Jewett

9:1–5* The Third Proof
9 The First Pericope

Introduction: The Tragic Riddle of Israel’s Unbelief
1/ I am telling the truth in Christ,a I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness

in [the] Holy Spirit, 2/ that my sorrow is great and a pain in my heart [is] unceasing.
3/ For I used to pray that I myself be banned fromb the Christ for the sake of my
brothers,c my compatriots by flesh 4/ who are Israelites,d
whose [are] the sonship
and the glory
and the covenantse
and the lawgiving
and the worship
and the promises,f
5/ whose [are] the fathers
and out of whom [is] the Christ, insofar as the flesh is concerned,g whoh is God
over all, blessed forever, amen!
*
1
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit—
2
I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.
3
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my
kindred according to the flesh.
4
They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the
worship, and the promises;
5
to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God
blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 9:1–5 (NRSV)
a
The addition of Ἰησοῦ by D* F G ar vgs appears to be secondary.
b
D G 1505 have ὑπό (“by”) and Ψ provides ὑπέρ (“on behalf of”) in place of the appropriately severe, and
undoubtedly original ἀπό (“from”). Cranfield, 2:458, suspects the influence of the Latin translation a Christo,
which contains the ambiguity as to whether it is “by” or “from.” Another explanation is that the Semitic
construction ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“to be accursed from Christ”) was felt by D and G to be too
awkward.
c
The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) is missing after τῶν ἀδελφῶν (“the brothers”) in P46, while the entire
phrase “of my brethren” is absent from B*. Cranfield, 2:458, properly refers to these variants as “accidental.”
d
The deletion of the rest of this verse by A, not noted by Nestle-Aland, is explained by Porter, “Rhetorical
Scribe” 414, as an “attempt to link Christ more closely with the Jewish people”; this explanation lacks cogency.
e
The singular ἡ διαθήκη (“the covenant”) is strongly supported by P 46 B Dgr F G 1852 ar b vgcl sa bomss eth
Theodore Cyr Hes Cyp Hil1/2 Hier3/7 Aug1/6, but the plural form as found in ‫ א‬C K Ψ 0285 6 33 69 81 88 104 181
256 263 323 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836
1874 1877 1881 1912 (1962 omits αἱ̔) 2127 2200 2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj (A omits by homoioteleuton) Lect d
f g mon o vgww, st syp,h,(hgr) bo arm geo slav Orlat Bas Diodore Epiph Chr Proclus Hil1/2 Ambst Tyconius Hier 4/7
Pel Aug5/6 is more likely because it breaks out of the pattern of singular nouns in the series and in view of the
predominance of the singular in the biblical tradition, the plural is the more difficult reading. The theological
difficulties the plural posed for the early church would have easily motivated a change, according to Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 459. Christiansen, Covenant, 220–28, argues for the originality of the singular because “in
the Old Testament Berith is never used in the plural” (28), a point she derives from James Barr, “Some Semantic
Notes on the Covenant,” in H. Donner et al., eds., Beiträge zur alttestlamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für
Walter Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 30–31, who in fact does not
extend this claim to the Greek portions of Scripture. The plural occurs in Wis 18:22*; 2 Macc 8:15*, and Sir
44:18*. See Michel, 295, for evidence that Jewish sources often referred to plural covenants.
f 46vid
P D F G ar bomss provide the singular form ἐπαγγελία (“promise”), though D also has the article (ἡ [“the”]).
These variations are spurious for the reasons noted in the previous note.
g
Cuthbert Lattey, “The Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus in Romans ix. 5, ” ExpT 35 (1923–24) 42–43, shows that
this codex (C) contains a small cross at this point that designates some form of a stop, which the NA text reflects
with a comma.
Analysis
This artfully constructed pericope provides an introduction1 to the third proof, which is the
counterpart of the concluding section, 11:33–36*.2 It begins in first person singular style3 with
a solemn, threefold asseveration of Paul’s sorrow, three witnesses as it were, in hierarchical
order.4 The description of Paul’s pain in v. 2* is in the form of synonymous parallelism with
an artful chiastic pattern, λύπη + μεγάλη : ἀδιάλειπτος + ὀδύνη (“sorrow” + “great” :
“unceasing” + “pain”).5 Verse 3* continues the pattern of double-line sentences with two lines
of approximately equal length.6 The pathos that marks these opening verses serves Paul’s
argumentative purpose7 by showing that although he is the apostle to the Gentiles, he not only
lacks anti-Jewish feelings,8 but also is profoundly troubled about the opposition to the gospel
by legalistic zealots. The pathos aims to evoke exsuscitatio, the arousal of similar sympathies
on the part of the audience,9 moving the largely Gentile Christian audience “to share his
profound and anxious compassion for the Jews who have not yet embraced the fulfillment of
what is properly their destiny.”10 The continued opposition of zealous Jews places a question
mark about the power of the gospel, which is the premise of Paul’s missionary project that the
h
For discussions of the punctuation problem as well as the conjectured emendations suggested at this point, see
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 459–62; idem, “The Punctuation of Rom 9:5*, ” in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley,
eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1973) 95–112. Since the decision on punctuation must be made on contextual and
theological grounds, the discussion thereof is found in the exegesis below. Hans-Werner Bartsch, “Rom 9:5* und
1 Clem 32:4: Eine notwendige Konjektur im Römerbrief,” ThZ 21 (1965) 401–09, advocates the emendation by
Jonasz Schlichting in 1665–68, changing ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς (“of whom is God over all things”) to ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ
πάντων θεὸς (“whose is the God over all things”), which makes God the possession of Israel; see Cranfield,
2:466–67; Haacker, 187; W. L. Lorimer, “Romans 9:3–5*, ” NTS 13 (1966–67) 385–86.
1
Kim, Romans 9–11, 116, 121–23, employs the term “exordium” for this introduction, but I prefer to reserve this
formal designation to 1:1–12.
*
33
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how
inscrutable his ways!
34
“For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”
35
“Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?”
36
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.
2
See Käsemann, 257.
3
Kim, Romans 9–11, 99.
4
Michel, 291.
*
2
Romans 9:2 (NRSV)
5
See Weiss, “Beiträge,” 238; Louw, 2:97; Siegert, Argumentation, 122.
*
3
Romans 9:3 (NRSV)
6
See Weiss, “Beiträge,” 238.
7
Kim, Romans 9–11, 122, cites Quintilian Inst. 6.2.34 in connection with forensic rhetoric, that pathos “is the
emotional power that dominates the court, it is this form of eloquence that is the queen of all.” Although I do not
follow Kim in judging Rom 9–11 to be forensic, this comment about the argumentative force of pathos is equally
valid for demonstrative discourse.
8
Schlier, 284; Siegert, Argumentation, 121, cites 1 Thess 2:15* and Acts 18:6* as well as the denial in Rom 3:8*
as indications that Paul may have been conscious of allegations that he was hostile to his Jewish kinsfolk.
9
Elliott, Rhetoric of Romans, 261–62; see also Anderson, Glossary, 49.
10
Elliott, Rhetoric of Romans, 263, italics in original; also cited by Kim, Romans 9–11, 123.
letter seeks to promote. The central issue in the third proof, the faithfulness and reliability of
God,11 is thus effectively introduced with pathos suitable to the tragic aspect of the issue.
The rhetorical cadence of 9:4–5* is both formal and solemn,12 with a listing of seven
attributes of Paul’s fellow Jews followed by two further attributes introduced by relative
pronouns, the second of which is defined by a further relative clause, making a formal series
of ten.13 The first item in the series, “who are Israelites,” is the generic reference that
“embraces the items which follow.”14 In v. 4* there is a threefold pattern of homoioteleuton,
with –θεσία, -α, -αι/–θεσία, -α, -αι endings in sequence.15 There is an impressive paronomasia
in the repetition of ὧν (“of whom”) in v. 4b* followed by ὧν in v. 5a*, b* and ὤν in v. 5c*.16
The sixfold repetition of καί (“and”) produces emphasis through polysyndeton.17 The pericope
ends with a doxology to Christ as God that corresponds to the doxology of 11:36*, sealing the
cohesion between the introduction and the conclusion of the third proof.
Rhetorical Disposition
IV. The probatio

9:1—11:36 The third proof: The triumph of divine righteousness in the gospel’s mission
to Israel and the Gentiles
9:1–5 1. Introduction: The tragic riddle of Israel’s unbelief
9:1–2 a. Paul’s sorrow about unbelieving Israel
9:1 1) The threefold asseveration about Paul’s sorrow
9:1a a) The witness of Christ to the truth of Paul’s sorrow
9:1b b) Paul’s oath of honesty
9:1c c) The independent witness of Paul’s conscience about the presence of his sorrow
9:2 2) The scope and content of Paul’s sorrow
9:2a a) The scale of pain: “great”
9:2b b) The scope of sorrow: “unceasing”
11
Kim, Romans 9–11, 110, following the consensus summarized by Räisänen, “Römer 9–11, ” 2930–36; Wright,
Climax, 236; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 501. See also Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel” 13; Dahl, Studies,
143.
*
4
5
12
Michel, 290.
13
Jewett, “Numerical Sequences,” 230–31; Haacker, 183.
14
Cranfield, 2:460.
*
4
Romans 9:4 (NRSV)
15
Siegert, Argumentation, 122; Moo, 561–62; Sass, Verheißungen 427.
*
5
Romans 9:5 (NRSV)
16
Siegert, Argumentation, 122.
17
Bullinger, Figures, 224.
*
36
Romans 11:36 (NRSV)
9:3–5 b. Paul’s preference for personal damnation in place of his Jewish compatriots
9:3 1) The expression of the impossible prayer
a) To be “accursed”
b) To be cut off from Christ
c) For the sake of Paul’s “brethren”
9:4–5 c. The ten glorious attributes of the Jewish people
9:4a 1) The generic description: “Israelites”
9:4b 2) The “sonship”
9:4c 3) The “glory”
9:4d 4) The “covenants”
9:4e 5) The “lawgiving”
9:4f 6) The “worship”
9:4g 7) The “promises”
9:5a 8) The “fathers”
9:5b 9) The “Christ”
9:5c 10) The doxology to Christ
Exegesis
 1* The third proof opens with a threefold attestation of Paul’s sorrow about the continued
unbelief of many of his fellow Jews. This calls into question the power of the gospel (1:16*)
concerning God’s impartial grace expressed in Christ, which should come to Jews first and
then to Greeks (1:16*; 2:9*, 10*). If believers are the true heirs of Abraham (4:11–17*) and
the adopted children of God (8:14–17*), what becomes of Israel’s status as a chosen people?18
*
1
Romans 9:1 (NRSV)
*
16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew
first and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16 (NRSV)
*
9
There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Romans 2:9 (NRSV)
*
10
but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Romans 2:10 (NRSV)
*
11
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still
uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and
who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,
12
and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of
the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13
For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the
law but through the righteousness of faith.
14
If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
15
For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.
16
For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his
descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the
father of all of us,
17
as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”)—in the presence of the God in whom he
believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
*
Does Paul’s theology require the abandonment of Israel? Paul takes up these difficult
questions by asserting the sincerity of his commitment to Israel: ἀλήθειαν λέγω (“I am telling
[the] truth”) is a formula frequently employed in classical oratory19 that Paul used also in 2
Cor 12:6*, “I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth (ἀλήθειαν γὰρ ἐρῶ).” That
the claim in Rom 9:1* is made ἐν Χριστῷ (“in Christ”) differentiates Paul’s stance from
classical rhetoric, and in this context it expresses both the fact that he is a member of the
mystical body of the church20 and that what he says is authorized and authenticated by Christ
himself.21 To question Paul’s truthfulness in this circumstance is to question the truth of
Christ, for as he says in 2 Cor 11:10*, “the truth of Christ is in me.”22 Skepticism about Paul’s
truthfulness would also contradict the belief that believers share this mystical union with
Christ, as stated in 2 Cor 1:21*, “it is God who establishes us with you in Christ.”
The second claim of truthfulness is formulated in the negative, “I am not lying,” which forms
a kind of “sandwich” with “in Christ” in the middle. This expression appears also in classical
texts such as Aeschines Tim. 99.8, “I am not lying (οὐ ψεύδομαι) … I shall call witnesses.”
The same denial is found in 2 Cor 11:31* and Gal 1:20*, where Paul is countering slanderous
accounts of his behavior. J. Lionel North suggests that the denial may “imply that some Jews
believed that in identifying Jesus as the Messiah and preaching this to Gentiles, Paul had
severed himself from his Jewish heritage and lost all affection for Jews and Judaism.”23 He
criticizes J. Paul Sampley’s contention that Paul is employing a Roman legal practice called
iusiurandum voluntarium, an oath that he is willing to go to court to prove his contention,
because it is unlikely that a Roman court would “take cognizance of what these particular
14
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.
15
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption.
When we cry, “Abba! Father!”
16
it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we
may also be glorified with him.
18
See Moo, 549; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 269–73.
19
The expression ἀληθῆ λέγω appears in Isocrates Euth. 14.1, and the plural form is used by Demosthenes Orat.
13.3.9, τἀληθῆ λέγω (“I am telling truths”); cf Orat. 14.6; 4 Philip. 6.4; 54.5. As Siegert, Argumentation, 120,
observes, such claims of truthfulness were widely accepted in the ancient world.
*
6
But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one
may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me,
2 Corinthians 12:6 (NRSV)
20
Neugebaur, In Christus, 126; Dacquino, “In Christo” 281; Murray, 2:1, “union with Christ”; Schlier, 284;
Kuss, 3:670; Fitzmyer, 543.
21
Sanday and Headlam, 227; Käsemann, 257; Dunn, 2:523.
*
10
As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia.
22
See Schlier, 284.
*
21
But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us,
Tim. In Timarchum
*
31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (blessed be he forever!) knows that I do not lie.
*
20
In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!
Galatians 1:20 (NRSV)
23
J. Lionel North, “Paul’s Protest That He Does Not Lie in the Light of His Cilician Origin,” JTS 47 (1996) 441.
litigants wanted to debate.”24 A metaphorical use of the denial of lying seems more probable,
and the slur that all Cilicians were liars provides the more appropriate background. North
surveys classical sources to confirm the tradition that Cilicians were dishonest and unreliable,
and Paul’s repeated reference that he does not lie “is explained, at least in part, by his
opponents’ sneering at his origins.”25 I believe that the context of Romans provides a more
solid basis to assess this statement. Although Rom 3:4* had maintained that all persons are
liars, thus requiring that all accept the gospel of salvation by grace alone, the immediately
preceding reference to speaking “in Christ” authenticates this “solemn protestation” in 9:1*.26
While it is natural to assume that this denial responds to charges that Paul was disloyal to
Israel,27 the effort to work this out by assuming that every detail in vv. 1–5* polemicizes
against correlative charges by his enemies has not been persuasive.28 The polemical and
defensive approaches overlook the rhetorical feature of evoking sympathy for Israel’s plight
through exsuscitatio29 and wrongly assume that Romans is a judicial letter in defense of
Paul’s gospel. The asseveration of his anguish at the continued unfaith of many of his fellow
Jews introduces a proof that concentrates on the faithfulness and power of God to overcome
resistance to the gospel and ultimately to have mercy on “all” (11:32*).
The clause in the genitive absolute, “my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,”
provides independent confirmation of the foregoing double claim of truthfulness.30 This
threefold sequence gains rhetorical force by conforming to the biblical rule that “two or three
witnesses” (Deut 17:6*; 19:17*) are required in disputed cases, a rule that Paul cites in 2 Cor
13:1*.31 The clause is connected syntactically with the preceding verbs32 rather than with the
subsequent reference to Paul’s pain and sorrow.33 The verb συμμαρτυρεῖν (“to bear witness
with”) was used in connection with “conscience” in 2:15* just as here, conveying the idea that
24
North, “Paul’s Protest,” 445, with regard to J. Paul Sampley, “‘Before God I Do Not Lie,’ ” NTS 23 (1977)
477–82.
25
North, “Paul’s Protest,” 462.
*
4
By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, “So that you may be justified
in your words, and prevail in your judging.”
Romans 3:4 (NRSV)
26
Hans Conzelmann, “ψεῦδος κτλ.,” TDNT 9 (1974) 601.
27
For example, see Lietzmann, 89; Kühl, 312; Barrett, 175–76; Dunn, 2:523; Byrne, 285; Moo, 554.
28
Minear, Obedience, 75.
29
See Elliott, Rhetoric of Romans, 261–63, as discussed above.
*
32
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Romans 11:32 (NRSV)
30
Eckstein, Syneidesis, 186; Philip Bosman, Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida
Word Group (WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 253–54.
*
6
On the evidence of two or three witnesses the death sentence shall be executed; a person must not be put to
death on the evidence of only one witness.
Deuteronomy 17:6 (NRSV)
*
17
then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office
in those days,
*
1
This is the third time I am coming to you. “Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three
witnesses.”
31
See Kühl, 312; Schmidt, 155.
32
Meyer, 112; Weiss, 392; Godet, 339.
33
As implied by Barrett, 174–76, but refuted by Cranfield, 2:452.
*
it functions as an autonomous witness to the consistency of behavior and internalized norm.34
Unlike most modern conceptions, conscience for Paul was neither the voice of God nor a
guiding moral agency but rather the irrepressible knowledge one has “with oneself” that an
action is consistent or inconsistent with one’s ethical norm.35 This explains why conscience
could be presented here as an independent witness, distinguished from the “I” of the
preceding verbs, “telling the truth” and “not lying,” and witnessing “to me” (συμμαρτυρούσης
μοι) that the truth is being told. “The autonomous nature of the conscience is nowhere more
apparent than in this verse … yet at the same time Paul does not hesitate to refer to the
conscience as his own” (“my conscience,” συνειδήσεώς μου).36 A unique feature of this
reference to conscience, when compared with other Pauline passages, is the link with the Holy
Spirit. The anarthrous expression ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (“in [the] Holy Spirit”)37 has been
interpreted as if the conscience were acting in behalf of God’s Spirit38 or that it is directly
controlled39 or guided by the Spirit,40 but these explanations are grammatically problematic41
and overlook the fact that for Paul conscience is a fallible human instance of judgment,
shaped by “custom” rather than by God (1 Cor 8:7*, 10*, 12*).42 In this instance, since
conscience can give false testimony, “the veracity of the witness of his conscience is certified
by the Holy Spirit.”43 This completes the most extensive affirmation of Paul’s truthfulness in
any of his letters, strongly suggesting his conviction that at least some members of the
audience are inclined to doubt the sincerity of his devotion to Israel.
 2* The dependent clause introduced by ὅτι (“that”) in this verse specifies the emotional
state that Paul affirms. The chiastic figure of λύπη + μεγάλη : ἀδιάλειπτος + ὀδύνη (“sorrow”
+ “great” : “unceasing” + “pain”)44 employs nouns that are closely associated in classical and
biblical texts. Demosthenes Epist. 2.16 refers “to rather being grieved most painfully about
everything” (εἰς δὲ τὸ μᾶλλον λυπεῖσθαι πάντων ὀδυνηρότατον), and other texts refer to the
15
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears
witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them
Romans 2:15 (NRSV)
34
See Jewett, Terms, 445.
35
See particularly Pierce, Conscience, 21–28.
36
Jewett, Terms, 445–46; Dunn, 2:523, qualifies this claim with “a semi-autonomous faculty (not wholly
autonomous).” See also Ziesler, 235.
37
The same anarthrous form occurs in Rom 14:17*; 1 Cor 12:3*; 2 Cor 6:6*; 1 Thess 1:5*, all of which appear
to reflect a Semitic idiom, “by Holy Spirit” (1QSb 2:24).
38
Zahn, 429.
39
Christian Maurer, “σύνοιδα, συνείδησις,” TDNT 7 (1971) 916; Schreiner, 479.
40
Käsemann, 257; Kuss, 3:670.
41
Weiss, 392, followed by Eckstein, Syneidesis, 188, and Bosman, Conscience, 255, observes that “in Holy
Spirit” cannot be linked adjectively with “conscience” without a repetition of the article after the noun.
*
7
It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until
now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
*
10
For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their
conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols?
*
12
But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin
against Christ.
42
Jewett, Terms, 421–30, 459–60; Schreiner, 479.
43
Murray, 2:2; see also Schlier, 284; Jewett, Terms, 446; Eckstein, Syneidesis, 189; Bosman, Conscience, 256.
44
See the reference above to Weiss, “Beiträge,” 238; Louw, 2:97; Siegert, Argumentation, 122.
Epist. Epistulae
heavy weight of sorrow.45 Prov 31:6* advises, “Give strong drink to those in grief and wine to
those in pain” (δίδοτε μέθην τοῖς ἐν λύπαις καὶ οἶνον πίνειν τοῖς ἐν ὀδύναις). Isa 35:10* and
51:11* promise that when the exiles return to Israel “pain and grief and groaning” (ὀδύνη καὶ
λύπη καὶ στεναγμός) will cease.46 The term λύπη has a wide semantic range, including “pain
of mind or spirit, grief, sorrow, affliction,”47 and the connotation that is most likely here is
sorrow.48 Paul does not “grieve,” as if his fellow Israelites were dead, but he suffers from
disappointment and regret. In Paul’s case, the sorrow is described as “great” (μεγάλη) in the
sense of being “deep”49 and profoundly felt.50
There is also a relatively wide semantic range for the word ὀδύνη, including physical pain,
suffering, woe, distress, and sorrow.51 In this context, pain and/or distress is primarily in
view,52 as the parallels in medical literature indicate.53 The “pain of mind”54 that Paul feels is
ἀδιάλειπτος (“unceasing”), implying that “his emotional response is neither superficial nor
transitory but remains with him as a chronic condition.”55 Paul had employed the adverbial
form of this word (ἀδιαλείπτως) in 1:9* in reference to his ceaseless prayers for the Roman
congregations. The location of this pain is “in my heart,” referring in traditional Judaic
fashion to the center of one’s “will, emotion, thoughts and affections.”56 This reference has
led Godet to posit a threefold gradation of intensity between “great,” “continually,” and
“heart,”57 but this seems implausible in view of the chiastic structure of this verse. Although
heartsick and profoundly sorrowful, Paul does not yet specify why, which renders the
45
Isocrates Panath. 20.1; 216.2; 232.2; Phil. 22.5; Antid. 153.2.
*
6
Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Proverbs 31:6 (NRSV)
*
10
And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their
heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Isaiah 35:10 (NRSV)
*
11
So the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their
heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Isaiah 51:11 (NRSV)
46
Cited by Dunn, 2:523.
47
BAGD (2000) 604.
48
Horst Balz, “λύπη,” EDNT 2 (1991) 363, “great sorrow and unending pain”; see also Rudolf Bultmann, “ λύπη
κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 320; Godet, 339; Sanday and Headlam, 227; Schlier, 285; Murray, 2:2; Fitzmyer, 544.
BAGD (2000) 605, offers “I am greatly pained,” but provides parallels that mostly refer to grief and sorrow;
Cranfield, 2:453, denies that “any clear distinction” can be made between λύπη and ὀδύνη.
49
Michel, 292; Otto Betz, “μέγας,” EDNT 2 (1991) 400.
50
Johnson, 144.
51
BAGD (2000) 692; Friedrich Hauck, “ὀδύνη, ὀδυνάομαι,”TDNT 5 (1967) 115.
52
Sanday and Headlam, 227; Hauck, “ὀδύνη, ὀδυνάομαι,” 115; Schlier, 285; Fitzmyer, 544.
53
For example, Galen Constit. 1.249.16, “whether there might be pain in the head (ὀδύνη κεφαλῆς) or any other
part,” and Galen Plac. 1.8.7, “to have pain in the heart (καρδίαν ὀδυνᾶσθαι).” See also Galen San. 6.296.4. That
both “sorrow” and “pain” are mentioned in LXX Isa 35:10* and 51:11* (see Dunn, 2:523) is less relevant for
this context, because the “sorrow and pain and groaning (ὀδύνη καὶ λύπηκαι στενογμός)” that “will pass away”
were related to the anticipated end of Israel’s exile rather than to anguish over her continuing alienation. See
Moo, 557: “It is unlikely … that Paul’s use of the two terms owes anything to these two texts in Isaiah.”
54
LSJM 1199.2.
55
Johnson, 144.
*
9
For God, whom I serve with my spirit by announcing the gospel of his Son, is my witness that without ceasing
I remember you always in my prayers,
Romans 1:9 (NRSV)
56
Jewett, Terms, 448; Alexander Sand, “καρδία,” EDNT 2 (1991) 250.
57
Godet, 339, accepted by Kühl, 312.
emotional shift from the glorious, joyous certainty of 8:37–39* all the more stark. Although
many commentators hasten to suggest reasons for Paul’s agonized feelings,58 the fact remains
that he gives no hint in the first two verses of this pericope that his anguish relates to Israel,
and even in the next verse, the precise reason remains rather unclear. His strategy to evoke
exsuscitatio begins with arousing sympathy on the part of the audience, which must be
wondering while listening to vv. 1–2* why Paul is so distressed. Since the expression of
excruciating sorrow invites sympathy on the part of hearers, Paul evidently expects that he
can later extend such personal sympathy to the larger dilemma of Israel’s continued rejection
of the gospel and its bearing on the missional project that this letter seeks to advance.
 3* Paul provides the reason for his anguish by a complex construction introduced by the
imperfect verb ηὐχόμην (“I was praying, wishing”),59 which has “the force of throwing this
wish into the past, and into a past that remains always unfinished, so that this expression takes
away from the wish all possibility of realization.”60 Paul avoids the subjunctive formulation
with ἄν (“if”) because this would render the wish itself unreal and thus awaken the suspicion
that Paul in fact had never wished such a thing.61 To translate this as “I would pray that I
myself be accursed …” implies that the prayer was “unattainable or impermissable”62 and
therefore unlikely to have actually been made by Paul, in which case the preceding threefold
assertion of his truthfulness is reduced to claiming good intentions.63 The subjunctive
translation would also render the emphatic αὐτὸς ἐγώ (“I myself”) insincere and
unconvincing, because Paul would have actually failed to place his future in jeopardy. It is
better in this context to translate, “I used to pray that I myself be banned …”64 implying actual
prayer requests made sometime before the moment of writing,65 requests that God had thus far
*
37
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
38
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers,
39
nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in
Christ Jesus our Lord.
58
For example, Zahn, 429; Murray, 2:3; Morris, 346; Zeller, 172; Cranfield, 2:453–54; Moo, 557.
*
1
2
59
BAGD (2000) 417 observes that εὔχομαι can be rendered either “pray” or “wish.” Johannes Hermann and
Heinrich Greeven, “εὔχομαι κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 775–808, concentrate exclusively on passages in which this
verb refers to prayer. Although Horst Balz, “εὔχομαι, ευχή,” EDNT 1 (1990) 89, prefers the translation “wish,”
he observes that “this can only be accepted with certainty where God is not named as the addressee.” But who,
apart from God, would be in the position of granting this wish? In the only other uses of this term in the Pauline
letters (2 Cor 13:7*, 9), εὔχομαι clearly refers to prayer, and in view of the religious context of this discussion,
the translation “I prayed” is likely here. See Cranfield, 2:454–55; Dunn, 2:524; Haacker, 181. Wilckens, 2:186,
observes that unfulfilled wishes are expressed by Paul with ὄφελον (1 Cor 4:8; 2 Cor 11:1*; Gal 5:12*), ἤθελον
(Gal 4:20*), or ἐβουλόμην (Phlm 13*), rather than by εὔχομαι.
60
Godet, 339; see also Kühl, 312; BDF §359.2.
61
Weiss, 393.
62
Cranfield, 2:455.
63
The same considerations render unlikely Zahn’s suggestion (431) that Paul may have offered a temporary,
earthly separation from Christ in behalf of his people, a theory rejected by Godet, 339; Kühl, 313; Michel, 292;
Käsemann, 258.
64
See Colenso, 213: “I was wishing to be myself accursed from Christ.” See also Hays, Echoes, 62, 206.
65
Smyth, Grammar, §1891, observes, “The imperfect of verbs of sending, going, saying, exhorting, etc., which
may imply continuous action, is often used where we might expect the aorist of concluded action” (italics in
original), which might be translated in this instance as “I prayed.”
chosen not to fulfill.66 This brings Paul’s prayer in line with the extraordinary dialogue
between Yahweh and Moses in Exod 32:31–33*:67 “Alas, this people have sinned a great sin;
they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sins—and if
not, blot me, I pray you, out of your book which you have written.” But the Lord said to
Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” To pray to be
ἀνάθεμα is an apt expression of being blotted out of the book of life, that is, “something
delivered up to divine wrath, dedicated to destruction and brought under a curse.”68 The
function of this curse is to ban someone from a religious congregation,69 which is its primary
meaning here, because separation from Christ means “reversing the integration into Christ
accomplished in baptism.”70 This formulation may reflect Paul’s internalization of the
anathemas expressed against himself in synagogal disputes71 in which he claims to have
received the penalty of thirty-nine lashes on five separate occasions (2 Cor 11:24*). The
banning ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“from the Christ”) includes the article that makes clear that
separation from the Messiah and his community are at stake.72 Christ is also referred to later
in v. 5* with the article, referring to the messiah of Israel.73 The rhetorical force of this
reference to Paul’s willingness to be banned from Christ is enhanced by its juxtaposition with
the triumphant conclusion of the second proof, that nothing in the entire creation can
“separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39*).
As in the case of Moses’ offer cited above, the risk of being separated from Christ was
undertaken ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου (“for the sake of my brothers”), a formulation that has led
commentators to search for parallels in the atonement and expiation theologies of the ancient
world.74 There are reasonable objections to Paul’s thinking of himself as playing the role of
Moses, the Suffering Servant of Isa 53, one of the Maccabean martyrs, or Christ himself,75 so
the only certain inferences that can be drawn from this compressed formulation are that in
some sense Paul offered his own damnation in behalf of his fellow Jews and that his prayer
was rejected. It is noteworthy, moreover, that he refers to non-Christian Jews as “my
66
Sanday and Headlam, 228: “St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish without regard to the conditions which
made it impossible.” See also Gaugler, 2:8.
*
31
So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for
themselves gods of gold.
32
But now, if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written.”
33
But the Lord said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.
Exodus 32:31–33 (NRSV)
67
See Michel, 293; Cranfield, 2:454.
68
Johannes Behm, “ἀνάθεμα κτλ.,” TDNT 1 (1964) 354; see also Douglas Stuart, “Curse,” ABD 1 (1992) 1218–
19.
69
Wilhelm Rees, “Anathema,” RGG4 1 (1998) 458.
70
Käsemann, 158; see also Ziesler, 236; Schmidt, 156. This is rejected by Cranfield, 2:458, on the unconvincing
grounds that separation from the church would be less serious than separation from Christ and salvation. For
Paul, to be separated from the church is to be separated from Christ and salvation.
71
Argued by Lyder Brun, Segen und Fluch in Urchristentum (Oslo: I Kommisjon hos Jacob Dybwad, 1932)
127–28, on the basis of 1 Thess 2:15* and 1 Cor 4:12*.
*
24
Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
72
See Käsemann, 258; cf. Latto, Star Is Rising, 317–54.
73
See Dunn, 2:525.
*
39
Romans 8:39 (NRSV)
74
See Michel, 294; Dunn, 2:525; Siegert, Argumentation, 121.
75
Käsemann, 258.
brothers,” thus avoiding any sense that his feeling of solidarity with them is in any way
diminished. The further elaboration of “my compatriots by flesh” was required because the
formulation “brothers” was so frequently employed to refer to fellow believers, whether Jews
or Gentiles.76 The word συγγενής appears here with the meaning “compatriots,” fellow
Jews.77 The formulation expresses a close identification of Paul with his fellow Israelites,78
which is a further expression of solidarity79 that serves the purpose of exsuscitatio, inviting his
audience, part of which is inclined to prejudicial feelings against nonbelieving Jews with
whom conflicts had erupted in previous years, to share his sympathy.80
 4* The sequence of ten attributes of Paul’s compatriots begins with οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται
(“inasmuch as they are Israelites”).81 This is the name given to Jacob by Yahweh according to
Gen 32:29* and used to describe the tribal confederacy82 in one of the earliest examples of
Hebrew poetry, the Song of Deborah: Yahweh is the “God of Israel” (Judg 5:2*) and Deborah
is the “mother of Israel” (Judg 5:7*). The psalms echo this usage: “O that deliverance for
Israel would come from Zion! When God restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob will
rejoice and Israel will be glad” (Ps 53:6*; see also 25:22*; 130:7–8*). The designation
“Israel” is particularly employed in the period before the exile, while the word “Jews”
becomes more prominent thereafter. Horst Kuhli observes that Josephus uses the term
“Israelite” 188 times in the early portion of the Antiquities down to the period of the
Maccabees, and thereafter he uses “Jews” in reference to more contemporary history.83 Thus,
when Paul employs the present tense verb, “who are Israelites,” he “evokes the blessings (v.
4b*) that were given to the people in the past and reinforces the abiding validity of their place
76
Schmidt, 156.
77
Wilhelm Michaelis, “συγγενής, συγγένεια,” TDNT 7 (1971) 741; BAGD (2000) 950.
78
See Michael Cranford, “Election and Ethnicity: Paul’s View of Israel in Romans 9.1–13, ” JSNT 50 (1993) 30.
79
See Moo, 559.
80
Elliott, Rhetoric of Romans, 263.
81
Dunn, 2:526; BDF §293; οἵτινες is used “where the relative clause expresses a general quality.” See also
Moule, Idiom Book, 123–24; Käsemann, 258: “οἵτινες is explanatory.”
*
29
Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there
he blessed him.
Genesis 32:29 (NRSV)
82
Gerhard von Rad, Karl Georg Kuhn, and Walter Gutbrod, “Ἰσραήλ κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 356–57.
*
2
“When locks are long in Israel, when the people offer themselves willingly— bless the Lord!
Judges 5:2 (NRSV)
*
7
The peasantry prospered in Israel, they grew fat on plunder, because you arose, Deborah, arose as a mother in
Israel.
Judges 5:7 (NRSV)
*
6
O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion! When God restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob will
rejoice; Israel will be glad.
Psalm 53:6 (NRSV)
*
22
Redeem Israel, O God, out of all its troubles.
Psalm 25:22 (NRSV)
*
7
O Israel, hope in the Lord! For with the Lord there is steadfast love, and with him is great power to redeem.
8
It is he who will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Psalm 130:7–8 (NRSV)
83
Horst Kuhli, “Ἰσραηλίτης,” EDNT 2 (1991) 205; see also Fitzmyer, 545.
*
4
For you have maintained my just cause; you have sat on the throne giving righteous judgment.
Psalm 9:4 (NRSV)
as the people of God.”84 There is an honorific aspect to the title “Israelite,”85 as one can see in
1 Maccabees where Israel is “the name the people uses for itself,” whereas non-Jews
consistently refer to them as “Jews.”86 Official correspondence, even when written by Jews
and directed to foreign rulers, always employs the title “Jews” rather than Israelites.87 Greco-
Roman writers also employ the terms “Jew” or “Jews” rather than “Israelite.”88 Dunn
therefore infers that this reference to “Israelites” employs “his people’s own view of
themselves, as himself an insider rather than as one looking in from outside.”89 The blessings
cited by Haacker from the Memar Marqah 2.12 convey this honorific dimension, which the
Samaritans desired to share:
Blessed are you, Israel, for Yahweh is your God!
Blessed are you, Israel, for the right ancestors are your fathers!
Blessed are you, Israel, for Mount Gerizim is your sanctuary!
Blessed are you, Israel, for Moses ben Amram is your prophet!
Blessed are you, Israel, for the holy law is your scripture!
Blessed are you, Israel!
Who is like you, the redeemed people!
Dunn is correct in concluding that the terms “Israel” and “Israelite,” which occur twelve times
in chaps. 9–11 in contrast to “Jews” in the earlier chapters, are “therefore deliberately chosen
by Paul to evoke his people’s sense of being God’s elect, the covenant people of the one
God.”90 As Gutbrod observes, “Israel is not just the totality of its individual members; it is the
bearer of the promise and the recipient of its fulfillment.”91 This sets the stage for the
argument of the third proof, that God’s promise has not failed (9:6*), that God has not
abandoned Israel (11:1*), and that in the end “all Israel will be saved” (11:26*). While there
is no hint in this reference of implicit criticism of Israel—that its current behavior contradicts
its status as God’s chosen people92—the juxtaposition with the previous description of Paul’s
anguish conveys the “tension that Paul seeks to resolve” in this third proof.93 The chauvinistic
impulse of many Gentile converts was to resolve this tension by abandoning the Jews to their
fate. But Paul’s purpose in this exsuscitatio is to arouse a sympathetic understanding of
Israel’s crucial role in the future salvation of the world through the gospel.
84
Kuhli, “Ἰσραηλίτης,” 205.
85
Michel, 295; Kuss, 3:672.
86
Von Rad, Kuhn, and Gutbrod, “Ἰσραήλ κτλ.,” 360.
87
Ibid., 366–61.
88
Ibid., 371–72.
89
Dunn, 2:526.
90
Ibid.
91
Von Rad, Kuhn, and Gutbrod, “Ἰσραήλ κτλ.,” 387.
*
6
It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel,
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
*
1
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a
member of the tribe of Benjamin.
Romans 11:1 (NRSV)
*
26
And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish
ungodliness from Jacob.”
Romans 11:26 (NRSV)
92
Jülicher, 291; Kühl, 314; Schmidt, 156.
93
Moo, 561.
The possessive pronoun ὧν makes clear that the following six attributes belong to Israel. The
resultant exegetical task, which has not hitherto been clearly addressed in the commentaries,
is to discern the argumentative bearing of this possession in the exsuscitatio designed for this
particular rhetorical situation and audience. The first attribute, ἡ υἱοθεσία (“the sonship,
adoption”), has evoked puzzlement, because nowhere in the LXX and only once in other
ancient Jewish literature94 is this concept mentioned, and because Paul developed an explicitly
Christian use of this term in Rom 8:15*, 23*. Although the term “sonship/adoption” is largely
absent from Jewish writings, the concept is certainly present in the biblical accounts of
Israel’s election. In Exod 4:22*, Pharaoh is told by Yahweh that “Israel is my firstborn son,”
and Isa 1:2* has Yahweh say, “Sons have I reared and brought up, but they rebelled against
me.” Jer 31:9* repeats this idea in Yahweh’s words, “for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim
is my firstborn.” As a consequence, Israelites are “sons of the living God” (Hos 1:10*).95 We
noted in connection with the use of υἱοθεσία in 8:15* that Paul appeared to build on this
tradition of Israel’s having been chosen by God as his children.96 This is definitely confirmed
by 9:4*, which makes it clear that sonship, which had earlier been promised to believers,
belongs first and foremost to Israel. Access to this status through faith and the gift of the
Spirit, as in 8:15*, 23*, is therefore valid only if Israel’s sonship remains intact.97 This
explains why the article is attached to υἱοθεσία in this context: “the sonship” discussed in
8:15*, 23* belongs first to Israel. Believers who do not have Jewish blood become sons and
daughters of God (8:15*, 23*; 2 Cor 6:18*) and thus enter into the family of Israel. Eldon J.
Epp properly infers from 9:4* “the continuity of the one people of God,”98 which would be
94
Eduard Schweizer, “υἱοθεσία,” TDNT 8 (1972) 399, notes that the only exceptions are Philo’s references to the
wise as the adopted sons of God, but a TLG search turns up no instances of υἱοθεσία in Philo.
*
15
Romans 8:15 (NRSV)
*
23
and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we
wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 8:23 (NRSV)
*
22
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son.
Exodus 4:22 (NRSV)
*
2
Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the Lord has spoken: I reared children and brought them up, but they
have rebelled against me.
Isaiah 1:2 (NRSV)
*
9
With weeping they shall come, and with consolations I will lead them back, I will let them walk by brooks of
water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; for I have become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my
firstborn.
Jeremiah 31:9 (NRSV)
*
10
Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor
numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them,
“Children of the living God.”
Hosea 1:10 (NRSV)
95
See also Hos 11:1*; Deut 1:31*; 8:5*; 14:1*; Isa 43:6*; Wis 9:7*; Jub. 1.24–25.
96
Byrne, Sons, 84; Byrne, Romans, 250–53.
97
See Atkins, Egalitarian Community, 173; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 304.
*
18
and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
98
Eldon J. Epp, “Jewish-Gentile Continuity in Paul: Torah and/or Faith? (Romans 9:1–5*),” HTR 79 (1986) 82.
weakened if υἱοθεσία were reduced to “adoption.”99 This theme is developed in the next
pericope, where Paul maintains that the “children of the promise” are the true “children of
God” (9:8*), whether Jews or Gentiles (11:30–32*). But this entire argument would collapse
if Israel’s sonship were invalidated.
In a way similar to the term “sonship,” Israel’s δόξα (“glory”) is the manifestation of divine
radiance and honor that believers in Christ come to bear, according to the argument of the
preceding second proof (5:2*; 8:17*, 18*, 21*, 30*).100 The use of the article with glory (ἡ
δόξα), when not part of a genitive construction such as “the glory of the Lord,” “his glory,” or
“the glory of the temple,” is unprecedented in Jewish sources,101 and in this case it refers back
to the topic introduced in the preceding discussion,102 namely, “the glory to be revealed in us”
(8:18*) as the “sons of God” are “revealed” (8:19*).103 Commentators overlook this function
of the article, disregarding the connection with the immediately preceding chapter and
99
Scott, Adoption, 61–117, maintains the problematic view that all references to υἱοθεσία, including Rom 9:4*
(pp. 148–49), imply adoption rather than sonship, which tends to undercut the continuing legitimacy of Israel’s
status as sons of God. In fact, the technical phrase for adoption is not employed by Paul; see the listing of nine
examples of καθʼ υἱοθεσίαν in G. H. R. Horsley, “καθʼ υἱοθεσίαν,” NDIEC 4 (1987) 173, and the discussion of
this issue in Horsley, “Petition to a Prefect,” NDIEC 3 (1983) 16–17.
*
8
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise
are counted as descendants.
Romans 9:8 (NRSV)
*
30
Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience,
31
so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.
32
*
2
through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing
the glory of God.
Romans 5:2 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 8:17 (NRSV)
*
18
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed
to us.
Romans 8:18 (NRSV)
*
21
that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the
children of God.
Romans 8:21 (NRSV)
*
30
And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he
justified he also glorified.
Romans 8:30 (NRSV)
100
See Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 304.
101
Cranfield, 2:462, citing Str-B, 3:262, and followed by Michel, 295; Dunn, 2:526; and Fitzmyer, 546. See also
Gerhard Kittel, “δοξάζω, συνδοξάζω,” TDNT 2 (1964) 237–47.
102
BDF §252, where the article designates “the known, particular, previously mentioned” reference.
*
19
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;
Romans 8:19 (NRSV)
103
See Harald Hegermann, “δόξα, δοξάζω,” EDNT 1 (1990) 346–47. Dunn, 2:526, followed by Moo, 563,
overlooks this contextual implication in suggesting that the article with glory is “motivated by stylistic concerns”
to bring the expression into correspondence with “the sonship.”
referring instead to ancient Israel’s concept of glory.104 This misses the point that Paul wanted
to make, namely, that the glory revealed in believers is part of Israel’s glory. The possessive
pronoun ὧν (“whose”) pertains to glory as well as to sonship. Thus, to hold Israel in contempt
and fail to recognize that such glory belongs to her are to undermine “the glory to be
revealed” in believers. As in the references to “Israelites” and “the sonship,” this reference to
“the glory” is a crucial step in Paul’s exsuscitatio, showing that sympathy for Israel is
demanded by the nature of eschatological salvation as experienced by the audience.
The plural reference to “the covenants” has elicited considerable discussion, although it is not
at all unusal in Jewish texts.105 It seems clear that this reference alludes to the theme of the
“covenants of the fathers” from Judaism,106 to which Paul referred in 4:18* with regard to the
covenant with Abraham that he should “become the father of many nations.” Other covenants
possibly covered in this formulation are with Noah (Gen 9:8–17*), with Josiah (2 Kgs 23:3*)
and with Nehemiah (Neh 9–10), the covenants enacted at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:5*), at Moab
(Deut 29:1*), at Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (Josh 8:30–35*), and the covenant with
104
See Cranfield, 2:462; Michel, 295; Morris, 384; Murray, 2:5; Schlier, 287; Kuss, 3:673–74; Wilckens, 2:188;
Dunn, 2:526; Fitzmyer, 546; Haacker, 184; Moo, 536; Byrne, 287; Schreiner, 484.
105
Cranfield, 2:462, and Dunn, 2:527, refer to Wis 18:22*; Sir 44:11*, 18*; 2 Macc 8:15*; 4 Ezra 3.22*; 5.29*.
106
See Johannes Behm, “διαθήκη,” TDNT 2 (1964) 130; that the covenants made with the fathers have continued
validity for Paul is argued by Harald Hegermann, “διαθήκη,” EDNT 1 (1990) 300, citing Rom 11:29*.
*
18
Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was
said, “So numerous shall your descendants be.”
Romans 4:18 (NRSV)
*
8
Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,
9
“As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you,
10
and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth
with you, as many as came out of the ark.
11
I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never
again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12
God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is
with you, for all future generations:
13
I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
14
When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,
15
I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters
shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16
When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every
living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
17
God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on
the earth.”
Genesis 9:8–17 (NRSV)
*
3
The king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to follow the Lord, keeping his
commandments, his decrees, and his statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this
covenant that were written in this book. All the people joined in the covenant.
2 Kings 23:3 (NRSV)
*
5
Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the
peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine,
Exodus 19:5 (NRSV)
*
1
These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in the land of
Moab, in addition to the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb.
*
30
Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel,
David (2 Sam 23:5*).107 I see no good reason to exclude any of these covenants from the
plural reference in 9:4*. As far as Paul’s audience is concerned, however, this plural reference
would also include the new covenant, which stands in contrast to the old, as in 2 Cor 3:6*,
14*; Gal 4:24*, 108 because it is clear from the words of institution cited in 1 Cor 11:25* that
the “new covenant” was a widely shared aspect of early Christianity.109 In view of the fact
that this “new covenant” was announced in Jer 31:31–34*, there is a basis for Paul’s claim
that even this belongs to Israel. Therefore, to lack respect and sympathy for Israel is to call
31
just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the Israelites, as it is written in the book of the law of
Moses, “an altar of unhewn stones, on which no iron tool has been used”; and they offered on it burnt offerings
to the Lord, and sacrificed offerings of well-being.
32
And there, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he
had written.
33
All Israel, alien as well as citizen, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the
ark in front of the levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, half of them in front of Mount
Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded at the first,
that they should bless the people of Israel.
34
And afterward he read all the words of the law, blessings and curses, according to all that is written in the book
of the law.
35
There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel,
and the women, and the little ones, and the aliens who resided among them.
Joshua 8:30–35 (NRSV)
*
5
Is not my house like this with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and
secure. Will he not cause to prosper all my help and my desire?
2 Samuel 23:5 (NRSV)
107
See George E. Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1 (1992) 1179–1202. As Calvin J. Roetzel
points out in “Διαθῆκαι in Romans 9:4*, ” Bib 51 (1970) 379–84, and Judgement, 100–101, such covenant
ceremonies involved decrees, statutes, and ordinances, but that is no reason to translate διαθῆκαι as
“commandments,” “oaths,” or “decrees” in this verse (“Διαθῆκαι,” 389–90).
*
6
who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but
the Spirit gives life.
*
14
But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that
same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside.
*
24
Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai,
bearing children for slavery.
108
Epp, “Jewish-Gentile Continuity,” 83.
*
25
In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do
this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
109
Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1197–99.
*
31
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the
house of Judah.
32
It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord.
33
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my
law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34
No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no
more.
Jeremiah 31:31–34 (NRSV)
into question the legitimacy of believers’ participation in the Abrahamic covenant discussed
in Rom 4 as well as the “new covenant” celebrated in every sacramental meal shared by the
congregations in Rome. Although Paul later makes clear that “obtuseness” has come over
Israel (11:7–10*, 25*), which will ultimately be overcome (11:26–32*), the shoe is on the
other foot here. There is no hint in 9:4* that the continuity between Gentile believers and
Israel has been “broken,”110 because the covenants by which believers share a transformed life
still belong to Israel.111 The covenantal relationship is open to Gentile believers, to be sure,
but Paul never states that it belongs to them; instead, they have a share in what belongs to
Israel, a point developed in 11:18*.
The fourth attribute is ἡ νομοθεσία (“lawgiving, legislation”), which appears here for the only
time in the NT. It is found in 2 Macc 6:23* in reference to “the holy and God-given
legislation” honored by Eleazar, who in his martyrdom extols the νομοθεσίας ἐπιστήμη
(“science of lawgiving,” 4 Macc 5:35*). Such martyrs should be admired as “champions of
true lawgiving/ legislation (τοὺς τῆς ἀληθείας νομοθεσίας ἀθλητάς)” according to 4 Macc
17:16*. Νομοθεσία can mean either lawgiving or legislation, but in view of the fact that the
latter is referred to as νόμος, δικαίωμα, διαταγή, διάταγμα, ἐντολή, ἐπίταγμα or κέλευσμα, the
*
7
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8
as it is written, “God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to
this very day.”
9
And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent.”
*
25
So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this
mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Romans 11:25 (NRSV)
*
26
27
“And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”
28
As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the
sake of their ancestors;
29
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30
31
32
110
Epp, “Jewish-Gentile Continuity,” 83; Dunn, “Covenant Theology?” 15–16.
111
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 305.
*
18
do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root
that supports you.
Romans 11:18 (NRSV)
*
23
But making a high resolve, worthy of his years and the dignity of his old age and the gray hairs that he had
reached with distinction and his excellent life even from childhood, and moreover according to the holy God-
given law, he declared himself quickly, telling them to send him to Hades.
2 Maccabees 6:23 (NRSV)
*
35
I will not put you to shame, philosophical reason, nor will I reject you, honored priesthood and knowledge of
the law.
*
16
Who did not admire the athletes of the divine legislation? Who were not amazed?
former seems more appropriate.112 The translation “legislation” offers a conventional link
with Paul’s earlier references in Romans to the law,113 but overlooks the decisive argument in
4:13–14* that the law was given after Abraham’s act of faith in the divine promise; indeed, as
Paul calculated in Gal 3:17*, the law was given to Moses 430 years later. The law that Paul
believes he has “established” (3:31*), and that witnesses to righteousness through faith
(3:21*), is therefore not eternal,114 but was given to Israel as part of a long history of salvation
to which non-Jewish believers are now indebted. How can one be certain about this gospel,
therefore, if the lawgiving experience of Israel is held in contempt? Once again, sympathy
with Israel and its tragic plight is evoked by this formulation.
The fifth honorific attribute of the Israelites is ἡ λατρεία (“the worship, sacrificial service”).
That this refers specifically to the sacrificial system is widely maintained,115 with Exod
12:25–26* describing the sacrifice of passover as a λατρεία and Josh 22:27* employing this
term in reference to “our burnt-offerings and our meat-offerings and our peace-offerings.”
Since Judaism at this time restricted worship to the temple in Jerusalem, this is likely intended
here.116 However, the two earlier occurrences in Romans that are decisive for the
interpretation of 9:4* both refer to worship in a more general sense, which also reflects LXX
112
Meyer, 2:116; Godet, 341; Weiss, 395; Sanday and Headlam, 231; Jülicher, 291; Lietzmann, 88; Kühl, 314;
Schmidt, 157; Michel, 295; Käsemann, 259; Murray, 2:6; Morris, 349; Kuss, 3:677; Zeller, 173; Ziesler, 237;
Haacker, 184–85; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 272, and Epp, “Jewish-Gentile Continuity,” 85–89.
113
Advocated by Cranfield, 2:463; Wilckens, 2:188; Fitzmyer, 546; Moo, 563–64; Byrne, 287; see also Walter
Gutbrod, “νομοθεσία,” TDNT 4 (1967) 1089.
*
13
14
*
17
My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously
ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
*
31
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 3:31 (NRSV)
*
21
But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the
prophets,
Romans 3:21 (NRSV)
114
Epp, “Jewish-Gentile Continuity,” 89, is therefore correct in discerning in the choice of νομοθεσία a rejection
of the dogma of the eternal law, which allowed him to “diminish its otherwise logically preeminent place among
the factors of continuity for God’s people, though without diminishing the ‘good’ and ‘holy’ nature of Torah.”
115
Hermann Strathmann, “λατρεύω, λατρεία,” TDNT 4 (1967) 65, and Heinrich Balz, “λατρεύω, λατρεία,”
EDNT 2 (1991) 345, both point to “sacrificial service” as the dominant connotation in biblical sources. None of
the commentators advocating this interpretation (Godet, 341; Schmidt, 157; Käseman, 259; Dunn, 2:527–28;
Fitzmyer, 547; Moo, 564; Schreiner, 484) provides an explanation of why the Jewish maintenance of temple
worship would be relevant at this point in Paul’s argument.
*
25
When you come to the land that the Lord will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this observance.
26
And when your children ask you, ‘What do you mean by this observance?’
Exodus 12:25–26 (NRSV)
*
27
but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of
the Lord in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and offerings of well-being; so that your children
may never say to our children in time to come, “You have no portion in the Lord.” ’
Joshua 22:27 (NRSV)
116
See Wick, Gottesdienste, 67–81, 179.
usage.117 In 1:9*, Paul worships God “in my spirit in the gospel of his son,” and in 1:25*
sinners are depicted as “worshiping the creature rather than the creator.” The later references
to worship are in the same vein (12:1*; 15:16*), and it seems clear on other grounds that
λατρεία would be understood by the Roman audience as referring to worship in general,
including temple sacrifices, home services, the observation of the Sabbath, the recitation of
the Shema,118 and also the Lord’s Supper and other forms of early Christian worship. In Phil
3:3* Paul refers to various forms of early Christian services with the verb λατρεύω
(“worship”); “For we are the true circumcision, who worship God (θεοῦ λατρεύοντες) in spirit
and glory in Christ Jesus.…” There is no reason to believe that Christian forms of worship
were not also included in the reference to “the worship” in 9:4*. The implication is that even
the liturgies of early house and tenement churches, in their various forms, are part of Israel’s
worship. This was a well-grounded assertion, because all of the elements in early Christian
worship appear to have derived from Judaism, including the rituals of baptism and Lord’s
Supper,119 and the use of Aramaic formulas such as “Abba” and “Maranatha.”120 Therefore, to
deny the importance of Israel’s legacy is to delegitimize Christian worship. This points
forward to the hope that the global mission will result in Gentile and Jewish voices joining
together in worshiping God (15:9–12*).
The sixth honorific attribute of Israel is αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι (“the promises”), a word that appeared
in the singular four times in chap. 4 in reference to Abraham’s promise to inherit the world
(4:13*), which made him “the father of all who have faith” (4:11*). It appears that the plural
117
Balz, “λατρεύω, λατρεία,” 344, points to Deut 24:48 and 3 Macc 4:14* as referring in more general terms to
service to God.
*
25
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Romans 1:25 (NRSV)
*
1
I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living
sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Romans 12:1 (NRSV)
*
16
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering
of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15:16 (NRSV)
118
Cranfield, 2:463.
*
3
For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no
confidence in the flesh—
Philippians 3:3 (NRSV)
119
See Luke T. Johnson, “Gottesdienst: 4, Neues Testament,” RGG4 3 (2000) 1182.
120
See Wick, Gottesdienste, 244–366.
*
9
and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will confess you
among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name”;
10
and again he says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people”;
11
and again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him”;
12
and again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles
shall hope.”
*
13
Romans 4:13 (NRSV)
*
was intended to include promises made to the other fathers because Paul refers explicitly to
τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων (“the promises to the fathers”) in 15:8*. This would include
promises to Isaac (Gen 26:3–5*), Jacob (Gen 28:13–15*), and to other “outstanding men of
God in Scripture and right up to the present time,”121 in later Jewish sources.122 The plural
formulation of “the promises” could also include promises made to Sarah, David, and the
Jewish people, as well as specific promises such as salvation, eternal life, and the coming of
the Messiah.123 Paul’s own usage reflects this wider reference, as in 2 Cor 7:1*, where he
speaks of the “promises” by God to dwell with his people (2 Cor 6:18*) and treat them as his
“sons and daughters” (2 Cor 6:18*). The broad reference of αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι (“the promises”) in
9:4* does not “distract from the primary thrust of Paul’s argument,”124 because he has more
than “Messianic salvation”125 in view. When the possessive pronoun ὧν (“whose”) is taken
into account,126 the point is that all of the promises received by the congregations in Rome
belong first and foremost to Israel.127 Sympathy with Israel’s tragic plight is therefore
11
Romans 4:11 (NRSV)
*
8
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he
might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,
Romans 15:8 (NRSV)
*
3
Reside in this land as an alien, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I
will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to your father Abraham.
4
I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands;
and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring,
5
because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
*
13
And the Lord stood beside him and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of
Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
14
and your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east
and to the north and to the south; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring.
15
Know that I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will
not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”
121
Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, “πατήρ κτλ.,” TDNT 5 (1967) 976; Sass, Verheißungen 427.
122
For example, Sir 44:1–50:26* extends the list of fathers from Enoch to the high priest Simon; see also 4 Macc
13:17*.
123
Julius Schniewind and Gerhard Friedrich, “ἐπαγγέλλω κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 580; Cranfield, 2:464; Byrne,
287.
*
1
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit,
making holiness perfect in the fear of God.
124
Dunn, 2:528.
125
Schniewind and Friedrich, “ἐπαγγέλλω κτλ.,” 583.
126
Among commentaries I have surveyed, Kühl, 314; Barrett, 178; Murray, 2:6; Morris, 349; Stuhlmacher, 146;
Fitzmyer, 547; Moo, 564; Witherington, 251; and Schreiner, 485, allude to this matter of possession in
connection with “the promises.” Commentators who appear to forget this possession include Meyer, 2:116;
Weiss, 395; Godet, 341; Sanday and Headlam, 231; Schmidt, 157; Lietzmann, 89; Schlier, 287; Dodd, 152;
Michel, 295; Käsemann, 259; Kuss, 3:677; Ziesler, 238; Wilckens, 2:188; Zeller, 173; Haacker, 185; Dunn,
2:528; Johnson, 146; Byrne, 287.
127
required by the multitude of divine promises on which the life of these congregations
depends.128
 5* After the listing of six attributes qualified by ὧν (“whose”) in the early part of v. 4*, two
additional relative clauses are contained in v. 5*, each beginning again with ὧν. This gives
particular emphasis to the final items in the tenfold sequence.129 There is a close association
beween the previously mentioned “promises” and the “fathers” here in v. 5a*, because they
were the chief recipients of divine assurances.130 As we noted above, the list of the fathers is
headed by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but includes the entire sequence of Israel’s important
forebears. In the context of Romans, however, it is Abraham’s role that is given the largest
billing, in chap. 4. In the next pericope in the third proof, for which these references in 9:1–5*
provide an introduction, Abraham is mentioned along with Isaac and Jacob (9:6–13*). Since
both the OT and the NT refer to God as the God of the fathers, there is no possibility of
separating off the Christian God from its roots in Israel’s history.131 Paul refers repeatedly in
his letters to Abraham as the patriarch who set his faith in the divine promise and becomes the
prototype for Christian believers (Rom 4:11*; 2 Cor 11:22*; Gal 3:6–9*; 4:21–31*). He
128
Gignac, Romains 9–11, 178–79, argues in contrast that Paul’s purpose in this pericope is to render Israel’s
election problematic.
129
Moo, 564.
130
Kühl, 315.
*
6
7
and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be
named for you.”
8
9
For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.”
10
Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our
ancestor Isaac.
11
Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might
continue,
12
not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.”
13
As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.”
131
Haacker, 185, makes this point while listing as examples Gen 26:24*; 28:13*; 31:42*, 53*; 48:15*; Exod
3:6*, 15*, 16*; 4:5*; 1 Kgs 8:26*; 1 Chr 29:18*; 2 Chr 30:6*; Tob 7:15*; Mark 12:26* and parallels; Acts
3:13*; 7:32.
*
22
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
*
6
Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,”
7
so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.
8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to
Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.”
9
For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.
Galatians 3:6–9 (NRSV)
*
21
Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law?
22
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman.
23
One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born
through the promise.
24
25
Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her
children.
26
But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother.
returns to this theme in 15:8–9*, making clear that Gentiles as well as Jews share in the
promises made to “the fathers.”132 The continuity between Christian believers and the
ancestral faith of Israel has not been destroyed, even despite Israel’s current resistance, for
which Paul mourns.133 Therefore, to lack sympathy for Israel’s situation is to jeopardize this
redemptive legacy, which could potentially unite the human race (15:9–13*).
That Christ descended from Israel and was promised by its prophets was declared in the
confession that opens Romans (1:2–3*), but here the reference is arthrous: ὁ Χριστός (“the
Christ”), which accents his messianic status.134 That the Messiah came from “the Israelites,”
both in expectation and in fulfillment,135 is affirmed by the expression ἐξ ὧν (“from whom”),
which simply expresses derivation.136 No matter how hostile some of the house and tenement
churches in Rome were to Judaism and Jewish Christian believers, the fact of Jesus’ birth in a
Jewish family and the weight of his cultural background as an Israelite were undeniable. Yet
there is a curiously critical note in the very next phrase, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, which should be
27
For it is written, “Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who
endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one
who is married.”
28
Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac.
29
But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born
according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30
But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the
inheritance with the child of the free woman.”
31
So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman.
*
8
9
132
See particularly Epp, “Jewish-Christian Continuity,” 84.
133
Epp, “Jewish-Christian Continuity,” 84, unfortunately concludes that “this continuity of patriarchal faith and
of the acceptance of the Messiah who issued from them has been broken.”
*
9
10
11
12
shall hope.”
13
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the
power of the Holy Spirit.
*
2
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
3
the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
134
Käsemann, 259; Kuss, 3:677; Dunn, 2:528; Fitzmyer, 547; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 100. In contrast,
Walter Grundmann, “The Christ Statements of the New Testament,” TDNT 9 (1974) 540, maintains that the
article makes no difference in the meaning, and that 9:4* could refer either to Jesus or to the messianic title. As
BDF §§252–54 explains, the article can be interpreted either as individual or generic, so the context becomes
decisive in assessing the nuance of a particular formulation.
135
For an account of Jewish messianism, see Nils A. Dahl, “The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul,” in The Crucified
Messiah and Other Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974) 37–47; Martinus de Jonge, “Messiah,” ABD 4 (1992)
777–88.
136
Commentators favoring simple derivation include Godet, 341; Zahn, 452; Schmidt, 157; Murray, 2:6. In
contrast, Kuss, 3:677; Haacker, 180; Moo, 565, wrongly perceive a polemical note in this formulation—that
Israel has not accepted its messiah.
translated in a delimiting sense such as “insofar as the flesh is concerned.”137 In 1971 I
discussed this reference under the category of the polemical use of flesh, suggesting that it
sets the stage for 9:6–13*, where the descendents of Isaac are the recipients of the promise,
while the “children of flesh” descended from Esau who seek election through “works” are not
viewed as part of the authentic Israel.138 The word “flesh” in this context evokes the realm of
self-justification by works as opposed to a neutral reference to human limitations. At one
level, this critical note seems to undermine the honorific thrust of Paul’s exsuscitatio, but his
intent is to introduce the full, tragic depth of Israel’s dilemma. This reference, and the third
proof as a whole, offers a dialectic that verges on contradiction: Israel’s legacy is ineluctable
for Christian faith, yet the continued rejection of the Messiah by some Israelites reflects a
distortion that Paul explains as seeking to establish their righteousness and failing to submit to
the righteousness of God (10:3*).
The extensive discussion about the grammatical and theological implications of the final line
in this pericope is closely related to the dialectic implicit in “the Christ insofar as the flesh is
concerned.” Two different punctuations of v. 5b-c* have been debated for centuries, each
with an array of translation options.139 Since the Greek manuscripts rarely contain punctuation
marks,140 contextual and theological considerations have been followed to decide between
these options, which are simply stated as follows:
1. καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
(“and from whom is the Christ inasmuch as the flesh is concerned, the one who is God over
all, blessed forever”).
2. καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
(“and from whom is the Christ inasmuch as the flesh is concerned. God who is over all, be
blessed forever”).
The principal reasons that many scholars141 prefer option 2 are the following: (a) Paul
elsewhere allegedly does not refer to Jesus as God142—but Phil 2:6* is a prominent example
of his doing so and in many of the 180 instances where Paul refers to Jesus as “Lord,” divinity
137
Cranfield, 2:464, and Dunn, 2:528, both refer to BDF §266.2, “where the addition of the article strongly
emphasizes the limitation (‘insofar as the physical is concerned’).” The neuter article τό is employed here instead
of the masculine article ὁ, which would normally follow the masculine expression ὁ Χριστός if one wished to
say “the Christ who is by flesh.” In this instance, the phrase κατὰ σάρκα is being set up as a kind of technical
expression, which should be taken into account in the interpretation.
138
Jewett, Terms, 160–63.
*
3
For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not
submitted to God’s righteousness.
Romans 10:3 (NRSV)
139
See the articles listed under note h above; Moo, 565, counts no fewer than eight variations within two basic
punctuation options. Further options are discussed by Ezra Abbot, “On the Construction of Romans ix.5, ” JBL 1
(1881) 87–154, and idem, “Recent Discussions of Romans ix.5, ” JBL 2 (1883) 90–112. See also Murray J.
Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 150–
51.
140
Cuthbert Lattey discovered a small cross between σάρκα and ὁ ὤν in Codex Ephraemi, which matches the
comma in the Nestle-Aland text, and in my translation as noted above.
141
Meyer, 2:120, with earlier advocates listed on 117–18; Abbot, “Construction,” 87–90; Jülicher, 292;
Lietzmann, 90; Dodd, 152; Käsemann, 260; Kuss, 3:678; Wilckens, 2:189; Ziesler, 239; Zeller, 174; Dunn,
2:528–29; Stuhlmacher, 146; Johnson, 147; and Byrne, 288.
142
Meyer, 2:118–19; Jülicher, 292; Käsemann, 260; Kuss, 3:678; Dunn, 2:529.
*
6
who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
is implied.143 (b) The phrase “God over all things” is too extensive a claim to make for
Christ144—yet there are instances in which Paul makes such a claim for Christ by referring to
him as “Lord” over all (Rom 10:12*; 14:9*; 1 Cor 8:6*; Phil 2:10*). (c) Εὐλογητὸς
(“blessed”) is always directed toward God in the NT145—which is true, including Rom 1:25*
and 2 Cor 1:3*; 11:31*, and if this option is selected, this last detail must be explained.146
The principal weaknesses with option 2 are the following: (1) the awkward word order, in that
(a) εὐλογητός should appear before the word “God,” as in other blessing formulas (Luke
1:68*; 2 Cor 1:3*; Gen 9:26*; 14:20*; Exod 18:10*; Ps 17:47*, etc.);147 (b) the natural
antecedent of ὁ ὤν (“the one who is”) is the immediately preceding noun, that is, Christ, and a
change in reference would need to be indicated by δέ (“but”) or a different word order;148 (2)
the participle ὤν (“who is, who really is”) is inappropriate in reference to God, whose divinity
was not in dispute;149 (3) the proper Greek formulation of an independent clause, “God who is
over all things,” would be ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, without ὤν;150 and finally (4), that there would
be a contextual problem with concluding 9:1–5* with a doxology to God because it would
143
Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 108–18.
144
Meyer, 2:120.
*
12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call
on him.
Romans 10:12 (NRSV)
*
9
For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9 (NRSV)
*
6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
*
10
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
145
Schreiner, 487.
*
3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation,
146
It is possible that Hurtado’s analysis in Lord Jesus Christ, 135–51, of “binitarian worship” in Pauline
Christianity would provide an explanation for “blessing the Lord” being understood as “blessing Christ.”
*
68
“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them.
Luke 1:68 (NRSV)
*
26
He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.
Genesis 9:26 (NRSV)
*
20
and blessed be God Most High,who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one-
tenth of everything.
*
10
Jethro said, “Blessed be the Lord, who has delivered you from the Egyptians and from Pharaoh.
Exodus 18:10 (NRSV)
*
46
The Lord lives! Blessed be my rock, and exalted be the God of my salvation,
Psalm 18:46 (NRSV)
147
Ernst Bröse, “Wird Christus Röm. 9, 5 Θεός genannt?” NKZ 10 (1899) 649.
148
Godet, 342; Bröse, “Röm. 9, 5, ” 650–55.
149
Godet, 343.
150
Bröse, “Röm. 9, 5, ” 650; Cranfield, 2:468.
then appear that Jewish unbelief is pleasing to God, whereas a doxology to Christ places the
christological issue that provokes Jewish resistance on center stage.
In support of option 1, preferred by an even larger number of scholars,151 is the matter just
described: (a) The ascription of divinity to Christ was the principal barrier against Jewish
acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, so a doxology to him as God is relevant to Paul’s
argument. (b) The participle ὤν makes excellent sense in reference to Christ, with the
connotation “who is really God,” reflecting the controversial point.152 (c) The preceding
reference to Christ as stemming from Israel “insofar as the flesh is concerned” is a
delimitation that invites an antithesis, which the doxology to Christ provides, thus bringing
this passage into correlation with the opening confession: “from David’s seed according to the
flesh, appointed son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness” (1:3–4*).153 (d)
Finally, the syntactical difficulties in option 2 are all avoided by option 1, which flows in a
natural way.154
Therefore, although certainty is not possible in a complicated issue like this, the doxology is
more likely to have been directed at Christ than at God. This completes the dialectic that we
discerned in the reference to Christ “according to the flesh.” On the one hand, there is no
denying the roots of the messianic expectation and the cultural origins of Jesus; but, on the
other hand, resistance to recognizing Jesus as the Christ involved the question of his divinity,
which Paul boldly claims at the end of this introduction to the third proof. This sets the stage
for arguing in 10:9* that confessing Jesus as “Lord” leads to salvation, and in 10:11* that
Jesus is Lord of all. If salvation results from calling on the “name of the Lord” (10:13*), then
the salvation of “all Israel” in 11:26* would entail their recognition that Jesus is “really God
over all things” (9:5*).
If Christ is to be “blessed for the ages,” then the doxology typical for the OT and Hebrew
worship155 is extended to him as God. The εὐλογητός formula is a direct translation of the
Hebrew word for blessing, bĕrākâ,156 which glorifies God as the source of all benefits.157
Virtually the same formulation occurs as the ending of Ps 88:52*, εὐλογητὸς Κύριος εἰς τὸν
151
Godet, 341–44; Weiss, 396; Bröse, “Röm. 9, 5, ” 645–57; Zahn, 342–43; Sanday and Headlam, 233–38, with
an extensive list of earlier advocates; Kühl, 315; Schmidt, 158; Schlatter, 202; Murray, 2:6; Michel, 296–98;
Schlier, 287–88; Cranfield, 2:465–70; Morris, 349–50; Fitzmyer, 548–49; Haacker, 186–87; Moo, 565–67;
Schreiner, 486–89; Witherington, 251–52; Harris, Jesus as God, 154–65.
152
Godet, 343.
*
3
4
and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead,
Jesus Christ our Lord,
153
See particularly Moo, 567; Schreiner, 487–88.
154
Cranfield, 2:468.
*
9
because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the
dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:9 (NRSV)
*
11
The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”
Romans 10:11 (NRSV)
*
13
For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:13 (NRSV)
155
Hermann Patsch, “εὐλογέω κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991) 80.
156
Hermann W. Beyer, “εὐλογέω κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 764; Heckel, Segen, 48–51.
157
William J. Urbock, “Blessings and Curses,” ABD 1 (1992) 755.
*
51
with which your enemies taunt, O Lord, with which they taunted the footsteps of your anointed.
αἰῶνα. γένοιτο, γένοιτο (“blessed be the Lord for ever. Amen, amen.”). In the Shema 1.2, a
similar formula appears: “Blessed be Adonai, who is to be blessed for ever and ever.” The
blessing formulas were employed in the Jewish temple and synagogue worship,158 whereby
the reference to αἰών extends the blessing into the endless future.159 The expression is typical
for Hebrew worship, but there are also Greco-Roman parallels in the acclamations of Caesar
εἰς αἰῶνα.160 In the context of 9:5*, the blessing of Christ as Lord of all points forward to an
eschatological future161 in which the triumph of the gospel is anticipated, so that in the end all
Israelites will lend their voices to the chorus of praise (9:6*; 10:14–18*; 11:15–32*; 15:9–
13*). The “Amen” at the end of this provocative but hopeful blessing invites the congregation
to make it “operative” by its assent.162 The triumph of Christ over “all things” for which Paul
Psalm 89:51 (NRSV)

158
Ibid., 758–59.
159
Hermann Saase, “αἰών, αἰώνιος,” TDNT 1 (1964) 200; Traugott Holtz, “αἰών,” EDNT 1 (1990) 44; as Barr,
Tim., 70, points out, there is no distinction in meaning between the singular and the plural forms of αἰών.
160
See G. H. R. Horsley, “An Acclamation to ‘the Lord, forever,’ ” NDIEC 2 (1982) 35, for a discussion of SEG
27. Nr. 853, “For good fortune. (Extol) forever (εἰς αἰῶνα) the unconquered one.”
161
Saase, “αἰών, αἰώνιος,” 205–7; Holtz, “αἰών,” 45.
*
14
But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom
they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?
15
And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those
who bring good news!”
16
But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”
17
So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
18
But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their
words to the ends of the world.”
*
15
For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!
16
If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then
the branches also are holy.
17
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share
the rich root of the olive tree,
18
that supports you.
19
You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20
That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not
become proud, but stand in awe.
21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.
22
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness
toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23
And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft
them in again.
24
For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a
cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
25
26
27
28
29
30
(Only first 15 verses of range shown)
162
Heinrich Schlier, “ἀμήν,” TDNT 1 (19964) 336; Heckel, Segen, 308–12.
hopes, in contrast to Caesar’s triumph and also in contrast to the military triumph some
messianic Jews hoped to see, comes by persuasion and requires the free response of faith and
praise. By uttering their assent, the congregations in Rome take the first step to overcome
their cultural chauvinism and open themselves to the mission that Paul wishes to advance,
whose “mystery” he reveals at the end of this third proof (11:25*).
9 The Second Pericope

Thesis and the First Part of a Midrash on Israel and the Righteousness of Divine
Election
6/ But it is not such thata the word of God has fallen short. For not all who [are] from
Israel these [are] Israel;b 7/ nor [is it] thatc all [his] children are Abraham’s seed, but “in
Isaac shall your seed be called.” 8/ That is,d those who [are] the children of the flesh,
these [are] not the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as
seed. 9/ For the word of promise [is] this, “About this time I shall return and there shall
be for Sarah a son.” 10/ Not only so, but also Rebecca [received a promise], having
intercourse with one man, Isaac our father; 11/ for when they were not yet born and
had not done anything good or worthless,e in order that God’s selective purpose may
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
9
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
13
14
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
15
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have
compassion.”
16
So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.
17
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so
that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18
So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
P it syp; Ambst delete ὅτι (“that”) to make the awkward expression conform to the colloquial usage, according
a 46
to Cranfield, 2:472.
b
The plural form Ἰσραηλῖται (“Israelites”) found in D F G 88 (330) 614 629 1881 c pc vgww appears to be a
secondary, stylistic improvement.
c
In place of ὅτι (“because”) Origen provides ὅσοι (“as many as”), while a b vgcl provide qui (“who”), both of
which appear to be efforts at stylistic improvement.
d
The addition of ὅτι (“that”) by ‫א‬2 B1 Ψ 69 104 330 365 614 1319 1505 1506 1573 2495 pc appears to be a
stylistic improvement.
e
The substitution of the frequently used word κακόν (“bad”) in P46 D F G K L Ψ 88 104 323 326 330 424* 614
945(acc. to Swanson) 1175 1241 1735 1836 1874 2344 2464 Maj for the infrequently used synonym φαῦλον, which is
strongly attested by ‫ א‬A B 6 69 81 365 424c 630 945(acc. to N-A) 1243 1319 1506 1573 1739 1881 al Or appears to
be a secondary and easier reading. See Cranfield, 2:477. Wilckens, 2:194, observes that the variant κακόν brings
Paul’s usage into conformity with his usual antithesis between good and bad.
continue, 12/ not from works but from the one calling, it was said to herf that “The
elder will serve the younger.” 13/ Just asg it has been written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau
I hated.”
14/ What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? By no means!
15/ For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I am merciful, and I will
have compassion on whomever I am compassionate.” 16/ So then [it is a matter]
neither of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.h 17/ For
the Writing says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, so that I might
demonstrate my power in you, and so that my name might also be proclaimed in all
the earth.” 18/So then hei has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.
Analysis
The connection of this pericope with the preceding introduction appears nonexistent to some,1
while the link between the theme of election, stated explicitly in v. 11*, and the earlier
development of the theme in 8:28f*., is clearly visible.2 A particularly strong link is
established between the “Israelites” of v. 4* and “Israel” in v. 6*, as well as between “flesh”
in v. 3* and v. 8*. The connection seems logical when one recalls the reason for Paul’s grief.
The tragic disbelief of Israel in the messianic proclamation raises the central question of
chaps. 9–11, one that derives from the propositio in 1:16–17*, namely, whether the gospel is
f
The word αὐτῇ (“to her”) is deleted in P46 D* vgmss syp Or Ambst, which makes this the less difficult and thus
secondary reading.
g
Nestle-Aland27 follows the stronger evidence in support of καθώς (“as”) found in P46 ‫ א‬A D F G K L P Ψ 6 33
69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881
2464 2495 Maj, in contrast to Nestle-Aland25, which followed B Or in reading here καθάπερ (“just as”).
h
The minor variant in L, εὐδοκοῦντος (“well pleased”), may be an effort to avoid the unusual spelling of
ἐλεῶντος (“merciful”); Cranfield, 2:484, notes that “a number of MSS have the more regular ἐλεοῦντος”; in fact
the TR reads ἐλεοῦντος at this point, but this variant is not listed in Nestle-Aland27. The more difficult reading,
ἐλεῶντος (“merciful”) in P40vid, 46 ‫ א‬A B* D* F G P 326 1735, is undoubtedly original.
i
The addition of ὁ θεός (“God”) by D pc ar mon vgms Ambst appears to be explanatory; it is clearly secondary.
1
Michel, 298.
*
11
continue,
Romans 9:11 (NRSV)
*
28
We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his
purpose.
Romans 8:28 (NRSV)
2
Ibid.
*
4
Romans 9:4 (NRSV)
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
*
3
Romans 9:3 (NRSV)
*
8
Romans 9:8 (NRSV)
*
16
the “power of God for salvation.” The antithetical connection in 9:6*, οὐχ οἷον δέ (“but not as
if”), relates to a potentially false implication of Paul’s grief, namely, that he would not be
grieving if indeed God’s word had been successful. The thesis in v. 6a*3 that God’s word has
not failed is developed first by an extensive midrashic discourse,4 in which Gen 21:12*
provides the initial text and Gen 18:10*; Gen 25:23*; Mal 1:2–3*; Exod 33:19*; and Exod
9:16* provide the supplemental texts. This midrash creates a logical proof of the thesis in v.
6a* by developing a distinction in the paradoxical sententia of v. 6b*5 between the elected
true Israel and Israel as a whole.6 Divine selectivity is seen to be at work in the designations
of Isaac and Jacob as the recipients of mercy, and those who resist this long-standing purpose
of God place themselves in the position of Pharaoh.7 As Otfried Hofius has shown, two lines
of argument in the next three chapters develop the thesis of v. 6a*, namely, that 9:6–11:10*
17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous
will live by faith.”
3
Kim, Romans 9–11, 123–24, refers to this declaration as the “propositio” of chaps. 9–11.
4
Ellis, Prophecy, 218–20; R. Vincent, “Derash homilético en Romanos 9–11, ” Sal 42 (1980) 751–88; and
Stegner, “Midrash” 37–52, discuss Paul’s use of midrashic patterns of exegesis. Robin Scroggs, “Paul as
Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 1–11, ” in Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs, eds., Jews,
Greeks, and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of William David Davies (Leiden:
Brill, 1976) 278, argues against the application of the technical term “midrash”; see Sass, Verheißungen 435.
*
12
But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the boy and because of your slave woman;
whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you.
*
10
Then one said, “I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.” And Sarah
was listening at the tent entrance behind him.
*
23
And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the
one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.”
*
2
I have loved you, says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the
Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob
3
but I have hated Esau; I have made his hill country a desolation and his heritage a desert for jackals.
Malachi 1:2–3 (NRSV)
*
19
And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you the name, ‘The
Lord’; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
Exodus 33:19 (NRSV)
*
16
But this is why I have let you live: to show you my power, and to make my name resound through all the
earth.
Exodus 9:16 (NRSV)
5
Holloway, “Paul’s Pointed Prose,” 51.
6
See Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 284–308, for an analysis of the formal enthymeme.
7
Ibid., 387–88.
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
9
10
ancestor Isaac.
shows that God’s promise aimed at saving the remnant of Israel—the Jewish Christians—
while 11:11–32* deals with the non-Christian majority of Israel, for whom there still remains
the hope of salvation in the mysterious plan of God.8
An important disagreement among commentators is whether this pericope properly ends with
v. 13*, 9 or continues through the end of v. 18*, 10 or through v. 29*.11 The question in part
11
continue,
12
13
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
19
You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
20
But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it,
“Why have you made me like this?”
21
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for
ordinary use?
Romans 9:6–11:10 (NRSV)
*
11
So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the
Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
12
Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much
more will their full inclusion mean!
13
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry
14
in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them.
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
25
26
8
Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 300–310.
*
13
Romans 9:13 (NRSV)
depends on how one understands the use of the midrashic argument, which in fact is not
completed until the reiteration in v. 29* of the “seed” motif of v. 7*. But since Paul moves at
v. 19* from the initial midrashic development into first person singular diatribe,12 answering
objections to the conclusions he has drawn from his exegesis, it seems more appropriate to
hold the material in vv. 6–18* together. If a division between v. 18* and v. 19* is not
compelling, it would appear more appropriate to hold the entire section from v. 6* to v. 29*13
together than to divide it into two sections (vv. 6–13*; vv. 14–29*)14 or into three sections
(vv. 6–13*; vv. 14–23*; vv. 24–29*).15
9
See Michel, 298–304; Käsemann, 260–67; Cranfield, 2:471; Wilckens, 2:191–97; Schlier, 289–93; Fitzmyer,
558–63; see also Winkel, “Argumentationsanalyse,” 68; Aageson, “Scripture,” 268f.; and Siegert,
Argumentation, 123–27.
*
18
Romans 9:18 (NRSV)
10
See Louw, 2:99–100.
*
29
And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us, we would have fared like Sodom and
been made like Gomorrah.”
Romans 9:29 (NRSV)
11
See Aletti, “Argumentation,” 42–43; Dunn, 2:536–37, refers to vv. 6–29* as the “Call of God,” but then goes
on to treat the pericope 9:6–13* as if it were an independent unit within this topic.
*
7
named for you.”
Romans 9:7 (NRSV)
*
19
Romans 9:19 (NRSV)
12
See Stowers, Diatribe, 98.
13
Aletti, “Argumentation,” 43–45, discerns a chiastic development holding vv. 6–29* together, but the scheme
appears artificially thematic and awkwardly related to the midrashic structure of the argument.
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
9
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
13
*
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
19
20
21
ordinary use?
The pericope of 9:6–18* consists of three clusters of sentences,16 the first of which (vv. 6–8*)
deals with the question of the reliability of God’s word concerning the true children of
22
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the
objects of wrath that are made for destruction;
23
and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he
has prepared beforehand for glory—
24
including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
25
As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not
beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ”
26
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children
of the living God.”
27
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the
sea, only a remnant of them will be saved;
28
for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.”
29
14
Schlier, 289–305; Wilckens, 2:191–209; Michel, 298–319.
*
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
19
20
21
ordinary use?
22
23
*
24
25
26
27
28
29
15
Käsemann, 260.
16
Louw, 1:21, suggests four clusters, dividing what I perceive to be the middle cluster of 9:9–13 into two parts,
vv. 9–10* and vv. 11–13*. This division would cause the division of what appears to be a single, rambling
sentence from v. 9* to v. 13*; see Godet, 348, and Cranfield, 2:470.
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
Abraham. The initial proof text from Gen 21:12* is cited to prove that not all of the physical
descendants of Abraham are his true children. This cluster opens with the thesis stated in a
single line, consistent with earlier thesis statements in Romans such as 8:1*, 18*.17 The
following sentences are in parallel form, with the citation from Genesis falling out of the
pattern.18 The second cluster (vv. 9–13*) provides the supplemental text and two supporting
texts to show that a selection of only one son was intended by God, which means that not all
of the descendants of Abraham are truly included in the promise. The proof text and the
supplementary text provide the three catchwords, “call,” “seed,” and “children,” which are
used to link the various supporting texts.19 The threefold reduplication of σπέρμα (“seed”) in
vv. 7–8* enhances the visibility of the first catchword. The pattern of parallelism is continued
in this cluster in vv. 10–12*, with the citations from the OT again falling out of the structure
and thus gaining emphasis. The third and final cluster (9:14–18*) provides two more
supporting texts to answer the question of whether the election of certain descendants
threatens the justice of God. This cluster is opened by a triple-line diatribal exchange,

