human responsibility – Written Exposition

ROMANS 11:1-24

Posted on 28th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Discourse 3 11:1-36

THESIS: God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

Having shown that righteousness and salvation are by faith in Jesus Christ and having explained God’s sovereignty (chapter 9) and also human responsibility (chapter 10) in the matter, Paul in chapter eleven continues his consideration of the status of Israel in God’s plans. He does this in light of his arguments in chapters 9 and 10; particularly the salvation of Gentiles. Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

11:1-10 ISRAEL’S HARDENING IS NOT TOTAL

‘I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” Rom 11:1-10 (NIV)

Having concluded the previous section with a picture of God willing the salvation of a people who reject him Paul addresses the possibility that God has, in turn, rejected Israel. Chapter 11 therefore opens with a rhetorical question: ‘Did God reject his people?’ This question, according to Moo (1996, p. 672, footnote 9), expects a negative answer: ‘God has not rejected his people, has he?’ Paul is aiming to impress upon his readers that although Israel is ‘a disobedient and obstinate people’ (10:21) God has not totally rejected them. He reinforces this by answering his own question with a strong negative; ‘By no means!’ and points to himself as living proof that God is still saving Jews. He underlines that he is himself a Jew by emphasizing that he is ‘an Israelite’, ‘a descendant of Abraham’ and ‘from the tribe of Benjamin’. These three statements underline not only his commitment to the nation as a Jew but also highlight his awareness of his personal place in the remnant.

Having posed the question of v.1 and given a negative answer he then proceeds in v.2 to repeat the point as a positive statement: ‘God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.’ Foreknowledge (proegnoo) has to do with the action of God in marking out for special affection and attention. Moo (1996, p. 674) writes:

‘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?’

Since ‘his people’ in v.1 refers to Israel as a whole it is unlikely that it would have a different meaning in v.2. It is not therefore to be understood in a restrictive sense (i.e. that God only foreknew the elect remnant) but reflects the OT and wider Jewish corporate sense of election by which God guaranteed blessings for the nation as a whole, but not necessarily the salvation of every individual member. So Paul is emphasizing that God has not rejected ethnic Israel.

In vv. 2-4 Paul gives a further proof of God’s faithfulness to Israel based on the story of Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-18). He takes up this analogy from the past (vv. 2b-4) and applies it to the present in v.5. In Elijah’s day the northern kingdom had gone over to Baal worship to such an extent that the prophet Elijah felt totally alone. After the contest on Carmel (1 Kings 18), his victory experience soon faded. Following death threats from Queen Jezebel, Elijah ran away, travelling until he came to Mount Horeb. Paul (v.3) summarises his prayer from a cave there: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me.’ God’s answer (v.4) on that occasion was: ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

In v.5 Paul cleverly applies the OT story to his teaching about Israel in the present. In Elijah’s day Israel was at such a low spiritual ebb that Elijah considered the situation to be hopeless. God, however, had preserved for himself a remnant (only seven thousand) which was a pledge of hope for the future of the nation. Paul did not wish the audience of his day to draw a similar conclusion to that of Elijah in the face of widespread unbelief on the part of Jews. Just as the defection of the majority to Baal worship in ancient history did not invalidate God’s gracious choice of the nation; neither would the rejection of Jesus as Messiah do so ‘at the present time.’ Paul (vv.5-6) makes it clear that the remnant was chosen on the basis of God’s grace and not because of ethnic identity or meritorious works.

In v.7 Paul deals with the ramifications (‘what then?’) of his teaching on the remnant and says that the ones who did obtain grace were the elect, and the rest were hardened. The irony of the situation is that the majority of Israel had tried unsuccessfully to obtain salvation through good works but only a remnant, because of God’s choosing, obtained it. Paul thus distinguishes three interconnected entities: Israel as a corporate nation; then two groups within national Israel; an elect remnant and those who ‘were hardened’. He views this ‘hardening’ as the action of God.

In vv. 8-10 Paul illustrates the concept of hardening with OT quotations introduced by the words: ‘it is written.’ As ‘proof’ that hardening was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies Deut. 29:4 and Psalm 69:22-23 which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8;10). He presents this as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. The quotation ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor’ is from Isaiah 29:10 and has the idea of ‘numbness’, suggesting insensitivity to the gospel. In vv. 9-10, he quotes from Psalm 69:22-23 in which David speaks of his enemies saying: ‘may their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.’ Paul is suggesting that this comes upon the Jews who reject the gospel. They will be blind to the gospel and bent over like a
blind person groping in the dark. Such a pessimistic note would seem at this stage to confirm rather than deny the suggestion in verse one that God has rejected his people. God’s motive for the hardening, however, is revealed in v.11.

