32b-33).
2. Romans 10:1
This brings us to ch. 10, the first four verses of which largely parallel 9:30-33.
12
Although it is true that the
Gentiles only feature in 9:30-33 (while in 10:1-4 Paul
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 26
zeroes in on Israel), both passages explain that despite the presence of a truly laudable element (9:31a;
10:2a), Israel has failed to attain their goal (9:31b; 10:2b-3) due to undertaking it in the wrong way (9:32a;
10:2b-3) and being blind to Christ (9:32b-33; 10:4).
In 10:1 Paul launches into an agonizing affirmation of his desire () for their salvation. Despite all the
advantages that are theirs by birth (Rom 3:1-8; 9:3-5), Paul considers his fellow countrymen to be lost, a
point already underscored in 9:3I could wish that I myself were accursed [] and cut off from
Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the fleshthe logical implication being that a
significant number of Pauls countrymen are accursed and cut off from Christ.
13
Heikki Risnen fails to
see this when he comments that in Rom 9-10 Paul did not assume that the Jews were a massa perditionis
from the moral point of view. On the contrary, they were aiming at righteousness (Rom 9.31) and displaying
zeal for God (Rom 10.2).
14
Against Risnen, these two options ought not to be considered mutually
exclusive. Both might be true. Perhaps, for Paul, the lostness of his fellow Jews may have been not only
compatible with but even organically tied up with their zeal for Goda point to which we will return below.
3. Romans 10:2
Probing the reason for this lostness moves us into 10:2. Paul says that he testifies to his compatriots that
they have a zeal for God ( ), but not according to knowledge (
). Three comments are in order at this point concerning this , a phrase to which we
will return after addressing and then v. 3.
First, this zeal is for God.
15
Such a construction occurs frequently in the OT (e.g., Num 25:13; 1 Kgs 19:10,
14; 2 Kgs 10:16), whereas intertestamental Judaism, with a slightly different emphasis, more often refers to
zeal for the law (e.g., 1 Macc 2:26, 27, 50, 58; 1QS 9.23; 4Q258 8.7; 4Q259 4.5; though see T. Ash. 4:5).
Second, to reiterate briefly the general parallel noted above between 9:30-33 and 10:1-4, they have a zeal
for God in 10:2 parallels Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness in 9:31.
16
Each indicates that Israels
earnest devotion, though
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 27
undertaken in the wrong manner (on which more below) is not only undeniable but even commendable.
Third, then, there is no indication that this zeal itself (nor the pursuit of 9:31) is in any way defective.
17
Paul
elsewhere speaks of in terms devoid of any negative connotation (e.g., 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1, 12, 39; 2
Cor 7:7, 11; 9:2; 11:2; Titus 2:14; cf. Acts 22:3). And the LXX had already established the value of pursuing
righteousness (Prov 15:9; Sir 27:8), using the same terms as Paul does in 9:31 ( and ;
Sir 27:8 also uses ). Brendan Byrne therefore rightly glosses the zeal of Rom 10:2 as
single-minded, unswerving loyalty to the God of the covenant.
18
Israels problem emerges when the final clause of v. 2 is dialed in. Paul explains the lostness of his fellow
Jews, despite their zeal, by asserting that this zeal is . We limit ourselves to two
observations concerning this knowledge before moving to v. 3, which explains Israels ignorance and
which will direct us full-circle back to v. 2 and a delineation of this knowledge-deficient zeal.
First, has been used twice before in Romans. In 1:28 Paul says that godless Gentiles did not
see fit to acknowledge God ( ), resulting in Gods
further handing them over to their debased passions. The sense is not essentially cerebral cognizance or
perceptionon the contrary, God has made himself manifest to all in the created order (1:19-20)but
rather spiritual or moral recognition, due acknowledgement of God, perhaps with a connotation of
reverence.
19
The second occurrence is 3:20: through the law comes knowledge of sin [
]. Here is again in the moral realm, denoting a spiritual awareness of bondage
under sin (3:9) and accountability before God (3:19).
20
Both 1:28 and 3:20, then, include a strong moral
dimension to as opposed to, say, 2:18, where Paul affirms the Jews knowledge (using
) of Gods will, a knowledge closer to cognitive comprehension of the injunctions of God.
21
Second, just as zeal for God (10:2) echoes the pursuit of the law of righteousness (9:31), so not according
to knowledge in 10:2 parallels not of
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 28
faith but as of works in 9:32.
22
The positive attributions to Israel (zeal, pursuit of the law) are mitigated by
Pauls diagnosis of a critical missing elementknowledge (10:2-3), faith (9:31-32). In both instances,
earnest activity exists, laudable in its own right, yet with some fundamentally misguided dimension that
infects and ultimately renders damning the otherwise praiseworthy efforts of Israel.
23
4. Romans 10:3
All this brings us to v. 3, which explains the ignorance of v. 2. Syntactically, v. 3 is built around two participles
( and ) and an indicative verb (). Thus: being ignorant . . . seeking
(to establish) . . . they did not submit . . . . Three contested terms must be immediately clarified if we are to
make precise sense of what Paul is diagnosing here as Israels failure: righteousness (),
establish (), and their own (). We take them in this order.