*
1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1 (NRSV)
*
18
to us.
Romans 8:18 (NRSV)
17
18
See ibid.
*
9
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
13
19
See Stegner, “Midrash” 40–41.
*
7
named for you.”
8
*
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
*
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
matching 6:1*, 15* and 7:7*, in which a false conclusion concerning the justice of God is
stated.20 The denial is supported by discourse arranged for the most part in synthetic and
antithetical parallelism.21 The antithesis in 9:16* is enhanced by homeoptoton in the repetition
of the three participle endings –ντος. The final antithetical parallelism in the pericope contains
a reduplication of θέλει (“he wills”),22 providing emphasis on the sovereignty of God, which
contrasts with the will of humans referred to in 9:16*.
IV. The probatio

9:6–18 2. Thesis and the first part of a midrash on Israel and the righteousness of divine
election
9:6a a. The general thesis for the third proof: The reliability of God’s word
9:6b–8 b. The initial phase of the midrashic argument concerning the true children of
Abraham
9:6b 1) The contention that not all Israelites “belong to Israel,” that is, are true children
of Abraham
9:7a 2) The contention that not all of the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ (“seed of Abraham”) are his
true children
9:7b 3) The citation of the initial proof text from Gen 21:12*
a) First catchword: καλέω (“call, name”)
b) Second catchword: σπέρμα (“seed, descendant”)
9:8 4) The initial explanation of the proof text, identifying the true σπέρμα
9:8a a) Formula of explanation: “that is”
9:8a b) Negative explanation: not “children of flesh”
9:8b c) Positive explanation: but “children of the promise are reckoned as the seed”
(σπέρμα; cf. 9:7*)
9:9–13 c. The divine election of one son as the content of the promise
9:9 1) The supplemental text clarifying the promise
9:9a a) The interpretive formula: “the promise is this”
*
1
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?
Romans 6:1 (NRSV)
*
15
What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Romans 6:15 (NRSV)
*
7
What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not
have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Romans 7:7 (NRSV)
20
21
The citation from Exod 9:15* is an example of synthetical parallelism, while the Pauline formulations of 9:16a
+ 16b and 9:18a + 18b are antithetical parallels. Both parallelism and the midrashic structure are disregarded in
Sass’s theory in Verheißungen, 436–37, of a chiastic structure of A (9:6–9); B (9:10–13); C (9:14–18); C’ (9:19–
23); B’ (9:24–26); and A’ (9:27–29).
*
16
Romans 9:16 (NRSV)
22
Bullinger, Figures, 319, inaccurately refers to this as an example of paronomasia.
9:9b b) The citation from Gen 18:10* + 14* concerning the promise of a son to Sarah,
containing the catchword υἱός (“son”)
9:10–12 2) The first supporting text clarifying the promise
9:10–12a a) The circumstances surrounding the promise to Rebecca
9:10 (1) The situation of Rebecca’s pregnancy
9:11a (2) The situation of the twins prior to birth,
9:11b–12a (3) The circumstances indicate the way divine election works
9:11b (a) Purpose clause: “that God’s purpose of election might continue”
9:12a (b) The nature of divine election
i. “Not from works”
ii. But from God’s calling (καλοῦντος; see 9:7*)
9:12b b) The citation of the first supporting text
(1) The introduction of the citation
(2) The citation of Gen 25:23* concerning Jacob serving Esau with the contextual
catchword: υἱός (“son” in Gen 25:25*; cf. Rom 9:9*)
9:13 3) The second supporting text
a) The citation formula
b) The citation of Mal 1:2–3* concerning God loving Jacob and hating Esau with the
contextual catchword: καλέω (in Mal 1:4*; cf. Rom 9:7*)
9:14–18 d. The answer to an objection concerning the justice of God
9:14 1) A diatribal exchange concerning the justice of God
9:14a a) The introductory question of general inference
9:14b b) The question about whether God is unjust
9:14c c) The emphatic denial: “By no means!”
9:15–17 2) The scriptural proofs
9:15 a) The third supporting text
9:15a (1) The introduction of the citation
9:15b-c (2) The citation of Exod 33:19* concerning the sovereignty of God’s mercy and
compassion with the contextual catchword: καλέω (in portion of Exod 33:19* not cited; cf.
Rom 9:7*)
9:16 (3) The explanation of election
9:16a (a) Election depends not on human action
9:16b (b) Election depends on God’s mercy
9:17 b) The fourth supporting text
9:17b-d (2) The citation of Exod 9:16* concerning God using Pharaoh to demonstrate
God’s power with the contextual catchword: υἱοί (“sons” in Exod 9:26*; cf. Rom 9:9*)
*
14
Is anything too wonderful for the Lord? At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have
a son.”
*
25
The first came out red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau.
*
9
Romans 9:9 (NRSV)
*
4
If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says: They may build, but I
will tear down, until they are called the wicked country, the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.
Malachi 1:4 (NRSV)
*
9:18 3) Conclusion about the selectivity of the divine promise
9:18a a) God has mercy on whom God wills
9:18b b) God hardens whom God wills
Exegesis
 6* The thesis of the third proof is introduced by a rather unusual denial form, οὐχ οἷον δέ
(“but it is not such that”)23 followed by ὅτι (“that”), which some have seen to be an ellipse
between two colloquial expressions of denial.24 The focus of the denial is not on the
impossibility of God’s word failing25 but on avoiding a potential misunderstanding of Paul’s
grief as justifying the inference that God’s word had in fact failed.26 The verb used for this
failure, ἐκπίπτω, means to drop off, fall through, drift off course, or come up short in a
financial sense.27 In rhetoric, ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ λόγου refers to someone who “suddenly went
silent and was at an utter loss; and stopping, he suffers a failure in his speech (ἐκπίπτει τοῦ
λόγου).”28 This expression can also mean “to digress,”29 and the verb ἐκπίπτειν can refer to a
lack of success.30 In the context of Paul’s argument, ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ λόγου refers to the failure
of the gospel message to persuade.31 As Berger has shown, there is a well-established
tradition in the LXX that links πίπτω and its cognates with the promises of God,32 so that ὁ
λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in this instance is defined by the reference to the promises in 9:4*. Yet in
contrast to the plural forms of “promises” given to Israel in 9:4* and of the “oracles” and
“words” of God in 3:2*, 4*, Paul uses here the singular, which implies that the issue is
26
Only in the land of Goshen, where the Israelites were, there was no hail.
Exodus 9:26 (NRSV)
23
The ordinary formulation in classical Greek is οὐχ οἷόν τε, occurring hundreds of times. It appears more than
twenty-five times in Plato, sixteen times in Demosthenes, five times in Lucian, etc. Οὐχ οἷον does not occur
elsewhere in the NT or the LXX; among classical Greek authors, the precise wording found in Rom 9:6* appears
only in Epicurus Epistula ad Herodotum 69.4, with δέ [= Diogenes Laertius Vitae philos. 10.69]; Polybius Hist.
18.35.11; Chrysippus Frag. mor. 643.1 [Stobaeus Anth. 2.7.109.5]; Stobaeus Anth. 2.4.11m.41; and the Suda
Lex. π 2055.7.
24
Cranfield, 2:472, and Dunn, 2:538, cite BDF §§304, 480(5), the latter dealing with ellipses of the formulaic
type. Zahn, 435–36, denies the ellipse by arguing that the expression is tantamount to οὐχ ὅτι, meaning “I will
thereby not have said that.…”
25
NEB, “It is impossible.…” For a critique of older commentators holding this view, see Meyer, 2:123.
26
See Zahn, 435f.; Lübking, Paulus, 61f.; Berger, “Abraham,” 78. Cranfield, 2:472, offers the apt paraphrase,
“But what I have just said about my grief for my fellow-Jews is not to be understood as meaning that.…” See
also Sass, Verheißungen 442–44.
27
See BAGD 243–44; also Danker, “Under Contract” 107.
28
Aeschines Fals. leg. 34.10.
29
LSJM, s.v. 9b.
30
The new LSJMRevSuppl (1996) adds the examples of ἐκπίπτω, “to lose one’s case” (δίκης ἐκπίπτειν; Latin,
causa cadere) in Justinianus Cod. Just. 2.2.4.2; for a wrestler to be thrown (SEG 35. Nr. 213.8); for a lover to be
unsuccessful (SEG 35. Nr. 219.10).
31
See R[oy] David Kotansky, “A Note on Romans 9:6*: ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ as the Proclamation of the Gospel,”
StBT 7 (April 1977) 24–30.
32
Berger, “Abraham,” 79f., shows that Josh 21:45*; 23:14*; 1 Kgs 3:19*; 2 Kgs 10:10*; 3 Kgdms 8:56*; Ruth
8:18; Tob 14:14*; Jdt 6:9*; Esth 6:10* refer principally to the nonfailure of divine promises to Israel.
*
4
Romans 9:4 (NRSV)
*
2
Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
broader than the status of Israel’s advantages.33 It seems more likely that “the word of God” in
this context is roughly synonymous with “gospel.”34 The question raised here is the
fundamental matter of divine reliability,35 thus related to the doxology in 9:5*, namely,
whether God in Christ is powerful enough to be “over all.” In this sense the thesis of Rom 9–
11 is a direct expression of the main thesis of Rom 1:16–17* concerning the gospel as the
“power of God” capable of setting right the entire world. The failure of Israel to respond to
the gospel appears to invalidate this main thesis—hence the contention of v. 6a* that provides
the thesis for the entirety of this third proof.36
The translation of v. 6b* is something of a paraphrase, because the word order literally means
“for not all who are from Israel, these [are] Israel.” Piper proposes that the οὐ (“not”) in the
anterior position should be taken to modify the clause at the end of v. 6b*, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ
(“these [are] Israel”), following the pattern of Rom 7:15*.37 This would produce the
Romans 3:2 (NRSV)

*
4
Romans 3:4 (NRSV)
33
Dunn, 2:539, construes the “word of God” as the “specific promise” given to Israel, following Munck, Christ,
34; Barrett, 180; Käsemann, 262; Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 29; Zeller, Juden, 113–15; Kümmel,
“Probleme,” 20, and others.
34
Erhardt Güttgemanns interprets this expression more broadly as the proclamation of the gospel in Paul’s
ministry in “Heilsgeschichte bei Paulus oder Dynamik des Evangeliums: Zur strukturellen Relevanz von Röm 9–
11 für die Theologie des Römerbriefes,” in E. Güttgemanns, Studia linguistica Neotestamentica (BEvTh 60;
Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 40ff. For a similar view, see Kotansky, “Romans 9:6*, ” 24, and Mesner, “Rhetoric,”
292. Zeller, Juden, 114, denies the identification of “word of God” with “gospel” but admits a close association
of the two concepts.
35
See Lübking, Paulus, 62. Piper, Justification, 32–33, states this point in Calvinist language as the “electing
purpose of God,” which derives from divine intentionality. Hübner defines the fundamental issue as the divinity
of God in Gottes Ich und Israel, 16, quoting Luz Geschichtsverständnis, 28, concerning the reliability of God.
*
5
Romans 9:5 (NRSV)
*
16
17
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
36
Dunn, 2:539, notes that the advocates of a restricted reference of the thesis to a section of chapter includes
Aageson, “Scripture,” 286; Zeller, Juden, 114–16, though he admits that v. 6a* serves as a caption for the
entirety of Rom 9–11; Zeller’s position is more ambiguous in Römer, 176; and Brandenburger, “Paulinische
Schriftauslegung,” 10, 16–20. Aletti, “Argumentation,” 43, suggests that v. 6a* is the propositio for 9:6–29. The
majority support the use of the thesis in a* as developed in the entirety of Rom 9–11, including Kühl, 318;
Käsemann, 261; Dahl, Studies, 155; Cranfield, 2:473; Wilckens, 2:191; Rainer Schmitt, Gottesgerechtigkeit-
Heilsgeschichte: Israel in der Theologie des Paulus (Frankfurt: Lang, 1984) 72–77; Siegert, Argumentation, 124,
174, is ambiguous on this point; Martin Rese, “Die Rettung der Juden nach Römer 11, ” in A. Vanhoye, ed.,
L’Apôtre Paul (BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986) 423; Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 300;
Mary Ann Getty, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9–11, ” CBQ 50 (1988) 465.
*
15
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Romans 7:15 (NRSV)
translation “For all those from Israel, these are not Israel,”38 but a strict construal of this
reading would be to extend Paul’s claim too widely by implying that none of those descended
from Israel belong to the true Israel.39 Paul has already established the distinction between
those descendants of Abraham who follow the law and those who follow faith (Rom 4:13–
16*), insisting that only the latter are recipients of the divine promise. A similar distinction is
intended here, using the term “Israel” to refer not to the patriarch40 but to his descendants, the
“members of the people Israel by birth.”41 By speaking of an “Israel within Israel,”42 there is
no indication in this verse that Paul is denying Israel’s election43 or claiming the church to be
the true Israel replacing the ancient people of Jewish descent.44 The distinction refers not just
to Jewish Christians as the true Israel within the larger circle of the Jewish people45 for whose
salvation Paul continues to hope (Rom 11:26*).46 Since all believers in the messianic
proclamation are part of the true Israel, the distinction is finally “between believing and
physical Israel” as determined by their response to the “word of God.”47 If the distinction
between Israel and the true Israel can be sustained on the basis of the scriptural tradition on
which Israel rests, the “word of God” cannot be held to have failed.
 7* The grammatical pattern of denial continues in this verse,48 substantiating the claim in v.
6b* by shifting the reference to the broader term “the children of Abraham,” which includes
37
Piper, Justification, 47–48.
38
Accepted as the accurate translation by Dunn, 2:539.
39
If from “all those who are from Israel,” none are truly Israel, then the distinction that Piper wishes to maintain
in Justification, 48–52, between the Israel according to the flesh and the true Israel is undermined.
*
13
14
15
16
40
Schlatter, 203–4.
41
Walter Gutbrod, “Ἰσραήλ κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 383; for a discussion of Jewish efforts to distinguish the true
elect of Israel from others who do not conform to the law, see Gottlob Schrenk, “ἐκλεκτός,” TDNT 4 (1967) 184.
Although appearing only here in the NT, the phrase ἐξ Ἰσραήλ is used twenty-eight times in the LXX, always in
reference to the commonwealth of Israel. The phrase οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ is not found in the LXX, Philo, or Josephus.
42
Cranfield, 2:471; Johnson, Function, 148, cites Ps 83:6*; Jub. 15.28–32; 20.11–13, and other texts to show
that “even Jews know that not all Abraham’s descendents are his heirs.”
43
See Heikki Räisänen, “Römer 9–11” 2900; Watson, Paul, 163, 227; Johnson, Function, 148. Gaston is so
intent on denying a replacement of Jews that he denies the distinction between the true Israel and all Israel in
9:6b, in Paul, 6, 92; for a critique of Gaston, see Harvey, True Israel, 77–78. Ellison, Mystery of Israel, 43–44,
develops the theme of “the delusion of national election.”
44
See Wright, “Messiah,” 193–97.
45
See Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 17, citing Erich Dinkler, “Prädestination bei Paulus: Exegetische
Bemerkungen zum Römerbrief,” in Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen
Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967) 267.
*
26
Romans 11:26 (NRSV)
46
See Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 297.
47
See ibid., 297–301; and Fitzmyer, 560.
*
7
named for you.”
Romans 9:7 (NRSV)
48
See Meyer, 2:125.
Jacob, Isaac, Ishmael, Esau, and others49 in contrast to “Israel,” which involved only Jacob
and his descendants.50 The expression σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ (“seed/descendants of Abraham”)
occurs in the LXX of 2 Chr 20:7*; Ps 104:6*; Ps. Sol. 9.9; 18.3; Isa 41:8* and is used by Paul
in 2 Cor 11:22*. The Greek word order is ambiguous, however, and one cannot be certain in
following Barrett’s argument that “all the children” should be construed as the subject parallel
to the “all” in the preceding verse.51 Most commentaries, along with Byrne’s monograph on
this subject, take the opposite tack, that “the seed of Abraham” is the subject, with “children”
as the more limited category including only Isaac and his descendents.52 The position of “seed
of Abraham” becomes emphatic with Barrett’s construal,53 which comports well with the
midrashic development concentrating on that phrase.54 This translation also eliminates the
alleged discrepancy between “seed” as the unrestricted term in v. 7a* and as the restricted
term in v. 7b*.55 What Paul denies here is that the covenantal promise extended to all of
Abraham’s children. It was the child of Sarah (Gen 21:1–3*), not the children of Hagar and
Keturah (Gen 16:15*; 25:2*), who would bear the promise of becoming the people of Israel
(cf. Gal 4:22–31*). The distinction between the broader category “children” and the restricted
49
See Fitzmyer, 560.
50
See Cranfield, 2:473.
*
7
Did you not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel, and give it forever to
the descendants of your friend Abraham?
2 Chronicles 20:7 (NRSV)
*
6
O offspring of his servant Abraham,children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
Psalm 105:6 (NRSV)
Ps. Psalms of Solomon
*
8
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
Isaiah 41:8 (NRSV)
*
22
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
51
Barrett, 180–81.
52
Byrne, Sons, 130–31.
53
Followed by Dunn, 2:540, and Hays, Echoes, 206.
54
Stegner, “Midrash” 40.
55
See Berger, “Abraham,” 81; Lübking, Paulus, 63; Aageson, “Scripture,” 269.
*
1
The Lord dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as he had promised.
2
Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the time of which God had spoken to him.
3
Abraham gave the name Isaac to his son whom Sarah bore him.
*
15
Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.
*
2
She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.
Genesis 25:2 (NRSV)
*
22
23
24
25
children.
26
term “seed” thus corresponds exactly to that between all Israel and the true Israel in v. 6b*.56
That there was a kind of “divine exclusionary process”57 in Israel’s history was developed in
Gal 3:16* to prove that Jesus was the single heir,58 but here Paul takes the more traditional
path of Jewish exegesis, claiming that the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received the
promised inheritance.59 His point is that from the beginning of Israel’s history, physical
descent alone was incapable of guaranteeing inclusion in the promise. As Piper has shown,
this establishes an “ongoing principle” of selective election that restricts the sphere within
which the word of God must be held to be effective, thus advancing the distinction between
the true Israel and “all Israel” in v. 6*.60
The quotation of the initial text in Paul’s midrashic argument is drawn verbatim from Gen
21:12*, without an introductory formula: ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα (“through Isaac
shall your seed be called”). For readers unfamiliar with Genesis, the only indication of a
quotation is the syntactic disparity of referring to “your seed” in a discourse dealing with the
topic in the third person.61 The quotation confirms that “seed” is the restricted category in v.
7a*, as Barrett suggests, proving that the patriarchal tradition supports the kind of distinction
Paul wishes to draw between the various children of Abraham. Only the descendants of Isaac
receive the promised inheritance. The preposition ἐν (“through, in”) was understood by Paul62
and the later rabbinic tradition63 in a restrictive sense of “only through Isaac.” This initial text
contains two catchwords that Paul develops in the rest of this midrash: “seed” and “call,”
picked up in vv. 8*, 12*, 24*, 25*, 26*, and 29*.64 The future passive form of καλεῖν (“call”)
27
who is married.”
28
29
30
31
56
For a discussion of the logic of this argument, see Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 300–305.
57
Michel, 300.
*
16
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of
many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ.
58
See Betz, Galatians, 157.
59
Siegfried Schulz and Gottfried Quell, “σπέρμα κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 545.
60
Piper, Justification, 48; but he extends this argument too far in a Calvinist direction (49) by insisting that 9:6–8
deals with “election unto eternal salvation.” As Dunn insists (2:540), it is the “mode, not the objective, of the
promise” that is in view here. See also Lübking, Paulus, 63.
*
12
61
Koch, Schrift, 13.
62
See Dunn, 2:540.
63
Stegner, “Midrash” 45, cites Midrash Gen. Rab. 53.12, n. 2, as insisting on this restrictive sense of Gen
21:12*: “Without the IN, it would indicate that all Isaac’s descendants will count as Abraham’s descendants; the
IN, however, limits it: only some, not all, Esau and his descendants being excluded” (italics in original).
*
8
Romans 9:8 (NRSV)
*
found in the LXX of Gen 21:12* is particularly crucial in the development of Paul’s
argument, suggesting that the future inheritance depends not on physical descent but on the
promise of God.65 While the resonance of the creative call in 4:17* would still be heard in this
text, the nuance is legal, defining the true heirs of the promise.66 The argumentative function
of the Genesis citation, therefore, is to extend the principle of a distinction between Israel and
the true Israel from v. 6b*.67 The importance of this initial text for Paul’s argument is shown
by the fact that it is the only verse in the midrash “that is the subject of a direct explanation,”68
in the following verse.
 8* The explanatory formula τοῦτʼ ἔστιν (“that is”) marks the end of the quotation in v. 7b*
and the beginning of a brief explanation of this crucial initial text. As in v. 6b* the
construction begins with the negative οὐ and contains a demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα
(“these”), indicating that the explanation pertains not only to the text from Gen 21:12* but
also to the distinction between the true Israel and all Israel.69 The phrase ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ
θεοῦ can be best explained as an independent phrase breaking into the sentence to make clear
that although the children of flesh are God’s children, it is only the children of the promise
who are reckoned as “seed.” The true Israel corresponds not to the “children of the flesh” but
to the “children of the promise.” In Fitzmyer’s words, “Paul now reverts to the terminology of
8:21*, implying that Christians, Jewish and Gentile, are the true children of Abraham.”70 But
it must be acknowledged that “these children of God” in v. 8* are initially defined as the
12
Romans 9:12 (NRSV)
*
24
Romans 9:24 (NRSV)
*
25
Romans 9:25 (NRSV)
*
26
Romans 9:26 (NRSV)
*
29
Romans 9:29 (NRSV)
64
See Stegner, “Midrash” 40; Aageson, “Scripture,” 269.
*
12
65
Kühl, 319, and Lübking, Paulus, 63.
*
17
Romans 4:17 (NRSV)
66
See Zeller, Juden, 119.
67
See Mesner, “Scripture,” 324–26.
68
Aageson, “Scripture,” 269.
69
Piper, Justification, 49; Mesner, “Scripture,” 324–26.
*
21
children of God.
Romans 8:21 (NRSV)
70
Fitzmyer, 561; see also Esler, Conflict and Identity, 279.
Jewish descendants of Isaac; within the midrash itself, there is no hint that this expression
refers to Christians,71 which raises questions about the origin of this material.
In the antithetical context of this verse, the term σάρξ (“flesh”) has a negative connotation
strongly reminiscent of Gal 4:21–31*, where slavery, hostility, the old age, and exclusion
from the realm of the Spirit are the characteristics of those born of the flesh.72 In contrast to
the fully developed antithesis between flesh and Spirit in 8:4–8*, the antithesis here is
dominated by the initial text from Gen 21:12* and therefore uses “promise” in place of
“Spirit.” The association between “promise” and “reckoned” recalls 4:13–25*, where Paul
71
For example, Gerhard Schneider, “τέκνον,” EDNT 3 (1993) 341, maintains that the “children of God” in v. 8*
are “Christians.” If the “children of the promise” are Christians, this would have “tremendous significance” in
the Roman community, which has “so many women church members,” as pointed out by McGinn, “Feminist
Approaches” 175.
*
21
Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law?
22
23
24
25
children.
26
27
who is married.”
28
29
30
31
72
See Jewett, Terms, 161; Dunn’s attempt to pare back the polemical quality of σάρξ as “not strongly negative,
as though constituting a disqualifying factor in itself, but as not constituting a qualifying factor in itself” (2:541,
italics in original) may be theologically appealing but it is exegetically unsupportable. See also Sass,
Verheißungen 448–49.
*
4
so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit.
5
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according
to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
6
To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
7
For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it
cannot,
8
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
*
13
14
15
16
17
18
Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was
said, “So numerous shall your descendants be.”
had shown that the divine blessing came not because of Abraham’s conformity to the law but
rather because of his faith. Paul thus reiterates his denial of a fundamental assumption of
contemporary Judaism, that there was “a direct linkage and equation between their
nationhood, the covenant, and the law.…”73 The implication of this historical example is that
only a small portion of contemporary Israel, those who have accepted the gospel, are called to
be the true Israel.74
 9* The second cluster of sentences in this pericope opens with the term “promise,”
reiterating the key term in the preceding verse. The content of the promise is a conflated and
altered quotation drawn from the LXX of Gen 18:10* + 14*.75 The source of Paul’s phrasing
may be demonstrated as follows, with the relevant portions underlined:
Gen 18:10* … ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σε κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἔξει υἱὸν
Σάρρα ἡ γυνή σου . . . (“… I will return to you about this time seasonably and Sara your wife
shall have a son”).
Gen 18:14* … εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀναστρέφω πρός σε εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ
υἱός (“at this time I will return to you seasonably and there shall be for Sara a son”).
Rom 9:9* Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός (“About this time I
shall come and there shall be for Sarah a son”).
There is a fairly wide consensus that the choice of the verb “I shall come” in place of the LXX
in Gen 18:14* “I shall return” is a deliberate Pauline alteration, probably to avoid a
19
He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for he was
about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.
20
No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to
God,
21
being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
22
Therefore his faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
23
Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone,
24
but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25
who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.
73
Dunn, 2:548.
74
Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 21.
*
9
Romans 9:9 (NRSV)
*
10
*
14
a son.”
75
Stanley, Scripture, 103–4, rejects the idea that the phrase κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον (“about this time”) was
drawn from Gen 18:10*, because only the preposition κατά differentiates this from Gen 18:14*, but he provides
no other explanation. A conflation of the two Genesis texts remains likely.
*
10
*
14
a son.”
functionless reference to an earlier visitation,76 rather than to express the divine authority to
define Israel77 or to allude to some future epiphany.78 This composite verse functions as the
supplemental text in Paul’s midrashic exegesis, elaborating the primary text from Gen 21:12*
quoted in 9:7*.79 The supplementary text provides the catchword “son,” which will be
alliterated in the later quotations of vv. 26* and 27*. It confirms through Hebrew Scripture
that Israel’s election as sons or children of God had always depended not on natural descent
but on a selective divine promise. God is confirmed in this verse as the reliable one who
comes to make the word of promise come true, thus addressing the issue in v. 6* as to
whether “the word of God has fallen short.”
 10* The next four verses comprise a loose syntactic unit whose subject is Rebecca and
whose finite verb must be supplied from the preceding argument.80 The elaborate opening
formula οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καί (“not only so, but also”)81 suggests that the same point can be
made about Rebecca as was established concerning Sarah. The divine word rather than
physical lineage determines the heir of the promise. I thus propose the verbal completion of
the sentence beginning in 9:10* as “received a promise,”82 thus allowing this verse to stand as
an independent clause, elaborated by the citations in vv. 12* and 13* concerning Isaac as the
promised heir.
The expression κοίτην ἔχουσα (“having intercourse”) combined with ἐξ ἑνός (“from one
man”), emphasizes that the twins Jacob and Esau had the same mother and father as well as
“the same moment of conception.”83 The relevance of this point becomes clear in vv. 11–13*,
where Paul shows the absolute independence of the divine call from any human qualification
or accomplishment,84 for no distinction could be made in the fleshly origin of these two sons
76
Koch, Schrift, 142, 172; Stanley, Scripture, 104.
77
Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 24, 31.
78
Byrne, Sons, 133; Dunn, 2:542.
79
Stegner, “Midrash” 47f., shows that Gen 18:10* was also used as a supplementary text in the midrash of Gen.
Rab. 53.4, demonstrating “the theme of God’s steadfastness to his word.”
*
27
Romans 9:27 (NRSV)
*
10
ancestor Isaac.
Romans 9:10 (NRSV)
80
For a discussion of nineteenth-century suggestions of the grammatical completion of 9:10–13*, see Weiss,
405. Godet, 348, suggests that the verb to be supplied was that Rebecca “was treated in the same manner, or had
to undergo the same lot.…” Zahn, 440, also holds 9:10–13 together as a syntactical unit, denying that it is an
incomplete sentence in the technical sense. See also Schmidt, 163f., who views vv. 10–13* as a sentence with a
semicolon after v. 10*. A recent resolution of the grammatical problem, in support of the line of argument in this
commentary, may be found in Fitzmyer, 561–62.
81
This phrase appeared in Rom 5:3*, 11*; 8:23*; and 2 Cor 8:19*; it is not attested before the first century C.E.
and may reflect Koine usage: Ceb. tab. 31.5; Justin 1 Apol. 49.5; Vettius Valens Anth. 9.338.9.
82
Lübking, Paulus, 65, suggests that the verb “call” derived from v. 7b* as the completion of vv. 10–13*.
*
13
Romans 9:13 (NRSV)
83
Cranfield, 2:476–77.
*
11
continue,
12
13
84
See Berger, “Abraham,” 82; Sass, Verheißungen 452–580.
of Rebecca and Isaac. The reference to Isaac as “our father” probably refers to his status as a
patriarch of the Jewish people rather than as a parent of all later believers,85 because the
context of the current discussion is Jewish unbelief in the messianic fulfillment.
 11* Paul’s stress on the absolute freedom and reliability of the divine word continues in this
verse with inferences drawn from the status of the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca. The
participles in the genitive absolute expression γεννηθέντων … πραξάντων (“born … done”)
refer to the implicit offspring Jacob and Esau86 and are dependent on the verb in the next
verse, “it was said to her.”87 The promise of inheritance came before the twins could achieve
or lose divine favor through their own actions. The wording of the antithesis “anything good
or worthless” is perhaps an allusion to the rather trashy quality of their later behavior, with
Jacob cheating his brother and Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of soup. Dunn observes
that Paul here replaces the ἀγαθός/κακός (“good/bad”) antithesis used in 2:9–10*; 3:8*;
7:19*; 12:21*; 13:3–4*; 16:19* with the ἀγαθός/φαῦλος (“good/worthless”) categories that
allow the negative pole to be understood as “good-for-nothingness,”88 suggesting the twin’s
later behavior. Paul’s point is that nothing they did disallowed the word of promise, which
prevailed despite human corruption.
The final clause beginning with ἵνα (“in order that”)89 in v. 11b* shows the theological
meaning of the story of Jacob and Esau lies in “God’s selective purpose.” This expression
combines a colloquial expression κατʼ ἐκλογήν (“by selection”) with the term πρόθεσις
85
Cranfield, 2:477, stresses the context of 9:3, “my kinsmen by race,” which would limit Jacob’s parentage to
persons of Jewish descent. Fitzmyer rightly observes (562) that Paul “identifies himself with ethnic Israel” in this
formulation.
*
11
continue,
Romans 9:11 (NRSV)
86
Wilckens, 2:194, suggests that “sons” is the antecedent but that they do not have to be mentioned because
Paul’s readers know the biblical story.
87
*
9
10
*
8
And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”?
Their condemnation is deserved!
Romans 3:8 (NRSV)
*
19
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Romans 7:19 (NRSV)
*
21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:21 (NRSV)
*
3
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do
what is good, and you will receive its approval;
4
for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does
not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.
*
19
For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise in what is good and
guileless in what is evil.
Romans 16:19 (NRSV)
88
Dunn, 2:542, citing Trench, Synonyms, 315–18. See Prov 5:3*; 13:6*; 29:9.
89
(“purpose”), which was employed in 8:28*. The idea of divine purpose played a large role in
Jewish theology, which appears to be reflected here.90 Although the word ἐκλογή was a
technical term in Pharisaism for freedom of choice,91 the phrase κατʼ ἐκλογήν was so well
established in military and governmental contexts to depict selections for special roles that it
is likely to be understood in that sense here by a Roman audience.92 That “God’s selective
purpose” should continue, that is, be carried through in the destinies of Jacob and Esau,
directly answers the issue in v. 6*.93 The verb μένω, used here for the only time in Romans,
appears frequently in the LXX in the context of God’s immutable being and counsel.94 A
particularly close echo to the usage here is the well-known passage from Isa 14:24*, where
Yahweh declares Ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα, οὕτως ἔσται, καὶ ὃν τρόπον βεβούλευμαι, οὕτως μενεῖ
… (“In the manner I have said, so shall it be; and in the manner I have purposed, so shall it
remain …”). Paul’s choice of the present subjunctive (μένῃ, “may stand”) rather than the
aorist subjunctive (μείνῃ, “might stand”) implies that God’s purpose continues forward from
the time of the patriarchs to the events of the current generation.95
 12* The elliptical clause at the beginning of v. 12* stands in apposition to v. 11b*, 96
explaining that God’s purpose proceeds not from human works but from divine election. The
rather strained antithesis between “works” and “the one calling” is understandable in the
context of Paul’s midrashic discourse. His initial proof text in v. 7* had contained the term
καλέω (“call, name”), to which Paul alludes here.97 The term also evokes the powerful
argument of 4:17* that correlated justification and resurrection with the divine act of “calling”
into existence.98 The contrast between calling and works is crucial for Paul’s argument that
the continuation of God’s purpose from the patriarchs to the present “depends on nothing the
elect can do, but only on God’s continual call.…”99 This denies several important premises in
Jewish theology: that obedience to the law is required for the maintenance of election100 and
*
28
purpose.
Romans 8:28 (NRSV)
90
See Michel, 302, who cites Apoc. Ab. 22.2–3 and 26.5–6 as conceptual parallels.
91
Maier, Mensch, 335–38, 361, refers to Ps. Sol. 9.4–5 and Josephus Bell. 2.165 as examples of the Pharasaic
doctrine of free will. This doctrine hardly seems relevant for discussing divine sovereignty, which is Paul’s topic
in this pericope. Maier is followed by Dunn, 2:542f., who separates the expression in Romans into its two
component parts, “that the purpose of God should stand in terms of his free choice,” thus erroneously linking
ἐκλογή with the verb rather than with the nominative phrase.
92
Gottlob Schrenk, “ἐκλογή,” TDNT 4 (1967) 176, mentions several occurrences of this colloquial expression in
Polybius Hist., of which 1.61.3.6; 6.4.3.3; 6.10.9.3; 6.34.8.5; 10.12.8.3; 31.12.12.1; 38.10.8.4 prove to be
relevant. Schlier, 292, observes that “the apposition κατʼ ἐκλογήν qualifies the πρόθεσις as one that occurs in a
selection or choice.”
93
Cranfield, 2:478, observes that “remain” is the opposite of “fallen short” in v. 6*.
94
Friedrich Hauck, “μένω,” TDNT 4 (1967) 575, refers to Pss 9:7*; 101:12*; Isa 40:8*; Dan 6:27*; Sir 44:13* as
examples of the immutability of God.
*
24
The Lord of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass:
Isaiah 14:24 (NRSV)
95
Godet, 349.
96
See Zahn, 442.
97
Although not exploring the midrashic issue, Aageson, “Scripture,” 269–70, points to this connection: “It is
evident that the verb καλεῖν and the image of God’s call to Isaac have been influential in shaping the distinction
in 9:12.”
98
See Käsemann, 123.
99
Dunn, 2:543.
100
For example, CD A 1:3–5 explains that God hid his face from Israel “when they were unfaithful in forsaking
him,” but that God “remembered the covenant with the forefathers” and “saved a remnant for Israel,” identified
that divine election presupposes God’s foreknowledge of human works of obedience.101 The
sharp antithesis is consistent with the earlier argument of Romans, indicating a polemical
intention that should not be distorted by theological rationalizing.102
The first finite verb in the rambling sentence of vv. 10–13* occurs in v. 12b* with reference
to the word spoken to Rebecca. The aorist passive ἐρρέθη (“it was said”) is an introductory
formula103 indicating the divine source of the oracle. The quotation is derived exactly from the
LXX of Gen 25:23*, referring to Esau as the “greater” or firstborn child serving Jacob, the
“lesser” or second-born of the twins.104 The oracle illustrates the principle of “God’s selective
purpose” (v. 11b*), which extends to all children of God (vv. 6–7*).105 This selectivity is what
links the Esau/Jacob distinction with the distinction in v. 6b* between Israel and the true
Israel.106 One should not get sidetracked by speculations about Paul’s alleged interest in the
nations deriving from Jacob and Esau107 or in the establishment of a timeless principle.108 The
implications for sonship are rendered more apparent when Stegner’s observation is taken into
account that the term “son” is located in Gen 25:25*. He shows that in midrashic discourse,
often supporting texts are cited only partially because the writer or speaker assumes that the
audience knows the rest by heart and can identify the catchword connections by
themselves.109 The implication is that the sonship in grace is a matter not of fleshly privilege
but of divine selection.
by CD A 4:3–4 as the “sons of Zadok” who are “the chosen ones of Israel those called by name.” That ἔργα is
employed here as an “abbreviated form” of “deeds of the law” is shown by Fitzmyer, According to Paul, 20.
101
Dunn, 2:543, citing Philo Leg. 3.88.
102
Zahn, 445–49, speaks with regret of the distortion caused by inserting the issue of individual salvation into the
discussion of this verse, or by concluding that Paul was motivated by hostility toward the Jewish people.
Wilckens, 2:195, follows Kuss, 3:709, in insisting that the antithesis between works and calling should not be
understood as the hermeneutical criterion in the interpretation of justification.
*
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
13
103
Koch, Schrift, 25. It should be noted that aside from Rom 9:26*, where it appears in a LXX citation, ἐρρέθη is
used as a citation formula only in Matt 5:21*, 27*, 31*, 33*, 38*, 43; the strangely restricted use of this formula
has not been explained.
*
23
And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the
one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.”
104
Fitzmyer, 563, observes that the LXX provides a contextually clearer reading of the ambiguous Hebrew
expression, which could mean either “the greater will serve the smaller” or “the smaller will serve the greater.”
*
6
7
named for you.”
105
See Piper, Justification, 38–40.
106
Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 115.
107
Maier, Mensch, 28; Michel, 303.
108
Käsemann, 264.
*
25
The first came out red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau.
109
Stegner, “Midrash” 40–41. He cites Eugene Mihaly, “A Rabbinic Defense of the Election of Israel,” HUCA
35 (1964) 104, on this point.
 13* The second supporting text is introduced by the traditional formula used in 1:17* and
many other passages, “just as it has been written.”110 The quotation is adapted from Mal 1:2–
3*, with Paul’s inversion of word order resulting in a sharper antithesis through the creation
of exact antithetic parallelism.111 The comparison of the LXX wording is easily seen as
follows:
Mal 1:2–3* καὶ ἠγάπησα τὸν Ἰακώβ, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα. (“I loved Jacob, but Esau I
hated.”)
Rom 9:13* Τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα. (“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”)
The deletion of the initial “and” in the LXX text is consistent with Paul’s citation practice in
many other instances,112 and the reversal of verb and object in the first clause is rhetorically
effective. While the original text in Malachi referred to the nations of Israel and Edom, Paul’s
interest in this context is strictly related to the selective quality of God’s purpose.113 As in the
preceding verse, the distinction between Jacob and Esau provides exemplary proof for Paul’s
distinction in v. 6b* that “not all who are from Israel are Israel.”114 Given the historical issue
under discussion in Rom 9–11, the figure of Esau as the father of the Edomites is used here
“to designate the great majority of Israelites in Paul’s day, those who have not responded in
belief to the gospel.”115 Most of the scholarly discussion, however, has missed the
argumentative thrust of the quotation and concentrated on the problematic wording of the
Malachi text. The extraordinary arbitrariness of double predestination in Mal 1:2–3*, 116
combined with the use of the allegedly “un-Christian” word “hate,”117 has led commentators
to tone down as far as possible what Paul is saying here.118 Since Paul moves on in vv. 14–
*
17
Romans 1:17 (NRSV)
110
For the traditional Jewish background of the formula, “as it has been written,” see on 1:17. The formula
appears also in Rom 2:24*; 3:4*, 10*; 4:17*; 8:36*; 9:33*; 10:15*; 11:8*, 26*; 15:3*, 21*.
*
2
3
111
Koch, Schrift, 107; Stanley, Scripture, 106.
*
2
3
112
Stanley, Scripture, 105.
113
See Cranfield, 2:480, for a wider extension of the argument to “the peoples descended” from Esau and Jacob.
114
Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 354–57.
115
Ibid., 357; see U. Hübner, “Esau,” ABD 2 (1992) 574f., for a list of Greek and rabbinic references to the
negative role of Esau in Jewish literature.
116
Dinkler, “Prädestination bei Paulus,” 92, observes that this is the clearest example of double predestination in
the letter. Piper, Justification, 34–54, develops an extensive case that Paul is arguing for the eternal
predestination of individuals in this passage.
117
Kuss, 3:714, observes that the Hebrew term behind the Greek word for hate could be used in the sense of
“find unacceptable” or “reject.” Morris, 357, makes the improbable suggestion that “hate” should be understood
as “love less” or “reject,” quoting Calvin. There are precedents for this reference to God’s hatred in Qumran, as,
for example, CD A 2:13, “But those whom he hated he caused to stray.” See also CD A 8:18; 1QS 9:16, 21.
118
Cranfield, 2:479–81, and Dunn, 2:544–46, offer the most extensive qualifications of the implications of the
Malachi quotation for the contemporary discussion. Fitzmyer, 563, refers to “hated” as “ancient Near Eastern
18* to stress the loving side of this antithesis, it appears likely that he is conscious of the
problematic quality of the Malachi quotation.119 In order for Paul’s later qualification to have
an effect, it would be better to allow the words from Malachi to stand as an extreme statement
of Paul’s basic point—to confirm the reliability of the divine promise in the face of human
rejection of the gospel.120 The quotation fulfills a vital rhetorical function of sharpening to an
excruciating degree the focus on the selectivity of God’s word. This basic point may well
have been better understood by the original audience, insofar as the midrashic argumentative
techniques would have been understood and accepted. As Stegner has noted, the contextual
catchword “call” appears in the following verse of Malachi.121 Although not cited by Paul, it
would probably have been understood as pointing to the basic contention that salvation
depends on the divine call rather than on any personal qualifications of persons like Jacob and
Esau.122
 14* The shift to diatribal style is signaled by the rhetorical question, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν (“What
then shall we say”), which indicates a possible false conclusion, as in the expression τί
ἐροῦμεν (“What shall we say”) in 3:5*; 4:1*; 6:1*; 7:7*; 8:31*; and 9:30*.123 The form of the
hyperbole” for “loved less.” Weiss, 410–11, provides an account of nineteenth-century efforts along this
apologetic line, to which Colenso, 216, could be added.
*
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
119
Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 357–58, also points out the opposite intention of Paul’s argument. Malachi advocates a
turning away from the pagan nations, while Paul is asserting divine selectivity for the sake of a “universal rule of
God.”
120
See Kühl, 323–24.
121
122
Lübking, Paulus, 66, stresses the defining role of “selection, purpose and calling” in this passage.
*
14
Romans 9:14 (NRSV)
*
5
But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath
on us? (I speak in a human way.)
Romans 3:5 (NRSV)
*
1
What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?
Romans 4:1 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 6:1 (NRSV)
*
7
Romans 7:7 (NRSV)
*
31
What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Romans 8:31 (NRSV)
*
30
What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness
through faith;
Romans 9:30 (NRSV)
rhetorical question beginning with μή (“not”) requires the hearers to provide a negative
answer124 to the query about whether God is unjust. The question does not presuppose a
hostile inquirer, traditionally identified as an unbelieving Jew.125 The style of the question is
clearly Jewish, with the expression παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (“before God/with God”) being a
Hebraism.126 But as we have learned from Stowers, a diatribal exchange presupposes a
friendly audience, raising questions that advance the pedagogical enterprise.127 This question
relates to the entire preceding argument in vv. 6–13*, 128 but is particularly provoked by the
harsh arbitrariness of the quotation from Malachi. In this sense the rhetorical interaction
between v. 13* and v. 14* is extraordinarily effective.
The choice of the noun “injustice” rather than the adjective “unjust” avoids posing a question
about God’s nature.129 The precise connotation of the wide-ranging term ἀδικία (“injustice”)
in this verse should be inferred contextually. It is not a matter of denying the truth of God130
or questioning the covenant loyalty of God,131 which may fit other passages in Romans. If one
were to follow the rhetorical clues in this argument, the question is surely that of the basic
fairness of God’s dealings.132 Why should God choose to love Jacob and hate Esau? Is “God’s
purpose of election” a “miscarriage of justice?”133
The emphatic answer μὴ γένοιτο (“By no means!”) indicates the depth of Paul’s contention,
reflected in the entire argument of the letter up to this point. If justice/righteousness is the
123
Cranfield, 2:481f.; Stowers, Diatribe, 121; Schmeller, Diatribe, 327. It should be noted, however, that a TLG
search indicates that the exact wording, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, appears only here in the NT. It does not appear in any
Greek writing before Paul’s time; thereafter it occurs in the Sch. Dem. 2.79b7 and the later Sch. Iso. 10.1.5;
Aelius Herodianus Παρων. 3, 2.866.43.
124
Godet, 351; Dunn, 2:551; BDF §427; BAGD (2000), 646.
125
Godet, 351–52: “This opponent is a Jew … [who] was accustomed to consider God’s dealings with man as
entirely dependent on human merit or demerit.” For a contemporary restatement of this approach, see Piper,
Justification, 70–73.
126
See Michel, 307, and Wilckens, 2:199, both citing Str-B, 3:79f., which discusses m. ʾAbot from 2 Chr 19:7*;
Sir 35:15*; Jub. 5.16 and ʾAbot. 4.22.
127
Stowers, Diatribe, 117. In contrast, Kim, Romans 9–11, 126, returns to the traditional view of vv. 14–18* as a
courtroom defense against a false charge made by Jewish “opponents” as advocated by Michel, 307, and
Schmidt, 164.
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
9
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
13
128
Wilckens, 2:199; the connection of vv. 14–18* to the preceding paragraph is played down by Brandenburger,
“Paulinische Schriftauslegung,” 11, who construes the diatribal question as starting a new argument. See the
critique in Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 361–63.
129
Morris, 359: “Perhaps this way of putting it is due to motives of reverence: Paul asks, ‘Is there injustice with
God?’ rather than ‘Is God unjust?’ ”
130
Piper, Justification, 71–73.
131
Wilckens, 2:199; Wright, “Messiah,” 211.
132
Zeller, 177, refers to the question of iustitia distributiva, fairness and impartiality in judgment. Mesner,
“Rhetoric,” 363, refers to the “perceived injustice of God’s actions toward Jacob and Esau,” with the latter being
as much in view as the former.
133
Black, 130.
theme of Romans (1:17*) and if the essence of human rebellion against God is understood to
be “injustice” (1:18*, 29*; 2:8*; 3:5*), then any admission of unjust behavior on the part of
God is unacceptable. The issue is not merely one of pitting human standards against the
divine,134 but rather whether the divine purpose of election to salvation is righteous and just.
As Paul goes on to show, divine justice is primarily a matter of mercy.
 15* The third supporting text is introduced by an unusual formula in which Yahweh is said
to speak to Moses. Although there are many instances in which God is implicitly the speaker,
only here and in 9:25* does Paul state the matter explicitly.135 This thus forms a nexus with
“the word of God” in 9:6*. The word order indicates an emphasis on Moses the lawgiver,
which helps to sustain Paul’s point because “according to Jewish perspective Moses is
competent in the highest degree concerning the question of the essence of ‘righteousness.’ ”136
The supporting text is derived verbatim137 from a portion of Exod 33:19* where Yahweh
accedes to the request of divine manifestation by passing before Moses and uttering the words
about the mercy and compassion of his saving glory. The terminology of mercy is the
absolutely crucial “key-note”138 for the subsequent argument in this third proof, appearing in
9:16*, 23*; 10:20*; 11:30*, 31*, 32*. The quotation from Exodus addresses the issue of
*
18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their
wickedness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:18 (NRSV)
*
29
They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife,
deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,
Romans 1:29 (NRSV)
*
8
while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
Romans 2:8 (NRSV)
134
Schlier, 295.
*
15
compassion.”
Romans 9:15 (NRSV)
135
See Koch, Schrift, 31.
136
Schmidt, 164.
137
Only an insignificant spelling discrepancy separates the LXX from Paul’s quotation in v. 15*. The LXX has
οἰκτειρμήσω/οἰκτειρῶ (“I will have compassion / am compassionate”) whereas Romans has οἰκτιρήσω/οἰκτίρω.
Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 368, cites BDF §23 and BAGD 561f. on the spelling confusion between ει and ι.
*
19
Exodus 33:19 (NRSV)
138
Barrett, 185.
*
16
Romans 9:16 (NRSV)
*
23
Romans 9:23 (NRSV)
*
20
Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to
those who did not ask for me.”
Romans 10:20 (NRSV)
*
30
Romans 11:30 (NRSV)
fairness by showing that divine selectivity is not “the freedom of an unqualified will of God,
but of the freedom of God’s mercy.”139 The term “compassion” in the quotation appears here
for the only time in the NT, but its associated term οἰκτιρμός (“compassion/ mercy”) recurs
later in the crucial location of 12:1*. The point in the quotation is that divine benefits are
bestowed on whomever God calls to be God’s children. It is a matter not of human earning or
privilege but of divine decision. In the context of Paul’s discussion, the benefits come to those
counted among the true Israel of Rom 9:6*.140 While the entire scene in Exodus was full of
motifs of potential significance for the theology of Romans,141 the midrashic framing
provided by the initial text of Rom 9:7* would have focused any extraneous echo on the
catchword “call,” which appears in a portion of the verse from Exod 33:19* that Paul does not
cite.142 By quoting only the final portion of the verse, however, Paul concentrates attention on
the mercy of divine selectivity, disallowing any consideration of the role or qualifications of
the human partner, in this instance, Moses.
 16* The inference from the Exodus citation is drawn with ἄρα οὖν (“so then”),143
confirming why Paul cites only a portion of 33:19*. He wishes to insist on the absolute
freedom of divine mercy144 as the basis not only for understanding predestination but also for
understanding the first eight chapters of the letter. “It is because God is merciful that
justification by faith is possible … indeed, if he treated them otherwise none would
survive.”145 The theological principle is formulated in memorable, rhythmic style which my
translation attempts to pick up by rendering the parallel participles with “him who wills …
him who runs … God who shows mercy.” The structure of antithetical parallelism indicates
that no contrast was intended between willing and running;146 both are juxtaposed with God’s
showing mercy. Clearly it is human willpower and effort that are set aside as irrelevant factors
when compared with the merciful selection of God’s children. The connotation of the term
θέλειν (“to will”) in this context is heavily influenced by its previous use in Rom 7:15*, 16*,
18*, 19*, 20*, and 21* to depict the incapacity of legalistic willpower to achieve the desired
*
31
Romans 11:31 (NRSV)
*
32
Romans 11:32 (NRSV)
139
Cranfield, 2:483; it is therefore inappropriate to conclude as Siegert does in Argumentation, 128–29, that the
quotation from Exod 33:19* is a tautologous exercise in the proposition that God’s mercy is just because it is
God’s.
*
1
Romans 12:1 (NRSV)
140
141
See Piper, Justification, 63–68; Dunn, 2:552.
142
143
Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 39, argues that ἄρα οὖν is a strengthening of the simple term ἄρα (“so”),
requiring a translation like “therefore it is undeniable,” which recurs in v. 18*.
144
Schmidt, 164.
145
Barrett, 186.
146
See Dunn, 1:353.
*
16
Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Romans 7:16 (NRSV)
*
18
For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Romans 7:18 (NRSV)
*
good.147 As Paul showed in that pericope, neither the will nor the accomplishment of the law
prevents the legalist from achieving the opposite of what is intended, thereby coming into
conflict with the mercy of God as revealed in Christ.
With the legalistic connotation of “willing” in mind, the hearer of this sentence who knew
Hebrew Scripture would naturally associate the metaphor of running with the effort of the
devout Jew in Ps 119:32*: “I ran the path of your commandments, when you enlarged my
understanding.”148 In contrast to the affirmative use of the athletic metaphor of running in 1
Cor 9:24–26*; Heb 12:1*, 149 the repeated negation οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος (“nor of he who
runs”) calls attention to the incapacity of human effort to influence the mercy of God.150 The
contrast with Pharisaic Judaism is particularly stark, as Maier has pointed out by reference to
Ps. Sol. 9.4–5:151 “Our works are subject to our own choice and power; To do right or wrong
in the works of our hands; And in your righteousness you visit the sons of men. He that does
righteousness lays up life for himself with the Lord; And he that does wrong forfeits his life to
destruction; For the judgments of the Lord are (given) in righteousness to (every) man and
(his) house.” Similarly Sir 15:15*, 17* refer to the capacity of human willpower to achieve
the good and thus assure the blessing of life: If you (so) desire, you can keep the
commandment, And (it is) wisdom to do His good pleasure … Life and death (are) before
man, That which he desires shall be given to him.” The polemical antithesis that Paul intends
to draw in this verse does not focus on some alleged inability of Jewish loyalists to obey the
20
Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Romans 7:20 (NRSV)
*
21
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand.
Romans 7:21 (NRSV)
147
Gottlob Schrenk, “θέλω κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 52.
*
32
I run the way of your commandments, for you enlarge my understanding.
Psalm 119:32 (NRSV)
148
Otto Bauernfeind, “τρέχω κτλ.,” TDNT 8 (1972) 229, refers to the importance of this phrase for the later
development of Judaism, indicating that it depicts “the readiness for zealous obedience .…” But he does not refer
to this verse in explaining Rom 9:16* where the verb “occurs quote unexpectedly” (232). The effort by J.
Duncan M. Derrett, “Running in Paul: The Midrashic Potential of Hab 2:2*, ” Bib 66 (1985) 566, to explain the
use of τρέχω in this verse on the basis of Hab 2:3* is strained because “running” in a missional sense is
irrelevant for the context.
*
24
Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way
that you may win it.
25
Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable
one.
26
So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air;
1 Corinthians 9:24–26 (NRSV)
*
1
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the
sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
Hebrews 12:1 (NRSV)
149
See Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, 135f.
150
Bauernfeind, “τρέχω κτλ.,” 232.
151
Maier, Mensch, 368–69.
*
15
If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
Sirach 15:15 (NRSV)
*
17
Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given.
Sirach 15:17 (NRSV)
law, on some alleged Jewish character flaw of works righteousness,152 on an erroneous Jewish
doctrine of human freedom,153 or on a more generalized sense of the inefficacy of religious
effort.154 The antithesis relates to the logic implicit in the objection in 9:14*, namely, that God
is unfair in offering mercy to whomever he wills.155 In this entire passage, divine mercy is
sovereign:156 “God calls and God is merciful; he is the one who in his mercy elects.”157
 17* The introduction of the fourth supporting text in Paul’s midrashic argument is
formulaic and characteristically Jewish in viewing “scripture” (γραφή) as “saying” (λέγει)
something directly to persons.158 That this was intended to avoid a direct address from God to
the pagan Pharaoh159 seems unlikely in view of the frequency of such formulaic introductions
and the rarity of introductions referring explicitly to God as the speaker.160 The figure of
Pharaoh is archetypal for Jewish literature, symbolizing cruel oppression and hardness of
heart. The word itself is a Hebrew construct based on the Egyptian words for “great house” or
royal palace, which came to be used for the name of a king around 1500 B.C.E.161 While
Egyptians would attach the name of a king to their form of this term, the absolute use of
“Pharaoh” as a kind of proper name in a passage like this makes it into a negative symbol that
in this instance correlates with “all Israel” and Esau in the preceding argument.162 Pharaoh
serves as “an exemplar of the rejectors who serve God’s plan … of salvation because his
resistance enabled God to display his saving power and to spread abroad the knowledge of
it.”163
The supporting text is drawn from Exod 9:16*, which was altered at several decisive points to
sharpen up the meaning Paul intends to convey. The underlining below marks the changes:
Exod 9:16* Καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης, ἵνα ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, καὶ ὅπως
διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γη (“And for this purpose you have been preserved, in
order that I might demonstrate my strength in you, so that my name might also be proclaimed
in all the earth”).
152
Kühl, 327; Kuss, 3:722.
153
See Dunn, 2:553, for a critique of Maier, Mensch, 363–69, on this point.
154
See Käsemann, 267.
155
Jülicher, 295, claims that Paul’s argument does not directly answer the question of “injustice with God,” since
it rests merely on an arbitrary proof text from Exodus. However, the inference from that text in 9:16* is fully
consistent with the earlier argument of Romans. The parallel to this verse in 1QS 11:10–11 cited by Maier,
Mensch, 369, stressing that perfect obedience comes from God’s decision rather than from human decision, does
not exactly correlate with Paul’s stress here on divine mercy freely given to the undeserving.
156
See Paul W. Gooch, “Sovereignty and Freedom: Some Pauline Compatibilisms,” SJT 40 (1987) 537.
157
Aageson, “Scripture,” 271; see also Anthony T. Hanson, “The Oracle in Romans xi. 4, ” NTS 19 (1972–73)
301–2.
*
17
Romans 9:17 (NRSV)
158
Koch, Schrift, 25, noting that the same formula is found in Rom 4:3*; 10:11*; 11:2*; and Gal 4:30*. Koch
(26–27) discusses the references to “scripture” and “saying.”
159
Michel, 309; Schlier, 296.
160
Koch, Schrift, 31; see also the rebuttal by Cranfield, 2:485.
161
James M. Weinstein, “Pharaoh,” HBD (1985) 781.
162
See Munck, Christ, 50, 59; Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 45; and Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 384.
163
Hamerton-Kelly, Cross, 243 (typescript).
*
16
earth.
Exodus 9:16 (NRSV)
Rom 9:17* Εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου καὶ ὅπως
διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῃ γῇ (“For this very purpose I raised you up, so that I might
demonstrate my power in you, so that my name might also be proclaimed in all the earth …”).
In place of the LXX version of the preliminary clause, “and for this purpose you have been
preserved,” Paul creates an active expression of divine intentionality: εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά
σε (“for this very purpose I raised you up”). The altered clause is somewhat closer to the MT
and provides a clearer expression of “the idea of purpose”164 by focusing attention on the
single (αὐτό, “very”) goal of Yahweh.165 Even more significant is the alteration of the passive
verb “you have been preserved” to the active expression “I raised you up,” which strengthens
the impression of the sovereign quality of “God’s elective purpose.”166 The change from ἵνα
(“in order that”) to ὅπως (“so that”) enhances the poetic parallelism between the two final
clauses by reduplicating the opening conjunction.167 The immediate aim of Yahweh to
demonstrate power in the first clause is thereby brought into consistency with the more distant
aim of proclaiming the divine name in the second clause.168 This brings the Pharaoh incident
into exact conformity with God’s present behavior toward “vessels” of wrath and mercy as
described in the next pericope (9:22*).169 It also strengthens the element of divine
intentionality through repetition.170 The most significant of the alterations, from the rhetorical
point of view, is the replacement of ἰσχύς (“strength”) by its synonym δύναμις (“power”),
because this relates the quotation directly to the thesis of the letter concerning the gospel as
the δύναμις θεοῦ, “power of God”).171 The use of this word in 1:4* and 1:20* has likewise
been shown to play a crucial role in developing Paul’s thesis. Given the reference in Exod
9:16* to proclaiming (διαγγέλειν) the message of God’s triumph, this alteration sustains the
larger missional purpose of the letter. The function of the change is that of a rhetorical echo of
MT Masoretic text
164
165
Morris, 360, “εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο … means ‘just this (and nothing else),’ ” citing BDF §290.
166
Sanday and Headlam, 256; Lagrange, 234; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 77; Michel, 309; Cranfield, 2:486;
Koch, Schrift, 150–51. Zahn, 451, expresses the significance of the first two alterations by showing that “God
made this Pharaoh the king of Egypt for no other purpose than … to allow his power to be further seen and felt.”
Stanley, Scripture, 107–8, finds all explanations of this change “dubious” because the Pauline adaptation brings
the text closer to the Hebrew original, but the question of why Paul may have preferred such a translation still
needs to be answered.
167
In contrast, Stanley, Scripture, 108, rejects any explanation of these changes, which “remain difficult to
comprehend.”
168
See Wilckens, 2:200.
*
22
Romans 9:22 (NRSV)
169
Kühl, 326.
170
Michel, 309; Koch, Schrift, 151.
171
Cranfield, 2:487, makes this observation without drawing an appropriate rhetorical conclusion, having argued
(486) that the substitution was aimed at avoiding ἰσχύς, which “is relatively rare in Greek usage generally.” This
seems implausible because a TLG search turned up more than 150 instances of ἰσχύς in Josephus alone, and,
furthermore, Paul does not hesitate to use rare words in other quotations throughout Romans. Hübner, Gottes Ich
und Israel, 40, provides a more adequate explanation by pointing to the decisive role of δύναμις in 1:16–17.
*
4
Romans 1:4 (NRSV)
*
20
Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been
understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;
Romans 1:20 (NRSV)
an absolutely crucial term, so it is unnecessary to press the definition of δύναμις in this
quotation into an overly specific mold of “creator in judgment”172 or “saving power.”173 The
means by which Israel was saved in the exodus remain very different from the means revealed
in the cross and resurrection of Christ. The similarity for which Paul contends in this pericope
is that of the divinely selective purpose of demonstrating mercy to the very ones seeking to
oppose it.
Much of the rest of the original wording of Exod 9:16* is also closely integrated into the
logical network of Pauline rhetoric in this letter. The verb ἐνδείκνυσθαι (“demonstrate”) is the
verbal form of ἔνδειξις (“demonstration”) used in 3:25* to refer to the manifestation of divine
righteousness in the Christ event. Thus the pattern of divine action is seen to be consistent
from the Mosaic period to Christ: God acts in behalf of the undeserving to demonstrate
redemptive power. The reference to proclaiming God’s name (ὄνομα) is a classic theme in
biblical theology,174 related in 1:5*; 10:13*; and 15:9* to the gospel mission. When the divine
name is proclaimed “in all the earth,” the hope expressed by the prophets and the psalms of
global recognition of Yahweh as the source of salvation would be fulfilled (Ezek 20:9*, 14*,
22*; Ps 79:9–10*). The phrase ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ (“in all the earth”) resonates with the global
sweep of the gospel seen throughout Romans.175 An additional link with the midrashic
172
Käsemann, 268.
173
Cranfield, 2:487.
*
25
whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show
his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;
Romans 3:25 (NRSV)
174
Hans Bietenhard, “ὄνομα κτλ.,” TDNT 5 (1967) 255–61.
*
5
through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the
Gentiles for the sake of his name,
Romans 1:5 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 10:13 (NRSV)
*
9
Romans 15:9 (NRSV)
*
9
But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they
lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt.
Ezekiel 20:9 (NRSV)
*
14
But I acted for the sake of my name, so that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight
I had brought them out.
Ezekiel 20:14 (NRSV)
*
22
But I withheld my hand, and acted for the sake of my name, so that it should not be profaned in the sight of the
nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.
Ezekiel 20:22 (NRSV)
*
8
You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it.
9
You cleared the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land.
175
See Rom 1:5*, 16*, 18*; 2:1*, 9*, 10*; 3:4*, 9*, 12*, 19*, 20*, 22*, 23*; 5:12*, 18*; 8:22*, 28*; 9:5*;
10:12*, 13*, 18*; 11:32*, 36*; 12:18*; 14:11*; 15:11*, where the universal scope of divine sovereignty
advanced by the gospel is lifted up.
argument beginning in 9:4* is that the contextual catchword “sons” is found in the same
pericope in Exodus 9 as that cited by Paul.176
 18* Paul’s conclusion is drawn, as in v. 16*, with the doubly emphatic ἄρα οὖν (“so then”),
which has the sense of “so it is undeniable.”177 The reduplication of θέλει (“he wills”) in the
carefully crafted parallel sentence rivets attention onto the central issue of divine selectivity.
The objection to the gospel in terms of its alleged allowance of divine “injustice” implies a
curtailing of this divine freedom. Thus, the reiteration of God’s active “will” not only stands
in contrast to the impotence of human willing (v. 16*) but also carries forward the logic of
“God’s selective purpose” (v. 11*). When this argumentative thrust is taken into account, it
becomes clear that the truly scandalous form of selectivity was that God “has mercy on whom
he wills,” namely, on those who did not deserve it. This matter of honor and shame was the
nub of the issue, both in Paul’s former persecution of the church and in current Jewish
repudiations of the gospel. It is also the point repeatedly discussed in this pericope—that none
of the patriarchs earned the blessing in any way.
Well-meaning theologians have expended far more ink in dealing with the hardening side of
this antithesis,178 even though that was widely accepted throughout biblical literature.179 That
Yahweh would harden Pharaoh’s heart was repeatedly stated in the exodus narrative (Exod
4:21*; 7:3*; 9:12*; 10:1*, 20*, 27*; 11:10*; 14:8*), along with the counterbalancing claim
176
Stegner, “Midrash” 41, argues that the reference to “sons” (of Israel) found in Exod 9:26* is the catchword
linking the citation of Exod 9:16* to Paul’s midrashic discourse.
*
18
Romans 9:18 (NRSV)
177
178
For orientation, see G. K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of
Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4–14 and Romans 9, ” TrinJ 5 (1984) 129–54. See the extensive apologies for Paul’s
language in Meyer, 2:140–43; Zahn, 452–55; Lagrange, 235–36; Leenhardt, 144–45; Morris, 361–62; Cranfield,
2:488–89; Dunn, 2:554–55.
179
See F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament (BZAW 74; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1955);
Fitzmyer, 567–68.
*
21
And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the
wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
Exodus 4:21 (NRSV)
*
3
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and I will multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 7:3 (NRSV)
*
12
But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to
Moses.
Exodus 9:12 (NRSV)
*
1
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in
order that I may show these signs of mine among them,
Exodus 10:1 (NRSV)
*
20
But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
Exodus 10:20 (NRSV)
*
27
But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was unwilling to let them go.
Exodus 10:27 (NRSV)
*
10
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he
did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 11:10 (NRSV)
*
that he hardened his own heart (Exod 7:13*, 14*, 22*; 8:15*, 19*, 32*; 9:7*, 34*, 35*).180
Exodus shows that Pharaoh was caught “in a hardening nexus from which he could not escape
nor exercise any totally independent self-determining actions, since Yahweh was the ultimate
cause of the hardening.”181 There was no scandal in reiterating this theme for Paul’s audience,
and its avoidance would hardly have done justice to the citation from Exod 9:16*. Dodd
offers a critique of this traditional scriptural view, suggesting on the basis of liberal theology
that Paul takes a “false step” in v. 18b* that falls short of “a fully ethical conception of
God.”182 However, this mistakes the thrust of Paul’s argument; it is not that Paul drives “an
unethical determinism to its logical extreme, in order to force his opponent to confess the
absolute and arbitrary sovereignty of God.183 It would be more appropriate to conclude that
Paul applies the widely shared teaching about Pharaoh’s hardening in order to make the much
more controversial case that God’s mercy is sovereign. Paul was convinced that the refusal of
this sovereign grace revealed in the gospel placed his Jewish compatriots in “the position of
Pharaoh,” incredibly reversing their status before God.184 Yet human resistance against
8
The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the Israelites, who were going out
boldly.
Exodus 14:8 (NRSV)
*
13
Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.
Exodus 7:13 (NRSV)
*
14
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go.
Exodus 7:14 (NRSV)
*
22
But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts; so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he
would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.
Exodus 7:22 (NRSV)
*
15
But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, and would not listen to them, just as the
Lord had said.
Exodus 8:15 (NRSV)
*
19
And the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God!” But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he
would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said.
Exodus 8:19 (NRSV)
*
32
But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and would not let the people go.
Exodus 8:32 (NRSV)
*
7
Pharaoh inquired and found that not one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh
was hardened, and he would not let the people go.
Exodus 9:7 (NRSV)
*
34
But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned once more and
hardened his heart, he and his officials.
Exodus 9:34 (NRSV)
*
35
So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the Lord had spoken
through Moses.
Exodus 9:35 (NRSV)
180
See the discussion in Morris, 361, and the detailed exegesis of the exodus passages in Beale, “Hardening,”
133–49.
181
Beale, “Hardening,” 149, italics in original.
182
Dodd, 157–58.
183
Ibid., 158.
184
impartial grace is not the last word, and in the end, according to the Pauline midrash, the
“word of God” will not only prevail but will be “proclaimed in all the earth.”
9 The Third Pericope

Diatribe and the Second Half of a Midrash Refuting Objections
19/ You will say to me then, “Why thena does he still find fault? For who has resisted
her design?” 20/ O human, on the contrary,b who are you to talk back to God? What is
molded does not say to the molder, “Why have you madec me thus?” 21/ Or has the
potter no power over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and
the other for dishonor? 22/ Now if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and make
known her power, enduresd with great patiencee vessels of wrath prepared for
*
19
20
21
ordinary use?
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
a
The omission of οὖν (“then”) by ‫ א‬A K L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243
1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2464 2495 Maj vg sy is roughly counterbalanced in the weight
of the texts including it, P46 B D F G it vgmss. The older Nestle25 text omitted it and Nestle-Aland26/27 brackets it,
indicating “the preference of the editors” but reflecting “a great deal of difficulty in determining the text”
(Nestle-Aland27 49*-50*). Cranfield, 2:489, argues for omission on grounds that the frequent repetition of τί οὖν
(“what then?”) in Romans would have provoked a copyist’s error. On the other hand, the deletion of οὖν would
seem to be likely on stylistic grounds because of its occurrence in the preceding question. It is a borderline
judgment, but the omission is more easily explainable than the addition, so the inclusion of οὖν seems more
likely.
b
The deletion of μενοῦνγε (“on the contrary”) by P46 D* F G 629 latt and the reversal of sequence to μενοῦνγε ὦ
ἄνθρωπε (“on the contrary, O human”) in ‫א‬2 D2 K L P Ψ 6 33 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945 1175 1241
1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 2464 2495 Maj syh appear to be efforts to simplify the surprising use of
μενοῦνγε after the vocative, according to Cranfield, 2:490. The reading ὦ ἄνθρωπε μενοῦνγε in ‫ *א‬A (B) 69 81
630 1506 1739 1881 pc Or1739mg is to be preferred as the more difficult option.
c
The use of ἔπλασας (“mold”) in place of ἐποίησας (“make”) in D syp follows the wording of the LXX of Isaiah.
d
The verb ἤνεγκεν (“he endured”) is omitted by F G it (syp) Ambst in place of their addition of εἰς described in
the next note.
e
The addition of εἰς (“toward”) by F G it (syp) Ambst was required syntactically because of the deletion of the
verb “he endured” by the same texts earlier in the sentence; it is clearly secondary.
destruction, 23/ evenf in order that he might make known the riches of his gloryg upon
vessels of mercy, which she prepared beforehand for gloryh—24/ us whom she also
called, not only from among Jews but also from among Gentiles,i 25/ as he also says
inj Hosea,
“I shall call ‘my people’ those who are not my people,
and her who was not beloved [I will call] ‘beloved.’
26/ And there will be in the place wherek it was saidl to them,m ‘youn are not my
people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”
27/ But Isaiah cries out concerning Israel,
“Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
[it is] the remnanto [that] will be saved,”
28/ “for the Lord will execute his word with rigor and dispatchp upon the earth.”
29/ And just as Isaiah has foretold,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left us seed,
we would have become like Sodom
f
The omission of καί (“and”) by B 6 69 326 424c 436 1739mg 1912 pc ar b vg sa bopt arm Orgr, lat(+1739mg) Severian
Hier appears to be an effort to eliminate one of the awkward components in the incomplete sentence of Rom
9:22–24*. The inclusion of “and” is strongly supported by P 46vid ‫ א‬A D F G K L P Ψ 33 81 88 104 181 256 263
323 330 365 424* 451 459 614 629 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1852 1874 1877
1881 1962 2127 2200 2344 2464 2492 2495 Lect d f g mon o vgms syp, h bopt eth geo slav Chr Ambst Pel Aug
Julian-Eclanum.
g
The replacement of δόξης (“glory”) by χρηστότητος (“kindness”) by P (syp) is inexplicable on the basis of
normal rules of textual criticism; although too weakly attested to be considered original, it is hard to explain as
an accidental or arbitrary change by later copyists.
h
For a discussion of the problem of punctuating vv. 23* and 24*, see Cranfield, 2:497–98.
i
On the question of the punctuation at the end of v. 24* and the beginning of v. 25*, see Cranfield, 2:498–99.
j
The deletion of ἐν (“in, by”) by P46vid B appears to be a stylistic improvement, since the dative case does not
require a preposition. It is not discussed by the commentators.
k
In place of οὗ (“of which”) ‫ *א‬Irlat vid have ὧ (“in which”) and, according to Cranfield, 2:499, so does P 46, but
not so in Nestle-Aland27 and Aland et al., Ergänzungsliste 79. While each form is acceptable Greek, the
replacement of οὗ may be a stylistic improvement or it may have been motivated by a desire to avoid confusion
with οὐ (“not”) earlier in the sentence. Despite the early witnesses, it is probably secondary.
l
While there is strong support in ‫ א‬A (B omits αὐτοῖς) D K L P (Ψ) 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945
1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj vg syh cop (Irlat vid omits
αὐτοῖς) for ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς (“it was said to them”), P46 F G ar b d* syp have a strikingly divergent reading, ἐὰν
(ἄν) κληθήσονται (“if they are called”), which is probably an assimilation to the wording later in v. 26*.
m
The deletion of αὐτοῖς (“to them”) by B Irlat vid, with Cranfield, 2:499, adding f syp Aug, is probably a stylistic
improvement or a transcription error. Cranfield suggests that it may be the more difficult reading, since the LXX
includes αὐτοῖς, hence explaining why it might have been added, but it is hard to understand why the deletion
would have seemed obtrusive.
n
The deletion of ὑμεῖς (“you”) by P46 it syp Irlat vid is hard to explain except as originating in a scribal error.
o
The synonym for ὑπόλειμμα (“remnant”), κατάλειμμα is provided by P46 ‫א‬1 D F G K L P Ψ 5 6 33 61 69 88 104
181 218 256 263 323 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 621 623 629 630 720 917 945 1175 1241 1243 1319
1398 1505 1563 1573 1678 1718 1735 1739 * 1751 1836 1838 1845 1852 1874 1875 1877 1881 1912 1942 1962
2127 2138 2197 2200 2344 2464 2492 2495 2516 2523 2544 Maj, but the application of the rule of the “more
difficult reading” leads most to accept ὑπόλειμμα in ‫ *א‬A B 81 1739c Eus as original. The fact that the LXX has
κατάλειμμα could explain the change.
p
The words ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον (“in righteousness, because the word is shortened”) were
probably added by ‫א‬2 D F G K L P Ψ 33 5 61 69 88 104 181 256 263 323 326 330 365 424* 441 451 459 467
614 621 623 629 630 720 915 917 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1398 1505 1563 c 1573 1678 1735 1751 1836 1838
1845 1874 1875 1877 1908c 1912 1942 1959 1962 2127 2138 2197 2200 2344 2464 2492 2495 2516 2544 2718
Maj Lect ar b d f g mon2 o vg syh goth arm geo slav Orlat Chr (Eus1/3) Ambst Hier2/4 Pel to make the text conform
to the LXX version of Isa 10:23*. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 462. Only the first two words were added
by 81 436 1852 pc Hier1/4 , which are also clearly secondary. The better-attested and more difficult text does not
have these words: P46 ‫ *א‬A B 6 218 424c 1319 1506 1563* 1718 1739 1881 1908* 2110 2127 pc mon* syp sa bo
eth Eus2/3 Cyr (Thretlem) Ps-Cyp Ambr Gaudentius Hier1/4 Aug.
and been made like Gomorrah.”
Analysis
The fusion of a formal diatribe into the framework of an extended midrashic exegesis resumes
with v. 19*. As in 9:1–5* the first person singular μοι (“to me”) again refers to Paul, and the
switch from the more collective plural of v. 14* focuses attention on Paul as the one
responsible for the answer to the rhetorical question of 9:19*. The imaginary interlocutor
responds to the hard statement of divine sovereignty that concluded the preceding pericope
with two closely related objections, which are answered in v. 20a*.1 In the view of current
analysis, the identity of this interlocutor is vague as compared with the identity of the Jewish
bigot in chap. 2,2 so that in Tobin’s analysis, the diatribe “serves only to raise the questions
Paul wants to deal with.”3 The image of the wily scoffer may have been adapted from Jewish
wisdom literature,4 and it seems likely that Paul employs this stereotype in order to
differentiate the interlocutor from the audience5 while making use of the traditional arguments
*
19
Romans 9:19 (NRSV)
*
1
2
3
4
5
*
14
Romans 9:14 (NRSV)
*
20
Romans 9:20 (NRSV)
1
Stowers presents this passage both in the context of the “Imaginary Interlocutor” (Diatribe, 113–14) and in the
discussion of “Objections and False Conclusions” (121).
2
See Stowers, Diatribe, 113–14; idem, Rereading, 300; Heil, 105; the question is not discussed by Elliott in
Liberating Paul or Rhetoric of Romans.
3
4
In Prov 30:1–4* the five rhetorical questions posed by a character with the pseudonym “Agur” comprise
sophisticated scoffing with some similarity to the character Paul develops. See W. T. Davison, “Agur,” DBH 1
(1901) 51; R. B. Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1971) 165–69;
Donald K. Berry, “Agur,” ABD 1 (1992) 10; Michael V. Fox, “Words for Folly,” ZAH 10 (1997) 6–8. James
Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 68, shows that
the wisdom literature identifies eight types of fools, including the “sakal—the one who persists in folly,” which
would fit the Agur character.
5
Stowers, Diatribe, 114, perceives a polemical element in this interlocutor: “It is a form of censure for the
addressees of the letter who might react to the problems Paul is rehearsing with impious attitudes.” Dunn, 2:555,
suggests that Paul views the interlocutor “as an expression of Jewish theological sensitivity over the harsher-
sounding corollaries to their own doctrine of election.” In a similar way, Fitzmyer, 568, summarizes the
viewpoint of the interlocutor: “why blame me, if I, a Jew, do not accept God’s offer in Christ.” None of these
suggestions is plausible rhetorically because throughout this pericope Paul keeps the audience on his side in
opposition to the wily scoffer. As Haacker, 195, observes, the interlocutor identifies himself with Pharaoh, who
seemed to suffer an arbitrary fate in 9:17–18. White, Apostle, 80, is correct in arguing that 9:19–24 “is not
polemical.”
from the wisdom literature about the inscrutable judgments of God. The technique of
responding to questions with rhetorical counterquestions was called anteisagoge, of which
vv. 20a–21* are an excellent example.6
The argument and quotations from vv. 20–29* answer the objections in v. 19*, 7 while
elaborating the distinction between all Israel and the true Israel that was stated in v. 6b*.8 The
refutation of the objections is substantiated by four scriptural proofs, several of which are
ingeniously combined out of fragments of biblical material to make a coherent argument. The
fifth supporting text concerning the potter having power over the clay is cited in v. 20b* from
Isa 29:16*, combined with several other texts and interpreted in the following verse. There is
a rhetorical inversion in the topic of “vessels for honor and for dishonor” in v. 21*, taken up
in reverse sequence in vv. 22–23*.9 In vv. 22–24* there is a potent anantapodoton
*
20
21
ordinary use?
6
*
20
21
ordinary use?
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
7
See Siegert, Argumentation, 132.
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
8
*
16
You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay? Shall the thing made say of its maker,
“He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of the one who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
Isaiah 29:16 (NRSV)
*
21
ordinary use?
Romans 9:21 (NRSV)
*
22
23
(intentionally incomplete syntax), in which the elaborate “if” clause is not followed by the
“then” clause at the end of v. 23*.10 The “then” clause must be supplied from vv. 20–21* with
one of the rhetorical questions concerning the right of the creature to challenge the creator.
Despite the syntactical confusion, v. 23* stands in antithetical parallelism with v. 22*, marked
by the reduplication of γνωρίζω (“make known”) and σκεῦος (“vessel”). The parallelism is
followed in v. 24* by a more straightforward statement about the election of Jews and
Gentiles. The following verses invert the sequence of “Jew … Gentile” in v. 24*, taking up
the Gentiles in v. 25* and Israel in v. 27*.11
The sixth, seventh, and eighth supporting texts in vv. 25–28* show that God’s promise
concerning the election of Gentiles and Jews as God’s children has been confirmed. The
reference to Jews and Gentiles in v. 24* is developed into a chiasm by means of texts relating
to Gentiles in vv. 25–26* and to Jews in vv. 27–29*, 12 although both categories are
9
See Harvey, Listening, 200.
*
22
23
24
*
23
Romans 9:23 (NRSV)
10
*
22
Romans 9:22 (NRSV)
*
24
Romans 9:24 (NRSV)
*
25
Romans 9:25 (NRSV)
*
27
Romans 9:27 (NRSV)
11
See Harvey, Listening, 200–201.
*
25
26
27
28
*
25
26
*
developed in an inclusive manner. The final citation in v. 29* provides an inclusio back to the
primary proof text from Gen 21:12* concerning the “seed,” thus completing in combination
with the supplementary text from Gen 18:10* an effective series of ten texts proving the
propriety of divine election and answering the question of the reliability of God’s word in v.
6* and the objections in vv. 14* and 19*.
IV. The probatio