VV. 11-24 ISRAEL’S HARDENING HAS FACILITATED THE SALVATION OF THE GENTILES.

‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!’ Rom 11:19-24 (NIV)

Having shown that the message of the gospel has divided Israel into ‘the remnant’ that attains righteousness by the grace of God and ‘the rest’ who are hardened and excluded from salvation Paul proceeds to show that this is not necessarily a permanent situation. He introduces a novel interpretation of the position of Jews in God’s plan of salvation. Indisputably the majority of the nation had stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Despite the bleak picture he is optimistic. The key issue is stated in v.11: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total; he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final. He has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) assesses the possible reasons for Paul’s annoyance at their attitude:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

In 11:11 Paul harks back to 9:32-33 which speak of Israel’s stumbling over the Messiah and asks ‘Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ and again answers: ‘Not at all!’ Israel has indeed stumbled but Paul rejects any suggestion that the fall is fatal and irretrievable. In fact, in v.11b, he argues that the purpose of their fall, and the subsequent salvation of Gentiles, was to make Israel jealous. When the Jews saw the wonder of salvation in Christ, they would want it for themselves. Paul continues his unusual logic in v.12 by stating that the fall of Israel was actually good for the world.

V.12 speaks of Israel’s ‘transgression’ and ‘loss’ which have resulted in
‘riches for the world’ and ‘riches for the Gentiles.’ The rejection of Jesus as Messiah had been a tragic loss for the Jews. That being the case, says Paul: ‘how much greater riches will their fullness bring?’ Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; benefitting the world.

The Gentile believers at Rome were possibly wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews so Paul applies the teaching to his own ministry in vv.13-14. Addressing them as ‘you Gentiles,’ he says that his mission to the Gentiles is important for the salvation of Jews. He wants to ‘exalt’ his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy (an idea introduced in v. 11b) and conversion. Whenever Paul, preached, saw Gentiles converted and live Christian lives that provoked Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah, then his ministry was magnified. The desire to see Jews converted was thus a major motivating factor in his missionary outreach to Gentiles. Paul adds, ‘For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be, but life from the dead?’ If the impact of Jewish rejection by God (or possibly, their rejection of the gospel) was great blessing (reconciliation) to the world, then the thought of the impact of Israel’s acceptance of the gospel is so staggering to Paul that he calls it “life from the dead.”

This controversial phrase may be interpreted literally, as referring to the resurrection at Christ’s return or to the wonderful life after that. This interpretation focuses on the last days and foresees a mass conversion of Gentiles at the end of time; a great spiritual revival that signals the resurrection. Whilst a future mass conversion of Jews would doubtless be a wonderful and desirable phenomenon the text says nothing about that. The context is rather against it since the apostle says (v.13-14) that he is already labouring to see some of his own people saved and bring about their ‘fullness’ (v12b). Thus when the last Jew is saved, and the last Gentile also (v.25), there will be life from the dead, or, the resurrection life. It is not the moment of resurrection that is in view but the glorious state thereafter. ‘Life from the dead’ may also be viewed in a metaphorical sense as referring to great spiritual blessings that enrich the whole world. It is an image denoting the greatest happiness possible.

Paul then uses several metaphors to show that the Jews can never be finally rejected and to warn Gentiles believers against spiritual pride. In v. 16 he refers to the OT practice outlined in Numbers 15:18 – 21 of offering the first piece of dough to the Lord. The first piece stood for the rest. Since God accepted the first piece the rest was holy as well. Paul is applying this concept to Israelite history and implying that since God accepted the patriarchs in spite of their many failings, he will also likewise accept their descendants. V.16 refers similarly to ‘the root’ and says that if it is holy, so are the branches.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE OLIVE TREE