In opening with , v. 3 provides the content of the lacking in v. 2. This
ignorance, says Paul, is of . Arriving at this phrase puts us at the brink of a
firestorm of discussion, to which many significant studies have been devoted.
24
We limit ourselves to a few
brief comments.
in 9:30-10:3 primarily refers to right standing before God, a status of right-ness in the
presence of a just God.
25
Specifically in 10:3, Paul speaks of submitting to this righteousness, indicating that
here includes the idea that this righteousness is accessed by receptive faith as a gift.
26
Israel is
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 29
ignorant of the righteousness or salvation that comes from God, refuses to submit to it in the sense that it
refuses to receive righteousness as a gift from God and seeks to acquire it by herself.
27
Paul is concerned,
in the first instance, with submitting to the righteousness of God the righteousness offered wholly by God
and therefore received as a gift of grace. Such a reading is encouraged by the way righteousness of God
in 10:3 functions in a conceptually similar way to righteousness of faith in 9:30 and 10:6. The
righteousness of faith is thus neither a righteous human status that consists of faith nor a transformation
wrought by faith so much as the righteous status given freely and wholly by God and therefore accessed
only by human faith.
28
This is in accord with what is made more explicit in Phil 3:9the righteousness from
God [ ] which is by faith.
This is not to say that a notion of status abstractly conceived exhausts what Paul has in mind in referring to
the in 10:3. After all, Gods righteousness in Rom 3:21-22 is identified as his saving
activity in Christ, indicating a christological focus; and in 1:17, while Christ is not explicitly mentioned, Paul
likely has Christ in mind, since the righteousness of God there is revealed, not given or submitted to.
29
It may not be inappropriate, then, to hear echoes of Gods saving activity in Christ in the reference to the
in 10:3 as well,
30
especially in light of the way Paul explicitly brings in Christ in 10:4. In
other words, in describing the righteousness of 10:3 in terms of status we do not mean static; the
righteousness of God to which Israel did not submit is brimming with christological and eschatological
import, as Ridderbos in particular
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 30
helpfully brings out.
31
We must be careful, then, in describing in 10:3 as a freely given
status, not to dissociate this from Christ, the supreme revelation of Gods righteousness.
Still, in 10:3 should be understood essentially as a genitive of origin or source.
32
Pauls fellow Jews
were not submitting to a righteousness from God, revealed in Christ and received through self-divesting
faith. To say this is not to opt for an abstract, ahistorical, or de-personalized concept of righteousness.
Gods righteousness as understood here remains relational through and through, a frequent emphasis of
Dunns understanding of Gods righteousness.
33
It is precisely on account of this new standingsin and
guilt having been dealt with in Christ (Rom 3:19-26; 5:1-2; 8:1-3)that fellowship with God is restored. Yet
this ought not to detract from the broader norm dimension of Gods righteousness (most clearly evident in
Rom 3:25-26), clarified for us by Seifrid and probably in the semantic background of 10:3.
34
Nor does our
understanding of Gods righteousness as the gift of right standing preclude the equally Pauline truth that
righteousness in the sense of ethical transformation in those united to Christ is inextricably linked to the
forensic gift of a new status (cf. Rom 14:17 in the context of 14:10-12). Ethical transformation is not,
however, the meaning of righteousness in Rom 10:3. Thus, while one can appreciate Ksemanns
sweeping, cosmic understanding of Gods righteousness, and our discussion does not want to deny the
creational and corporate dimensions to which the righteousness of God ultimately leads, this is not the
foregrounded denotation in Rom 10:3.
35
Yet with these various qualifiers set in place, it makes most sense
to see the main sense of in 10:3 as the divinely provided gift of unearned right standing
before God, accessed by faith in Christ.
36
The second term needing clarification in 10:3 is (from ), normally translated establish. Paul
uses this term five other times in Romans. In
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 31
3:31, for instance, he says, we uphold [] the law. Elsewhere it refers to standing in the sense
of being firmly founded or immovably established (5:2; 11:20; 14:4 [2x]; cf. 1 Cor 7:37; 10:12; 15:1; 2 Cor
1:24).
37
Some object to translating the instance in Rom 10:3 with establish
38
as this implies mustering up
righteousness ex nihilo when in fact, as Sanders has shown, Jews were living under the assumption that
their standing in Gods favor had already been established from the start by virtue of being born into the
covenant. This standing required maintenance by consistently (not perfectly) adhering to Torah and
appropriating the relevant sacrifices for atonement when necessary, but it would not have been considered
as requiring human establishment.
39
The point is well taken that a born-and-bred Jew would not consider Yahweh remote and aloof, relationally
accessible only upon furious moral striving. Yahweh had himself graciously called Israel into covenant
relationship with himself. Yet the objection misses the point in that even seeking to confirm or maintain their
own righteousness as of works falls under Pauls critique. The translation establish is appropriate even in
light of the gracious election of the Jews evident in the Jewish literature, as it is possibleperhaps even
commonthat Jews who had already gotten in would have been tempted to strengthen that right standing
by their own efforts. Theobald thus rightly argues for translating here with aufrichten (to raise,
erect) rather than (as Haacker does) aufrechterhalten (to maintain, uphold),
40
though to exclude a sense
of maintaining or upholding righteousness here would be an unhelpful disjunction.