9:19–29 3. Diatribe and the second half of a midrash refuting objections
9:19 a. The objection to Paul’s doctrine of God’s selective purpose
9:19a 1) The introduction of the imaginary interlocutor
9:19b 2) The first objection, about whether God’s judgment is fair
9:19c 3) The second objection, about whether humans can be held accountable
9:20–29 b. The answer to the objections
9:20a–21 1) The anteisagoge showing that the objections are untenable
a) The first counterquestion, condemning humans talking back to God
9:20b b) The second counterquestion, showing the inappropriateness of clay questioning
the potter, using the fifth combination of supporting texts from Isa 29:16*
9:21 c) The third counterquestion, interpreting the citation by asserting the right of the
potter—
(1) To use clay to make fine ware
(2) To use clay to make common ware
9:22–23 2) The anantapodoton about the divine demonstration of wrath and mercy
9:22a a) God has a right to demonstrate wrath and power
9:22b b) God has been patient with “vessels of wrath”
9:23a c) God desires to reveal “riches” to “vessels of mercy”
9:23b d) Vessels of mercy are elected beforehand “for glory”
e) [The apodosis supplied from 9:20–21*: “creatures cannot dispute with their Creator”]
9:24 3) The argument about the calling of believers as “vessels of mercy”
27
28
29
12
Aletti, “Argumentation,” 48. Winkel’s proposal in “Argumentationsnanalyse,” 71, that a new section begins
with v. 27* would break up the midrashic argument and destroy the chiastic development of v. 24* in vv. 25–
29*.
*
29
Romans 9:29 (NRSV)
*
12
*
10
9:24a a) Believers are among the “vessels of mercy” that are “called” (ἐκάλεσεν; see also
9:7*)
9:24b b) The “identity of the vessels of mercy”
(1) “Not only from the Jews”
(2) “But also from the Gentiles”
9:25–26 4) The sixth combination of supporting texts, showing that God elects those
who were not originally God’s beloved
9:25a a) The introduction of the citation
9:25b b) The citation from Hos 2:25*
(1) First catchword: καλέσω (“I will call”; cf. 9:7*)
(2) Second catchword: ἠγαπημένην (“beloved”; cf. 9:13*)
9:26 c) The citation from Hos 2:1*
(1) First catchword: κληθήσονται (“they shall be called”; cf. 9:7*)
(2) Second catchword: υἱοί (“sons”; cf. 9:9*)
9:27–28 5) The seventh abbreviation of a supporting text, showing that only a remnant
will be saved from judgment
9:27b–28 b) The citation from Isa 10:22–23* + Hos 2:1*; Catchword: υἱῶν (“sons”; cf.
9:9*)
9:29 6) The eighth supporting text, showing that the seed will be preserved by God
9:29b b) The citation from Isa 1:9*; Catchword: σπέρμα (“seed”; cf. 9:7*)
Exegesis
*
7
named for you.”
Romans 9:7 (NRSV)
*
23
and I will sow him for myself in the land. And I will have pity on Lo-ruhamah,and I will say to Lo-ammi,
“You are my people”; and he shall say, “You are my God.”
Hosea 2:23 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 9:13 (NRSV)
*
10
Hosea 1:10 (NRSV)
*
9
Romans 9:9 (NRSV)
*
22
For though your people Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is
decreed, overflowing with righteousness.
23
For the Lord God of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in all the earth.
Isaiah 10:22–23 (NRSV)
*
9
If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we would have been like Sodom, and become like
Gomorrah.
Isaiah 1:9 (NRSV)
 19* The pericope opens with Paul’s address to an imaginary interlocutor who raises the
logical questions arising from the first half of the pericope. Since the diatribe presupposes a
friendly exchange between Paul and his audience,13 it is not necessary to imagine “the Jewish
opponent”14 as responsible for raising these questions. This person is different from the
interlocutor in chap. 2 and fits perfectly into the stereotype in the wisdom literature of the
wily scoffer. In a shrewd manner, the interlocutor raises the obviously logical objections to
Paul’s depiction of God’s selective purpose. The sharply formulated conclusion of the
preceding verse, in fact, was intended to provoke these questions and thus to move Paul’s
argument forward. The use of ἐρεῖς (“you [sg.] will say”) to express objections in a diatribe is
not as rare as supposed,15 and it could be that the extent of skeptical arrogance implied by the
questions16 made it unpalatable to state them in the inclusive first person plural style of
9:14*.17 Paul places these skeptical—and from the perspective of Jewish orthodoxy
unacceptable—questions in the words of a single imaginary interlocutor addressing Paul (μοι
= “to me”), thus intensifying the element of dialogue (= sermocinatio).18 The exchange is
fictive, yet strikingly concrete19 in the context of Paul’s agonizing over the disbelief of his
fellow Jews. The avoidance of the first person plural or the second person plural allows the
audience to participate in the exchange without feeling accused of having placed themselves
in the position of Pharaoh’s advocates,20 because both questions spring directly from the
Exodus quotation and its elaboration in 9:17–18* as indicated by the conjunction οὖν
(“then”). The emphatic word order in the phrase ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν (“to me you will say then”)21
also indicates a measure of overstatement that allows the audience to participate in a
nonthreatening fashion. They would enjoy the repartee between the wily interlocutor and the
Apostle to the Gentiles.
The first question, τί οὖν ἔτι μέμφεται; (“Why then does he still find fault?”), bears directly on
the divine selectivity that manifested itself in the treatment of Pharaoh. If God “hardens whom
she wills,” how was it fair for Pharaoh to be condemned? The question of “injustice” on the
part of God (9:14*) continues to hover in the background of this question.22 The word
μέμφομαι is used here for the only time in the Pauline letters in its typical meaning of “find
fault with, blame,”23 presupposing a failure measured by some standard of justice. The word
13
Stowers, Diatribe, 180–84.
14
Michel, 311; Schlier, 298; Ellison, Mystery of Israel, 51; Dunn, 2:555; Fitzmyer, 568.
15
Stowers, Diatribe, 134, found only one example, but it is not formally similar to Paul’s formulation here. A
TLG search discovered 1,545 examples, including Euripides Hec. 1272: “Or, what will you say of me (ἢ τί, τῆς
ἐμῆς ἐρεῖς)?” Sophocles Oed. col. 1036 captures the sense of Rom 9:19* particularly well, “You, being here,
shall say to me nothing blameworthy (οὐδὲν σὺ μεμπτὸν ἐνθάδʼ ὢν ἐρεῖς ἐμοί).” Epictetus Diss. 2.25 has “What
will you say (τί ἐρεῖς)?” and there are many other examples. The rhetorical ἐρεῖς occurs elsewhere in the NT in
Matt 7:4*; Acts 23:5*; Rom 11:9*.
16
Stowers, Diatribe, 114: “He is pretentious and arrogant like the types in 2:1–5 and 17–24 but this time he even
directly questions God.” See also Piper, Justification, 165–66.
17
See the discussion in Zahn, 453; Sanday and Headlam, 258. Schmeller, Diatribe, 328, considers the possibility
that the second person style alludes to specific voices in the Roman congregation, but he denies the possibility of
precise identification.
18
19
See Brandenburger, “Paulinische Schriftauslegung,” 11.
20
See Piper, Justification, 166.
*
17
18
21
Noted by Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 390, citing BDF §475.2.
22
Schlier, 298.
23
BAGD 502; it is used elsewhere in the NT only in Heb 8:8*.
appears in similar rhetorical questions in Diogenes Laertius Vitae philos. 2.77, τί οὖν ἐμέμφου
(“Why then did you blame?”) and in Aelius Aristides Ἀθην. 402.17, τί μέμφονται (“Why are
they blamed?”).24 The adverb “still” refers to the temporal continuity between the initial
hardening of Pharaoh and the subsequent condemnation.25
The second question is explanatory of the first (γάρ, “for”), augmenting the supposition that
no hardened person can be held accountable if he or she is unable to resist such selectivity on
the part of God. The expression βούλημα αὐτοῦ (“his purpose, intention”) echoes the theme
of God’s will in 9:18*.26 Rather than rendering this as “his will,”27 the abstraction implies
“purpose,” “intention,”28 or, more aptly, “plan” or “design.”29 The question is posed with the
gnomic perfect of ἀνθίστημι (“resist”),30 which carries the sense of “who has ever resisted”
God’s will. The form implies a general rule, which some translators try to capture by the
present tense31 or by augmenting the expression to “can resist.”32 The thought appears very
close to Wis 12:12*, which uses the same verb: ἤ τίς ἀντιστήσεται τῷ κρίματι σου (“or who
will resist your judgment?”).33 Similarly, Job 9:19* asks, τίς οὖν κρίματι αὐτοῦ ἀντιστήσεται
(“Who therefore will resist your judgment?”). The assumption that Paul shares with the
wisdom tradition is that no one can ultimately resist the judgment of God, so the wily scoffer
asks, in effect, if predestination is irresistible, then no one can fairly be held accountable for
playing the role of Pharaoh. By formulating the second question in this way, Paul associates
the imaginary critic of his doctrine of undeserved mercy, grounded on the selective will of
God, with Esau, Pharaoh, and the scoffer. This sets up the rhetorical framework for the
strongly stated counterquestions in the next verses.
 20* The first of three counterquestions34 is introduced with deeply emotive language of
direct address, ὦ ἄνθρωπε (“O human”) which dominates the rest of the sentence.35 There is
Vitae Vitae philosophorum

Ἀθην.̠Ὑπὲρ τῆς πρὸς Ἀθηναίους εἰρήνης
24
Other examples in Strabo Geogr. 12.3.27.2, “Why would anyone find fault (τί ἄν τις μέμφοιτο)?” and Lucian
of Samosata Sacr. 7.7, “So that how would anyone still find fault (ὥστε πῶς ἂν ἔτι μέμφοιτό τις)?” See also
BAGD (2000) 629.
25
Sanday and Headlam, 258.
*
18
Romans 9:18 (NRSV)
26
Schlier, 298.
27
Dodd, 158; Barrett, 187; Dunn, 2:556; Hans-Joachim Ritz, “βουλή κτλ.,” EDNT 1 (1990) 225: “forcible will of
God.”
28
Gottlob Schrenk, “βούλομαι κτλ.,” TDNT 1 (1964) 637: “the purposeful intention of God …”
29
The use of βουλήματι αὐτοῦ to refer to the design or plan of God is found neither in the NT nor in the LXX,
but see Philo Mos. 1.287–88: “Besides, he had realized that the purpose of the king who had hired him was not
in harmony with the plan of God (οὐ συνᾴδιε τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήματι).” In 1QM 14:14 we read, “For great [is]
your glorious plan.”
30
Wilckens, 2:201.
31
Sanday and Headlam, 259; Lagrange, 236; Cranfield, 2:490.
32
Michel, 304; Barrett, 187; Dodd, 158; Byrne, Reckoning, 187.
*
12
For who will say, “What have you done?” or will resist your judgment? Who will accuse you for the
destruction of nations that you made? Or who will come before you to plead as an advocate for the unrighteous?
Wisdom of Solomon 12:12 (NRSV)
33
Cranfield, 2:490, makes an overly sharp distinction between Wisdom’s reference to the impossibility of
resisting divine judgment and Paul’s contention “that no man does, as a matter of fact, resist.”
*
19
If it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one! If it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?
Job 9:19 (NRSV)
34
Winkel, “Argumentationsanalyse,” 69, refers to the three rhetorical questions without using the technical
rhetorical category of anteisagoge.
35
See BDF §146 for the proof that ὦ conveys “very strong emotion … ,” noted by Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 394.
an unmistakable tone of grief and warning in these opening words, which are far from the
polite connotation of “my dear sir.”36 Many commentators have observed the rhetorical
contrast between the first and last nouns in this sentence: “human … God,”37 which
strengthens the tone of reproach. It elegantly matches the contrast in the subsequent citation
between “what is molded” and “the molder.” The use of the intensified particle μενοῦνγε
meaning “on the contrary”38 conveys the same tone and prepares for the sharp correction in
the following denunciation, which expresses the Jewish as well as the Greco-Roman premise
about the need to avoid arrogance before God. The question σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ
θεῷ; (“Who are you to talk back to God?”) has a diatribal quality that echoes the colloquial
expression39 that appears in Job 35:2*, where Elihu challenges Job’s presumption in claiming
to be righteous before God: σὺ τίς εἶ, ὅτι εἲπας, Δίκαιός εἰμι ἔπαντι κυρίου; (“Who are you
that you have said, I am righteous before the Lord?”) Paul’s question resonates with Jewish
warnings about the fear of God40 and with Greco-Roman warnings about the dangers of pride
before the deity.41 The widely shared assumption is stated in Pindar’s maxim, χρὴ δὲ πρὸς
θεὸν οὐκ ἐρίζειν (“one must not contend against God”).42 The nominal form of the compound
verb ἀνταποκρίνομαι (“talk back, reply”)43 is used where Job is warned to “no longer give a
reply [to God] as fools do (μῆ δῷς ἔτι ἀνταπόκρισιν ὥσπερ οἱ ἄφρονες).”44 Thus, the
sophisticated questioner of the divine selectivity implied by Paul’s scandalous doctrine of
mercy to the undeserving ends up in the position of the insolent and the foolish, scorned by
Greek and Jew alike. Given the earlier argument of Romans, which decries arrogance against
God as the root problem of the human race (1:18–32*), the position of the challenger in this
verse is shown to be untenable by the formulation of this first counterquestion.45
36
Barrett, 187. The same address, “O human,” was found in Rom 2:1*, 3. The phrase occurs in Epictetus Diss.
2.17.33 in a diametrically opposite sense: “You are a god, O human (ὦ ἄνθρωπε)! You have great plans!”
37
Zahn, 454; Cranfield, 2:490; Wilckens, 2:201; Dunn, 2:556.
38
See BDF §146.1b; 450.4; and BAGD 503; cf. Rom 10:18*; Phil 3:8*.
39
See BAGD 819: “(just) who are you? What sort of man are you?”
*
2
“Do you think this to be just? You say, ‘I am in the right before God.’
Job 35:2 (NRSV)
40
Deut 10:12*; Job 28:28*; Ps 111:10*; Prov 1:7*; 9:10*; Eccl 5:7*, etc. See also 4Q381, frg. 77.10, “Who
among you will reply a word, and [who] will stand in controversy wi[th him … ]?
41
Sophocles Trach. 280; Oed. tyr. 895–910; etc.
42
Cited by BAGD 73 from Pindar Pyth. 2.88.
43
Compounds in ἀνταποκριν- are quite rare; the only other place this verb is found in the NT is Luke 14:6*. The
lexicographer Hesychius Lex. α5761.1 glosses this word with ἀπαβειμένος (“to answer back, reply”).
44
Job 34:36*; cf 1QS 11:20–22, “Who can grasp your glory? What, indeed, is the son of Adam among your
wondrous works? … What can clay and that which is shaped by hand dispute? And what counsel does it
comprehend?”
*
18
19
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20
21
for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in
their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22
Claiming to be wise, they became fools;
23
and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or
four-footed animals or reptiles.
24
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among
themselves,
25
The second counterquestion is created from an adaptation of Isa 29:16*. The first clause is
quoted exactly, and the second clause is adapted so as to echo Isa 45:9*; Wis 12:12*; and Job
9:12*.46 The source of the citation may be seen as follows:
Romans 9:20* Isaiah 29:16b*-e
Μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ
πλάσαντι πλάσαντι
(“What is molded does (“What is molded does not say
not say to the molder”) to the molder”)
τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως; οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας;
(“‘Why did you make (“‘Did you not mold me?’ ”)
me
thus?’ ”) ἢ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι,
(“Or the work to the maker,”)
οὐ συνετῶς με ἐποίησας.
(“‘You did not make me wisely.’ ”)
As Koch has shown, Paul’s verb ποιέω (“make”) appears in Isa 29:16e*, rendering
unnecessary the premise that he quoted it from Isa 45:9*.47 Paul’s alteration of the second line
in the citation brings it into stylistic conformity with the first objection in 9:19b* and thus
makes it answer the objection more directly.48 Since Paul wishes to concentrate on human
resistance to divine selectivity, Isaiah’s concerns about whether the clay was molded at all (v.
16c*), or was molded wisely (v. 16e*), are extraneous. In that sense one could say that Paul’s
26
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for
unnatural,
27
and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for
one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their
error.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that
should not be done.
29
30
slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,
31
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but
even applaud others who practice them.
45
The consistency of this verse with the earlier argument of the letter indicates that Paul is not merely attempting
“to dismiss the legitimacy of the question and in that way to eliminate the theological problem,” as claimed by
*
9
Woe to you who strive with your Maker, earthen vessels with the potter!Does the clay say to the one who
fashions it, “What are you making”? or “Your work has no handles”?
Isaiah 45:9 (NRSV)
*
12
He snatches away; who can stop him? Who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?’
Job 9:12 (NRSV)
46
Cranfield, 2:491; Hays, Echoes, 65f.; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 204–6.
47
Koch, Schrift 144; see also Herbert Braun, “πλάσσω κτλ.,” TDNT 6 (1968) 260, followed by Dunn, 2:556.
Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 304–7, and Wagner, Heralds, 58–68, argue for the citation of Isa 45:9*.
48
*
16
Romans 9:16 (NRSV)
alteration allows a more precise grasp of his point in using the Isaiah citation.49 The terms
πλάσμα and πλάσσειν mean “that which is molded” and “to mold,” respectively, referring to a
wide range of materials and processes used by artisans or artists.50 The story of God making
Adam in Gen 2:7–8* is phrased with the same language: καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον
χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.… Καὶ ἐφύτευσεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς παράδεισον … καὶ ἔθετο ἐκεῖ τὸν
ἄνθρωπον, ὃν ἔπλασεν. (“And God molded the human of dust from the earth.… And the Lord
God planted a garden … and placed there the person he had molded.”) This terminology is
widely used by other biblical writers51 to describe God’s shaping of humans in general,52 or
the prophet in particular,53 the earth and all within it,54 Israel and its destiny,55 as well as the
other nations.56 The assumption of this usage is the absolute sovereignty of the molder over
what is molded to provide whatever shape God desires.57 Hence, Paul introduces the question
with μή (“not”), indicating the impossibility of any molded object speaking thus to its
creator.58
Given this broad biblical tradition of understanding the creation as molded by God, the
presumption of the question is raised to the intolerable level: “Why have you made me thus?”
As Siegert points out, the logical answer to such a question is that if you were not made thus
and so, you would not have been made at all; you would not even exist!59 The question thus
addresses the objection that God should not hold persons accountable since his purposes are
selective, showing that such an objection is an absurdly presumptuous statement of a creature
questioning the creator. The rhetorical effectiveness of this verse, supported by so broad a
tradition of using the language of molding for divine sovereignty in creation, renders it
unlikely that the original audience would have retorted with Dodd, “But the trouble is that a
man is not a pot; he will ask, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ and he will not be bludgeoned
into silence.”60 The deft hand that reformulated the question τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως; (“Why did
you make me thus?”) is not swinging a blackjack but stating the obvious absurdity of “talking
back” to the Creator in this manner, a point on which his audience is sure to agree. The
question throws light on “the paradox of Israel’s continued resistance to God’s purposes for
them.”61
49
Siegert, Argumentation, 134; Koch, Schrift, 144.
50
Braun, “πλάσσω κτλ.,” 255; BAGD 660.
*
7
then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
the man became a living being.
8
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
51
See Braun, “πλάσσω κτλ.,” 256–58; Wagner, Heralds, 68–71, also points to 1QS 11:22b as a close parallel:
“What will the clay reply, and the one shaped by hand? And what advice will he be able to understand?”
52
Pss 33:15*; 94:9*; 119:73*; 138:5*; Prov 24:12*; Isa 44:2*, 24*; 49:5*; 53:11*; 2 Macc 7:23*; Zech 12:1*;
Job 10:8f*.; Wis 15:11*.
53
Isa 49:5*; 53:11*; Jer 1:5*.
54
Ps 74:17*; 95:5*; 104:26*; Isa 45:18*; Jer 10:16*; 33:2*; 51:19*; Job 38:14*.
55
Deut 32:6*; Isa 27:11*; 43:1*; 44:2*, 21*, 24*.
56
Hab 1:12*.
57
Braun, “πλάσσω κτλ.,” 257; Erich Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων—eine Gerichtsankündigung? (Zu Römer 9,
27/28),” BN 109 (2001) 77–80.
58
59
Ibid.
60
Dodd, 159, italics in original. That this “is the weakest point in the whole epistle” is rightly rejected by Dunn,
2:557.
61
Wagner, Heralds, 71; see also Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 306–7.
 21* The third counterquestion turns to the other half of the Creator–creation relationship,
referring not to the response of the creature but the ἐξουσία (“power”)62 of the Creator. The
analogy of the potter and clay is associated in biblical materials with the language of
molder/molded, with a notable example appearing in the very passage from which the
previous verse draws its quotation (Isa 29:16*; see also Ps 2:9*; Isa 41:25*; 45:9*; Jer 18:1–
6*; and Sir 33:13*). In Wis 15:7–8* this analogy appears with specific reference to clay
vessels of various classes: Καὶ γὰρ κεραμεὺς ἁπαλὴν γῆν θλίβων ἐπίμοχθον πλάσσει πρὸς
ὑπηρεσίαν ἡμῶν ἓν ἕκαστον· ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ ἀνεπλάσατο τά τε τῶν καθαρῶν ἔργων
δοῦλα σκεύη τά τε ἐναντία, πάντα ὁμοίως· τούτων δὲ ἑτέρου τίς ἑκάστου ἐστὶν ἡ χρῆσις,
κριτὴς ὁ πηλουργός. καὶ κακόμοχθος θεὸν μάταιον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πλάσσει πηλοῦ.… (“For a
potter, kneading soft dirt, laboriously molds each vessel for our service: but from the same
clay he makes both vessels that serve clean purposes and those serving the opposite, all in the
same way; but what shall be the use of each, the maker is the judge. And the one who works
perversely fashions a vain god from the same clay …”). The analogy Paul draws in this
passage appears to be an allusion to the Wisdom quotation,63 which contains several of the
key words in v. 21*, κεραμεύς (“potter”),64 πηλός (“clay”)65 and σκεῦος (“vessel”)66 as well
62
Werner Foerster, “ἐξουσία,” TDNT 2 (1964) 567, understands the basic connotation in this verse as referring to
“the absolute power of God”; Dunn, 2:557, argues that this passage stresses the aspect of “right” rather than the
power, citing parallels in 1 Cor 7:37*; 9:4–6*; 2 Thess 3:9*. See also Mark 11:28*.
*
9
You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Psalm 2:9 (NRSV)
*
25
I stirred up one from the north, and he has come, from the rising of the sun he was summoned by name.He
shall trample on rulers as on mortar, as the potter treads clay.
Isaiah 41:25 (NRSV)
*
1
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord:
2
“Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.”
3
So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel.
4
The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as
seemed good to him.
5
Then the word of the Lord came to me:
6
Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the
potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
*
13
Like clay in the hand of the potter, to be molded as he pleases, so all are in the hand of their Maker, to be
given whatever he decides.
Sirach 33:13 (NRSV)
*
7
A potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, fashioning out of the same
clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all alike; but which shall be the
use of each of them the worker in clay decides.
8
With misspent toil, these workers form a futile god from the same clay— these mortals who were made of earth
a short time before and after a little while go to the earth from which all mortals are taken, when the time comes
to return the souls that were borrowed.
Wisdom of Solomon 15:7–8 (NRSV)
63
See Cranfield, 2:491–92. Piper, Justification, 176, observes that the idolatrous context of the potter analogy in
Wis 15:7* is missing from Rom 9, which leads him to suggest Sir 33:13* as a closer parallel that sustains his
theory that Paul is dealing with individual predestination. The Sirach passage has three out of the five key terms
or ideas in Rom 9:21* that recur in Wis 15:7*: “vessel,” “potter,” and “clay.” See also Johnson, Function, 149.
64
See BAGD 428; it is a hapax legomenon in the NT; since the phrase ὁ πηλὸς τοῦ κεραμέυς (“the clay of the
potter”) is found in Isa 29:16*, one wonders whether Paul has simply changed the word order to produce ὁ
κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ (“the potter of the clay”).
65
Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “πηλός,” TDNT 6 (1968) 118, translates with “loam” or “clay.”
as πλάσσειν (“to mold”), which appeared as the key term in v. 20*. With the phrase ἐκ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ φυράματος (“from the same lump”), Paul also expresses the theme found in the
Wisdom quotation, “from the same clay.” Paul’s formulation of the analogy is both more
succinct67 and more apt than the formulation in Wis 15:7*, stressing the power of the potter
over the clay and strengthening the antithesis between fine ware and common ware. While
there are limits to any such analogy,68 this one clearly serves Paul’s purpose of sustaining the
legitimacy of the divine distinction between the true Israel and all Israel that Paul has been
following since 9:6b*.69 It would therefore be inappropriate to conclude from Paul’s use of
the sharply formulated antithesis between “honorable” and “dishonorable” vessels that he is
dealing here with the predestination of individuals.70 If the same lump of clay can produce an
elegant decanter for wine71 or a common “chamber pot,”72 the emphasis remains on the
selectivity of the potter to meet practical needs.73 It would extend the analogy in a false
direction to draw conclusions about the “despotic, tyrannical, Sultanic” quality of arbitrariness
in the potter’s work.74 The rhetorical question simply requires the answer, “Yes, the potter has
such power.”75 Any further inference from the analogy should be deferred until the next two
verses when Paul elaborates the intention of God in creating vessels of wrath and mercy.
 22* Verses 22* and 23* provide the “if clause” of an incomplete sentence whose logical but
ungrammatical conclusion is found in v. 24*.76 The protasis invites the reader to supply the
apodosis to the if clause, “If …, then it is proper.…”77 These verses apply the analogy of the
potter’s vessel to the issue of Israel’s rejection of the gospel.78 Thus it would be inappropriate
to construe the particle δέ (“now, and, but”) in an adversative sense to express the idea “that
God’s ways are not just like the potter’s.”79 It fits the argumentative context better to render
δέ as “now.”80 Given the argumentative thrust and the parallelism between v. 22* and v. 23*,
66
Christian Maurer, “σκεῦος,” TDNT 7 (1971) 362–64.
67
Rom 9:21* has twenty-two words, while Wis 15:7* expresses virtually the same thought with forty-two words.
*
7
A potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, fashioning out of the same
clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all alike; but which shall be the
use of each of them the worker in clay decides.
68
Gale, Analogy, 199, points out that clay is a material object while humans are thinking beings capable of a
genuine relationship to their Creator.
69
See Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 413. Dunn, 2:557–58, refers to the implicit irony of linking unbelieving Israel with a
dishonorable vessel, but Paul does not develop this theme.
70
Piper, Justification, 183, argues that the analogy refers “to individuals and eternal destinies.”
71
The phrase εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος refers to an expensive vessel, as in Lydus Magistr. 126.4, describing the gold and
silver booty of Trajan as including “expensive vessels” (σκεύων τιμῆς); the Historia Alexandri Magni Rec. λ
63.29 refers to “a very expensive vessel” (πολύτιλμον σκεῦος).
72
Dunn, 2:557; Siegert, Argumentation, 136. Epictetus develops the concept of someone as a “worthless vessel
(σκεύαριον… σαπρόν… σκεῦος ἄχρηστον)” in Diss. 2.4.4, 6; 3.24.33.
73
Godet, 358.
74
See Kuss, 3:730; Wilckens, 2:202; and the rebuttal in Cranfield, 2:492.
75
See Johnson, Function, 149.
76
The older commentators such as Tholuck, 336, and Weiss, 421, referred to this with the classical grammatical
category of aposiopesis, explained in BDF §482 as “omission of the apodosis.” For a more recent discussion, see
Bornkamm, “Anakoluthe,” 90–92; Cranfield, 2:492–98. Siegert, Argumentation, 136–37, argues in contrast for
9:22* as the protasis and 9:23* as an apodosis, which seems implausible because v. 23* begins with καὶ ἵνα
(“and in order that”), which does not match the style of an apodosis. Zeller, Juden, 203–8, and Römer, 179,
follows Maier, Israel, 44, in taking v. 22* and v. 23* as parallel lines of a protasis, with v. 24* as the apodosis,
which fails to take the broken quality of the syntax into account. See Kuss, 3:731–32, for an account of earlier
discussion of the grammatical problem. The problems in this sentence remain unresolved.
77
Lietzmann, 93.
78
Godet, 359.
79
Cranfield, 2:493.
80
See Godet, 359.
it is better to construe the participial clause81 beginning with θέλων (“willing, wanting”)82 in a
purposive83 rather than a causal84 or concessive sense.85 The expressions “to demonstrate his
wrath” and “make known his power” extend key terms of the propositio (δύναμις, “power,” in
1:16*) and the opening of the first proof (ὀργή, “wrath,” in 1:18*) in the letter. The verb
ἐνδείκνυσθαι (“demonstrate”) links this sentence with the demonstration of “righteousness” in
3:25–26* and the divine self-revelation in 2:15* and 9:17*, perhaps echoing Exod 9:16*.86
The second formulation, concerning “making known his power” (γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν
αὐτοῦ), is typical of the OT. For example, Jer 16:21* writes, “I … will make known to them
my power; and they shall know that my name is the Lord (καὶ γνωριῶ αὐτοῖς τὴν δύναμίν
μου, καὶ γνώσονται, ὅτι ὄνομά μοι Κύριος).”87 In this instance the ultimate purpose of divine
81
See the extensive discussions in Bornkamm, “Anakoluthe,” 90–92; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 242–45;
82
Although it would be more idiomatically appropriate to translate θέλων here as “wanting,” its use in 9:18*
requires the more theologically appropriate translation, “willing.” Gottlob Schrenk, “θέλω κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965)
47, discusses θέλειν “as commanding will … Expressly of God and His purposes and rule,” citing the classical
expression ἐὰν θεὸς θέλῃ (“if God wills”) in Xenophon Cyr. 2.4.19; Plato Phaed. 80d; etc.
83
Lietzmann, 92f.; Schmidt, 167; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 242–44.
84
Kühl, 333–34; Michel, 305; Barrett, 189f.; Cranfield, 2:494. Luz, Geschichtverständnis, 243, points out that
the causal interpretation is merely a strengthening of the purposive construal without adding anything new.
85
Weiss, 421–22; Sanday and Headlam, 261; Leenhardt, 258; Black, 132. Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 244,
points out that the concessive sense erodes the parallelism between v. 22* and v. 23* and disregards the earlier
argument of Romans that prevents a vague dissociation between wrath and grace.
*
16
Romans 1:16 (NRSV)
*
18
Romans 1:18 (NRSV)
*
25
26
it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in
Jesus.
*
15
Romans 2:15 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 9:17 (NRSV)
*
16
earth.
Exodus 9:16 (NRSV)
86
Dunn, 2:558.
*
21
“Therefore I am surely going to teach them, this time I am going to teach them my power and my might, and
they shall know that my name is the Lord.”
87
See also Ps 76:14*, “you made known your power among the nations (ἐγνώρισας ἐν τοῖς λαοῖς τὴν δύναμίν
σου).” See Rudolf Bultmann, “γνωρίζω,” TDNT 1 (1964) 718: “The NT use of γνωρίζω corresponds to that of
the LXX.”
wrath and power, as Rom 9:23* and 11:26–32* will show, is to change “vessels of wrath”
into “vessels of mercy” through the power of the gospel.88
The predominance of mercy over wrath in Paul’s elaboration of the metaphor of the potter and
the vessel is conveyed by the wording that God “endures with great patience (ἤνεγκεν ἐν
πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ)”89 those who deserve wrath. Given the crucial reference to the “patience
of God” in 2:5*, the implication here is that God delays the enactment of wrath so that the
scope of repentance and mercy is widened as far as possible.90 Paul paraphrases a well-
established formula from Exod 34:6* that “echoes again and again through the biblical
writings and into later Judaism:”91 κύριος ὁ θεὸς οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ
πολυέλεος (“The Lord God is piteous and merciful, patient and very compassionate”). Given
the context in Exodus, it is clear that divine patience implies no abandonment of the grounds
for wrath but rather “postpones its operation until something takes place in man which
justifies the postponement.”92 The use of this concept shows the extent to which Paul is
willing to bend the analogy of the potter and the vessel into the dissimilar arena of human
responsibility, for one would not ordinarily speak of being “patient” with a clay pot on the
premise that it will have time to change its shape.93
The reference to “the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” is thus qualified from the
outset by the expression of divine patience that waits for human responses.94 Such patient
endurance on the part of God renders illogical the possibility that σκεῦος should be rendered
“instrument” rather than “vessel,” following the use in the LXX of Jer 27:25* and the
Symmachus version of Isa 13:5*, for why should God be “patient” with an “instrument of
*
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
88
Cranfield, 2:497.
89
Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 80, argues for a gnomic aorist, “endures with great patience,” because Paul is here
applying the metaphor of the vessel to the situation of Israel.
*
5
But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s
righteous judgment will be revealed.
Romans 2:5 (NRSV)
90
Dunn, 2:559.
*
6
The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
Exodus 34:6 (NRSV)
91
Johannes Horst, “μακροθυμία κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 376; see, e.g., 4QDibHam 1 ii 7–11.
92
Horst, “μακροθυμία κτλ.,” 377; he denies, however (382–83), that Rom 9:22* implies the provision of time for
repentance.
93
See Gale, Analogy, 198–205.
94
See Maurer, “σκεῦος,” 363–64; Hanson, Wrath, 90–92.
*
25
The Lord has opened his armory, and brought out the weapons of his wrath, for the Lord God of hosts has a
task to do in the land of the Chaldeans.
*
wrath” designed to punish evildoers?95 The context indicates that the construction of σκεύη
ὀργῆς (“vessels of wrath”) should be understood as a genitive of quality96 rather than a
genitive of origin. Paul does not mean “vessels destined to be broken by wrath.”97 The choice
of the verb “prepared” in the perfect passive form (κατηρτισμένα) implies action subsequent
to the original creation of the vessels, in contrast to the more predestinarian term “made
beforehand” used in the following verse.98 The responsibility for actions punished by wrath
remains unstated in this passive form.99 As in other Pauline passages (Phil 1:29*; 3:19*; 2
Thess 2:3*) the expression εἰς ἀπώλειαν implies annihilation in the last judgment,100 but as
the subsequent argument will demonstrate, God will in fact not reject the Jewish people
(11:1–2*), who stand in the position of the “vessels of wrath” at the present time.101 Even in
this verse Paul is going as far as he possibly can to reconcile human responsibility and divine
prerogative with the prospect of the ultimate triumph of mercy.102
5
They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the Lord and the weapons of his indignation, to
destroy the whole earth.
Isaiah 13:5 (NRSV)
95
See Hanson, Wrath, 90–92, and A. T. Hanson, “Vessels of Wrath or Instruments of Wrath? Romans xi. 22–3, ”
JTS 32 (1981) 433–43, which disregards the context of divine patience while arguing that Paul is using σκεῦος in
a deliberately ambiguous way, including both “instrument” and “vessel,” which wrongly imposes the ambiguity
of contemporary alternatives onto a clearly defined antithesis. This also forces Hanson to interpret the phrase εἰς
ἀπώλειαν in a strained manner as “for destroying,” whereby it remains unclear who the targets of such clay
instruments might be. Munck, Christ, 67–68, and Dahl, Studies, 145, make similar suggestions.
96
Tholuck, 338; Meyer, 2:149; Maurer, “σκεῦος,” 364; Godet’s suggestion (360–61) that the genitive implies the
wrathful contents of the vessel, which are to be “tasted” by the vessel itself, is too elaborate for the simple
genitive construction.
97
See the critique of this view in Sanday and Headlam, 261.
98
For the predestinarian construal, see Piper, Justification, 192–96; the case for maintaining the basic sense of
καταρτίζω as “fit together, prepare,” is presented by Ceslas Spicq, “καταρτίζω,” TLNT 2 (1994) 271, and Dunn,
2:559.
99
See Cranfield, 2:496. Godet, 361, argues that subsequent behavior prepares the path toward destruction; most
commentators, however, insist that this must be understood as a “divine passive,” in which divine wrath remains
predominant. See Maier, Mensch, 381; Mayer, Gottes Heilsratschluß, 208–9; Dunn, 2:560.
*
29
For he has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as
well—
*
19
Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly
things.
*
3
Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless
one is revealed, the one destined for destruction.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NRSV)
100
Wilckens, 2:203. See Matt 7:13*; Acts 8:20*; Rev 17:8*, 11*. The idea is decidedly Hebrew, going to a place
of destruction such as Sheol or Abaddon: see Herbert G. Grether, “Abaddon,” ABD 1 (1972) 6.
*
1
2
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he
pleads with God against Israel?
101
See Dunn, 2:559: “Paul’s treatment would also provoke a more devastating ‘double take’ when his readers
came to realize that Paul saw the bulk of Israel as the ‘vessels of wrath’.…”
102
Maurer, “σκεῦος,” 364: “The point of this is that the people should turn from its wickedness and be made into
a new pot. This means that according to the divine if not the human order there is the possibility that the present
σκεῦος ὀργῆς may be received again into the superabundant divine mercy.”
 23* The second half of the garbled “if” clause in Paul’s incomplete sentence begins with
καὶ ἴνα (“and in order that”), suggesting an ultimately merciful purpose in the divine creation
and patience over vessels. As Tobin observes, at this point “Paul moves beyond the traditional
discussions of the issue of God’s patience and forbearance to claim an additional reason for
this patience and forbearance, the inclusion not only of Jews but also of Gentiles as vessels of
mercy.”103 The parallelism between v. 23* and v. 22* is carefully contrived, despite the
syntactical confusion. The purpose of “making known the riches of his glory” (v. 23*) stands
parallel to “demonstrate his wrath and make known his power” (v. 22*), with the verb
γνωρίζω (“make known”) reduplicated in each clause; the “vessels of mercy prepared for
glory” (v. 23*) correspond to the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” in the preceding
verse, with a reduplication of σκεῦος (“vessel”). Yet the parallelism is not complete,104
because Paul makes unmistakably clear that the demonstration of mercy in this verse is God’s
dominant purpose as compared with the demonstration of wrath.105
The expression “the riches of his glory” (τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ)106 appears to be
drawn from the tradition of liturgical participation in the numinous cloud or bright fire that
was thought to surround the divine tabernacle (Exod 40:34f*.) or throne (Ezek 1:26–28*).107
That early Christian worship was thought to be a participation in the riches of divine glory is
suggested by the use of this expression in the liturgically formulated references in Phil 4:19*;
Col 1:27*; and Eph 3:16*.108 As Paul had argued in Rom 8:18*, 30*, believers anticipate the
103
104
Zeller’s argument in Juden, 203–8, and Römer, 179, for a complete parallelism that avoids any subordination
of v. 22* to v. 23* fails to do justice to the opening words of v. 23*. Zeller’s construction seeks to avoid implicit
contradictions between vv. 17–18* and vv. 22–23*, but it is better to allow the tensions in Paul’s development of
the potter/pot analogy to remain.
105
Godet, 263; Bornkamm, “Anakoluthe,” 91; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 247–50.
106
Newman and Nida, 189, advocate the translation “his rich glory” on the premise that “the abstract noun
should be interpreted as a qualifier of the noun which appears in the genitive.”
*
34
Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.
Exodus 40:34 (NRSV)
*
26
And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and
seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
27
Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like
fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire,
and there was a splendor all around.
28
Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the
appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of
someone speaking.
Ezekiel 1:26–28 (NRSV)
107
See Gerhard von Rad, “δόξα,” TDNT 2 (1964) 240–41; Zeller, 179, suggests that there are “numerous”
Qumran parallels to the liturgical use of this expression, but he does not list them. Cf. 4QDibHam 1–2 iii 4–6,
“Only your name have we [acknow]ledged, and for your glory you have created us and [as] sons you have
established us for yourself before the eyes of all nations.…” Maier, Mensch, 381, refers to the “rich peace” and
the “crown of glory” enjoyed by the “sons of truth” in 1QS 4:7.
*
19
And my God will fully satisfy every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
*
27
To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery,
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Colossians 1:27 (NRSV)
*
16
I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being
with power through his Spirit,
restoration of their participation in the divine glory. Here they are described as having been
“prepared beforehand for glory,” with the word προετοιμάζω conveying a strong statement of
predetermination.109 Wis 9:8* uses this verb to describe God’s primordial design for “the holy
tabernacle which you prepared beforehand from the beginning (σκηνῆς ἁγίας ἣν
προητοίμασας ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς).” The Thanksgiving Scroll from Qumran refers to God’s
predetermination of the saints from their mothers’ wombs to receive divine mercy and glory
through adherence to the law (1QH 15:15–17), while the Manual of Discipline describes the
saints as those whom “God has elected to the eternal covenant and to whom belongs all the
glory of Adam” (1QS 4:22f.). Paul’s repeated use of the prefix προ- to convey the prior
decisions of God in the earlier argument of Romans (Rom 1:2*; 8:28–30*; 9:11*) leaves no
doubt about the predestination theme here.110 It is noteworthy, however, that Paul chooses the
active aorist form to convey this divine predestination of “vessels of mercy” to participate in
glory, while using the more vaguely determined passive form in the preceding verse to
describe the vessels “prepared for destruction.”111 The passage is carefully designed to
suggest the priority of mercy,112 which addresses precisely the question in 9:14* about
whether God’s mercy to the undeserving is justified or not. The antithesis between “vessels of
Ephesians 3:16 (NRSV)

108
See Michel, 316; Schlier, 302, and H. M. Dion, “La notion paulinienne de richesse de Dieu,” ScEc 18 (1966)
139–48.
*
18
to us.
Romans 8:18 (NRSV)
*
30
through faith;
Romans 9:30 (NRSV)
109
Dunn, 2:560; Zeller, 179–80. See the close parallel in Sir 49:19 of Joshua raising up a temple to the Lord,
“prepared for eternal glory (ἠτοιμασμένον εἰς δόξαν αἰῶνος).”
*
8
You have given command to build a temple on your holy mountain, and an altar in the city of your habitation, a
copy of the holy tent that you prepared from the beginning.
1QH Hodayot/Thanksgiving Psalms
1QS Serek Hayahad/Rule of the Community
*
2
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
Romans 1:2 (NRSV)
*
28
purpose.
29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he
might be the firstborn within a large family.
30
*
11
continue,
Romans 9:11 (NRSV)
110
See Schlier, 302. Qumran parallels include 4Q181 1 ii 2f. and 4Q180 frg. 1, line 2, “Before he created them
he established their deeds.”
111
See Godet, 363; Dunn, 2:561.
112
The anakoluth conveys a high level of passionate involvement on the part of a speaker, and draws the
audience’s attention to the point about vessels of mercy, as shown by Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 81.
mercy” and “vessels of wrath” appears to be a Pauline innovation.113 While parallels to the
derogatory use of “vessel” have been discovered in Apoc. Mos. 16, 26 and 4QTest 25, 114 the
idea of a “vessel of mercy”115 is a unique Pauline expression of the implication of the gospel
concerning the direction of predestination: not toward “destruction” but toward “glory.”116
 24* The awkward phrasing of this verse makes unmistakably clear that Paul wishes the
“vessels of mercy” to be understood as contemporary Christian believers.117 The incomplete
sentence in vv. 22–23* would force the attentive reader to pause, as Dunn observes,118 thus
giving the peculiar rhetoric of οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς (“whom he also called, us”) more
force.119 The ἡμᾶς stands in apposition to οὕς,120 thus emphatically identifying those being
called as fellow believers with Paul.121 This moves the argument beyond the awkward terrain
of a strained analogy concerning different kinds of pots into the straightforward arena of
divine calling,122 which has echoed throughout the midrash (9:7*, 11*, 12*) and which was
established earlier as the concomitant of predestination (8:30*). The inclusive nature of the
Christian community is emphatically restated here,123 echoing the discussions in 1:16*; 3:29*;
and 4:11–16* and reiterated in 10:11–13*. In the logic of the midrashic argument, the term
113
Maier, Mensch, 380–81, claims that the antithesis is Essene, but this is acceptable only in a general sense,
because the evidence supports only a predestinarian construal of the doctrine of two paths, not a use of an
antithesis between two types of vessels.
Apoc. Apocalypse of Moses
4QTest Testimonia
114
See Maurer, “σκεῦος,” 360, for these and later rabbinic parallels, none of which precisely matches the
expression “vessel of wrath.”
115
That Paul intended σκεῦος ἐλέους to be understood as “instruments of mercy,” as Hanson argues in
“Vessels,” 441, assumes that they would play an active role in extending mercy to others, whereas the grammar
of 9:23* demands that they be understood as passive recipients of divine revelation.
116
See Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 82.
117
See Gignac, Romains 9–11, 189; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 335–36.
118
Dunn, 2:570.
119
Bornkamm, “Anakoluthe,” 91–92, argues in fact that this verse is the reason for the incomplete sentence in vv.
22–23*, abandoning the abstract possibilities of divine election for the concrete reality of God’s calling of
Gentiles and Jews alike.
120
121
Nida and Newman, 189, translate “We are the ones whom he called.”
122
See Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “καλέω κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 488, for the extensive listing of passages in which
Paul uses this term to designate the status change that marks Christian believers. Dodd, 160, refers to Paul’s
abstract argument suddenly at this point touching the “concrete reality” of the Christian community. A similar
view is present in Qumran, with CD A 4:3–4 claiming that “the sons of Zadok are the chosen ones of Israel,
those called by name, who stand in the end of days. See also CD A 2:11.
*
12
Romans 9:12 (NRSV)
*
30
Romans 8:30 (NRSV)
123
Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 83: “Paul points to his integrated congregations of Jews and non-Jews as an
illustration of his thesis.”
*
29
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Romans 3:29 (NRSV)
*
11
12
“Gentiles” is now associated with the positive terminology of “seed,” “Isaac,” “Jacob,” “those
on whom God shows mercy,” the “honorable vessel,” and the “vessel of mercy.”127 The “not
only … but also” formula prohibits any foreshortening of the scope of God’s inclusive call.128
As Elizabeth Johnson points out, Paul redefines Israel “by including believing Gentiles rather
than excluding unbelieving Israel.”129 The sequence of mentioning “Jews” first and “Gentiles”
(or “Greeks”) second is consistent with 1:16*; 3:29*; and 10:12*, providing in this instance a
chiasm with the subsequent catena of scriptural citations that deal with the Gentiles in vv. 25–
26* and with Jews in vv. 27–29*.130 It remains puzzling that Paul uses the seemingly
prejudicial term ἔθνη to convey his inclusive doctrine (as, for example, in 3:29*); the
translation “non-Jew” is preferred by Ralf Dabelstein to either “Gentile” or “nation” in this
verse,131 but I would prefer to allow the disparity to stand.
 25–26* The introduction to the catena of quotations that closes the pericope is loosely
attached to the foregoing by ὡς καί (“as also”), suggesting that the claim in v. 24* concerning
the calling of Gentiles as well as Jews is to be demonstrated.132 The verb λέγει should not be
translated with the neutral expression “it says”133 but with “he says,” corresponding to “he
calls” in v. 24*. The first person singular form of an oracle spoken by Yahweh is thus
introduced here as a direct, personal confirmation of the calling of believers. The oracle is
found “in Hosea,” probably meaning that it derived from the Hosea section of the prophetic
scroll.134 Although the material from the book of Hosea is a composite, it is introduced here as
a single citation,135 making this the sixth supporting text in the midrash that began with 9:6*.
13
14
15
16
*
11
12
on him.
13
127
128
The importance of this theme in the argument is exaggerated as the “climax” of Paul’s argument by Gaston,
Paul, 96–97. See the critique by Räisänen, “Römer 9–11, ” 2905, and Johnson, Function, 149, who observes that
the “not only … but also” formula included Jews and Gentiles in 3:29*; 4:12*, 16*.
129
Johnson, Function, 149; italics in original.
*
12
on him.
Romans 10:12 (NRSV)
130
See Jeremias, “Chiasmus,” 150, and Koch, Schrift, 279.
131
Dabelstein, Beurteilung, 37.
*
25
26
132
See Cranfield, 2:498, and Dunn, 2:571.
133
Black, 134, prefers an impersonal formulation such as “as is said,” or “as one says.”
134
Christoph Burchard, “Römer 9:25* ἐν τῷ Ὡσέ,” ZNW 76 (1985) 131.
135
The creation of the composite citation may be visualized as in the chart above, with the first
two clauses in Hosea reversed by Paul:136
Hosea 2:25b-c*124 Romans 9:25b–26*
25b* καὶ ἀγαπήσω 25b* καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν
τήν οὐκ μου λαόν μου,
ἠγαπημένην, (I will call ‘my people’ those
(“and I will love who are not my people,”)
her who was not 25c* καὶ τὴν οὐκ
loved,”)125 ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην.
25c* καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ
οὐ λαῷ μου, λαός
μου εἶ συ.
(“and I will say to (“and her who was not
those who are not beloved [I will call]
my people, ‘You ‘beloved’ ”)
are my people.’ ”)
Hos 2:1b-c*126
1b* καὶ ἔσται ἐν 26*α καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ
τῷ τόπῳ οὗ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς,
ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς
Οὐ λαός μου Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς,
ὑμεῖς.
(“and there will be (“and there will be in the
in the place where place where it was said to
it was said to them, ‘You are not my
them, ‘You are not people,’ ”)
my people,’ ”)
1c* ἐκεῖ 26b* ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ
κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος.
θεοῦ ζῶντος.
(“there they will (“there they will be called
be called ‘sons of ‘sons of the living God.’ ”)
the living God.’ ”)
136
Stanley, Scripture, 110; Wagner, Heralds, 81.
124
Note that the versification of the LXX and the MT differs from the tradition of English translation, which
numbers this verse as 2:23.
125
This wording is found in the LXX textual variant BV, while the probable original wording was καὶ ἐλεήσω
τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην (“and I will have mercy on her who [was called] ‘not mercy.’ ” While it is usually assumed
that the variant shows the influence of Rom 9:25*, Koch, Schrift, 55, argues that the word “love” is inappropriate
for the context and thus may be original. In view of the reference to “Jacob I loved” in 9:13, within the same
midrashic argument, this argument is not persuasive. Dunn, 2:571, is probably right in suggesting that Paul
wished to avoid a negative use of “mercy,” since it is so crucial for the immediate context.
126
This verse, 2:1* in the LXX and the MT, corresponds to 1:10* in the standard English translations.
*
26
Romans 9:26 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 9:1 (NRSV)
There is a consensus that Paul intentionally altered the wording of Hos 2:25* from ἐρῶ (“I
will say”) to καλέσω (“I will call”),137 thus linking the citation directly to the divine calling of
Jews and Gentiles in v. 24* and providing a connection with the catchword “call” in the initial
proof text of Gen 21:12*.138 The emphatic placement of the verb “call” at the beginning of the
citation also required the reversal of the clauses in Hos 2:25b*-c,139 allowing the clause with
the most direct connection with the Jew/Gentile theme in the preceding verse to open the
Hosea quotation. Those who are “not my people,” usually understood to be the Gentiles in
this context,140 are called by God to be λαός μου (“my people”). Here an expression that
Hosea had employed to refer explicitly to Israel is used to designate the new Christian
community containing both Jews and Gentiles as God’s people.141 Rather than conceiving this
narrowly as “Gentile Christians,”142 both the context of the preceding verse and the
framework of the midrashic argument starting in 9:6* suggest that “my people” is the mixed
community of the church.143 The reduplication of the participle ἠγαπημένη (“beloved”) brings
the second clause in Paul’s reversal of the Hosea quotation into exact parallelism with the first
clause, requiring the verb “I will call” to be supplied by the hearers. By picking up the
catchword from 9:13*, 144 this clause brings the Christian community into direct correlation
with the love of God for Jacob/Israel, receiving divine favor despite being initially “not
beloved.”145 The reversal of favor implicit in the belief of the Christian community, the
unbelief of some of the fleshly descendants of Abraham and Jacob, and the ultimate hope of
the redemption of all are thus seen to be consistent with God’s love toward the northern
kingdom during Hosea’s time.146
As may be seen above, v. 26* is a precise quotation of the LXX of Hos 2:1*, 147 which had
strong thematic links with Hos 2:25*, including the phrase “not my people.” It is likely that
137
Kühl, 337; Wilckens, 2:199; Dunn, 2:571; Koch, Schrift, 167; Stanley, Scripture, 110; Barbara Fuß, “Dies ist
die Zeit von der geschrieben ist …”: Die expliziten Zitate aus dem Buch Hosea in den Handschriften von
Qumran und im Neuen Testament (NTAbh 37; Münster: Aschendorff, 2000) 175.
*
22
and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel;
Hosea 2:22 (NRSV)
138
While not operating within the context of midrashic discourse, Aageson, “Scripture,” 272, suggests that Paul’s
alteration “has resulted in a verbal connection in Paul’s text between the two Hosea passages in 9:25–26 which is
not found in the text of the LXX.” Gignac, Romains 9–11, 190, refers to 9:25–29 as an instance of “a subversive
reading of scripture.”
139
140
See Schlier, 304; Käsemann, 274; Wilckens, 2:206; Hays, Echoes, 67; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 336–37.
Barrett, 191, and Dunn, 2:571, see a potential double reference here both to Gentiles and to currently unbelieving
Jews, which is an unsound allowance of a theologically appealing ambiguity that the text itself does not suggest.
141
For a discussion of the minor shifts from dative to accusative in “not my people” and the deletion of εἴ σύ
(“you are”) in the Hosea text, see Stanley, Scripture, 110–11. Fuß, Zitate aus dem Buch Hosea, 178–79, rejects
the theory of Paul’s redefinition of “my people,” but this is strongly suggested by his framing the citation in
9:24* with “not only from among Jews but also from among Gentiles.”
142
See Hermann Strathmann and Rudolf Meyer, “λάος,” TDNT 4 (1967) 54: “Hence the Gentile Christians are
for him ‘my people.’ ” Similarly, Ellis, Paul’s Use, 138; Schlier, 304; Wilckens, 2:206; Morris, 370–71.
143
Leenhardt, 260; Dahl, Studies, 146; Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 452–54.
144
Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 53; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 337.
145
See Wagner, Heralds, 82; Stanley, Arguing, 159–60.
146
See Cranfield, 2:499–500, and Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 415–36.
147
Stanley, Scripture, 113, notes that the LXX texts are divided on whether ἐκεῖ (“there”) belongs at the
beginning of Hos 2:1c* and whether καὶ αὐτοί (“and they themselves”) belongs before κληθήσονται (“they will
be called”). Since no motivation can be discerned for Paul to make these changes and since LXX versions
existed without them, Stanley concedes that the matter “is probably best left open.”
the joining of the two verses was Pauline rather than traditional,148 allowing him to create a
coherent two-verse composite marked by synthetic parallelism in each verse that ends with a
potent inclusio through the reiteration of the crucial term “calling.” The opening clause that
Paul quotes from Hos 2:1b*, καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς (“and there will be in the
place where it was said to them”), has a theological rather than a spatial connotation in the
context of Paul’s argument.149 While the original context in Hosea implied the land of Israel
as the “place” where the divine reversal would occur,150 it is extraneous in the context of this
argument for Paul to allude to Jerusalem as the goal of Gentile pilgrimage and the “place”
where the Gentile offering will be delivered.151 This suggestion has been sustained by the
assumption that Paul may have inserted ἐκεῖ (“there”) in v. 26b*, since some versions of the
Hosea quotation lack this word,152 but the text-critical evidence is too ambiguous to make a
conclusive case. It is best to assume that the two clauses were cited by Paul in the LXX form
known to him in order to retain the symmetry of synthetic parallelism and that the meaning of
the first clause is “instead of saying, ‘you are not my people.’ ” The title “sons of the living
God” is reminiscent of Paul’s claim in 8:14* and 19* that with the gift of the Spirit, believers
demonstrate their sonship (8:15*, 23*), understood inclusively as including both males and
females. The Hebrew Scriptures frequently refer to Israel as Yahweh’s sons and daughters,153
which correlates nicely with the argument from 9:6* that the true Israel consists of those now
being called from both Jews and Gentiles to participate in the new community of faith.154 That
the Hosea wording refers to God as θεὸς ζῶν (“a living God”) resonates nicely with Paul’s
claim in 4:17* that God is the one who “calls the things that do not exist” into life. There as
here the prime example of God’s life-giving power is the calling of those who are “not my
people” into the exalted status of sonship/daughtership.
148
Käsemann, 273–74, offers a solid critique of the proposal by Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 96–98, of a pre-
Pauline fusion of these texts. See also Koch, Schrift, 167, 174; Zeller, 180. Michel, 317, takes an ambiguous
position concerning the source of the composite quotation.
*
1
Say to your brother, Ammi, and to your sister, Ruhamah.
Hosea 2:1 (NRSV)
149
See Cranfield, 2:500; Dunn, 2:572.
150
Fuß, Zitate aus dem Buch Hosea, 184–85.
151
Sanday and Headlam, 264; Munck, Christ, 12f.; Dahl, Studies, 146; Michel, 318; Wagner, Heralds, 85; see
the critique in Koch, Schrift, 174.
152
See Sanday and Headlam, 264; Wilckens, 2.206.
*
14
Romans 8:14 (NRSV)
*
19
Romans 8:19 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 8:15 (NRSV)
*
23
and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we
wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 8:23 (NRSV)
153
Georg Fohrer, “υἱός κτλ.,” TDNT 8 (1972) 351, refers to Deut 14:1*; 32:5*, 19*; Isa 43:6*; 45:11*; as well as
Hos 2:1*; see also Isa 63:8* and Jer 4:22*.
154
See Johnson, Function, 150; Fuß, Zitate aus dem Buch Hosea, 188–98.
*
17
Romans 4:17 (NRSV)
 27* The introduction of the seventh supporting text in the extended midrash is a dramatic
reference to Isaiah’s ecstatic, prophetic speech:155 “but Isaiah cries out.…” The verb κράζειν
was used in 8:15* to refer to the ecstatic cry of believers under the power of the spirit.
Perhaps Paul used this unusually powerful term because of its association with Isaiah’s vision
of the seraphim “crying to one another, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy!’ ” (Isa 6:3*).156 The choice of the
present tense extends the inspired utterance to the present moment in the mission to Jews as
well as Gentiles.157 In combination with the mildly adversative δέ (“but”), this introduction
calls particular attention to the Isaiah quotation, though not intending a contrast between the
positive word concerning the Gentiles in 9:26* compared with an allegedly negative word
concerning the Jews in this verse.158 The use of the expression ὑπέρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“for the sake
of Israel”) “raises the expectation that Isaiah’s message will proclaim good news to Israel.”159
It has frequently been observed that Paul’s citation of Isa 10:22* is conflated with its close
parallel in Hos 2:1*.160 Here are the two texts conflated in 9:27b*:
Hos 1:10a* LXX (= MT 2:1a*) καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης
(“and the number of the sons of Israel was as the sand of the sea”)
Isa 10:22* καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸi Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης (“and though the people
of Israel be as the sand of the sea”)
Rom 9:27* ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης (“though the number
of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea”)
As so frequently with Pauline citation, the initial “and” found in both Isaiah and Hosea has
been eliminated in order to make a smoother transition to the new context.161 It is clear that
the catchword υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (“sons of Israel), which allows Paul to connect this passage to his
supplementary text in 9:9*, is derived from Hosea rather than Isaiah.162 The wording of Isaiah
would not have provided the link that Paul’s midrashic discourse required, and as Koch has
pointed out, it would have contradicted the claim in 9:25* that Israel as a whole is not God’s
people.163 Neither text has the precise opening that Paul provides for the quotation, ἐὰν ᾗ
155
*
3
And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.”
Isaiah 6:3 (NRSV)
156
As Walter Grundmann points out in “κράζω κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 900, rabbinic Judaism typically referred to
Isaiah as crying out before God (e.g., Tanḥ. 14.19), while inspired speech in general was expressed with such
language.
157
See Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 463; Wagner, Heralds, 92.
158
See Godet, 365; Cranfield, 2:501.
159
Wagner, Heralds, 93.
*
22
Isaiah 10:22 (NRSV)
160
Käsemann, 275; Dunn, 2:573; Koch, Schrift, 167–68; Wagner, Heralds, 90–98. Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah,
206–10, disregards the parallels to the Hosea passage.
*
10
Hosea 1:10 (NRSV)
MT Masoretic text
161
See Stanley, Scripture, 114.
162
See Aageson, “Scripture,” 273; and Stegner, “Midrash” 40.
163
Koch, Schrift, 168, followed by Stanley, Scripture, 115; Wilk’s skepticism in Bedeutung des Jesajabuches,
52, does not seem to be justified.
(“though, if”), which brings out the contrast between the vast number of the people of Israel
and the relative smallness of the “remnant.” Both Hos 2:1* and Isa 10:22* have the phrase ὡς
ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης (“as the sand of the sea”) that Paul uses, the traditional Hebraic
reference to the numberless offspring of Abraham.164
The variation in 9:27c* is harder to explain, though there is little doubt that the changes were
intentional:
Isa 10:22* τὸ κατάλειμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται (“the remnant of them will be saved”)
Romans τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται (“the remnant will be saved”)
Since the terms κατάλειμμα and ὑπόλειμμα are synonyms, both being used to translate the
same term in the LXX,165 it remains a mystery why Paul altered the text in his quotation.166
An examination of the grammatical significance of the prefixes κατά (“down, against”) and
ὑπό (“by, under”) suggests that the latter may have lacked the antithetical, judgmental quality
of the former.167 The alteration may have been intended to soften the potentially judgmental
quality of the remnant idea. But the lack of a broadly understood motivation leads one to
suspect that the strongly supported textual variant κατάλειμμα may have been original, even
though this would violate the accepted principle of preferring the more difficult reading.168
The deletion of αὐτῶν (“of them”) from the Isaiah text may have been motivated by Paul’s
desire to apply the text directly to the contemporary situation, suggesting that the remnant
from the “sons of Israel” are current believers in Christ, not those ancient Israelites who
escaped the Assyrian catastrophe discussed by Isaiah.169 While most commentators take the
remnant reference to be a threatening comment on Israel,170 even inserting the interpretive
term “only” in their translations,171 a primarily positive interpretation of v. 27c* is suggested
by the link with “will be saved” as well as by the context established in vv. 6–8* and v.
24*.172 Despite current unbelief in the gospel, this quotation from Isaiah expresses Paul’s
164
See Gen 22:17*; 32:12*; Isa 10:22*; 48:19*.
165
Volkmar Herntrich et al., “λεῖμμα κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 196.
166
No Romans commentary suggests an explanation for the change, and even Koch, Schrift, 142, and Stanley,
Scripture, 116, admit the question remains unanswered. Wagner, Heralds, 96, follows Joseph Ziegler,
“Textkritische Notizen zu den jüngeren griechischen Übersetzungen des Buches Isaias,” in J. Ziegler, Sylloge:
Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (SeptArb 1; MSU 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 68–69,
who observes that variations in initial prepositions of compounds in the LXX often imply “no significant change
in meaning,” but this does not explain Paul’s motivation. See also the discussion in Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 239–40.
167
Moulton and Howard, Grammar II, 316–17, 327–28.
168
See note o above.
169
Similarly, the Qumran community considered its current members to be the divinely selected “remnant.” See
1QH 6:7–8, “For I know that in a short time you will raise up survivors among your people and a remnant within
your inheritance,” cited by Fitzmyer, 574. That salvation is conceived as “communal” in these passages is
suggested by Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Social Dimensions of Sōtēria in Luke-Acts and Paul,” in E. H.
Lovering, Jr., ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993)
531. For general background, see Lester V. Meyer, “Remnant,” ABD 5 (1992) 669–71.
170
Kühl, 337–38; Schlier, 304; Cranfield, 2:502; Michel, 318; Aageson, “Typology” 57. Dunn, 2:573, presents a
more balanced view of the positive and negative potential of the “remnant” language in the OT and Qumran.
171
For a critique of this tradition of English translation, see Hays, Echoes, 328.
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
172
See Zahn, 466; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 337. Herntrich et al., “λεῖμμα κτλ.,” 196, argues that the “remnant”
concept in Hebrew Scripture “implies both judgment and salvation,” yet concludes (210) that in the light of the
reference in v. 28* to “stern and pitiless cutting off” that “Paul effectively emphasizes the thought of judgment.”
conviction that the gospel of salvation will not ultimately fail, because the elected “remnant”
will receive it in faith and be brought thereby to salvation.173
 28* A predominantly positive construal of the remnant reference in v. 27* clears the way to
understanding Paul’s puzzling abbreviation of the next line in the Isaiah quotation. As one can
see from a comparison with the original Hebrew text, the Pauline alterations move the
meaning even further than the LXX has already done, downplaying the element of
annihilating judgment:
Isa 10:22f*. (MT): “Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness, for the Lord, the
Lord of hosts, will make a full end, as decreed, in the midst of all the earth.”
Isa 10:22f*. (LXX): “He will complete the word and dispatch it in righteousness, because
God will execute the word with dispatch in the whole inhabited world.” (λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν
καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, 23*ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ
ὅλῃ.)
Rom 9:28*: “For the Lord will execute the word with completion and dispatch upon the
earth” (λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.)
Whether intentionally or not, the LXX translated a somewhat baffling MT in such a way as to
weaken the link between Israel’s destruction and the completion of God’s word.174 Paul
moves further along this path, eliminating the phrase “in righteousness,” which would
connote judicial judgment in this context,175 and the clause “execute the word with dispatch,”
which reinforces the foreshortening of the time before final judgment, as intended in the
original MT. That these deletions are simply the result of “haplography,” that is, the
elimination of reduplication in the LXX version that Paul was citing,176 is plausible only if
Paul’s own motivation of transforming judgment into mercy is denied. In effect, Paul
transforms the quotation into a comment on the future tense of the preceding verse, “a
remnant will be saved.”177 By changing “God” into “Lord” as the subject of this salvatory
action, Paul alludes to the role of Christ in this scenario and creates a tighter connection with
“Lord” in the citation of v. 29*.178 The participles συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων are usually
Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 471, acknowledges the negative connotations but argues that Paul’s “primary interest is in
the positive dimensions of the term” remnant.
173
See Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 129; Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 60–61.
*
28
Romans 9:28 (NRSV)
*
22
Isaiah 10:22 (NRSV)
*
23
Isaiah 10:23 (NRSV)
174
Cranfield, 2:502, claims that the LXX translators “were apparently baffled” by the MT, but concludes that
both the LXX and Paul, “though differing considerably from the MT, give the general idea of the original quite
correctly.”
175
Meyer, 2:160. Wilckens, 2:207, assumes instead that “righteousness” would have been useful in pursuing
Paul’s theme from 9:14, suggesting that this indicates a pre-Pauline shortening of the text.
176
Kühl, 338; Koch, 83. Stanley, Scripture, 117, rightly rejects this suggestion because the words συντέμνων
(“dispatch”) and συντετμημένον (“execute”) “are only loosely similar in appearance,” and because the retention
of “righteousness” would have inserted a connotation inconsistent with Paul’s normal use.
177
Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 62–66.
178
See Wagner, Heralds, 97. Stanley’s argument in Scripture, 118, that the word “Lord” appeared in the LXX
version Paul was employing is not plausible in view of the weak support of this reading in BV and a few other
later texts.
understood as “rigor and dispatch” with which apocalyptic judgment is coming with urgent
proximity.179 In this instance, however, these participles are reduced to adverbial
qualifications of how and when the divine word will be “executed.” In the context of Paul’s
argument, the accent is on divine mercy rather than wrath.180 In this context the participle
συντελῶν has the sense of “bring to completion,”181 and the participle συντέμνων means
“finish quickly, with dispatch.”182 The expression λόγον ποιεῖν is a typical biblical formula
for bringing a prophecy into fulfillment, making a message effective.183 The “word” in this
new setting picks up the catchword from v. 6*, understood as the promise of salvation through
the gospel184 rather than the decree of final judgment as in the original Isaiah citation.185 That
the fulfillment of the divine promise to save the faithful remnant in Israel was in view by Paul
is confirmed by his alteration of the phrase “in the whole inhabited world” to the simple
phrase “upon the earth,” thus directing attention away from peoples other than Israel.186
 29* The final supporting text in the Pauline midrash is introduced by a reiteration of
Isaiah’s authorship of oracles pertaining to eschatological events.187 The technical term for
such prophecy, προεῖπον (“foretell”), was also used in 1:2*. The perfect tense “has foretold”
selected by Paul in this introduction serves to make the citation directly relevant for the
present situation.188 In this instance, Paul is able to quote Isa 1:9* without alteration because it
fits his purpose precisely and contains the crucial catchword “seed” that the midrash had
developed in 9:7*. The reiteration of the term σπέρμα (“seed”) from the initial proof text of
Gen 21:12* provides an inclusio that brings the midrash to an effective conclusion.189 The
point of the quotation in this new context is that the true Israel as the seed of Abraham will
pass through judgment and be “left to us,”190 implying participation through God’s mercy in
179
See Käsemann, 275, citing the appearance of the formula in Dan 5:26–28* and 9:24* (Theod.); BAGD 792;
most commentaries take this as an expression of irrevocable and swift judgment; Schmidt, 170; Michel, 318;
Wilckens, 2:207; Dunn, 2:573; Moo, 615.
180
A contextual interpretation in relation to the triumph of mercy is argued by Weiss, 431; Kühl, 338; Koch,
Schrift, 149; and Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 66–74.
181
Gerhard Delling, “συντελέω,” TDNT 8 (1972) 62–64; BAGD (2000) 975.
182
BAGD (2000) 975: “put a limit to something … cut short, shorten, limit.” In rhetoric, the expression λόγον
συντέμνειν has the technical sense of bringing a speech to a rapid, concise conclusion, according to Aristotle
Rhet. 3.6; other examples are listed in BAGD and Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 67. Seitz (66–71) argues for the
translation “enact, establish,” which seems beyond the normal semantic range of the verb.
183
See Wilckens, 2:207, referring to 2 Kgs 20:9*, καὶ εἶπεν Ησαιας Τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖον παρὰ κυρίου ὅτι ποιήσει
κύριος τὸν λόγον, ὃν ἐλάλησεν (“And Isaiah said, ‘This is the sign from the Lord, that the Lord will execute the
word which he has spoken”); see also the LXX of Exod 35:1*; Lev 8:36*; Deut 12:28*; 31:12*; 32:46*; Jdg
11:37*; 21:11; 2 Sam 14:22*; 2 Kgs 11:5*; 2 Chr 23:4*; Esth 5:5*; Job 22:4*; Jer 22:4f*; 51:17*; 1 Macc 2:34*;
2 Macc 7:24*.
184
Kühl, 338, 467; Seitz, “λόγον συντέμνων,” 60–73; Johnson, Function, 150.
185
Godet, 266.
186
Koch, Schrift, 149, understands Paul as wishing to avoid weakening the contrast between the large number of
Israelites and the small number of the remnant. But the Isaianic expression ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ (“in the whole
world”) implies location rather than scale, referring to the fulfillment of God’s promise among the Gentiles as
well as in Judah. Stanley, Scripture, 119, suggests another possibility—that Paul adapts the wording of Isa
28:22*, but that still leaves open the question of Paul’s motivation in making the change.
187
See Koch, Schrift, 327f.
188
See ibid., 318.
*
9
If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we would have been like Sodom, and become like
Gomorrah.
Isaiah 1:9 (NRSV)
189
Stegner, “Midrash” 40; Siegert, Argumentation, 140; Hays, Echoes, 65–68.
190
For the “contemporized” implication of the personal pronoun ἡμῖν (“to us”), see Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 491.
Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 188–89, overlooks the reference to being “left us seed” in arguing that the
purpose of this citation is that the remnant of Jewish converts guarantees the future salvation of the entire people
of God.
the faith community of Jews and Gentiles described in 9:24*.191 The implication in the
context of the midrash is more reassuring than threatening,192 because with the “quite peculiar
exercise of grace on the part of the Lord,”193 the true Israel will escape the fate of Sodom and
Gomorrah, the archetypal biblical examples of irrevocable divine judgment.194 The action in
the Isaiah citation lies entirely within the initiative of God: “If the Lord of hosts had not left
us seed.…”195 With this Paul completes the answer to the question about whether the minimal
response to the gospel on the part of Jews indicates that “God’s word has fallen short”
(9:6*).196 No, says Paul, because the “children of the promise” in the new faith community are
showing in Dunn’s words that the “‘seed’ can embrace all nations, Gentile as well as Jew.”197
In Paul’s view, divine mercy remains steadfast and triumphant despite the temporary hardness
of the human heart.
9:30–10:4* The Third Proof
9 The Fourth Pericope

Diatribe on the Failure to Submit to Divine Righteousness, Which Is Caused by
Misguided Zeal
30*/ What shall we say, then? Gentiles who were not pursuinga righteousness
obtained righteousness, but a righteousness that is through faith; 31*/ but that Israel
which was pursuing the law of righteousness did not attain a lawb. 32*/ Why so?
191
Schlier, 305; Gaston, Paul, 97.
192
For the threatening construal, see Michel, 319; Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 58.
193
Godet, 366; see also Brandenburger, “Paulinische Schriftauslegung,” 31–33, and Aletti, “Argumentation,”
51–52.
194
See BAGD 759, and Wilckens, 2:207; Dunn, 2:574, referring to Jer 23:14*; Ezek 16:46*, 49*; Deut 32:32–
35*; Jub. 16.5–6, as well as NT parallels; also Wagner, Heralds, 111–16.
195
See Lübking, Paulus, 77f.
196
See Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 212.
197
Dunn, 2:576; see also Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 339; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 280–81.
*
30
through faith;
31
but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
32
Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have
stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33
as it is written, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them
fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
2
I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened.
3
4
For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
*
30
through faith;
Romans 9:30 (NRSV)
a
The definite article τήν is found before “righteousness” in P 46 G, probably a stylistic improvement.
*
31
Romans 9:31 (NRSV)
b
The expression νόμον δικαιοσύνης (“law of righteousness”) is found in ‫א‬2 F K L P Ψ 69 88 104 323 326 330
365 424* 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 (acc. to Swanson) 2495 Maj lat sy in place
of the more likely reading νόμον (“law”) alone, which is strongly supported by P 46vid ‫ *א‬A B D G 6 81 424c 945
Because it [is] not from faith, but as if from works.c They have stumbled over the
stumbling stone. 33*/ As it has been written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of falling,
and hed who has faith in it will note be put to shame.”
10:1*/ Brothers, my heart’s good pleasure and my request to God for themf [are] for
salvation. 2*/ For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but without
acknowledgment. 3*/ For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to
validate their own righteousness,g they did not submit to the righteousness of God.
4*/ For Christ is the goal of the law as a means to righteousness for all those having
faith.
1506 1739 2464(acc. to N-A) pc b mon cop Ambst. The addition of “righteousness” appears to be a secondary,
theological clarification. There is a highly unlikely omission of εἰς νόμον in 33 and a few other minuscules.
*
32
Romans 9:32 (NRSV)
c
In place of ἔργων (“works”) in P46vid ‫ *א‬A B F G 6 424c 629 630 1739 1881 2200 pc ar b f g mon o vg sa bo
Orlat Ambst Hier Pel Aug, the expression ἔργων νόμου (“works of law”) is found in ‫א‬2 D K L P Ψ 33 69 81 88
104 181 256 263 323 326 330 365 424* 436 451 459 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1836
1852 1874 1877 1912 1962 2127 2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj Lect d vgms syp,h,pal goth arm eth geo slav Diodorevid
Chr. The latter is less strongly attested (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 462–63) and is easily explainable as
a theological clarification conforming to Paul’s use of “works of law” in Rom 3:20*, 28*, etc.
*
33
Romans 9:33 (NRSV)
d
The word πᾶς (“all, everyone”) is provided by K L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 181 256 263 323 326 330 365 424 436
451 459 614 629 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1739 1836 1852 1874 1877 1912 1962 2127 2200
2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj Lect ar d2 o vg syh armms geo slav Diddub Chr Theodore Pel, too weakly attested to be
original, and easily understandable as a theological clarification. The absence of “all” in this location is
supported by ‫ א‬A B D F G 81 1506 1881 pc b d* f g mon syp,pal sa bo armms goth eth Orgr,lat Cyr Ambst Aug.
e
D F G have οὐ μὴ καταισχύνθη (“he is not shamed”) in place of οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται (“he will not be
shamed”), which appears to be an assimilation to the exact text of LXX Isa 28:16*. The reading with οὐ
καταισχυνθήσεται is overwhelmingly supported by all of the other texts.
*
1
Romans 10:1 (NRSV)
f
The reading αὐτῶν (“for them”) is widely attested by P 46 ‫ *א‬A B D F G 6 256 365 1319* (1506) 1573 1739
1881 1912 1962 2127 l 249 pc d* f g mon syp, pal sa bo goth Cyr Ambst Aug5/9. In place of “for them” the words
τοῦ Ἰσραήλ ἐστιν (“for Israel is”) appear in K L 69 81 104 181 323 326 330 424 436 451 459 614 (629 omits
ἐστιν) 945 1175 1241 1243 (1319c omits ἐστιν) 1735 1836 1874 1877 2200 2464 2492 Lect (eth) geo2 slav
(Mcionacc. to Tert), while ‫א‬2 [K] P Ψ 33 88 263 1505 1852 2344 2495 ar b d 2 o vg arm geo1 Orlat Chr Pel Aug4/9
provide αὐτῶν ἐστιν (“for them is”). These latter variants appear to be later clarifications according to Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 463.
*
2
Romans 10:2 (NRSV)
*
3
Romans 10:3 (NRSV)
g
The term “righteousness” is omitted by A B D P 81 256 365 629 630 1319 1506 1573 1739 1852 1881 1908*
2110 2127 2200 pc ar vg cop Cl, but the evidence for its inclusion is considerably stronger in P 46 ‫ א‬F G K L Ψ 5
6 33 61 (69) 88 104 181 218 253 323 326 330 424 436 441 451 459 467 614 621 623 (635) 720 915 917 945
1175 1241 1243 1398 1505 1563 1678 1718 1735 1751 1838 1845 1874 1875 1877 1908 c 1912 1942 1959 1962
2138 2197 2344 2464 2492 2495 2516 2523 2544 2718 Maj (b) d* Irlat. It was omitted in the earlier Nestle25 but
included with brackets in Nestle-Aland26/27. The omission is probably an instance of scribal haplography.
*
Analysis
While J. P. Louw perceives the semantic links that join 9:30–10:4*, 1 many current
commentators identify 9:30–33* as an independent section concluding the argument of chap.
9,2 while placing the opening verses of chap. 10 in the next pericope, which extends to 10:4*,
13*, or 21*.3 There is ambiguity in this decision, however, because it is widely admitted that
9:30–33* provides the “theme” discussed in chap. 10,4 and the summary of 10:4* requires the
references to “righteousness” and “law” in 9:30–31*.5 That the address “brothers” in 10:1*
requires the inauguration of a new pericope6 is belied by the frequent use of this term in the
middle of other sections of Romans (1:13*; 7:4*; 8:12*; 15:30*). The insights of semantic
4
Romans 10:4 (NRSV)
1
Louw, 2:103–4. Commentators holding 9:30–10:4 together as a single pericope include Dunn, 2:578–98;
Byrne, 308–16; and Schreiner, 534–49. Commentators holding 9:30–10:3 together include Weiss, 436–43;
Jülicher, 298–99; and Schmidt, 171–73.
*
30
through faith;
31
32
33
2
Michel, 319–23; Käsemann, 277–79; Wilckens, 3:210–16; Schlier, 305–8; Siegert, Argumentation, 141.
However, as Dunn, 2:579, observes, “The impression that vv 30–33 are transitional is probably in large part due
to the modern chapter division.”
*
13
Romans 10:13 (NRSV)
*
21
But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
Romans 10:21 (NRSV)
3
Badenas, Christ, 243, observes that most current scholars have abandoned the idea that 10:1* “starts a new
theme,” citing only Kühl, 347, and Dahl, Studies, 143, as advancing this view.
4
Wilckens, 3:211; Käsemann, 277–78, refers to Weiss, “Beiträge,” 239, and Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 37, in
this assessment, placing the title of “the theme” over 9:30–33. See also Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 60;
Lübking, Paulus, 80.
*
30
through faith;
31
5
6
So Michel, 320.
*
13
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been
prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.
Romans 1:13 (NRSV)
*
4
In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to
another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Romans 7:4 (NRSV)
*
12
So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—
Romans 8:12 (NRSV)
discourse analysis can be confirmed by argumentative analysis to sustain the conclusion that
9:30–10:4* constitutes an independent pericope. As Mesner has shown, the formation of the
enthymeme in 9:6–29* is shifted in 9:30* by the replacement of “word” by “righteousness” as
the minor premise.7 This draws the argument beginning in 9:30* closely to the climax of the
argument in 10:4*, which contains the seventh reduplication of δικαιοσύνη. This connects the
pericope and the third proof as a whole to the thesis of 1:16–17*.
The pericope of 9:30–10:4* opens with a rhetorical exchange that draws inferences from the
midrashic discourse earlier in chap. 9 and also from the first proof (3:21–4:29*). The two
*
30
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in
earnest prayer to God on my behalf,
Romans 15:30 (NRSV)
*
6
7
named for you.”
8
9
10
ancestor Isaac.
11
continue,
12
13
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
19
20
21
ordinary use?
7
*
16
17
*
21
prophets,
22
the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
23
since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;
24
they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25
26
Jesus.
27
Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith.
28
For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
rhetorical questions of 9:30* and 32* are each answered by three succinct clauses, supported
by the citation in 9:33*, and explained in the subsequent verses down to the conclusion in
10:4*. There is a well-developed antithetical parallelism in the description of Gentiles and
Israel in vv. 30b–31*.8 The theme of “righteousness” is emphasized by the sevenfold
reduplication of δικαιοσύνη, in which the second and third references in v. 30* constitute an
anadiplosis, since the term is used to end and begin successive clauses.9 Verse 31* contains a
panalepsis, a rhetorical figure that in this case shifts the nominative and the genitive forms of
the same term so as to lend special emphasis to the shifted component; in this case “law of
righteousness” = righteousness through law, with law again repeated in the expression, “did
not attain a law.”10 An emphasis on causality is conveyed by the fourfold repetition of γάρ
(“for”) in 9:2*, 3*, 4*, and 5*.11 The scriptural proof of 9:33*, a conflation of Isa 28:16* and
8:14*, confirms Paul’s contention about unbelieving Jews stumbling over the stone. Paul
comments on the citation with the interjection of 10:1*, expressing the desire that his fellow
Jews should not fall over the stone. This is explained in 10:2–4* with the argument
concerning zeal without acknowledgment.
29
30
since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that
same faith.
31
1
2
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3
For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
4
Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due.
5
But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.
8
See the schematic analysis in Siegert, Argumentation, 141–42.
9
10
Hofius, Paulusstudien, 162, following a suggestion by Calvin.
*
2
Romans 9:2 (NRSV)
*
3
Romans 9:3 (NRSV)
*
4
Romans 9:4 (NRSV)
*
5
Romans 9:5 (NRSV)
11
See Gignac, Romains 9–11, 200.
*
16
therefore thus says the Lord God, See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious
cornerstone, a sure foundation: “One who trusts will not panic.”
Isaiah 28:16 (NRSV)
*
14
He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one
stumbles over—a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Isaiah 8:14 (NRSV)
*
2
IV. The probatio