Having mentioned ‘root’ and ‘branches’ Paul goes on to employ (vv.17-14) a long and elaborate allegory about an olive tree, representing the Jews. Paul imagined cultivated branches (unbelieving Jews) being broken off and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He stresses to his Gentiles readers that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. He expresses optimism (v23) that Jews will believe and be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Paul begins his illustration in v.17 by referring to a cultivated olive tree and wild olive shoots. The olive tree was a familiar symbol of the nation of Israel (Jer. 11:16; Hosea 14:6) and Paul restates the tragic situation of the unbelieving Jews of his day by picturing them as branches that had been broken off the tree. He also pictures wild olive shoots, the Gentiles, as having been grafted onto the olive tree and bearing fruit along with the believing remnant. The newly engrafted Gentiles believers ‘share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.’ Paul’s analogy seems strange in that this was a reversal of the normal process, which was to graft a shoot from a cultivated tree into a wild olive so that it might produce good fruit. Paul, however, is aware that this is ‘contrary to nature’ (v.24), and by this oleicultural inaccuracy may be stressing the miraculous nature of what God is doing in allowing the Gentiles to enjoy the blessings of salvation. His argument depends on the fact that the illustration is unusual.

In v.18 Paul warns the Gentile believers against arrogance and reminds them: ‘You do not support the root, but the root supports you.’ The Gentiles had nothing to boast about as the gospel promises did not originate with them. God gave them to the patriarchs and passed them down through their descendants.

In v.19 Paul anticipates that the Gentiles might justify their feelings of superiority by saying ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ He agrees with them that the natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were indeed broken off because of unbelief and that the Gentiles ‘stand by faith.’ Faith is the only basis for a relationship with God and continuance in faith is proof that the graft has taken. He goes on to stress that the fact that the natural branches were broken off and wild ones grafted in is not cause for arrogance but for fear. The reason for this fear is given in v.21: ‘for if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.’ Lloyd-Jones (1999, p.144) contends that just as Paul has been talking about Israel in general so now he is referring to Gentiles in general:

‘He is not now dealing with the elect Gentiles but with the Gentiles in general… He says to the Gentiles that Israel was included in the same way as they now are, but she is now excluded. That has got nothing to do with the elect because, though Israel in general is out, the remnant according to the election of grace is in…The whole argument must be thought of in terms of the general position, as regards Jews and Gentiles.’

Paul concludes the allegory of the olive tree and his warning to the Gentiles in vv.22-24 by suggesting that they consider two attributes of God; ‘his kindness and sternness.’ God’s ‘kindness’ is his will to do a person good, his ‘sternness’ (used only here in the NT) is his justice applied without mercy. One has to do with the grace of God in salvation, the other with his judgment toward unbelievers. Three possible scenarios are outlined:

1) Kindness extended to elect Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the kindness… of God…to you’. That God, in his sovereignty, had taken wild olive shoots and grafted them into the cultivated olive tree is said by Paul to be a display of kindness. Gentiles had become partakers of God’s promise.

2) Sternness displayed toward rejected Jews or Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the… sternness of God…to those who fell.’ ‘Kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will
be cut off.’ Jews who had rejected Christ had been already cut off; Gentiles are not to boast about that in case God’s kindness is withdrawn.

3) Kindness in restoring Jews to their former position.

‘And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.’

Paul is confident that, providing they do not remain in persistent unbelief, God will restore Jews to their former position. He argues in v.24 that if God can save Gentiles who were from a wild olive tree, how much easier it is for him to save Jews who more naturally belong in the olive tree that began with the patriarchs. Hendriksen (1981, p.376) stresses that:

‘In reading what Paul says about the olive tree there is one very important point that must not be overlooked. The apostle recognizes only one (cultivated) olive tree. In other words the church is one living organism. For Jew and Gentile salvation is the same. It is obtained on the basis of Christ’s atonement, by grace, through faith.’

The emphasis throughout is on God’s sovereignty. The apostle stresses that ‘God is able’ (v.23) and yet at the same time that there are moral conditions associated with being ‘cut off’ and ‘standing’. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility interact. It is interesting that Paul’s conception of divine sovereignty is so flexible that he can state with conviction that both God’s kindness’ and his ‘sternness’ are reversible.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Exposition

ROMANS 9:30 -10:21

Posted on 27th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 2 ROMANS 9:30 – 10:21

THESIS: Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not (9:30-31)

9:30-33

‘What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Rom 9:30-33 (NIV)

Paul now moves on from divine sovereignty to talk about human responsibility and addresses objections to the fact that God has chosen to save many Gentiles but only some Jews. This is clearly the beginning of a new section as he uses the expression; ‘What then shall we say?’ which often introduces a change of focus in Romans (4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31) and here prompts the audience to think about Israel’s disobedience (10:21). The key word is this discourse is ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosynē) which occurs ten times.