The foregoing interpretation, however, has assumed a certain reading of that must be
defended, bringing us to the third term in need of attention. Some see their own as meaning their own
righteousness as ethnic Jews (over against Gentiles),
41
others as their own righteousness as dutiful law-
observers
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 32
(over against God).
42
The first reading looks out, the second up. We take the latter viewwhich is not an
accusation of haughty self-righteousness but simply a reading of their own as belonging preponderantly
(not exclusively) not to the social but to the ethical realm. This is for six reasons. Before outlining these we
underscore once more that to see one of these options as dominant is not to extinguish its alternative:
righteousness vis--vis Gentiles and righteousness vis--vis God are not mutually exclusive options. For the
faithful Jew, for instance, protection of national purity was itself an issue of ethics, a matter of obedience.
Still, recent trends in interpreting this text legitimate the query of what is in the foreground of Pauls meaning
in this text.
First, the immediately following clause (they did not submit to the righteousness of God) suggests a
primarily vertical reading. Paul did not write that the Jews, seeking to establish their own righteousness, did
not welcome Gentiles into that covenant status. Their own righteousness is set in antithesis to the
righteousness of God. It is a question of the source, not the scope, of their righteousness.
43
Second, one
finds OT precedent for a contrast between human righteousness and divine righteousness (e.g., Deut 9:4-6;
Ezek 14:13-14; 33:17). While a passage such as Deut 9 also speaks on a horizontal level of the surrounding
nations, this serves to highlight the wickedness of these nations in making the point that it is not the moral
uprightness of Israel that prompted Gods expulsion of the nations from Israels path but the moral poverty
of the nations themselves. Third, as intimated above, Phil 3:9 underscores our reading. There Paul wishes
to gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own [ ] that
comes from law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God [
] that depends on faith. Here too a human righteousness (though, as Westerholm notes,
more emphatically placed in individual terms
44
) is set in antithesis to a divine righteousness, a
righteousness explicitly identified as .
45
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 33
Fourth, of God is fronted in the first instance of righteousness of God in 10:3, perhaps indicating an
emphasis on this righteousness being from God.
46
Fifth, in light of the parallels already adduced between
9:30-33 and 10:1-4 as well as the parallel between the righteousness of God . . . apart from the law and
the righteousness of God through faith in Rom 3:21-22,
47
righteousness of God in 10:3 is probably
parallel to righteousness of faith in 9:30 (cf. 10:6) in a way that contrasts humanly achieved with divinely
granted righteousness. Sixth, the ensuing context appears to confirm a fundamentally vertical reading of
their own. For in the verses that follow 10:3, nothing is said about Gentile inclusion until 10:11-13. While
space limitations prevent a detailed reading of vv. 4-10,
48
the thrust of this section of Pauls argument deals
with a personified contrast between the righteousness from the law (v. 5) and the righteousness from
faith (v. 6), the latter of which is then further explained in terms of another contrast between salvation and
justification, on the one hand (vv. 9-10), and ascending into heaven or descending into the abyss by ones
own self-resourced qualifications or disqualifications on the other (vv. 6-7). Helpful here is Moo, who points
out that do not say in your heart in Rom 10:6 is drawn from Deut 9:4, which goes on to speak of a self-
achieved righteousness: Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust [the nations] out
before you, It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land . . .
(9:4-5).
49
This reading of their own does not necessitate viewing Israels establishment of righteousness as rife with
smug haughtiness.
50
Such an attitude may have existed. To put the matter in perspective, however, it is no
less evident that moral haughtiness can exist among many Christians, back then or today, in spite of
avowed acknowledgments of grace. The point is that this righteousness-establishment, regardless of the
degree to which pride is involved, is concerned most fundamentally with obedience and juxtaposed with God
(vertically), rather than with ethnic boundary-guarding and juxtaposed with Gentiles (horizontally). This is not
to eliminate all traces of ethnic exclusivism. It is to say that whatever ethnic exclusivism existed was
subsumed within Pauls primary concern in 10:3. Israel sought to establish its own righteousness in
distinction from Gentiles but did this because, in an organically connected but even more fundamental way,
they sought to establish their own righteousness rather than self-divestingly receive Gods.
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 34
5. Synthesis Of Romans 10:1-3
We are now in a position to return to Pauls notion of zeal without knowledge in 10:2. Our analysis
culminates in three concluding observations: the nature of Israels ignorance; the focus of their zeal; and,
bringing the two together, the heart of Pauls critique in Rom 10:2-3.
First, knowledge in the context of the flow of thought in this passage appears to be the spiritual
perception, superlatively clarified in light of the salvation-historical shift inaugurated with the Christ event,
that right standing with God is freely given, appropriated through trust in the stone, Christ, and thus
requiring personal divestment of all self-resourced contribution to that standing.