9:30—10:4 4. Diatribe on the failure to submit to divine righteousness, which is caused
by misguided zeal
9:30–31 a. The rhetorical exchange about righteousness in relation to Jews and Gentiles
9:30a 1) The question of general inference from the foregoing argument
9:30b–31 2) The answer to the rhetorical question
9:30b-c a) The inference regarding the Gentiles
9:30b (1) The Gentiles did not pursue righteousness
(2) The Gentiles received righteousness
9:30c (3) The righteousness they received was “through faith”
9:31 b) The antithetical inference regarding Israel
(1) Israel pursued the “law of righteousness”
(2) Israel did not achieve its goal
9:32–33 b. The rhetorical exchange concerning the reason for Israel’s failure
9:32a 1) The rhetorical question: “Why?”
9:32b-c 2) The rhetorical answer concerning the failure properly to pursue the law
9:32b a) Israel did not pursue the law “through faith”
9:32c b) Israel acted as if the law were a matter of “works”
9:32d–33 3) The rhetorical assertion concerning Israel stumbling on the stone
9:32d a) The declaration of Israel’s fall
9:33a b) The citation formula
9:33b-d c) The citation of Isa 28:16* in fusion with 8:14*
10:1 c. The interjection of Paul’s yearning that Israel not fall on the stone
1) The personal address: “brothers”
2) The expression of Paul’s yearning
a) The desire of the heart
b) Paul’s prayers to God
3) The content of Paul’s yearning: Israel’s “salvation”
10:2–4 d. The reason for Israel’s endangered situation
10:2–3 1) The issue of zeal
10:2a a) The formula of bearing personal witness
10:2a-b b) The witness
10:2a (1) Israel has “zeal for God”
10:2b (2) Israel’s zeal is “without acknowledgment”
10:3 c) The explanation concerning divine righteousness
10:3a (1) Israel displays ignorance of divine righteousness
10:3b (2) Israel seeks to validate its own righteousness
10:3c (3) Israel refuses to submit to divine righteousness
3
4
*
14
Romans 8:14 (NRSV)
10:4 2) The theological comment about righteousness and law
a) Christ as the goal of the law
b) The qualification of the goal
(1) The goal is “for righteousness”
(2) The goal is open to all “having faith”
Exegesis
 30* The rhetorical question that opens this pericope is the exact expression we have found
in 4:1*; 6:1*; 7:7*; 8:31*; 9:14*, 30*. As in 8:31*, Paul appears to use τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν (“What
shall we say, then?”) to invite his hearers to share the inference drawn from the preceding
argument.12 Rather than dealing with a false inference as in 9:14*, where the same question is
used, Paul states the true and consistent inference from the midrashic proof that a faithful
remnant will be saved, expecting his hearers to assent. The word fields of “Jew/Gentile,”
“righteousness,” “faith,” and “law” that Paul employs in stating the inference provide a close
correlation with both the propositio and the first proof of the letter in 1:16–4:25*.13 The ironic
*
1
Romans 4:1 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 6:1 (NRSV)
*
7
Romans 7:7 (NRSV)
*
31
What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Romans 8:31 (NRSV)
*
14
Romans 9:14 (NRSV)
12
For the comparison with 8:31, see Siegert, Argumentation, 141.
*
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
themselves,
25
26
unnatural,
antithesis between those Gentiles “not pursuing” (μὴ διώκοντα) righteousness, yet receiving
it, and those Israelites “pursuing” (διώκων) righteousness, yet not achieving it, is enhanced by
the association of διώκω (“chase, pursue”) with τρέχω (“run”), which was used in 9:16* to
describe Pharaoh’s futile exertion.14 If divine mercy is sovereign as 9:14–18* showed, and if
God wishes to select a remnant to become “vessels of mercy” as 9:22–29* indicated, then the
achievement of righteousness cannot result entirely from human effort. The choice of the
word διώκω in this context also evokes associations with persecution and with zealously
promoting a cause or pursuing a project,15 thus preparing for the development of the theme of
27
error.
28
should not be done.
29
30
31
13
Siegert, Argumentation, 141, notes the correlation with 1:16–17.
*
16
Romans 9:16 (NRSV)
14
See ibid.
*
14
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
*
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15
Albrecht Oepke, “διώκω,” TDNT 2 (1964) 229f., mentions Matt 10:23* and 23:34*; John 5:16*; 15:20*; Acts
7:52*; 9:4* as characteristic examples. Paul himself uses διώκω in Gal 1:13* to refer to his persecution of the
early church. The connotation of zealously or vigorously following someone is found in LXX 4 Kgdms 5:21*,
Καὶ ἐδίωξε Γιεζὶ τοῦ Ναιμάν (“And Giezi pursued Naiman”); Xenophon Mem. 2.8.6, Χρὴ … τοὺς εὐγνώμενος
διώκειν (“Try … to pursue generous masters”); Plato Theaet. 168, ἂν μὲν γὰρ οὒτω ποιῇς … σὲ μὲν διώξονται
καὶ φιλήσουσιν (“For if you act in this manner … they will chase after you and love you”). The connotation of
zealously promoting a cause or project is present in Thucydides Hist. 2.63.1: “And not to flee pains nor to pursue
honors (τὰς τιμὰς διώκειν)”; B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth, eds., Fayûm Towns and Their Papyri
religious zeal in succeeding verses of this pericope. The entire argument deals with the
“present situation of Israel” in failing “to recognize Christ as the goal of the law, in whom
there is righteousness for everyone who has faith.”16 The expression διώκειν δικαιοσύνην or
δίκαιον (“pursue righteousness or right”) is a distinctive expression for Hebrew piety, defined
by an explicit relationship to the law;17 for example, Sir 27:8* assures the faithful, Ἐὰν
διώκῃς τὸ δίκαιον, καταλήμψῃ καὶ ἐνδύσῃ αὐτὸ ὡς ποδήρη δόξης (“If you pursue
righteousness, you shall attain it and put it on as a glorious garment”).
Paul could easily gain the assent of his hearers in claiming that “Gentiles” characteristically
do not pursue righteousness in the same manner.18 The present participial phrase τὸ μὴ
διώκοντα has a progressive temporal sense that, when combined with the aorist verb
κατέλαβεν (“attained”), requires a description of Gentiles with an imperfect tense, “those who
were not pursuing”19 righteousness under the law. Moreover, as Hübner shows, Rom 9:30–
31* resonates with the wider context of Isa 51:1*, Ἀκούσατέ μου, οἱ διώκοντες τὸ δίκαιον καὶ
ζητοῦντες τὸν κύριον (“listen to me, those who pursue justice and seek the Lord”), which
refers to divine righteousness drawing near to fill the promise of becoming a light to the
Gentiles (Isa 51:4–5*).20 Now the promised fulfillment for Gentiles has occurred, through the
preaching of the gospel. To “obtain righteousness”21 in this context is to find “righteous status
in God’s sight,”22 that is, to respond positively to the gospel of grace and find a place among
the remnant whom God has selected.
The carefully developed antithetical parallelism between Gentiles and Jews is stretched by the
inclusion of the phrase, “that is, righteousness through faith,” which receives emphasis by
virtue not only of its intrusion into the parallelism but also by the anadiplosis in the
reduplication of δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) as the beginning and end of successive clauses.
The crucial importance of this phrase is confirmed by its being picked up for development in
(London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1900) 111, 20 (95–96 C.E.), “zealously pursue (διόξον) the irrigation of all
the olive-yards”; see MM 166.
16
17
See Michel, 320; examples are Deut 16:20*: “Justly pursue (διώξῃ) justice and you shall live”; Prov 15:9*:
“The ways of impious ones are an abomination to the Lord, but he loves those that pursue (διώκοντας)
righteousness.” The closest non-Jewish parallel lacks the verb διώκω: Isocrates Pac. 33.2 refers to “those who
strive to persevere (καρτερεῖν) and abide in piety and righteousness.”
*
8
If you pursue justice, you will attain it and wear it like a glorious robe.
Sirach 27:8 (NRSV)
18
Lietzmann, 94. The use of this technical expression mitigates the potential conflict with 2:14–16. To have the
law “written on the heart” is not the same as consciously pursuing it; see Schlier, 306.
19
BDF §174f.; Cranfield, 2:507. Most English language commentaries carelessly translate this with “Gentiles
who do (or did) not pursue righteousness have attained it,” as found in Ziesler, 249, 252; Morris, 374; Dunn,
2:580.
*
1
Listen to me, you that pursue righteousness, you that seek the Lord. Look to the rock from which you were
hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug.
Isaiah 51:1 (NRSV)
*
4
Listen to me, my people, and give heed to me, my nation; for a teaching will go out from me, and my justice
for a light to the peoples.
5
I will bring near my deliverance swiftly, my salvation has gone out and my arms will rule the peoples; the
coastlands wait for me, and for my arm they hope.
20
Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 63–65.
21
The choice of “obtain” for καταλαμβάνω seems more appropriate than “attain,” which implies a measure of
conscious striving.
22
Cranfield, 2:506.
the explanation of the paradoxical failure of Israel to achieve its intended goal in 9:32*.23 The
reference to “righteousness through faith” recalls both the propositio of the letter in 1:16–17*
and decisive themes in the first proof (3:21–31*; 4:1–25*), which defined being set right as
coming through faith in Christ rather than through human achievement. God honors the
ungodly through evoking faith in the gospel, establishing a new community that belongs to
the seed of Abraham.
 31* The ironic contrast is that Israel failed to attain the very “law of righteousness” that it
so assiduously pursued. The word choice is surprising, as Räisänen points out, because one
“would have expected Paul to write that Israel was striving for ‘the righteousness of the law,’
but did not attain ‘righteousness.’ ”24 The focus here is on law,25 which Israel failed to achieve
23
See Siegert, Argumentation, 142.
*
21
prophets,
22
23
24
25
26
Jesus.
27
28
29
30
same faith.
31
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:
7
“Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
8
blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.”
9
Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, “Faith
was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.”
10
How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before
he was circumcised.
11
12
13
14
15
16
24
Räisänen, Law, 53; as Dunn, 2:582, observes, many commentators assume that the emphasis here is on
“righteousness” rather than “law,” although the latter is emphatically repeated.
despite zealous striving.26 The ironic use of the expression νόμος τῆς δικαιοσύνης (“law of
righteousness”) echoes that of the Wisdom of Solomon, where it describes the perversion of
the law for political purposes.27 Unjust Greco-Roman rulers are heard to conspire with the
following words: καταδυναστεύσωμεν πένητα δίκαιον, μὴ φεισώμεθα χήρας μηδὲ πρεσβύτου
ἐντραπῶμεν πολιὰς πολυχρονίους· ἔστω δὲ ἡμῶν ἡ ἰσχὺς νόμος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, τὸ γὰρ
ἀσθενὲς ἄχρηστον ἐλέγχεται. (“Let us overpower the poor righteous man, let us not spare a
widow, nor reverence the old grey hairs of the aged. Let our strength be a law of
righteousness, for that which is weak proves useless”; Wis 2:10–11*.) The expression “law of
righteousness” appears to be employed in this passage to depict what a propagandist would
understand to be the essence of Jewish piety, which the rulers planned to replace by brute
strength. Although this expression was not used elsewhere in Romans, its use in this particular
context means that what Israel failed to achieve was the righteousness it sought through
obedience to the law.28 Paul’s use of this phrase to depict typical Jewish striving also has an
autobiographical resonance, evoking Paul’s own zealous pursuance of the law prior to his
conversion, which ended up as the choice of the term διώκειν (“to pursue, persecute”)
suggests, in persecuting the early church (Gal 1:13*, 23*). There is a close parallel to such
pursuance in Phil 3:5–6*, where Paul is describing his former life: “as to the law a Pharisee,
as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless.”29 Paul’s
discussion of the law in Rom 7:7–25* indicates the way one should interpret νόμον οὐκ
25
Kuss, 3:744, refutes the construal of νόμος as “norm” or “order,” showing that the connotation of the Jewish
“law” is crucial; see also Siegert, Argumentation, 142.
26
Aageson, “Typology” 62, argues that the wording of this verse reveals the setting of conflict between Jews and
Gentiles over the place of the law; for a skeptical appraisal of this claim, see Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 518.
27
See Dieter Georgi, Weisheit Salomos, in Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Gütersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 1980) 3:408.
*
10
Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow or regard the gray hairs of the aged.
11
But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless.
28
Hofius, Paulusstudien, 163; Westerholm, Law, 126–30.
*
13
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was
trying to destroy it.
*
23
they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried
to destroy.”
*
5
circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of
Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
6
as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Philippians 3:5–6 (NRSV)
29
The verb διώκειν also appears in Greco-Roman legal contexts in reference to prosecuting a case: “the one
pursuing the case of the murderer” (ὁ διώκων τὴν δίκην τοῦ φόνου, Antiphon Caed. Her. 11.5; cf. Plato Leg.
956d8).
*
7
8
But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the
law sin lies dead.
9
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived
10
and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
11
For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12
So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
ἔφθασεν (“he did not attain a law”) here.30 It is not merely a problem of trusting in one’s
accomplishment of the good;31 insofar as the law embodied the divine will to be accomplished
by the faithful, any religious system that ended up in opposition to Christ failed to attain its
intent. But as Dunn notes, it remains unclear in v. 31* precisely why the ironic failure
occurred.32 The irony is so outrageous, from the perspective of Jewish orthodoxy of the
Pharisaic type, that it drives the argument forward to the underlying reason stated in the
following verse.
 32* The statement of the outrageous irony in vv. 30–31* evokes the abruptly stated
question, διὰ τί (“Why so?”), implying “on account of what?” rather than “for what end?”33 In
this instance, the diatribal use of the imaginary interlocutor responds to the difficulty in
explaining34 the extraordinary circumstance of pursuing the law but failing to achieve it. The
reason is explained with the succinct theological antithesis “not through faith but as if from
works,” to which the verb “pursue” needs to be understood from the preceding verse.35 The
expression ὡς ἐξ ἔργων (“as if from works”) implies an erroneous subjective assessment on
the part of Israel to the effect that the law could really be fulfilled by human works.36 The
crucial term “works” cannot be omitted from Israel’s erroneous assessment, as suggested by
Sanders and Räisänen, reducing the scope of Paul’s answer to the simple proposition that
Israel’s error was the refusal to accept faith in Christ.37 But it is not appropriate to create an
abusive construal of Israel’s subjective error, to the effect that their obedience aimed at
placing “God under an obligation to themselves,” resulting in “imprisonment in one’s own
self-centredness …”38 or “boasting in one’s achievements.”39 Watson suggests that “law” and
“works” in this context refer to “the Jewish way of life,” which cannot be accepted by
13
Did what is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is
good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond
measure.
14
For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.
15
16
17
But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.
18
19
20
21
22
For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,
30
Gottfried Fitzer, “φθάνω κτλ.,” TDNT 9 (1974) 90, discusses the sense of “attain to.”
31
As argued by Michel, 321; Lübking, Paulus, 80, referring to 7:10* as describing the illusion of gaining “life”
through self-reliant works.
32
Dunn, 2:581.
33
See Dunn, 2:582, and Godet, 368.
34
Although Schmeller does not discuss this passage, it fits his concept of using diatribe to explain a difficult
theological concept (Diatribe, 435).
35
For a discussion of the alternative verbs to be supplied, see Zahn, 470–71, concluding with the choice of
“pursue,” which most current commentators accept. An exception is Wilckens, 2:212, who prefers “attain” for
theological reasons to strengthen the emphasis on the reception of righteousness as a pure gift.
36
Kuss, 3:745; Wilckens, 2:212, and BAGD, 898, cite Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik 26–27, to
support the subjective construal of ὡς (“as if”). The appropriate parallel in the Pauline corpus for this use of ὡς
to suggest an erroneous subjective assessment is 2 Thess 2:2* (“either by spirit or word or letter as if from us”),
not 2 Cor 2:17* and 11:16*, as suggested by Michel, 332, and Dunn, 2:583. See also Bring, Bedeutung des
Gesetzes 40–42.
37
Räisänen, Law, 174–76.
38
Cranfield, 2:510.
39
Schlier, 307.
Gentiles,40 and Dunn refers to “the requirements of the law which mark off Jew from
Gentile,” focusing on the divisive element of ethnocentrism.41 However, this verse seeks to
explain why Israel rejected the message about Christ rather than to discuss its attitude toward
Gentiles. Believing erroneously that righteousness could only be reached through performing
the works required by the law, they repudiated Christ as a Sabbath breaker and a companion
of sinners. As Godet observed, if Israel had pursued righteousness as Abraham did, through
faith (Rom 4:1–22*), “they would have avoided stumbling at the Messianic righteousness.”42
The statement of this point in 9:32b* is introduced without any connecting particle, which
conveys “a special solemnity”43 to the claim that “they have stumbled over the stumbling
stone.” While the metaphor of a stumbling block was used in Greek sources,44 there was a
particularly well-developed tradition in the OT and Judaism of referring to divine punishment
as stumbling.45 If Israel sins, Deut 28:25* warns that “the Lord will cause you to stumble
before your enemies (προσκόπτοντα ἐναντίον τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου).” Paul’s unambiguous
declaration resonates with somber biblical echoes of Israel’s earlier missteps described in
40
Watson, Paul, 165.
41
Dunn, 2:582; Kim, Romans 9–11, 130, follows this lead in identifying Israel’s error as seeking “ethnic
privileges.”
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
“Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
8
blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.”
9
Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, “Faith
was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.”
10
he was circumcised.
11
12
13
14
15
16
42
Godet, 369.
43
Cranfield, 2:510.
44
The plural, τὰ προσκόμμα is found as early as Hippocrates Flat. 6.3 with the meaning “bruises.” Speusippus,
writing in the fourth century B.C.E., urges in Frag. 63e that the “disregarded argument” should not be passed by
“like a certain stumbling-stone lying as an impediment to the progress of knowledge (ὥσπερ τι πρόσκομμα
κείμενον εἰς ἐμποδισμὸν τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην προόδου).”
45
Gustav Stählin, “προσκόπτο κτλ.,” TDNT 6 (1968) 749–51.
*
25
The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you shall go out against them one way and flee
before them seven ways. You shall become an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.
Exod 23:33*; Isa 8:14*; 29:21*; and Ps 91:12*.46 Now the irony of Israel’s situation is
redoubled: “the stone of salvation becomes for them the stone of falling.”47 Committed to an
erroneous perception that righteousness could only be gained “from works,”48 the bulk of
Israel refused to accept Christ. Whether the scandal was the gospel about Christ49 or Christ
himself50 is difficult to determine. On argumentative grounds, the “stumbling stone”
corresponds to “gospel” and “word of God” in the discourse starting in 9:6*. Yet the offense
did not consist of a “gospel” as such, which could refer to any proclamation, but rather to the
gospel of Jesus as the christological stone. So the offense remains christological with either
interpretation.51 The reason for Paul’s grief concerning his fellow Israelites expressed in 9:2*
now becomes explicit for the first time.52
 33* The citation formula καθὼς γέγραπται (“as it has been written”)53 gives no hint of the
composite nature of the quotation Paul provides to sustain the contention that Israel has
stumbled on the messianic stone. Since it is possible that Paul adapts the composite quotation
from a pre-Pauline citation that appears also in 1 Peter, the following printout of the parallels
provides the data to evaluate the issues.
Isaiah 28:16* 1 Peter 2:6* Romans 9:33* Isaiah 8:14*
ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν ἔσται σοι εἰς
ἐμβάλλω εἰς Σιὼν Σιὼν ἁγίασμα, καὶ οὐχ
τὰ
θεμέλια Σιὼν λίθον ὡς λίθου
λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον προσκόμματος καὶ προσκόμματι
*
33
They shall not live in your land, or they will make you sin against me; for if you worship their gods, it will
surely be a snare to you.
Exodus 23:33 (NRSV)
*
21
those who cause a person to lose a lawsuit, who set a trap for the arbiter in the gate, and without grounds deny
justice to the one in the right.
Isaiah 29:21 (NRSV)
*
11
My eyes have seen the downfall of my enemies; my ears have heard the doom of my evil assailants.
Psalm 92:11 (NRSV)
46
See Müller, Anstoß und Gericht, 32–45; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 213–19.
47
Stählin, “προσκόπτο κτλ.,” 755; also Cranfield, 2:511; Horst Balz, “πρόσομμα,” EDNT 3 (1993) 173.
48
Paul W. Meyer, “Romans 10:4* and the ‘End’ of the Law,” in J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel, eds., The
Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman (New York:
Ktav, 1980) 66, follows Charles Kingsley Barrett, “Rom 9:30–10:21*: Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” in De
Lorenzi, ed., Israelfrage, 112, in identifying the stumbling block as the law itself.
49
Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 521–22, follows Paul E. Dinter, “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah,” BTB 13 (1983) 50, in
interpreting the stumbling stone as the gospel rather than as Christ himself. Fitzmyer, 579, writes, “they
stumbled over the gospel.” See also Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 342.
50
Cranfield, 2:510–11; Moo, 628–30; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 282.
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
51
See Gustav Stählin’s discussion of this christological “high point” in the development of the stumbling block
concept in Skandalon, 188–92.
52
See Käsemann, 278.
53
For the Jewish background of the formula, see on 1:17.
*
6
For it stands in scripture: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever
believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1 Peter 2:6 (NRSV)
πολυτελῆ
ἐκλεκτὸν ἐκλεκτὸν συναντήσεσθε
ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον πέτραν σκανδάλου, αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς
ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ πέτρας πτώματι
θεμέλια αὐτῆς
καὶ
ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ ̓ καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ
αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ αὐτῷ οὐ
καταισχυνθῆ καταισχυνθῆ καταισχυνθήσεται
(“behold, I set (“behold I am (“behold I am laying in (“and he will be to you a
for the laying in Zion a Zion a stone of stumbling sanctuary, and not as a
foundation of cornerstone elect, and a rock of stone of stumbling will you
Zion a costly precious and he scandal/falling, and he encounter him, or as a rock
stone, an elect who believes in who believes in it/him of falling”)
cornerstone, a it/him would not will not be put to shame”)
precious be put to shame”)
foundation,
and he who
believes in
it/him would
not be put to
shame”)
The arguments for Paul’s use of an early Christian version of Isa 28:16*, 54 perhaps contained
in an early Christian anthology of OT quotations,55 are convincing as far as the opening and
closing of the Pauline quotation are concerned. It is easy to observe that the first five words
and the last seven words in Paul’s citation almost exactly replicate the quotation in 1 Peter;
compared with 1 Peter’s precise citation of the final line from Isa 28:16*, Paul alters the verb
form and drops μή (“not”). The likelihood of a single, pre-Pauline source for the Isa 28:16*
portion of Paul’s quotation is indicated by the commonalities as compared with the LXX,
while the possibility that 1 Peter may be dependent on Romans at this point is unlikely
because it would have required both a disentangling of the conflation with Isa 8:14* and an
augmenting of additional details from Isa 28:16* in wording that varies from the LXX.56 A
crucial observation is that 1 Peter does not incorporate the motif of the “stone of stumbling”
from the second Isaiah text of 8:14*. Conversely Paul does not use Ps 117:22*, a crucial
component of the quotation in 1 Peter.57 The text in 1 Peter is explicitly christological in
glorifying the stone as an elect and precious cornerstone, whereas Romans presents the stone
54
The argument developed by Koch, “Beobachtungen,” 178–84, is reiterated in Schrift, 69–71, 160–62.
55
The proposal of an early Christian anthology of quotations was developed by Rendell Harris in Testimonies
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916, 1920) 1:26ff. and elaborated by C. H. Dodd with regard to Rom
9:33* in According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952) 35–
36, 41–43. Affirmative discussions of the issue are available in Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 95–99, and Ellis,
Paul’s Use, 89–91. The second edition of Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1972) 213–14, incorporates evidence from florilegia found at Qumran. For critical evaluations
that render the hypothesis quite implausible, see Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., “On Testimonies,” NovT 3 (1959) 268–
81; J. P. Audet, “L’hypothèse des Testimonia,” RB 70 (1963) 381–405; and Koch, Schrift, 247–55.
56
See Dodd, Scriptures, 43; and Koch, “Beobachtungen,” 180–81; idem, Schrift, 161–62.
*
22
The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
Psalm 118:22 (NRSV)
57
See Dugandzig, Ja Gottes, 288.
as a provocation to stumble and fall. So the fusion of the early Christian rendition of Isa
28:16* with Isa 8:14* is probably Pauline,58 with his version of the latter text freely
paraphrasing the LXX or derived from another Greek translation.59
Whatever the source, Paul’s citation from Isa 8:14* is a more apt translation of the Hebrew
text than the LXX provides,60 eliminating the erroneous negative and using λίθος
προσκόμματος (“stone of stumbling”) for ‫“(נגף ולאבן‬and a stone of offense”) and πέτρας
σκανδάλου (“rock of scandal”) for ‫“( ולצור מכׁשול‬and a rock of stumbling”). The unique
Pauline fusion of the two Isaiah texts produces the christological ambivalence required for
Paul’s argument. The very Christ for whom Israel yearned became its potential nemesis. This
holds true whether the stone corresponds to Christ or to the gospel. While the pre-Pauline
form of the Isa 28:16* quotation probably understood the expression “he who believes ἐπʼ
αὐτῷ” (“in him”) in a christological sense,61 and the later Jewish Targum construed the stone
as a symbol of royal messianic fulfillment,62 it remains possible that the “stone/rock” of
scandal in the context of Rom 9 was intended to be the gospel about Christ rather than Christ
himself.63 The offense to a community committed to righteousness through the law remains
the same whether the reference is to Christ or to the gospel about Christ. There is no doubt,
however, that when this clause is again quoted in Rom 10:11*, ἐπʼ αὐτῷ means “in
him/Christ.”64 The scandal is that the Messiah appeared as one who reversed the boundaries
of honor and shame as defined by a competitive view of Israel’s law.
The fused quotation from Isaiah sustains Paul’s argument commencing in 9:6* that Jewish
repudiation of the gospel does not indicate that God’s word has failed. If it is God who has
“laid” the messianic stone “in Zion,”65 there is a “divine purpose”66 in Israel’s current
stumbling that will become fully apparent in the revelation of the mystery of the inclusion of
the Gentiles in 11:7–12*, 25–32*. Meanwhile the “twofold meaning of the stone” remains, in
58
See the compelling arguments by Koch, Schrift, 161f., 250; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 23, 34; and
Wagner, Heralds, 132–35. Stanley, Scripture, 121–25, opts for Paul’s adaptation of an earlier Christian source,
but he cites Jan de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the
New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 69, that the church fathers always cite Isa 28:16* from the LXX rather than
from Paul or 1 Peter, which makes any form of the testimonia hypothesis improbable. Others are skeptical that
the precise origin of the fused text can be known: Dugandzig, Ja Gottes, 289; Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 68.
59
Dunn, 2:584, shows that Paul’s quotation from Isa 8:14* stands closer to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s
formulation than to the LXX. See also Koch, Schrift, 58–60, 162; and Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 34.
60
61
The textual variant in the LXX may indicate that ἐπʼ αὐτῷ was added prior to the Christian era, since the B
version does not contain it. Joachim Jeremias argues for this construal of the text critical evidence in “λίθος,
λίθινος,” TDNT 4 (1967) 272. See also Koch, “Beobachtungen,” 179; idem, Schrift, 70.
62
Str-B 3:276 quotes the Targum for Isa 28:16* as explaining, “Behold, I have set in Zion a king, a mighty king,
mighty and terrible.…” For other references to this statement, see Jeremias, “λίθος, λίθινος,” 272.
63
See Mesner, “Rhetoric,” 521–22; and Dinter, “Paul,” 50. Wagner, Heralds, 157, and Wright, Climax, 244,
argue that Paul intentionally leaves open whether the stone refers to God, as in the original Isaiah passage, or to
Christ, or to the covenant plan of God.
*
11
Romans 10:11 (NRSV)
64
See the compelling analysis by Badenas, Christ, 106, followed by Dunn, 2:585.
65
Georg Fohrer, “Σιών κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 312–17, shows that Zion was expected to be the center of
eschatological fulfillment as the place where the messiah would appear and subsequently rule.
66
Dunn, 2:584, consistent with Wilckens, 2:214. See also Stählin, Skandalon, 197, cited by Käsemann, 279;
Hofius, Paulusstudien, 165–66.
*
7
8
this very day.”
9
that the one “who is placed there for faith Himself becomes an ‘obstacle to faith.’“67 By
fusing these two antithetical interpretations of the stone, Paul placed into the mouth of Isaiah
the thought that the Apostle had expressed in more controversial style in Gal 5:11* and 1 Cor
1:23*, referring to the “scandal of the cross” as perceived by Jewish religionists. The two
expressions that Paul adapts from Isaiah, “stone of stumbling”68 and “rock of
scandal/falling,”69 are virtually synonymous in meaning,70 both referring to items
intentionally placed in the path of victims to trap them or cause them to fall down.71 In
Hebrew materials where these terms are used far more prominently than in the non-Jewish
world, they often function as metaphors for moral, economic, or political ruin.72 In this
instance ruin can be avoided only by placing one’s faith in Christ.
In place of the aorist subjunctive of Isaiah (“he would not be put to shame”), Paul chooses the
future form of the verb,73 οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται (“he/she will not be put to shame”), thus
pointing not only to the eschatological context of the last judgment74 but also to any form of
testing to be experienced in the future by the believers in Rome. By placing their lives on the
line for the sake of the shameful gospel (see Rom 1:16*), they demonstrate that their formerly
10
11
12
*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
67
Gustav Stählin, “σκάνδαλον κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 352.
*
11
But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of
the cross has been removed.
*
23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
68
This translation takes the expression λίθος προσκόμματος as a nomen actionis, meaning “the stone on which
there is the stumbling, which leads to a fall,” according to Stählin, “προσκόπτω κτλ.,” 746.
69
See Stählin, “σκάνδαλον κτλ.,” 341, which describes Isa 8:14* as “an obstacle on the path over which one
falls.”
70
See Stählin, Skandalon, 95ff., 261ff., cited by Käsemann, 279.
71
Stählin, “σκάνδαλον κτλ.,” 339–41; idem, “προσκόπτω κτλ.,” 745–47.
72
See Stählin, “σκάνδαλον κτλ.,” 341, 353; idem, “προσκόπτω κτλ.,” 754–55.
73
See Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 45. Stanley, Scripture, 125, argues again for Paul’s citation of a pre-
Christian source, whose exact wording he admits is impossible to ascertain. He assumes that there was no
“contextual motive” for the future verb, either here or in 10:11, but he does not consider the relevance of
overcoming shameful status through Christ.
74
See Käsemann, 279; Rudolf Bultmann, “αἰσχύνω κτλ.,” TDNT 1 (1964) 189: “Its primary reference is to the
shame brought by the divine judgment.”
*
shameful status has been overcome. Having been freed from a system of honor and shame
dependent on conformity to the law and to the acceptance of inherited or earned status, those
who rely on the scandal of Christ crucified have a new basis of honor through sheer grace.
Although the principalities and powers will probably continue to cast shame on the “stone of
stumbling and the rock of scandal” on which they place their hopes, these believers will no
longer be “put to shame,” either in their present life or the life to come.
 10:1* The abrupt address of this verse, “Brothers,” introduced with asyndeton, that is,
without punctuation or conjunction, conveys the “emotion with which the apostle’s heart is
filled.”75 For the first time since 9:1–5* Paul resumes the personal tone, with the term
“brothers” signaling his personal relationship with “Israel.” Paul places the entire Roman
audience, whether Jew or Greek, within a rubric of solidarity as his siblings while introducing
the divisive issue of Israel’s rejection of the gospel. The particle μέν appears here without the
usual δέ in the succeeding clause, implying a restrictive sense that, as far Paul is concerned,
nothing but the salvation of his kinsmen is wanted.76 Although εὐδοκία is usually translated
“desire,”77 this is actually beyond the semantic range of this term, which ordinarily means
“good pleasure.”78 The most apt translation for this term, which is used most frequently in
Hellenistic Jewish sources,79 is offered by Godet, “my heart’s good pleasure.”80 The use of
this word is rhetorically effective in avoiding any appearance of hostility to his fellow
Israelites, even though they have treated him as a renegade. The prospect of the triumphant
gospel transforms the “great pain and unceasing pain in my heart” (9:2*) to “my heart’s good
pleasure” in 10:1*. The wording of this verse is a vivid example of Paul’s missionary
commitment to be “indebted” to Jews as well as Gentiles (Rom 1:14*).
16
Romans 1:16 (NRSV)
75
Godet, 374; see also Fitzmyer, 582.
*
1
2
3
4
5
76
77
See ibid.; BAGD 319; Fitzmyer, 582.
78
Sir 18:31* is sometimes cited in favor of this option, but “if you give your soul the desires that please you (ἐὰν
χορηγήσῃς τῇ ψυχῇ σου εὐδοκίαν ἐπιθυμίας)” requires the noun ἐπιθυμία (“desire”) to carry this sense, while
εὐδοκία continues to carry its usual meaning of “good pleasure.” Ps 144:16* is also cited, ἐμπιπλᾷς πᾶν ζῷον
εὐδοκίας, which does not require the translation “you satisfy the desire of every living thing”; it can also be
translated “you fill every living thing with pleasure.” See Gottlob Schrenk, “εὐδοκέω, εὐδοκία,” TDNT 2 (1964)
746; Robert Mahoney, “εὐδοκία,” EDNT 2 (1991) 75.
79
A TLG search for εὐδοκία and εὐδοκίῃ, its early Ionic form, shows the dominance of Hellenistic Jewish usage.
This word appears sixteen times in Sirach, eight times in the Psalms, and two other places in the LXX as well as
nine times in the NT. The underlying Hebrew word means “pleasure, what is pleasing, or will,” according to the
lexicon of L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament (trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson; Leiden: Brill, 1994–99) 3:1282. See also
Schrenk, “εὐδοκέω, εὐδοκία,” 742.
80
Godet, 374; the translation “loving well” suggested by Adolf von Harnack has the right impulse, but is
unsatisfactory since εὐδοκία otherwise does not bear the connotation of love. See Harnack, “Über den Spruch
‘Ehre sei Gott in der Höhe’ und das Wort ‘Eudokia,’ ” in Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der
Alten Kirche, I, Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik (AKG 19; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931) 170.
*
In addition to the changed condition of his heart, Paul alludes to his “prayer to God for them”
as evidence of his passionate love for his fellow Jews, even when they reject the gospel. The
word δέησις implies a specific petition81 that Paul has made, and the peculiar, generalized
wording82 makes it clear that this was a specific aspect of his prayer life. On the basis of 1
Thess 2:13*; 5:17*; and Phil 1:4*, it is clear that frequent prayer was a feature of Paul’s
religiosity,83 and from this verse in Romans and other places we can see that these prayers
related to his missionary goals.84 His prayers were εἰς σωτηρίαν (“for salvation”) not just for
Gentiles but also for his fellow Jews, to whom he had already shown he was indebted (Rom
1:14*); this precise expression “for salvation” occurred in 1:16*. Despite his earlier
discussion of “vessels of wrath,” Paul prays for his people’s participation in the
“eschatological salvation of the whole world.”85 While insisting on human responsibility, and
thus on the possibility of remaining under wrath, Paul’s prayer reveals his refusal “to reduce
the sovereignty of the gracious God who has already decided and acted for all human beings”
in Christ.86
 2* It is significant that Paul addresses himself to his unbelieving fellow Jews with the
juridical expression “I bear them witness.”87 Since they are undoubtedly not present among
the Roman believers addressed in this letter, Paul “seems to be alluding to his conduct of
other days”88 in which open confrontations had occurred. The verb μαρτυρέω (“bear witness”)
is used here as a public assertion89 in which Paul gives testimony to his basic critique of a
form of Jewish piety of his time. This verb is used in secular writings as well as the LXX to
14
I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish
Romans 1:14 (NRSV)
81
Ulrich Schoenborn, “δέομαι, δέησις,” EDNT 1 (1990) 287. Since δέησις can also refer to a secular request, the
religious context is often made explicit, as in Josephus C. Ap. 2.197.1, “let there be a request to God (δέησις δʼ
ἔστω πρὸς τὸν θεόν).” Similarly Historia Alexandri Magni Rec. φ 69.t refers to the “request (δέησις) of the
Romans to the god Apollo.”
82
There are no parallels in the NT or the LXX for Paul’s expression δέησις πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“prayer to God”).
*
13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from
us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you
believers.
*
17
pray without ceasing,
*
4
constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for all of you,
83
See Harder, Gebet, 8–19; Stanislas Lyonnet, “Un aspect de la ‘prière apostolique’ d’après saint Paul,” Christus
5 (1958) 223–24.
84
See Gebauer, Gebet, 203.
85
Karl Hermann Schelkle, “σωτηρία,” EDNT 3 (1993) 327; see also Werner Foerster and Georg Fohrer, “σῴζω
κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 992. In the T. Abr. recension A 14.4–5 Abraham and the archangel Michael make a
“request” (δέησιν) for a threatened soul that “was saved through your righteous prayer (σέσωται διὰ τῆς εὐχῆς
σου τῆς δικαίας),” that is, granted access to paradise.
86
M. Eugene Boring, “The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul,” JBL 105 (1986) 291; see also Brendan
Byrne, “Universal Need of Salvation and Universal Salvation by Faith in the Letter to the Romans,” Pacifica 8
(1995) 123–39.
87
The first person usage occurs in forensic orations, e.g., Demosthenes Mid. 22; Isaeus Euph. 12.7.
88
Godet, 375.
89
Johannes Beutler, “μαρτυρέω κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991) 390; Otto Michel, “Zeuge und Zeugnis,” in
H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke, eds., Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im
Neuen Testament: Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburstag (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1972) 15–31.
refer to witnessing in a law court or openly affirming a matter of fact.90 An example from
everyday life is in a papyrus requesting hospitality πρὸς ἐπανελθόντα αὐτὸν μαρτυρῆσαί μοι
(“so that after returning he may bear witness of it to me”).91
“Zeal for God” is a technical expression for Jewish piety,92 implying a “passionate,
consuming” desire to do God’s will and to defend God’s honor “in face of the ungodly acts of
men and nations.”93 Elijah was an archetype of this kind of zeal, complaining that “with zeal I
have been zealous for the Lord almighty” (Ζηλῶν ἐζήλωκα τῷ κυρίῳ παντοκράτορι), while
others have forsaken the covenant (1 Kgs 19:10*, 14*). This is characteristically linked with
adherence to the law, as in 1 Macc 2:58*: Ἐλίας ἐν τῷ ζηλῶσαι ζῆλον νόμου, ἀνελήφθη εἰς
τὸν οὐρανόν (“Being zealous with zeal for the law, Elijah was taken up into heaven”).94
Paul’s expression “zeal for God” is close to the wording found in T. Ash. 4:5, which describes
the righteous as follows: ὅτι ἐν ζήλῳ κυρίου πορεύονται, ἀπεχόμενοι ὧν καὶ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῶν
ἐντολῶν μισῶν ἀπαγορεύει, ἀπείργων τὸ κακὸν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (“because they live by zeal for
the Lord, avoiding what God hates and has prohibited through his commandments, warding
off evil by the good”). The great examples of zealous fervor in the Jewish tradition are Elijah,
Phinehas, Simeon, Levi and Mattathias, with violence against violators explicitly sanctioned
in a number of texts.95 The prophetic leader of the Qumran community claims that “according
to the measure of my closeness [to God], I was zealous against all evil-doers and men of
deceit.”96 In Donaldson’s words, “Zeal was more than just a fervent commitment to the
Torah; it denoted a willingness to use violence against any—Jews, Gentiles, or the wicked in
general—who were contravening, opposing, or subverting the Torah.”97 Paul describes his
former life in Judaism in similar terms as “extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers”
(Gal 1:14*) and “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church” (Phil 3:6*).98 Here Paul is dealing
90
See Hermann Strathmann, “μάρτυς κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 476–83.
91
MM 389, citing P.Oxy. 8. Nr. 1068.19, a papyrus of the third century C.E.
92
The argument in this section is adapted from Jewett, “The Basic Human Dilemma: Weakness or Zealous
Violence (Romans 7:7–25* and 10:1–18*),” ExAud 13 (1997) 96–109; See also Peace, Conversion, 42–43.
93
See Albrecht Stumpff, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 878; Wiard Popkes, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991) 100;
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:287–309. Significant parallels are found in 1 Macc 2:44f*.; 1QS 4:4, 10, 17;
1QH 1:5; 2:15, 31; 4:23; 9:3; 14:14.
*
10
He answered, “I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your
covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking
my life, to take it away.”
1 Kings 19:10 (NRSV)
*
14
*
58
Elijah, because of great zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven.
94
The expression “zeal for the law” or for divine “ordinances” is found in 1 Macc 2:26*, 27*, 50*, 58*; 2 Macc
4:2*; 1QS 4:4 (“zeal for righteous precepts”); 9:23 (“zealous for the statute”); 1QH 14:14; see Hengel, Judaism
and Hellenism, 1:305–14.
T. Testament of Asher
95
See Hengel, Zealots, 147–228.
96
1QH 14:14, cited by Hengel, Zealots, 179.
97
Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert,” 673; see also Smiles, “Concept of ‘Zeal,’ ” 285–92.
*
14
I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the
traditions of my ancestors.
*
with a primary element both in his own previous piety and also in the experience of the
Roman believers, whose experience had been so recently shaped by conflicts with Jewish
zealots, resulting in the ban under Claudius in 49 C.E.
Although there are no linguistic parallels to this technical, religious usage of zeal outside of
the Jewish tradition,99 the critique of zeal that Paul develops in this passage has some distant
echoes in the Greco-Roman world. For example, the sophist Polemo distinguishes between
healthy eagerness (σπουδή) and unhealthy jealousy (ζήλος) in describing the motivations of
the great warriors in the Battle of Marathon: Cynegirus “probably [was spurred on] both by
jealousy toward Callimachus and by ambition (ἴσως καὶ ζήλῳ τῷ πρὸς Καλλίμαρχον καὶ
φιλοτιμίᾳ)” whereas “Callimachus [was] not spurred on by another nor desirous to emulate
someone else but [was spurred on] by independent eagerness (Καλλίμαρχος δὲ οὐχ ὑπʼ ἄλλου
παρωξυμμένος οὐδὲ πρὸς ἕτερον φιλοτιμούμενος ἀλλʼ αὐθαιρέτῳ σπουδῇ).”100 This contrast
between behavior motivated by competition for honor and that which stems from an inward
state of being has some bearing on Paul’s critique of zeal that lacks recognition of the
poisonous residue of competition. In a similar vein, in Cor. 15.7.2 Plutarch advocates “a zeal
for virtue (ζῆλον ἀρετῆς) without envy (φθόνου) for one another.” This competitive note is
prominent in Paul’s references to the zeal that characterized his behavior prior to his
conversion. In Gal 1:14* he boasts of having “advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own
age” in zeal for the law, a contention that is echoed in this pericope, that unbelieving Jews
were seeking “to establish their own righteousness” (Rom 10:3*).
Paul’s expression “zeal for God, but without acknowledgment,” picks up the distinction of
1:28* between “knowing and acknowledging” God, between “cognition and recognition.”101
Since the phrase κατʼ ἐπιγνῶσιν is attested here for the first time in Greek literature and is
found thereafter only in patristic writers, it seems appropriate to define it in the context of
Paul’s argument. In light of the previous argument of Romans, it can be claimed that whereas
Gentiles have knowledge of God but do not honor him (1:28*), the Jews have zeal for God
but do not know her (10:2*). Whereas the Gentiles have cognizance of God’s invisible
attributes (1:20*), the Jews lack cognizance of divine righteousness (10:3*). The intensive
aspect of ἐπίγνωσις (“acknowledgment”) is reflected in Dunn’s comment that the hostile
attitude of unbelieving Jews was “not based on a recognition of how God’s righteousness is
bestowed.”102 Such zeal misapprehends God’s will as revealed in Christ.103 This wording
6
98
See Ellison, Mystery of Israel, 59, and especially Klaus Haacker, “Paulus und das Judentum,” Judaica 33
(1977) 167.
99
Stumpff, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” 877–78; Dunn, 2:586.
100
This translation of Polemo Decl. B32 is adapted from William W. Reader, with A. J. Chvala-Smith, The
Severed Hand and the Upright Corpse: The Declamations of Marcus Antonius Polemo (TT 42; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1996) 151.
Cor. Marcius Coriolanus
*
28
should not be done.
Romans 1:28 (NRSV)
101
Johnson, 158.
*
20
Romans 1:20 (NRSV)
102
Dunn, 2:586; see also Schlier, 310; Rudolf Bultmann, “γινώσκω κτλ.,” TDNT 1 (1964) 703–4; Sullivan,
“ΕΠΙΓΝΩΣΙΣ”,” 405–16; Wolfgang Hackenberg, “ἐπίγνωσις,” EDNT 2 (1991) 25. Colenso, 226: unbelieving
Jews “turned this grace of God into a ground for their own self-exaltation, instead of regarding it as a declaration
of His Favour, indeed, first, but through them to all mankind.”
places unbelieving Jews squarely in the context of Paul’s earlier argument concerning the
universal human tendency to suppress the truth, developed in 1:18–32*. Dunn aptly refers to
the practical consequence of such misunderstanding as “defending prerogative by killing,
rather than fulfilling the law by loving one’s neighbor—13:8*.”104
 3* Paul’s explanation of Jewish unbelievers’ lack of recognition begins with the expression
“being ignorant of the righteousness of God.” Although some have suggested that ἀγνοέω in
this context has the connotation of “disregarding,”105 its earlier use in Romans in the more
neutral sense of “not knowing” (1:13*; 2:4*; 6:3*; 7:1*)106 leads me to reject this option. It
also seems unlikely, as Munck contends, that Paul is referring here to Jewish ignorance of
103
See Badenas, Christ, 109, following Dupont, Gnosis, 6, who insists that the issue was conscious refusal to
obey.
*
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
themselves,
25
26
unnatural,
27
error.
28
should not be done.
29
30
31
32
*
8
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:8 (NRSV)
104
Dunn, 2:587.
105
See BAGD 11; Dunn, 2:587; Zahn, 474; Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀγνοέω κτλ.,” TDNT 1 (1964) 116.
*
4
Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s
kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
Romans 2:4 (NRSV)
*
3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3 (NRSV)
*
1
Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding
on a person only during that person’s lifetime?
Romans 7:1 (NRSV)
106
See Walter Schmithals, “ἀγνοέω κτλ.,” EDNT 1 (1990) 20–21.
Jesus’ status during his earthly life.107 In the context of a religion oriented to the righteousness
of God, this is a “fatefully inadequate knowledge of God.”108 While a typical pagan can be
criticized “because he knew not his Maker” (ὅτι ἠγνόησεν τὸν πλάσαντα αὐτόν, Wis 15:11*),
to make this charge against people raised in the Jewish tradition of Yahweh’s righteousness
implies “a delusion under which Israel unknowingly stands.…”109 In the light of Paul’s earlier
argument that the “righteousness of God” is defined and revealed in revolutionary terms by
the gospel (1:17*; 3:1–26*), this kind of ignorance involves a fundamental misperception of
what God wills for the world, indeed, of who God is, as revealed in Christ.110
The explanation that unbelieving Jews were “seeking to validate their own righteousness”
implies a competitive stance in which one’s “own” accomplishment is being compared with
others’. The only parallel to the expression ζητοῦντες στῆσαι (“seeking to validate”) in Greek
literature is the Sch. Dem. 18.220a5, in which an account was being ascertained or validated.
The verb στῆσαι is used here with the nuance “make or consider valid,”111 rather than
“establish,” which would falsely imply that Jewish believers had not already been granted a
firm relationship within the covenant. As E. P. Sanders and George Howard have shown,
conformity to the law was viewed by Jewish teachers not as an “entrance requirement”112 but
107
Munck, Christ, 83.
108
Käsemann, 280, citing Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit, 93.
*
11
because they failed to know the one who formed them and inspired them with active souls and breathed a
living spirit into them.
109
Stuhlmacher, 154.
*
17
Romans 1:17 (NRSV)
*
1
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2
Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
3
What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
4
5
But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath
on us? (I speak in a human way.)
6
By no means! For then how could God judge the world?
7
But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a
sinner?
8
And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”?
Their condemnation is deserved!
9
What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks,
are under the power of sin,
10
as it is written: “There is no one who is righteous, not even one;
11
there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God.
12
All have turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, there is not
even one.”
13
“Their throats are opened graves; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of vipers is under their lips.”
14
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16
ruin and misery are in their paths,
110
Hofius, Paulusstudien, 164.
Sch. Scholia in Demosthenem
111
BAGD 382.
112
Sanders, Law, 36–39.
as a confirmation of the Jewish community’s “collective righteousness, to the exclusion of
Gentiles.”113 Although the reference to τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην (“their own righteousness”) has
often been construed in an individualistic manner as the sin of “self-righteousness” and pride
in one’s religious accomplishments,114 it is more likely a reference to the sense of ethnic or
sectarian righteousness claimed by Jewish groups115 as well as by various other groups in the
Mediterranean world. In the case of first-century Judaism, a number of sectarian groups vied
for the loyalty of the nation, each claiming to have the key to the righteousness of God. The
zealot movement sought to achieve righteousness by violent warfare against Jewish
collaborators and Romans.116 The Pharisees taught that perfect obedience to the written and
oral law would usher in the righteous messianic era; their efforts to reform society led to
competition with other groups and to sectarian strife between the Shammai and Hillel
groups.117 The Essenes argued that adherence to their calendar and cultic regulations for the
temple would satisfy the conditions of righteousness, opposing other Jewish groups engaged
in a “corrupted way” and being led by a “spouter of lies,” a “wicked priest,” and “instruments
of violence.”118 The Sadducees believed that maintaining the purity of the temple and
following the laws of the Pentateuch would achieve righteousness, disputing particularly with
the Pharisees over questions of purity.119 In their sectarian competition with each other, and
their sense of superiority over the corrupt Gentile world, each of these groups sought to
“validate their own righteousness.”120
The failure to “submit to the righteousness of God” as revealed in Christ is the corollary of
attempting to confirm the superiority of one’s group through adherence to the law. Ὑποτάσσω
in the middle voice used here implies voluntary submission or subordination of oneself to a
superior,121 but not the technical sense of “obedience.”122 For example, an orator during the
Jewish–Roman war exhorted his faltering troops by asking “whether submission were a
heritage from our fathers (ὥσπερ ἐκ προγόνων τὸ ὑποτάσσεσθαι παραλαβόντες).”123 The
magical papyri employ this verb in spells such as the following: “Yes, Lord, for to you, the
God in heaven, all things are subject” (πάντα ὑποτέτακται, PGM II. Nr. 12.261). The Psalmist
urges, “Submit yourself to the Lord and make supplications to him” (Ὑποτάγηθι τῷ Κυρίῳ,
καὶ ἱκέτευσον αὐτόν, Ps 36:7*), but Paul has something more specific in mind than bowing
before deity. The designation of the “righteousness of God” as that to which submission
113
George E. Howard, “Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff*, ” JBL 88 (1969) 336.
114
Michel, 325; Moo, 634–36; Beker, Paul, 247.
115
See Ziesler, 256; Sanders, Law, 44–45; François Refoulé, “Romains, x,4: Encore une fois,” RB 91 (1984)
339–40.
116
For an account of the hostility of the zealot movement toward other Jewish groups, see Hengel, Zealots, 227–
28, 359–66; Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert,” 672–80.
117
See Anthony J. Saldarini, “Pharisees,” ABD 5 (1992) 294–303.
118
The sectarian nature of the Essene movement is described by John J. Collins in “Essenes,” ABD 2 (1992)
621–22; see also Vermes’s discussion of the polemical allusions to other groups and leaders in Dead Sea Scrolls,
30–35. For instance, 1QM 4:6 advises that the Sons of Light should write “righteousness of God” on their battle
flags.
119
See Gary G. Porton, “Sadducees,” ABD 5 (1992) 892–93.
120
See Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant, 262–65.
121
Roland Bergmeier, “ὑποτάσσω,” EDNT 3 (1993) 408; Gerhard Delling, “τάσσω κτλ.,” TDNT 8 (1972) 42–43.
122
Godet, 376; Michel, 326. Spicq, however, in “ὑποτάσσω,” TLNT 3 (1994) 424, is correct in insisting on the
primary sense of “to order oneself under” a leader.
123
Josephus Bell. 4.175.
PGM Papyri graecae magicae, ed. K. Preisendanz. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1928–31
Nr. Document number in collections of papyri, inscriptions, or ostraca
*
7
Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him; do not fret over those who prosper in their way, over those
who carry out evil devices.
Psalm 37:7 (NRSV)
should now be granted indicates that the revolutionary revelation of Christ crucified remains
at the center of this thought. By overturning the system of honor and shame by which
superiority in righteousness could be gained through various forms of adherence to the law,
Christ countered the universal human tendency to validate the status of one’s group. To
submit to this gospel requires abandoning the superiority claims of one’s group, no matter
what these may entail. For the Jewish sectarians who took offense at the gospel, such
submission would lead to a new system of righteousness, in which honorable status was
granted by grace alone rather than by conformity to the ethos and laws of the group.124
 4* In contrast to the widespread tendency to take this verse out of context as a radical
declaration of law’s cessation,125 it is important to take the γάρ (“for”) into account.126 The
words, “For Christ is the goal of the law,” serve to explain the misunderstanding about the
purpose of the law manifest in the phenomenon of competitive zeal, not to summarize Paul’s
doctrine of freedom from the law and justification by faith alone.127 The translation of τέλος
as “end,” although semantically possible in the sense of reaching a conclusion, fulfillment,
completion, perfection or climax,128 should not be understood in this context as cessation or
termination. As Badenas and others have shown, “the final notions of τέλος are never
indicative of mere cessation, discontinuation, or suspended action. When finality is incurred,
it is accompanied by a hint of innate fulfillment.”129 This fits the basic meaning of the word to
designate a high point or turning point to be reached.130 Thus the normal semantic range of
τέλος is from high point, goal, or purpose to climax and completion in the sense of attainment.
The examples ordinarily adduced in support of the translation “end” in the sense of cessation
usually have this sense of reaching a goal or achieving a purpose. To speak of a person
executed according to custom as τέλος ἔχων (“have an end”) means that the expected scenario
has reached its fulfillment.131 The expression εἰς τέλος (“until the end”), used 110 times in the
LXX, carries the sense of reaching some intended completion.132 Plutarch’s famous epigram,
δίκη μὲν οὖν νόμου τέλος ἐστί, νόμος δʼ ἄρχοντος ἔργον, ἄρχων δʼ ̓εἰκὼν θεοῦ τοῦ πάντα
κοσμούντος (“Now justice is the goal of law, but law is the work of the ruler, and the ruler is
the image of God who orders everything”),133 gives no hint that the law ceases to be in force
when justice is achieved. When Josephus declares that God “is his own work and the
beginning and end of all things (ὃς ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος τῶν ἀπάντων),”134
the idea of cessation derives from the idea of an originally intended goal for a finite creation.
Similarly Plutarch Amat. 750f12 explains, “for the goal (τέλος) of desire is pleasure and
124
For an interpretation of this “misdirected” zeal as a conflict between divine righteousness as revealed in Christ
and attaining righteousness through the law, see Smiles, “Concept of ‘Zeal,’ ” 295–96.
125
For example, Rudolf Bultmann, “Christ the End of the Law,” in Essays Philosophical and Theological
(London: SCM, 1955) 36–66; Peter Stuhlmacher, “Das Ende des Gesetzes: Über Ursprung und Ansatz der
paulinischen Theologie,” ZThK 67 (1970) 14–39; repr. in P. Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 166–91; Käsemann, 282–83; Wilckens, 2:221–24; Franz Mussner,
“Christus, des Gesetzes Ende zur Gerechtigkeit für jeden der glaubt (Röm 10, 4),” in M. Barth et al., eds.,
Paulus—Apostat oder Apostel? Jüdische und christliche Antworten (Regensburg: Pustet, 1977) 31–44; Hans
Hübner, “τέλος,” EDNT 3 (1993) 347–48.
126
See Kuss, 3:748; Meyer, “Romans 10:4*, ” 65–66; Rhyne, Faith, 104; Dunn, 2:589–90; Badenas, Christ, 112.
127
For example, Stuhlmacher, 155, argues that 10:4* “is intended to be read from the perspective of (final)
justification.”
128
See Gerhard Delling, “τέλος κτλ.,” TDNT 8 (1972) 49–50; Wilckens, 2:221–23.
129
Badenas, Christ, 44, cited from Du Plessis, ΤΕΛΕΙΟΣ, 41.
130
Badenas, Christ, 43; Thielman, Law, 207.
131
Josephus Bell. 7.155, cited by Delling, “τέλος,” 50, as evidence of the meaning “cessation.”
132
See Moo, 639, who cites this statistic in favor of temporal cessation.
133
Plutarch Princ. iner. 780e.
134
Josephus Ant. 8.280, cited by Delling, “τέλος,” 50, as evidence of the meaning “cessation.”
Amat. Amatorius
enjoyment” and Sextus Empiricus Math. 11.179.5 summarizes the view of Epicurus, “For
pleasure demonstrates by itself the goal (τέλος) of happiness.”
Both on semantic and contextual grounds, therefore, it is preferable to translate τέλος in Rom
10:4* as “fulfillment” or “goal,” which means that the “teleological perspective” remains
primary in this verse.135 This is consistent with the phrase εἰς δικαιοσύνην (“toward, as a
means to righteousness”), which has a directional sense136 that explains how Christ is the goal
of the law.137 As George Howard shows, this phrase points toward the idea that the “very aim
and goal [of the law] was the ultimate unification of the nations under the God of Abraham
according to the promise.”138 In Christ righteousness can be gained without conforming to the
mores of any culture. Christ thus reveals and accomplishes the original goal of the law, which
had been subverted by competition for honor and by ascribing shame to outsiders. In Dunn’s
words, “The epoch of Israel’s exclusive prerogative is ended; the role of the law as a badge of
election is over and done.”139 But the scope of Paul’s argument reaches far beyond Jewish
zealotism. In Christ “righteousness” is granted not just to a particular in-group, not just to
those whose zeal for the law is aggressively advanced, but simply to “all who believe” in the
gospel. In view of the fact that this “all” has repeatedly been shown by Paul to transcend
ethnic boundaries between Greeks and Jews and barbarians, nothing less than the pacification
and unification of the entire world is entailed in this verse.
10 The Fifth Pericope

Pesher Confirming Righteousness by Faith
Math. Adversus mathematicos

135
Badenas, Christ, 148; see also Rhyne, Faith, 146–49; Felix Flückiger, “Christus, des Gesetzes τέλος,” ThZ 11
(1955) 153–57; Meyer, “Romans 10:4*, ” 66; Lukas Kundert, “Christus als Inkorporation der Torah, τέλος γὰρ
νόμου χριστός: Röm 10, 4 vor dem Hintergrund einer erstaunlichen rabbinischen Argumentation,” ThZ 55
(1999) 77–78; Bandstra, Law and the Elements, 101–6; Bring, Bedeutung des Gesetzes 42–47; for an extensive
list of advocates, see Moo, 639.
136
Badenas, Christ, 248 n. 237, observes that Zerwick and Grosvener, Grammatical Analysis, 2:482, translate εἰς
in this verse as “to bring.”
137
See Bring, Bedeutung des Gesetzes 35–40, 62–66. In contrast, Gignac, Romains 9–11, 208–10, argues that
τέλος has a paradoxical connotation expressing both continuity and discontinuity between Christ and the law.
See also Alain Gignac, “Le Christ, τέλος de la Loi (Rom 10, 4), une lecture en termes de continuité et de
discontinuité, dans le cadre du paradigme paulinien de l’élection,” ScE 46 (1994) 55–81. This is a sensitive
assessment of the larger implication of Paul’s argument, but there are no semantic indications in 10:4* of this
alleged paradox. Oegema is more on target in Israel und die Völker, 217–19, 235–44, that Rom 10:4* deals with
the proper understanding of the law, namely a christological view.
138
Howard, “Christ and the End of the Law,” 336, italics in original.
139
Dunn, 2:598.
*
5
Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will
live by them.”
6
But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ”
(that is, to bring Christ down)
7
“or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
8
But what does it say? “The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we
proclaim);
9
10
For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
11
12
on him.
13
5/ For Moses writes concerninga the righteousness that comes fromb law, that “the
personc who does thesed [commandments] shall live by theme.” 6/ But “the
righteousness by faith” says thus:
“Do not say in your heart,
‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ”
that is, to bring Christ down,
7/ or “Who will descend into the abyss?”
that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.
8/ But what does itf say? “Near to you is the word, in your mouth and in your heart,”
that is, the word of faith that we proclaim, 9/ because if you confessg “with your
mouth,”h “Lord Jesus!”i and have faith “in your heart” that God raised him from the
a
The position of ὅτι (“that, concerning”) is disputed, with ‫( *א‬omits τοῦ) A (has πίστεως for τοῦ νόμου) D* (has
τῆς ἐκ) 6 33* (omits γὰρ) 81 630 1506 1739 1881 pc sa bo placing it right after the verb “writes,” thus
apparently extending the quotation: γὰρ γράφει ὅτι τὴν δικαιωσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος
ζήσεται (“for he writes that the person who does righteousness from the law shall live …”). P 46 (‫א‬2 B Ψ (omits
τοῦ) D2 F G K L P 33c 69 88 104 181 323 326 330 365 424* 436 451 614 629 (945 omits τοῦ) 1175 1241 1243
1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 1877 1962 2127 2464 2492 2495 (l 249 omits τοῦ) Maj ar d f g (syp) may be
more likely original in having ὅτι later in the sentence, before the citation proper: γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ
τοῦ νόμου, ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται (“he writes [concerning] the righteousness that is from the law, ‘that
the person who does it shall live …’ ”). Metzger, Textual Commentary (1975), 524, makes a compelling case for
the latter reading because of “early and diversified external support” and because the shifting of ὅτι to the
position after “writes” is an understandable scribal improvement. This discussion has been deleted in Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 463. See also Andreas Lindemann, “Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz: Erwägungen zur
Auslegung und zur Textgeschichte von Römer 10, 5, ” ZNW 73 (1982) 236–37. Minuscules 424c 1827 1984
avoid the issue by omitting ὅτι altogether. An odd variant in A, τὴν ἐκ πίστεως (“which is from faith”), appears
to accidentally replace ἐκ νόμου with ἐκ πίστεως, as in v. 6*. For an obscure suggestion of an intentional
alteration by the scribe of Alexandrinus, see Porter, “Rhetorical Scribe” 414.
b
The absence of the article τοῦ (“of the”) in ‫*א‬, 2 B Ψ 945 l 249 al is sufficiently strong to suggest an original
reading, with other texts adding the article for clarity. Since the addition is more easily explained than the
deletion, the absence of the article constitutes the more difficult and thus the more likely reading. Nestle-
Aland26/27 and GNT3/4 are so uncertain about the omission of this article that it is placed in brackets.
c
The omission of ἄνθρωπος (“person”) in F G ar f g syp appears to be an intentional deletion for stylistic reasons,
to eliminate the seemingly redundant subject.
d
The absence of αὐτά (“these”) in ‫ *א‬A D 6 81 424c 630 1506 1739 pc is closely matched in weight of evidence
by its presence in P46 ‫א‬2 B F G K L P Ψ 33c (33* 69 have ταῦτα) 88 104 181 323 326 330 365 424* 436 451 614
629 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 1881 1877 1962 2127 2344 2464 2492 2495 Lect d* f
g, but the former is more easily explained as a deletion since it would eliminate the syntactical flaw in a lack of
an antecedent for “these [commandments],” since it is the law (νόμος) that is referred to in the singular earlier in
the sentence. See Metzger, Textual Commentary (1975), 525; and Lindemann, “Textgeschichte von Römer 10, 5,
” 236–37. The inclusion of the plural form “these” is clearly the more difficult reading.
e
The singular dative object in the prepositional phrase ἐν αὐτῇ (“in/by it”) as found in ‫ *א‬A B 33 81 630 1506
1739 1881 l 249 pc vg cop is probably secondary, if the decisions concerning the earlier variants in this verse are
sound. The plural object in the phrase ἐν αὐτοῖς (“in them”), which appears in P46 ‫א‬2 D F G K L P Ψ 6 69 88 104
181 323 326 330 365 424 451 614 629 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 1877 1962 2127
2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj it sy, is the more difficult reading because of the syntactical problem it causes with
the singular antecedent earlier in the sentence, “the law.”
f
The specification of the subject as ἡ γράφη (“the scripture”) by D F G (F G place the subject before λέγει) 33 88
104 326 365 629 1319 1573 1735 2344 l 249 al (ar vgcl) bo (Ambst) has an explanatory function and appears to
be clearly secondary, a conclusion confirmed by the varying placement before and after the verb.
g
The insertion of τὸ ῥῆμα (“the word”) by B 81 1735 (l 249) sa (Cl) appears to be a grammatical correction
providing an object to the verb “confess” and using the term of the citation in 10:8*. The text without “the word”
is strongly supported by P46 ‫ א‬A D F G K L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 181 323 326 330 365 424 451 614 629 945 1175
1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1739 1836 1874 1877 1881 1962 2127 2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj lat sy bo Irlat.
h
The variant ὅτι κύριοςἸησοῦς (“that Jesus [is] Lord”) in B 81 1506 l 249 sa (Cl) CyrJ (add Χριστός) appears to
be a secondary effort to render the formulation closer to the standard confessional form, according to Cranfield,
2:527.
i
The word Χριστόν (“Christ”) is added by P46 A t, probably out of “scribal piety,” according to Metzger, Textual
Commentary (1975), 525. The absence of “Christ” is documented by ‫ א‬B D F G K L P Ψ 6 33 69 81 88 104 181
dead, you will be saved. 10/ For by heart, faith is evoked toward righteousness, but by
mouth confession is evoked toward salvation. 11/ For the scripture says,j
all “who have faith in him will not be put to shame.”
12/ For there is no distinction between Jews and also Greeks. The same one is Lord
of all, [bestowing] riches upon all who call upon him. 13/ For, “every one who calls
upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Analysis
Given the skillful interweaving of Paul’s argument, it is a good question whether a new
pericope begins at v. 5*, or indeed, at v. 14*. It is clear that 10:5–13* provides a scriptural
continuation of the theme of righteousness mentioned in 9:30f*. and 10:3–4*.1 The pericope
relates the theme of righteousness to the response of Jews and Gentiles to the gospel, dealing
both with the christological grounding of the gospel and its openness to everyone. It therefore
seems appropriate to accept Louw’s semantic analysis, which holds 10:5–13* together in a
single pericope.2
The form of this pericope is a fusion between a classical “speech-in-character”3 and a Hebrew
pesher,4 with Lev 18:5* set in contrast with composite citations from five different texts: Deut
9:3*; 30:11–14*; Ps 106:26*; Isa 26:16*; and Joel 3:5*. Two voices interact in this pesher,
323 326 330 365 424 436 451 614 629 630 945 1175 1241 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1877
1881 1962 2127 2344 2464 2492 2495 l 249 Maj lat sy sa bo Orlat.
j
The addition of ὅτι (“that”) by 42 pc is a scribal effort to clarify where the citation begins.
*
5
live by them.”
Romans 10:5 (NRSV)
*
14
Romans 10:14 (NRSV)
*
30
through faith;
Romans 9:30 (NRSV)
*
3
4
1
See Wilckens, 2:218, citing Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 31, and Schmidt, 175, who joins 10:4* as the thesis of
10:5–13*. Aageson, “Scripture,” 274–75, argues that 10:5–13* does not elaborate or explain the dilemma of zeal
in 10:2*, but this requires further discussion below.
2
Louw, 2:104–6. Commentators viewing 10:4–13 as a single pericope include Dunn, 2:598–618; Byrne, 316–23;
Schreiner, 550–63. Printed texts like Nestle-Aland’s produce a noticeable gap between v. 4* and v. 5*, but not a
full paragraph break as at v. 14*.
3
See Bultmann, Stil, 87–88; Stowers, Rereading, 309, refers to this as an example of “speech-in-character,”
defined by Theon Prog. 2.114.10–11 as “introducing into the discourse” a personified character who speaks
“words appropriate both to the character and the subject matter.” See also Kim, Romans 9–11, 132.
4
Wilckens, 2:225, citing D. Windfuhr, “Der Apostel Paulus als Haggadist,” ZAW 44 (1926) 328 (i.e., the Talmud
at Berakot 6a and 58a) and Bonsirven, Exégèse rabbinique 38; Hays, Echoes, 79. Fitzmyer, 588, refers to the
“midrashic fashion” of the argument in this passage. See also T. Baarda, “Het einde van de wet is Christus: Rom
10:4–15* een Midrasj van Paulus over Deut. 30:11–14*, ” GThT 88 (1988) 208–48.
*
5
You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:5 (NRSV)
*
with Moses “writing” in the initial text from Leviticus, and a personified “righteousness by
faith” “speaking” the next five citations.5 Each citation is interpreted in the light of the “by
faith” formula derived from Paul’s earlier citation from Hab 2:4* in the thesis statement of
Rom 1:16–17*. Yet the “speech-in-character” conveys the impression that the
recontextualizing of these citations derives not from Paul’s authority or voice but from
Scripture itself, as defined by Hab 2:4*. Interpretive comments in line with the “righteousness
by faith” perspective are made following the traditional formula in pesharim, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν
(“that is”),6 which occurs three times. This audacious pesher shows that the gospel of Christ is
indeed “the goal of the law,” thus substantiating Rom 10:4*.
The symmetrical parallelism in 10:6–10* between bringing “Christ down” and bringing him
“up from the dead” has been identified by Johannes Weiss.7 In vv. 6–8* there is an artful use
3
Know then today that the Lord your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will
defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as the Lord has
promised you.
*
11
Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away.
12
It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear
it and observe it?”
13
Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it
for us so that we may hear it and observe it?”
14
No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.
Deuteronomy 30:11–14 (NRSV)
*
26
They mounted up to heaven, they went down to the depths; their courage melted away in their calamity;
Psalm 107:26 (NRSV)
*
16
O Lord, in distress they sought you, they poured out a prayerwhen your chastening was on them.
Isaiah 26:16 (NRSV)
*
5
For you have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried my rich treasures into your temples.
Joel 3:5 (NRSV)
5
*
4
Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, but the righteous live by their faith.
Habakkuk 2:4 (NRSV)
*
16
17
6
A pesher cites a short section of a biblical text and then intersperses explanatory comments, often with “that is
…” or “its interpretation is.…” See Devorah Dimant, “Pesharim, Qumran,” ABD 5 (1992) 248–49; Maurya P.
Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1979) 229–47. Fitzmyer, 590, cites Qumran parallels to the formula “that is” in CD 1:13
(“that is, the time”); 7:15 (“that is, the tabernacles”); 10:16 (“that is, what he has said”); 16:15 (“that is, what is
said”); 1QS 8:15 (“that is, the study of the law”); 1QpHab 12:3–4 (“Lebanon, that is the Council of the
Community”); 4QFlor 1:11 (“that is, the seed of David”).
*
4
Romans 10:4 (NRSV)
*
6
7
of the paronomasia and homoioteleuton in the composite citation, augmented by the
repetition of epitrechon8 in Paul’s interpretive insertions beginning with τοῦτʼ ἔστιν
(“namely, that is”) and ending with καταγαγεῖν (“bring down”) and ἀναγαγεῖν (“bring up”). A
construction with synthetic parallelism is visible in vv. 9–10*, a section with similar verbal
forms, paronomasia in the choice of prepositions and homoioteleuton at the ends of the first
two and last two lines, forming an elaborate chiastic structure in 10:8–13* of “mouth … heart
… mouth … heart … heart … mouth,” with “you shall be saved” in 10:9* as the central
member.9
The final paragraph contains Paul’s theological argument concerning the inclusiveness of
faith in Christ. Its style is typical of Pauline theological argumentation, but there is an
effective use of homoioteleuton at the ends of the first and last lines in the repetition of the
third person singular, future passive ending. The artful arrangement of the two citations in this
paragraph brings to a close an effective series of five quotations in this pericope, conforming
to the frequently expressed preference for Judaic numerical sequences in Romans.
IV. The probatio
8
proclaim);
9
10
7
Weiss, “Beiträge,” 172, 240.
*
6
7
8
proclaim);
8
Epitrechon is a parenthetical addition that does not make a complete sentence by itself, as in the case of “that is,
to bring Christ down …” See Bullinger, Figures, 474.
*
9
10
*
8
proclaim);
9
10
11
12
on him.
13
*
9
Romans 10:9 (NRSV)
9
See Jeremias, “Chiasmus,” 149.
10:5–13 5. Pesher confirming righteousness by faith
10:5–7 a. Righteousness through law contrasted with righteousness through faith
10:5 1) The citation from Lev 18:5* of the rule of Moses concerning righteousness from
law
(1) Designation of speaker: “Moses”
(2) Identification of theme: “righteousness from the law”
10:5b b) The citation of Lev 18:5* concerning obedience to the law
10:6–7 2) The citation of texts proving that righteousness through faith does not try to
manipulate Christ
10:6a a) The introduction of the citations
(1) Designation of speaker: “righteousness”
(2) Source of righteousness: “through faith”
10:6b b) The first citation from Deut 8:17* and 9:4*, concerning avoidance of
presumptuous speaking
10:6c–7 c) The second citation from Deut 30:12f*., concerning bringing in the messiah,
with explanations
10:6c (1) The citation about ascending into heaven
10:6d (2) Explanation: “to bring Christ down”
10:7a (3) The citation about descending into hell
10:7b (4) Explanation: “to bring Christ up from the dead”
10:8–10 b. The needlessness of attempting to manipulate Christ when faith suffices
10:8 1) The third citation from Deut 30:14*, concerning the word of faith, followed by
explanations
10:8a a) The introduction of the citation with a rhetorical question
10:8b-c b) The citation about the closeness of the word
(1) First catchword: “word”
(2) Second catchword: “mouth”
(3) Third catchword: “heart”
10:8d c) Explanation of “word” as Paul’s gospel
10:9–10 d) Explanation of “mouth” and “heart” in chiastic form
10:9a (1) Confess Jesus with “mouth”
10:9b (2) Have faithful “heart” in the resurrection
10:9c (3) Salvation assured
10:10a (4) Faith in “heart” leads to righteousness
*
17
Do not say to yourself, “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.”
*
4
When the Lord your God thrusts them out before you, do not say to yourself, “It is because of my righteousness
that the Lord has brought me in to occupy this land”; it is rather because of the wickedness of these nations that
the Lord is dispossessing them before you.
*
12
*
14
10:10b (5) Confession by “lip” leads to salvation
10:11–13 c. The inclusiveness of faith
10:11 1) The fourth citation from Isa 28:16*, concerning faith being sustained
10:11a a) The citation formula, stressing “no one”
10:11b b) The citation about having faith
10:12 2) The theological explanation
10:12a a) The repudiation of national distinctions
10:12b b) Christ’s lordship over all
10:12c c) The benefaction of the Lord upon everyone who calls upon him
10:13 3) The fifth citation from Joel 3:5*, concerning salvation to everyone calling on
him
a) The argumentative connection: “for”
b) The citation about being “saved”
Exegesis
 5* This passage is a classic instance of Paul’s interpretation of Scripture to make his point
about the promise of the gospel. In 10:5* he cites “Moses” as the author of citation from Lev
18:5* and then goes on to interpret five subsequent texts in a typical rabbinic fashion.10
Although the introductory formula γράφει (“he writes”) differs from the subsequent formula
λέγει (“he/it says”) of 10:6*, it is so frequently used by Paul and by other Jewish writers11 that
it provides no hint that this was intended to suggest that “the lawgiver Moses stands over
against the personified righteousness of faith.”12 The formulation of v. 5* is not polemical,13
with the present tense of the verb “he writes” indicating the ongoing validity of Moses’
authority for those committed to “the righteousness that comes from the law.” This is a
respectful echo of the description of Jewish piety in 9:31* and of references like the “incense
of the righteousness of the law” in 2 Bar. 67.6 or “the righteousness of the law of God” in T.
Dan 6.11. The formulation “Moses said” appears for example in CD A 5:8. Only when the
genre of Romans is erroneously identified as judicial can the wording of this verse be viewed
as polemical in any sense.
The citation from the law is abbreviated in a neutral, nonpolemical manner as follows,
showing that everyone doing the law is obligated to live within its strictures:
*
16
therefore thus says the Lord God, See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious
cornerstone, a sure foundation: “One who trusts will not panic.”
Isaiah 28:16 (NRSV)
10
See Dunn, 2:603; and Suggs, “Word” 289–312.
*
6
Romans 10:6 (NRSV)
11
See Koch, Schrift 28–32; the only times in Romans where Paul employs this formula are 10:5* and 19*, which
are comparable with “Moses writes” in Mark 12:19*/Luke 20:28*.
12
Käsemann, 284; see also Schlatter, 214; Stuhlmacher, 256; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 343.
13
See particularly Hays, Echoes, 76; Wagner, Heralds, 160. Bring polemicizes in Bedeutung des Gesetzes, 49–
55.
*
31
Romans 9:31 (NRSV)
2 2 (Syriac) Baruch
T. Testament of Dan
CD Damascus Document
Lev 18:5*: ποιήσετε αὐτά, ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς (“you do them, which [if] a
man does them, he shall live in them”)
Rom 10:5*: ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς (“the person who does these
[commandments] shall live by them”)
There is nothing in the choice and wording of this citation or the manner in which it is
presented to indicate that Paul wishes to cast doubt on the ability of his fellow Jews to live by
the law,14 to issue some stern warning,15 or to denigrate Moses as the advocate of a mistaken
doctrine of works righteousness.16 That Paul intended this citation to be understood in the
light of Gal 3:10* and Rom 3:23* as a condemnation of Jewish noncompliance with the law17
seems far from the rhetorical force of this particular pesher. It is also impossible that Christ is
intended to be viewed as the one “doing the law” in this verse,18 because this “would make
Jesus an exemplar of Israel’s nationalist righteousness.”19 Instead, this verse lays down the
premise required for the reinterpretation of Deut 30 in vv. 6–7*. At this point, Paul is no
longer concerned with the question of whether Jews in fact had complied with the law. He
simply reiterates the traditional Jewish premise that Israel was obligated to live by the law.
This sets the stage for the pesher, which reinterprets the subsequent texts in the light of the
“by faith” principle. He thereby shows that the law itself points to faith in Christ and provides
no foundation for justification by works.20 This is one more instance of Paul’s skill in
becoming “one under the law” in order to win over “those under the law” (1 Cor 9:20*).
14
Str-B 3:278 observes that later rabbinic discussion of this verse from Leviticus concentrated on whether “live
in it” referred to eternal life or life in the present; there was no discussion about whether “doing” the law was
feasible.
15
Moo, 649: “Paul states this principle here as a warning.”
16
Käsemann, 285; Günter Klein, “Sündenverständnis und theologia crucis bei Paulus,” in C. Andresen and G.
Klein, eds., Theologia Crucis – Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1972) 279.
*
10
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not
observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.”
*
23
Romans 3:23 (NRSV)
17
See Zahn, 477; Wilckens, 2:224; Johannes Sijko Vos, “Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater
3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10),” NTS 38 (1992) 257–60; Vos, Kunst der Argumentation, 120–34. This line of
argument is criticized by Koch, Schrift, 291–92, and Dunn, 2:601.
18
See Markus Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 39; William S. Campbell,
“Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4*, ” in E. A. Livingstone, ed., Studia Biblica 1978 (JSNTSup 3;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979) 3:39; Cranfield, 2:520–21; Stowers, Rereading, 308. For a critique of this view, see
Lindemann, “Textgeschichte von Römer 10, 5, ” 245.
19
Dunn, 2:601.
*
6
Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will
love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.
7
The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies and on the adversaries who took advantage of
you.
20
See Wagner, Heralds, 163–64. Lindemann, “Textgeschichte von Römer 10, 5, ” 240–45, argues that the
citation from Moses shows that both justification by works and justification by faith are included in Israel’s law.
His conclusion (246) is more in line with my interpretation, “daß Gerechtigkeit, die Gott entspricht, für Juden
wie für Heiden nicht anders zu erlangen ist als durch den Glauben an Christus.”
*
20
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law
(though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.
 6* That “the righteousness by faith” is depicted as a character capable of speaking is a
personification that carries through to the end of this pericope. There are biblical21 as well as
popular philosophical22 parallels to such personification. This form of a “speech-in-character”
in which a concept is made to speak as a person is typical for ancient rhetoric and would have
readily been understood by the audience.23 The message of this character called
Righteousness by Faith is found in 10:6b*, 7a* and 8:b*, while Paul’s remarks in clarification
are found in 10:6c*, 7b* and 8c*.24 The unique feature of Paul’s characterization is the ἐκ
πίστεως (“by faith”) formula that identifies the viewpoint of the fictitious speaker. Since this
formula appeared first in the citation from Habakkuk in the thesis of 1:17* and is practically
restricted to Romans (3:26*, 30*; 4:16*; 5:1*; 9:30*, 32*) and Galatians (2:16*; 3:7*, 8*, 9*,
21
Moo, 650, cites Prov 8:21ff*. and Isa 55:10–11*. A personification of righteousness is evident in Ps 85:10–
13* (“righteousness and peace have kissed each other … righteousness has looked down from heaven …
righteousness shall go before him”) and Isa 45:8* (“let the clouds rain righteousness”).
22
See n. 3 above.
23
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 343, cites as examples Hermogenes Prog. 9.4–6; Rhet. Her. 4.66; Cicero Inv. 99–100;
Quintilian Inst. 9.2.31.
*
7
Romans 10:7 (NRSV)
*
8
proclaim);
Romans 10:8 (NRSV)
24
*
17
Romans 1:17 (NRSV)
*
26
Jesus.
Romans 3:26 (NRSV)
*
30
same faith.
Romans 3:30 (NRSV)
*
16
Romans 4:16 (NRSV)
*
1
Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Romans 5:1 (NRSV)
*
32
Romans 9:32 (NRSV)
*
16
yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we
have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works
of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
*
7
so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.
*
11*, 12*, 22*, 24*; 5:5*), where the citation of Hab 2:4* is elaborated, the hearers of this
letter would gain a clear sense of the scriptural definition of this character called
Righteousness by Faith. In view of the speech-in-character that Paul employs here, the δέ
(“but”) that opens verse 6* indicates a change of speaker from Moses to the personified
Righteousness by Faith.25 Rather than a “contrast to Moses,”26 which would undermine the
validity of the premise that the law must be performed and would counter the thesis of 9:6*
that God’s word has not failed,27 the change of voice substantiates the antithesis between the
misguided zeal of 10:2* and the intent of the Mosaic revelation. In order to show that
righteousness through faith is consistent with Scripture, the voice of Righteousness by Faith
cites passages from Deuteronomy that repudiate efforts to usher in the messiah through
zealous campaigns. The rhetorical effect of the pesher is thus enhanced because it is not
Paul’s voice that reinterprets the OT passages but rather the scriptural personage called
Righteousness by Faith.28
Despite the skepticism of earlier commentators,29 there is a widespread acknowledgment
today that the opening line of the composite citation from Deuteronomy comes verbatim from
8:17* and 9:4*:30
8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to
Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.”
*
9
For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.
*
11
Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by
faith.”
*
12
But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.”
*
22
But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in
Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
*
24
Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith.
*
5
For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
25
Stowers, Rereading, 309, argues that δέ in this context is “connective, not adversative.”
26
Dunn, 2:602; also Munck, Christ, 84; Wilckens, 2:224; Cranfield, 2:522; Koch, Schrift, 291; Hans-Joachim
Eckstein, “‘Nahe ist dir das Wort’: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Röm 10, 8, ” ZNW 79 (1988) 207–8.
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
27
Badenas, Christ, 123.
*
2
Romans 10:2 (NRSV)
28
In Richard Hays’s memorable formulation in Echoes, 82, these rhetorical devices are the means “whereby a
historically outrageous reading gains poetic plausibility.”
29
See the survey by Suggs, “Word” 300–301.
*
17
Deut 8:17*: μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (“do not say in your heart”)
Deut 9:4*: μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (“do not say in your heart”)
Rom 10:6*: μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (“do not say in your heart”)
Recent scholarship points to the significance of the content of Deuteronomy’s warning against
thinking that the conquest of the promised land was due to “my righteousness” (Deut 9:4*).31
“Not for your righteousness,” the passage goes on, “nor for the holiness of your heart that you
go in to inherit their land …” (Deut 9:5*). Given the charge in 10:3* that zealous Jews were
seeking to validate their own righteousness, the resonance of this citation would have been
unmistakable for those acquainted with Deuteronomy. Scripture itself stands in opposition to
the campaigns to validate Israel’s righteousness that were leading to the rejection of Jesus as
Messiah. As a zealous Jew prior to his conversion, Paul had participated in such rejection by
opposing the Christian movement because it seemed to undermine conformity to the law that
would usher in the messianic age. In his view at that time, Jesus was a false messiah because
he failed to conform to the law. But the discovery made in Paul’s conversion was that such
obedience to the law had a self-serving aim, to establish his own righteousness and the
righteousness of his party within Judaism (10:3*; cf. Gal 1:13–14*; Phil 3:4–6*). The pesher
in this pericope provides scriptural support for this discovery.
The selection of Deut 30:12–14* reflects the importance this passage had in contemporary
Judaism; it is cited in Bar 3:29–30*; Philo Post. 84–85; and the Tg. Neof. on Deut 30:11–
Romans 8:17 (NRSV)