He first mentions the Gentiles who, he says, did not pursue righteousness. How then did some of them ‘obtain’ this status (right standing with God) without having sought it?

Moo (1996, p.619) explains:

‘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.’

Paul emphasises that this righteousness is ‘by faith’ (9:30), a fact that he has already made clear in 1:16-17 and in 3:21-4:25. Faith is possible on the part of the Gentle as well as the Jew (1:16) and this is why so many Gentiles are being saved.

In v.31 Paul then speaks of the Jews, who pursued a ‘law of righteousness’ but have not attained it. Unlike the Gentiles who ‘obtained’ (katelaben, lay hold of) righteousness, the Jews did not ‘attain’ (efthasen, reach) the goal. The reason Paul gives (v.32) was that they ‘pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works’ and thus ‘stumbled over the “stumbling-stone”.

He quotes from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16, two passages that mention a ‘stone’, which he conflates to emphasize the negative point about Israel’s fall (he takes up the last part of the quotation again in 10:11 to make the positive point that Christ is the stone). By means of this composite quotation from Isaiah Paul stresses that Israel’s problem is failure to believe on Jesus Christ. He is their obstacle. The image is that of a race in which a runner is so preoccupied with the finishing line that he stumbles over a rock and falls.

10:1-4

‘Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ Rom 10:1-4 (NIV)

Having explained in chapter 9 that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved, Paul expresses to the Christians (‘brothers’ 10:1) to whom he is writing his desire that ethnic Israel might be saved. He wants the Christian church to know that he takes no pleasure in the failure of ethnic Israel to attain salvation and stresses his sincerity with a statement of his petition on Israel’s behalf. He did not seem to sense any tension between his teaching on predestination in chapter 9 and his passionate prayer for Israel’s salvation. Divine election does not mean that prayer is neither necessary nor important. That Paul was continuing to pray for the salvation of Israel suggests that he did not accept that their present state of rejection was final.

He begins v.2 with the word ‘for’, thus indicating that he is going to give the reason for his prayer. He says: ‘I can testify about them’, which suggests that he can accurately comment on the matter as a result of his own personal experience. It is because they are ‘zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.’ Their dedication was not in doubt but zeal (fervent devotion and passion) without knowledge is only fanaticism. Zeal alone does not bring salvation. Paul sums up the defectiveness of their understanding in v.3:

‘Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.’

The term ‘God’s righteousness’’ occurs twice in 10:3 and also in 1:17 and in 3:5; 21; 22 (along with references to ‘his righteousness’ in 3:25 and 26). Elsewhere in Paul it occurs only in 2 Corinthians 5:21 although there is a similar expression ‘the righteousness that comes from God’ in Philippians 3:9. Paul links ‘God’s righteousness’ with justification (3:21-26) and views it as God’s gift (5:17). The Jews, however, did not understand that the correct way to attain a righteous
standing before God was to ‘submit’ (10:3). Instead they sought to establish their own righteousness by practising good works. Schreiner (1998, p.544) concludes:

‘The reason, then, that the Jews did not subject themselves to the saving righteousness of God is because they were ignorant of the fact that righteousness was a gift of God’s grace and they mistakenly thought that they could secure their own righteousness by observing the Torah.’

In Romans 10:4 Paul makes an important and much debated statement: ‘Christ is the end of the law so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ The key terms are: ‘End,’ ‘Law,’ and ‘Righteousness.’ In any discussion of this verse one must try to explain the significance of these terms and identify the relationship of Christ to the law.

END

‘End’ (telos) may refer to a’ termination’/ ‘cessation’ or to a ‘purpose’/’goal.’ It may also refer to an ‘outcome’ (6:21). The three main views of its meaning in 10:4 are:

1) ‘Fulfilment’- All the OT institutions, types and rituals pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in him.

2) ‘Termination’ – The Mosaic Law as a covenant is finished. God’s people today are not bound to it. This view stresses the discontinuity between Christ and the law and is attractive because it bears in mind 7:6 where a release from the law has already been declared, and also the additional statement of 8:1 that all who are in Christ Jesus are no longer under condemnation.

3) ‘Goal’ – The purpose of the law was not to save, but to lead people to faith in Christ.

This does not mean that there was a full revelation of Christ throughout history but rather that God provided some details at various times about the one who would come and, based on the believing response to these revelations about Christ, righteousness was credited (10:6-9). These OT events and prophecies pointed to the coming of the Messiah and all the predictions culminated in him; the one whom Paul referred to as the ‘stone’ (9:33), called ‘Christ’ (10:4) and identified as ‘the Lord Jesus’ (10:9).