51
This is conceptually
similar to 1 Tim 1:13, which joins knowledge/ignorance with faith/unbelief when it speaks of acting
ignorantly [] in unbelief [ ] (cf. 2 Tim 2:25).
52
Faith and knowledge are again
coordinated in Eph 4:13 and Phlm 6. The OT provides precedence for such faith-circumscribed or spiritually
perceptive knowledge (e.g., Ps 119:66; Prov 22:17-19; Isa 43:10; Hos 4:1, 6-7; 6:6). Perhaps another clue
that we are on the right track regarding knowledge in Rom 10:2 is the way Paul sets gospel in parallel with
knowledge (here ) in 2 Cor 4:4, 6.
53
Aletti thus puts it well, drawing on the end of Rom 10 as he
describes Israels failure in 10:1-3: Leur ignorance ne vient pas de ce quils nont pas connu ou compris
lvangile (vv. 18-19), mais de ce quils nont pas voulu le connatre (v. 21).
54
To summarize, Israels
ignorance was anthropological (ignorance of the depth of their moral inability and the potential for even zeal
to go awry), christological (ignorance of Jesus as Gods means of divinely provided righteousness), and
salvation-historical (ignorance of the new age that had dawned in Christ).
55
Second, i n Rom 10:2 denotes Jewish ardency to discharge the injunctions of Torah holistically
conceived, with an eye toward God. The fatal combination of this zeal with blindness to Gods
righteousness, however, resulted in this lawkeeping being carried out in such a way that resisted Gods free
approbation through faith in Christ. To be sure, such obedience would be circumscribed not by a vague
moral sense of the good, as some Hellenistic philosophies might, but by the ethnically
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 35
circumscribed Torah.
56
Among the most conspicuous manifestations of such lawkeeping, moreover, would
be those elements that visibly set one off from Gentiles, such as dietary regulations and sabbatarianism.
This would especially be true in times of inter-cultural upheaval, such as that described in 1 Macc 2.
Yet some have taken this ethnic dimension to zeal too far and unhelpfully restricted the sense of Rom 10:2.
The trouble with Israels zeal, writes Dunn of this text, was that it was too nationalistically centered, too
much concerned to defend national prerogative as the people of (the one) God.
57
Pauline zeal is a
dedication to maintain Israels set-apartness to God.
58
Others understand this zeal similarly, such as E.
Elizabeth Johnson, Don Garlington, and N. T. Wright.
59
To be sure, it would be artificial and simplistic to
disentangle cleanly the ethical or moral from the nationalistic or ethnic. Both vertical and horizontal
motivations were organically intertwined for ancient Jews. Maintenance of ethnic distinction was, after all, for
the Jew an act of obedience to God. And those acts of obedience that were not particularly boundary-
reinforcingsay, the command to love ones neighborwere enjoined upon the Jew by the Torah, the law
given to them as a nation. Yet Dunn has fixated on one kind of expression of Jewish obediencethat which
most visibly reinforced Israels ethnic distinctivenessin such a way that throws Pauls true concern out of
balance. Whereas Dunn and others see zeal in Paul as earnest devotion to God, the God of Israel , it is
more accurate to emphasize that zeal in Paul is earnest devotion to God, the God of Israel. Zeal in Rom
10:2 includes but ought not to be limited to nationalistic concerns.
60
It is, in short, a zeal to obey.
61
Third, bringing together all that has been said thus far, Pauls articulation of Israels fault in Rom 10:2-3 is,
counterintuitively, concerned not with their failure to discharge the law but with their success. It is not open
trespass but something about the way Israel has been doing the Torah that Paul sees as problematic.
62
In
one sense,
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 36
of course, doing the law in the way of which Paul is accusing Israel (namely, as of works; not according to
knowledge) is not in fact doing the law. Nevertheless, Israels fault is bound up with their pursuit of (not
disdain for) the law and their zeal for (not contempt of) God.
Hbner has drawn this out with particular force, explaining that Pauls diagnosis of his fellow Jews error in
Rom 10:1-3 is the polar opposite (geradezu entgegengesetzter Weise) of the error articulated in Rom 2, in
which the accusation is indeed outright transgression.
Wegen seines unbestreitbaren Eifers fr Gott kann in 10,2 nicht die bertretung der Gebote
des Gesetzes durch Israel gemeint sein. Nein, in nomistischer Weise, darin freilich Gott und
sein Gesetz vllig miverstehend und somit pervertierend, versuchten die zum Volke Israel
Gehrenden (nicht alle, aber wohl die Majoritt, 9,6ff.) ihre eigene Gerechtigkeit vor Gott zu
stellen, se coram Deo pro-stituere, .
63
Hbner then makes the link with Rom 2 by arguing that both texts fall generally under the indictment of
Sich-Rhmen, even though occurs only in the earlier context (2:17, 23).
64
It may be
illegitimate to identify self-glory in 9:30-10:4; Paul does not explicitly articulate the psychological state of his
fellow Jews, and attributions of legalistic works righteousness as the modus operandi of Second Temple
Jews by appeal to passages such as Rom 9:30-10:4 ought to be set aside once and for all. In a
commentary as recent as 2008, Dmitri Royster speaks of the zeal of Rom 10:2 in terms of pride, judgment,
self-righteousness and elitism, not to mention unkindness.