*
4
Romans 9:4 (NRSV)
30
See Dunn, 2:802; Michel, 328; Moo, 651.
31
Moo, 651; see also Hays, Echoes, 78–79.
*
5
It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their
land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is dispossessing them before you, in
order to fulfill the promise that the Lord made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
*
3
Romans 10:3 (NRSV)
*
13
14
*
4
even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the
flesh, I have more:
5
6
*
12
13
14
14*.32 In contrast to these parallels, which retain the Deuteronomic context of the
commandment that is close and accessible, the citation is recontextualized for Paul’s purpose
by omitting the introduction in 30:11* concerning the commandment that is not too hard to
perform. All of the other allusions to performing the law in this passage are also removed,33
yet the new context of the Mosaic word about living in the law (Rom 10:5*) is retained. This
opens the door to reinterpreting the citation from Deuteronomy as an expression of the
personified Righteousness by Faith.34 The intent of this particular series of verses in
Deuteronomy 30 seems at first glance to be so completely contravened35 by Paul’s use that
scholars have suggested that this was merely a paraphrase of a familiar passage36 or that vv.
6b–8* are an interpolation.37 But the evidence of citation is unmistakable, and at a deeper
level, Paul’s critique of self-serving perversions of the message of Deuteronomy in the
religiosity of his time is consistent with that book as a whole.38 The first citation is as follows:
Deut 30:12b*: Τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῖν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν … (“Who will ascend for us into heaven
… ?”)
Rom 10:6c*: Τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (“Who will ascend into heaven?”)
Paul’s deletion of the word “for us” eliminates an ambiguous detail and thus avoids any
question about who “us” might mean; Paul intends this passage to speak about “them,” the
zealous Jews who are rejecting the gospel on the basis of motives that are clarified by
Deuteronomy.
In the style of Jewish pesharim, the character called Righteousness by Faith comments on
each phrase of the Deuteronomic citation, beginning with the traditional formula τοῦτʼ ἔστιν
(“that is”).39 The reference to ascending to heaven “to bring Christ down” is neither a
“fanciful” allusion to “looking high and low for Christ,”40 nor a warning against spiritual
journeys to master heaven’s secrets41 or to gain access even to the inaccessible Wisdom
revealed in Christ.42 It is instead a historically apt depiction of the goals of some of the Jewish
*
29
Who has gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds?
30
Who has gone over the sea, and found her, and will buy her for pure gold?
Baruch 3:29–30 (NRSV)
Post. De posteritate Caini
Tg. Targum Neofiti
32
See Dunn, 2:603–5.
*
11
Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away.
33
See Koch, Schrift, 129–32, 153.
34
See ibid., 130–31; Hays, Echoes, 79.
35
See Schmidt, 176; Dodd, 166.
36
See Sanday and Headlam, 286–87; Zahn, 477–78; Godet, 378–79.
*
6
Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will
love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.
7
The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies and on the adversaries who took advantage of
you.
8
Then you shall again obey the Lord, observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today,
37
O’Neill, 165.
38
Jan Heller, “Himmel- und Höllenfahrt nach Römer 10, 6–7, ” EvTh 32 (1972) 483, offers a parallel argument
that Deuteronomy rejects extraordinary feats of human spirituality.
39
See n. 6 above and also the discussion on 9:8* above.
40
This is advocated by Hayes, Echoes, 79.
41
Heller, “Römer 10, 6–7, ” 478–79.
42
Suggs, “Word” 311.
parties in Paul’s time.43 They sought to hasten the coming of the divinely appointed Χριστός
(= “anointed one, king”) by religious programs associated with the law.44 This interpretation
is sustained by the use of “Christ” rather than “Jesus Christ” in vv. 6* and 7*. Among modern
commentators, Barrett has the clearest grasp of this background: “the Messiah has appeared,
and it is therefore impossible to hasten his coming (as some devout Jews thought to do) by
perfect obedience to the law and penitence for its transgressions.”45 For example, Rabbi Levi
taught that “[i]f Israel kept the Sabbath properly even for a single day, the son of David would
come.”46 Since observing the Sabbath was regarded as the fulfillment of the entire law, Rabbi
Simeon ben Johai taught, “If the Israelites only celebrated two Sabbaths according to the
Scriptures, they would immediately be saved.”47 Other rabbis taught that penitence and
almsgiving would hasten the coming of the Christ.48 Some of the revolutionary movements
within the Judaism of the first century invited followers to enforce the law through zealous
violence in support of Christ figures who would function as kings.49 The Essenes in Qumran
anticipated that a priestly and a political messiah would be ushered in by a holy war when
God was satisfied with the preparation of the new priestly community.50
By the skillful combination of Lev 18:5*; Deut 8:17*; 9:4*; and 30:12*, the character called
Righteousness by Faith shows that these zealous programs to usher in the messianic age
through obedience to this or that law were repudiated by Scripture itself. These programs
produced a lethal mixture of religion and politics under the self-serving goal of validating the
righteousness of Israel and achieving its status as the ruler of the world, thus violating the
Deuteronomic strictures against assuming that divine actions could be manipulated by the
righteousness and holiness of the nation.
 7* The next portion of the personified Righteousness by Faith’s citation departs from the
LXX of Deut 30:13*, although it is possible that it mirrors some version of Deuteronomy
reflected in the Targums.51 The artful parallelism of this citation echoes the familiar wording
of LXX Ps 106:26*. Here are the three texts:
Deut 30:13*: Τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ λήμψεται ἡμῖν αὐτήν (“Who
will cross over to the other side of the sea for us and get it for us?”)
43
Heller, “Römer 10, 6–7, ” 484–85, makes a similar case, using evidence from the rabbinic tradition. The
argument in this section is adapted from Jewett, “The Basic Human Dilemma: Weakness or Zealous Violence
(Romans 7:7–25* and 10:1–18*),” ExAud 13 (1997) 96–109.
44
See Heller, “Römer 10, 6–7, ” 484–85.
45
Barrett, 199.
46
Midrash Exod. Rab. 25.12.
47
Reported by Rabbi Johanan in b. Šabb. 118b. For other similar statements by later rabbis, see Str-B 1:600.
48
Str-B 1:600. For example, Midrash Exod. Rab. 25.12 reports that Rabbi Johanan taught that Yahweh promised:
“Though I have set a definite term for the millennium which will come at the appointed time whether Israel
returns to me in penitence or not, still if they repent even for one day, I will bring it before its appointed time.”
49
Richard A. Horsley, “Messianic Movements in Judaism,” ABD 4 (1992) 792–95, refers to the revolutionaries,
Judas, Simon, and Athronges, who were acclaimed to be messiahs after the death of Herod in 4 B.C.E. as well as
Simon bar Giora, who claimed kingship during the Jewish–Roman war; see also Richard A. Horsley and John S.
Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis/Chicago/New
York: Winston, 1985) 88–134. See also Hengel, Zealots, 290–302.
50
See Martinus de Jonge, “Messiah,” ABD 4 (1992) 783.
*
13
51
Stanislas Lyonnet, “Saint Paul et l’exégèse juive de son temps: A propos de Romains 10, 6–8, ” Études, 502–5,
argues that both the Fragmentary Targum and Targum Neofiti have the wording “who would descend into the
depths of the great sea and bring up the law for us.…” Given the difficulty in ascertaining whether this textual
tradition was available in the first century, this hypothesis remains possible but not certain.
Ps 106:26*: ἀναβαίνουσιν ἕως τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ καταβαίνουσιν ἕως τῶν ἀβύσσων (“they
ascend to the heavens and descend into the abyss”)
Rom 10:7*: Τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον; (“Who will descend into the abyss?”)
From a rhetorical point of view, the version of this text cited by the imaginary character called
Righteousness by Faith is more coherent and succinct than Deuteronomy, with a clear vertical
contrast between the heights and the depths in place of its muddled antithesis between heaven
and the other side of the sea. The extraneous references to “us” are removed, as in the
preceding verse, so as to relate the text more clearly to the legalistic motivations of the Jewish
opponents of the gospel. The word “abyss” in Ps 106:26* is a translation of the Hebrew word
tĕhôm, meaning “flood, deep, abyss.”52 The choice of this term retains the resonance of the
Deuteronomy text’s reference to the sea while suggesting an allusion to Sheol, the
underground prison of the dead in Jewish apocalyptic literature and the NT.53
The comment that the character Righteousness by Faith introduces with the pesher formula
“that is”—“to bring Christ up from the dead”—has led to expositions about the doctrine of
Christ’s resurrection from the dead54 or the later doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell.55
Others argue that reaching heaven or the abyss is simply a metaphor for what is impossible
for humans in this life.56 There is a parallel in the magical papyri to this contrast between
bringing up and down: “Come to me, O Lord, the one who once draws up the light (τ[ὸ] φῶς
ἀνά[γ]ων), once brings down the darkness (τὸ σκότος κατάγων), by your own power” (PGM
III. 564).57 In necromancy, the shades are drawn up from the dead as described by Lucian of
Samosata Demon. 25, “and he said he was a magician and could bring up for him (αὐτῷ
ἀναγαγεῖν) a ghost of the boy.”58 The suggestion has even been made that Paul is
polemicizing here against Christian participation in the mystery religions.59 But to follow
these parallels would be to lose track of the flow of Paul’s argument in chaps. 7, 9, and 10
about the problem with religious zealotism and legalism. The appropriate point of comparison
to bringing the messiah up from the abyss needs to be sought in the messianic expectations
being held by the Jewish community that had not accepted “the righteousness that comes from
faith” in Jesus as the Christ. There was a widespread expectation that Elijah,60 Enoch, and
other deceased figures of Israel’s history61 would return from the dead at the inception of the
messianic age. Elijah in particular was thought to have extensive experience and knowledge
of Hades and its inhabitants.62 This raises the possibility that Paul had in mind sectarian
efforts to hasten the return of these figures in order to ensure the favorable arrival of the
Messiah. For the believers in Rome, however, these allusions would have had a transparent
reference in their own experience. In their view, the questions that preoccupied some branches
of contemporary Judaism, about bringing Christ down from heaven or up from the abyss,
were already answered by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
52
See Otto Böcher, “ἄβυσσος,” EDNT 1 (1990) 4.
53
Böcher, “ἄβυσσος,” 4, refers to Luke 8:31*; Rev 9:1*; 21:1*, where the abyss is “a prison for the powers
opposed to God.” See also Hoffmann, Toten, 176–80.
54
Cranfield, 2:525; Fitzmyer, 591.
55
See Michel, 328; Käsemann, 288; Dunn, 2:606.
56
Str-B 3:281; Zeller, 186; Suggs, “Word” 310–11, referring to the “inaccessibility of Wisdom.”
PGM Papyri graecae magicae, ed. K. Preisendanz. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1928–31
57
Cited also by Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, 33.
Demon. Demonax
58
See also Lucian of Samosata Dial. mort. 28.3.14 (§429); 11.4.11 (§224).
59
Heller, “Römer 10, 6–7, ” 485.
60
See Jerome T. Walsh, “Elijah,” ABD 2 (1992) 465.
61
See 4 Ezra 6.26*.
62
See Orval S. Wintermute, “Elijah, Apocalypse of,” ABD 2 (1992) 466; M. E. Stone and J. Strugnell, The Books
of Elijah: Parts 1–2 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 14–24.
 8* Paul finds the Christian answer to the questions of Deut 30:12–13* in 30:14*, introduced
by the formula, “but what does it say?” The antecedent is clearly the personified
“righteousness that comes from faith” (Rom 10:6*),63 while the adversative “but” makes clear
“what the righteousness based on faith does say, in contrast to what it warns us not to say.”64
The reversal of word order in the virtually verbatim citation from Deut 30:14* places ἐγγύς
σου (“near to you”) at the beginning of the phrase, at the point of emphasis. This also
necessitated the deletion of σφόδρα (“very”) to modify the adjective “near.” This insistence
on proximity means that there was no need for strenuous religious and political activity
designed to usher in the messianic age, because the announcement of its dawning is already
present in the gospel message.65 By deriving this assurance from Deuteronomy itself, Paul’s
character Righteousness by Faith explains the consistency between the Christian proclamation
and the original intent of the law.66 In Hays’s words, “The word that was near to Israel in the
law is identical with the word that is now near in the Christian kerygma.”67 That this word is
in “your mouth” and “your heart” means that the message of Deuteronomy that was treasured
by Jewish adherents of the law, proclaimed by them and held with passionate intensity in their
innermost being, points away from messianic manipulation and toward Jesus of Nazareth as
the embodiment of divine righteousness.
Paul drives home the point by the final explanatory “that is” formula in this pesher type of
commentary. Picking up the key phrase from Deut 30:14*, the personified character called
Righteousness by Faith claims that the message of Deuteronomy is τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ
κηρύσσομεν (“the word of faith that we proclaim”). The term ῥῆμα is employed here, derived
from the citation of Deuteronomy, with a meaning roughly synonymous with λόγος, as one
can see from parallel expressions such as λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (“word of God,” Rom 9:5*; 1 Cor
14:36*; 2 Cor 2:17*; 4:2*; Phil 1:14*; Col 1:25*; 1 Thess 2:13*), λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“word
*
12
13
63
Cranfield, 2:525; Hays, Echoes, 81.
64
Moo, 656.
65
Eckstein, “‘Nahe ist dir das Wort,’ ” 218.
66
As Johnson, Function, 158, shows, this stress on the law’s affirmation of the “universal availability of the
gospel” explains why Paul chose not to cite the final clause of Deut 30:14*, “and in your hands to do it (i.e., the
law).”
67
Hays, Echoes, 81; see also Badenas, Christ, 132.
*
5
Romans 9:5 (NRSV)
*
36
Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)
*
17
For we are not peddlers of God’s word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons
sent from God and standing in his presence.
*
2
We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word;
but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God.
*
of Christ,” Col 3:16*) or λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου (“word of the Lord,” 1 Thess 1:8*; 4:15*; 2 Thess
3:1*).68 Here the personified character confirms the legitimacy of the message that Paul and
other early missionaries are proclaiming.69 There is an ambiguity about whether the genitive
construction “word of faith” should be understood as the believing response to the word70 or
the word that proclaims faith,71 and Dunn suggests that the references to “heart” and “mouth”
in this passage require that both be included in Paul’s formula.72 When one follows the logic
of the speech-in-character, however, this is clearly the word of missionaries that proclaims
faith. The threefold reference to “heart” in Rom 10:8–10*, the Hebraic term for the
motivating center of mind, emotion, experience, and purpose, shows that for Paul faith in the
gospel about Christ crucified and resurrected involves a total reorientation of a person and his
or her relationships.73 Thus the “word of faith” is essentially interactive and must be preached
by more than one person so that the first person plural form (κηρύσσομεν, “we preach,
14
and most of the brothers and sisters, having been made confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, dare to
speak the word with greater boldness and without fear.
*
25
I became its servant according to God’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God
fully known,
*
13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from
us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you
believers.
*
16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude
in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.
*
8
For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place
your faith in God has become known, so that we have no need to speak about it.
*
15
For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the
Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.
*
1
Finally, brothers and sisters, pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified
everywhere, just as it is among you,
68
Albert Debrunner et al., “λέγω κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 109–19; Walter Radl, “ῥῆμα,” EDNT 3 (1993) 210–11.
69
Eckstein, “‘Nahe ist dir das Wort,’ ” 218.
70
Zahn, 481; Cranfield, 2:526; Eckstein, “‘Nahe ist dir das Wort,’ ” 220.
71
Michel, 329; Schlier, 312; Käsemann, 290.
72
Dunn, 2:606.
*
8
proclaim);
9
10
73
Alexander Sand, “Καρδία,” EDNT 2 (1991) 250, refers to the heart as the place “in which the encounter with
God is realized.”
proclaim”) conveys the idea of a “gospel held in common,”74 proclaiming a faith that can only
be conveyed through intense interaction “through faith for faith” (Rom 1:17*).
 9* The ὅτι that opens v. 9* should be translated as “because” or “for,” since this verse
opens the chiastic explanation in vv. 9–10* of how the “word” is near to believers.75 The verb
ὁμολογέω appears here in a “specifically Christian religious usage” that affirms Jesus as
authoritative and identifies the confessor as his follower.76 The acclamation “Lord Jesus!” was
a very early expression of allegiance to Christ, as the parallels in Phil 2:11*; 1 Cor 1:2* and
12:3* indicate.77 There is a close parallel in Greco-Roman political rhetoric,78 including the
formula Καίσαρα δεσπότην ὁμολογέω (“acknowledge the emperor as ruler”), which was
understood as a loyalty oath.79 To “confess Jesus as Lord” was therefore not only to make a
claim about his divine status80 but also to reveal one’s own identity and commitment. A
“confession” in this biblical sense is a “slogan of identification” that marks someone “as
belonging to Jesus.”81 Such a confession binds the speaker to someone else in final loyalty.82
To refer to Jesus as Lord “… denotes an attitude of subserviency and sense of belongingness
or devotion to the one so named.”83 This kind of confession designates to whom the speaker is
committed but does not determine what attitude others should take. In contrast to the later
development of formulaic “confessions” in the Christian tradition, Paul had no intention of
making this confession into a claim of honorable status that raises the speaker above others,
using required language that others must employ to avoid peril. To “confess” in this context is
also far removed from the traditional connotation in current culture, in which “confession of
sins/guilt” is the dominant usage.
74
Dunn, 2:606. Martin Rese, “Israels Unwissen und Ungehorsam und die Verkündigung des Glaubens durch
Paulus in Römer 10, ” in D. A. Koch et al., eds., Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen
Christentum: Festschrift Willi Marxsen (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1989) 265, argues in contrast that the “we” suggests
that Paul alone was not responsible for Jewish rejection of the gospel.
75
See Barrett, 200; Cranfield, 2:526.
76
Otfried Hofius, “ὁμολογέω, ὁμολογία,” EDNT 2 (1991) 515–16; Hans von Campenhausen, “Das Bekenntnis
im Urchristentum,” ZNW 63 (1972) 211; Otto Michel, “ὁμολογέω κτλ.,” TDNT 5 (1967) 209; Hurtado, One God,
112.
*
11
and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
*
2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together
with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
*
3
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!”
and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.
77
Moo, 658, cites Neufeld, Confessions, 43–47. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 197–200, argues that this confession
originated in the earliest phase of Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem. See also Werner Führer, “‘Herr ist Jesus’:
Die Rezeption der urchristlichen Kyrios-Akklamation durch Paulus Römer 10, 9, ” KD 33 (1987) 139–42.
78
Josephus Bell. 7.418; see Günther Bornkamm, “Homologia: Zur Geschichte einer politischen Begriffs,” in
Geschichte und Glaube (BEvTh 48; Munich: Kaiser, 1968) 1:140–56, referring to Plato Crit. 49a-b; 52d; Phaed.
7c; and Hipp. maj. 294c; Aristotle Pol. 1270b31; 1295b3ff.; Plutarch Virt. mor. c. 3. p. 441c.
79
Josephus Bell. 7.418; Hofius, “ὁμολογέω, ὁμολογία,” 515.
80
See George E. Howard’s argument that κύριος was typically used for ‫ יהוה‬in Jewish and early Christian
sources, “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977) 63–83; see also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The
Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title,” in J. A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected
Aramaic Essays (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 119–23.
81
Dunn, 2:607.
82
Hofius, “ὁμολογέω, ὁμολογία,” 515, cites the close parallel to Pauline usage in the Roman political formula,
“acknowledge the emperor as lord,” as in Josephus Bell. 7.418–19. See also Bornkamm, “Homologia,” 140–56.
83
Dunn, 2:608.
The content of faith’s conviction is expressed, as in 4:24*; 6:4*; and 8:11*, in traditional
terms, 84 ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν (“that God raised him from the dead”). In all of
these examples, displayed above at 8:11*, the verb ἐγείρω (“waken, raise”) occurs in
association with the anarthrous phrase ἐκ νεκρῶν (“from [the] dead”). That the conviction
about Christ’s resurrection was foundational for the early church85 is elaborated in detail in 1
Cor 15:4–19*, and it is linked here with the simple assurance “you will be saved.” The future
tense is probably “logical”86 rather than “temporal,”87 showing the consequence of the
mouth’s confession and the heart’s conviction. The close association between confession and
salvation derives from early Christian missionizing, in which the preached word evokes oral
responses from converts.88 The parallelism between mouth and heart in the citation from
Deuteronomy requires the dual formulation in this verse, and again as in the earlier references
in this pericope, “heart” refers to the center of humans where the deepest convictions are
held.89 Here as elsewhere in Romans it is clear that faith is primarily a matter of being
persuaded by the gospel.90
*
24
but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Romans 4:24 (NRSV)
*
4
Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:4 (NRSV)
*
11
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give
life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.
Romans 8:11 (NRSV)
84
See Paulsen, Überlieferung, 51–55, following Kramer, Christ, 19–26; Wengst, Formeln, 21ff., and others.
85
See Führer, “‘Herr ist Jesus,’ ” 141–42.
*
4
and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive,
though some have died.
7
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9
For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I
worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
11
Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.
12
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the
dead?
13
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
14
and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.
15
We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he
did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
17
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18
Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.
19
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
86
See Moo, 658.
87
Cranfield, 2:530, contends that “you will be saved” refers to “eschatological salvation.”
88
Führer, “‘Herr ist Jesus,’ ” 143–44; Zeller, 187; Müller, “Glaube aus dem Hören,” 423–25.
89
See Jewett, Terms, 333.
90
See Kinneavy, Greek Rhetorical Origins, 120–30.
To “have faith ‘in your heart’ that God raised [Jesus] from the dead” (Rom 10:9*) reflects the
same distinctions that are found in the use of “confess.” If the resurrection of Christ really
occurred, it confirms that the shamefully crucified one is the divinely authenticated Lord. But
no universal claim about the resurrection is intended here. The faith is “in your heart,”
therefore indicating that a “deeply motivating belief … is in view and not merely a recitation
of creedal form.”91 To be persuaded in this way is not to make any claim of superiority. It is
rather evidence of having abandoned the traditional systems of earning honor and avoiding
shame, because this Lord has the marks of the shameful cross on his resurrected body.
 10* The explanatory comment that is offered by the character Righteousness by Faith
clarifies the sequence of faith and confession.92 In v. 9*, following the sequence of the
citation from Deuteronomy, faith in the heart and confession by mouth were in reverse order
from the standpoint of Christian missionizing. Moreover, the active verbs “you confess” and
“you believe” in v. 9* place the emphasis entirely on the human side. In line with Paul’s
charismatic view of faith articulated in chap. 8 and reiterated in 15:18–19*, 93 the verbs in this
verse are passive,94 leading to my translation: “faith is evoked” and “confession is evoked.”
The concise, elegant formulation95 joins the language of 1:16–17* with the details of the
Deuteronomy citation, creating a fully plausible statement of the viewpoint of the character
called Righteousness by Faith.96 The distinction between righteousness as the gift of right
relationship with God and salvation as deliverance from the threats of sin, death, and the law
developed in the earlier sections of Romans is reiterated here.97 But the emphasis is on “heart”
and “mouth,”98 both of which stand in the emphatic position at the beginning of their clauses.
Righteousness by Faith works its miracle first within the heart, convincing it of the love of
God (5:5*, 8*) conveyed to the undeserving in the Christ event, and thereafter evokes the oral
confession, “Lord Jesus!” As is the case throughout Romans, Paul’s purpose is missional
rather than dogmatic. Here the biblical character “Righteousness by Faith” lends full support
to the missionary project advanced by this letter.
91
Dunn, 2:609.
*
10
Romans 10:10 (NRSV)
92
See Godet, 383; Cranfield, 2:530; Kuss, 3:762; Dunn, 2:609.
*
18
For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience
from the Gentiles, by word and deed,
19
by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and as far
around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news of Christ.
93
Kuss, 3:762: “There is no confession that is not evoked by the spirit.” See also 1 Thess 1:5*; 1 Cor 2:4–5*; 2
Cor 12:12*; Gal 3:5*.
94
Among the few commentaries that discuss the passive verbs, see Murray, 2:56, and Moo, 658.
95
See particularly Kuss, 3:672.
96
Dunn, 2:609, points particularly to the link with 1:16–17.
97
See Murray, 2:56; Karl Hermann Schelkle, “σωτηρία,” EDNT 3 (1993) 327.
98
Schmidt, 167. Kuss, 3:762, and Fitzmyer, 592, properly warn against drawing extensive theological or
liturgical inferences from this verse.
*
5
and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit
that has been given to us.
Romans 5:5 (NRSV)
*
8
But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.
Romans 5:8 (NRSV)
 11* In Rom 10:11* Paul quotes Isa 28:16* about believers not being put to shame, but adds
the word πᾶς (“all”), as if it belonged to the original citation.99 As one can see in the
following illustration, this word was not in the version of this verse in Isaiah that Paul used in
9:33*:
Isaiah 28:16*
καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (“and he who believes in it/him would not be put
to shame”)
Romans 9:33*
καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθῇ (“and he who believes in it/him will not be put to
shame”)
Romans 10:11*
πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθῇ (“all who believe in it/him will not be put to
shame”)
By introducing this altered citation with the introductory formula, λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή (“for the
Scripture says”), which is used elsewhere in the authentic Pauline letters only in Rom 9:17*,
the authoritative voice of Scripture is enlisted in support of this alteration,100 which again as in
v. 6* is in the spoken voice of “Righteousness by Faith” rather than in Paul’s own voice. This
alteration is consistent with the earlier locations where “all” are made righteous by faith alone,
including all Gentiles and all Jews: 1:16*; 3:22*, 30*; 10:4*.101 No separate path to salvation
through law is therefore left for Jewish believers.102 It is therefore inappropriate to translate
πᾶς with “anyone,”103 which sounds too individualistic to refer to the groups that are in view
throughout Romans. With this one word, “all,” the smear of shame is removed from the entire
human race. Whether Jew or Greek, barbarian or Roman, slave or free, male or female, no
*
11
Romans 10:11 (NRSV)
99
There is wide acceptance of Ellis’s observation in Paul’s Use, 140, that Paul’s inclusive interpretation is built
into the citation itself. See Dunn, 2:609; Haacker, 213. Stanley, Scripture, 133, observes that since Paul cited Isa
28:16* in 9:33* without the addition of “all,” “he is quite aware of the correct reading of the LXX text.” This
may be true, but it does not alter the fact that Paul presents the “all” in this citation as if it truly belonged to what
“scripture says.” See Koch, Schrift, 133; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 83–84; Wagner, Heralds, 169.
*
33
Romans 9:33 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 9:17 (NRSV)
100
See Cranfield, 2:531; Koch, Schrift, 133.
*
16
Romans 1:16 (NRSV)
*
22
Romans 3:22 (NRSV)
101
Kühl, 356; see also Stanley, Scripture, 134; Johnson, Function, 153; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 62;
Wagner, Heralds, 169–70; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 221.
102
Weiss, 450; Godet, 384.
103
Käsemann, 292, following BDF §275, although the latter understands “anyone” in the universal sense of
“everyone.” For the translation “everyone,” see Morris, 386.
persons or groups “who have faith in him will be put to shame.”104 As we noted above,
however, such faith is not self-honorific. The right confession and properly defined faith do
not earn this triumph of not being “put to shame,” despite centuries of twisted, self-serving
theology. To “call on the name” of this Lord (Rom 10:13*) is to abandon any prior claim of
honor and to take one’s place alongside the dishonored savior and his disheveled flock.
 12* In Rom 10:12* the character “Righteousness by Faith” develops the conviction that
Christ has erased the boundaries of honor and shame: “For there is no distinction between
Jews or Greeks. The same one is Lord of all, [bestowing] riches upon all who call upon him.”
This is the fifth and final time that the expression Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος (“Jews and also
Greeks”) appears in Romans, once again avoiding the discriminatory epithet “Gentiles.”105
The overcoming of inequalities visible earlier in Romans comes here to its climactic
expression in the formula, “for there is no distinction” (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή).106 Here Paul
repeats the wording of 3:22*, that the gospel eliminates the prejudicial boundaries between
social groups.107 The honor-shame distinctions that divided the Greco-Roman world have
been eliminated by Christ, whose crucifixion and resurrection revealed that he is “Lord of
all,” a formulation that is even more inclusive than Greek/Jew or Gentile/Jew.108 The
expression κύριος πάντων (“Lord of all”) as an expression of Christ’s universal sovereignty
appears in Acts 10:36* (οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος, “this one is Lord of all”),109 and is also
employed in political rhetoric. Plato refers to potentates who “seek to be lord over all” (ζητῶν
εἶναι κύριος ἁπάντων, Leg. 922d1) and Demosthenes writes of his adversary Philip of
Macedon, who “was himself entirely a despot, ruler, lord over all” (δεσπότης, ἡγεμών, κύριος
104
As noted above with regard to the future verb “will not be put to shame,” which occurs also in 9:33, it is likely
that Paul intentionally made this alteration of Isa 28:16* in order to fit his context of overcoming shameful status
through the gospel. For the alteration, see Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 45.
*
13
Romans 10:13 (NRSV)
*
12
on him.
Romans 10:12 (NRSV)
105
As in the earlier passages where this expression appears, commentators tend to overlook the distinction
between “Greek” and “Gentile,” assuming that “‘Greek’ here stands in for ‘Gentile’ ” as Byrne states (322); see
also Michel, 331; Schlier, 315; Cranfield, 2:531; Wilckens, 2:228; Dunn, 2:610; Stuhlmacher, 157; Moo, 659.
106
Although scholars are agreed in translating διαστολή as “distinction” or “difference,” the search for parallels
in papyri and classical sources has hitherto produced no exact parallel to Paul’s usage; see the assessment by G.
H. R. Horsley, “διαστολή,” NDIEC 2 (1982) 80. Overlooked thus far is the parallel in Philo Mos. 2.158.4, “of the
distinction (διαστολήν) between things sacred and profane, things human and divine.” See also Philo Spec.
1.100.
107
See Harvey, True Israel, 76. James L. Jaquette, “Paul, Epictetus, and Others on Indifference to Status,” CBQ
56 (1994) 79, suggests the topos of “no difference” (ἀδιάφορα) as the source of Paul’s concept of “no
distinction,” but aside from the lack of linguistic parallels, the social boundaries between Jews and Greeks could
not be overcome by mere indifference.
108
See Fitzmyer, 592; Rese, “Israels Unwissen,” 261, citing Jacques Dupont, “‘Le Seigneur de tous’ (Ac 10:36*;
Rm 10:12*): Arrière-fond scripturaire d’une formule christologique,” in G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz, eds.,
Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 230.
*
36
You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all.
Acts 10:36 (NRSV)
109
Fitzmyer, 593, cites 1QapGen 20:13 (“Lord and Master over all”), 4Q409 1:6 (“and bless the Lord of all”) as
well as the disputed 11QPs 28:17 as Jewish parallels. Moo, 650, argues that this formula may be an early
Christian adaptation of the LXX of Joel 3:5*, but the link is quite distant.
Leg. Leges
πάντων, Cor. 236; cf. Orat. 13.31.2; Menander Apsis 171). Dio Chrysostom Orat. 56.11.3
refers to the Roman emperor as being “himself lord over all matters (αὐτὸς ὢν κύριος
ἁπάντων τῶν πραγμάτων)” and Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 56.39 speaks in similar terms about
the emperor “becoming alone indisputably lord of all (μόνος ἀναμφιλόγως κύριος ἁπάντων).”
The formulation of this verse proclaims Christ as the one replacing the emperor in
establishing a new realm of plentitude in which all are treated equally. Here the personified
“Righteousness by Faith” confirms not only the addition of “all” in the preceding verse but
also the argument of 3:29–30* that God is the Lord both of Gentiles and Jews. The antitheses
of honor and shame in 1:14*, which set the framework of Paul’s letter, are included in this
Lordship: Greek/barbarian, and educated/uneducated. Jesus’ shameful death on behalf of the
shamed, which exposed the pretensions of those whom the world honors, was shown through
the resurrection to have revolutionary social consequences. As Franz Leenhardt remarks, “all,
whoever they may be, must renounce all claim to their own righteousness.…”110 Social
discrimination is now illegitimate. The “riches” of divine favor,111 which traditional religion
has always believed would be bestowed only on the honorable,112 are now bestowed
impartially “upon all who call upon him.” The expression ἐπικαλεῖν αὐτόν (“to call upon him,
that is, the Lord”) is a technical expression for praying and expressing allegiance to God or
Christ.113 This verb appears in locations where the allegiance of converts is in view (Acts
9:14*, 21*; 1 Cor 1:2*), and in this context it has the connotation of “acclamation,”114 as in
the confession of 10:9*, “Lord Jesus!”115 The claim that “all” who make such a confession of
Christ receive the same blessings makes it clear that no groups have precedence over others
because of theology or culture.
Cor. De corona
Orat. Orationes
Apsis Apsis
Hist. Historiae Romanae
*
29
30
same faith.
*
14
I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish
Romans 1:14 (NRSV)
110
Leenhardt, 272.
111
Helmut Merklein, “πλούσιος κτλ.,” EDNT 3 (1993) 116: the Lord is “rich for all who call upon him.…” See
also Rom 2:4*, “riches of his kindness and forbearance and mercy,” and 9:23*, “riches of his glory.”
112
See 4 Ezra 7.133*, “he is gracious to those who turn in repentance to his law”; cf. 1QH 4:32; 15:14–16; 1QS
4:1–7.
113
See Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “καλέω κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 499–500.
*
14
and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who invoke your name.”
Acts 9:14 (NRSV)
*
21
All who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those
who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief
priests?”
Acts 9:21 (NRSV)
114
Käsemann, 292; see also Godet, 385; Murray, 57; Schlier, 315. Zeller, 187, suggests that such acclamation
has its context in baptism. As Moo, 660, observes, that prayerful evocation is here in view (Cranfield, 2:532;
Morris, 388) is unlikely although there are many LXX references to prayer in which “call upon the name” is
employed.
115
Meyer, 2:183, and Kuss, 3:767, show that “Lord” in this context is clearly Christ rather than God, as often
claimed by patristic commentators.
 13* To confirm that Christ’s mercy comes to all who call upon him, the character
“Righteousness by Faith” cites a final line from Joel 3:5*. With the exception of the
transitional “for,” the version selected is identical with the LXX, but the new context gives it
a different meaning. The κύριος for Joel was clearly Yahweh, who would destroy Israel’s
enemies and usher in a new age of spiritual and material abundance. In Romans, however, the
word κύριος clearly refers to Jesus,116 who wrought salvation through his own death and
resurrection and thereafter by means of evangelical persuasion that equalizes the honor of the
entire human race. It is likely that Joel’s formulation of the “name of the Lord” would have
been understood in the light of the baptismal formula, “into the name of Jesus.”117 Whereas
“salvation” in Joel refers to Israel gaining precedence over other nations, with the word
“every one” referring to all Israel, including the returning captives, the new context is fully
ecumenical, following the explicit reference to the lack of distinction between Jews and
Greeks.118 In Tobin’s words, “Paul’s emphasis in these verses is on ‘all,’ all who have faith,
God as the God of all and bestowing riches on all who call upon the name of the Lord.”119
This fundamental reorienting of a crucial prophetic text is presented as the climactic statement
of the biblical character, “Righteousness by Faith,” rather than as an expression of Paul’s
distinctive theology. With this brilliant rhetorical device the pesher comes to a conclusion that
is fully supportive of the missionary project that Paul wishes to promote: to preach the gospel
of Christ crucified to the end of the known world and thus to overcome the destructive
distinctions and imperial exploitations that had ruined the world.
10 The Sixth
Argument
Syllogism and Citation-Chain Concerning the Gospel Preached but Rejected
14/ How therefore might they calla upon him in whom they have no faith?
116
Meyer, 2:184; Koch, 87–88; Cranfield, 2:532; Wilckens, 2:228; Fitzmyer, 593; Moo, 600; Haacker, 213;
Donald B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2.47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1992) 116–23. The argument by Gaston, Paul, 131, supported in general by Howard, “Tetragram and the New
Testament,” 63–83, that κύριος in Rom 10:13* refers to Yahweh is highly unlikely in view of the explicit
acclamation “Lord Jesus!” in 10:9.
117
See Lars Hartman, “Into the Name of Jesus: A Suggestion concerning the Earliest Meaning of the Phrase,”
NTS 20 (1973–74) 439, for the conclusion on the basis of the Semitic background that Jesus was “the
fundamental reference for baptism … it was a ‘Jesus baptism.’ ”
118
See particuarly Kuss, 3:768; Bassler, Impartiality, 160–61; Aageson, Biblical Interpretation, 97.
119
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 347; see also Esler, Conflict and Identitiy, 287.
*
14
15
16
17
18
19
Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a
nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”
20
21
And how might they have faith in someone of whom they have not heard?
And how might they hearb without someone preaching?
15/ And how might they preach if they have not been sent? Just asc it is written,
“How timely [are] the feetd of those who preach the gospel of thee good things!”
16/ But not all have hearkened to the gospel. For Isaiah says,
“Lord, who had faith in what was heard from us?”
17/ So faith [is] from hearing, but the hearing [is] through a word of Christ. f
18/ But I say, have they not heard? Indeed they have!
“Into all the earth their voice has gone out,
and to the ends of the world their words.”
19/ But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says,
“I shall make you zealous in regard to what is no nation,
with a senseless nation shall I provoke you to wrath.”
20/ But Isaiah is boldg and says,
a
In place of the middle aorist subjunctive, ἐπικαλέσωνται (“they might call for themselves”), as in ‫ א‬A B D F G,
a future indicative, ἐπικαλέσονται (“they will call”), appears in P46 K L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 326 424 614 945
1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 (2464) 2495 Maj, which is noted in
Cranfield, 2:533, but not in Nestle-Aland26/27. The stronger early evidence for the subjunctive form—though
lacking in P46—makes this the indisputable choice.
b
In place of the infrequently used aorist subjunctive form ἀκούσωσιν (“they might hear”), which is strongly
attested in ‫א‬2 A B Ψ 33 69 81 88 330 614 1241 1243 1735 1836 1874 2464 al, a number of variants have arisen,
all of which appear to be secondary. ‫ *א‬D F G K P 6 104 326 365 424c 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1739 1881
2495 al have the future middle form ἀκούσονται (“they shall hear for themselves”); P46 has a middle subjunctive
aorist form ἀκούσωνται (“they might hear for themselves”); and L 323 424* 945 1175 2344 Cl al have the
simple future form ἀκούσουσιν (“they shall hear”).
c
The more formal term καθάπερ (“just as”) appears in B 81 in place of the more common καθώς (“as”), which is
attested in the majority of the witnesses: P 46 ‫ א‬A C D F G K L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945
1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj Cl. Cranfield, 2:534,
prefers καθάπερ because there are variants at other points in Romans where it appears. But in this instance
καθάπερ is more weakly attested than in the case of the variants in Rom 4:6*, 9:13*, 11:8*, and in contrast to
Cranfield, 1:182, the variant situation in 12:4* (Swanson notes in Vaticanus: Romans that seventy-four Greek
witnesses read καθάπερ and only D* F G have ὥσπερ in 12:4*) provides less reason to conclude that in each
instance there was “a natural tendency to substitute a more common for a rather rare word.”
d
A variant that brings the wording of this verse much closer to the LXX text of Isa 52:7* is found in ‫א‬2 D F G K
L P Ψ 5 6 33 61 69 88 104 181 218 256 263 323 326 acc. to Swanson 330 365 424 436 441 451 459 467 614 621 623
629 720 917 945 1175 1241 1319 1398 1505 1563 1573 1678 1718 1735 1751 1838 1845 1852 1874 1875 1877
1908c 1942 1959 1962 2127 2138 2197 2344 2464 2492 2495 2516 2523 2544 Maj Lect b d f g o vg syp,h goth
arm geo slavms Mcionacc. to Tert (Irlat) Ad (Eus) Apollinaris Chr Cyr1/2 Hes Hil Ambst Ambr Hier Pel Aug, τῶν
εὐαγγελιζομένων εἰρήνην (“those preaching peace”), but the well-attested absence of these words in P46 ‫ *א‬A B
C 81 630 915 1243 1506 1739 1836 1881 1908* 1912 2110 2200 2718 pc ar sa bo eth slavms Cl Ps-Hipp Orgr,lat
Philo-Carpasia Severian Cyr1/2 and the wider disparity from the LXX make the shorter text in this instance
appear more original. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 463.
e
The inclusion of τά (“the”) is perhaps as well attested in P46 ‫ *א‬D1 K L Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424
614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1573 1735 1836 1874 2344 2464 Maj Cl as its omission by ‫א‬2 A B C D* F G P
81 1505 1506 1739 1881 2495 pc Eus, but the latter can be explained as an assimilation to the wording of the
LXX. See Zuntz, Text, 173 n. 4. The divided mind of Nestle-Aland26/27 is manifest in the placement of τά in
brackets. The potential exegetical relevance of the inclusion of τά in this context is discussed by Cranfield,
2:535.
f
In place of Χριστοῦ (“of Christ”) found in P46vid ‫ *א‬B Cvid D* 6 81 629 1243 1506 1739 1852 pc ar b d vg sa bo
fay goth arm Orlat Aug, the word θεοῦ appears in ‫א‬1 A D1, 2 K L P Ψ 33 69 88 104 256 263 323 326 330 365 424
436 451 459 614 945 1175 1241 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 1877 1881 1912 1962 2127 2200 2344 2464
2492 2495 Maj Lect syp, h ethpp geo slav Cl Bas Chr Theodore Gaudentius Hier Sedulius-Scotus, and neither
word is found in F G f g o Hilary Ambst Pel. Since the expression “word of/about Christ” is found nowhere else
in the NT while “word of God” occurs frequently, the more difficult text should be preferred. See Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 463–64.
g
The absence of ἀποτολμᾷ καί (“he is also bold”) by D*,c vid F G is too weak to be considered original. This
deletion was perhaps motivated by the rarity of the word, which occurs here for the only time in the Greek Bible.
“I was found amongh those who are not seeking me,
I was made manifest [to]i those who did not ask for me.”
21/ But to Israel he says,
“All day long I reached out my hands toj a disobedient and disputatious k people.”
Analysis
There is a wide consensus that 10:14–21* constitutes a separate pericope,1 with a shift in
rhetorical style to that of diatribe and an inferential οὖν (“therefore”) that carries the argument
forward from the end of the preceding pericope. The diatribe opens with an elegant rhetorical
“climax,” sometimes referred to as a gradatio,2 in which each succeeding line of 10:14–15a*
takes up a motif from the preceding line.3 The opening rhetorical question takes up the word
ἐπικαλέω (“call upon”) in the climactic phase of the preceding pericope (10:12–13*), but in
contrast to the preceding pericope, the voice here is that of Paul rather than of the personified
“Righteousness by Faith.” The structure of the climax is illustrated below:
πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν;
πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;
πῶς δὲ ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος;
πῶς δὲ κηρύξωσιν ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσιν;
This series of four rhetorical questions opens a powerful syllogism,4 starting with the presence
of saving faith and moving chronologically backwards through hearing, preaching, and
sending of preachers.5 This climactic series of rhetorical questions provides the framework for
h
The preposition ἐν (“in, by”) is found in P46 B D* F G 1506vid (it vgcl), but the witnesses for its omission are
quite numerous in ‫ א‬A C D1 L P Ψ 6 33 69 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573
1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj vgst Cl and the omission is explainable as an assimilation to the
LXX. The choice for the more difficult reading would lead to the judgment that the “in” is original; cf. Zuntz,
Text, 173 n. 4.
i
The presence of ἐν (“in, by”) is too weakly attested in B D* 1506 vid to be original and is understandable as a
characteristic effort in Hellenistic Greek to strengthen the dative by adding a redundant preposition. The absence
of “in” is widely supported by P46 ‫ א‬A C D1 F G L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945 1175 1241
1319 1505 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj lat Cl.
j
In place of the widely attested preposition πρός (“to”), D Cl have ἐπί (“upon”), which may be a result of the
influence of the Lucianic texts of the LXX, according to Stanley, Scripture, 147.
k
The words καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα (“and speaking against”) are omitted by F G Ambst, but their inclusion is so
broadly attested that they must be original. See also Stanley, Scripture, 147.
1
Meyer, 2:184; Sanday and Headlam, 294; Schmidt, 179–80; Schlier, 315–16; Michel, 332; Kuss, 3:771;
Käsemann, 293; Dunn, 2:620; Moo, 662, referring to several minority views that fail to see vv. 14–21* as a
separate unit.
2
See Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 349; Anderson, Glossary, 57–58.
*
14
15
3
See BDF §493.
*
12
on him.
13
4
Käsemann, 293.
5
See Louw, 2:107.
the following verses, which contain three additional rhetorical questions, producing the
satisfying series of seven. The last motif is taken up first in the subsequent series of six
citations. This chiastic structure of diatribe and chain-citation has been discerned by
Leenhardt,6 and it serves an argumentative rather than a purely decorative purpose.7 These
citations from the LXX constitute a carefully organized “citation-chain”8 in which the
answers to Paul’s rhetorical questions are provided by Scripture itself. The argument is
effectively concluded in the antithetical climax of v. 17*, which replicates the sequence of
faith depending on hearing and hearing depending on preaching the gospel found in the
opening climax:9 ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ. (“So faith [is] from
hearing, but the hearing [is] through a word of Christ.”) This verse is clearly the rhetorical
centerpiece of the passage, given its replication of the opening climax and its use of the
catchword ῥῆμα (“word”), which resonates not only with the theme of preaching in this
passage but also with 10:8*, where the same term appears.10 The impressive anadiplosis in
the repetition of ἀκοή at the end of v. 17a* and the beginning of v. 17b*11 also picks up the
prominent “hearing” motif in the opening climax (v. 14b-c*). The following paragraph (vv.
18–21*) then applies this conclusion to the issue of Jewish and Gentile responses to the
gospel, drawing answers from Scripture to the diatribal questions posed in Paul’s voice.
Of the six citations in this passage, the first three refer to the proclamation of the gospel and
the last three to the responses of Jews and Gentiles.12 The third, fourth, and fifth citations have
the typical Hebraic form of synonymous parallelism, which lends poetic eloquence to the
passage.13 The second, third, and fourth citations are introduced by parallel assertions with
antithetical force, “but” or “but I say,” guiding the flow of thought and countering false
inferences. The difficult logical connections between 10:16* and its neighboring verses have
6
Leenhardt, 265, mentioned by Dunn, 2:620.
7
Käsemann, 293–94.
8
Koch, Schrift, 281.
*
17
Romans 10:17 (NRSV)
9
Louw, 2:107.
*
8
proclaim);
Romans 10:8 (NRSV)
10
See Aageson, “Scripture,” 277; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 349: “Paul’s interest is primarily in the conjunction of
hearing … and preaching.…”
11
*
14
Romans 10:14 (NRSV)
*
18
19
20
21
12
See Michel, 333.
13
See Adele Berlin, “Parallelism,” ABD 5 (1992) 156–57.
*
16
Romans 10:16 (NRSV)
occasioned suggestions that it really belongs as a conclusion after v. 21*, 14 or perhaps
between v. 17* and v. 18*, 15 or that v. 16* or v. 17* were not written by Paul at all,16
questions that will have to be discussed in the exegesis below. As a whole, this pericope
constitutes a logical syllogism, with the major premise in vv. 14–15*, the minor premise in v.
16*, the logical conclusion in v. 17*, and the application to the issue of Gentile and Jewish
responses to the gospel in vv. 18–21*. This pericope thus features a highly creative and
original syllogism driven forward by diatribal questions and proven by a chain of citations
from authoritative Scripture. The point of the syllogism is effectively captured by Thomas
Tobin: “(1) God foretold that God would be found by Gentiles, that is, by those who had not
sought him, and (2) by this means, God would make Israel jealous. This sums up much of the
argument in 9:30–10:21* in the sense that Israel’s present situation in relation to the Gentiles
is rooted in, and foretold by, the Scriptures. For this reason, Israel has no excuse for not
knowing this. Once again, it is not that God’s word has failed. Rather, Israel has failed by not
understanding what is found in that word.”17
*
21
Romans 10:21 (NRSV)
14
Weiss, “Beiträge,” 240.
*
18
Romans 10:18 (NRSV)
15
Müller, “Zwei Marginalien” 249–54, as noted by Michel, 333.
16
Bultmann, “Glossen” 197–202. For a rebuttal of the suggestions of marginal glosses, see Käsemann, 295.
*
30
through faith;
31
32
33
1
2
3
4
5
live by them.”
6
7
8
proclaim);
9
10
11
12
on him.
17
IV. The probatio
10:14–21 6. Syllogism and citation-chain concerning the gospel preached but rejected
10:14–15 a. The major premise: The temporal sequence of conversion moves from
preaching to faith
10:14–15a 1) The rhetorical questions about the source of faith, in climactic sequence
10:14a a) Calling upon God requires faith
10:14b b) Faith requires hearing
10:14c c) Hearing requires preaching
10:15a d) Preaching requires a commission
10:15b-c 2) The scriptural proof of Isa 52:7* concerning the timely, authorized preaching
10:15b a) The citation formula
10:15c b) The citation of Isa 52:7*
10:16 b. The minor premise: Despite the authentic preaching, not all heed the gospel
10:16a 1) The observation that everyone does not heed the gospel
10:16b-c 2) The scriptural proof concerning the failure of some to believe
10:16c b) The citation of Isa 53:1*
10:17 c. The conclusion in the form of an antithetical climax
10:17a 1) Faith comes through hearing
10:17b 2) Hearing depends on the “word of Christ”
10:18–21 d. The application: Gentiles responded to the gospel and some Jews did not
10:18 1) The proof that the Jews have heard the gospel
10:18a-b (a) Rhetorical introduction
10:18a (1) The rhetorical question about whether the Jews have heard
10:18b (2) The affirmative answer
10:18c-d (b) The scriptural proof from Ps 18:57
10:18c (1) The voice extends to all the world
10:18d (2) The word has gone to the ends of the world
10:19 2) The proof that Israel knows of the gospel because of the response of the
Gentiles
10:19a (a) The rhetorical question about Israel really knowing
10:19b-d (b) The scriptural proof from Deut 32:21*
10:19b (1) The introduction of the citation
10:19c-d (2) The citation
10:19c i. Israel made jealous of “a non-people”
10:19c ii. Israel provoked to wrath
10:20–21 3) The scriptural proof that the Gentiles responded to the gospel while Israel
remained disobedient
*
7
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news,
who announces salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”
Isaiah 52:7 (NRSV)
*
1
Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Isaiah 53:1 (NRSV)
*
21
They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with
what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation.
10:20 (a) The citation of Isa 65:1* that outsiders found God
10:20b-c (2) The citation
10:20b i. God was found by those not seeking God
10:20c ii. God revealed God’s self to those not seeking
10:21 (b) The citation of Isa 65:2* concerning God remaining open to a disobedient
Israel
10:21a (1) The introduction of the address of the citation: “to Israel”
10:21b (2) The citation
Exegesis
 14* The four rhetorical questions in the climax are framed with the particle πῶς (“How?”),
which invite a crescendo of negative responses from the audience: “It is impossible!”18 The
third person plural verbs refer back to vv. 12–13*, the “all” who call on the Lord in response
to the gospel and are saved, both Greeks and Jews.19 Apart from 4:10*, Paul never otherwise
employs the sequence πῶς οὖν,20 in which “therefore” connects the climax with the final verse
of the preceding pericope. The expression “they might call upon him,” that is, the Lord, as in
10:12–13*, reflects the confessional response to missionary preaching as in Acts 22:16*,
“Rise up, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”21 By selecting aorist
subjunctive verbs, Paul draws attention to the events of missionary activity followed by
conversions. The climax deals with this process in reverse order, beginning with the
confession that marks the appropriate conclusion of the conversion process. The preceding
pericope made it clear that such a “calling” involves confessing Jesus as Lord (10:9–10*). But
*
1
I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “Here
I am, here I am,” to a nation that did not call on my name.
Isaiah 65:1 (NRSV)
*
2
I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own
devices;
Isaiah 65:2 (NRSV)
18
Weiss, 454; Käsemann, 293; Dunn, 2:620, following BDF §366.1 and BAGD (2000) 901.
19
Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 83–87, rightly maintains that this “all” includes Gentiles as well as Jews, thus
rejecting Michel, 332–35; Dodd, 168–70; Cranfield, 2:533; Barrett, 203–5; Moo, 662, and others who believe
that vv. 14–18* deal only with the mission to Israel.
*
10
he was circumcised.
Romans 4:10 (NRSV)
20
See the discussion in Rom 4:1–12* above.
*
16
And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’
Acts 22:16 (NRSV)
21
This technical early Christian use of ἐπικαλέω (“call upon”) is described in the preceding pericope in notes
relating to 10:12–13. This usage is quite different from magical papyri, where the supplicant is instructed to say,
“I call upon you in the name of the one who created the universe” (Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets, I. 13–14,
with many other examples). In PGM IV. 1209–10 there is the invocation, “I call upon your 100-lettered name
that passes through the firmament to the depths of the earth: save me!” (Text also in Betz, Greek Magical
Papyri, 61.) The more general sense of requesting help from God is seen in Josephus Bell. 2.394, “How could
you call on God, after intentionally refusing to pay the service due to him?”
*
9
if it is true that faith in Christ necessarily precedes such a public confession (10:10*), then it
follows that without such faith, it is impossible to make a proper confession. Since the
preceding argument has made this principle clear for all persons,22 Greeks as well as Jews,23
the audience would readily answer in response to the question “How then … ?”—“It is
impossible!” The first step to establishing the major premise of Paul’s syllogism is thereby
affirmed by the audience itself, on the basis of the shared experience of conversion.24
The second through the fourth questions begin with πῶς δέ, in which the particle has the
connective function of linking the parallel questions together, and thus is appropriately
translated with “and how”?25 Moving backwards from the end of the conversion process, Paul
asks, “How might they believe in someone whom they have not heard?”26 The relative
pronoun in the genitive case (οὗ, “of whom”) is required with the verb “hear,”27 thus referring
to the person rather than the message. The risen Christ is therefore the one who is really being
heard in the gospel message,28 a theme that is taken up in 10:17*, where the gospel is referred
to as the “word of Christ.” Once again, the audience is impelled to answer, “It is indeed
impossible to believe in the gospel if it has not been heard!”
The third question in this rhetorical climax deals with the necessity of someone preaching the
gospel—or, to state the question as ancients would have heard it, “How can they hear apart
from a herald?”29 The verb κηρύσσειν (“to preach, act as herald”) appears four times in this
and the preceding pericope, beginning with “the word of faith that we preach” (10:8*), and it
is clear that this concept of the herald proclaiming the new age was established in the pre-
Pauline phase of the Christian mission.30 This is a clear reference to the decisive role of oral
proclamation in the spread of the gospel in the early period before the publication of the
gospels and the Pauline letters.31 Paul knows that he can count on the Roman audience’s
assent to this third rhetorical question: “No, it is certainly impossible that anyone can hear the
gospel without someone preaching it!”
 15* The fourth rhetorical question deals with the authentication of the herald as one who
has been “sent” by a higher authority. The biblical formulation of this premise is visible in Isa
10
*
10
Romans 10:10 (NRSV)
22
See Schreiner, 567.
23
It is a mistake to assume with Schmidt, 180; Wilckens, 2:228; Cranfield, 2:533; and others that Paul’s
syllogism relates only to Jewish converts.
24
In contrast Kim, Romans 9–11, 133–34, interprets these questions as “the charge of the prosecutor” as a
“rebuttal” of Jewish misconceptions. This is an expression of the mistaken notion that Romans is an example of
judicial rhetoric as an attack on beliefs held by the audience.
25
BAGD (2000) 213.2.
26
See Kinneavy, Greek Rhetorical Origins, 143.
27
BAGD (2000) 38.3b, “the genitive of person … ‘of whom they have not heard’ Rom 10:14a*.”
28
Meyer, 2:186; Sanday and Headlam, 296; Cranfield, 2:534; Morris, 390; Murray, 2:58; Moo, 663. There is a
parallel to this conception in Luke 10:16*, “he who hears you hears me.”
29
Fitzmyer, 596.
30
Otto Merk, “κηρύσσω κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991) 288; Gerhard Friedrich, “κῆρυξ κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 703,
argues that the NT usage generally retains the sense of “to proclaim,” which is the task of the herald in the
ancient world.
31
Dunn, 2:621; Kelber, Oral and the Written Gospel, 140–47, esp. 146: “Spoken words enter the human heart …
elicit faith and faithful heeding and in turn generate confession.… For this reason, what enters the human heart
affects a person’s whole being.”
*
15
Romans 10:15 (NRSV)
61:1*, which is cited in Luke 4:18*, ἀπέσταλκέν με, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν (“he has
sent me to proclaim release to the captives”). In the aorist passive used in 10:15a*, the sender
is assumed to be Christ, a matter that was explicitly claimed in 1:5*.32 Paul presents himself
throughout Romans as the authorized ambassador, the herald of Christ, commissioned to
preach the gospel to the end of the world (cf. also 1 Cor 1:17*). But the link between sending
and proclamation is not unique to Paul; it is widely assumed by other branches of early
Christianity,33 which correlates with Paul’s ecumenical purpose in this letter. There is no
doubt that all of the groups hearing Paul’s letter read in their house and tenement churches
would assent to this premise that preaching is legitimized by divine sending. They would
reply, “Of course, it is impossible to preach if one has not been sent!”
With the completion of this climax, the audience affirms the major premise of Paul’s
syllogism, which is actually drawn from their conversion experience. This premise concerns
the process that leads to the confession “Lord Jesus!” which stands at the center of the
preceding pericope, a confession that most of Paul’s fellow Jews have thus far refused to
make. Each step requires that a prior step has been taken; the sequence of conversion by the
gospel is thus a temporal one. In outline form, the major premise is as follows, with the steps
in the four rhetorical questions marked in the reverse sequence:34
Confession in Christ ← (1) Belief in Christ ← (2) Hearing the Gospel ← (3) Preaching the
Gospel ← (4) Authorized Herald to Preach the Gospel
Each of these steps is taken up in the subsequent phases of the syllogism, beginning with the
scriptural proof of the major premise itself, which links most directly with the fourth question,
while the later phases of the argument take up the earlier steps and their logical
interrelationships, following a roughly chiastic sequence.
The first citation is introduced by καθὼς γέγραπται (“just as it is written”), the traditional
Jewish formula for a biblical citation used in 1:17*; 2:24*; 3:4*, 10*; 4:17*; 8:36*; 9:13*,
*
1
The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to
the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners;
Isaiah 61:1 (NRSV)
*
18
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent
me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,
Luke 4:18 (NRSV)
*
5
Romans 1:5 (NRSV)
32
Dunn, 2:621.
*
17
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the
cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.
33
See, e.g., Luke 13:34*; 19:32*; John 1:6*; 3:28; 1 John 4:9*; 4:14*; Friedrich, “κῆρυξ κτλ.,” 710–17.
Friedrich (712) argues that 10:15* “is decisive for our understanding of the preaching office,” in that “sending”
is linked with “preaching.” “Without commissioning and sending there are no preachers.…”
34
See particularly Haacker, 214–15. It is a mistake to select one of the four steps as the central “point” of Paul’s
premise, following Murray, 2:59, and Käsemann, 294, who single out the fourth member of the climax as
emphatic.
*
17
Romans 1:17 (NRSV)
*
24
For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
33*; 11:8*, 26*; 15:3*, 21*.35 Many have argued that Paul’s citation of Isa 52:7* stands
closer to the MT than to the standard versions of the LXX, yet the alterations from the
Hebrew text are also significant. The Lucianic family of LXX texts36 stands closer to Paul’s at
several points. The comparison is illustrated below with the closest parallels underlined:
Isa 52:7*: ‫“(מה־נאוּו ַעל־הֶ הרים רגלֵּׂי מבשֵּׂ ר מׁשמיַע ׁשלֹום מבשֵּׂ ר טֹוב‬How timely upon
the mountains are the feet of him who preaches good news, who publishes peace, who
preaches good news of good”)
Isa 52:7* A & B versions of LXX: ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων, ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν
εἰρήνης, ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά (“How timely upon the mountains are the feet of him
who preaches the message of peace, as the one preaching good things”)
Romans 2:24 (NRSV)

*
4
Romans 3:4 (NRSV)
*
10
Romans 3:10 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 4:17 (NRSV)
*
36
As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.”
Romans 8:36 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 9:13 (NRSV)
*
33
Romans 9:33 (NRSV)
*
8
this very day.”
Romans 11:8 (NRSV)
*
26
Romans 11:26 (NRSV)
*
3
For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.”
Romans 15:3 (NRSV)
*
21
but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him
shall understand.”
Romans 15:21 (NRSV)
35
See particularly Hans Vollmer, Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus textkritisch und biblisch-theologisch
gewürdigt nebst einem Anhang über das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo (Freiburg/Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck,
1895) 72.
MT Masoretic text
36
See Stanley, Scripture, 135–37; the Lucianic texts analyzed by Stanley are minuscules 88 22 c –62-lII [= 90–
130-311]-93–86c-456 403 ́ [= 403–613] and a quotation from Theodoret.
*
7
Isa 52:7* Lucianic family of LXX: ὡς ὡραῖοι ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων [οἱ]37 πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου
ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀγαθά. (“How timely upon the mountains are the feet of him
who preaches the message of peace, the one preaching good things!”)
Rom 10:15b*: ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων τὰ ἀγαθά. (“How timely are the feet
of those who preach the good things!”)
The suggestion by Koch that a Greek translation close to Paul’s version of this text was
available for citation38 has been confirmed by Stanley by means of his reconstruction of the
Lucianic family of texts, which corrected the LXX by bringing it into closer to the Hebrew
text.39 This explains Paul’s choice of the adjective ὡραῖος (“timely”)40 in place of the “hour”
(ὥρα) found in the standard LXX version, and also the inclusion of the article οἱ (“the”) in
front of πόδες (“feet”). Nevertheless, Pauline alterations of the preexisting forms of this
citation are clearly visible. There is a wide consensus that the singular reference to the
preacher in the MT and both forms of the LXX, which probably referred to the messiah or his
herald, was intentionally altered by Paul to refer to the plurality of preachers of the Christian
gospel.41 It therefore resonates with 10:8*, “the word of faith that we proclaim” and answers
the question in the first half of 10:15*, whether the preachers indeed have been “sent.” Paul’s
elimination of the “mountains” that appear in the LXX and the MT texts was probably
motivated by the desire to generalize this text by withdrawing it from the context of Mount
Zion,42 where Isaiah expected the fulfillment to be centered. The anti-imperial logic of the
gospel allows no hope that an Israelite imperium would be an improvement over the Roman
Empire. In keeping with the ecumenical emphasis evident through Romans, the message of
Christ offers peaceful coexistence for the entire world (cf. esp. 15:7–13*), and it overcomes
the barriers between the Greeks and the Jews (cf. 10:12–13*) that would remain intact in an
Israelite empire. This consideration also explains why Paul deleted εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν
εἰρήνης (“the one preaching the message of peace”) found in all of the LXX versions.43 The
Isaiah 52:7 (NRSV)