LAW

‘Law’ in 10:4 is sometimes taken to refer to law in its general sense but most scholars take it to mean the Law of Moses. The other two verses in the immediate context which mention ‘law’ (9:31; 10:5) would support this interpretation.

It is likely that Paul has in mind the Old Testament (which includes the Mosaic Law), a view which would better suit the idea that telos means ‘goal’. Paul does not distinguish between the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT in chapters 9-11. When, in each of the three chapters he speaks of his hope for the salvation of Israel (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:26), he supports his argument for salvation through faith with quotations from throughout the OT. Just before making the statement of 10:4 he has quoted from Isaiah (9:27; 28; 29; 33) rather than from the Pentateuch which suggests that in Paul’s view there is full agreement between all of the OT and the gospel that he preaches. He is contrasting two views regarding the function of the law. Non-elect Israelites thought of the law as a means of salvation; which was conditional on compliance with its demands (9:31-32). Paul saw the law rather as a body of truth which had to be believed for salvation. For him, Christ was the embodiment of that truth and was its goal.

RIGHTEOUSNESS

‘Righteousness’ is a characteristic of a person. Ziesler (1972, pp.7-8) explains what it might mean:

‘There are two main conceptions of the meaning of the noun. It is usually assumed without argument by Roman Catholic exegetes that it means “justice” in the sense of uprightness, rather than strict distributive justice or even forensic justice in general…The usual Protestant position however has been that righteousness as imputed in justification is real righteousness, which comes from God to man, but for forensic purposes only. Man is not righteous, but he is treated by God as if he were, because he stands clothed in the righteousness of Christ…Thus righteousness from God and justification are the same thing. Both are to do with the granting of a status before God, an undeserved status which in itself is not concerned with ethics, but which has ethical consequences.’

Paul has already taught (Rom. 4:4-5) that righteousness is not based on human effort but is a gift obtained by faith. He shows in 9:30 -10:4 that the Jews viewed the law as a goal in itself rather than realising that the OT pointed to Christ. He uses the OT to show that Christ was, and is, the necessary object of faith for salvation and stresses in 10:4 that the OT law fulfilled its revelatory function until the appearance of Christ, its end goal. He is the focus of salvation history. Moo (1996, p. 640) views v.4 as:

‘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.’

10:5-8

‘Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:’ Rom 10:5-8 (NIV)

In vv. 5-7 Paul contrasts righteousness ‘by faith’ with righteousness ‘by the law’ and uses two OT verses to argue against attempting to establish righteousness by means of the Mosaic Law. In v. 5 he writes: ‘Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law’ and gives a quotation from Leviticus 18:5: ‘The Man who does these things will live by them.’

‘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.’ Schreiner (1993, p.125) points out that:

This is a righteousness based on works. Many interpret Leviticus 18:5 as promising eternal life, if the standard is met. If one performs the
righteousness of the law he will live. The context of Lev. 18:5, however, has to do with Israel’s obedience to God’s commands in order to prolong their blessings in the Promised Land. Nehemiah used this verse (9:29-30) to explain that their disobedience to the law resulted in their subjugation by hostile nations. Ezekiel (18: 9; 13) refers to the verse when discussing the execution of those who violate certain commandments. Leviticus 18:5 does not therefore refer to eternal life but to obedience to God’s commands in order to stay alive. Moo (1996, p.648) observes:

‘Paul’s statement in v.5 only makes sense if it is assumed that no one can perfectly obey the law. The attempt to gain righteousness by the law is excluded precisely because no one has the ability to put into effect what the law demands.’

Paul does not deal at all here with the impossibility of keeping the law as he has already covered the topic in 3:9-20. He is arguing that the perfect keeping of the law is to be rejected as a viable method of obtaining righteousness because Christ has accomplished all that is required for salvation.

Having stated (10:5) that Moses spoke of ‘righteousness by the law,’ Paul introduces a different and opposing voice in v.6. This is the personified voice of ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ speaking words from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:11-14. It seems that Paul has come close to setting up one scripture in opposition to another (since Deuteronomy was also written by Moses).