65
The unfortunate but deeply embedded
stereotype of early Judaism as a categorically legalistic religion is still uncritically absorbed by too many
today. The point remains, however, as Vos, Stuhlmacher, Schlier, and Wilckens all note, that Paul puts his
finger here on an infected law-doing, not a more obvious law-breaking.
66
This is not a reversion to the old
Bultmannian paradigm by which any attempt to keep the law at all is already sinful.
67
Against Bultmann, it is
not the discharging of the law itself but the manner in which it is discharged that is problematic; not pursuit
of the law, but pursuit of the law as of works; not zeal, but zeal without knowledge.
In brief, the zeal of Rom 10:2 is a Jewish fervency to keep Torah which, when divorced from knowledge of
and submission to the gift-nature of Gods righteousness, funnels into the misplaced attempt to establish
ones
WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 37
own righteousness. While this zeal would include in its manifestation those elements of Torah that marked
off Jews from their Gentile neighbors, ethnically distinguishing markers would themselves be subsumed
within the broader concern of obedience to the law.
III. Conclusion
There is nothing that belongs to Christian experience that is more liable to a corrupt mixture than zeal,
wrote Jonathan Edwards.
68
Mature Christian self-awareness understands the universal human proclivity to
be tempted to find emotional and psychological security, in subtle and even self-deceiving ways, in personal
obedience to a religious norm. Such a norm might be self-imposed, a construct of conscience. Or it may be
adherence to an externally imposed ethical norm. Yet, as such zeal emerges from a fleshly heart, a heart
not transformed by the Spirit, such zealous rule-keeping will be opposed to, not evincing of, the gospel of
Christ.
69
Zeal did not, after all, find its way onto the Apostles list of what he described as the fruit of the
Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) but it was described instead as a work of the flesh (5:19-20). Paul had come to see,
as Schlatter puts it, the way in which zeal for works [Eifer fr das Werk ] regularly was the death of faith and
how trivialization of divine grace resulted from reliance on ones own achievements.
70
As Paul looked around at his fellow Jews, he saw much of the same blindness (cf. 2 Cor 4:4-6) to which he
himself had been subject before the Damascus Roada blindness to Gods gracious provision in Christs
work, the personal appropriation of which requires nothing but the faith that lays down the subtle though
resilient efforts to self-resource partial mitigation of ones moral inadequacy, and looks to Christ.
1
In what follows we refer to Pauls life before and after the Damascus Road experience as pre-Damascus
and post-Damascus, respectively, rather than pre-conversion and post-conversion. One need not
endorse everything argued by Stendahls influential article, The Apostle Paul and the Introspective
Conscience of the West, HTR 56 (1963): 199-215, to appreciate the point that the post-Damascus Paul did
not consider himself to have changed religions; he viewed his new understanding of and submission to
Christ as comprising the culmination of, not the antithesis to, Judaism.
2
The root - occurs 36 times in the NT (excluding ): 16 as the noun , 8 as the noun
, 11 as the verb , and once as the verb . Twenty-one of these occur in Paul. The
instances in both the NT generally and Paul specifically are used in both negative and positive senses.
3
The categories vertical and horizontal are used by, e.g., Haddon Willmer, Vertical and Horizontal in
Pauls Theology of Reconciliation in the Letter to the Romans, Transformation 24 (2007): 151-60; Michael
Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective (Eugene,
Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 1, 101-2, 153, 182 (implicitly endorsed by James D. G. Dunn, The New
Perspective on Paul [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 20 n. 82); Dunn, New Perspective, 208-10;
G. K. Beale, The Overstated New Perspective? BBR 19 (2009): 92; Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the
Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 45, 48-53, 58, 61, 87-90, 102-3.
4
James D. G. Dunn, The Dialogue Progresses, in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beitrge zu
einem Schlsselproblem der gegenwrtigen exegetischen Diskussion (ed. Michael Bachmann; WUNT 182;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 405; Dunn, New Perspective, 29 n. 112; N. T. Wright, Justification: Gods
Plan and Pauls Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), 126-27, 169.
5
See esp. his The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 346-55; cf. 366-76, 514-
16; also his The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC 9; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 60-62; Romans (2
vols.; WBC 38; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), 2:586-87, 596; The Partings of the Ways between Christianity
and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991), 121-22; New
Perspective, 11-12, 31 n. 117, 37, 360-62, 374, 478; New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2009), 101-3; Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 339-46.
6
One must beware of anachronism in using the term nationalism; we employ it throughout this study as
Dunn does, to speak of religio-ethnic distinctiveness(The Dialogue Progresses, 407).
7
Dunn, Theology of Paul , 351; Dunn, New Perspective, 361.
8
Vincent M. Smiles may overly downplay this dimension to Rom 10:2: e.g., zeals concern was law-
observance in order to maintain the covenant, not in order to exclude Gentiles(The Concept of Zeal in
Second-Temple Judaism and Pauls Critique of It in Romans 10:2, CBQ 64 [2002]: 297).