37
Only MSS 88 22c-93 provide οἱ (“the”) before πόδες (“feet”).
38
Koch, Schrift 68–69.
39
Stanley, Scripture, 135–36, followed by Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 24, and Wagner, Heralds, 171–72.
40
See BAGD (2000) 1103, “opportune point of time, happening at the right time, timely.” See Schlier, 315, 317;
Dunn, 2:621–22; Fitzmyer, 597.
41
Käsemann, 294; Cranfield, 2:535; Dunn, 2:621; Fitzmyer, 597; Moo, 664; Stanley, Scripture, 140. Wagner,
“Heralds of Isaiah,” 89. Gerhard Friedrich, “εὐαγγελίζομαι κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 719, argues that the change to
a plural form follows a rabbinic tradition of heavenly messengers, but the texts cited on 715–16 are all several
centuries after Paul’s time. Since both Acts 10:36* and Eph 2:17* retain the singular of Isa 52:7*, it seems
unlikely that such a rabbinic tradition was known in the first century.
42
Käsemann, 294; Koch, Schrift 122; Stanley, Scripture, 137; Wagner, Heralds, 173.
*
7
Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.
8
9
10
11
12
shall hope.”
13
43
Since they cannot discern an argumentative reason for Paul’s deletion, Koch, Schrift, 81–83, and Stanley,
Scripture, 139, resort to a weak theory of haplography to explain this omission. See the critique in Bell,
Provoked to Jealousy, 88–89.
concept of “peace” in the Isaiah citation has the same structure as the Pax Romana, resulting
from the subordination of all potential enemies under the imperial capitol in Jerusalem. The
adjective ὡραῖος is frequently translated as “beautiful,” on account of the parallel in Sir
26:18*, but in the present context it more likely means “timely” or “opportune,”44 that is, at
the appropriate “time, hour” (ὥρα) for the gospel message to be spread. This correlates nicely
with Paul’s eschatological view of the gospel,45 as well as with the temporal sequence of the
major premise itself.46 The reference to “the good things” in Paul’s translation compares with
the singular “good” in the MT text and in comparison with the versions of the LXX, he adds
the definite article. This indicates that “the good things” are known to the audience. In the
new context in Romans, “the good things” would probably be understood to refer to the
superabundant “riches” (10:12*), “riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience”
(2:4*), “riches of his glory” (9:23*), and “the mercies of God” (12:1*) shown forth in the
gospel.47 Thus, in the context of Paul’s syllogism, this citation from Isaiah “takes on the
overtones of his [i.e. Paul’s] good news, the ‘gospel’ about Christ and the salvation that is
available through him,”48 while avoiding the imperialistic implications of the original wording
of Isaiah.
 16* The minor premise in Paul’s syllogism is set out in antithesis to the first. The ἀλλά
should be translated with “but”49 or “yet,”50 indicating an exception to the general principle
established in the major premise.51 It is frequently suggested that οὐ πάντες, those who have
*
18
Like golden pillars on silver bases, so are shapely legs and steadfast feet.
Sirach 26:18 (NRSV)
44
BAGD (2000) 1103.1; Käsemann, 294; Dunn, 2:621–22; Fitzmyer, 597.
45
Käsemann, 294: “the eschatological actualization of the promise”; Schlier, 317; Dunn, 2:622; Moo, 664;
Byrne, 326.
46
Haacker, 214.
*
12
on him.
Romans 10:12 (NRSV)
*
4
Romans 2:4 (NRSV)
*
23
Romans 9:23 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 12:1 (NRSV)
47
Cranfield, 2:535; Godet, 386: “those well-known foretold blessings which were to constitute the Messianic
kingdom.” Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 174, sees the “good things” as the grace of God revealed in
Christ. Stanley, Scripture, 141, overlooks the argumentative context in arguing that the significance of the article
“remains obscure.”
48
Fitzmyer, 597; see also Hanson, Studies, 155; Wagner, Heralds, 173; Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek, 203,
referring with approval to Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
14–33. In contrast, Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 224, concludes that the citation serves “to condemn his
unbelieving Jewish contemporaries by proving their stubbornness and belief to be inexcusable.”
49
Morris, 391.
50
Fitzmyer, 598.
51
Dodd’s suggestion (170) that v. 16a* should be taken as a question (“They have not all given in to the Gospel
of glad news? No.”) is not supported by the Greek word order, and the negative answer is not in the Greek text;
see the critique by Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 77–78.
refused to accept the gospel, constitute a litotes52 or meiosis53 meaning “only a very few,” but
this would be a gratituitous insult to the already large number of Roman converts, and it
would weaken the rhetorical connection with “all” in 10:4*, 11*, 12*, and 13*.54 There is no
indication in this context that anything but a literal reference to “not all” was intended. Paul’s
choice of the verb ὑπακούειν (“hearken, obey”) allows a wordplay with ἀκούειν (“hear”) in
10:14* and 18* and ἀκοή (“hearing”) in 10:16–17*, 55 which leads me to translate it with
“hearken.” The choice of ὑπακούειν also resonates with the missionary goal of eliciting
“obedience of faith” in 1:5* and the “obedience of the Gentiles” in 15:18*. As we have seen
in earlier references (5:19*; 6:12–17*), obedience is understood as a positive response in faith
to the gospel.56 While some interpreters express surprise that Paul did not employ the word
“faith” in 10:16a*, 57 the choice of ὑπακούειν points to the communication nexus that binds
preacher, gospel, hearer, Christ, and community together in the charismatic process of
conversion as described in vv. 14–15a*.58 It is clear from the context that the refusal of many
Jews to accept the gospel is in view here.59 In 10:2–3* Paul had explained the motivation
52
Meyer, 2:187; Weiss, 455; Morris, 391; Moo, 664; a litotes is an ironic understatement.
53
Sanday and Headlam, 297; Cranfield, 2:536; Murray, 2:60; Käsemann, 295; Stuhlmacher, 160; Schreiner, 569;
a meiosis makes things smaller.
*
4
Romans 10:4 (NRSV)
*
11
Romans 10:11 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 10:13 (NRSV)
54
See Michel, 333; Dunn, 2:622.
*
16
17
55
Schlatter, 217; Dunn, 2:622.
*
18
For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience
from the Gentiles, by word and deed,
Romans 15:18 (NRSV)
*
19
For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the
many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19 (NRSV)
*
12
Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
13
No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those
who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
14
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
15
16
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom
you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
17
But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the
form of teaching to which you were entrusted,
56
Gerhard Schneider, “ὑπακοή, ὑπακούω,” EDNT 3 (1993) 394–95.
57
E.g., Moo, 665.
58
Dobbeler, Glaube als Teilhabe, 18–25; Theobald, 2:27–28.
59
See, e.g., Godet, 387; Meyer, 2:187; Kuss, 3:774; Wilckens, 2:229; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 90–92;
Fitzmyer, 598.
behind this failed communication, that is, their misguided zeal for the law that aimed to
establish honor. Now he moves on to suggest that such a failure to hearken to the good news
was predicted by none other than Isaiah himself. The citation formula, “for Isaiah says,” is the
third time Paul explicitly mentions this prophet as the voice that speaks the clarifying word
(see 9:27*, 29*).
In contrast to the first text in this citation-chain, which departed from both the MT and the
LXX, Paul’s quotation of Isa 53:1* is taken verbatim from the LXX, “Lord, who had faith in
what was heard from us?” As in the other references to the κύριος in the citations of the
preceding pericope, Christ rather than Yahweh is implied by Paul’s context.60 The direct
address to this Lord has the feeling of lament,61 evoking once again Paul’s agonized
disappointment expressed in 9:1–3* at the refusal of so many of his fellow Jews to accept the
gospel.62 The noun ἀκοή (“what is heard, hearing”) correlates with the verb employed in the
question in v. 16a*, “not all have hearkened to (ὑπήκουσαν) the gospel.”63 The citation thus
“assumes a fundamental correspondence between Paul’s apostolic proclamation and Isaiah’s
message.”64 The citation from Isaiah thereby confirms where the problem lies: not in the
gospel message itself or in its preachers, but in the reception thereof.65 The argumentative
effect of the Isaiah citation, however, is to confirm the minor premise of Paul’s syllogism, that
not all have set faith in the gospel, a tragic circumstance that was forecast by Isaiah and thus
fits into the mysterious plan of God.66
*
2
3
*
27
Romans 9:27 (NRSV)
*
29
Romans 9:29 (NRSV)
60
Johnson, 162–64, suggests that these citations from the Servant Songs of Isaiah make the point “that the good
news was quite literally ‘pre-promised’ to the prophets and the ‘message about Messiah’ was already proclaimed
in Torah,” and that such knowledge should have led Israel to accept Christ (163). Wilk, Bedeutung des
Jesajabuches, 182, overlooks the contextual clues in maintaining that Yahweh rather than Christ is addressed
here.
61
Käsemann, 295.
*
1
2
3
62
See Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 225.
*
16
Romans 9:16 (NRSV)
63
See Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” 208; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 182–83.
64
65
Cranfield, 2:535–36; Fitzmyer, 598.
66
Kuss, 3:774; Cranfield, 2:535–56; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 79.
 17* The conclusion of the syllogism is introduced by the inferential particle ἄρα (“so”),
which marks “the result” or consequence of the preceding premises.67 The failure of earlier
commentators to detect the syllogistic structure of this pericope has led to comments about
alleged illogical development,68 along with suggestions of a marginal note inserted at the
wrong spot69 or a later interpolation.70 Actually v. 17* is a very effective “summarizing
conclusion”71 that is organized as a succinct climax, following the pattern of vv. 14–15a*.
Both halves of the antithetical climax have equal weight. That πίστις, that is, faith in the
gospel, derives from ἀκοή, that is, hearing the oral proclamation of Christ crucified and
resurrected,72 draws together the argument in vv. 14a-c* and 16*. It articulates the principle
that was basic for early Christian mission activity.73 Here Paul lays out the foundation of the
mission to Spain as well as his prior missionary activity. As von Dobbeler has shown, faith
for Paul was not a matter of abstract beliefs but the result of personal encounters between
preachers and hearers, followed when successful by joining a new community of speaking
and hearing the gospel.74 Werner Kelber has explained this link between the oral proclamation
and the evocation of faith in the context of early Christian groups: “Mouth and heart
cooperate in the oral delivery of redemption.… The spoken word, emanating from interiority
and entering another interiority, creates a deep-set bonding of speaker with audience.”75 To
“live by faith” (1:17*) in the sense assumed by Paul and other early believers was a matter of
hearing and responding to the oral gospel rather than of conforming to some written law. This
verse, which serves as the rhetorical centerpiece of this pericope, therefore provides a decisive
elaboration of the thesis of Paul’s letter from Hab 2:4*.
The antithetical second half of Paul’s conclusion, “but hearing through the word of Christ,”
insists on an authoritative preaching that is spoken and heard. This expression ῥήματος
Χριστοῦ (“word of Christ”) echoes the use of the term ῥῆμα (“word”) in 10:8* and should
have a similar meaning here. The genitive construction is therefore probably objective,
referring to the “message of salvation”76 that Paul and other early missionaries have
proclaimed. A consideration of parallel expressions such as “word of Christ,” “word of the
Lord,” or “word of God” in the Pauline letters and elsewhere in early Christian literature77
makes it likely that this genitive expression refers to a “word that proclaims Christ.”78 That
Christ was thought to be spiritually present in such preaching was a widely shared belief in
early Christianity (see 10:14b*),79 but it does not justify the interpretation of “word of Christ”
67
BAGD (2000) 127; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 92, notes that Peter Stuhlmacher, “‘Ex Auditu’ and the
Theological Interpretation of Holy Scripture,” ExAud 2 (1986) 2, observes that this verse is comparable to a
rabbinic short summary of the preceding argument.
68
Barrett, 205; Michel, 334.
69
Müller, “Zwei Marginalien” 253–54.
70
Bultmann, “Glossen” 197–202.
71
Morris, 391; Binder, Glaube, 66–67.
72
That ἀκοή appears in v. 17* with reference to the act of hearing whereas it is used in v. 16* with reference to
what was heard is widely assumed by commentators; e.g., Barrett, 205; Dunn, 2:623; Moo, 665–66.
73
The only parallel is Gal 3:2*, 5, ἡ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; see Betz, Galatians, 132, 136.
74
Dobbeler, Glaube als Teilhabe 19–25.
75
Kelber, Oral and the Written Gospel, 146; see also Müller, “Glaube aus dem Hören,” 422–25.
*
4
Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them, but the righteous live by their faith.
Habakkuk 2:4 (NRSV)
76
Walter Radl, “ῥῆμα,” EDNT 3 (1993) 211.
77
See the note on 10:8.
78
Moo, 666; see also Albert Debrunner et al.,“λέγω κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 116; Godet, 387; Sanday and
Headlam, 298; Schmidt, 181; Lietzmann, 100; Zeller, 188; Stuhlmacher, 160; Fitzmyer, 598; Haacker, 215;
Byrne, 327.
79
Schlatter, 217; Käsemann, 295; Cranfield, 2:537.
as a subjective genitive, that is, a word uttered by Christ himself.80 The use of the preposition
(“through”) clearly indicates that the source of the hearing leading to faith is the preaching
about Christ, thus lifting up an authoritative element that resonates with 10:15*.81 To reject
the gospel is to reject God’s Messiah, for the compelling power of the gospel resides not in its
preachers but in Christ himself, who becomes present in the preached gospel for those who
believe. The hearing that produces faith therefore derives from Christ. On the basis of this
succinct, antithetical conclusion, Paul has a firm foundation to move on to deal with the
distressing issue of the refusal of some of his fellow Jews to accept the gospel.
 18* The application phase of Paul’s syllogism opens with a rhetorical question about
whether those refusing the gospel have in fact “heard” it preached. The verb ἀκούειν (“to
hear”) picks up the keyword repeated twice in the climactic conclusion of the preceding verse:
ἀκοή (“hearing”). Whereas the conclusion of v. 17* was formulated in general terms that
were widely shared in the various branches of the Christian movement, he begins the
application in his own voice, ἀλλὰ λέγω (“but I”). This first person singular style picks up the
strand of 9:1–3* and 10:2*, where Paul expresses his personal agony at the rejection of the
gospel by so many of his compatriots. The ἀλλὰ λέγω formulation at the beginning of the
sentence is an objection posed by the author against the foregoing conclusion in 10:17*, 82
thus conveying the impression that Paul wishes momentarily to examine a possible excuse for
his fellow Jews.83 However, the question is formulated with a double negative that requires a
positive response from the audience to the rhetorical question: μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; (“Have they
not heard?”). The audience must answer, “Yes, they have heard!” 84 In this shrewd rhetorical
move, Paul places his audience in the position of responding immediately to close out the
possibility of an excuse that he himself has suggested. The potential excuse thereby
eliminated by the audience’s response is then confirmed by μενοῦνγε (“indeed so!”),85
reiterating in this context that the Jews had indeed heard the gospel. Without an introductory
formula, Paul then moves directly into the citation of a Psalm that he believes would be
familiar to his audience.
The third citation in the chain is drawn verbatim from LXX Ps 18:5* (= MT 19:4*), and takes
up the issue suggested in the initial climax (10:14b*). This issue had been explicitly posed in
80
Zahn, 488–89; Kühl, 359; Müller, “Glaube aus dem Hören,” 425; Munck, Christ, 94; Schlier, 318; Murray,
2:61; Wilckens, 2:222; Dunn, 2:623.
81
Weiss, 456–57; Michel, 334; Kuss, 3:776.
*
2
Romans 10:2 (NRSV)
82
Meyer, 2:190: “the quite customary ἀλλά of objection”; Weiss, 457, following Chrysostom; Meyer, 189.
83
Wagner, Heralds, 180–84, suggests that Paul’s rhetorical questions echo Isa 40:21* (“will you not know? Will
you not hear?”) and 40:28* (“And now, have you not known? Have you not heard?”), which are Isaiah’s
responses to public skepticism about his message. Although Paul’s questions are formulated differently, these
echos may have enhanced the effectiveness of his argument.
84
BDF §427.2, “have they not heard?” (Answer: “Indeed they have”).
85
BDF §450 shows that μενοῦνγε is used to heighten or correct. Kühl, 361, Käsemann, 295, and Wilckens,
2:229, identify the adversative implication in this context, in which a suggested excuse is foreclosed and thus
corrected. The interpretation by Schmidt, 181, and Michel, 335, of μενοῦνγε as an ironic comment on the
following citation does not take account of the audience’s positive response to the rhetorical question in 10:18a;
see also the critiques in Zahn, 489, and Weiss, 458.
*
4
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In the heavens he has set
a tent for the sun,
Psalm 19:4 (NRSV)
*
3
May he remember all your offerings, and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices. Selah
Psalm 20:3 (NRSV)
the rhetorical question of 10:18a* about whether belief is possible if in fact people have not
heard the gospel. The psalm referred to God’s revelation in nature, which was clearly visible
to people everywhere,86 but Paul applies this saying to the preaching of the gospel of Christ.87
It has resounded εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν (“into all the earth”) and εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης
(“to the ends of the world”), echoing the expansive language of the early Christian mission88
and correlating with the earlier citations from Isaiah.89 The reference to τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν
(“their words”) also resonates nicely with ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ (“word of Christ”) in 10:17* and τὸ
ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν (“the word of faith that we preach”) in 10:8*. The historical
implication is so sweeping that scholars have exerted considerable effort to diminish Paul’s
apparent overstatement. That the voice of early Christian preaching had already reached the
limits of the known world has been taken as prophetic,90 as hyperbolic,91 or as an expression
of Paul’s missionary enthusiasm.92 That the reference is restricted to the mission to Jews93
would counter the emphasis on “all” in the preceding argument of Romans, which explicitly
includes Jews and Greeks.94 Probably none of these explanations is required when one takes
the rhetorical nature of this syllogism into account. As an answer to the question about
whether the gospel has been heard by those who reject it, the scriptural citation serves as
adequate warrant.95 The proof lies not in the correlation between the text and historical reality
but rather in the biblical text itself, which for Paul and his audience had unequivocal
authority. Moreover, the rhetorical question that introduced this citation in 10:18a* had
already evoked assent from the audience, so that a predisposition to accept the relevance of Ps
18:5* was assured. From a rhetorical point of view, this verse would have been masterful for
its original audience despite the problems it raises for modern interpreters.
 19* Paul repeats the formula of personal diatribe, ἀλλὰ λέγω (“but I say”), to introduce the
reason for the failure of Paul’s countrymen to accept the gospel.96 The translation of μὴ
Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω; with “is it the case that Israel has not known,”97 is exactly parallel to the
double negative in v. 18a*.98 “Yes, that is the case!” the audience must answer. Although
86
That this citation was intended by Paul to refer to natural revelation, as advocated by O’Neill, 221, and others,
is aptly rejected by Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 94–95.
87
The application to the context of missionary expansion is discussed by Zahn, 489; Kühl, 359; Kuss, 3:776–77;
Moo, 667; Haacker, 216; Stanley, Scripture, 142. In contrast, Koch, Schrift, 23, lists this citation as incongruent
with its context in Romans.
88
E.g., Mark 13:10*, “the gospel must first be preached to all the nations (εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη)”; Matt 28:19*,
“make disciples of all nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη)”; Acts 1:8*, “you shall be my witnesses … to the end of the earth
(ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς)”; Acts 17:6*, “these men have turned the world (τὴν οἰκουμένην) upside down.” For a
discussion of the early Christian appropriation of the imperial concept of the οἰκουμένη, see Heinrich Balz,
“οἰκουμένη,” EDNT 2 (1991) 504.
89
90
Käsemann, 296; Wilckens, 2:230.
91
Cranfield, 2:537; Moo, 667.
92
Zeller, 188–89.
93
Dunn, 2:624, refers to Munck, Christ, 96–99. This restriction counters the emphasis on “all” in the preceding
argument of Romans as explicitly including Jews and Greeks.
94
See also Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 94.
95
See Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 133.
*
19
Romans 10:19 (NRSV)
96
Weiss, 458.
97
Dunn, 2:624; Cranfield, 2:538; Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 298; Byrne, 327.
98
The rule appears in BDF §427.2, but is usually not followed by commentators; see, e.g., Godet, 388; Meyer,
2:193; Morris, 393; Murray, 2:62; Wilckens, 2:230; Moo, 667–68; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 99–100;
Wolfgang Reinbold, “Israel und das Evangelium: Zur Exegese von Römer 10, 19–21, ” ZNW 86 (1995) 122–23.
Johnson, 163, suggests the translation, “Israel was not ignorant, was it?” on the mistaken ground that a question
Israel had ample opportunity to hear the gospel, it did not “know” it.99 The use of the verb
γινώσκειν (“to know”) carries forward the thought of 10:2–3*, that Israel has ζῆλον … οὐ
κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν (“zeal without knowledge”) and “is ignorant of the righteousnes of God”
(ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην).100 As I showed in the exegesis of this earlier
section of chap. 10, what prevented proper “knowledge” of the truth of the gospel was Israel’s
zeal to maintain its honor through obedience to the law and thus to “establish righteousness”
in comparison with others. Paul employed the same verb (γινώσκειν) in 7:15* to depict the
strange lack of knowledge on the part of the zealot whose fanatical obedience to the law
produces evil rather than good. This is the issue to which Paul turns in the citation that
follows.
The citation from Deut 32:21* is introduced with explicit reference to Moses, which lends
additional warrant to the argument. The word πρῶτος, used here as in 1:8* without a
subsequent “second,” probably has the sense of “Moses was the first to say.”101 Since two
additional citations from Isaiah follow, the temporal priority of Moses was relevant. The
following citation, therefore, is not Paul’s voice directed to his Roman audience,102 but
Moses’ voice directed to Israel. The dilemma of misguided zeal in the earlier argument of
Romans, therefore, was not a fiction invented by Paul but a phenomenon first identified by
none other than the primary spokesman of the Jewish law. As visible below, the citation
differs from the LXX at several points:
LXX of Deut 32:21*: κἀγὼ παραζηλώσω αὐτοὺς ἐπʼ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπʼ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ
αὐτούς. (“And I shall make them zealous in regard to a non-nation, with a senseless nation I
shall make them angry.”)
Paul: Ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπʼ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπʼ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς. (“I shall
make you zealous with regard to a non-nation, with a senseless nation I shall make you
angry.”)
beginning with μὴ requires a negative response, but this question, like 10:18a, has a double negative that requires
a positive response.
99
Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 133.
100
See Cranfield, 2:538; Dunn, 2:624. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 103, notes the verbal correspondences
between v. 2* and v. 19* but overlooks the political dimension of fanatical zeal that lies behind Paul’s
explanation.
*
15
Romans 7:15 (NRSV)
*
8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the
world.
Romans 1:8 (NRSV)
101
Weiss, 459–60; Dunn, 2:625; Kuss, 3:779. Cranfield, 2:539, argues convincingly that the proposal by Bentley,
Zahn, 490, and others to place the question mark after the word “first” (“Was not Israel the first to know?”)
remains implausible. The suggestion by Reinbold, “Römer 10, 19–21, ” 126, that a numerical listing was
intended by Paul, who would thereby have presented the following Isaiah citation as the second answer to the
question posed in v. 19a*, is rendered unlikely by the lack of a “second” in the text. Moreover the δέ (“but”) in
the introduction of v. 20a* suggests an antithesis in relation to vv. 18–19*.
102
Reinbold, “Römer 10, 19–21, ” 124–25, overlooks the rhetoric of v. 19a* in arguing that the citation from
Deuteronomy is directed at Roman Gentile Christians. See the detailed critique on exegetical grounds in Keller,
Gottes Treue, 183–84.
*
21
That Paul altered the citation from Deuteronomy is widely assumed.103 The deletion of the
“and” in Paul’s version is required because of the need to place the citation in a new
context,104 but the substitution of “you” for “them” is more significant. In the context of the
reference to “Israel” in v. 19a*, this alteration makes clear that the targets of Moses’
accusation are not the same “they” as mentioned in the preceding citation (v. 18b*), that is,
the Christian preachers.105 The result of this minor alteration is that Moses, the most
authoritative voice in Jewish history, addresses his fellow adherents to the law in a direct
manner.106 The emphatic ἐγώ (“I”) that opens this citation is Yahweh, speaking through
Moses.107 The key translation problem in this verse is the verb παραζηλόω, which can be
rendered in several ways. Since the preposition παρά makes the attached verb transitive,108
rendered here with “make x” or “provoke to x,” the translation issue centers on the verb
ζηλόω. In the NT, the terms ζηλόω and ζῆλος have four lines of traditional definition, as
Wiard Popkes shows: 109 holy zeal in the sense of Israel’s holy war;110 hostility that derives
from zeal or jealousy;111 jealousy itself;112 and emulation or the desire to attain a goal.113
103
Koch, Schrift 119; Reinbold, “Römer 10, 19–21, ” 124; Cranfield, 2:539; Dunn, 2:625; Fitzmyer, 599.
104
105
Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 96; Koch, Schrift, 110. Stanley, Scripture, 143, finds Koch’s explanation of the
change of object unconvincing because v. 19a* makes it sufficiently plain that Israel is being addressed. In this
instance, however, Paul apparently wished to be doubly certain that the citation would not be misunderstood.
Reinbold, “Römer 10, 19–21, ” 124, makes the implausible suggestion that the “you” refers to Gentile believers,
which implies that the “non-nation” refers to Jews rather than Gentiles. For a critique, see Keller, Gottes Treue,
173–84.
106
Dunn, 2:625, cites Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel, 97: “Paul alters the citation so that this I of God directs
itself to the Thou of Israel.” See also Stanley, Scripture, 144.
107
Luise Schottroff, “ἐγώ,” EDNT 1 (1990) 378–79, observes that the personal pronoun is usually emphatic and
that it frequently occurs in revelatory discourse such as “I am your God Almighty,” e.g., Gen 17:1* (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ
θεός σου).
108
BDF §150.
109
Wiard Popkes, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991) 100–101. See also Albrecht Stumpff, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” TDNT 2
(1964) 880–82, 886–88; Hengel, Zealots, 59–75; Chris Seeman, “Zeal/Jealousy,” in Pilch and Malina, eds.,
Biblical Social Values, 210, defines zeal/jealousy as the concern for maintaining possession and control over that
to which one claims to have honorable and exclusive access.” He describes (211) the steps of zeal/jealousy as
including emotional “ignition” against perceived threats and a “retaliatory response” in defense of injured honor.
Torrey Seland, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Nonconformity to the Torah and the Jewish
Vigilante Reactions (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 37–62, surveys the glorification of Phinehas as a model of zealous
vigilantism in defense of the Torah, showing that such violence was directed against persons or groups that
“posed a socio-theological threat to Jewish identity and the social coherence of the Jews” (362). The zeal that
leads to “social group-vigilantism” (301) is a reaction against perceived violations of Israel’s holiness (46–59).
Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 39–43, discerns two meanings of παραζηλόω in the Pauline letters, “provoke to
zealous anger,” and “provoke to jealousy.”
110
For example, Phil 3:6*: “as to zeal (κατὰ ζῆλος) a persecutor of the church”; Heb 10:27*: “a zealous fire
(πυρὸς ζῆλος) that will consume the adversaries.” This follows OT usage, such as Zeph 1:18*: “the whole land
shall be destroyed by the fire of his zeal (ἐν πυρὶ ζήλου αὐτοῦ )”; or Ezek 36:6*, in explaining the destruction of
Edom: “Behold, I have spoken in my zeal (ἐν τῷ ζήλῳ μου) and in my wrath, because you have borne the
reproaches of the heathen.”
111
For example, in Acts 5:17–18*, after the high priest and the Sadducees witnessed the expansion of the early
church, “they were filled with zeal (ἐπλήσθησαν ζήλου) and arrested the apostles and put them in the common
prison.” This follows the paradigm in 1 Macc 1:24–26* after Mattathias saw the pagan sacrifice: “he was
inflamed with zeal (ἐζήλωσε), and his veins trembled … he ran and slew him upon the altar … thus he dealt
zealously with the law (ἐζήλωσε τῷ νόμῳ), as did Phineas.…” A warning against such violent rage or jealousy
aroused by alleged evildoers is found in Ps 36:8*: “cease from anger and forsake wrath: do not become zealous
(μὴ παραζήλου) so as to do evil.”
112
For example, Acts 7:9*: “the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph (ζηλώσαντες τὸν Ἰωσήφ), sold him into Egypt”; or
1 Cor 13:4*: “love is not jealous (οὐ ζηλοῖ) or boastful,” following usage such as Gen 30:1*: “And Rachel,
perceiving that she bore Jacob no children, was jealous (ἐζήλωσε) of her sister”; or Sir 37:10*: “hide your
counsel from those who are jealous (τῶν ζηλούντων) of you.”
Previous commentaries have opted for a translation in terms of “jealousy”114 that takes
insufficient account of the references to violent, religious zeal in Rom 7 and 10 or of the
autobiographical clues concerning Paul’s former life as a zealot (Gal 1:13–14*; Phil 3:4–
11*).115 This traditional translation also makes it difficult to conceive how the citation from
Deuteronomy explains Israel’s lack of “knowledge” in v. 19a*, because jealousy could only
be provoked if Israel understood that admission to the messianic realm was in fact open to
Gentiles.116 Moreover, neither “make jealous” or “cause to emulate” conforms to the formal
requirement of synonymous parallelism in matching “make you angry” in the same way that
“non-nation” matches “senseless nation.”117 These contextual and poetic indications,
therefore, lead me to believe that a translation such as “make zealous” or “provoke to zealous
rage”118 is required, with the following prepositional phrase understood as “in regard to”119
113
For example, 1 Cor 12:31*: “zealously desire (ζηλοῦτε) the higher gifts”; or 2 Cor 9:2* with regard to the
offering for Jerusalem: “your zealous eagerness (τὸ ὑμῶν ζῆλος) has stirred up most of them”; or Titus 2:14*:
“to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous (ζηλωτής) for good deeds.” There are parallels to this
more positive sense in Sir 51:18*: “I zealously sought (ἐζήλωσα) what is good,” but the clear sense of
“emulation” for παραζηλόω occurs first in Philo Praem. 89, where animals are said to “grow gentle in emulation
(τῇ παραζηλώσει) of the docility and affection for the master.”
114
For example, Zahn, 493; Godet, 388–89; Meyer, 2:194; Weiss, 460; Sanday and Headlam, 300; Schlier, 315;
Käsemann, 297; Kuss, 3:779; Cranfield, 2:539; Wilckens, 2:231; Dunn, 2:625; Stuhlmacher, 160; Fitzmyer,
599–600; Moo, 668; Schreiner, 573; Byrne, 325; Nanos, Mystery, 249–50; Gignac, Romains 9–11, 218–22;
White, Apostle, 45; Keller, Gottes Treue, 186–92; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 288–91. The only commentary I
have found that is ambiguous on this point is Michel who properly translates παραζηλόω as Eifer (= “zeal”) on
332, but speaks of jealousy on 335.
*
13
14
*
4
even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the
flesh, I have more:
5
6
7
Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ.
8
More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.
For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
9
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes
through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.
10
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him
in his death,
11
if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
115
Stuhlmacher, 160–61, followed by Keller, Gottes Treue, 185–87, argues for “jealous and angry,” which takes
better account of Paul’s autobiography. The clearest grasp of the issue is available in Donaldson, “Zealot and
Convert,” 668–82.
116
Nanos, Mystery, 249: “Paul assumes that his fellow Jews will see in his success among the gentiles that their
own Jewish universalistic hopes are being fulfilled.… Hence they would be jealous of Paul’s ministry and
reconsider his declaration that the hope of Israel has come in Christ Jesus.” How this explanation can explain the
violence of Jewish reactions to the gospel is hard to imagine.
117
Deut 32:21* has the form of synonymous parallelism with chiastic development, in which (a) make
zealous/jealous/emulate; (b) “non-nation,” is followed by (b’) “senseless nation” and (a’) make angry.
118
Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 39, prefers the formulation “provoke to jealous anger.” Baker is on target in
“Motif of Jealousy,” 75: “Paul envisions Israel being provoked to angry jealousy in which it zealously upholds
Torah.”
119
BAGD (2000) 365.8.
the targets of religio-cultural hostility and competition,120 that is, the Gentiles. There is a
consensus that οὐκ ἔθνος (“no-people”) in this citation refers to Gentiles,121 particularly in the
light of the Hosea prophecy cited in 9:25–26* concerning the Gentiles as “not my people.”122
The expression ἔθνος ἀσυνέτῳ (“senseless nation”) points in the same direction,123 because
the adjective appeared in 1:21*, 31* in reference to pagans whose mind and heart lacked the
capacity to perceive God.124 The verb παροργίζω stands parallel to “make zealous,” with the
same preposition, παρά, changing the verb meaning “be angry” into the word referring to
provoking someone else to anger. The Deuteronomy passage is unusual in that this verb is
ordinarily employed in reference to Israel’s behavior provoking Yahweh to anger.125 In the
context of this pericope, the words from Moses explain the behavior of Jews rejecting the
gospel as deriving from divinely provoked zeal and anger against the Gentile world. Since the
Jewish form of the competition for honor that marked the ancient Mediterranean world was to
exceed others in righteousness through conformity to the Torah, Israel’s zeal turned against
Gentiles, who polluted the world. Consequently, Israel angrily rejected any gospel that
accepted Gentiles as equals. This rage and violence was predicted by Moses, according to
Paul’s argument, and will be overcome only at the end of time, when the mercy of God
becomes triumphant (11:25–26*, 32*). In the meanwhile, it remains certain that God’s word
has not failed (9:6*).126
120
See Haacker, 217, for an allusion to the competitive relationship between Israel and the Gentiles.
121
Godet, 389; Cranfield, 2:539; Fitzmyer, 599; Haacker, 217; Moo, 668. In contrast, Reinbold, “Römer 10, 19–
21, ” 125, makes the implausible suggestion that ἔθνος refers to non-Christian Jews.
*
25
26
122
Moo, 688.
123
See Michel, 336; Haacker, 217.
*
21
Romans 1:21 (NRSV)
*
31
Romans 1:31 (NRSV)
124
Hans Conzelmann, “συνίημι κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 895.
125
Most of the more than fifty occurrences of this verb in the LXX refer to provoking God’s anger; Dunn, 2:624,
cites T. Lev. 3.10: “the sons of men … sinning and provoking the anger of the Most High”; T. Zeb. 9.9: “You
will provoke God to wrath by the wickedness of your deeds”; and T. Ash. 2.6: “He who cheats his neighbor
provokes God’s wrath.”
*
25
26
*
32
Romans 11:32 (NRSV)
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
126
 20* The “but” in v. 20a* suggests that the following citation has a change of address: from
the fellow Jews of Moses in v. 19* to the Gentiles of v. 20*.127 The reference to Isaiah’s
boldness128 may imply an unusual degree of charismatic authority, similar to what Paul claims
in 15:15*, where a word associated with this stem, τολμάω (“be bold, dare”), also appears.129
The substantive issue, however, is that the content of this prophecy concerns God’s
astounding action of revealing God’s self to shameful outsiders, evoking the zealous rage and
violence of defenders of traditional views130 and thus requiring special courage on the part of
prophets and preachers, which correlates with Paul’s use of τολμάω in Phil 1:19*.131
The citation from Isa 65:1* appears to reflect the word order found in early septuagintal
textual traditions as well as in the original Hebrew text.132 Other minor differences are
illustrated below:
MT translation: “I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be
found by those who did not seek me.”
LXX S and C versions of Isa 65:1*: Ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, εὑρέθην τοῖς
ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν (“I showed myself to those who did not seek me, I was found by those not
asking for me”).
LXX A and Q versions of Isa 65:1*: Εὑρέθην ἐν τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς
ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν (“I was found by those who did not seek me, I showed myself to those not
asking for me”).
Paul: Εὑρέθην ἐν τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν (“I was
found among those who did not seek me, I showed myself to those not asking for me”).
Whether the sequence of Paul’s citation is due to the existence of the A and Q versions,133
which may in fact have been influenced by Christian scribes,134 or to his recollection of the
*
20
Romans 10:20 (NRSV)
127
128
The verb ἀποτολμάω (“be bold”) is used here for the only time in the OT or the NT. Wilk, Bedeutung des
Jesajabuches, 137, rightly rejects Hanson’s comment in Studies, 189, that “the boldness belongs to God and not
to the prophet.”
*
15
Nevertheless on some points I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace
given me by God
Romans 15:15 (NRSV)
129
Haacker, 217, citing William L. Schutter, “Philo’s Psychology of Prophetic Inspiration and Romans 10:20*, ”
SBLSP (1989) 624–33. It remains unclear why Hanson, Studies, 189, says that the reference to “boldness” shows
no “interest in the prophet’s psychological state as he uttered the prophecy.”
130
Morris, 394, cites Haldane’s comment that this prophecy was “most offensive to the Jews.”
*
19
for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my
deliverance.
131
Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 137, rejects the relevance of the parallel in Phil 1:19* because the element
of “resistance” is lacking in the Isaiah citation. This overlooks the underlying issue of zealous opposition to
outsiders that lies at the center of Jewish rejection of the gospel. Wilk also unfortunately rejects Bindemann’s
suggestion in Theologie, 233, that boldness in Rom 10:20* refers to the provocation of God’s action in relation
to Israel and the Gentiles.
132
See Zahn, 492; Koch, Schrift, 49–51; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 104–5.
*
1
I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “Here
I am, here I am,” to a nation that did not call on my name.
Isaiah 65:1 (NRSV)
Hebrew word order,135 or to a faulty memory,136 the citation as he provides it serves his
purpose well. The point of emphasis is shifted from the rather neutral expression, “those not
asking for me,” to the dramatic contention that “I was found among those who did not seek
me.”137 The emphasis is clearly on the Gentile converts who have been found by God through
the gospel,138 thus carrying forward the line in 9:30*. This confirms the charge in 10:19* that
there is no way a message that was producing such wide-ranging results would not have been
heard by Jews. The Gentiles had not only heard the gospel but had responded to it in faith,
following the principle of 10:17*, and thus are assured of having encountered God. The aorist
verbs εὑρέθην (“I was found”) and ἐγενόμην (“I showed”) in the Isaiah text are retained,139
whether referring back to the time of Isaiah when the vision of a future Messiah was first
emerging,140or, as seems more likely, referring to the success of the Gentile mission over the
two and a half decades before the writing of Romans.141 In the context of Paul’s
reinterpretation of Isa 65:2*, the present participle in the dative plural, ζητοῦσιν (“by those
[not] seeking”) and ἐπερωτῶσιν (“to those [not] asking”) refers to Gentiles who are being
converted by the gospel.142 Since the standard versions of the Isaiah citation in the MT or the
LXX did not include the preposition ἐν (“in, among”) before the phrase “those who did not
seek me,” it is likely that Paul added it or chose to take it over from the A and Q versions. It
suggests that God was in fact to be found “among” or “in the midst of” the groups of Gentile
believers.143 Ross Wagner refers to this “‘discovery’ of Gentiles in a text originally concerned
only with Israel” as a “stunning reversal.”144 With this citation, the shocking turnabout of the
gospel is fully manifest, whereby insiders become outsiders and vice versa. The traditional
system of honor and shame was overturned by the ultimate source of honor, the Lord God,
who spoke through Isaiah and who is manifest in the gospel of Christ crucified. This
revolution of divine grace, which comes to those not deserving or seeking it, lies at the heart
both of Gentile acceptance of the gospel and Jewish rage against it. This was boldness indeed.
 21* The prepositional phrase πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραὴλ that introduces the final citation in this
pericope should be taken as “in reference to Israel”145 rather than as a direct address, “to
Israel.”146 The particle δέ appears again with the sense of “but,” indicating that the address to
133
Koch, Schrift, 49–51. Stanley, Scripture, 143, finds Koch’s explanation, although “speculative,” to be more
likely than the alternatives. Wagner, Heralds, 210–11, also accepts Koch’s view.
134
See Melvin K. H. Peters, “Septuagint,” ABD 5 (1992) 1098–1100.
135
Zahn, 493; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 35–36.
136
Dunn, 2:626.
137
See Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 43. Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A
Neglected Stylistic Pattern,” Bib 63 (1982) 516, identifies 10:20–21 as an “inverted quotation,” following many
examples from the OT, but he does not explain its exegetical significance.
138
Weiss, 460–61; Kühl, 363; Cranfield, 2:540–41.
*
30
through faith;
Romans 9:30 (NRSV)
139
See Koch, Schrift, 317–18. Wilk’s contention in Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 137, that the aorist verbs refer
to events in the present that are not yet completed is a flat contradicion of the grammatical function of the aorist
as punctiliar; see BDF §§318, 324B.
140
Johnson, 165.
141
Dunn, 2:626, refers to the prior success of the Pauline mission; Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” 222, refers to
this use of Isaiah as “missiological.”
142
Dunn, 2:626.
143
See Stanley, Scripture, 145, who nevertheless remains skeptical that Paul can be proven responsible for this
insertion.
144
145
Meyer, 2:196; Morris, 395; Dunn, 2:626; BAGD (2000) 875e; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 137.
146
Godet, 390; Kuss, 3:780; Käsemann, 293.
the Gentiles in v. 20* shifts to Israel in v. 21*.147 Once again, the oral quality of the prophecy
is emphasized, as Isaiah “says” these words to Israel. This final citation in the chain is drawn
verbatim from Isa 65:2*, with a transposition of the expression “all day long” to the point of
emphasis at the beginning of the sentence. The change is illustrated below:
LXX of Isa 65:2*: ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ
ἀντιλέγοντα (“I reached out my hands all day long to a disobedient and disputatious people”).
Paul: Ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα
(“All day long I reached out my hands to a disobedient and disputatious people”).
While it is likely that Paul was responsible for transposing the expression “all day long” to the
opening of this citation,148 the redactional motivation is rarely discussed in the
commentaries.149 The transposition seems to resonate with the poignant question that opens
the next pericope, whether God has rejected Israel.150 The entire argument in the third proof of
Romans aims at denying this prejudicial possibility. The transposition reinforces the idea that
God’s patient mercy remains “continually” in force with regard to his beloved Israel.151 The
expression of reaching out hands also points in this direction: the NT hapax legomenon
ἐκπετάννυμι τὰς χεῖράς μου (“reach out, spread out my hands”)152 is a “gesture of appealing
welcome and fellowship.”153 The expression ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν (“all day long”) is a
semiticism154 meaning “uninterruptedly” or “without pause,” thus accentuating the
extraoardinary steadfastness of God’s mercy. It stands in tension with the description of Israel
as “a disobedient and disputatious people.” The verb ἀπειθέω was used in 2:8* to depict
persons who “disobey the truth,” and it appears elsewhere in Paul’s letters in reference to
refusing to have faith in the gospel.155 In the new context of Paul’s syllogism, the reference in
10:16* leads to the clear implication that “disobedience” should be understood as rejection of
the gospel.156 The final verb, ἀντιλέγειν (“to speak against”), points in the same direction. It
appears in Sir 4:25* in the context of the wise person who learns not “to speak against the
truth” (ἀντίλεγε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ) and in Isa 50:5* in the context of not speaking against the
147
See Meyer, 2:196; Weiss, 461.
*
2
I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own
devices;
Isaiah 65:2 (NRSV)
148
See Koch, Scrift, 105–6; Stanley, Scripture, 146–47; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 44.
149
While most commentaries make no effort to explain the transposition, Schmidt, 182, and Fitzmyer, 600, make
the obvious point that it provides “emphasis,” but they do not elaborate what it implies.
150
Schreiner, 574, cites Stanley, Scripture, 146, in support of the inference that the transposition emphasizes
“God’s longsuffering.” See also Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 44, 138.
151
Thus Schmidt, 179–83, entitles this pericope “the open door for Israel.” See also Schlatter, 218; Johnson,
Function, 159.
152
BAGD (2000) 307.
153
Cranfield, 2:541; Fitzmyer, 600.
154
As in the citation of Ps 43:23* in Rom 8:36*, ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν is a semiticism for “continually,” according to
Michel, 336; Cranfield, 2:541. See also Deut 28:32*; Isa 65:5*; Jer 20:7*, 8*.
*
8
Romans 2:8 (NRSV)
155
See Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀπειθέω,” TDNT 6 (1968) 11.
156
See Peter Bläser, “ἀπειθέω,” EDNT 1 (1990) 118.
*
25
Never speak against the truth, but be ashamed of your ignorance.
Sirach 4:25 (NRSV)
*
5
The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I did not turn backward.
prophetic message. In the context of this syllogism, the participle ἀντιλέγοντα has the sense of
“disputatious,” with particular reference to speaking against the gospel and thereby resisting
the outstretched hands of divine mercy.157 The function of the citation is to draw the final
consequence from the syllogism, namely, that while they remain a “disobedient and
disputatious people,”158 God continues to reach out his hands imploringly to Israel.159 They
have been blinded by fanatical zeal, according to Deut 32:21*, but that is not the final word,
and as the subsequent pericopes will go on to show, divine mercy will in the end rule the day
(11:32*).
11 The Seventh
Pericope
Diatribe and Midrash concerning the Status of Israel
1/ I say therefore, “God did not cast off God’s peoplea, did he?” By no means! For I
am also an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2/ “God did
not cast off God’s people” whom he knew beforehand. Or do you not know what the
scripture says concerning Elijah, as he pleads with God against Israelb?
Isaiah 50:5 (NRSV)

157
Godet, 390, refers to “the hair-splitting and sophisms whereby the Israelites seek to justifiy their persevering
refusal to return to God.”
158
See Koch, Schrift 281.
159
See Esler, Conflict and Identity, 293.
*
1
2
3
“Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left, and they are seeking
my life.”
4
But what is the divine reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to
Baal.”
5
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7
8
this very day.”
9
10
a
The variant τὴν κληρονομίαν (“the inheritance”) in P46 F G b f g o goth Ambst Tyc Ambr Sedulius-Scotus
brings the wording of this verse closer to the LXX of Ps 94:14* and thus is less credible than the strongly
attested τὸν λαόν (“the people”) found in ‫ א‬A B C D L P Ψ 6 33 69 81 88 104 181 256 263 323 326 330 365 424
436 451 459 614 629 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1852 1874 1877 1881 1912
1962 1874 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Maj Lect ar d vg syp,h sa bo arm eth geo slav Orlat Eus Chr Cyr Hier Pel
Aug; cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 464. In “Restoring the Inheritance in Romans 11:1*, ” JBL 118 (1999)
89–96, Mark D. Given argues for the priority of τὴν κληρονομίαν on the uncertain grounds that it is the harder
reading and provides superior intertextual echoes. The addition of ὃν προέγνω (“whom he foreknew”) by P46
(but with ἥνvid) ‫א‬2 A D* appears to be a reduplication of the phrase found in v. 2*; it is too weakly attested to be
original.
b
The inclusion of λέγων (“saying”) by ‫ *א‬L 69 88 104 323 326 330 424* 614 945 1175 (acc. to Swanson) 1241 1319c
1735 1836 1874 2464 Maj syp appears to be an editorial improvement that makes clear that the following words
3/ “Lord, they have killed your prophets,
they have demolished your altars,
and I alone am left,
and they are seeking my life.”
4/ But what does the oracle say to him?
“I keptc for myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed a knee to Baal.”
5/ Therefore in this manner also at the present critical time a remnant has been born
by election of grace. 6/ But if by grace, no longerd from works, since otherwise the
grace ceases to become grace.e
7/ What then? What Israel is seekingf, it failed to attain; but the chosen attained it,
but the others were made obtuse. 8/ Just asg it has been written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
so that eyes do not see and ears do not hear,
until the present day.”
9/ And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them,
10/ Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and bend their backs continually.”
Analysis
That 11:1–10* is an integral pericope is widely acknowledged in the commentaries.1 This

passage is a brilliant fusion of diatribe and midrash. It is organized in two lines of argument
are a citation. The absence of “saying” is well supported by ‫א‬2 A B C D F G P Ψ 6 81 365 424c 1175(acc. to N-A)
1243 1319* 1505 1506 1573 1739 1881 2495 al latt syh Eus.
c
The second aorist form κατέλιπον (“I kept”) is found in ‫ א‬B D Ψ 6 69 323 330 365 424 614 945 1241 1243
1505 1881 2495 Maj Did, which appears to be original. The future form κατάλειψα in 81 1506 pc appears to be
influenced by the LXX of 1 Kgs 19:18*. The imperfect form κατέλειπον has much stronger support in P46 A C F
G L P 88 104 326 1175 1319 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 2464 al, but is probably a copyist’s error.
d
In place of the rather opaque formulation οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων (“no longer from works”), P46 614 1881 pc d vgst syp
have οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων (“not from works”), which should be accounted as secondary because of its ease and weaker
attestation.
e
The “short” text ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις (“the grace no longer becomes grace”) is supported by P 46 ‫ *א‬A C
D F G P (81 has χάρις γίνεται) 263 629 630 1506vid 1739 1852 1881 1908* 2110 2200 ar b d f g o vg sa bo arm
(eth) geo1 Orgr, lat Didvid Cyr Ambst Ambr Hier Pel Aug. The “long ending” of this phrase appears in ‫א‬2 (B see
below) L Ψ 5 6 33vid (61) 69 88 104 181 256 323 330 (365) 424 436 441 451 459 467 614 621 623 720 917 945
1175 1241 1243 1319 1398 1505 1563 1573 1718 (1735) (1836) 1838 1845 1874 1908 c 1912 1942 1959 (1962
has ἤ χάρις for ἐστι χάρις) 2127 2138 2197 2464 2492 (2495 has χάρις ἐστίν) (2516) 2523 2544 2718 Maj Lect
vgms (syp,h) geo2 slavms Chr, εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων οὐκέτι ἐστι [B lacks ἐστι] χάρις, ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον [B
1678 1962 replace the final ἔργον with χάρις, “grace”] (“but if it is from works, then it is no longer grace, since
the work is no longer work” [or “grace” in B]). These various forms of the “long ending” are less strongly
supported and appear to be explanatory and therefore unoriginal (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 464), and
they reflect similar motivations, as, e.g., in 796 1524 1717 1877 1929* 2816*: … χάρις. εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργον, οὐκέτι
ἐστὶ χάρις (“… grace. But if from work, there is no grace”) and 365 1875 2344 (cf. 915 1751) al slavms: … χάρις,
ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶ ἔργον (“grace, since the work is not work”).
f
The replacement of the widely attested and probably original reading ἐπιζητεῖ (“it seeks”) by ἐπεζήτει (“it
sought”) in F G 104 1836 pc latt sy appears to have an explanatory motivation.
g
The reading καθάπερ (“as”) is strongly enough attested by ‫ א‬B 81(acc. to N-A) pc that it stands a good chance of
being the original, more difficult reading as compared with καθώς (“as”) in P46 A C D F G L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104
323 326 330 365 424 614 945 acc. to Swanson 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344
2464 2495 Maj. In this instance Cranfield’s reasoning in 1:182, 2:549 appears more sound than the choice of the
Nestle-Aland26/27 and GNT3/4.
1
Sanday and Headlam, 307; Schlier, 320–21; Michel, 337; Barrett, 206; Käsemann, 298; Cranfield, 2:542; Kuss,
3:784; Wilckens, 2:234–35; Dunn, 2:632–34; Moo, 670–71; Schreiner, 578–90, proposes two pericopes, vv. 1–
inaugurated by the rhetorical questions in vv. 1* and 7*.2 Each question is followed by an
answer in thesis form, supported with appropriate scriptural proofs in midrashic fashion. The
initial proof text in the midrash is in 2a*, followed by four supporting texts in the rest of the
pericope, producing a series of five that is extended over the two halves of the diatribe. The
transitional λέγω οὖν (“I say therefore”) opens this pericope, just as it does the next pericope
in v. 11*.3 The first rhetorical question takes up the logical consequence from the argument of
the preceding pericope: if part of Israel refused to accept the gospel, does this not mean that
God has rejected them as a chosen people?4 This false conclusion5 receives an immediate
repudiation in the rhetorically effective phrase “by no means!” This brief, triple-line sentence,
characteristic of earlier rhetorical exchanges in Romans, is followed by a matching three-line
description of Paul’s personal status showing that he could not conceivably be arguing that
God has rejected the Jewish people. This point is flatly stated in v. 2* by citing a brief portion
of Ps 94:14* and 1 Sam 12:22* that contains the same words used in the rhetorical question of
v. 1*. It provides the main text in this midrash that is elaborated by the four additional
citations of 1 Kings, Deuteronomy, and the Psalms. The citations from 1 Kings are organized
in four-line and two-line sentences, respectively,6 from which Paul draws his decisive
conclusion in vv. 5–6* concerning election through grace alone. This conclusion is expressed
in a four-line sentence in which “grace” is repeated four times, an impressive example of
6* and vv. 7–10*, which match the internal divisions proposed in the rhetorical disposition below. Dan G.
Johnson, “The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11, ” CBQ 46 (1984) 91–92, also separates out vv. 1–6*, but
assigns it to a pericope extending to v. 16*, which overlooks the midrashic structure that holds vv. 1–10*
together as well as the signal of a new pericope, “I say therefore,” in v. 11* that exactly parallels v. 1*.
*
1
Romans 11:1 (NRSV)
*
7
Romans 11:7 (NRSV)
2
In Romains 9–11, 223, Gignac notes the thesis statements in vv. 1 and 7* but does not deal with the midrashic
structure.
*
2
Romans 11:2 (NRSV)
*
11
Romans 11:11 (NRSV)
3
See Michel, 337; Weiss, “Beiträge,” 240.
4
See Louw, 2:109.
5
*
14
For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage;
Psalm 94:14 (NRSV)
*
22
For the Lord will not cast away his people, for his great name’s sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make
you a people for himself.
6
*
5
6
reduplication. The use of the antithetical catchwords χάρις (“grace”) and ἔργα (“works”) in
these two verses links vv. 1–6* not only with 9:30–32*7 but also with 4:1–6*.
The second rhetorical exchange that begins in 11:7* is formulated in brief, three-line
sentences matching the pattern of v. 1*, and featuring antithetical parallelism and euphony
with the fourfold repetition of ἐπ- in the chiastic climax in v. 7*:
A ὃ ἐπιζητεῖ Ἰσραήλ (“What Israel is seeking”),
B τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν (“it failed to attain”),
B¹ ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν (“but the chosen attained it”),
A’ οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν (“but the others were made obtuse”).
Similar to the use of the extended climax of 10:14–15a* that provided the framework for the
subsequent argument, 11:7* asserts a thesis about making unbelieving Israel obtuse, which is
confirmed in midrashic fashion by the scriptural proofs in 11:8–10*, completing the series of
five quotations. The rhetorical impact of the pericope is enhanced by the parallelism in the
Hebrew poetry cited in vv. 8–10*. The catchword ὀφθαλμός (“eye”) not only joins the two
*
1
2
3
my life.”
4
Baal.”
5
6
*
30
through faith;
31
32
7
See Aageson, “Scripture,” 280–81.
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
*
14
15
*
8
this very day.”
9
10
scriptural passages cited in vv. 8–10*, 8 but also recalls the concluding reference in the catena
of citations describing the sins of Jews and Greeks (3:18*), “there is no fear of God before
their eyes.”
IV. The probatio

11:1–10 7. Diatribe and midrash concerning the status of Israel
11:1–6 a. The first midrash: God has not rejected Israel
11:1a-c 1) The rhetorical exchange concerning whether God has rejected Israel
11:1a a) The transitional formula
11:1b b) The rhetorical question
11:1c c) The denial
11:1d-f 2) The refutation on the basis of Paul’s personal status
11:1d a) National status: “Israelite”
11:1e b) Family lineage: “seed of Abraham”
11:1 c) Tribal status: “Benjamin”
11:2–4 3) The refutation from Scripture
11:2a a) The thesis
(1) The main proof text from 1 Sam 12:22* and Ps 94:14* that God has not rejected “his
people”
(2) The interpretive addition concerning those whom he “knew beforehand”
11:2b–4 b) The scriptural proof
11:2b-c (1) Rhetorical question introducing the citations concerning Elijah
11:3 (2) The citation of 1 Kgs 19:10* concerning Elijah’s charge against Israel
11:3a (a) Killing the prophets
11:3b (b) Destroying altars
11:3c (c) Elijah isolated
11:3d (d) Elijah’s life in danger
11:4 (3) The citation and adaptation of 1 Kgs 19:18* concerning God maintaining a
remnant
11:4a (a) Rhetorical question introducing the citation
11:4b (b) The citation
11:5–6 4) The conclusion: a remnant saved by grace rather than works
11:5 a) Conclusion about the present circumstances
(1) Concluding formula
8
Ibid., 282.
*
18
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Romans 3:18 (NRSV)
*
10
*
18
Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has
not kissed him.”
(2) Temporal reference
(3) Means by which remnant is saved: “grace”
11:6 b) Antithetical inference
11:6a (1) Premise of grace
11:6b (2) Antithetical inference concerning works
11:6c (3) Consequence of not accepting the inference: “grace would no longer be grace”
11:7–10 b. The second midrash on unperceptive Israel
11:7 1) The rhetorical exchange
11:7a a) The rhetorical question of general inference from the preceding argument
11:7b-e b) The thesis about Israel becoming obtuse
11:7b (1) Israel seeks [righteousness]
11:7c (2) Israel fails to attain it
11:7d (3) The elect attain it
11:7e (4) The others were hardened
11:8–9 2) The scriptural proofs
11:8 a) The citation and adaptation of Deut 29:4* concerning a divinely ordained stupor
11:8a (1) The introductory formula
11:8b-d (2) The citation
11:8b (a) The gift of stupor
11:8c (b) The disabling of eyes and ears
11:8d (c) The duration of stupor
11:9–10 b) The citation of Ps 68:23* concerning a curse of reversed advantages
11:9a (1) The introductory formula
11:9b–10 (2) The citation
11:9b (a) From table to trap
11:9c (b) Stumbling block and retribution
11:10a (c) From eyes to darkness
11:10b (d) Backs under strain
Exegesis
 1* This pericope opens with λέγω οὖν (“I say therefore”), used only here and in the
beginning of the next pericope.9 It fits the many indications that this letter was intended as
verbal communication,10 in which the trained scribe employed by Phoebe reads the letter to
the assemblies of house and tenement churches as if Paul’s voice were present. The inferential
“therefore” introduces a question that arises from the final words of the preceding pericope,
that Israel had behaved as “a disobedient and disputatious people.”11 The rhetorical question
begins with μή (“not”), which requires a negative answer, which I translate with “God did not
cast off his people, did he?” The verb ἀπωθέομαι (“cast off, push aside, jettison, repudiate”)
occurs here for the only time in Paul’s letters, and since the combination of this verb with “his
people” appears in two passages of the LXX, a significant verbal echo is created.12 As seen in
*
4
But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.
*
22
Let their table be a trap for them, a snare for their allies.
Psalm 69:22 (NRSV)
9
BAGD (2000) 589 (2.a), “ask with direct question following.”
10
Kelber, Oral and the Written Gospel, 141–83.
11
See Kühl, 366.
12
See Hays, Echoes, 68–69; Wagner, Heralds, 221–31.
the illustration in v. 2* below, Paul’s question is virtually identical to the wording of 1 Kgs
12:22* and Ps 93:14* (οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “he will not cast off his
people”).13 By placing the verb at the earliest possible position in the question, the words
“God” and “his people” stand next to each other so as to express the inconceivability of God
actually turning his back on his chosen people.14 Numerous passages in the OT express the
idea of an absolutely irrevocable commitment of Yahweh to Israel.15 The exclamation “By no
means!” expresses “abhorrence” at this incredible possibility.16
Paul immediately goes on to provide the first reason for this vehement denial, and it is
interesting to observe which widely available reasons he chooses not to cite. There is nothing
here about God’s irrevocable covenant, Israel’s obedience to the law, or her suffering.17
Instead Paul uses himself as an example that Israel has not been abandoned, citing proof of his
belongingness to the people whom God continues to love. He is an “Israelite,” which is an
honorific self-designation referring to themselves as the people of God.18 That Paul descended
“from Abraham” implies an unbroken line of succession,19 while membership in the “tribe of
Benjamin” places his family along with the tribe of Judah in “the theocratic core of the
nation.”20 The tribe of Benjamin provided Israel’s first king, Saul, whose name he bore,21 and
spawned the zealous prophetic Elijah who is mentioned in the next verse. The formulation
“for I am also …” suggests that these details are meant to present himself “as living evidence
that God has not abandoned his people Israel.”22 The oral tradition about this former zealot
would surely have been as well known in Rome as in Galatia and Judea: “For you have heard
of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to
destroy it” (Gal 1:13*), while the churches in Judea “heard it said, ‘He who once persecuted
*
22
But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God:
*
14
Psalm 94:14 (NRSV)
13
Cranfield, 2:543. Paul’s wording is “clearly reminiscent” of these two OT passages; see also Schlier, 321;
Kuss, 3:784; Fitzmyer, 603; for example, see Josephus Ant. 1.260.
14
Weiss, 463.
15
Haacker, 219, cites Amos 9:11–15*; 2 Kgs 14:27*; Jer 31:37*. See also Wagner, Heralds, 225–26, 230.
Bachman, “Verus Israel,” 506, confirms that the entire Jewish community is in view.
16
Meyer, 2:200.
17
See Schlier, 322.
18
The choice of “Israelite” instead of “Jew” is reflected also in 9:4; the former was the favorite self-designation
as “the people of God,” whereas the latter was the name used by others, according to Walter Gutbrod, “Ἰσραήλ
κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1965) 369–72, 384–88; see also Richard Kugelman, “Hebrew, Israelite, Jew in the New
Testament,” Bridge 1 (1955) 215–18.
19
See Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel. Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer
Darstellung in seinen Briefen, WUNT 62 (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 169–70, for Paul as an exemplary
Jew.
20
Meyer, 2:200; Weiss, 464; Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, 106.
21
See Michel, 339; for an account of the prestigious history of the tribe of Benjamin, see K.-D. Schunck,
“Benjamin,” ABD 1 (1992) 671–73. Schunck, 671, observes that Benjamin was a favored son, a kind of “true
Israel,” being born of Rachel, Joseph’s beloved. The wording of Josephus Ant. 11.198 acknowledges the
distinguished position of this tribe in describing Mordecai as “from the Benjaminite tribe, of the first rank among
the Jews (τῶν δὲ πρώτων παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις).”
22
Moo, 673, following Godet, 392; Schmidt, 184; Kühl, 368; Barrett, 207; Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, 169–71;
Kim, Romans 9–11, 135–36; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 355; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 293–94. The skepticism
of Käsemann, 299, and Johnson, “Structure,” 95, about whether the destiny of Paul as an individual could have a
bearing on the collective destiny of Israel is ungrounded. In line with Barth’s dogmatics, Cranfield, 2:544, argues
that these details point to the irony that he, a Jew, was the apostle chosen for the Gentiles, but this moves far
beyond the rhetoric of this passage.
*
us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy’ ” (Gal 1:23*). Although Paul had been
a zealous opponent of the gospel, similar to current zealots who were seeking to “hinder us
from speaking to the Gentiles” (1 Thess 2:16*), he was not cast off by God. His conversion
makes clear that the most fanatical opponents of the gospel can also be redeemed.23
 2* The question of whether a biblical citation is embedded at the beginning of v. 2* is
controversial. Some specialists in Pauline citations are skeptical,24 in part because of the lack
of an introductory formula,25 but others along with the Nestle-Aland text assume a citation
from 1 Kgs 12:22* and LXX Ps 93:14*.26 The comparisons are as follows, with the common
words underlined and the allusions marked with dotted underlining:
1 Kgs 12:22* οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ τὸ μέγα, ὅτι
ἐπιεικέως κύριος προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς αὑτῷ εἰς λαόν (“Lord will not cast off his people for his
great name’s sake. Because the Lord graciously took you to himself as a people”)
Ps 93:14–15a* οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ οὐκ
ἐγκαταλείψει, ἕως οὗ δικαιοσύνη ἐπιστρέψῃ εἰς κρίσιν (“Lord will not cast off his people and
will not abandon his heritage until righteousness returns for judgment”)
Rom 11:2* οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν προέγνω. (“God did not cast off his
people whom he knew beforehand”)
Three changes need to be taken into account in evaluating this evidence: the tense of the verb
in Paul’s version replaces the future tense with the aorist, thus making clear that the scriptural
promise has in fact not been violated, even in the case of Jewish disbelievers in the gospel.
The word “Lord” is changed to “God,” to remove the possibility that the Lord Jesus could be
thought to have uttered these words.27 The words “whom he foreknew” are also clearly
Pauline, although they express the covenantal idea that is contained both in Ps 93:b and 1 Kgs
12:22b*. The verb προγινώσκω (“know beforehand”) is repeated from 8:29* where its
13
*
23
they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried
to destroy.”
*
16
by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been
filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.
23
See Kasemann, 299.
24
Koch, Schrift, 18, denies a citation and Stanley, Scripture, 147, passes over this verse without comment.
25
Other instances in Romans where a citation occurs without an introductory formula include 2:6*; 9:7*, 20*;
10:13*, 18*; 11:3* [textual variant]; 11:34*; 12:20*; 13:9*.
Nestle-Aland Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. 1979. 27th ed. 1993. New
York: American Bible Society
*
22
But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God:
26
Dunn, 2:636; Hays, Echoes, 68–69, prefers the term “contextual echo” in this instance.
*
14
15
for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it.
27
Hays, Echoes, 69.
*
29
background in the OT is described; Yahweh knows his people even before they were even
born (e.g., Jer 1:5*).28 These redactional alterations are consistent with Paul’s editing of
earlier citations in Romans, and despite the lack of a citation formula and the brevity of the
exact verbal parallels, this should be identified as a citation29 with “contextual echos” that
extend beyond 11:2a*.30 As Richard Hays points out, the verb ἐγκαταλείψει (“abandon”)
occurred in 9:29* and is “etymologically connected with the verb καταλείπω (“remain”) and
the noun λεῖμμα (“remnant”) used in Rom 11:4–5* to describe the remnant left by God’s
elective grace.”31 A crucial consideration is that 11:2a* functions as the main proof text in the
midrash, followed by four supporting texts. The citation in 2a* also helps to avoid mere
redundancy in Paul’s argument, since the words replicate the question in 11:1a*, which, as we
suggested, would already have been heard as an foreshadowing of these biblical passages.
With this impressive biblical foundation, the thesis in the first diatribe is rendered plausible.
In support of the thesis that God has not abandoned Israel, Paul introduces the first supporting
text by a rhetorical question that assumes the audience knows the story of Elijah. Nowhere
else in Paul’s letters is a citation introduced in this manner. Whereas οὐκ οἴδατε (“do you not
know?”) occurred in 6:16* with regard to general knowledge of social circumstances, here it
refers to a specific biblical episode ἐν Ἠλίᾳ (“concerning Elijah”),32 a phrase never again used
in the New Testament but placed here in the emphatic position before the words “what the
scripture says.”33 The particle “or” (ἤ) that opens this sentence is typical in rhetorical
questions (as in 3:29*)34 that raise points in antithesis to the foregoing that should be
generally accepted by audiences. In Godet’s words, the formulation implies with regard to the
denial that God has cast Israel aside, “Or if ye allege the contrary, do ye forget … ?”35 Since
Paul had just presented himself as derived from the tribe of Benjamin from whence Elijah
Romans 8:29 (NRSV)

*
5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a
prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5 (NRSV)
28
See Mayer, Gottes Heilsratschluß, 247–48; Johnson, “Structure,” 95; Maier, Mensch, 394, cites in this
connection CD 2:7–8.
29
Haacker, 220; Schreiner, 579.
30
Hays, Echoes, 69–70.
*
29
Romans 9:29 (NRSV)
*
4
Baal.”
5
31
Ibid., 70.
*
16
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom
you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Romans 6:16 (NRSV)
32
Käsemann, 300, follows Strack-Billerbeck in perceiving a rabbinic reference here, “in the Elijah narrative,” but
Michel, 339, rightly observes that to take the ἐν as the talmudic ‫ב‬would imply that there were an OT writing by
Elijah. See also Kuss, 3:786.
33
See Weiss, 468.
*
29
Romans 3:29 (NRSV)
34
BAGD (2000) 432 (1.d).
35
Godet, 392.
originated, he is reminding the audience of an episode that in effect was part of his family
history. The form of the question requires a positive answer,36 “Yes, of course, we know!”
The prophet’s words are described as ἐντυγχάνειν τῷ θεῷ, which has the sense of appealing to
God in a manner typical for religious and secular contexts where someone makes a formal
request to a higher authority.37 In this case, however, ἐντυγχάνειν τινὶ κατά is a technical
expression for placing an accusation “against someone” before the court or some other
authority.38 By introducing the citation as a formal complaint “against Israel,” thus providing
a parallel to “casting off his people,” Paul can set up the reply in v. 4* as confirmation that
God had in fact not given up on Israel.39
 3* The citation is from 1 Kgs 19:10* (which is virtually identical with 19:14*), but a
complicated series of alterations needs to be taken into account, as seen below:
1 Kgs 19:10b* τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν ἐν
ῥομφαίᾳ, καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι40 ἐγὼ μονώτατος, καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου λάβειν αὐτήν
(“They have demolished your altars and killed your prophets with the sword, and I alone have
been left and they are seeking my life to take it.”)
Rom 11:3* Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ
ὑπελείφθην μόνος καὶ ζητοῦσιν τὴν ψυχήν μου (“Lord, they have killed your prophets, they
have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.”)
Since none of the LXX versions of this text open with the vocative, Κύριε (“Lord!”), it is
clear that Paul has added this personal address to Yahweh, probably to make clear that this
citation is a prayer directed to God.41 This addition also brings the first supporting text into
direct correlation with the main proof text, whose subject is ὁ θεός (“God”). Paul’s reversal of
the first two clauses must also have been intentional, and Koch suggests that this serves to
contemporize the text.42 It is clear from 1 Thess 2:14–16* that Paul understood the violent
36
Kuss, 3:786.
37
See A. L. Connolly, “A Slave’s Bid for Freedom,” NDIEC 4 (1987) 101, 104; G. H. R. Horsley, “Petition
concerning Ephesian Mysteries,” NDIEC 4 (1987) 94–95.
38
Käsemann, 300, following Lietzmann, 102; see also BAGD (2000) 341. Meyer, 202, cites 1 Macc 8:32*
(“make charges against you”) and 2 Macc 4:36*; Cranfield, 2:546, cites a third-century B.C.E. papyrus P.Giess.
2. Nr. 36.15 as an example of this expression.
*
4
Baal.”
Romans 11:4 (NRSV)
39
See Cranfield, 2:546. That Paul intends to set himself up as a parallel figure to Elijah as suggested by Munck,
Christ, 109, and Zeller, 191, is extraneous to the diatribal argument in vv. 1–6*.
*
3
my life.”
Romans 11:3 (NRSV)
*
14
40
Stanley, Scripture, 150, notes that the LXX Lucianic text has the aorist ὑπελείφθην (“I was left alone”) in
place of the perfect form, ὑπολέλειμμαι (“I have been left alone”).
41
Stanley, Scripture, 148, observes that in other instances Elijah always addresses Yahweh with the vocative,
“Lord!” (1 Kgs 17:20*, 21*; 18:36*, 37*; 19:4*). Koch’s suggestion in Schrift, 87, 139, that Paul added Κύριε
here following the model of 10:16* seems less plausible.
42
Koch, Schrift, 74, citing Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen
zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und
Urchristentum, WMANT 23 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967) 278 n. 2. Koch’s hypothesis is
opposition against early Christian evangelists under the category of the “Jews who killed both
the Lord Jesus and the prophets,” whereas there was nothing in contemporary experience that
matched Elijah’s complaint about “demolishing your altars.” By placing the killing of
prophets at the point of emphasis in the citation, Paul enlarges the dimension of grace,
because God has not abandoned even those who followed the pattern decried in the Elijah
citation by acting violently against the Messiah and his messengers.43 This is consistent with
Paul’s omission of the phrase “with the sword,”44 because none of the early Christian martyrs,
including Jesus, had been executed by this means.45 This deletion also improves the
parallelism between 3a* and 3b*, 46 producing the poetic structure noted by Johannes Weiss.47
Paul’s substitution of the aorist verb ὑπελείφθην (“I was left alone”) in place of the perfect
form found in the standard LXX versions, ὑπολέλειμμαι (“I have been left alone”), may
reflect this contemporizing effort, because the latter implies that Elijah was the last in the line
of persecuted prophets, whereas Paul’s choice of the aorist places Elijah at a single point in
the past, leaving open the possibility of a future line of persecuted prophets.48 The final
change that Paul made was to delete the two words following “seeking my life,” λάβειν αὐτήν
(“to take it”), which are both awkward and redundant. This deletion is consistent with earlier
examples of Paul’s achieving conciseness in biblical citations (see Rom 3:10*, 14*, 15*;
9:25*),49 and serves to enhance the poetic parallelism in the last line of the citation.
 4* The next supporting text is introduced by the rhetorical question that again assumes the
audience’s knowledge of the Elijah story. The initial ἀλλά (“but”) introduces the citation as an
accepted by Moo, 676, and Schreiner, 582. The rejection of this hypothesis by Stanley, Scripture, 149, is
unconvincing.
*
14
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you
suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews,
15
who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone
16
1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 (NRSV)
43
See Käsemann, 301; Schreiner, 581.
44
Koch, Schrift, 75, rightly observes that this deletion is Pauline, although he provides no redactional motivation.
45
*
3
Romans 10:3 (NRSV)
46
Stanley, Scripture, 150.
47
48
Koch, Schrift, 74, and Stanley, Scripture, 150–51, suggest the influence of alternate forms of the LXX,
including the Lucianic version that has the aorist ὑπελείφθην (“I was left alone”) reading. Even if this were
accepted, Paul’s reason for preferring that reading needs to be explained.
*
10
Romans 3:10 (NRSV)
*
14
Romans 3:14 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 3:15 (NRSV)
*
25
Romans 9:25 (NRSV)
49
answer that stands in antithesis to the foregoing.50 Whereas Elijah obviously hoped that
Yahweh would take vengeance on the persecutors, Scripture offers a consoling message. Paul
lends authoritative weight to this answer by employing a NT hapax legomenon, χρηματισμός,
in the sense of a divine utterance.51 This requires the translation “But what does the oracle say
to him?”52 In 2 Macc 2:4* this term is used to describe the oracle given to Jeremiah to remove
the ark and tabernacle during the fall of Jerusalem,53 and in an inscription explaining how an
oracle that came in a dream ordered that an eagle should be carved on an altar.54 The use of
this term makes clear “that what follows is the word of God, not the best human thought on
the matter.”55
The poetic improvements and contextual adaptations that Paul made in the citation in v. 3*
are continued in the next citation from the Elijah story, as demonstrated below, where the
excisions are underlined and the alterations marked with double underlining.
LXX of 1 Kgs 19:18*: καὶ καταλείψεις ἐν Ισραηλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα, ἃ οὐκ
ὤκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Βααλ (“And you shall leave in Israel seven thousand of men, all the knees
of which did not squat down the knee to Baal”)
LXX Lucianic Version of 1 Kgs 19:18*:56 καὶ καταλείψω ἐξ Ισραηλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν,
πάντα γόνατα, ἃ οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ (“And I shall leave from Israel seven thousand
of men, all the knees of which did not bow the knee to Baal”)
Paul’s version of 1 Kgs 19:18*: Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ
ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ (“I kept for myself seven thousand men, who did not bow the knee to
Baal”)
The deletion of “and” at the beginning of the citation57 improves the antithesis with the
preceding citation already suggested by the introductory ἀλλά (“but”). Paul changes the verb
from a second person singular future, καταλείψεις (“you shall keep”), to the first person
aorist, κατέλιπον (“I kept”), and adds the word ἐμαυτῷ (“for myself”) to make it plain that
50
51
See Kühl, 381; BAGD (2000) 1089, “divine statement, answer”; Anthony T. Hanson, “The Oracle in Romans
xi. 4, ” NTS 19 (1972–73) 300–302.
52
Hanson, “Oracle,” 300.
*
4
It was also in the same document that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark
should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the
inheritance of God.
53
2 Macc 2:4*, “the prophet, being warned by an oracle (χρηματισμοῦ γενηθέντος), commanded the tabernacle
and ark to accompany him.” In this and other instances, χρηματισμός can have the sense of a “divine injunction,”
according to LSJM 2005, definition 5, with Artemidorus Daldianus Onir. 1.2; Vettius Valens Anth. 1.7; PGM.
IV.2206 as examples. The latter, however, reads ἐπὶ χρηματισμοῦ, which should probably be translated “for an
oracle,” thus matching the nuance of Rom 11:4*.
54
“I have dedicated, according to an oracle in a dream, the eagle with the altar (κατὰ χρηματισμόν ὀνίρου τὸν
αἰετὸν σὺν τῷ βωμῷ ἀνέθηκα),” from BE (1982) 414.16–17, cited by G. H. R. Horsley, “χρηματισμός,” NDIEC
4 (1987) 176; see also E. A. Judge, “A State Schoolteacher Makes a Salary Bid,” NDIEC 1 (1981) 77. Hanson,
“Oracle,” 300–301, also cites LXX Prov 31:1*; Josephus Ant. 5.1.14; 10.1.3; 11.8.
55
Morris, 400.
*
18
Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has
not kissed him.”
56
This follows Stanley’s reconstruction in Scripture, 152, based on LXX MS b c2 e2 with the exception that e2
has the verb spelled as ἔκαψαν.
57
Stanley, Scripture, 142, 152, observes that in a quarter of Paul’s citations, the introductory “and” is deleted for
stylistic reasons.
God’s merciful action toward God’s people is in view.58 Paul’s version thus resonates with
11:1* and 2* where God is the subject of action. This is a substantial revision that cannot be
accounted by merely stylistic considerations.59 The fact that the Lucianic version also has the
first person singular form, καταλείψω (“I shall keep”), leads Stanley to suggest that Paul was
using that text, but this would explain neither the change to the aorist nor the addition of “to
myself.”60 Paul probably chose the aorist form to make this citation consistent with the change
to the aorist “I was left alone” in v. 3*; it implies that the remnant of seven thousand in
Elijah’s time does not continue at this scale up to the present. Paul wishes his audience to see
the point of comparison in God’s saving action, not in some contemporary fulfillment of a
certain number of believers. There is no doubt that Paul deleted the reference to Israel that is
found in all of the LXX versions and the MT, possibly because he wished to avoid the
impression that all of the faithful belonged in fact to Israel, which might have been offensive
to the Gentile majority among the believers in Rome.61 The change in the form of “seven
thousand men” from the rather awkward expression, ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, to the more
elegant Greek of ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας is probably owing to Paul’s own stylistic preference
rather than to the existence of some form of the LXX, as suggested by Koch and Stanley.62
The reference to “men” in this oracle derives from the Hebrew method of counting, and there
is no doubt that the sacred number of 7,000 had a symbolic significance implying
“completeness” and “totality,”63 possibly even, in Paul’s new context, an apocalyptic
wholeness64 that points forward to the success of the global mission in 15:9–12*.
Paul’s superior stylistic sense is probably responsible for replacing the awkward and
redundant reference to πάντα γόνατα, ἃ οὐκ ὤκλασαν γόνυ (“all the knees of which did not
squat down the knee”) with the succinct and graceful formulation οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ
(“who did not bow a knee”).65 Since falling on one’s knees was “an expression of homage and
of petition toward human beings and gods” in the ancient world,66 the refusal by so large a
group to bend even a single knee67 is presented as a sign of God’s “faithfulness to His purpose
of salvation for His people, a declaration that that purpose will continue unchanged and
58
Lietzmann, 103; Morris, 400; Dunn, 2:637; Johnson, Function, 160.
59
Koch, Schrift, 74–75.
60
Stanley, Scripture, 153–54.
MT Masoretic text
61
Koch, Schrift, 76, suggests this excision was on grounds of irrelevancy while Stanley, Scripture, 155, says its
inclusion would have been “problematic” with regard to “the incorporation of the Gentiles into historic ‘Israel,’ ”
which I fail to grasp.
62
Koch, Schrift, 75–76. Despite minor disagreements, Stanley, Scripture, 156, also concludes that this alteration
came from the “Greek text of Kingdoms from which he copied his citation.” Since no form of the LXX has been
found with this wording, this hypothesis is unprovable.
63
Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ἑπτά κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 628–30.
64
Michel, 340. Rengstorf, “ἑπτά κτλ.,” 629, states that the context of Rom 11:5* makes it unclear “whether Paul
connected with the OT number [i.e., 7,000] the thought of the totality of the true Israel.”
*
9
10
11
12
shall hope.”
65
With the exception of the change of the verb from “squat” to “bow,” which also appears in the Lucianic text,
the suggestion of stylistic improvement made by Koch, Schrift, 75 seems appropriate. That Paul here is citing the
Lucianic text, as proposed by Stanley, Scripture, 156–57, rests on the unlikely assessment that one word must
have been taken over, while the other four words were inexplicably deleted.
66
Johannes M. Nützel, “γόνυ,” EDNT 1 (1990) 258.
67
The singular γόνυ (“knee”) is employed here to convey this total refusal, according to Meyer, 2:203.
unthwarted to the final goal.”68 In the context of Paul’s letter, this faithful remnant is also “a
pledge of hope for the future”69 of Israel and the rest of the world. Finally, in contrast to the
grammatically correct masculine article with Baal in the standard LXX versions, Paul uses the
feminine τῇ Βάαλ. This may well reflect his dependency on the Lucianic texts where this
reading is found,70 but it may also express Paul’s desire to avoid offending Jewish Christians
who would have preferred the feminine euphemism “the shame” (ἡ αἰσχύνη) to avoid
pronouncing the word “Baal” because of its association with the divine name71 as well as in
accordance with the prohibition in Hos 2:17*.72 This citation completes the scriptural proof
for the thesis in the first diatribe so that Paul can move on to his powerful conclusion about
the remnant saved by grace.
 5* The conclusion of the first diatribe is marked by the unusually formal series of οὕτως
οὖν (“in this manner therefore”)73 followed by καί (“also”), which is attached to the following
expression ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ (“also at the present critical time”). This establishes a formal
typology74 between the 7,000 faithful in the Elijah episode and the “remnant” of Israel already
converted by divine grace. We encountered this expression “the present critical time” in
3:26*, where it served to interpret a traditional Christological hymn, and in 8:18*, where it
referred to the period of sufferings that mark the eschatological period.75 Since this expression
is found with the distinctive eschatological connotation only in the Pauline letters,76 it appears
to be his expression for “the eschatological present,”77 which in this instance marks a
typological fulfillment of the 7,000 men whom God “kept for God’s self” in faithful covenant.
68
Cranfield, 2:547.
69
Moo, 677.
70
Stanley, Scripture, 157–58.
71
See Stanley, Scripture, 157–58, for an account of this phenomenon and its frequent impact on the LXX, where
the grammatically incorrect feminine article frequently appears with the word “Baal.”
*
17
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more.
Hosea 2:17 (NRSV)
72
The oracle in Hos 2:17* (“I shall take the names of the Baals out of her mouth, and their names will be
remembered no more,” is cited by Haacker, 222.
*
5
Romans 11:5 (NRSV)
73
The adverb οὕτως (“so, in this manner”) can refer to what follows or what precedes, and in this case probably
the former according to BAGD (2000) 742 (1.b); the particle οὖν (“accordingly, therefore”) draws the inference
from the preceding scriptural proof. The sequence οὕτως οὖν occurs in Matt 6:9*; Luke 14:33*, and in the Attic
orators (Demosthenes Cor. 315.4; Orat. 19.340.5; Andocides Myst. 105.7; 131.5; Dinarchus Dem. 89.4;
Hyperides Dem. 7.30.6).
74
Goppelt, Typos, 67–69, 152–55; Käsemann, 300; Aageson, “Typology” 51–72; Aageson, Biblical
Interpretation, 94–95; Johnson, “Structure,” 94–96.
*
26
Jesus.
Romans 3:26 (NRSV)
*
18
to us.
Romans 8:18 (NRSV)
75
Neuhäusler, “Entscheidende Augenblick,” 2–11; Jörg Baumgarten, “καιρός,” EDNT 2 (1991) 232; Gerhard
Delling, “καιρός,” TDNT 3 (1965) 459–60. In Gen 29:34* and 30:20*, this expression lacks the eschatological
implication found in all four Pauline passages, including 2 Cor 8:14*.
76
Although Tachau, Einst, 94–96, shows that various branches of early Christianity employed the eschatological
“then … now” antithesis, he does not deal with any of the passages that contain the expression ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ.
77
Schlier, 323; Dunn, 2:638; Moo, 677. See particularly Weiss, 468, “the messianic present.”
Picking up the cognate expression ὑπολεῖμμα (“remnant”) from the Isa 10:22* passage cited
in Rom 9:27*, Paul refers here to this group as a λεῖμμα (“remnant”), an idea developed by
the prophets that gained currency with regard to the survivors of the Assyrian and Babylonian
conquests of Israel.78 The basic idea is that the salvation of the remnant consists in their
having survived while the rest of the population was killed in battle or disappeared in exile
(e.g., Isa 37:4*; Jer 8:3*; Mic 2:12*).79 The remnant will be restored to a glorious Zion by
divine intervention after the majority of Israel has suffered divine punishment (e.g., Isa 4:2–
6*; 10:20–23*). The exiled remnant will be returned by God to their restored homeland (e.g.,
*
22
Isaiah 10:22 (NRSV)
*
27
Romans 9:27 (NRSV)
78
See Gottlob Schrenk and Volkmar Herntrich, “λεῖμμα κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 198–209; Ronald E. Clements,
“‘A Remnant Chosen by Grace’ (Romans 11:5*): The Old Testament Background and Origin of the Remnant
Concept,” in D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris, eds., Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on
His 70th Birthday (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 106–21.
*
4
It may be that the Lord your God heard the words of the Rabshakeh, whom his master the king of Assyria has
sent to mock the living God, and will rebuke the words that the Lord your God has heard; therefore lift up your
prayer for the remnant that is left.”
Isaiah 37:4 (NRSV)
*
3
Death shall be preferred to life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family in all the places where I have
driven them, says the Lord of hosts.
Jeremiah 8:3 (NRSV)
*
12
I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the survivors of Israel; I will set them together like sheep
in a fold, like a flock in its pasture; it will resound with people.
Micah 2:12 (NRSV)
79
Allen Verhey, “Remnant,” ABD 5 (1992) 669: “what is left of a community after it undergoes a catastrophe.”
The historian Michael Grant observes in Jesus (London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, 1977) 20, “It was a vital
Jewish belief that, when the end of the world comes and the kingdom of God is fully established, a faithful
Remnant, a purified elect core of the chosen people of Israel, will survive and emerge triumphant. It was as that
faithful, final Remnant of the ‘Elect of God’ awaiting redemption that the Qumran community saw itself. And
that, too, was how Jesus hopefully saw his band of disciples.”
*
2
On that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride
and glory of the survivors of Israel.
3
Whoever is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life
in Jerusalem,
4
once the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem
from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.
5
Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over its places of assembly a cloud by day and
smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night. Indeed over all the glory there will be a canopy.
6
It will serve as a pavilion, a shade by day from the heat, and a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain.
*
20
On that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on the one who
struck them, but will lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
21
A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.
22
23
Jer 23:3*; 31:7–14*; Mic 2:12*; 4:6–7*) while their enemies are punished (e.g., Isa 11:11–
16*; Mic 5:6–8*; Zeph 2:3–9*). In some instances, survival is granted to the virtuous while
*
3
Then I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the lands where I have driven them, and I will
bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply.
*
7
For thus says the Lord: Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob, and raise shouts for the chief of the nations;
proclaim, give praise, and say, “Save, O Lord, your people, the remnant of Israel.”
8
See, I am going to bring them from the land of the north, and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth,
among them the blind and the lame, those with child and those in labor, together; a great company, they shall
return here.
9
With weeping they shall come, and with consolations I will lead them back, I will let them walk by brooks of
water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; for I have become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my
firstborn.
10
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands far away; say, “He who scattered Israel
will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd a flock.”
11
For the Lord has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him.
12
They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the Lord,
over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall become like a
watered garden, and they shall never languish again.
13
Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn
their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow.
14
I will give the priests their fill of fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my bounty, says the Lord.
*
6
In that day, says the Lord, I will assemble the lame and gather those who have been driven away, and those
whom I have afflicted.
7
The lame I will make the remnant, and those who were cast off, a strong nation; and the Lord will reign over
them in Mount Zion now and forevermore.
Micah 4:6–7 (NRSV)
*
11
On that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that is left of his people,
from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the
coastlands of the sea.
12
He will raise a signal for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13
The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, the hostility of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of
Judah, and Judah shall not be hostile towards Ephraim.
14
But they shall swoop down on the backs of the Philistines in the west, together they shall plunder the people of
the east. They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them.
15
And the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt; and will wave his hand over the River with
his scorching wind; and will split it into seven channels, and make a way to cross on foot;
16
so there shall be a highway from Assyria for the remnant that is left of his people, as there was for Israel when
they came up from the land of Egypt.
*
6
They shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword;they shall
rescue us from the Assyrians if they come into our land or tread within our border.
7
Then the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like dew from the Lord, like showers on the
grass, which do not depend upon people or wait for any mortal.
8
And among the nations the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like a lion among the
animals of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and
tears in pieces, with no one to deliver.
Micah 5:6–8 (NRSV)
*
3
Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps
you may be hidden on the day of the Lord’s wrath.
Israel’s enemies will perish, as, for example, in Zeph 2:1–7*; 3:12–13*.80 The Damascus
Document 1:3–13 describes how the Babylonian destruction struck the wicked except for a
“remnant” who came to acknowledge their sins and follow the Teacher of Righteousness.81
These motifs of military catastrophe, political restoration, the defeat of enemies, and the
survival of the righteous disappear in Paul’s new definition of the λεῖμμα κατʼ ἐκλογὴν
χάριτος γέγονεν (“remnant born by election of grace”).82 The expression κατʼ ἐκλογήν
appeared earlier in 9:11* with the connotation of “by selection” or “by free choice” of God,
and here it refers to “the remnant of Christian believers in Israel … chosen according to the
principle of grace.”83 A similar use of ἐκλογή appeared in Paul’s first letter with reference to
converts as “beloved of God, His chosen ones” (1 Thess 1:4*).84 The word χάρις (“grace”)
4
For Gaza shall be deserted, and Ashkelon shall become a desolation; Ashdod’s people shall be driven out at
noon, and Ekron shall be uprooted.
5
Ah, inhabitants of the seacoast, you nation of the Cherethites! The word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan,
land of the Philistines; and I will destroy you until no inhabitant is left.
6
And you, O seacoast, shall be pastures, meadows for shepherds and folds for flocks.
7
The seacoast shall become the possession of the remnant of the house of Judah, on which they shall pasture,
and in the houses of Ashkelon they shall lie down at evening. For the Lord their God will be mindful of them and
restore their fortunes.
8
I have heard the taunts of Moab and the revilings of the Ammonites, how they have taunted my people and
made boasts against their territory.
9
Therefore, as I live, says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Moab shall become like Sodom and the
Ammonites like Gomorrah, a land possessed by nettles and salt pits, and a waste forever. The remnant of my
people shall plunder them, and the survivors of my nation shall possess them.
Zephaniah 2:3–9 (NRSV)
*
1
Gather together, gather, O shameless nation,
2
before you are driven away like the drifting chaff,before there comes upon you the fierce anger of the Lord,
before there comes upon you the day of the Lord’s wrath.
3
Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps
you may be hidden on the day of the Lord’s wrath.
4
For Gaza shall be deserted, and Ashkelon shall become a desolation; Ashdod’s people shall be driven out at
noon, and Ekron shall be uprooted.
5
Ah, inhabitants of the seacoast, you nation of the Cherethites! The word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan,
land of the Philistines; and I will destroy you until no inhabitant is left.
6
And you, O seacoast, shall be pastures, meadows for shepherds and folds for flocks.
7
The seacoast shall become the possession of the remnant of the house of Judah, on which they shall pasture,
and in the houses of Ashkelon they shall lie down at evening. For the Lord their God will be mindful of them and
restore their fortunes.
*
12
For I will leave in the midst of you a people humble and lowly. They shall seek refuge in the name of the
Lord—
13
the remnant of Israel; they shall do no wrong and utter no lies, nor shall a deceitful tongue be found in their
mouths. Then they will pasture and lie down, and no one shall make them afraid.
80
See Verhey, “Remnant,” 670.
81
See also 2 Bar. 77.2–10.
82
Godet, 393; Schrenk and Herntrich, “λεῖμμα κτλ.,” 212–13.
*
11
continue,
Romans 9:11 (NRSV)
83
Gottlob Schrenk, “ἐκλογή,” TDNT 4 (1967) 180; Mayer, Gottes Heilsratschluß 251. Jost Eckert, “ἐκλεκτός,
ἐκλογή,” EDNT 1 (1990) 419, prefers the translation “chosen by grace.” See also Maier, Mensch, 395–96, for the
correlation between this expression and the doctrine of the freedom of God.
*
4
For we know, brothers and sisters beloved by God, that he has chosen you,
recurs here as a genitive attached to “election,”85 having been defined in 3:24*; 4:16*; 5:2*,
15*, 17*, 20*, 21*; 6:1*, 14*, 15* as divine benefaction in the form of unconditional access
to God and specific benefits conveyed to the undeserving through Christ.86 Whereas ordinary
benefactors conveyed their gifts to worthy and honorable recipients, Christ as the dishonored
benefactor extends his grace to “the ungodly and ungrateful enemies of God (Rm 5:6*,
10*).”87 In contrast to the 7,000 righteous persons in Israel who had not committed idolatry,