In his discussion of this controversial use of scripture Schreiner (2002, pp.133-134) quotes Silva who:

‘… notes it is uncommon for NT writers to call into question the interpretation of opponents by setting forth an opposing contextual argument of the text in question. He goes on to say, “Jewish literature contemporary to the New Testament shows a similar hesitation to score points by refuting the opponent’s use of Scripture. And the later rabbinic scholars, as a rule, refuted an argument based on Scripture by counteracting with a different passage, not by demonstrating faulty hermeneutics.” In other words, Paul cites the OT in Rom 10:6-8 to show that obeying the law is not the means of righteousness.’

Paul is explaining that God will not be impressed with human good works when his way of salvation is belief in the gospel. Just as the people to whom Moses spoke (Deut 30:11) had a message that was accessible to them, and not too difficult for them to understand, the same was true of the Israelites of Paul’s generation. They were not required to do the impossible. They did not need to ‘ascend into heaven’ in order to bring Christ down, or to ‘descend into the deep’ (since Christ was already resurrected from the dead). Just as the law had been brought down to the Israelites by Moses so also Jesus, the Messiah, had come down to earth. The message of righteousness by faith was ‘near’ Israel and this was the ‘word of faith’ that Paul was proclaiming.

10:9-10

‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.’ Rom 10:9-10 (NIV)

In 10:9 Paul explains what it is that he preaches and the simplicity of the response that it demands. It has to do with the certainty of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Consistent with the order of his quotation from Deuteronomy (‘the word is near you: it is in your mouth and in your heart’) he first mentions confession with the mouth about who Jesus is and then belief in the heart about what God has done.

Hoeksema (2002, p.461) maintains:

‘The resurrection was an act of God. The text does not say, “If you believe that Christ is risen.” Emphatically, the apostle states, “he who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead.” It was an act of God. God did something. And our faith clings ultimately to that act of God…The act of God whereby He raised Jesus from the dead was the act by which he declared us righteous.’

Just as in v.9 the result of belief and confession is salvation so it is likewise in v.10. Here Paul reverses the order of the salvation process (‘it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.’) forming a chiasm. This general statement in v.10 which again underscores that the key element is faith, not works, is a transition leading to Paul’s taking up again the idea of universality mentioned at the end of v.4 ( ‘for everyone who believes’). Since justification and salvation are as a result of faith then one must logically conclude that anyone who exercises faith in Christ will be saved, regardless of ethnicity.

10:11-13

‘As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom 10:11-13 (NIV)

In vv. 11-13 Paul takes up the aforementioned idea of universality and (v.11) quotes Isaiah 28:16, which also underscores the connection between faith and salvation, but adds the words pas ho (everyone) to emphasise the universal nature of the gospel. Everyone who believes in the Lord ‘will not be put to shame’, i.e. deliverance at the time of judgement.’

In v.12 Paul concludes that since salvation is available by faith to all who call on the Lord for help then there is no difference between Jew and Gentile; they all have the same Lord.

In v. 13 he quotes from Joel 2:32 (a verse that in its original context refers to the remnant of Israel); ‘For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’, thus supporting his statement in v.12 by sandwiching it between two OT quotations. The ‘everyone’ of v. 11 and that of v. 13 together back up the expression in v.12 that ‘there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.’ Regardless of race or culture anyone can call in faith upon the Lord for salvation. Upon reading these verses one recalls Paul’s earlier statement of ‘no distinction’ (3:23) in sin and judgment but, as Bassler (1984, p.56) notes, now ‘the emphasis of “no distinction” or impartiality has shifted’.

She continues:

‘In chaps.1-3 it was used as a warrant for the inclusion of Gentiles. Here it supports an argument for the ultimate inclusion of the recalcitrant Jews within the community of faith, so that the total scheme of salvation corresponds to the basic axiom of divine impartiality: “For God has consigned all men to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all” (11:32).

Salvation can be for everyone so how could someone know the gospel without it being preached to them? Although from vv. 14-21 Paul again takes up the situation of Israel and investigates Jewish rejection of the gospel he first speaks of the practicalities involved in a person’s salvation: a preacher must be sent and the message must be preached, heard, and believed.

10:14-17

‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.’ Rom 10:14-17 (NIV)

In vv.14-15 he poses a series of four rhetorical questions beginning with ‘How?’ These build upon one another by repetition of the verb at the end of one question at the beginning of the next question. In light of God’s promise that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved(10:13):

1) ‘How then can they call on Him they have not believed in?’

2) ‘How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?’

3) ‘How can they hear without someone preaching to them?’

4) ‘How can they preach unless they are sent?’