9
Dunn, Romans, 2:539; Dunn, Theology of Paul , 501; Michael Theobald, Studien zum Rmerbrief (WUNT
136; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 335-36; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 571.
10
Probably the Mosaic law viewed as a witness to righteousness (Douglas Moo, Law, Works of the Law,
and Legalism in Paul, WTJ 45 [1983]: 78 n. 22); cf. Hans Hbner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum
Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Rmer 9-11 (FRLANT 136; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 61-
63, 65.
11
We do not have space to address the debated question of what Paul means by works in 9:32; for defenses
of our interpretation of here as general obedience to Torah, see A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and
the Covenant (Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, 2001), 237-42; Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in
Romans 9-11, in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 223-
29. Cf. Rom 9:11-12; 11:5-6.
12
See esp. David J. Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosyne within
Metaphoric and Narratorial Settings (WUNT 2/240; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 217-21, 230-32; also
Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer (3 vols.; 2d ed.; EKK 6; Zrich: Benziger, 1978), 2:218; Hans-
Martin Lbking, Paulus und Israel im Rmerbrief: Eine Untersuchung zu Rm 9-11 (EHS 260; Frankfurt:
Peter Lang, 1986), 84; Jean-Nol Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interprter lptre aux
Romains (Paris: ditions du Seuil, 1991), 122; Thomas R. Schreiner, Israels Failure to Attain
Righteousness in Romans 9:30-10:3, TJ 12 (1991): 214-15; Per Jarle Bekken, The Word Is Near You: A
Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Pauls Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context (BZNW 144; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2007), 162, 169-70, 220.
13
See Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 548-49, 632 n.
8. Douglas A. Campbells assertion that in the series of Jewish privileges in Rom 9:4, there is no real
despair here fails to read 9:4 in light of 9:1-3 (The Quest for Pauls Gospel: A Suggested Strategy
[JSNTSup 274; London: T&T Clark, 2005], 169).
14
Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 108 n. 80; emphasis original.
15
An objective genitive; see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans (2 vols.; ICC 32; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979), 2:514; Otto Kuss, Der Rmerbrief (3 vols.;
Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963-1978), 3:749-50; Dunn, Romans, 2:586; Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr,
Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jdische Identitt des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT
62; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 28; Simon Lgasse, Lptre de Paul aux Romains (LD Commentaires
10; Paris: Cerf, 2002), 656 n. 11.
16
Schreiner, Romans 9.30-10.3, 215; Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New
Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 23, 328, 330.
17
Cranfield, Romans, 2:514; Dunn rightly points out that there was nothing inherently wrong in the pursuit of
the law in 9:31-32 (New Perspective, 384 n. 8); contra John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in
Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972),
205; Otfried Hofius, All Israel Will Be Saved: Divine Salvation and Israels Deliverance in Romans 9-11,
PSB Supplementary Issue 1 (1990): 24; and Mark A. Seifrid, who writes that Paul does not contemplate
(nor could he conceive of) a doing the law by faith, which some imagine to find in 9:30-33 (Romans, in
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2007], 653).
18
Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1996), 311.
19
See esp. Hbner, Gottes Ich und Israel , 74. Cf. Moo, Romans, 117; Jewett, Romans, 181-82; Gerhard H.
Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise (Studies in Biblical
Literature 122; New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 60. Erwin Ochsenmeier connects the connaissance of 1:28
with that of 10:2 (Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1-3: tude exgtique et thologique
[BZNW 155; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007], 87 n. 171).
20
See Hbner, Gottes Ich und Israel , 74-75.
21
Cf. Moo, Romans, 210 n. 67.
22
Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness, 219, 231.
23
Thus it is simplistic to decide between a positive view of the law in 9:30-10:8 and a negative one, as C.
Marvin Pate does, opting for the negative view (The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law
[WUNT 2/114; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 244, 248). A distinction must be made between the law as
considered in itself (holy, righteous, and good) and the law as it engages human sin (by which the law
becomes an agent of failure). Rightly Geerhardus Vos, The Alleged Legalism in Pauls Doctrine of
Justification, in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos
(ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 388-91.
24
E.g., Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2d ed.; FRLANT 87; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966); Karl Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus: Studien zur Struktur und zum
Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs (2d ed.; NTAbh 3; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1967);
Ziesler, Righteousness in Paul; Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a
Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992); Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Pauls
Theology of Justification (New Studies in Biblical Theology 9; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000);
Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective
(Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2007).
25
So John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), 2:48-
49; Cranfield, Romans, 2:515; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexical Semantics of the Greek
New Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (SBLRBS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 99. Similarly Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the
Apostles (trans. Andreas J. Kstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 235 (cf. Hans-Martin Rieger, Adolf
Schlatters Rechtfertigungslehre und die Mglichkeit kumenischer Verstndigung [AzTh 92; Stuttgart:
Calwer, 2000], though Rieger rarely integrates Rom 10:3 into his discussion).
26
See John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (ed. and trans. John
Owen; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 383; Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 38, 149; Schlatter,
Theology of the Apostles , 217, 279.