84
In a similar manner, Jewish sectarian groups referred to the community of the elect, as in 1 En. 1.7–10; 62.7–
12; Odes Sol. 23.2–3; 1QS 8:6; see Käsemann, 300; Fitzmyer, 605.
85
Along with Weiss, 468; Zahn, 499; Schlier, 324; and Käsemann, 300, I take χάριτος (“of grace”) as a
descriptive genitive attached to ἐκλογήν (“election”).
*
24
Romans 3:24 (NRSV)
*
16
Romans 4:16 (NRSV)
*
2
the glory of God.
Romans 5:2 (NRSV)
*
15
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more
surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.
Romans 5:15 (NRSV)
*
17
If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those
who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one
man, Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:17 (NRSV)
*
20
But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the
more,
Romans 5:20 (NRSV)
*
21
so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification
leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:21 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 6:1 (NRSV)
*
14
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 6:14 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 6:15 (NRSV)
86
See Wobbe, Charis-Gedanke, 63–74.
*
6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:6 (NRSV)
*
10
For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely,
having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
Romans 5:10 (NRSV)
87
Harrison, Language of Grace, 224–25.
and thus deserved divine commendation, the regime of grace eliminates all human
qualifications.88 Those who have no claim to honor are given the honor of God’s grace and
brought into a community in which the honor system has been transformed. By combining
this “election of grace” with the perfect tense verb γέγονεν (“it has been born”),89 it becomes
clear that the creation of this new form of remnant remains in effect up until “the present
critical time.”90
 6* The conclusion of the first diatribe in v. 5* is followed here by an antithetical
enthymeme that clarifies the distinctiveness of the new remnant defined by grace. The
premise of the preceding verse is introduced by εἰ δὲ χάριτι (“but if by grace”), referring to
the manner by which membership in the elect remnant is achieved.91 Assuming this premise is
correct, the antithetical inference is introduced by οὐκέτι (“not, no longer”), which has a
logical rather than a chronological connotation in this context,92 as in 7:17*, 20* and 14:15*.
The antithesis eliminated by the regime of grace is a community ἐξ ἔργων (“from works”).
This succinct antithesis reflects Paul’s earlier polemic against seeking to gain honor through
works of the law in 3:20*, 27–28*; 4:2*, 6*; 9:12*, 32*, 93 and in particular it eliminates the
88
See Schlier, 324.
89
Alternative translations, according to LSJM 349 I.3, are “take place, come to pass, and in the past tenses, to
be.” I prefer “born” because the primary meaning of γίγνομαι, “come into being … to be born” (LSJM 349 I.1),
refers to the origin of this particular “remnant.”
90
See Weiss, 468; Wilckens, 2:237; Dunn, 2:638.
*
6
Romans 11:6 (NRSV)
91
Moo, 678, correctly identifies a “dative of manner” in the form χάριτι (“by grace”).
92
Godet, 394; Weiss, 469; Lietzmann, 103; Schlier, 324; Schmidt, 186; Käsemann, 300; Kuss, 3:788; Dunn,
2:639; BAGD (2000) 736 (2). Wilckens, 2:238, argues for a temporal understanding of οὐκέτι, thus marking the
boundary between the old dispensation and the new, but Paul’s argument throughout Romans is that salvation
has always been a matter of grace rather than of works.
*
17
Romans 7:17 (NRSV)
*
20
Romans 7:20 (NRSV)
*
15
If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what
you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.
Romans 14:15 (NRSV)
*
20
For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes
the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20 (NRSV)
*
27
28
*
2
Romans 4:2 (NRSV)
*
6
Romans 4:6 (NRSV)
*
12
Romans 9:12 (NRSV)
*
false inference that might be drawn from the Elijah story about the remnant of 7,000 who had
not bowed so much as a single knee to Baal.94 The final portion of the sentence states the
consequence that would follow if the inference concerning the elimination of works were
rejected. It is introduced by ἐπεί, which has the sense of “since otherwise.”95 The subject of
the final clause is arthrous, ἡ χάρις (“the grace”), which is dropped without discussion by
commentators,96 thus conveying the impression that grace is a doctrinal abstraction rather than
a concrete benefaction. The only discussion I have found is by Meyer, who says that the
article in “the grace” [11:6c*] refers to the “definite grace, which has made the election.”97 In
the context of Romans there is no doubt that this “definite grace” was conveyed through
Christ and is reflected in arthrous formulations such as “the grace of our Lord Jesus be with
you all” (16:20*; see also 5:2*, 15*, 17*, 20*, 21*; 6:1*). Without the article, this clause
would lack logical force, because in most instances in the Greco-Roman and Jewish
cultures,98 grace was granted to the deserving and the honorable and thus provided no
antithesis to works. For example, Harrison cites the papyrus from a Neronian official who
apportions imperial “complete grace” (ἡ χάρις ὁλόκληρος) according to the measure of
service to the empire: “Whilst God’s grace in Christ does not discriminate concerning the
worth of its recipient, imperial χάρις observes hard and fast distinctions—‘you do not all have
the same right!’ ”99 Only in Christ could it be maintained that in an admixture with works of
any kind, “the grace would not be grace.” As noted above, the adverb οὐκέτι is used here as a
“marker of inference in a logical process,”100 and the verb γίνεται means that grace “ceases, in
its concrete manifestation, to become” grace.101
 7* The second diatribe opens with τί οὖν; (“what then?”), a rhetorical question that opened
similar diatribes in 3:9* and 6:15*. The particle οὖν suggests that an inference should be
drawn from the preceding argument,102 that is, if God has not rejected God’s people but
32
Romans 9:32 (NRSV)
93
See Roman Heiligenthal, “ἔργον,” EDNT 2 (1991) 50.
94
As a further consideration that seems rather distant from the issue in this pericope, Haacker, 223, suggests that
the polemic against “works” prevents linking Jewish resistance against the gospel with Baal worship.
95
Lietzmann, 103; BAGD (2000) 360 (2), “marker of cause or reason, because, since, for”; Dunn, 2:639, citing
BDF §456 (3), “for otherwise.”
96
Godet, 394; Schlier, 320; Barrett, 209; Dodd, 172; Michel, 337; Käsemann, 298; Cranfield, 2:542; Murray,
2:65; Morris, 402; Ziesler, 268; Dunn, 2:639; Fitzmyer, 605; Moo, 670; Byrne, 329; Schreiner, 578, 582.
Lietzmann, 102; Weiss, 469; Schmidt, 183; Kuss, 3:784; Zeller, 190; Wilckens, 2:234, and Haacker, 218,
translate the article but provide no explanation.
97
Meyer, 2:206.
*
20
The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Romans 16:20 (NRSV)
98
See particularly Harrison, Language of Grace, 220–34.
99
Ibid., 88, citing from P.Fouad Nr. 21.14.
100
BAGD (2000) 736.
101
Meyer, 2:206, followed by Kühl, 373, insists that γίνεται is not equivalent with the verb “to be,” which is
employed in most commentaries: Murray, 2:65; Dunn, 2:633; Fitzmyer, 602; Moo, 670; Byrne, 329; Schreiner,
578. See also BAGD (2000) 196–99.
*
9
Romans 3:9 (NRSV)
102
BAGD (2000) 736 (1.β), “what, then, are we to conclude?” For instance, Dio Chrysostom Orat. 2.9.1, “What
then? (τί οὖν;) Are not these things, he said, useful for men?” See also Orat. 4.20.4; 4.62.5; 7.69.4; 7.70.2;
10.7.10; 11.18.1, etc.
preserves only a remnant thereof, “What has happened?”103 Paul answers the rhetorical
question by reiterating the argument of 9:30–33* concerning Israel’s failure to attain the
righteousness it sought because of a misconception that it was based on works. The verb
ἐπιζητέω (“I seek”)104 is used here in place of διώκω (“I strive”) that Paul used in 9:30* and
31*, 105 but the subject remains Ἰσραήλ (“Israel”), which is the focus of attention throughout
Rom 9–11. The wording in the present tense,106 which I translate as a present progressive “is
seeking,” implies that Israel, with the exception of the remnant, is presently continuing the
effort to maintain its status through “works,” to use the expression from the preceding verse.
The emphatic τοῦτο (“this”) at the beginning of the subordinate clause107 refers to the status
of superior honor so assiduously sought but not achieved. The reduplication of the same aorist
form of the verb ἐπιτυγχάνω (“I attain, achieve, I gain what I seek”),108 employed here for the
only time in the Pauline letters, places Israel as a whole in an exact antithesis to the remnant.
“But the elect attained (ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν)” what Israel sought but failed to achieve. Some
have assumed that “the chosen” refers to Gentile Christians,109 but the context of discussing a
remnant within Israel indicates that those born κατʼ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος (“by election of grace”)
are Jewish Christians.110 In order to avoid confusion with the expression ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ in
reference to the community of Jewish and Gentile believers in 8:33*, I prefer the translation
“chosen” for the closely related term ἐκλογή in 11:7*.111 The Jewish converts had accepted
the message of pure grace, conveyed to the unworthy through the shameful death and glorious
resurrection of Jesus, and had accepted their place in the church, the community of the
103
Godet, 395; K. L. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” NovT 34 (1992) 209–28, cited by
Moo, 679.
*
30
through faith;
31
32
33
104
The verb ἐπιζητέω appears here for the only time in Romans, and was also used in Phil 4:17* in the sense of
“seek.” The connotation “eagerly seek” is suggested by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, “ἐπιζητέω,” EDNT 2
(1991) 27; Morris, 403; BAGD (2000) 371 (2), “be seriously interested in or have a strong desire for,” but Moo,
680, rightly doubts that the intensive meaning conveyed in earlier classical Greek by the prefix ἐπί is conveyed
here. See also Meyer, 2:207.
*
30
through faith;
Romans 9:30 (NRSV)
*
31
Romans 9:31 (NRSV)
105
See Dunn, 2:639.
106
See Weiss, 470.
107
See ibid.
108
When used with the accusative, as here, ἐπιτυγχάνω means “attain to,” “reach,” or “gain one’s end,”
according to LSJM 669. For instance, Xenophon Mem. 4.2.28, “Even those who know what they may do attain it
(καὶ οἱ μὲν εἰδότες ὅ τι ποιοῦσιν ἐπιτυγχάνοντες).”
109
For example, Zahn, 500–501; Barrett, 210.
110
Dodd, 175; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 82; Ziesler, 271; Wilckens, 2:238; Fitzmyer, 606; Byrne, 331.
*
33
Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Romans 8:33 (NRSV)
111
See BAGD (2000) 306 (2), “that which is chosen/selected.”
“called.” What they “attained” was not due to their personal achievement or their group’s
innate superiority over others, but was purely an “election of grace” as opposed to works.
The final clause of v. 7* is again antithetical to the foregoing, and should be translated “but
the others were made obtuse (οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν).” The “others”112 are defined in
contrast to the remnant of chosen ones, and the expression οἱ λοιποί is in no sense an attempt
to disguise the historical fact that the majority of Israelites had hitherto refused to accept the
gospel.113 The passive verb ἐπωρώθησαν (“they were hardened, obtuse, closed-minded,
undiscerning”)114 should probably be translated in the metaphorical sense, “made obtuse,”115
because of the following scriptural citation concerning impeded understanding and in order to
maintain a distinction from the verb σκληρύνω (“harden”) in 9:18*.116 In the extensive
development of this theme in the OT,117 divine causation of an obtuse and undiscerning heart
was paradoxically mixed with human accountability.118 Thus, in Romans, Paul implies “not
only that this Israel was hardened by God (11:7–10*) but also that on its own responsibility it
chose the wrong path (9:30–10:3*).”119 This paradox allows Paul to deny that God’s word has
failed while keeping the door open to the future conversion of Israel.120 In fact, as Paul goes
on to show, this situation of failed communication was predicted by the word of God itself.
112
See BAGD (2000) 602 (b).
113
Dunn, 2:640, rejecting the concealment theory advanced by Käsemann, 301.
114
See BAGD (2000) 900; Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, “πωρόω,” EDNT 3 (1993) 202, “to be obtuse.”
The verb πωρόω occurs here and in 2 Cor 3:14*, and the cognate πώρωσις (“obtuseness, hardening”) in Rom
11:25*.
115
Fitzmyer, 606. Newman and Nida, 211–12, translate appropriately, “the rest grew deaf to God’s call.”
*
18
Romans 9:18 (NRSV)
116
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 358, explains why Paul uses the term πωρόω (“make obtuse”) instead of σκληρύνω
(“harden”), but then, following the lead of most commentators, he refers to “this hardening of Israel.” An
example of the “hardening” interpretation is available in Ellison, Mystery of Israel, 77–79.
117
The investigation by Marie-Irma Seewann, “Semantische Untersuchung zu πώρωσις, veranlasst durch Röm
11, 25, ” FilN 10.19–20 (1997) 144–56, shows that the Hebrew term ‫ׁשריירות‬is related to discernment, and that
the opposite of “hardness” is not “softness” but “non-discernment.” She recommends the translation “Nicht-
Erkennen” rather than “Verstockung” or “Verhärtung” for the NT references.
118
See Karl Ludwig Schmidt and Martin Anton Schmidt, “παχύνω, πωρόω κτλ.,” TDNT 5 (1967) 1024.
*
7
8
this very day.”
9
10
*
30
through faith;
31
32
33
1
2
3
119
Ibid., 1027.
120
Cranfield, 2:549, speaks of the “provisional character of the hardening.” See also Moo, 681; Johnson,
“Structure,” 96–97.
 8* This verse opens with the traditional citation formula, “just as it has been written,” as in
1:17*; 2:24*; 3:4*, 10*; 4:17*; 8:36*; 9:13*, 33*; 1l:8*, 26*; 15:3*, 21*, introducing a
citation from Deut 29:3* with an insertion from Isa 29:10*. The comparisons are illustrated
below, with portions underlined to show the Pauline adaptations.
Deut 29:3* καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς βλέπειν
καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης (“yet the Lord God did not give you a heart to know
and eyes to see and ears to hear until this day”)
Isa 29:10* ὅτι πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως καὶ καμμύσει τοὺς
ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν, οἱ ὁρῶντες τὰ κρυπτά
*
8
this very day.”
Romans 11:8 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 1:17 (NRSV)
*
24
Romans 2:24 (NRSV)
*
4
Romans 3:4 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 4:17 (NRSV)
*
36
Romans 8:36 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 9:13 (NRSV)
*
33
Romans 9:33 (NRSV)
*
26
Romans 11:26 (NRSV)
*
3
Romans 15:3 (NRSV)
*
21
Romans 15:21 (NRSV)
*
3
the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders.
*
10
For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep; he has closed your eyes, you prophets, and
covered your heads, you seers.
Isaiah 29:10 (NRSV)
(“for the Lord made you drink a spirit of stupor and he shall shut their eyes and [the eyes] of
their prophets and their rulers, who see the secrets”)
Paul’s version: Ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ
ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας (“God gave them a spirit of stupor, so that eyes
do not see and ears do not hear, until the present day.”)
As in earlier citations that we have analyzed, the initial “and” in the citation from
Deuteronomy is eliminated to fit the text into the new context. The “you” in Deuteronomy is
shifted to “they” by Paul, which correlates with earlier references to Israel in third person
style,121 whereas second person speech is employed for the Gentiles in 11:13*.122 Paul shifts
the location of the object of “God gave” to the emphatic location in front of the verb so that
αὐτοῖς (“them”), that is, the Israelites, are even more clearly the target of divine action.123
This correlates with the shift in the location of “not” from the main clause to the subordinate
clause. As Christopher Stanley observes, the Deuteronomy text referred to divine reluctance
to overcome the uneducated heart of the Israelites in the desert, but Paul’s version makes it
clear that “God had actually ‘hardened’ his people for a time,” which fits the context of the
argument in chapter 11, “in order to give the Gentiles a chance to turn to him through faith in
Christ” (11:11*, 25–27*).124 Since the gift of “a heart to know” as in the Deuteronomy text
would have been confusing in the light of Paul’s earlier references to the “senseless heart” of
pagans in 1:21* and the “impenitent heart” of the Jewish bigot in 2:5*, Paul substitutes the
LXX expression found only in Isa 29:10* and 60:3*, πνεῦμα κατανύξεως (“a spirit of
stupor”).125 This expression may have been selected because it refers to a temporary condition
121
See Stanley, Scripture, 159–60; cf. 9:4–5, 32; 10:1–3.
*
13
Romans 11:13 (NRSV)
122
123
See Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 53. For Stanley, Scripture, 160, this change “remains clouded in
mystery.”
*
25
26
27
124
Stanley, Scripture, 159; see also Koch, Schrift, 171; Johnson, “Structure,” 96–97.
*
21
Romans 1:21 (NRSV)
*
5
But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s
righteous judgment will be revealed.
Romans 2:5 (NRSV)
*
10
For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep; he has closed your eyes, you prophets, and
covered your heads, you seers.
Isaiah 29:10 (NRSV)
*
3
Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.
Isaiah 60:3 (NRSV)
125
Koch, Schrift, 170, feels that the change from dative to accusative in the word πνεῦμα (“spirit”) points to
Paul’s dependency on a minority LXX reading, but Stanley, Scripture, 161, is rightly skeptical that the evidence
from which one can recover.126 This appears consistent with the otherwise unexplainable
alteration of Deuteronomy’s expression ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης (“until this day”) to ἕως τῆς
σήμερον ἡμέρας (“until the present day”). Whereas “this day” could easily have been
understood as the time of ancient Israel, Paul’s choice of σήμερον ἡμέρας (literally, “today
day” or “this very day”)127 evokes the contemporizing thrust of the citation. Paul employed
this expression, σήμερον ἡμέρας, in 2 Cor 3:14–15*, where Paul maintains that the minds of
unbelieving Jews “were hardened, for to the present day when they read the old covenant, that
same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to the present
day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds.”128 This condition of torpor that is
visible in contemporary Jewish reactions to the gospel results in the incapacity to see and hear
despite the fact that eyes and ears are available. Paul’s slight alteration of the syntax of
Deuteronomy by inserting the possessive article, τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν,
produces succinct articular infinitives in the genitive case that convey purpose,129 which I
translate with “so that eyes do not see and ears do not hear.” This communicative failure that
was imposed by God, Paul insists on the basis of his editing of the Deuteronomy citation, is
manifest in the present period of zealous resistance against the gospel. But as the chapter will
go on to demonstrate, this resistance will not last forever.130
 9–10* The fifth citation in the pericope is introduced again with reference to the oral
expression of the Scripture; Ps 68:22–23* is announced with the same words as 4:6*, “David
says.” The changes made in this citation from the LXX are visible in the following illustration
that retains the poetic structure, which is an important factor in Paul’s redactional work:
Ps 68:22–23*:
γενηθήτω ἡ τράπεζα αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα
καὶ εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον·
supports such an inference; it remains likely that Paul selected the proper accusative form because of his own
grammatical sensitivity.
126
Stanley, Scripture, 161: “Instead of being consigned to eternal ignorance, Israel is now portrayed as ‘stunned,’
a condition from which they may be already starting to recover.” See also Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches,
54; Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 234.
127
The formula “from this very day” (ἀπὸ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας) is commonly found in magical spells for healing,
as for example, “… drive away all harm and all epilepsy … from this very day (… [ἀ]πὸ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας)
and from this present hour, for the whole time of her life,” cited by Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets, 1:327.
See also Daniel and Maltomini, Suppl. Mag. I.14. 9–10; P. Berol. 17202, 17218–19.
*
14
But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that
same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside.
15
Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds;
128
Ernst Fuchs, “σήμερον,” TDNT 7 (1971) 273–74, classifies this as “theological usage” that “emphasizes the
alternative of judgment and fulfilled promise.”
129
See Stanley, Scripture, 162; BDF §400.
130
Wagner, Heralds, 244–54, suggests that Isa 6:9–10* lies behind Paul’s fusion of Isa 29:10* and Deut 29:4*,
but that in the larger context of Isaiah, the hardening of Israel is not “God’s final verdict” (253) because Israel’s
unfaithfulness will finally be overcome. Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 145, refers to stupor as a “reversible
phenomenon.”
*
9
10
*
21
They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
22
Let their table be a trap for them, a snare for their allies.
σκοτισθήτωσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν,
καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτῶν διὰ παντὸς σύγκαμψον·
(“Let their table before them become a snare,
and for retribution a stumbling block.
Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and bend their backs continually.”)
Paul’s version:
γενηθήτω ἡ τράπεζα αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα καὶ εἰς θήραν
καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον καὶ εἰς ἀνταπόδομα αὐτοῖς,
σκοτισθήτωσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν
καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτῶν διὰ παντὸς σύγκαμψον
(“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them,
Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and bend their backs continually.”)
A crucial element in this citation is “the table,” mentioned in the opening line from Ps 68.
Dunn notes the “heavy overtone” of this motif, and recalls that Paul Minear perceived this as
a reference to the major bone of contention between the weak and the strong in Rome
discussed in 14:1–15:6*.131 The use of “the table” as a reference to a cultic meal is found in
Greco-Roman religious texts and also in Luke 22:30*; Acts 6:2*; and 16:34* has been noted
*
1
Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.
2
Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables.
3
Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those
who eat; for God has welcomed them.
4
Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And
they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5
Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced
in their own minds.
6
Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since
they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.
7
We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves.
8
If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die,
we are the Lord’s.
9
10
Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For
we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11
For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to
God.”
12
So then, each of us will be accountable to God.
13
Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or
hindrance in the way of another.
14
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who
thinks it unclean.
15
16
So do not let your good be spoken of as evil.
131
Dunn, 2:642–43, referring to Minear, Obedience, 78–79, who brought the “table” in 11:9* into connection
with “barriers of table-fellowship” between Christian groups in Rome as well as with the “constant pressure
from the synagogue to enforce the Torah provisions on foods.” See also Barrett, 211, and Esler, Conflict and
Identity, 295–96. Haacker, 224, is skeptical of any allusion to table fellowship here.
*
by G. H. R. Horsley.132 Paul draws a contrast between “the table of the Lord” and the “table
of demons” in 1 Cor 11:21*. In the citation of Rom 11:9*, the “cultic table”133 that marks a
separation with the Gentile world is a problem not just for those pure enough to be welcomed
but an even greater problem for those excluded. Thus the reference in Ps 68:23a* to the “table
before them” was unsuited to Paul’s larger purpose.134 So he resolves the inconcinnity by
improving the poetic structure, which the LXX had muddled by the redundant reference to
αὐτῶν (“their”). By inserting the neat piece of poetic parallelism, εἰς παγίδα καὶ εἰς θήραν
(“for a snare and a trap”), he gains an additional biblical resonance from the fact that these
words occur as a pair in Ps 34:8*; 123:6–7*; Prov 11:8–9*; and Hos 5:1–2*.135
As in my earlier discussion of the “rock of scandal/stumbling” in 9:33*, the table of the hard-
hearted ones in Paul’s reworked citation causes others to stumble and fall.136 The fact that
Paul returns to this theme in 14:13* makes it likely that σκάνδαλον in 11:9* is directly related
30
so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes
of Israel.
Luke 22:30 (NRSV)
*
2
And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should
neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.
Acts 6:2 (NRSV)
*
34
He brought them up into the house and set food before them; and he and his entire household rejoiced that he
had become a believer in God.
Acts 16:34 (NRSV)
132
G. H. R. Horsley, “A Sacrificial Calender,” NDIEC 2 (1982) 37. See also the examples discussed in Jameson,
Jordan, and Kotansky, Lex Sacra, 14f., 64, 75–70.
*
21
For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and
another becomes drunk.
*
9
Romans 11:9 (NRSV)
133
See Koch, Schrift, 138, following Müller, Anstoß und Gericht 24–27.
134
Neither Koch, Schrift, 138, nor Stanley, Scripture, 163–64, provides an explanation for Paul’s deletion of
“before them.”
*
8
Let ruin come on them unawares. And let the net that they hid ensnare them; let them fall in it—to their ruin.
Psalm 35:8 (NRSV)
*
6
Blessed be the Lord, who has not given us as prey to their teeth.
7
We have escaped like a bird from the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we have escaped.
*
8
The righteous are delivered from trouble, and the wicked get into it instead.
9
With their mouths the godless would destroy their neighbors, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.
Proverbs 11:8–9 (NRSV)
*
1
Hear this, O priests! Give heed, O house of Israel! Listen, O house of the king! For the judgment pertains to
you; for you have been a snare at Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor,
2
and a pit dug deep in Shittim;but I will punish all of them.
Hosea 5:1–2 (NRSV)
135
In contrast, Stanley, Scripture, 164, can discern “no clear reason” for Paul’s altered wording. Wagner,
Heralds, 259–61, argues that Ps 34:8* is the most likely source of the phrase εἰς θήραν.
136
See Stählin, “σκάνδαλον,” 339–41.
*
13
to conflicts over the table. The theme of religious offense as developed in Judaism is
prominent here.137 In the same line Paul changes the abstract term ἀνταπόδοσιν (“reward,
recompense”) to the word indicating the result of an action, ἀνταπόδομα (“retribution”)138
followed by αὐτοῖς (“to them”), which makes it clear that the retribution comes not to
outsiders but to the celebrants themselves. Again, Paul achieves his contextual goal while at
the same time improving the poetic structure of the citation from the Psalm. The final two
lines are taken without change from the LXX, because they aptly elaborate what Paul meant
about Israel having been made “obtuse” in v. 7*. That their eyes “are darkened”
(σκοτισθήτωσαν) is reminiscent of darkening of the heart of the wicked in 1:21* and of the
darkness of the lost in 2:19*. In the apocalyptic worldview of Paul and other early Christians,
this state is tantamount to damnation.139 That the minds of pagans were deliberately darkened
by God is claimed in 1 En. 99:7f. and T. Levi 14:4, but the application of this idea to a portion
of God’s chosen people would have had a shocking effect. But Paul’s experience of many
years of hostile opposition against the gospel on the part of his fellow Israelites leads him to
see a mysterious divine distortion of the capacity to perceive the light of the truth. The
implication of “bend their backs continually” is less clear, and is usually left unclarified by
commentaries. It is possible that the reference to unbearable weight alludes to an inner
bondage under the weight of the law,140 an interpretation that would correlate nicely with my
interpretation of Rom 7:7–25*. There is an emerging consensus, however that the expression
Romans 14:13 (NRSV)

137
See Müller, Anstoß und Gericht, 32–45.
138
For the distinction between these two closely related words, see Stanley, Scripture, 165, who notes that Paul’s
choice of ἀνταπόδομα “provides a better parallel for the concrete nouns of verse 9.”
*
19
and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
Romans 2:19 (NRSV)
139
See Hans Conzelmann, “σκότος κτλ., TDNT 7 (1971) 431, 441–42.
1 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch
T. Testament of Levi
140
Weiss, 474; Meyer, 2:210; Schmidt, 188.
*
7
8
law sin lies dead.
9
10
11
12
13
measure.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
διὰ παντός in relation to the bending of backs should be translated “continually”141 rather than
“forever.”142 In Ross Wagner’s formulation, “the profound stupor that has been poured out on
‘the rest’ of Israel represents an intermediate stage in God’s plan to redeem Israel.”143 In the
end, God’s mercy will prevail with regard to “his people.”144 In the next pericope, this
mysterious plan will be disclosed to show the reliability of God’s promises.
11 The Eighth
Pericope
Diatribe and Allegorical Enthymeme Dealing with the Missional Purpose of Israel’s
Trespass
11/ I say therefore, “They did not stumble so as to fall, did they?” By no means! But
through their trespass the salvation [is coming] for the Gentiles, in order to make them
zealous. 12/a Now if their trespass [makes] wealth for the world and their loss [makes]
wealth for the Gentiles, how much more [wealth will] their full total [make]?
13/ Nowb I speak to you Gentiles. Inasmuch, notwithstanding,c that I am indeed an
apostle of Gentiles, I do glorifyd my service 14/ if somehow I might make my very flesh
141
Michel, 337; Cranfield, 2:522; Dunn, 2:643; Fitzmyer, 607; Haacker, 218; Moo, 682; Schreiner, 586, 89;
Byrne, 329.
142
Schmidt, 183; Barrett, 207; Kuss, 3:784; Morris, 398.
143
144
See Gignac, Romains 9–11, 227.
*
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
a
The entirety of v. 12* is deleted by A, although this is not marked in the Nestle-Aland text. Porter, “Rhetorical
Scribe” 413, suspects a theological motive for this deletion, to downplay “Jewish sinfulness” and concentrate on
the “common human predicament.” Since this is a concern that emerged with later Protestant orthodoxy, an
accidental deletion seems more likely.
b
In place of δέ (“but, now”) in ‫ א‬A B P 81 104 630 1243 1506 1735 1739 1874 1881 pc sy, secondary efforts to
strengthen the connection between v. 13* and the foregoing are visible in C’s οὖν (“therefore”) and γάρ (“for”)
zealous and might save some of them. 15/ For if their discarding [the gospel were]
reconciliation of [the] world, what [would] their welcome [be] if not life from [the]
dead?
16/ Nowe if the first fruit [is] holy, so also [is] the batch of dough; and iff the root [is]
holy, so also the branches. 17/ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you
being a wild olive were grafted among them to become a co-participant in the rootg of
the olive tree with its fatness, 18/ do not brag against the [other] branches. But if youh
do brag, it is not you that support the root but the root you. 19/ Thus you will say,
“Branchesi were broken off in order that I might be grafted in.” 20/ Well said! They
were broken offj on account of their unfaith, but you have stood on account of faith.
Do not be uppityk-minded, but fear. 21/ For if God did not spare the natural branches,
l
he will not spare you.
in D F G L Ψ 6 33 69 88 323 326 330 365 424 614 945 1175 1241 1319 1505 1573 1836 2344 2464 2495 Maj
latt.
c
In place of μὲν οὖν (“on the other hand, therefore”) in P 46 ‫ א‬A B C P 81 104 1506 pc, the texts that replaced δέ
in the first part of this verse made logical alterations here: L Ψ 6 33 69 88 323 330 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243
1505 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj lat syh have only μέν and D F G 326 365 1319 1573 pc
syp Pel delete both μέν and οὖν. Neither variant appears original.
d
The variant δοξάσω (“I will glorify”) in P46 F G Ψ 33 88 1175 1836 1874 2344 pc latt appears to have
originated as a dictation error.
e
The replacement of the widely attested δέ (“now”) by γάρ (“for”) in A may have the same motivation as that
noted with regard to the variant in v. 13*.
f
The deletion of εἰ (“if”) by P 46 F G P* 6 88 436 1241 1243 1506 1881 1962 2127 2464 al f g appears accidental
according to Metzger, Textual Commentary (1975), 526. But the omission could be intentional because it alters
the verse’s meaning: “Now if the first fruit is holy, the lump [is] also, and the root is holy and the branches.” The
version that includes “if” is broadly supported by ‫ א‬A B C D L Pc Ψ 33 69 104 181 323 326 330 365 424 451
614 629 945 1175 1319 1505 1573 (1735) 1739 1836 1874 1877 2344 2492 2495 Maj lat sy cop Clex Theodoto
Ambst.
g
The presence of καί (“and”) after τῆς ῥίζης (“of the root”) in ‫א‬2 A D2 L P 6 33 69 81 88 104 181 256 263 323
326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 945 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1739 1836 1852 1874 1877 1881
1962 2127 2200 2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj Lect ar vg syp,h arm geo slav Orlat3/4 Chr Cyr Pel Aug2/5 and the
omission of τῆς ῥίζης (“of the root”) in P46 D* F G d f g boms fay Irlat Pacian Aug3/5 are both “suspicious as
ameliorating emendations,” according to Metzger, Textual Commentary, 464, because of the awkward asyndeton
of three genitive phrases in sequence, τῆς ῥίζης, τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας (“of the root of the olive tree of the
fatness”) found in ‫ *א‬B C Ψ 1175 1506 1912 2464 pc b o sa bo Orlat3/4 Gildas, which is probably the original
wording. An additional effort to clarify the expression is visible in the reversal of “sap” and “root” in sa bo (τῆς
πιότητος τῆς ῥίζης), while Pel inserts a καί (“and”) in the reversal.
h
The variant σὺ καυχᾶσαι (“you boast”) in P46 D* F G (330 omits σ?) it Ambst appears to improve the more
strongly attested reading that awkwardly repeats the verb used earlier in the verse, κατακαυχᾶσαι (“you boast”),
found in ‫ א‬A B C D2 L P Ψ 6 (33) 69 88 104 323 326 365 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573
1735 1739 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj vg.
i
The addition of the article οἱ (“the”) before “branches” in D* 88 330 424 630 1501 2495 al is a secondary,
stylistic improvement.
j
The weakened form ἐκλάσθησαν (“they were broken”) in B D* F G appears to be an effort to avoid repeating
the intensified ἐξεκλάσθησαν (“they were broken off”) in succeeding verses.
k
The term ὑψηλοφρόνει (“be proud”) appears in C D F G L P Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 365 424 614 945
1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 2495 Maj in place of the more
strongly attested expression typical for Pauline usage elsewhere, ὑψηλὰ φρόνει (“upward, uppity-minded”),
found in P46 ‫ א‬Avid B 81 pc.
l
The inclusion of the ameliorating term μή πως (“perhaps”) by P46 D F G L Ψ 33 69 88 104 181 323 326 330
424* 451 459 614 629 945 1175 1241 1243 1505 1735 1836 1874 1877 1912 1962 2344 2464 2492 2495 Maj
Lect ar b d f g o vg syp,h arm (eth) (geo) slav Irlat Chr Severian Cyp Ambst Pel appears to soften the stark
contention “he will not spare you.” ‫ א‬A B C P 6 81 256 263 365 424c 436 630 1319 1506 1573 1739 1852 1881
2127 2200 pc sa bo fay Orlat Gregory-Elvira Aug provide strong support for the shorter reading that omits this
term. Despite the uncertainty in Nestle-Aland26/27 and GNT3/4, as shown by the square brackets and the discussion
by Metzger, Textual Commentary, 464f., the shorter reading should be preferred.
22/ Pay attention therefore to God’sm kindness and severity: toward those who fell,
on the one hand, severityn; but toward you on the other hand, the kindnesso of Godp, if
you remainq in the kindness, because otherwise you will also be cut off. 23/ And they,
if they do not remainr in unfaith, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in
again. 24/ For if you were cut from a natural olive tree and were grafted unnaturally
into a cultivated olive tree, how much more [will] those who are natural be grafted
back into their own olive tree!
Analysis
Commentators have had difficulty discerning the logical structure and extent of this part of
Romans, with Dodd placing all of 11:1–32* in a single pericope1 and O’Neill extending the
m
The addition of the definite article τοῦ before “God” in P46 B appears to be a stylistic improvement.
n
The addition of the accusative case ending ν to ἀποτομία (“severity”) in ‫א‬2 D F G L Ψ 33 69 88 104 323 326
330 365 424* 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836 1874 1881 2344 2464 Maj latt Cl is a
grammatical improvement that would make it conform to the first use of this term in v. 21*. It is clearly
secondary. The text without the accusative ending is found in P 46 ‫*א‬,c vid A B C 6 81 424c 630 1506 1739 pc.
o
The accusative ending as in note n, χρηστότητα (“goodness”), is found in D2 F G L Ψ 33 69 88 104 323 326
330 424* 614 945 1175 1241 1319 1505 1735 1874 2464 Maj latt Cl. The word χρηστότης (“kindness”) is
strongly supported by P46 (‫ )א‬A B C D* 6 81 424c 630 1243 1506 1573 1739 1881 pc.
p
The deletion of θεοῦ (“of God”) in D2 F G L Ψ 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 424 614 945 1175 1241 1319 1505
1836 1874 2344 2464 2495 Maj it sy Cl Ambst (365 omits θεοῦ by homoioteleuton) is consistent with the
variants above where the accusative “goodness” does not include God; it is clearly secondary. The inclusion of
θεοῦ is supported by P46 ‫ א‬A B C D* 81 330 365 630 1243 1506 1573 1735 1739 1881 pc vg cop.
q
The subjunctive aorist form ἐπιμείνῃς (“if you remained”) in P46vid A C D2 F G L 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330
365 424 945 1175 1241 1319 1506 1573 1739* 1836 1874 1881 2344 Maj Cl is not discussed by commentators.
The witnesses for the subjunctive present form adopted by Nestle-Aland26/27 and GNT3/4, ἐπιμένῃς (“if you
remain”), are ‫ א‬B D* Ψ 81 630 1243 (1735 reads ἐπιμένῃς) 1739c pc, appear stronger. The phrase “if you remain
in the kindness” is lacking in 614 1505 2464 2495, an unlikely omission.
r
Just as in v. 22*, there is an alternate form to the ἐπιμένωσιν (“they remain”) found in ‫ *א‬B D* Ψ 81 365 1739
1881 (1243 2464 read ἐπιμήνωσιν) pc, namely, the aorist subjunctive ἐπιμείνωσιν (“they remained”) in ‫א‬2 A C
D2 F G L 6 33 69 88 104 323 326 330 424 614 945 1175 1241 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1836 1874 2344 2495
Maj is not discussed by the commentators or Metzger, but it is clearly the inferior reading.
*
1
2
3
my life.”
4
Baal.”
5
6
7
8
this very day.”
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
pericope from 10:16* to 11:36*, 2 while Johnson reduces it to 11:7–36*.3 Among the great
majority who view 11:11–24* as a separate pericope, Barrett and others perceive three
paragraphs in 11:11–12*, 13–16*, and 17–24*, 4 while Schlier’s three paragraphs are
16
1
Dodd, 173–74.
*
16
Romans 10:16 (NRSV)
*
36
Romans 11:36 (NRSV)
2
O’Neill, 175–76; Zeller, 193, places 11:11–36 in a single pericope, while Theobald, 1:292, extends the pericope
from 11:1–36.
*
7
8
this very day.”
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
3
Johnson, 165.
*
11
12
*
13
14
15
16
*
somewhat different: 11:11–12*, 13–18*, and 19–24*.5 Wilckens organizes the material into
four paragraphs: 11:11–15*, 16–18*, 19–21*, and 22–24*.6 In contrast, Kuss divides the
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
4
Barrett, 211–12, followed by Ziesler, 271–72; Dunn, 2:650–51; Witherington, 242–43; and by Morris, 405,
who adds an additional paragraph division between 11:17–21 and 22–24.
*
13
14
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
*
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
5
Schlier, 326–27.
*
11
12
13
14
15
*
16
17
18
that supports you.
pericope into two parts, 11:11–12* and 11:13–24*; 7 while Michel and others make a division
between 11:11–16* and 17–24*; 8 and Godet and others divide between 11:11–15* and 16–
24*.9 Among the most convincing points of demarcation that have arisen out of this

*
19
20
21
*
22
23
them in again.
24
6
Wilckens, 2:241.
*
13
14
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
7
Kuss, 3:792, 3:798–99.
*
11
12
13
14
15
16
8
Michel, 343, followed by Byrne, 337; Haacker, 225, 232; and in part by Schreiner, 593, 603.
*
16
17
discussion are those between 11:15* and 16* and between 11:21* and 22*, but rarely in this
discussion, so far as I have been able to tell, has the function of v. 11* been properly
understood.
On rhetorical and argumentative grounds, I propose a logical organization of this pericope,
with a thesis in 11:11*, a logical enthymeme in vv. 12–15*, an allegorical enthymeme on the
topic of the olive tree in vv. 16–21*, and a rhetorically effective conclusion in vv. 22–24*.
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
9
Godet, 398, 404; Sanday and Headlam, 318–19; Kühl, 376, 383; Schmidt, 188–89, 192–93; Murray, 2:75; Moo,
685, 696–97. This division is also followed by Zeller, 193, who assumes a longer pericope from 11:11–36.
*
15
Romans 11:15 (NRSV)
*
16
Romans 11:16 (NRSV)
*
21
Romans 11:21 (NRSV)
*
22
Romans 11:22 (NRSV)
*
11
Romans 11:11 (NRSV)
*
12
13
14
15
*
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
The entire pericope is conspicuous for its lack of scriptural citations, whose argumentative
function is taken over by commonsense analogies, including that of the olive trees and
branches.10 Whether this should be called an “allegory” remains unclear in the standard
commentaries, which usually interpret the details as if they were allegorical,11 but often
describe it as the olive tree “figure,”12 “illustration,”13 “metaphor,”14 “parable,”15 or
“analogy.”16 The most appropriate category is in fact “allegory,”17 although it differs from
many classical and biblical examples in not interpreting a well-known story. An explicit
discussion of the allegorical argument is available in Siegert’s study.18 He takes up the
impression that many scholars have that the “comparison” between the olive trees and the
situation between Israel and the church is muddled, but that when one reads it as allegory, it
makes sense. The discussion of the rhetorical theories of allegory by Anderson19 makes it
clear that this is a figure that says one thing but hints at another.20 In his discussion of Paul’s
reference in Gal 4:24*, 21 Anderson observes that Paul speaks of the Sarah-Hagar story as an
allegory intended by its author: “It seems clear that Paul means to say that this Bible story is
spoken allegorically.”22 Yet in view of Anderson’s impression that Paul’s interpretation is
exactly the opposite of the literal meaning of this story, he judges that “Paul’s use of such an
obviously invented interpretation comes close to the definition of a fable,”23 strongly
suggesting that this is the category that Paul as an uninformed rhetorician should have
employed.24 On the basis of this reasoning Anderson denies that Paul ever employs allegorical
interpretation,25 including Rom 11:17–24*, which he defines as a metaphor.26 The
authoritative article by Hans-Josef Klauck is more credible in identifying 11:17–24* as an
allegory because it fits the definition of a symbolic text that provides a point-by-point
connection with realities beyond the text.27 Both in Gal 4:24–31* and in Rom 11:17–24* Paul
10
Bullinger, Figures, 750, refers to 11:16–18 as an allegory.
11
See, for example, Michel, 349–50; Kuss, 3:802–4; Schreiner, 604–7.
12
Jülicher, 305; Murray, 2:86; Zeller, 196–97; Wilckens, 2:246.
13
Morris, 412.
14
Sanday and Headlam, 326; M. M. Bourke, A Study of the Metaphor of the Olive Tree in Romans XI, SST 2.3
(Washington: Catholic University of America, 1947); Best, 129; Käsemann, 308; Dunn, 2:660; Stuhlmacher,
168; Moo, 702; Witherington, 240; Stowers, Rereading, 312–16; Pieter J. Maartens, “Inference and Relevance in
Paul’s Allegory of the Wild Olive Tree,” HerTS 3 (1997) 1007–9.
15
Lietzmann, 105; Schmidt, 194; Rengstorf, “Ölbaum-Gleichnis,” 127–64; Theobald, 1:298; Bell, Provoked to
Jealousy, 118; but “metaphor” on 123.
16
17
See Dodd, 179–80; Barrett, 217; O’Neill, 187; Johnson, 169; Haacker, 232; Byrne, 341.
18
Siegert, Argumentation, 167–71.
19
Anderson, Terms, 14–16.
20
See also Glenn W. Most, “Allegorie/Allegorese. II. Griechisch-römische Antike,” RGG4 1 (1998) 304–5.
*
24
21
Anderson, Paul, 172–80.
22
Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory, 178, italics in original.
23
Ibid., 180, italics in original.
24
For a more judicious appraisal, see Betz, Galatians, 243, who assumes that Paul in fact employs the allegorical
method that he derived from Hellenistic Judaism.
25
Anderson, Paul, 178.
26
Anderson, Paul, 237.
27
Hans-Josef Klauck, “Allegorie/Allegorese. III. Bibel,” RGG4 1 (1998) 305–6.
*
24
25
children.
develops a limited number of allegorical points to serve his argumentative purpose, and
instead of using terms such as “like” or “be compared to,” he flatly identifies current groups
or characters with the original story or natural phenomena. It is clear that Paul was not the
only early Christian who employed this method of argumentation, because a prominent
example of a natural phenomenon employed as an allegory appears in Mark 4:10–20* and
Matt 13:36–43*, 49–50*.28 In Abr. 1.6, Philo uses the grafting of plants as a metaphor for
human behavior: “The same thing happens, I may remark, in the case of men, when adopted
sons (ὡς τοὺς θετοὺς παῖδας) by reason of their native good qualities, become congenial to
26
27
who is married.”
28
29
30
31
*
10
When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables.
11
And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside,
everything comes in parables;
12
in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they
may not turn again and be forgiven.’ ”
13
And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?
14
The sower sows the word.
15
These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes
away the word that is sown in them.
16
And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy.
17
But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the
word, immediately they fall away.
18
And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word,
19
but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word,
and it yields nothing.
20
And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty
and a hundredfold.”
Mark 4:10–20 (NRSV)
*
36
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the
parable of the weeds of the field.”
37
He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man;
38
the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil
one,
39
and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.
40
Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
41
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all
evildoers,
42
and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!
Matthew 13:36–43 (NRSV)
*
49
So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous
50
and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 13:49–50 (NRSV)
28
See also the extended allegories of the eagle in 4 Ezra 11.1—12.35*, of the forest, vine, fountain, and cedar in
2 Bar. 36.1–40.
Abr. De Abrahamo
those who by birth are aliens from them, and so become firmly fitted (ἐναρμόζεσθαι) into the
family.”
The thesis of this pericope is stated in 11:11c*-d,29 in answer to a rhetorical question that
opens this passage in a manner exactly parallel to 11:1*. This is supported in the opening of
the first enthymeme by an impressive instance of stating premises in the form of synonymous
parallelism v. 12a* = v. 12b*30, which enhances the credibility of these paradoxical premises
and strengthens the inference in 11:12c* that employs the a minore ad maius (“lesser to
greater”) scheme.31 This verse is marked with parachesis in the repetition of -μα endings in
each of the three lines, παράπτωμα (“trespass”), ἥττημα (“failure”), and πλήρωμα
(“fulfillment”).32 In 11:11* and 14* the catchword παραζηλόω (“make zealous”) is picked up
from the scriptural citation in 10:19*.33 In 11:13–14* Paul develops an exemplum of himself34
as an apostle to the Gentiles in order to show that concern for the conversion of Jews belongs
to that office. The hyperbaton in 11:13a-b* places the emphasis on “to you” and “apostle” by
the unusual first and last positions of those words.35 This provides definition for the diatribe
that had started with the rhetorical question in v. 11*, which now continues with an imaginary
interlocutor through the end of the pericope.36 In this case, the “speech-in-character”37 is made
by a blatantly arrogant Gentile Christian whose witty depiction is comparable to that of the
29
See Käsemann, 304.
*
1
Romans 11:1 (NRSV)
*
12
Romans 11:12 (NRSV)
30
See Weiss, “Beiträge,” 240. He also suggests on 241 that the following verses are in parallel form, 13 + 14;
15a + 15b; 16a + 16b, which is not very compelling.
31
32
See Lagrange, 275; Kuss, 3:796; Dunn, 2:652.
*
14
Romans 11:14 (NRSV)
*
19
Romans 10:19 (NRSV)
33
See Michel, 343.
*
13
14
34
Siegert, Argumentation, 166, refers to this as an argument du prestige formulated in the “I” style.
*
13
Romans 11:13 (NRSV)
35
36
See Stowers, Diatribe, 114–15; Rereading, 312–16.
37
See Stowers, Rereading, 16–21, for an analysis of the rhetorical technique of προσωποποία; see also the
critical view of Anderson, Paul, 201–5. Anderson argues that the classical parallels always identify the character
of the imaginary interlocutor, but in the case of Rom 2 and 11, the audience readily identifies these characters
from its own experience.
insufferable Jewish bigot of chapter 2.38 The four propositions in 11:12–15* developed in this
diatribe form a substantive chiasm:
11:12* A. Jewish trespass and inclusion helps Gentiles
11:13* B. Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles
11:14* B’. Paul’s apostleship to the Jews
11:15* A’. Jewish trespass and inclusion helps Gentiles.39
This section is linked with the following by a parallel series of chain-link inferences
introduced by εἰ (“if”). The first in 11:12* and those in 11:15* and 24* employ the a minore
ad maius (“from lesser to greater”) argument, in 11:21* the a maiore ad minus (“from greater
to lesser) argument, and the two “if” clauses in 11:16* establish a locus a simili (“argument
from similarity”) scheme. There is a perfect parallelism between the two arguments in 11:16*,
each including an “if” clause and an inference clause introduced by “so also.” This is
followed by the extensive argument employing three more “if” clauses concerning the wild
olive tree (11:17–24*). In the pericope as a whole, a satisfying number of ten “if” clauses is
presented.
The allegory of the olive tree functions in part because the order of nature had a high level of
authority in the ancient world.40 A neat, chiastic formula concludes v. 18*: “it is not you that
support the root but the root supports you.”41 In 11:19* we find a permissio statement,42 in
which Paul allows the arrogant boast of the branches to be stated without refutation so that he
can deal with the issue of accountability. The next verse provides a “concession” to the
viewpoint of the interlocutor followed by a “dissociation” between “unfaith” and “faith.”43
Verse 22* has a chiastic development in that the words “kindness and severity” in 22a* are
taken up in reverse sequence in 22b* and c.44
Johannes Weiss has suggested a somewhat irregular, four-sentence arrangement of the
material in vv. 17–24*, 45 which is refined in the translation above into three sentences of six
lines followed by a final sentence of four lines. When one unites this scheme with the
preceding four lines of v. 16*, the balance between a first and a last sentence of four lines
each becomes apparent. The speech-in-character addressed in the second person singular in
vv. 17–24* is a Gentile identified as “the personified ‘branch’ of the wild olive tree grafted
38
See Stowers’s description of the “pretentious and arrogant Gentile Christian” in Diatribe, 114–17; he does not
perceive the humor in Paul’s depiction, and in his later Rereading, 312–16, he offers a much less plausible
analysis of this passage as a footrace between Jews and Gentiles.
39
See Louw, 2:110–11.
*
24
Romans 11:24 (NRSV)
40
Siegert, Argumentation, 167. Anderson, Paul, 237–38, prefers the term “extended metaphor.” He discusses
ancient theories of allegory in 172–80.
*
18
that supports you.
Romans 11:18 (NRSV)
41
See Harvey, Listening, 202.
*
19
Romans 11:19 (NRSV)
42
See Bullinger, Figures, 972. The Greek term for this figure is epitrope, which is defined by Anderson,
Glossary, 54.
43
44
See Kuss, 3:805; Fitzmyer, 616.
45
onto the cultivated olive tree” of Israel.46 The revised verse analysis in the allegorical
enthymeme of vv. 16–21* and the concluding paragraph of vv. 22–24*, more clearly visible
in the Greek than in this English translation, is as follows:
1a* 16*/ Now if the first fruit [of the dough is] holy,
1b* so also [is] the batch of dough;
1c* and if the root [is] holy,
1d* so also [are] the branches.
2a* 17*/ But if some of the branches were broken off,
2b* and you being a wild olive were grafted into them
2c* to share the sap of the root of the olive,
2d* 18*/ do not boast concerning the branches.
2e* But if you boast, it is not you that supports the root,
2f* but the root supports you.
3a* 19*/ Thus you will say, “Branches were broken off in order that
I might be grafted in.”
3b* 20*/ Fine. They were broken off for their faithlessness,
3c* but you are standing in faith.
3d* Do not be uppity-minded, but fear.
3e* 21*/ For if God did not spare the natural branches,
3f* he will not spare you.
4a* 22*/ Note then the kindness and severity of God;
4b* severity toward those who fell;
4c* but to you the kindness of God,
4d* if you remain in the kindness;
4e* otherwise you will also be cut off.
4f* 23*/ And they, if they do not remain in faithlessness, will be
46
*
2
Romans 11:2 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 11:17 (NRSV)
*
3
my life.”
Romans 11:3 (NRSV)
*
20
Romans 11:20 (NRSV)
*
4
Baal.”
Romans 11:4 (NRSV)
*
23
them in again.
grafted in.
5a* For God is able to graft them in again.
5b* 24*/ For if you were cut from a natural olive tree
5c* and were grafted unnaturally into a cultivated olive tree,
5d* how much more [will] these who are natural be grafted
back into their own olive tree?
Since the motif of the “root” in 11:16c* is picked up in 11:17c* and 18b*, it is inappropriate
to separate the analogies in 11:16* from 11:17–24*, as in many commentaries.47 In fact, v.
16* provides the premise for the enthymeme whose application extends from v. 17* to v. 24*.
With this arrangement that traces the logical and rhetorical development of the argument from
v. 16* through the end of the pericope in v. 24*, it is possible to see the correspondence in
reference to “branches” being “broken off” in lines 2a* (11:17a*) and 3a* (11:19a*), between
the imperatives in lines 2d (11:18a*) and 3d* (11:20c*), between the “if” clauses followed by
an apodoses in 2e-f* (11:18b-c*) and 3e-f* (11:21a-b*), as well as the thematic links in
reference to the character of God between 4a* (11:22a*) and 5a* (11:23b*). The elegant
development in the fourth sentence is also noteworthy, with χρηστότης (“kindness”) and
ἀποτομία (“severity”) taken up in inverted sequence in 4b* (11:22b*) and 4c* (11:22c*), and
then reversed again as 4e* (11:22e*) speaks of severity to Gentiles and 4f* (11:23a*)
describes kindness shown to Jews.48 Weiss notes that the final lines in 11:23a* and 11:24c*
are longer and hence more impressive than the others,49 which signals in my view an
emphasis on the theme of Israel’s ultimate inclusion. It is also noteworthy that diatribal
elements mark this entire pericope, with rhetorical questions in 11:11*, 12*, 15*, and 24* and
addresses to the imaginary interlocutor in the role of a wild olive shoot in 11:17–24*, 50 so
that the bearing of the argument on the Gentile mission and its beneficiaries becomes
unmistakable.
IV. The probatio

11:11–24 8. Diatribe and allegorical enthymeme dealing with the missional purpose of
Israel’s trespass
11:11 a. The thesis concerning the hidden purpose of Israel’s current unbelief
11:11a 1) The rhetorical question about whether Israel was intended to fall
11:11b 2) The emphatic denial
11:11c-d 3) The reason for the denial: the thesis
11:11c a) Salvation comes to Gentiles through Israel’s trespass
11:11d b) Israel will subsequently be provoked to zeal
11:12–24 b. The proof of the purpose of Israel’s trespass and salvation
Romans 11:23 (NRSV)

*
5
Romans 11:5 (NRSV)
47
For example, see Wilckens, 2:241; Michel, 344; Dodd, 173, 179–82; Sanday and Headlam, 326.
48
Bullinger, Figures, 361, refers to the introverted parallelism in 11:21–23. The return to the themes of
“kindness” and “severity” from 22a in 22b-d is called prosapodosis, according to Bullinger, 395.
49
50
See Stowers, Rereading, 99–100, 114–15.
11:12–15 1) Logical enthymeme concerning the missional relevance of Israel’s trespass
and salvation
11:12 a) The a minore ad maius proof that Israel’s trespass and salvation helps the
Gentiles
11:12a (1) The premise of Israel’s trespass enriching the world
11:12b (2) The parallel premise of Israel’s failure enriching Gentiles
11:12c (3) The inference about how much greater riches will come from Israel’s
salvation
11:13–14 b) The exemplum of Paul’s apostolic responsibility both to Gentiles and to
Jews
11:13a (1) Emphatic clarification of address to Gentiles
11:13b (2) The premise of Paul’s identity as an apostle to the Gentiles
11:13c (3) The statement of missional glorification
11:14 (4) Paul’s missional purpose with the Jews
11:14a (a) The goal of provoking Jewish zeal
11:14b (b) Paul’s purpose of saving Jews
11:15 c) The a minore ad maius proof that Israel’s rejection and acceptance brings global
reconciliation and life
11:15a (1) Reiteration of the premise of Israel’s rejection leading to global reconciliation
11:15b (2) The concluding rhetorical question about Israel’s conversion as new life
11:16–21 2) Allegorical enthymeme with speech-in-character that aims at
acknowledging Israel as the holy foundation of the church
11:16 a) The analogical premise of extended holiness
11:16a-b (1) The simile of the dough
11:16a (a) The assumption of holy “first fruit”
11:16b (b) The inference concerning the loaf made holy by the offering of the “first
fruit”
11:16c-d (2) The correlative simile of the root
11:16c (a) The assumption of the holy root
11:16d (b) The inference concerning the branches made holy by the root
11:17–21 b) The allegory of the wild olive branch as the Gentile speech-in-character in
relation to Israel that constitutes the domestic olive tree
11:17–18 (1) The rationale for the wild olive not to boast of superiority
11:17a (a) Broken branches are unbelieving Jews
11:17b (b) The interlocutor is a wild olive branch grafted in to share the “fatness” of the
domestic tree
11:18a (c) The admonition to the interlocutor not to brag
11:18b (d) If the interlocutor brags, he overlooks the support of the domestic root
11:19–21 (2) Since faithless branches are broken off, God will not spare faithless
Gentiles
11:19 (a) The interlocutor disregards the facts and brags about displacing the domestic
branches
11:20a (b) Paul’s acceptance of the foolish interlocutor: “Well said!”
11:20b (c) The clarification of branches broken because of unfaith
11:20c (d) The stance of the interlocutor due to faith
11:20d (e) The warning to the interlocutor
i. Do not be uppity-minded
ii. Fear (God)
11:21 (f) If God does not spare the natural branches he will not spare the interlocutor
11:22–24 3) Conclusion: the rationale of the kindness and severity of God
11:22–23a a) Kindness and severity remain in effect for the interlocutor as well as for
Jews
11:23b–24 b) Since God grafted in the Gentile interlocutor as a wild olive branch, he will
also graft in the Jews who are the natural olive tree
Exegesis
 11* The pericope opens with a rhetorical question introduced exactly as in 11:1*, λέγω οὖν
(“I say therefore”), whereby “therefore” refers back to the dreadful catena of scriptural
accusations in 11:7–10* about Israel stumbling blindly in reaction to the gospel of grace. The
rhetorical question introduced by μή (“not”) requires a negative response from the audience,51
which leads to my translation, “they did not stumble so as to fall, did they?”52 The question is
exactly in parallel with 11:1*, even in employing the same aorist tense in the verb, as seen
below:
11:1* Λέγω οὖν, μὴ ἀπώσατο (“I say therefore, he did not cast off”)
11:11* Λέγω οὖν, μὴ ἔπταισαν (“I say therefore, they did not stumble”)
The wordplay between “stumble” (πταίω) and “fall” (πίπτω) in 11:11* is unique to this
passage, so far as I can tell, but the idea of tripping over a rock but not falling on one’s face is
easily understandable. The verb πταίω that appears here for the only time in the Pauline letters
has the basic sense of “stumble against” or “collide with,”53 and sometimes carries the
figurative sense of making mistakes or errors.54 This verb therefore evokes the σκάνδαλον
(“stumbling block”) of Christ in 9:32–33* and 11:9*. The more common term in the Pauline
letters is πίπτω (“fall”), which appears in 1 Cor 10:12* in reference to “apostasy from God
*
7
8
this very day.”
9
10
51
See BAGD (2000) 646 (c), “marker of expectation of a negative answer to a question.”
52
Most translations and commentators treat the aorist in this question as a perfect verb, “have stumbled,” which
implies an action begun in the past and existing to the present, as compared with the “punctiliar” sense of the
aorist; see Moulton, Grammar I, 109.
53
Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “πταίω,” TDNT 6 (1968) 883. For example, Xenophon Cyr. 3.1.26 reports that Tigranes
replied to Cyrus, “It certainly seems to me when a man who in his good fortune proves arrogant, but immediately
cowers when fallen (πταίσαντα), will indeed again, when set on foot, prove high-minded and again stir up
problems.”
54
Schmidt, “πταίω,” 885, refers to Marcus Aurelius Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτὸν 7.22.1, who refers to loving a “relative and
those who make a false step (τοὺς πταίοντας). Now this does occur, if it happens to you at the same time,
because even relatives, both willingly and through ignorance, do err.”
*
32
33
*
9
Romans 11:9 (NRSV)
*
12
So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.
and from Christ”55 that also entailed separation from the community of faith. We encounter
the same connotation in Rom 11:22* and 14:4*, which are followed closely in other early
Christian writings (Heb 4:11*; Rev 2:5*). Although there are semantic overlaps between these
terms, Paul’s formulation conveys the idea of progressing from stumbling to falling,56 in
which the latter has the connotation of “fall to rise no more.”57 Whether ἵνα should be taken as
purposive (“in order to”)58 or resultant (“so as to”)59 is a matter on which scholars are evenly
divided, but the context and the formulation of the question make the former more likely. The
question was not whether a portion of Israel had stumbled and fallen, which it certainly had as
indicated by the branches ἐξεκλάσθησαν (“lopped off”) in v. 17* and the reference to Israel as
τοὺς πεσόντας (“those who fell”) in v. 22*. While the result of Jewish rejection of the gospel
was clear, the divine intention was not, which gave rise to the rhetorical question and the
subsequent thesis. The categorical denial is expressed with μὴ γένοιτο (“by no means!”),
which appears here for tenth and last time in the letter.60
The thesis that Paul sets forth in support of the denial is introduced by ἀλλά (“but”), which
sets his contention in an adversative relationship with the question just raised, that is, whether
God intended the final destruction of Israel.61 Israel’s stumbling is referred to as “their
trespass” (τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι), a term that Paul had employed in 4:25* in the plural
reference to “our transgressions” and in 5:15–29* in reference to Adam’s sin. Particular
55
Wilhelm Michaelis, “πίπτω κτλ.,” TDNT 6 (1968) 164–65; Elisabeth Palzkill, “πίπτω,” EDNT 3 (1993) 90–91.
*
4
Romans 14:4 (NRSV)
*
11
Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as
theirs.
Hebrews 4:11 (NRSV)
*
5
Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you
and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
Revelation 2:5 (NRSV)
56
Meyer, 2:211.
57
Dunn, 2:653, citing Isa 24:20*, Israel “falls and will not rise again.” Morris, 406, refers to “fall beyond
recovery.” Schmidt, “πταίω,” 886, speaks of “eternal ruin” and Meyer, 2:212, of “everlasting destruction,” thus
evoking eternal damnation that is extraneous to this passage.
58
Weiss, 475; Mayer, Gottes Heilratschluß, 263; Kuss, 3:793; Schlier, 328; Käsemann, 304; Murray, 2:76.
59
Godet, 399; Sanday and Headlam, 321; Lagrange, 275; Cranfield, 2:554; Morris, 406; Dunn, 2:653;
Witherington, 266.
60
For a discussion of the use of μὴ γένοιτο in the diatribes of Epictetus, see Malherbe, “Μὴ γένοιτο,” 25–33, and
note 58 in 3:1–8* above.
61
See Morris, 407.
*
25
who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.
Romans 4:25 (NRSV)
*
15
16
And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought
condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
17
man, Jesus Christ.
18
Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to
justification and life for all.
19
transgressions either of law or of other obligations are in view with this term,62 and in Israel’s
case the previous argument of Romans would lead the audience to understand παράπτωμα as
rejection of the gospel (9:30–10:3*, 16–21*; 11:7–10*).63 As defined by the previous
distinction between stumbling and falling, παράπτωμα is correlated with πταίειν
(“stumble”),64 a serious offense that could be overcome rather than a final lapse into oblivion.
An appropriate parallel to this use of παράπτωμα is therefore Gal 6:1*, “if a person is
overtaken by any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of
gentleness.”65 For, as this pericope goes on to demonstrate, God will ultimately graft back in
(11:24*) those branches of Israel that had been lopped off because of their unfaith in the
gospel (11:20*). In the meanwhile, Paul’s thesis contends, by means of this trespass, “the
salvation [is coming] for the Gentiles.”66 In contrast to the earlier, anarthrous references to
σωτηρία (“salvation”) in 1:16*; 10:1*, 10*, Paul refers here to “the salvation,” as “known,

62
See Wilhelm Michaelis, “παραπίπτω, παράπτωμα,” TDNT 6 (1968) 170–72. Michael Wolter, “παράπτωμα,”
EDNT 3 (1991) 34, stretches the semantic range of this term by contending that in 11:11* παράπτωμα bears the
meaning of “fall from the realm of salvation.”
*
30
through faith;
31
32
33
1
2
3
*
16
17
18
19
20
21
ordinary use?
63
Michaelis, “παραπίπτω, παράπτωμα,” 172; see also Michel, 344; Murray, 2:76; Cranfield, 2:555–56;
Wilckens, 2:242; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 112.
64
Meyer, 2:212; Weiss, 476. Wolter, “παράπτωμα,” 34, stretches the semantic range of this term by contending
that in 11:11* παράπτωμα bears the meaning of “fall from the realm of salvation.”
*
1
My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one
in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.
65
See also Ps 18:13*; Ps. Sol. 3.7; 13.5, 10.
66
The clause ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν should be translated as a dative of benefit, “the salvation for the Gentiles.”
*
16
Romans 1:16 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 10:1 (NRSV)
particular, previously mentioned”67 in the earlier argument of Romans and experienced in the
life of the Roman congregations. The sequence of conversion by divine power that moves
from “faith” to “confession” and then to “salvation” as described in 10:10* is presupposed
here, with σωτηρία understood as eschatological deliverance.68 Since the clause is elliptical,
commentators ordinarily add a past-tense verb, usually in the perfect, that matches the
mistranslation of the aorist in 11b*, but a present-progressive verb with its inherently future
orientation (“is coming”)69 seems more appropriate in the context of this missional letter in
which Paul immediately moves on to “glorify” his ministry to the Gentiles (11:13*) in order
to stimulate the conversion of the Jews (11:14*).
The idea of Jewish resistance providing an opportunity for the gospel to be preached to the
Gentiles rests on the premise of an apocalyptic scenario.70 At the end of time all Israel will be
saved (11:26*) but this cannot occur until “the fullness of the Gentiles” has been achieved
(11:25*). Reckoning backwards from this apocalyptic climax, Paul infers that current Jewish
resistance against the gospel provides time for the Gentile mission. This is the reasoning
behind the Spanish mission project that this letter seeks to advance, for if the gospel can be
brought to the end of the known world, the climactic conversion of Israel can occur and the
parousia can come as promised.
The articular infinitive followed by a pronoun, εἰς τὸ παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς, indicates the
purpose of salvation coming first to the Gentiles,71 and should be translated “in order to
provoke them to zeal/jealousy/ emulation.”72 Here Paul refers back to the citation from Deut
32:21* in 10:19*, which was translated in my discussion above as “I will make you zealous”
*
10
Romans 10:10 (NRSV)
67
BDF §252.
68
See Schelkle, “σωτηρία,” 327.
*
11
Romans 10:11 (NRSV)
69
See Barrett, 213; Dunn, 2:653. Witherington, 267, follows Stephen Llewelyn, “Slaves and Masters §9, ”
NDIEC 6 (1992) 68, that the omitted verb should always conform to the immediately preceding verb, but the
evidence for this is not conclusive in every case, according to BDF §§479, 481.
70
Käsemann, 304, refers to the “salvation-historical aspect” of 11:11; Aageson, “Scripture,” 282, refers to
“God’s plan of salvation,” but Terence L. Donaldson, “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:12*): Israel’s
Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission,” JBL 112 (1993) 92–98, provides the clearest view of Paul’s apocalyptic
scenario. Commentaries routinely refer to Acts 11:19–21*; 13:45–48*; 18:6*; 28:24–28, but these later theories
of Jewish resistance leading to the Gentile mission are not reflected in the Pauline letters, all of which display an
apocalyptic orientation. Lagrange, 275, and Ellison, Mystery of Israel, 81, claim that Jewish customs would have
stood in the way of Gentile conversion, but this plays no role in Romans. Even less plausible is Cranfield’s
explanation (2:556) on the basis of Barth’s theory that Jewish resistance against Christ led to his redemptive
death and hence to the salvation of the world; there is no evidence of christological speculation in this passage.
Nor is there a basis to claim with Wright, “Messiah,” 180–82, that Israel had to be cast aside in order to conform
to the fate of the Messiah.
*
26
Romans 11:26 (NRSV)
*
25
Romans 11:25 (NRSV)
71
Meyer, 2:212; Morris, 407; Moulton and Turner, Grammar III, 143, shows that this construction usually
indicates purpose.
72
See Stumpff, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” 881; Popkes, “ζῆλος κτλ.,” 100.
*
in relation to the Gentiles. Admittedly, there are problems with all of the suggested
translations of παραζηλόω in this passage. If the traditional translation “jealousy” is
selected,73 the “fantastic” improbability in believing that envy could lead to salvation74 along
with the inherent unworthiness of envy as a motivation for conversion75 are hard to deny. In
view of the fact that Jewish legalists viewed the early Christian proclamation as heretical, no
satisfactory explanation has ever been given to explain why they would have been “jealous”
when Gentiles accepted this allegedly mistaken doctrine. Moreover, the links with the earlier
argument of Romans are weakened by the traditional translation, because ζηλόω has the sense
of religious zeal and rage rather than jealousy in 10:2*, as generally acknowledged, and also
in 10:19*, as argued above on contextual and poetic grounds.76 If “emulation” is selected,77
Bell has a hard time explaining how “jealous anger,” his preferred translation for 10:19*,
could have been thought to shift into the positive desire to emulate the behavior of the
previously hated Gentiles.78 If one selects “provoke to zealous rage” or “make zealous,”79 thus
providing the best continuity with the probable connotation of παραζηλόω in 10:19* and the
certain meaning of ζηλόω in 10:2*, it remains puzzling that such religious hostility could be
thought to lead to their salvation, for which Paul hopes in 11:14*.80 Perhaps he has the model
of his own conversion in mind, namely, that when his zeal reached its violent climax in the
persecution of the believers in Damascus, the risen Christ was revealed to him and his desire
to destroy alleged evildoers turned into its opposite, a desire for coexistence with those whom
the Messiah had chosen to accept. Zeal to exclude hated Gentiles turned into a comparable
zeal to include them as part of the people of God. It appears that Paul hoped for a similar
process of conversion for current Jewish critics of the gospel.81
However one chooses to translate παραζηλόω, it is clear that a kind of double thesis has been
established in v. 11* for the rest of this pericope. In the enthymeme that follows, Paul goes on
to develop the idea that (1) benefits for Gentiles come through the hostile resistance of the
Jews, and (2) the conversion of Gentiles will provoke the Jews to a divinely instigated
reaction that will result in their conversion as well. In the long history of interpretation, with
the exception of a few commentators who are revolted by Paul’s alleged trust in jealousy, this
extraordinary thesis has come to seem unremarkable. But in the viewpoint of Paul’s original
21
73
Among the almost unanimous voice of commentators favoring “jealousy,” Murray, 2:77, and Wilckens,
2:242–43, seem conscious of the problems with this choice. Stuhlmacher, 167, suggests “angry jealousy,” which
is accepted by Keller, Gottes Treue, 185–87. Nanos, Mystery, 249–50, argues that Jews were jealous of Paul’s
successful ministry with Gentiles because he was realizing “their own Jewish universalistic hopes” in a manner
superior to their own missionary successes.
74
Käsemann, 304.
75
Fitzmyer, 611.
*
2
Romans 10:2 (NRSV)
76
See particularly Baker, “Motif of Jealousy” 475, who rejects a “shift in meaning between Rom 10:19* and
11:11*, 14*.
77
The only commentary that comes close to this interpretation is Weiss, 476.
78
See Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 113–67.
79
The only commentary close to this translation is O’Neill, 179, who refers to Paul’s aim “to stir unbelieving
Jews to greater fury.” Stuhlmacher, 167, picks up part of this motif with “angry jealousy.”
80
Keller, Gottes Treue, 186–94, grapples with this problem but suggests that Paul’s strategy of “saving some”
(11:14*) was by normal means of gospel persuasion and that jealous anger would have been ineffective. In the
end, actual jealousy of the position of Gentiles as God’s people would effect mass Jewish conversion (193).
81
In Murray Baker’s formulation, “Although not explicit, the salvation envisaged is surely Christocentric: Christ
the redeemer at the parousia turning Israel to faith in Christ” (Baker, “Motif of Jealousy” 482)
audience in Rome, this thesis must have appeared both improbable and unappealing. Neither
the weak nor the strong in Rome, who were damning each other and refusing
intercommunion, would have had an interest in increasing the number of their competitors on
the other side. And that the mass conversion of potential allies to their competitors would
ultimately redound to their own benefit must have appeared preposterous. Those who read
this pericope as unproblematic discourse have forgotten that its audience was in Rome, where
power politics, alliances, and lethal competition had for centuries been the most engaging
aspects of life and conversation. The rhetorical brilliance and wit of the following argument
was ingeniously devised to overcome Roman resistance to Paul’s missional project.
 12* The first proof begins with an eloquent oral ellipse,82 that is, without verbs, which must
be supplied by the hearer. It is widely recognized that this verse provides an a minore ad
maius (“lesser to greater”) argument, employing the “how much more” scheme that we saw in
5:9*, 10*, 15*, 17*.83 The premise of the argument begins with an inferential εἰ (“if”) and is
formulated as a compelling, synonymous parallelism that restates the first portion of the thesis
as expressed in 11:11c*. The expression παράπτωμα αὐτῶν (“their trespass”) is repeated
chiastically from 11c*, thus making clear that the a minore ad maius argument sustains the
thesis already stated. There is an ironic juxtaposition between the terms Paul selects, because
“trespass” would ordinarily be thought to lead to failure, but here it brings πλοῦτος κόσμου
(“wealth for the world”). Deuteronomy and Proverbs consistently maintain that bad behavior
leads to poverty while righteous behavior leads to wealth.84 This is also assumed throughout
the Greco-Roman world,85 so the counterintuitive paradox of Paul’s argument was evident.
The word πλοῦτος connotes both material and spiritual wealth and prosperity,86 which has led
commentators to define it as salvation.87 The paradoxical quality of Paul’s claim is visible in
contrast to the conventional piety of Ps 21:2*, where “the account of my transgressions
82
See BDF §481.
*
9
Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the
wrath of God.
Romans 5:9 (NRSV)
*
10
Romans 5:10 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 5:15 (NRSV)
*
17
man, Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:17 (NRSV)
83
For example, Meyer, 2:214; Käsemann, 305; Wilckens, 2:243; Siegert, Argumentation, 166; Moo, 688.
84
Deut 8:1–20*; 11:8–17*; Prov 6:6–13*; 10:3–5*, 15–16*; 11:25–31*; 12:11*, 27*; 13:21*, 25*; 19:3*, 15–
16*; 21:5–7*, 17*; 22:4–5*, 8*; 24:30–34*; 28:18–20*; 31:10–31*; see also Hauck and Kasch, “πλοῦτος κτλ.,”
324.
85
For example, see Hesiod Op. 225–47, who claims that just and righteous deeds cause a city and her people to
prosper, bringing them peace, lack of famine, and plenty in respect to crops and produce in the land, whereas
wickedness and violence bring the opposite.
86
Hauck and Kasch, “πλοῦτος κτλ.,” 328–29.
87
Godet, 400; Schlier, 329; Murray, 2:77; Cranfield, 2:557; Byrne, 338, all refer to “salvation.” Käsemann, 305;
Schreiner, 597, refer to “eschatological blessing”; Dunn uses similar language in 2:654.
*
(παράπτωμα μου) is far from my salvation.”88 In view of the variety of verbs to be supplied in
Pauline ellipses,89 it is questionable whether the usual “is” would be appropriate in reference
to wealth.90 Since Paul argues that an actual augmentation of wealth, both spiritual and
material, will occur as a result of the mission to Jews and Gentiles, it seems more natural to
supply a verb that expresses the production thereof: I therefore translate “if their trespass
[makes] wealth for the world.”
In the synonymous parallel of v. 12b*, the rare word ἥττημα stands in the correlative position
with “trespass” and enhances the antithesis in 12a* because of its connotation of “loss,”91
falling short,92 or being defeated.93 The semantic connotation of “loss” fits the context best,94
while the usual translations of “failure”95 or “defeat”96 ruin the antithesis with “wealth.”97 The
divine paradox of the gospel that overturns all human expectations is neatly encapsulated by
the thought that Israel’s “loss” produces “wealth” for the Gentiles.98 The correlative
formulation “wealth for the Gentiles” in 12b* clarifies what was meant by “wealth for the
world” in 12a*, that is, that spiritual and material prosperity has come to the Gentiles as a
result of Israel’s repudiation of the gospel that afforded time for the gospel to be preached and
new communities of faith formed.99 Although commentators are inclined to view this as bland
and virtually redundant parallelism,100 the reference to “wealth for the Gentiles” was a
relevant clarification in the Roman context, because the Gentile majority in the churches was
hostile to Jewish Christians and thus would not have been inclined to welcome their
augmentation. While commentaries concentrate exclusively on the spiritual side of this twice-
repeated term πλοῦτος, it is important to remember that Paul employed this term with
reference to material plentitude in 2 Cor 8:2*, describing how the extreme poverty of the
Macedonian churches had “overflowed in a wealth of liberality on their part (τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς
1
To the leader: according to The Deer of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
Psalm 22:1 (NRSV)
88
See Sir 3:13*; 10:2*; also Michaelis, “παραπίπτω, παράπτωμα,” 170.
89
See Moulton and Turner, Grammar III, 300–303.
90
Commentators often supply verbs other than “is” for the ellipses in 11:12. Lietzmann, 102; Morris, 405;
Cranfield, 2:553; Zeller, 193; Ziesler, 274; Dunn, 2:654; Moo, 685, 88; Byrne, 336, supply “means”; Barrett;
211, supplies “has come to mean … has led … will mean”; Schmidt, 188, and Haacker, 225, supply “make”;
Wilckens, 2:241, supplies “has become”; Jülicher, 303, supplies “bring.”
91
BAGD (2000) 441, citing 1 Cor 6:7* as an example of ἥττημα, “to have lawsuits with one another is an utter
loss for you.” LSJM 780 renders ἥττημα as “discomfiture, loss.” The Con. Eph. I.1.6.149.19 refers to
ἀνθρωπίνης ἀσθενείας ἥττημα (“loss of human frailty”).
92
BAGD (2000) 441 notes that ἠττάομαι means “feel less important, be treated worse,” as in 2 Cor 12:13*, “for
in what were you treated worse than the rest of the churches?”
93
BAGD (2000) 441 says ἠττάομαι can mean “be vanquished, be defeated,” as in 2 Pet 2:19–20* and Isa 31:8*.
MM 282 cites Chrest. 1. Nr. 16.7, with regard to the defeat of a Jewish uprising during Hadrian’s reign, οἱ
ἡμέ[τ]ερο[ι] ἠττ[ή]θησαν καὶ πολλοὶ [α]ὐτῶν συνεκόπ[ησαν (“Ours were worsted, and many of theirs soundly
thrashed!”)
94
Lietzmann, 103, speaks of a “minus;” Kühl, 379, refers to Israel falling behind the Gentiles and Barrett speaks
of “a diminution” of the numbers of Jewish converts; Fitzmyer, 611, translates with “loss,” as does Johnson, 168.
95
Dunn, 2:651; Byrne, 336.
96
Michel, 345; Schlier, 329; Cranfield, 2:557; Murray, 2:78; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 114.
97
See Barrett, 214.
98
See Morris, 408.
99
See Donaldson, “Riches,” 92–94.
100
Weiss, 478; Schlier, 329; Morris, 407–8.
*
2
for during a severe ordeal of affliction, their abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a
wealth of generosity on their part.
ἁπλότητος αὐτῶν)” in their contributions to the Jerusalem offering. Also, in Phil 4:19*, after
thanking this same impoverished congregation for their gift to meet his financial need, Paul
promises that “my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory (κατὰ
τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ) in Christ Jesus.” In the common life of early churches, the pooling
of resources through koinonia and the augmented morale of members resulted in actual
increases of material wealth, as Paul makes clear in 2 Cor 9:8–10*.101 Now Paul creates an
argument that a further increase in material as well as spiritual wealth will occur when the
mission is completed.
The content of the “how much more” phase of Paul’s first argument employs πόσῳ μᾶλλον in
place of πολλῷ μᾶλλον (“how much more?”) that we saw in chapter 5. The two expressions
appear to have a virtually identical meaning,102 but apparently Paul felt that πόσῳ μᾶλλον was
more appropriate in reference to its adjacent reference, πλοῦτος. While most commentaries
fail to specify how much more of what was intended by this question, Meyer clarifies what
the successful Jewish conversion will produce: “how much more will it issue in the
enrichment of the Gentiles.”103 I therefore translate, “how much more [wealth will] their full
total [make]?” There is an unresolved debate over the interpretation of τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν,104
which has been taken to refer to Israel’s complete acceptance of faith,105 the fulfillment of the
demand of love as in 13:10*, 106 the fulfillment of Israel’s predestination,107 the filling up of
“the blank in the kingdom of God which arose through their unbelief,”108 the “fulfillment of
God’s will,”109 or, in the assessment of most commentators, “the full and completed number”
of Jewish converts.110 The “most common use” of πλήρωμα in secular literature is “complete,
full-total, completeness,” according to the survey by P. D. Overfield.111 A close parallel to
Paul’s expression is πλήρωμα ἔθνους (“fullness of a people”) to describe the entire citizenry
*
19
And my God will fully satisfy every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
*
8
And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of
everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.
9
As it is written, “He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.”
10
He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and
increase the harvest of your righteousness.
101
Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 109–11, places this passage in the context of Greco-Roman and Jewish
conceptions that material wealth was a gift of God that enables human sharing.
102
BAGD (2000) 849 ‫ ב‬and 855 (1); πόσῳ μᾶλλον appears also in Luke 11:13*; 12:24*, 28*; Heb 9:14*, and
among the Attic Orators only once in Demosthenes Orat. 19.238.5.
103
Meyer, 2:214; see also Käsemann, 305.
104
Dunn cannot decide between the alternative interpretations and offers “fullness” on the grounds that “Paul
strives more for effect than for precision.”
105
Zahn, 506; similarly, Fritzsche refers to “the fullness of Messianic salvation,” as reported by Meyer, 2:214;
for a more recent statement, see Plag, Israels Wege, 33–34.
*
10
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:10 (NRSV)
106
Lietzmann, 103.
107
Umbreit as described by Meyer, 2:214.
108
Philippi, as reported by Meyer, 2:214–15.
109
Reported by Cranfield, 2:558.
110
Ibid.; see also Godet, 401; Sanday and Headlam, 322; Murray, 2:79; Wilckens, 2:243; Stuhlmann,
Eschatologische Maß, 186–87; Witherington, 267; Donaldson, “Riches,” 94, confirmed by Baker, “Motif of
Jealousy” 478–80.
111
Overfield, “Pleroma” 388. In Aristotle Pol. 1267b16; 1284a5; Plato Resp. 371e7, the πλήρωμα of a πόλις
refers to the full population of a city.
in a Greek polis.112 In the confessional formula that Paul cites in Gal 4:4*, the word πλήρωμα
refers to the divinely ordained moment when the requisite time had passed: “when the fullness
of time had come (ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου), God sent his son .…” As Betz observes,
this is the traditional “Jewish and Christian eschatological language which Paul shared.”113
Since the same usage is visible in Mark 1:15*, πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός (“the time is fulfilled”)
and John 7:8*, ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται (“my time is not yet fulfilled”), there is no
doubt that the audience in Rome would have understood Paul’s formulation as the divinely
appointed full measure.114 Rainer Stuhlmann has shown that the idea of an eschatological full
measure extended also to the predestined number of the saved, as in 4 Ezra 4.35–37*:115 “And
when will come the harvest of our reward?” And Jeremiel the archangel answered them and
said, “When the number of those like yourselves is completed; for he has weighed the age in
the balance, and measured the times by measure, and numbered the times by number; and he
will not move or arouse them until that measure is fulfilled.” The interpretation of πλήρωμα
as a full measure in 11:12* is confirmed by the same language in 11:25* that clearly describes
the full number of Gentile converts.116 With this rhetorical question that demands a positive
response from his audience, Paul completes the first phase of his enthymeme. With a brilliant
rhetorical stroke, Paul has made a persuasive start in overturning the inclinations of his
audience in Rome to resist missionizing that would benefit their competitors. He gets them to
agree with the divine paradox that the very conversions they resist are of the most decisive
benefit, both spiritual and material, not just to their competitors but also to themselves.
 13* As noted above, many commentators are inclined to take “Now I speak to you
Gentiles” as the beginning of a new section,117 but, as Siegert points out, the connections to
both the preceding and following discourse are very tight, and the δέ should not be viewed as
adversative but translated as a development of the argument,118 which leads to my translation
112
Aelius Aristides Παν. 160.13. Gerhard Delling, “πλήρης κτλ.,” TDNT 6 (1968) 299, also cites Aristotle Pol.
4.4, 1291a.17 as an example of this use.
*
4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
113
Betz, Galatians, 206, referring to parallels in Mark 1:15*; John 7:8*; Heb 1:2*; 1QS 4:18–19; 1QM 14:14;
1QpHab 7:13. Witherington, 167, adds 2 Bar. 81.4 (“He made known to me the mystery of the times. And the
advent of the hours he showed me”) as an example of this idea of the predestined time of fulfillment.
*
15
and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good
news.”
Mark 1:15 (NRSV)
*
8
Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.”
John 7:8 (NRSV)
114
See Delling, “πλήρης κτλ.,” 305; Hans Hübner, “πλήρωμα,” EDNT 3 (1993) 110–11.
*
35
Did not the souls of the righteous in their chambers ask about these matters, saying, ‘How long are we to
remain here? And when will the harvest of our reward come?’
36
And the archangel Jeremiel answered and said, ‘When the number of those like yourselves is completed; for
he has weighed the age in the balance,
37
and measured the times by measure, and numbered the times by number; and he will not move or arouse them
until that measure is fulfilled.’ ”
2 Esdras 4:35–37 (NRSV)
115
Stuhlmann, Eschatologische Maß, 109–12; other comparable passages include 1 En. 47:4 and Rev 6:11*.
116
Kühl, 379, makes a compelling case that 11:25* requires the concept of the “full number” of Jewish converts;
Weiss, 478, rejects the numerical interpretation.
117
Barrett, 211–12; Schlier, 326–27; Ziesler, 271–72; Kuss, 3:792, 798–99; Dunn, 2:650–51;Witherington, 242–
43; Morris, 405.
118
Siegert, Argumentation, 166; see also Meyer, 2:215.
with “now.” The direct address to Gentiles is not merely an indication of the likely majority of
the congregation,119 but reveals where the strongest resistance to Paul’s contention was
perceived to lie. The pronoun ὑμῖν is in the emphatic position, which makes it clear that the
discourse in this section is primarily directed120 at Gentile believers.121 The prejudice of the
Gentile Christian majority against the “weak” was the major barrier against the proper
development of Paul’s missional scheme, because, as I have suggested, they did not welcome
the prospect of an increase in the number of their competitors that would come from a mass
conversion of Jews. Paul is forced by the rhetorical situation to address the Gentile
congregations directly and make it clear that he is on their side of the equation despite his
urging them to a course of action that they were inclined to loathe. He thus makes it plain that
such a course is intrinsic to the Gentile mission as such, using himself as an exemplum.122 The
expression ἐφʼ ὅσον (“inasmuch”)123 is followed by the concessive μὲν οὖν, which has the
sense of “contrary to what you may be inclined to think.”124 I attempt to render this with
“notwithstanding.” This is combined with the emphatic εἰμι ἐγώ, which I render as “I am
indeed”125 an apostle appointed by God to missionize among Gentiles. It is important to
observe that he does not claim to be “the apostle to the Gentiles”; by omitting the article, the
unusual expression ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος (“an apostle to the Gentiles”)126 places his task
alongside others and implies that service to the cause of the Jewish mission is a generic
obligation of every Gentile apostle. Here Paul alludes back to 1:1* and 1:5* where he claimed
to have received a specific calling to missionize among “all the Gentiles.” Since this calling
derived from Paul’s conversion (Gal 1:16*) and was recognized by the pillar apostles (Gal
2:7*, 9*), it would have been seen as indisputable by the audience in Rome. In view of the
119
Dunn, 2:655, and Moo, 691, reiterate the view of most commentators on this point.
120
121
Even Dabelstein, Beurteilung, 37, who often translates ἔθνη as “nations,” recognizes that “Gentile believers”
are in view. All commentators agree.
122
See Anderson, Glossary, 87–88, 109.
123
BAGD (2000) 729 (3), “to the degree that,” in this case, “that I am an apostle to the Gentiles.” Schlier, 330,
cites Barn. 4.11 (“so far as in us lies [ἐφʼ ὅσον ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν] let us exercise ourselves in the fear of God” and
17.1 (“so far as [ἐφʼ ὅσον] possibility and simplicity allow an explanation to be given …”).
124
See Lagrange, 277; Cranfield, 2:559; Moo, 691; see also Weiss, 479.
125
Meyer, 2:215.
126
See the discussion of the grammatical issue of the anarthrous formulation in Morris, 409 n. 60, and Moo, 691
n. 40, considers the possibility that ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος may have been titular, but this seems unlikely. BDF §474.4
provides the relevant rule. Sansone, “Article in Greek” 199–201, suggests that the absence of the article indicates
“focality.”
*
1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
Romans 1:1 (NRSV)
*
5
Romans 1:5 (NRSV)
*
16
to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human
being,
*
7
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter
had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised
*
9
and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been
given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the
Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
divine authorization of apostolic service, it would have seemed unobjectionable that Paul
glorifies his ministry. The verb δοξάζειν (“to glorify”) is an inherent obligation of humans
toward God (cf. 1:21*; 15:6*, 9*),127 so that honoring the agency of apostolic service was a
logical extension of this obligation.128 There is no indication that he believed such
glorification is a violation of the fundamental prohibition of boasting in behalf of one’s self
and one’s achievements, as in 3:27*; for Paul this is an acceptable form of “boasting in the
Lord” (2:17*; 5:2*, 11*; 1 Cor 1:31*; 2 Cor 10:17*; Phil 3:3*).
In 2 Cor 4:1* and 11:23* Paul speaks of apostolic service as a διακονία, which is an “in-
between” activity such as speaking or serving in behalf of others,129 in this case in behalf of