In these four questions Paul sets out the conditions necessary for calling on the name of the Lord and presents the five essential links in the chain of evangelism. These are the basic elements of Christian mission: Sending, Preaching, Hearing, Believing, and Calling. If one of the previous links is missing, Calling does not occur and there is no salvation.

Who is to be evangelized? In 1:16 Paul made it clear that both Jews and Gentiles were to be evangelized. In the context of chapters 9-11 he is
speaking specifically of the evangelism of Jewish people, the priority of which he inferred in 1:16. It is as if he is emphasizing to the believers at Rome (where there were possibly some tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians) that they ought to be involving themselves in the evangelism of Jews as well as of Gentiles. He quotes loosely (v.15) from Isaiah 52:7 (with perhaps an allusion to Nahum 1:15) noting the beauty of the feet of those who ‘bring good news’. This verse, in its original setting, prophesied the certainty of Israel’s return from Captivity in Babylon. Jews, in spite of their rejection of Christ, still needed to hear the message about Jesus the Messiah. Since Paul is analyzing Jewish rejection of the gospel up to that point in time he goes on to show that in their case all the conditions for salvation have been met; except one.

V.16 points out that even though the gospel is good news, not everyone believes. It says: ‘But not all the Israelites responded to the good news.’ This is an understatement as, in comparison to the Gentles, very few Jews accepted Christ. It does, however, reiterate the concept of the remnant introduced in 9:6; while not all believed, some did. In the case of Israel, this was nothing new. Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1 (‘Lord, who has believed our message?) in support of this and thus identifies the missing link in the chain. Faith was missing.

V.17 is a transitional verse in that it summarizes the argument thus far. It starts with ‘consequently’ or ‘as a result,’ pointing the reader back to 10:8-9 about the expression of faith but also picks up the idea of ‘hearing’ implied in the ‘message’ of Isaiah 53:1 and moves on to the next stage of Paul’s argument.

10:18-21

‘But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Rom 10:18-21 (NIV)

In vv.18-21 Paul entertains and then dismisses two possible reasons for Israel’s rejection of the gospel. He asks two rhetorical questions which expect a positive answer. They thus become an assertion. ‘Did they not hear?’ and ‘Did Israel not understand?’ They had both heard and understood the message. In v18 Paul queries if the problem might be that the Jews had not heard the gospel: ‘But I ask, did they not hear?’ It must be because they have not heard. He answers ‘Of course they did!’ and quotes Psalm 19: 4: ‘their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.’ Paul lifts this verse from its original context which speaks of natural revelation and applies it to the special revelation of the gospel. The idea here may be what Bruce (1963, p. 223) terms ‘representative universalism’, meaning that just as the knowledge of God is said to be universal in Psalm 19 so, in Paul’s day, wherever there were communities of Jews in the known world, it could be said that the gospel had been preached. Paul contends that Israel had definitely heard the
gospel.

V.19 begins with a repetition of the ‘I ask’ of v.18 and moves from the possibility that Israel had not heard the message to the possibility that the message had not been understood. Paul quotes this time from both the Law and the prophets, using Moses and Isaiah as representative of each. The quotation from Moses in v.19 is from Deuteronomy 32:21b. The point being made is that historically Israel knew the Commandments, yet their practice did not match their understanding. They had hardly left Egypt and the experience of the power of God when they made a golden calf and worshipped it. Along the way they complained against God and longed for their former life of slavery. Having reached the Promised Land they pursued false gods. It was not a matter of not understanding God’s law. They acted in wilful disobedience to what they knew. As a result God promised to use people who were not a nation, people who did not have understanding, to make Israel envious.

In v.20 Paul, citing Isaiah 65:1, turns to the prophets: ‘Then Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek Me, I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me”.’ The Gentiles were not pursuing God. They were idolaters who did not seek God; rather he made himself known to them in the gospel. This highlights God’s grace in pursuing the Gentiles rather than Gentiles pursuing Him. Those who did not look for God found him; he took the initiative and revealed himself in the gospel. In v.21 Paul comments: ‘But concerning Israel he says’ and continues the quotation from Isaiah (65:2), ‘All day long have I held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ The second discourse closes with this thought of a gracious God actively stretching out his hands to the Jews, wanting them to come to him.

In chapter nine Paul attributed Israelite unbelief to God’s election, in chapter ten he attributes it to their own wilful rejection of the gospel message that they had both heard and understood.