27
Brice L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul (NovTSup 62; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 138. Similarly
Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New , 390, 399. Contra Robert Badenas, who writes that Israels refusal
to submit cannot mean anything but Israels rejection of Christ (Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in
Pauline Perspective [JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985], 110); similarly Robert B.
Sloan, Paul and the Law: Why the Law Cannot Save, NovT 33 (1991): 56-60. A focus on Israels
christological error here ought not to cause neglect of a concomitant anthropological error.
28
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2003 2008), 4:209, 211; cf. 185; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (trans. John R. de
Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 163; Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie und Evangelium:
Gesammelte Aufstze (WUNT 146; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 45; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes,
100; Lbking, Paulus und Israel , 84; Michael Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp an die Philipper: Schlaglichter
auf die frhe Rezeption des Basissatzes von der Rechtfertigung, in Lutherische und Neues
Paulusperspektive, 359-60. Contra Douglas A. Campbell, who reads the righteousness of faith in 9:30-32
as Jesus fidelity despite acknowledging that it is human trust in 9:33b; 10:9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 (The
Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009],
783).
29
Some go too far, however, in associating Christ and righteous living, identifying Christ as the righteous one
of Rom 1:17 (Desta Heliso, Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of Romans 1:17 against the
Background of Scripture and Second Temple Jewish Literature [WUNT 2/235; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007], 120-21, 243-54; J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 47-48).
30
See Ridderbos, Paul , 163-64; Karin Finsterbusch, Die Thora als Lebensweisung fr Heidenchristen:
Studien zur Bedeutung der Thora fr die paulinische Ethik (SUNT 20; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1996), 79-80; Moo, Romans, 632-34; Bird, Saving Righteousness, 12-18.
31
Paul , 161-74, 236-37.
32
So Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949), 378-79; C. K. Barrett, The
Epistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: Black, 1957), 196; Gottlob Schrenk, , in TDNT 2:203;
Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969),
218-20; Ridderbos, Paul , 171; Cranfield, Romans, 2:514-15; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 110; Karl F.
Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma und zum paulinischen Verstndnis von
Glaube und Rechtfertigung (WUNT 2/227; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 233.
33
See, e.g., Dunn, Theology of Paul , 340-44; Dunn, New Perspective, 2-4, 369-71; Dunn, New Testament
Theology, 76-77.
34
Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 42-45; Seifrid, Pauls Use of Righteousness Language Against Its
Hellenistic Background, in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (vol. 1 of Justification and
Variegated Nomism; ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. OBrien, and Mark A. Seifrid; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2004), 42-44. Similarly Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles , 229.
35
Ernst Ksemann, The Righteousness of God in Paul, in New Testament Questions of Today
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168-82; cf. the extensive study by Paul F. M. Zahl, Die Rechtfertigungslehre
Ernst Ksemanns (Calwer Theologische Monographien, Reihe B: Systematische Theologie und
Kirchengeschichte 13; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1996). Similar to Ksemann is Stuhlmacher (e.g., Biblische
Theologie und Evangelium, 28).
36
Karl Barth strikes out on his own and defines Gods righteousness here as his freedom (The Epistle to the
Romans [trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns; London: Oxford University Press, 1933], 373).
37
Cf. BDAG 482-83.
38
E.g., Jewett, Romans, 617.
39
See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1977), 75, 422.
40
Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp, 360; Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer (THKNT; Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1999), 205; reiterated in Haacker, Verdienste und Grenzen der neuen
Perspektive der Paulus-Auslegung, in Lutherische und Neues Paulusperspektive, 9.
41
E.g., George E. Howard, Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff, JBL 88 (1969): 336;
E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 38; Lloyd Gaston, Paul
and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 129, 141-42, 178; Bruce W.
Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1-11 (JSNTSup 57;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 218-19; Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and
Perseverance: Aspects of Pauls Letter to the Romans (WUNT 79; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 62-63;
Daniel J-S Chae, Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and Its Influence on the
Soteriological Argument in Romans (Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Carlisle, U.K.:
Paternoster, 1997), 241; Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostles
Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 258, 284; N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said:
Was Paul of Tarsus the Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 108, 130-31; Wright,
Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 47; Wright, Justification, 244 (cf. 150); Jean-Nol
Aletti, Isral et la loi dans la lettre aux Romains (LD 173; Paris: Cerf, 1998), 210-11; Aletti, Comment Dieu
est-il juste?, 115-16, 118; Dunn, Romans, 2:587-88; Dunn, New Perspective, 11, 203, 373, 388 n. 24;
Bekken, Word Is Near You, 164; Jewett, Romans, 618.
42
E.g., Calvin, Romans, 383; Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies (Entry Nos. 501-832) (vol. 18 of The
Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. Ava Chamberlain; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 164-
66; Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Pauls Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective
(trans. Daniel P. Bailey; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001), 43; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 92-
93; Ziesler, Righteousness in Paul , 206; Heinrich Schlier, Der Rmerbrief: Kommentar (HTKNT 6; Leipzig:
St. Benno, 1978), 310; Cranfield, Romans, 2:505, 515; Kuss, Rmerbrief , 3:748; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the
New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Pauls Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 75-
81; Hofius, All Israel Will Be Saved, 26; Theobald, Rmerbrief , 283; Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp,
359-60; Moo, Romans, 631, 634-35; Klaus Haacker, Paulus: Der Werdegang eines Apostels (SBS 171;
Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997), 66; Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches fr
Paulus (FRLANT 179; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 398; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans
(BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 543-44; Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles , 235; Seifrid, Christ, Our
Righteousness, 156; Pate, Reverse of the Curse, 247-48; Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant , 241;
Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New , 284-85, 311-13, 399; cf. 328-30; C. K. Barrett, On Paul: Aspects
of His Life, Work, and Influence in the Early Church (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 146; Watson, Paul,
Judaism, and the Gentiles, 313.
43
Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Pauls Response in Romans 1-5
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 228.
44
Perspectives Old and New , 266.
45
Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp, 359-60; Meyer, End of the Law , 223; contra Udoh, Pauls Views on the
Law, 224; Dunn, New Perspective, 483. Ulrichs notes that in both Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:2 Paul speaks of
having (), either righteousness or zeal (noting also in Rom 4:2, which speaks of boasting before
God), though it would be easy to overstate the significance of a common word such as
(Christusglaube, 236-37).
46
Seifrid, Romans, 653.
47
Bekken, Word Is Near You, 167-68.
48
For a recent detailed exposition see ibid., 153-218.
49
Romans, 650-51.
50
Contra Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 58.
51
See Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1995), 213; J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 9; J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert
in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 187-88. Contra Moo, who reads Israels ignorance as
mainly salvation-historical (Romans, 618; also 619 n. 12); similarly Haacker, Paulus, 103. This is true but
incomplete; Israel has failed not only to see Christ as salvation-historically climactic but also to understand
the gift-nature of Gods righteousness.
52
See Barths connection of Rom 10:2 with 1 Tim 1:13 in Church Dogmatics, IV/3 (trans. G. W. Bromiley;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1061), 200; cf. Haacker, Paulus, 78.
53
Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 131; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective , 112; Finny Philip, The Origins
of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the
Early Development of Pauls Theology (WUNT 2/194; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 172 n. 26.
54
Isral et la loi , 207; emphasis added.
55
Cf. Roland Bergmeier, Das Gesetz im Rmerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament (WUNT 121;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 1; cf. 77.
56
However edifying and appropriate it may have been to his generation, therefore, Barths application to the
Christian church of Israels zeal for God misses the concrete ethnic circumscription of this zeal, despite the
propriety of Barths identification within the church of the same root error that Paul detects in Israel
(Romans, 371-72).
57
Romans, 2:595; cf. Dunn, Partings of the Ways, 121-22.
58
Dunn, New Perspective, 12.
59
Johnson, Romans 9-11: The Faithfulness and Impartiality of God, in Pauline Theology, Vol. 3: Romans
(ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 227; Don B. Garlington, The
Obedience of Faith: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context (WUNT 2/38; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991),
247; Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance, 65-67; Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said , 25-37;
Wright, Justification, 244.
60
Jewetts otherwise strong analysis of Rom 10:2 neglects the ethnic dimension of this zeal (The Basic
Human Dilemma: Weakness or Zealous Violence? Romans 7:7-25 and 10:1-18, ExA 13 [1997]: 102-4);
similarly Smiles, Concept of Zeal, 282-99.
61
Rightly Lauri Thurn, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law
(Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 153; Smiles, Concept of Zeal, 292-97. Cf.
Westerholm, Paul and the Law, 227-31.
62
Contra Badenas (End of the Law , 109) and Pate (Reverse of the Curse, 246), who read Israels error here
as refusal to obey; similarly Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968),
185; cf. 144; rightly Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (trans. Frank Clarke; Richmond,
Va.: John Knox, 1959), 149; Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 324.
63
Gottes Ich und Israel , 70-71; also 62; likewise Prigent, Romains, 137; Ridderbos, Paul , 140. Jrgen Becker
hints at this distinction between Rom 2 and 10 but does not draw it out (Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles [trans.
O. C. Dean, Jr.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993], 359).
64
Gottes Ich und Israel , 71.
65
St Pauls Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary (Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimirs Seminary Press,
2008), 256.
66
Vos, Alleged Legalism, 390-99; cf. Vos, The Theology of Paul, in Redemptive History and Biblical
Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 357-58; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Vol. 1,
Grundlegung von Jesus zu Paulus (3d ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 277; Schlier,
Rmerbrief , 307; Wilckens, Rmer, 2:213-14.
67
See the helpful comments in this regard in Byrne, Sons of God , 230-31.
68
Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival , in The Great Awakening (vol. 4 of The Works of Jonathan
Edwards; ed. C. C. Goen; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1972), 460.
69
See Kuss, Rmerbrief , 3:749-50; Jrg Frey, Die paulinische Antithese von Fleisch und Geist und die
palstinisch-jdische Weisheitstradition, ZNW 90 (1999): 74; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective , 156.
70
Theology of the Apostles , 102.
current : : uid:851 (institution)