*
21
Romans 1:21 (NRSV)
*
6
so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 15:6 (NRSV)
*
9
Romans 15:9 (NRSV)
127
See Walter Grundmann, “δοκέω κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 241, 253–54; Ceslas Spicq, “δόξα κτλ.,” TLNT 1
(1974) 372–73, 376–78.
128
Harald Hegermann, “δοξάζω,” EDNT 1 (1990) 348. Michel, 347, places this reference in the context of the
obligatory Beraka, which glorifies God. Cranfield, 2:560, seeks to avoid any implication of boasting and thus
adds the thought that Paul fulfills his apostolic calling “with all his might and devotion,” which is not germane to
this context.
*
27
Romans 3:27 (NRSV)
*
17
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God
Romans 2:17 (NRSV)
*
2
the glory of God.
Romans 5:2 (NRSV)
*
11
But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
reconciliation.
Romans 5:11 (NRSV)
*
31
in order that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
*
17
“Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
*
3
For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no
confidence in the flesh—
*
1
Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart.
*
23
Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman—I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more
imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death.
the gospel and the formation of communities of faith.130 That this term referred to a formal
church office, as argued by Lietzmann and others,131 is doubtful at this early stage in the
development of the church, but that early Christian leaders of congregations bore this title
from the very earliest stage is clear from Phil 1:1* and Rom 16:1*. There was nothing in this
verse, therefore, that would have seemed problematic to the believers in Rome. What the
Gentile Christian audience was not so prepared to accept, however, was the contention in the
next verse that serving the cause of Jewish conversion was inextricably bound up with
apostolic ministry.
 14* Paul’s hope in the effect of glorifying his apostolic ministry is stated in a carefully
qualified manner. He begins with εἴ πως (“if somehow”), which leaves open the means by
which the following is to be achieved.132 In a formula comparable to English “flesh and
blood,” Paul refers to his fellow Jews with the typical biblical expression employed in 9:3*,
“my flesh,” as in Gen 29:14* (“Laban said to him, ‘Surely you are my bone and my flesh [ἐκ
τῆς σαρκός μου]’ ”; see also Judg 9:2*; 2 Sam 5:1*).133 Since this expression appears
repeatedly in the OT, this constitutes a clear “echo,” even though the emphatic position of
“my” in Paul’s formulation, μου τὴν σάρκα, requires the translation “my very flesh.” There is,
in any event, no derogatory implication in this reference.134 The verbs παραζηλώσω and
σώσω can be taken as either future indicative135 or aorist subjunctive,136 and the latter seems

129
See Collins, Diakonia, 77–95, 335–36.
130
Alfons Weiser, “διακονέω κτλ.,” EDNT 1 (1990) 302–3, shows that the organization of table service as well
as the ministry of the word were entailed in Paul’s use of the term διακονία.
131
Lietzmann, 109; Schlier, 330; Murray, 2:124; Brockhaus, Charisma, 98–100. For a critique of this view, see
Käsemann, 306.
*
1
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the
bishops and deacons:
*
1
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae,
Romans 16:1 (NRSV)
132
See BDF §375; BAGD (2000) 901, a “marker of undesignated means or manner, somehow, in some way,
perhaps.” Examples are Josephus Bell. 6.423, “if somehow he might be able to count their number,” and Ant.
2.159, “falling at Joseph’s feet, if somehow he might soften his wrath.” See also Acts 27:12*; Rom 1:10*; and
Phil 3:11*.
*
3
Romans 9:3 (NRSV)
*
14
and Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” And he stayed with him a month.
*
2
“Say in the hearing of all the lords of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that all seventy of the sons of
Jerubbaal rule over you, or that one rule over you?’ Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.”
Judges 9:2 (NRSV)
*
1
Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, “Look, we are your bone and flesh.
2 Samuel 5:1 (NRSV)
133
Sand, “σάρξ,” 231, “In the genealogical sense, flesh refers to the people of Israel, to whom a person belongs
through conception and birth.”
134
Dunn, 2:656, suggests that Paul’s choice of “flesh” refers back to the “hardened” quality of his fellow Jews; I
made a similar claim in Terms, 160, 163, but it now appears to me that the negative connotation of “flesh” is
extraneous to this verse.
135
The indicative is selected by Kühl, 381, and Haacker, 226; Kuss, 3:799, seems to favor the indicative, but his
translation on 798 reflects the subjunctive.
more likely following εἴ πως. I therefore translate with “might make zealous” and “might
save.” In line with the definition of παραζηλόω as “make zealous” or “provoke to zealous
anger” in 10:19* and 11:11*, this connotation should be assumed here, rather than “make
jealous” or “cause to emulate.” However one chooses to translate παραζηλόω, it is clear that
Deut 32:21*, from which this term was drawn, serves as “a charter for his mission to the
Gentiles,” namely, to serve “God’s intention … to save Israel along with the entire
cosmos.”137 The subjunctive voice of the verbs along with “if somehow” insert a measure of
divine mystery in this process. The verb σώζειν (“to save”) reflects early Christian missionary
language as in 1 Cor 7:16*; 9:22*; and 1 Thess 2:16*, 138 and takes up the theme of
“salvation” from 11:11*. In the light of Rom 10:8–10*, it is clear that Paul functions as an
agency in this charismatic process, which involves proclamation of the gospel, a response of
faith, a public confession, and becoming part of a house or tenement church. There is also a
measure of “diplomatic caution”139 in his hope to effect the conversion of τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν
(“some of them”). Particularly in the face of Gentile Christian resistance against augmenting
the number of their Jewish Christian competitors, Paul’s formulation leaves the effectuation
up to God. If the Jews in fact respond positively to Paul’s provocation, it will be a result of
miraculous divine intervention, not of Paul’s persuasive powers. As in the formulation of
11:12*, the precise measure of the “full number” of Jewish converts remains in the hands of
God, whose mysterious purpose is acclaimed at the end of this third great proof (11:33–36*).
 15* It is interesting to observe that after presenting the personal exemplum in vv. 13–14*,
which was bound to be highly controversial, Paul returns in this verse to the safer arena of an
extraordinarily exalted a minore ad maius (“lesser to greater”) argument, which ends with a
rhetorical question that forces the audience to make a positive response. This verse has the
feel of a recapitulation by beginning as in 11:12* with a protasis introduced by εἰ (“if”)
136
The aorist subjunctive is favored by Zahn, 510; Moo, 685, 692, and most translations.
137
*
16
Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.
*
22
To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might
by all means save some.
*
16
138
See Wilckens, 2:244, for a complete listing of passages. Radl, “σώζω,” 320, confirms that “conversion” is in
view with this usage.
*
8
proclaim);
9
10
139
Käsemann, 306.
*
33
34
35
36
followed by an apodosis in the form of a rhetorical question. As in v. 12*, the style is that of
an eloquent ellipse, for which the verbs must be supplied by the audience. In view of the
subjunctive verbs in the preceding sentence, a subjunctive form of γένοιτο, thus echoing v.
11* and translated “would be,” seems most natural here.140 The normal lexical range for
ἀποβολή is (1) “throw away, jettison” or (2) “loss,” whereas there are no clear examples of
the widely popular translation, “reject.”141 The expression ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν could be taken as
a subjective genitive, “the loss of, or throwing away [the gospel] by the Jews themselves,”142
or an objective genitive, “their being thrown away [by God].”143 The subjective genitive is
sustained by Fitzmyer’s compelling observation that in 11:1* Paul explicitly repudiated the
idea that God had rejected his people.144 In this pericope, he employs the word “trespass” in
11:11*, 12*, which directs attention to the behavior of the Jews themselves, which also
supports the subjective reading. Since “loss” would assume an identical Greek term with v.
12*, and “throwing away” is so awkward in English, I suggest that the most appropriate
translation is “their discarding [the gospel].”
That the jettisoning of the gospel on the part of the Jews gave space for the mission to
Gentiles leads Paul to his dramatic and exalted equation: καταλλαγὴ κόσμου (“reconciliation
of [the] world, global reconciliation”). In 5:10–11* Paul had described the gospel’s impact in
terms of reconciliation, and in 2 Cor 5:18* he had summarized his entire apostolic ministry
under this heading: “all this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and
gave us the ministry of reconciliation (τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς).” The expression
“global reconciliation” echoes themes in the Roman civic cult and its antecedents in the cult
of Alexander the Great, as we observed in connection with 5:8–10*.145 This ecstatic language
140
This is an instance where the principle suggested by Llewelyn, “Slaves,” 68, about elisions normally
following the immediately previous verbal form appears to be followed.
141
Verena Jegher-Bucher, “Erwählung und Verwerfung im Römerbrief? Eine Untersuchung von Röm 11, 11–15,
” ThZ 47 (1991) 329, insists that the LSJM 193 restriction to these two definitions is correct, while BAGD
(2000) 108 inappropriately suggests the translation “reject” for Rom 11:15* on the basis of mistranslating
Josephus Ant. 4.314 as “reject” instead of “yet will they [i.e., temple and city] be lost not once, but often
(ἔσεσθαι δὲ τὴν τούτων ἀποβολὴν οὐχ ἅπαξ ἀλλὰ πολλάκις).”
142
Advocated by Zahn, 510–11; Fitzmyer, 612; Donaldson, “Riches,” 93; Haacker, 227–29. Haacker suggests
parallels to ἀποβολή as “loss” in Acts 27:22*; Josephus Ant. 4.314 and 14.377. Classical parallels found via TLG
include Plutarch Sol. 7.1.1, decrying “fear in our loss of possessions (ὁ τῷ φόβῳ τῆς ἀποβολῆς τὴν κτῆσιν)”; and
Sol. 7.6.2, referring to the “loss of friends (πρὸς φίλων ἀποβολή).” See also Plutarch Pyrrh. 30.3.2; Ant. 71.1.2;
Diodorus Siculus Hist. 15.50.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiq. Rom. 9.13.4. Jegher-Bucher, “Erwählung,”
334, suggests the temporary “loss” of God’s longtime coworkers, the Jews, which seems extraneous to this
passage.
143
Godet, 403; Weiss, 481; Sanday and Headlam, 325; Schmidt, 192; Michel, 345–46; Black, 155; Cranfield,
2:562; Murray, 2:81; Kuss, 3:800; Käsemann, 307; Wilckens, 2:245; Heinrich Balz and Gerhard Schneider,
“ἀποβολή,” EDNT 1 (1990) 125; Siegert, Argumentation, 166; Dunn, 2:657; Moo, 693. An example of this
concept is the gloss on Sir 10:20* (“fear of the Lord is the beginning of acceptance, but the beginning of
rejection is obstinacy and arrogance”).
144
Fitzmyer, 612.
*
10
11
But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
reconciliation.
*
18
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of
reconciliation;
*
8
naturally leaves loopholes that the original hearers probably did not have time to notice; in
this instance, the global reconciliation visible at the time of Paul’s writing did not include
overcoming the conflicts between Jews and Gentiles.146 He comes back to rectify this
shortcoming in chapters 14–15. At this point in Romans, however, the mission to the Gentiles
that followed from Jewish rejection of the gospel is depicted in grandiose terms as the
fulfillment of the Greco-Roman and Jewish visions of global peace under the rule of a single
sovereign.147 This formulation reveals the breathtaking vision that is embodied in Paul’s
project of extending the circle of Christ’s reconciling sovereignty to the end of the known
world in Spain.
The rhetorical question that brings the first enthymeme to a close deals with what the ἡ
πρόσλημψις (“the acceptance, welcome”) might mean. This word is found here for the only
time in the OT or NT, but it is associated with the more frequently employed verb
προσλαμβάνω, which Paul uses in 14:1*, 3*; 15:7* in reference to welcoming others into the
fellowship of a house or tenement church. This verb has the sense of “to receive hospitably”
in Philemon 17* and Acts 28:2*.148 In view of Paul’s concern for mutual welcome in the
concrete settings of love feasts organized by various churches in Rome, I prefer the translation
“welcome” in this context,149 leaving it open whether such welcome is extended by God or
other churches or both.
The formulation of the potential equation with εἰ μὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν (“if not life from [the]
dead”) leaves the audience only one way to respond: affirmatively. The unparalleled
expression “life from the dead” probably refers to the resurrection at the end of time, to which
the completion of the mission was thought to lead.150 Paul’s apocalyptic orientation fits the
9
wrath of God.
10
145
See particularly Hengel, “Erlösungstat,” 75.
146
See Morris, 410.
147
For an interpretation that disregards the political dimension, see Findeis, Versöhnung, 295–320.
*
1
Romans 14:1 (NRSV)
*
3
Romans 14:3 (NRSV)
*
7
Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.
Romans 15:7 (NRSV)
*
So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.
Philemon 17 (NRSV)
*
2
The natives showed us unusual kindness. Since it had begun to rain and was cold, they kindled a fire and
welcomed all of us around it.
Acts 28:2 (NRSV)
148
See Gerhard Delling, “λαμβάνω κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967) 15.
149
The stress on “final acceptance” in Wilckens, 2:245, and Dunn, 2:657–58, is a theological qualification that is
not justified by the word πρόσλημψις.
150
See Meyer, 2:217; Zahn, 512; Lietzmann, 103; Kühl, 382; Lagrange, 278; Sanday and Headlam, 325;
Schmidt, 192; Barrett, 215; Kuss, 3:800; Michel, 346; Käsemann, 307; Cranfield, 2:562–63; Dunn, 2:658;
Stuhlmacher, 167; Moo, 694–96; Byrne, 339; Schreiner, 599; Hoffmann, Toten, 182–85. In support of this
option Moo observes that all but one of the forty-seven occurrences of the phrase ἐκ νεκρῶν in the NT refer to
the resurrection.
widely accepted scheme of Israel’s redemption as the decisive event leading to the
eschatological scenario that would climax with the resurrection of deceased saints.151
Reducing this to a metaphorical reference to spiritual blessing, new life, or restoration of
Israel152 undercuts the rhetorical force of Paul’s climactic question. Although the churches
could squabble indefinitely over what constitutes “new life,” none would have wished to deny
the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Here Paul employs the final trump card in his
campaign to persuade the reluctant churches in Rome that the conversion of their adversaries
would work to their advantage, despite current tensions. The rhetoric of this question leaves
the audience only one way to answer: “Yes, the resurrection!”
 16* The enthymeme of vv. 16–24* opens with a principle drawn from Num 15:20–21*, that
a portion of each lump of bread prepared for baking must be dedicated to God as a holy
offering, thus rendering the entire batch of bread holy. The procedure of handling such an
ἀπαρχή (“offering”) is as follows: “Of the first of your coarse meal you shall present a cake as
an offering; as an offering from the threshing floor, so shall you present it. Of the first of your
coarse meal you shall give to the LORD an offering throughout your generations.” This small
portion of the batch of bread153 becomes a burnt offering whose smoke is pleasing to Yahweh,
who thereupon blesses the whole “batch of dough”154 as well as the participants in the
sacrifice.155 The same principle pertains with first fruits of the harvest.156 A holy relationship
between supplicants and God is renewed through the offering that removes sins that distort
that relationship.157 There are parallel regulations in Greco-Roman sacrificial systems, in
which a sample of the animal or bread is dedicated to the gods, thus assuring their blessing on
the whole.158 This brief introduction concerning yeast bread sets the framework for
interpreting the following allegory of the olive tree that begins in 16b* and runs to the end of
the pericope in v. 24*. As K. H. Rengstorf explains, in such cases the religious quality of the
sample guarantees the quality of the whole.159 Whether or not the OT itself explicitly states
that the sample purifies the whole,160 and regardless of later rabbinic speculation about Adam
151
See particularly Dale C. Allison Jr., “The Background of Romans 11:11–15* in Apocalyptic and Rabbinic
Literature,” StBT 10 (1980) 229–34.
152
See Schlatter, 222; Murray, 2:81–83; Morris, 411; Fitzmyer, 613; Ziesler, 277; Wright, Climax, 248; Haacker,
229–30; Johnson, 169; Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 117–18; Witherington, 269.
*
20
From your first batch of dough you shall present a loaf as a donation; you shall present it just as you present a
donation from the threshing floor.
21
Throughout your generations you shall give to the Lord a donation from the first of your batch of dough.
Numbers 15:20–21 (NRSV)
153
See the parallel in Philo Sacr. AC 107, “the first fruit of your lump is dough (ἀπαρχὴν φυράματος ὑμῶν
ἄρτον).”
154
Alexander Sand, “ἀπαρχή,” EDNT 1 (1990) 116. Matthias Hartung, “Die kultische bzw. agrartechnisch-
biologische Logik der Gleichnisse von der Teighebe und vom Ölbaum in Röm 11.16–24 und die sich daraus
ergebenden theologischen Konsequenzen,” NTS 45 (1999) 128–29, overlooks this sacrificial context in arguing
that Paul reverses the Jewish cultic practice with regard to bread.
155
Ceslas Spicq, “ἀπαρχή,” TLNT 1 (1994) 152; see also Eberhard, Studien, 77–88, 293–94.
156
See Richard O. Rigsby, “First Fruits,” ABD 2 (1992) 797: “The offerings of first fruits provided the
redemption of the harvest.”
157
See Gary A. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” ABD 2 (1992) 871–72, 878, citing Job 1:5*
and Lev 1:4*.
158
Spicq, “ἀπαρχή,” 145–46, cites Aristotle Eth. nic. (1160a); Plutarch Pyth. orac. 16; I. Magn. 83.12–13, “first
fruits to the goddess Artemis (ἀπαρχὴν τῇ θεᾷ Ἀρτέμιδι).” See also Jameson, Jordan, and Kotansky, Lex Sacra,
38–39, 69.
159
Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Das Ölbaum-Gleichnis in Rom 11:16ff*. Versuch einer weiterführenden Deutung,”
in E. Bammel et al., eds., Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1978) 129. See also Dodd, 178.
160
The OT source of this idea is argued by Weiss, 482–83; Kühl, 383; Käsemann, 307; Bourke, Olive Tree, 68–
72, but rejected by Lagrange, 279; Dunn, 2:658, and questioned by Lietzmann, 104.
and Abraham as “first fruits,”161 Paul introduces this premise as if would be readily accepted
by his audience.
The second half of Paul’s premise statement develops the idea of the root and the branch,
which seems more directly related to the subsequent argument concerning grafting into the
wild olive tree. The idea of the dependency of branches on roots is widely used in Jewish
sources (Job 18:16*; Jer 17:8*; Ezek 31:8*; Hos 9:16*; Sir 1:20*; 40:15*), and there are
many references to Israel having been planted by God (Ps 92:13*; Jer 11:17*; Ps.Sol. 14.3–4;
1 Enoch 84.6).162 The references to Israel as the “righteous plant” in Jub. 1.16; 7.34; 16.26;
21.24; 36.6; 1 Enoch 10.16; 93.2–10 are particularly relevant for Paul’s reference to the root
as “holy.” The precise rhetorical parallelism between 16a* and 16b* conveys the idea that the
principle in the one case extends to the other:
Now if the first fruit [is] holy,
so also [is] the lump;
and if the root [is] holy,
so also [are] the branches.
The principle of extended holiness provides the premise for Paul’s enthymeme, which means
that the basis for acknowledging the continued priority of Israel is that it provided the vehicle
161
The alleged rabbinic background suggestion by Strack-Billerbeck, 4.667–68, and Rengstorf, “Ölbaum-
Gleichnis,” 130–35, is unprovable since those sources postdate Romans, and even if it could be proven, it is
highly unlikely that Paul would be advancing speculation about Adam as the “first fruits” in the light of the link
between Adam and original sin developed in Rom 5, as Dunn, 2:659, points out.
*
16
Their roots dry up beneath, and their branches wither above.
Job 18:16 (NRSV)
*
8
They shall be like a tree planted by water, sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes,
and its leaves shall stay green; in the year of drought it is not anxious, and it does not cease to bear fruit.
*
8
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor the fir trees equal its boughs; the plane trees were as
nothing compared with its branches; no tree in the garden of God was like it in beauty.
Ezekiel 31:8 (NRSV)
*
16
Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they give birth, I will kill the
cherished offspring of their womb.
Hosea 9:16 (NRSV)
*
20
To fear the Lord is the root of wisdom, and her branches are long life.
Sirach 1:20 (NRSV)
*
15
The children of the ungodly put out few branches; they are unhealthy roots on sheer rock.
Sirach 40:15 (NRSV)
*
13
They are planted in the house of the Lord; they flourish in the courts of our God.
Psalm 92:13 (NRSV)
*
17
The Lord of hosts, who planted you, has pronounced evil against you, because of the evil that the house of
Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal.
162
See Maurer, “ῥίζα κτλ.,” 986–88. For an unconvincing attempt to reinterpret the olive tree as Christ the
Messiah rather than Israel, see Maria Neubrand and Johannes Seidel, “‘Eingepfropft in den edlen Ölbaum’ (Röm
11, 24): Der Ölbaum ist nicht Israel,” BN 105 (2000) 68–71.
Jub. Jubilees
by which the holy, righteous community of the church came into the world.163 Paul’s view of
the church as an arena of mystical and material wholeness and vitality must therefore be
presupposed as the premise of each of the inferences and admonitions in vv. 17–24*. When
interpreters overlook this argumentative function of v. 16* in the enthymeme of vv. 16–24*,
they insert perplexing contradictions into the argument as a whole. When v. 16a* is taken as
directly allegorical, parabolic, or analogical for the subsequent argument, then the “first
fruits” become Abraham, the Patriarchs or the prophets,164 Jewish165 or Gentile converts,166 or
Christ himself.167 However, in view of the synonymous parallelism between “first fruit” and
“lump” in v. 16a* with the “root” and “branches” in v. 16b*, each of these allegorical
interpretations contradicts the development in subsequent verses in which Israel is the root
and a Gentile believer is the branch. This verse provides the absolutely essential premise for
the allegory of the wild olive branch, because, as we shall see below, Paul needs to reverse the
normal horticultural practice of grafting domestic branches onto wild olive trees.
 17* The application phase of the enthymeme begins with reference to God’s action in
making dull some of Israel’s hearts and minds with regard to the gospel as described in the
previous pericope. The protasis of a sentence to be completed in v. 18* features the verb
ἐξεκλάσθησαν (“they were broken off”) that has rightly been construed as a divine passive.168
The indeterminate expression τινες τῶν κλάδων (“some of the branches”)169 alludes back to οἱ
δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν (“but the others were made obtuse”) in 11:7*. It implies that only
some of the original branches have been removed while others remain in the holy olive tree as
intended by God. A discourse of “you” (sg.) as opposed to “them” begins at this point and
continues through to the end of the pericope, and it is clear from the context that the “you”
(sg.) refers to a Gentile Christian interlocutor and that “they” are the majority of Israel that
had thus far disbelieved. The choice of the second person singular σὺ δέ (“but you”) in the
emphatic position has a lively, exemplary effect that makes a potentially deprecatory allusion
acceptable to the audience.170 Like other examples of speech-in-character in Romans, the
playful, humorous quality of this discourse avoids polemic against the audience.171 The
technique of speech-in-character allows Paul to discuss the issues with an imaginary
interlocutor whose traits are sufficiently exaggerated that the audience does not feel attacked,
163
See Nanos, Mystery, 251–55; Maartens, “Wild Olive Tree,” 1018–19.
164
Meyer, 2:220; Weiss, 483–84; Godet, 405; Zahn, 514–15; Sanday and Headlam, 326; Lagrange, 279;
Schmidt, 194; Michel, 348; Murray, 2:85; Schlier, 332; Christian Maurer, “ῥίζα κτλ.,” TDNT 6 (1968) 989;
Angela Palzkill, “ῥίζα,” EDNT 3 (1993) 212; Wilckens, 2:246; Althaus, 104; Bourke, Olive Tree, 75–76; Zeller,
196; Moo, 699–700; Byrne, 346; Haacker, 231; Schreiner, 600–601.
165
Lietzmann, 104; Kühl, 383; Barrett, 216; Cranfield, 2:564; Fitzmyer, 614; Johnson, “Structure,” 98–99; Bell,
Provoked to Jealousy, 118–20.
166
Dunn, 2:659, referring to parallels in Rom 16:15*; 1 Cor 16:15*; 2 Thess 2:13*.
167
Ellison, Mystery of Israel, 86–87, following Karl Barth; Hanson, Studies, 107–17.
168
Dunn, 2:660, referring to Rom 11:7*, 8*, 10*, 15; the verb ἐκκλάω (“break off, separate by force”) appears in
this passage for the only time in the NT; see BAGD (2000) 303.
169
The expression εἰ δέ τινες (“but if some”) appears here for the only time in the NT.
*
7
Romans 11:7 (NRSV)
170
Anderson, Paul, 237–38, refers to the “liveliness” achieved by referring to the Gentiles with the second
person singular; see also Cranfield, 2:566. Morris, 413, refers to Robertson, Grammar, 678, as “the
representative sense” of the second person singular pronoun. BDF §281 explains the rhetorical use of the first
and second person singular to “illustrate something universal in a vivid manner.”
171
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 363: “Paul is not directly addressing the Gentile members of the Roman community
in 11:13–24.” Most interpreters misunderstand this discourse as directly polemical: Kühl, 383; Schmidt, 192–97;
Schlier, 333; Dunn, 2:662; Fitzmyer, 614; Haacker, 232; Heil, 123; Byrne, 340–41; Witherington, 270–71;
Davies, “Romans 11:13–24*, ” 160–61; Gignac, Romains 9–11, 240–43; Kim, Romans 9–11, 137; Esler,
Conflict and Identity, 300, 305.
but sufficiently analogous that the audience can grasp the allegorical relevance. The
interlocutor is a wild olive tree (ἀγριέλαιος),172 a small, scraggly bush that produces “nothing
useful.”173 Theophrastus Caus. plant. 1.6.10 describes the normal process of grafting domestic
olive branches into wild olive trees whose roots are stronger but whose fruit never ripens
properly:
It is also reasonable that grafted trees are richer in fine fruit, especially when a scion from a
cultivated tree is grafted onto a stock of a wild tree of the same bark, since the scion receives
more nourishment from the strength of the stock. This is why people recommend that one
should first plant wild olive trees and graft in buds or branches later, for the grafts hold better
to the stronger stock, and by attracting more nourishment the tree bears rich fruit. If, on the
other hand, someone were to graft a wild scion into a cultivated stock, there will be some
difference, but there will be no fine fruit.174
That this procedure was actually followed was confirmed by Philip Esler’s citation of an
inscription from an orchard in Mykonos that provides an inventory of 147 cultivated olive
trees, 87 wild olive trees that had been grafted, and 200 wild olive trees that were apparently
being grown for future grafting.175
The unusual procedure of grafting branches of wild olive trees into already existing cultivated
trees is described by Columella Rust. 5.9.16 and Palladius Instit. 53–54, and also appears to
be employed in modern times.176 Columella, a contemporary of Paul, describes the procedure
as follows: “It happens also frequently that, though the trees are thriving well, they fail to bear
fruit. It is a good plan to bore them with a Gallic augur and to put tightly into the hole a green
slip taken from a wild olive tree; the result is that the tree, being as it were impregnated with
fruitful offspring, becomes more productive.”177 According to the study by Baxter and Ziesler,
the purpose of such grafting was to rejuvenate domestic trees.178 Yet the fact remains that
Paul does not develop the theme of rejuvenation suggested by Columella,179 and he develops a
profile for the speech-in-character that is the opposite of the standard procedure described by
Theophrastus of using domestic olive branches for grafting. This has led to the perception that
Paul was an uninformed “town-bred man”180 or to inferences that the wild olive allegory
implied that Gentile believers lacked “spiritual attainments” and were “underprivileged” in
comparison with Jewish believers.181 The premise of Paul’s allegory differs from both
Columella and Theophrastus in viewing the “root” of the domestic olive tree as fully adequate
to produce “fatness” (11:17b*) and “holiness” (11:16*). Paul’s rhetorical finesse leads him to
identify the interlocutor as a branch of a “wild olive tree” grafted in among the natural
172
BAGD (2000) 15 notes that the adjective ἀγριέλαιος is employed here as a noun.
173
Davies, “Romans 11:13–24*, ” 155.
Caus. De causis plantarum
174
Translation from Esler, Conflict and Identity, 302.
175
Ibid., 303, cited from Felix Durrbach, ed., Inscriptions de Délos: Comptes des Hiéropes (Nos. 290–371)
(Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1926) 166, Nr. 366 B, lines 8–25. Esler also cites Lin Foxhall,
“Olive Cultivation within Greek and Roman Agriculture: The Ancient Economy Revisited” (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Liverpool, 1990) 97–98. See also Hartung, “Agrartechnisch-biologische Logik,” 132–35.
176
See Williams, Paul’s Metaphors, 42.
177
Translation from E. F. Foster and E. H. Heffner, Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella on Agriculture (London:
Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968) 85; passage cited in part by Fitzmyer, 615.
178
A. G. Baxter and John A. Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture. Romans 11.17–24, ” JSNT 24 (1985) 27–28. In
contrast, Davies, “Romans 11:13–24*, ” 155, writes that “the horticultural process is unthinkable.” See the
similar comment in Maurer, “ῥίζα κτλ.,” 989, and Hartung, “Agrartechnisch-biologische Logik,” 138–39.
179
See Esler, Conflict and Identity, 303.
180
Dodd, 180.
181
Davies, “Romans 11:13–24*, ” 155, 157.
branches of the domestic “olive tree” (ἐλαίας). In Jer 11:16* and Hos 14:6* Israel is referred
to as the olive tree, and it is important to remember that the audience would have been aware
that one of the Jewish synagogues in Rome bore the name συναγωγὴ Ἐλαίας (“Synagogue of
the Olive”).182 This could well have been one of the synagogues from which the Christ
believers emerged as distinct groups in the decades prior to the writing of Paul’s letter.
Although Greco-Roman culture was also associated with the olive,183 Paul develops the theme
of the source of holy vitality rather than seeking to overturn claims of cultural superiority.184
The grafting of the wild olive shoot ἐν αὐτοῖς (“among them”) refers in this context to the
branches that had not been broken off, that is, the Jewish Christians.185 The verb
ἐνεκεντρίσθης (“you [sg.] were grafted in”) is also in the passive, implying divine action as in
the case of the others who were broken off. The wild olive that had no hope of belonging
within the sphere of productivity is therefore “a remnant according to the election of
grace,”186 which conforms to the elective climax in 8:29–30*. By grace, believers from
different ethnic groups now enjoy a “shared lineage” as God’s people.187 Consistent with the
holiness premise, Paul picks up the theme of πλοῦτος κόσμου (“riches for the world”) from v.
12* by developing the allegory of τῆς ῥίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας (“the root of the olive
with its fatness”). The construction can be taken as a genitive of quality and thus adjectival,
that is, “the fat root of the olive tree,”188 or as an appositive genitive, that is, “the root of the
olive with its fatness.”189 The latter seems more consistent with Paul’s stress on the
extraordinary privileges of wealth, holiness, and nourishment devolving on the church from
the situation of Israel. But it is clear that Paul’s allegory leaves space neither for
Theophrastus’s observation about the superior strength of the wild olive tree nor for
Columella’s theory of rejuvenation.190
*
16
The Lord once called you, “A green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit”; but with the roar of a great tempest he
will set fire to it, and its branches will be consumed.
*
6
His shoots shall spread out; his beauty shall be like the olive tree, and his fragrance like that of Lebanon.
Hosea 14:6 (NRSV)
182
For an assessment of the dispute about how to translate ἐλαίος, see W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Gentiles: A
Suggestion concerning Romans 11:13–24*, ” in W. D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984) 159–60; Leon, Jews, 145–47.
183
184
Davies, “Romans 11:13–24*, ” 160–63; Dunn, 2:661.
185
Dunn, 2:661, following Cranfield, 2:567. In “Romans 11:13–24*, ” 155, 356, Davies suggests in contrast that
Paul refers to grafting “into or among, not instead of the branches lopped off.…”
186
Murray, 2:86.
*
29
30
187
Caroline Johnson Hodge, “Olive Trees and Ethnicities: Judeans and Gentiles in Rom. 11.17–24, ” in J.
Zangenberg and M. Labahn, eds., Christians as a Religious Minority in a Multicultural City: Modes of
Interaction and Identity Formation in Early Imperial Rome (London / New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 84.
188
Weiss, 485; Lietzmann, 105; Barrett, 217; Haacker, 233.
189
Meyer, 2:223; Zahn, 516; Michel, 350; Cranfield, 2:567; BAGD (2000) 814; Fitzmyer, 615.
190
Esler, Conflict and Identity, 303–5, makes a compelling case that the hypothesis of Baxter and Ziesler’s
theory based on Columella and Palladius does not match Paul’s allegory, but he is unable to explain the
discrepancy between Paul and the normal practice of grafting described by Theophrastus. He does not take
account of the speech-in-character developed in this allegory.
The status of being made a co-participant (συγκοινωνός) in access to the fatness is
particularly evocative in view of the use of the koinonia terminology in relation to
membership in the holy community (Rom 12:13*; 15:26*, 27*; 1 Cor 1:9*; 9:23*; 10:16*; 2
Cor 1:7*; 6:14*; 8:4*, 23*; 9:13*; 13:13*; Phil 1:5*, 7*; 2:1*; 3:10*; 4:14–15*; Phlm 6*,
*
13
Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
Romans 12:13 (NRSV)
*
26
for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints at
Jerusalem.
Romans 15:26 (NRSV)
*
27
They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owe it to them; for if the Gentiles have come to share in their
spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things.
Romans 15:27 (NRSV)
*
9
God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
*
23
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
*
16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
sharing in the body of Christ?
*
7
Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our
consolation.
*
14
Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness?
Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?
*
4
begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints—
*
23
As for Titus, he is my partner and co-worker in your service; as for our brothers, they are messengers of the
churches, the glory of Christ.
*
13
Through the testing of this ministry you glorify God by your obedience to the confession of the gospel of
Christ and by the generosity of your sharing with them and with all others,
*
13
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
*
5
because of your sharing in the gospel from the first day until now.
*
7
It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because you hold me in your heart, for all of you share in
God’s grace with me, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
*
1
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any
compassion and sympathy,
17*; Gal 2:9*; 6:6*). The reciprocal theme of “fellowship / partnership (with someone)
through (common) participation (in something)” is basic to all of these koinonia terms
employed by Paul,191 and the prefix συν- (“with”) enhances the dimension of sharing
something equally with others. In this case, the grafted branches become equal sharers with
the original branches in the holy, life-sustaining fatness,192 thus preventing negative
inferences being drawn from the potentially pejorative reference to a Gentile believer as an
unproductive wild olive tree. The conditional clause in the sentence thus comes to a climax by
depicting the extraordinary privilege and benefit bestowed on the elected outsider by divine
grace.
 18* The protasis in the first application phase of Paul’s enthymeme is an imperative in
second person singular style consistent with “and you” (sg.) earlier in the sentence. The verb
κατακαυχάσθαι appears here for the only time in the Pauline letters and when followed by a
noun in the genitive it has the connotation of boasting or bragging over against others.193 As
Rudolf Bultmann shows, κατακαυχάομαι “brings out strongly the element of comparative
superiority expressed in boasting, ‘to boast in triumphant comparison with others.’ ”194 While
such bragging was acceptable in the competitive atmosphere of the Greco-Roman world, it is
illegitimate in the community of grace: “Where then is the boast? It is excluded!” (Rom
3:27*; cf. 2:17*, 23*; 4:2*). The verb appears also in Jas 3:14* and 4:13* with a negative
connotation of inappropriate boasting. These references lead to my translation with the verb
“brag.” The target of such bragging on the part of the imaginary interlocutor is τῶν κλάδων
(“of, in relation to the branches”), which according to the inclusive reference to the branches
*
10
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him
in his death,
*
14
In any case, it was kind of you to share my distress.
15
You Philippians indeed know that in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church shared
with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone.
*
I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective when you perceive all the good that we may do for
Christ.
Philemon 6 (NRSV)
*
6
Those who are taught the word must share in all good things with their teacher.
191
See Josef Hainz, “κοινωνία κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991) 304.
192
See Cranfield, 2:567; Moo, 702.
193
See Cranfield, 2:567; Dunn, 2:661–62; Moo, 703.
194
Rudolf Bultmann, “καυχάομαι κτλ.,” TDNT 3 (1967) 653; according to BAGD (2000) 517, a grave inscription
in Asia Minor celebrates a gladiator who boasted over his defeated foe (SPAW, 1932, 855).
*
23
You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
Romans 2:23 (NRSV)
*
2
Romans 4:2 (NRSV)
*
14
But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth.
James 3:14 (NRSV)
*
13
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there,
doing business and making money.”
James 4:13 (NRSV)
in v. 17* implies both the Jews that were broken off and those that were already incorporated
in the new community of faith.195 In the light of the fact that such a reference would have
been insulting in the allegory if it had no basis in the current behavior of the audience, this is
clear evidence of residual anti-Semitism within the Roman churches,196 which Paul addresses
more directly in 14:1–15:7*. Here he addresses only the interlocutor, in a nonpolemical
manner.197 The basis of the categorical prohibition, however, is not some theory of tolerance
but the believer’s experience of grace, unearned and undeserved. The logic of Paul’s allegory
is that having been elected by God to become a co-participant with Jewish Christian converts
in the nourishing fatness of the olive tree, in a movement in which the cultural paradigms of
seeking honor and boasting in superiority over competitors have been overturned, the
interlocutor’s bragging now must be perceived as illegitimate.
The second conditional sentence in the application phase of the enthymeme begins with “but
if” (εἰ δέ), exactly as in the first sentence of v. 17a*. The formulation assumes that regardless
195
See Godet, 406; Weiss, 486; Sanday and Headlam, 328; Meyer, 2:224; Lagrange, 230; Kühl, 386; Cranfield,
2:567–68; Dunn, 2:662; Moo, 703.
196
See Lütgert, Römerbrief, 79–90; Bartsch, “Gegner” 34–43; Minear, Obedience, 79; Davies, “Romans 11:13–
24*, ” 157–59; Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek, 122–26; Lichtenberger, Ich Adams, 7; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 180–
95. In Origins, 225, Gager denies that Paul ever speaks of God as rejecting Israel, but he does not deal with
Paul’s audience in Rome.
*
1
2
Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables.
3
4
5
Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced
in their own minds.
6
Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since
they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.
7
We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves.
8
If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die,
we are the Lord’s.
9
10
Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For
we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11
For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to
God.”
12
So then, each of us will be accountable to God.
13
14
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who
thinks it unclean.
15
16
197
See Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 363. Stowers abandons the claim of diatribe as nonpolemical discourse with a
friendly interlocutor (Diatribe, 76–78) by concluding in Diatribe, 99, and Rereading, 299 and 315, that “Paul
sternly warns the gentile audience not to be arrogant toward those Jews (11:18).” Maartens, “Wild Olive Tree,”
1023–24, also perceives a direct warning to Gentile Christian members of the audience.
*
17
For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:17 (NRSV)
of the appeal in vv. 17–18a*, the Gentile convert playing the role of the imaginary
interlocutor is indeed inclined to continue boasting at the expense of Jewish believers and
unbelievers.198 Since the verb κατακαυχάομαι appears again, the context requires a translation
such as “but if you do brag.”199 In case the imaginative interlocutor does not grasp the
evangelical logic of grace expressed in vv. 17–18a*, Paul turns to the premise of the
enthymeme in v. 16b*, that the root supports the branches, not vice versa.200 With an
emphatic word order in which the protasis begins with οὐ (“not”),201 Paul employs the verb
βαστάζειν with the basic sense of “pick up, carry.” In this context, βαστάζειν has the
allegorical sense of the root bearing the weight of the branches.202 However, in other passages
(Gal 6:2*; Rom 15:1*), Paul employs βαστάζειν in contexts in which some persons carry
burdens for others, which is probably the connotation meant here. The branches do not
support the root but vice versa, which means that bragging is a denial of a fundamental reality
of the dependency of the one upon the other.203 The implications for the Gentile Christian
majority in Rome are clear: “there is no salvation apart from the history of Israel”;204 “a
church which is not drawing upon the sustenance of its Jewish inheritance … would be a
contradiction in terms for Paul.”205 Such implications remain on the implicit level, however,
as Paul moves skillfully forward to deal with the boasting impulse in the imaginary
interlocutor.
 19* Godet notes that Paul’s diatribe places in the mouth of the Gentile Christian
interlocutor a further alibi arising from the logic of the preceding verse:206 granted the
dependency of branches on the root, I have been elected to displace the original branches that
were removed by God himself! The formulation ἐρεῖς οὖν (“you will say then, therefore”)
appears only here in the NT, and is also rare in other Greek discourse.207 Here it formulates a
logical inference from the preceding argument that Paul places in the mouth of the
interlocutor. In a witty manner that the audience would have enjoyed, the interlocutor throws
Paul’s words back into his face by employing precisely the same terms that Paul had used in
v. 17*: “the branches,” “broken off,” and the wild olive shoots “grafted in.” This is an
effective example of rhetorical “anticipation and refutation” (προκατάληψις) in the form of
*
17
18
The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval.
198
Godet, 406; Moo, 704.
199
See Godet, 406, “But if, notwithstanding, thou despisest”; Meyer, 2:225, “But if the case occur, that thou
boastest against them”; Fitzmyer, 615, “If you do, remember this.”
*
16
Romans 14:16 (NRSV)
200
See Weiss, 487.
201
See Dunn, 2:662.
202
Werner Stenger, “βαστάζω,” EDNT 1 (1990) 208–9.
*
2
Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
*
1
We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Romans 15:1 (NRSV)
203
See Ehrensperger, Mutually Encouraged, 183.
204
Käsemann, 309–10.
205
Dunn, 2:662; see also Hartung, “Agrartechnisch-biologische Logik,” 140.
206
Godet, 407.
207
A TLG search located examples of ἐρεῖς οὖν from the second century C.E. in Galen Adv. 7.494.17 and 7.495.4.
Later examples from Christian literature include Herm. Mand. 6.6.1; Theophilus Antiochenus Autol. 1.3.1, 14;
1.11.3; 2.22.1.
praedictio as described by Quintilian Inst. 9.2.17.208 An impression of an overly expansive
self-image on the part of this braggart is conveyed by the pronoun ἐγώ (“I”), which
reduplicates and therefore emphasizes the “I” in the first person singular form of the verb.209
This interlocutor demonstrates a truly ludicrous degree of competitive incorrigibility.
Unmoved by the gospel of boundless grace (vv. 17–18a*) or by the natural allegory
concerning roots and branches (vv. 16*, 18b*), he now turns Paul’s words to his own egoistic
advantage. But in smiling at the foibles of this blatantly unconverted Christian, the Gentile
audience gains a measure of awareness about its own behavior.
 20* Paul answers the witty objection that he has placed in the mouth of the Gentile
interlocutor with a single adverb, καλῶς, which could be taken as a flat rejection (“No, thank
you!”),210 an ironic concession (“Well, well!”),211 a qualified acceptance (“All right, but!”),212
or an acceptance of the point (“Well said!”).213 The latter is most likely in this context because
it preserves the wit of this discourse, in that Paul accepts the transparently arrogant comment
that he himself has invented for the interlocutor from the words of his own previous
argument. The audience would enjoy Paul’s admission that a sharp riposte was made at his
own expense by such an undiscerning Christian blockhead.
The refutation of the interlocutor’s claim of having replaced the Jewish branches centers on
the concept of faith in response to the gospel. They were broken off τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, a dative
construction in 20a* that probably has a causal connotation, “on account of their unbelief,”214
which is matched by a causal dative τῇ πίστει, “on account of faith” in 20b*.215 Both terms
appeared in Paul’s earlier description of Abraham in 4:20*: “no doubt made him waver in
unfaith, but he was strengthened in his faith.” In response to the interlocutor, however, Paul
uses the faith/unfaith antithesis in reference to conversion or unconversion in response to the
Inst. Institio oratoria

208
See Anderson, Glossary, 14, 104.
209
Weiss, 487; Meyer, 2:225; Murray, 2:87: “the egoism and vainglory of this boasting.” See BDF §277. For
background, see Bartsch, “Gegner” 41; Bartsch, “Historische Situation” 287–88.
*
17
18
that supports you.
210
In Aristophanes Ran. 888, in response to the urge to burn incense, Euripides replies, “No, thank you (καλῶς);
my vows are paid to other gods than these.”
211
Donaldson, “Riches,” 85, following T. W. Manson in the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 949; also Zahn,
518; Schmidt, 196; Michel, 351; Morris, 414.
212
Aristophanes Eccl. 1092, where καλῶς has the sense of “well and good.” See also Aristophanes Nub. 488, “O
well, it doesn’t matter.” Lietzmann, 104; Käsemann, 310; Dunn, 2:663; Moo, 705; Schreiner, 607.
213
LSJM 870 C.2.6, approving the words of the former speaker as in Euripides Orest. 1216, “’Tis well”;
Demosthenes Orat. 39.15, “Well said!” In Aristophnes Eccl. 149, καὶ καλῶς ἐρεῖς (“and you will speak well”)
has the verb ἐρεῖς that Paul employed in v. 19* and which should probably be supplied in 20a*. Aristophanes
Plut. 481, “’Tis well.” See Meyer, 2:225; Godet, 407; Weiss, 487; Sanday and Headlam, 329; Schlier, 334;
Barrett, 218; Cranfield, 2:568; Wilckens, 2:247; Fitzmyer, 615; Byrne, 342; Siegert, Argumentation, 169.
214
Meyer, 2:225; Weiss, 488; Kuss, 3:804. Schlier, 334; Käsemann, 310; and Dunn, 2:668, cite BDF §196; see
also Moulton and Turner, Grammar III, 242.
215
The suggestion by Dunn, 2:633; Moo, 705, following Bultmann, “πιστεύω κτλ.,” 218, that the latter is an
“instrumental dative” is an overly facile theological assessment rather than a grammatical likelihood; it is also
unclear that Bultmann intends an instrumental connotation because he insists that Rom 11:20* “does not mean:
‘Thou standest in faith,’ but: ‘Thou hast attained thy standing through faith.’ ”
*
20
No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to
God,
Romans 4:20 (NRSV)
gospel.216 The perfect verb ἕστηκας (“you [sg.] have stood”) in this context refers to the
relation of the interlocutor to the gospel and with the community shaped by Christ. As in 5:2*,
through Christ the believers “also have gained access in faith to this grace in which we have
stood.”217 Since Paul had earlier made the case that the principle of faith eliminates boasting
(Rom 3:27*), the boasting of the imaginary interlocutor is a violation of the new relationship
inaugurated by the gospel of unconditional grace. As we have seen throughout Romans, the
test of faith is not doctrinal but behavioral. When social or cultural competition remains
dominant, faith in Christ crucified has not yet achieved its transforming purpose of equalizing
honor.
There is no doubt that the admonition ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν (“be uppity-minded”) has the negative
connotation of “haughtiness”218 instead of the positive connotation “be high-minded” as in the
classics and Philo Ebr. 128.1, “lofty and sublime thoughts” (ὑψηλὰ φρονῶν λογισμός).219
Paul’s expression deals with the social dimension of claiming superiority over others,
consistent with the use of “bragging” in v. 18* and with the focus on honor and shame
throughout the rest of the letter. Neither the individualistic, psychological dimension of
feeling proud nor a doctrine of self-righteousness220 is in view. As in Luke 16:15*, ὑψηλός
refers to “what is exalted among men” and thus “is an abomination in the sight of God.”221
Similarly, Pyrthos is warned by Agamemnon to avoid outrageous behavior “out of fear of the
merciful gods” (variosque casus tremere metuentem deos), while using himself as an example
of avoiding “raising myself all too high up” (superbus altius memet tuli) over others.222
Although a close parallel to the second person singular formulation ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ (“but fear!”)
occurs in Prov 24:21*, φοβοῦ τὸν θεόν (“fear God!”), Paul states the admonition to “fear”
without an object or qualification,223 in a direct antithesis to being arrogant in relation to
Israel.224 While a proper fear of God was taught by Jewish as well as Greco-Roman
cultures,225 the antithesis with “but” makes it clear that this is a fear concerning the loss of an
allegedly superior status.226 This becomes clear in the next verse that takes up the question of
preservation or loss of favored status.
216
See von Dobbeler, Glaube als Teilhabe 184–88; in 184 Dobbeler interprets τῆ πίστει in 11:20b as
instrumental but stresses conversion in 188.
217
See Wolter, “ἵστημι,” 207; see also Grundmann, “Stehen,” 148–51, where “stand” and “fall” appear also in
Qumran writings in reference to believers’ adherence to the community and its beliefs.
218
BAGD (2000) 1044 (2); Hennig Paulsen, “φρονέω κτλ.,” EDNT 3 (1993) 440. Paul follows here the biblical
tradition of criticizing the proud, as, for example, 1 Reg. 2:3, “Don’t boast and don’t speak high-minded things
(μὴ καυχᾶσθε καὶ μὴ λαλεῖτε ὑψηλά).” See also Isa 2:12*; Prov 16:10*.
Ebr. De ebrietate ii
219
A typical example from Greek literature is Plutarch Soll. an. 970e10, who employs ὑψηλος φρόνημα in
reference to the “high-mindedness” of dogs that do not attack when one is prostrate.
220
Baxter and Ziesler, “Arboriculture,” 29.
*
15
So he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts;
for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.
Luke 16:15 (NRSV)
221
See Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, “ὑψηλός,” EDNT 3 (1993) 409.
222
Seneca Tro. 262, 267.
*
21
My child, fear the Lord and the king, and do not disobey either of them;
223
See also Eccl 5:6*; 12:13*; Sir 7:31*.
224
Horst Balz, “φοβέομαι,” EDNT 3 (1993) 431.
225
See ibid., 429; Horst Balz, “φοβέω κτλ.,” TDNT 9 (1974) 195–203.
226
See Weiss, 488; Fitzmyer, 615; Schreiner, 607. Schlier, 335; Michel, 351; Cranfield, 2:569; Wilckens, 2:247;
Dunn, 2:663; Moo, 705, concentrate instead on fearing God, while Barrett, 218, and Morris, 415, speak of “awe”
and “reverence … before God.” The antithesis with regard to social status is also overlooked by the existentialist
 21* The rationale for the admonition to fear in 20b* signaled by γάρ (“for”) refers to God
as the ultimate source of status assignment. The originally favored status of the Israelites that
were later broken off from the life-giving root is indicated by the phrase κατὰ φύσιν
(“according to nature, natural”), referring to their original “circumstance as determined by
birth.”227 The Stoics made extensive use of the distinction between the favored status κατὰ
φύσιν and its antithesis mentioned in 11:24*, παρὰ φύσιν (“against nature, unnatural”).228 To
use Helmut Koester’s summary of Stoic thought, life according to nature was wise, healthy,
and good while unnatural life was unhealthy and unwise.229 The same distinction appears in
Philo, who discusses the τῆς κατὰ φύσιν χρήσεως (“the use according to nature”)230 in
contrast to ἡ ἄλογος καὶ παρὰ φύσιν κίνησις ὑπαίτιος (“the irrational and unnatural
movements of the soul”).231 Thus, that God did not spare “the natural branches” establishes a
“greater to lesser” logic,232 which enforces the conclusion that God will not spare the Gentile
interlocutor who lacks the inherent honor of being a natural branch from the root of Israel.
The verb φείδεσθαι occurs twice in this sentence in the sense of “spare” or “refrain from
cutting,” and although Paul employed it earlier with respect to Christ (8:32*), there is no hint
that he intends a christological interpretation of Israel’s fate.233 The parallel in Wis 12:16* is
more apt,234 because with regard both to Gentiles and the sinful inhabitants of the Holy Land,
God’s “sovereignty over all leads you to spare all” (πάντων φείδεσθαι). Paul’s point is simply
that the arrogant Gentile interlocutor who claims superiority over Jews is risking expulsion
from the arena of grace. The imaginary interlocutor who was earlier untouched by the
arguments based on grace, faith, and common sense now faces the ultimate arbitrament of
power: God is the final authority in the matter of status and no one who seeks “privileges with
God”235 can escape being cut off. The future form of the verb φείσεται (“he will spare”) is
gnomic,236 expressing “that which is to be expected under certain circumstances,”237 that is, if
the Gentile interlocutor persists in being uppity-minded with regard to Israel. The logic of this
sentence is reminiscent of 1 Cor 10:12*, as Schreiner points out:238 “The one who thinks he
stands should beware lest he fall.”
interpretation of fear as “knowledge of his own insignificance and his constant dependence upon God’s grace”
(Bultmann, Theology, 1:321–22); followed by Käsemann, 310.
227
BAGD (2000) 1069 (1).
228
See Pohlenz, “Stoa”, 1:116–18; 488.
229
Helmut Koester, “φύσις κτλ.,” TDNT 9 (1974) 264–65. According to Diogenes Laertius Vitae philos. 7.4, the
Stoic philosopher Zeno wrote a treatise titled “On Life according to Nature” (Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν βίον), which
counters passion as “an irrational and unnatural (κατὰ φύσιν) movement of the soul” (7.110). Epictetus Diss.
1.11.11 advocates knowing the distinction between “things according to nature and contrary to nature (τῶν κατὰ
φύσιν καὶ παρὰ φύσιν).”
230
Philo Mut. 112.
231
Philo Spec. 4.79.
232
*
32
He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us
everything else?
Romans 8:32 (NRSV)
233
Hays, Echoes, 61, accepted by Donaldson, “Riches,” 94.
*
16
For your strength is the source of righteousness, and your sovereignty over all causes you to spare all.
234
See Dunn, 2:664.
235
Käsemnn, 310.
236
Haacker, 234 n. 17, citing Gundry-Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 198.
237
BDF §349.1.
238
Schreiner, 607; see also Morris, 415.
 22* The enthymeme and the pericope come to a conclusion with doctrinal reflection on the
redemptive action of God, introduced by the aorist imperative, ἴδε οὖν (“notice, pay attention
therefore!”).239 This is reminiscent of the opening admonitions in Wis 6:1–2*, a passage in
which the boasting of the Gentiles is also countered by the threatened severity of God: “hear
therefore … learn … give ear!” The admonition to wake up and pay attention in Romans is
directed to the imaginary interlocutor who has just received the shocking news that he will not
be spared if he continues to boast of his superiority over others. Since neither “kindness” nor
“severity” is introduced with an article, the attention here is on the nature of God’s actions
rather than his or her character.240 While scholars have referred to Paul’s use of a traditional
antithesis from wisdom literature,241 nowhere else in Jewish writings are these two terms
employed in a single passage. In Wis 6:5–6* κρίσις ἀπότομος (“severe judgment”) against the
exalted and powerful is juxtaposed with divine ἐλέος (“mercy”) on those of low estate, but
nowhere in the Wisdom of Solomon does the term χρηστότης (“kindness”) appear. It surfaces
in Odes Sol. 11.15 as “kindness of the Lord” and in Ps. Sol. 5.13 as “human kindness,” but
never in antithesis to ἀποτομία θεοῦ (“God’s severity”). Severity is paired with mildness in
Pseudo-Plutarch Lib. ed. 138d9, in reference to fathers mingling “severity of their rebukes
with mildness (ἀποστομίαν τῇ πραότητι μίγνυνσαι),” but no precise parallels to Paul’s
antithesis have been found. It is significant that Paul avoids the typical biblical antithesis
between divine mercy and justice,242 preferring in this climactic phase of the diatribe with the
Gentile interlocutor to employ terminology that was more characteristic of the Greco-Roman
environment.
The antithesis is developed chiastically in a neat μὲν … δέ (“on the one hand … on the other
hand”) formulation, with “severity” taken up first. It is directed against τοὺς πεσόντας (“those
who fell”), which in the context of this enthymeme must refer to the nonbelieving portion of
Israel that was cut off from the fruitful olive tree (11:17*, 19*).243 The verb πίπτω appears
quite often in early Christian writings in the figurative sense of falling out of the community
or out of a proper relationship with God (Rom 14:4*; 1 Cor 10:12*; Heb 4:11*; Jas 5:12*;
Eph 2:5*; Rev 2:5*).244 Although there is a natural antithesis between the “falling” of
239
BAGD (2000) 720 B2.
*
1
Listen therefore, O kings, and understand; learn, O judges of the ends of the earth.
2
Give ear, you that rule over multitudes, and boast of many nations.
240
Weiss, 489.
241
Michel, 351–52; Schlier, 335; Käsemann, 310; Josef Zmejewski, “χρηστότης,” EDNT 3 (1993) 475. Helmut
Koester, “τέμνω κτλ.,” TDNT 8 (1972) 108, follows Michel, 351–52.
*
5
he will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment falls on those in high places.
6
For the lowliest may be pardoned in mercy, but the mighty will be mightily tested.
Odes Odes of Solomon
Ps. Psalms of Solomon
Lib. De liberis educandis
242
Fitzmyer, 616, notes that this is a significant point, but fails to explain it. Paul also avoids dealing with Greco-
Roman ideas such as Plutarch Cat. Maj. 5.2, that “kindness is of broader scope than righteousness (καίτοι τὴν
χρηστότητα τῆς δικαιοσύνης πλατύτερον τόπον).”
243
Weiss, 489.
*
12
Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “Yes” be
yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.
James 5:12 (NRSV)
*
5
even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been
saved—
unbelievers and the proper “standing” of believers in 11:20*, there is a potential contradiction
with 11:11*, where Paul had explicitly denied that Israel had stumbled so as to fall (πέσωσιν).
As Donaldson has demonstrated, this matter is clarified in 11:24*, 26–32* with the temporal
logic of delay: while a large part of Israel currently rejects the gospel and has been cut off
from the olive tree, this situation will be overcome with the parousia so that Israel in the end
will not have fallen.245 In the present, however, God’s response to the ἀπίστια
(“faithlessness,” 11:20*) of those rejecting the gospel is ἀποτομία (“severity”), which appears
here alongside χρηστότης (“kindness”) as rhetorically effective absolute nominatives.246
Helmut Koester describes Paul’s contention as follows: “Those who do not cleave to God’s
goodness are threatened by ‘the inflexible hardness and severity’ of the Judge as the only
alternative.”247 The rejection of grace places humans back under the powers of sin, death, and
the law, and as Paul argued in the first proof, divine wrath is already visible in the shameful
distortions caused thereby. The audience can easily see that the interlocutor disregards this
righteous reality at his own peril.
In contrast to the currently desperate fate of “them” in v. 22b*, the message for “you” (sg.) in
v. 22c* is hopeful. In chiastic constructions, the item postponed receives the emphasis so that
here “kindness” gains priority over “severity.”248 The expression “God’s kindness” is
“virtually a substitute for χάρις” (“grace”)249 that is offered to the undeserving through the
Christ event (5:2*). The earlier portions of the pericope fill out the contours of this “kindness”
in terms of undeserved “wealth” (11:12*), “reconciliation” (11:15a*), “life from the dead”
(11:15b*), holiness (11:16*), and access to the nourishing sap of the olive tree (11:17*). Since
the Gentile interlocutor was not a “natural” part of the life-giving domestic olive tree
(11:21*), he has no claim on any of these advantages. Thus χρηστότης θεοῦ (“God’s
kindness”) alone is the source of these undeserved and unearned benefits. In Schreiner’s
words, “their inclusion in the people of God is all due to grace. They would fail to continue in
the faith if they became convinced that they were chosen as Gentiles for their ethnic or moral
distinctiveness.”250 The condition under which God’s kindness continues to be accessible is
described with an “if” clause. The conjunctive particle ἐάν (“if”) followed by the subjunctive
verb ἐπιμένῃς (“you [sg.] might remain”) conveys “what is expected to occur, under certain
circumstances,”251 that is, that the interlocutor accepts a proper relationship with God and the
entire community of faith. The close parallel in Col 1:21–23* indicates that this is a condition
Ephesians 2:5 (NRSV)

244
See Michaelis, “πίπτω κτλ.,” 164–65; Palzkill, “πίπτω,” 90–91.
*
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
245
Donaldson, “Riches,” 92–98.
246
Godet, 408; see BDF §466.2–4.
247
Koester, “τέμνω κτλ.,” 108; see also Käsemann, 310.
248
Siegert, Argumentation, 170, following Bullinger, Figures, 361, 395.
249
Zmejewski, “χρηστότης,” 475.
250
Schreiner, 608.
251
BAGD (2000) 267.
*
21
And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
that the writer expects to be fulfilled: “And you, who were once estranged … he has now
reconciled … in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,
provided that you remain in the faith” (ἔι γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει). We encountered ἐπιμένω
(“remain, persist”) in 6:1* (“Shall we remain in sin?”), and the connotation of continuing “in
an activity or state”252 remains predominant here. To “remain in the kindness” of God is the
same as “standing in faith” in 11:20*, which in the case of this interlocutor requires an
entirely new orientation.253 To rest one’s confidence and pride in God’s mercy means
abandoning trust and boasting in one’s own achievements or cultural status. Divine kindness
requires active acceptance that must be maintained by believers.254 Therefore, as Dunn insists,
the condition clause in 22d* “should not be underplayed”255 because it is the line that runs
through to chapters 14–16. If my reconstruction is correct, the remarkable reality was that
both the Jews and the Gentiles were endangered because of their claims on honor and their
persistence in placing their competitors in a position of shame. Despite the clear message of
the gospel that such boasting was excluded, this social misbehavior must be cleared away
before the Roman house and tenement churches can credibly participate in the mission to the
barbarians in Spain. The situation is too delicate for Paul to address directly, which is why the
brilliantly crafted diatribe with the imaginary Gentile interlocutor was required. It should be
clear, however, in contrast to centuries of misinterpretation of Romans, that the real threat in
Paul’s view was not theological differences, but social contempt that “proper theology”
usually deepens, by providing ever more subtle forms of superiority claims. Only the severity
of grace can cure this malady, but it required believers to become self-critical in ways that
honor and shame cultures found difficult.
The warning at the end of v. 22* begins with ἐπεί with the sense of “because otherwise,”256
referring to what will occur if the interlocutor does not “remain in the kindness” of God. The
σύ (“you”) singular is emphatic, bringing the Gentile believer into the same situation as the
“fallen” Jewish unbeliever.257 The future tense of the verb ἐκκόπτω (“cut off, cut down”)258
conveys this absolute certainty: “otherwise you [sg.] will also be cut off.” This is the final
threat of divine sanction against an interlocutor prior to chapters 14–16, revealing the
seriousness that Paul assigns to what would have been perceived as perfectly normal forms of
social competition and contempt. God’s kindness and severity eliminate partiality in all of its
forms and therefore demand an abandonment of prejudice. Paul makes no ethical appeal,
which believers can more or less follow; it is an either/or matter, and the person who persists
in boasting loses access to kindness and receives the annihilating severity of God. In a
passage that was highly unusual in nineteenth-century commentaries, Godet offers a haunting
assessment of the prevailing nonchalance regarding Paul’s warning about anti-Semitic
22
he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and
irreproachable before him—
23
provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope
promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul,
became a servant of this gospel.
Colossians 1:21–23 (NRSV)
*
1
Romans 6:1 (NRSV)
252
BAGD (2000) 375 (2).
253
See Stachowiak, Chrestotes, 77–83.
254
Ibid., 82.
255
Dunn, 2:665.
256
Fitzmyer, 616, following BDF §456.3; see also BAGD (2000) 360 (2).
257
See Morris, 417.
258
This verb appears in Matt 3:10*; 7:19*; Luke 3:9* in relation to the message of John the Baptist and Jesus
concerning the bad tree that will be cut down by divine action.
prejudice eliminating the possibility of salvation by grace: “It is but too clear to anyone who
has eyes to see, that our Gentile Christendom has now reached the point here foreseen by St.
Paul. In its pride it tramples under foot the very notion of that grace which has made it what it
is. It moves on, therefore, to a judgment of rejection like that of Israel, but which shall not
have to soften it a promise like that which accompanied the fall of the Jews.”259
 23* To carry Godet’s thought a step further, it becomes clear in v. 23* that Israel’s “fall”
will be overcome by divine power. “But they also” (κἀκεῖνοι δέ)260 refers to the Jews who are
currently resisting the gospel of Christ crucified, but who will end up as branches alongside
the faithful Gentiles in the holy olive tree.261 As in the preceding verse, the condition to be
fulfilled is introduced by ἐάν (“if”) followed by the verb ἐπιμένειν (“remain, persist in”).
Picking up the motif from v. 20*, the condition is that they no longer persist “in unfaith” (τῇ
ἀπιστίᾳ).262 There is a parallel to “remain in unfaith” in T. Levi 4.1 that unbelieving persons
who remain in their wrongdoing will be punished.
The characteristic paradox of divine action and free human decision that we have observed
throughout this pericope is reiterated by placing “unfaith” right next to the divine passive,
ἐγκεντρισθήσονται (“they will be grafted in”). Without allowing a moment’s pause for the
audience to question the feasibility of grafting branches that in many instances had been
separated for years, Paul states the basis of his confidence: “For God is able (δυνατὸς γάρ
ἐστιν ὁ θεός) to graft them in again.” Here Paul employs again the leitmotif of the δύναμις
θεοῦ (“power of God”) that played a decisive role in the thesis of 1:16–17* and surfaces in
various formulations in 1:4*, 20*; 4:21*; 9:17*, 22*; 14:4*; 15:13*, 19*. Just as in the
259
Godet, 408.
260
BAGD (2000) 500 (1b).
261
Meyer, 2:228; Weiss, 491.
262
See Plag, Israels Wege, 49–54.
T. Testament of Levi
*
16
17
*
4
Romans 1:4 (NRSV)
*
20
Romans 1:20 (NRSV)
*
21
being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
Romans 4:21 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 9:17 (NRSV)
*
22
Romans 9:22 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 15:13 (NRSV)
explanation of divine kindness and severity, the final appeal and explanation is God’s
power.263 In 2 Cor 9:8* we find a similar connection between abundant grace and divine
power: “And God is able (δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ θεός) to make you flourish in every grace.”264 If God
is indeed omnipotent, then the miracle of transforming grace and kindness is plausible, both
for Jews and for Gentiles. It is not that “grace is understood as a power which overcomes
unbelief and brings to faith,” as Käsemann argues,265 but that God is powerful enough to
break through the resistance against grace, which is as formidable a barrier for Gentiles as for
Jews.266 The entire project of this letter and the mission it advances rest on this single
premise: God is able.
 24* This verse “sums up the main argument” of the pericope267 and thus provides a
compelling conclusion. The final a minore ad maius (“from lesser to greater”) topos in the
pericope supports the proposition that God is powerful enough to achieve the miraculous
grafting of previous unbelievers in Israel.268 Paul appeals to the amazing miracle of
conversion that the Gentile Christian interlocutor had experienced, with “you” (sg.) in the
emphatic position:269 εἰ γὰρ σὺ (“but if you”) were pruned out of your former environment
and grafted into the productive olive tree, how much more likely is a comparable miracle for
Jews? Here Paul is able to recapitulate the allegory of the olive trees by bringing the Gentile
experience of conversion into precise correlation with Jewish conversion, with both groups
ending up as equal branches sharing the holy benefits of a single tree:
Gentiles were cut out Jews were cut out
from wild olive tree from domestic olive tree
Gentiles were grafted in Jews will be grafted in
(unnatural status) (natural status)
Both share in the same olive tree
The antithesis between “natural” and “unnatural” that surfaced in v. 21* is used again in an
ingenious manner to show that the Jews who had formerly rejected the gospel and are the
current objects of Gentile contempt actually have a more intrinsic right to belong to the holy
olive tree than does the Gentile convert himself. First Paul observes that the Gentile
interlocutor belonged κατὰ φύσιν (“naturally, according to nature”) to the unproductive, wild
olive tree (11:24a*). With the interlocutor’s conversion, he was grafted παρὰ φύσιν
*
19
by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and as far
around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news of Christ.
Romans 15:19 (NRSV)
263
Siegert, Argumentation, 171, cites Wilke, Neutestamentliche Rhetorik, 313, on the crucial function of the
topos of divine omnipotence.
*
8
And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of
everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.
264
See Walter Grundmann, “δύναμαι κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964) 306.
265
Käsemann’s comment in 311 reifies the doctrine of grace and relies on doctrinal instruction to evoke faith,
which places those who think they have the right understanding of doctrine on the pedestal of honor and power,
thus leaving the prejudices of Gentiles as well as Jews untouched.
266
Murray, 2:89, argues that this emphasis on divine power counters “the assumption entertained by Gentiles …
the presumptuous confidence … that Israel, once disinherited and cast off, cannot again be established in God’s
covenant favor and blessing.”
267
Sanday and Headlam, 330.
268
Meyer, 2:228, shows that v. 24* does not so much demonstrate the power of God as the contention of Jewish
engrafting.
269
See Morris, 417.
(“unnaturally, against nature”) into the domestic tree. The expression “unnatural” does not
imply that such grafting “does not and cannot happen, but rather because it is interfering with
nature.”270 If this can occur with a worthless branch of a wild olive tree, “how much more”
(πόσῳ μᾶλλον) likely is it that the “natural” (κατὰ φύσιν) branches will be restored by
God?271 Paul does not allow the difference in honor between natural and unnatural to be the
final word, however, because his point is that both kinds of branches will come to share the
same sacred tree.272 The future passive verb, ἐγκεντρισθήσονται (“they will be grafted in”),
can be taken as a logical future273 or as an actual, historical future,274 which seems more likely
in view of the visionary argument in the next pericope. His point is that the Gentile mission
does not intend the creation of a separate Gentile church but rather a church of Jews and
Gentiles,275 both of whom will have been enabled by the gospel of “God’s kindness and
severity” to overcome their cultural prejudices. But Paul was wise enough to know that one
cannot deal with such prejudices by frontal assault. So he selects a natural allegory with
persuasive power along with a “speech-in-character” by a Gentile interlocutor whose
prejudicial inclinations are exaggerated in a humorous manner. This enables the audience to
gain perspective on itself by smiling at the foibles of the interlocutor. In the end, the audience
is enabled to recognize that, despite its reluctance to support a mission that would augment
the numbers of perceived competitors, there were nine very good reasons to reconsider the
matter: the “salvation” (11:11*), the “wealth” (11:12*), the “reconciliation” (11:15*), the “life
from the dead” (11:15*), the “welcome” (11:15*), the “holy” (11:16*), the “nourishing sap”
(11:17*), the “faith” (11:20*), and finally, the “kindness and severity of God” (11:22*). This
passage, which many interpreters have viewed as muddled, turns out to be a brilliant fusion of
allegory and diatribe that would have functioned effectively with Paul’s audience in Rome,
drawing them in the direction of supporting his audacious mission to Spain that would
provide a truly inclusive reconciliation of the world.
270
Baxter and Ziesler, “Arboriculture,” 29.
271
The πόσῳ μᾶλλον (“how much more”) figure does not demonstrate the effectiveness of divine power (Meyer,
2:228), or show that Jewish conversion is “easier” than converting Gentiles (Sanday and Headlam, 330;
Fitzmyer, 617), or the “Israelitish character of the covenant” (Murray, 2:90), but rather which divine action is
more likely (Schmidt, 197), i.e., Jewish conversion along with Gentile conversion. White, Apostle, 152, aptly
concludes that this passage “assumes that the creator’s power transcends even nature’s generativity.”
272
See Hodge, “Olive Trees,” 89: “God has added a branch to the family tree so that both Judeans and gentiles-
in-Christ might be saved.”
273
Weiss, 492; Kühl, 389.
274
Schmidt, 197; Wilckens, 2:248–49; Donaldson, “Riches,” 93–94.
275
See Wilckens, 2:250; Dunn, 2:666; Ziesler, 281.
11 The Ninth Pericope

Oracular Disclosure and Enthymeme on the Mystery of Global Salvation
25/ For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, “lest you become
[wise] minded [in relation to]a yourselves,” that an obtusenessb has occurred in a part
of Israel, until which time the full number of the Gentiles might come in, 26/ and in
such a manner all Israel shall be saved, as it has been written,
“The deliverer shall come from Zion;
He shall turn aside impious deeds from Jacob. 27/
And this, with them, [shall be] myc very own covenant,”
“when I shall have taken away their sins.”
28/ On the one hand in regard to the gospel, [they are] enemies on account of you,
but on the other hand in regard to election, [they are] beloved on account of the
patriarchs. 29/ For the gifts and the call of God are without regret. 30/ For just asd you
were once disobedient to God but now e have been shown mercy because of their
disobedience, 31/ so also have they now been disobedient because of the mercy you
*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
a
A difficult text-critical problem is produced by the “considerable doubt” (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 465)
concerning whether there should be a preposition in this phrase. P 46 F G Ψ 6 424c 1506 1739 pc ar d f g o vg sa
bo fay Hil Ambst Hier2/3 Pel Aug have no preposition, which Lagrange, 284, convincingly argues is the original
reading; Zahn, 521–22; Käsemann, 312; and Pallas, 131, concur. The inclusion of παρʼ (“among, with”) in ‫ א‬C D
L 33 69 81 104 256 263 323 326 330 365 424* 436 459 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1505 1573 1735 1836
1874 1881 1912 1962 2127 2464 2495 Maj b syh (acc. to N-A) slav Orlat Chr Theodore Heslat Gregory-Elvira Hier1/3
could be an assimilation to the wording of Rom 12:16* and LXX Prov 3:7*. The inclusion of ἐν (“in”) found in
A B 630 1506 1852 2200 syp, h (acc. to GNT) arm might be influenced by the wording of LXX Isa 5:21*. Nestle-
Aland24/25 and Michel, 354, preferred ἐν; Cranfield, 2:574, prints ἐν but says he is “inclined to agree with
Lagrange.” Nestle-Aland26/27 place παρ ̓ in brackets, indicating the divided opinion of the editors. I believe that
an original text without a preposition is more likely to have evoked these emendations, and that in view of the
parallel wordings in Proverbs and Isaiah, the lack of a preposition constitutes the more difficult reading. The
simple dative construction is grammatically understandable and would still require “in” or “in relation to” in an
English translation.
b
Nestle-Aland26/27 provides caecitas (“blindness”) as an alternate reading to πώρωσις (“hardening”) found in latt
sy, which is too weakly supported to be original. Nestle-Aland25 suggests this may go back to an original Greek
πήρωσις (“blindness”).
c
A transposition is evident in P46 placing ἡ (“the”) after παρʼ ἐμοῦ (“with me”), possibly a dictation error.
d
The addition of καί (“also, and”) is weakly attested by ‫א‬2 D1 L Ψ 33 69 424 614 1175 1241 1505 1735 1836
1874 2344 2495 Maj lat sy appears to have a theologically apologetic purpose, reminding the Gentile readers
that if they have been sinners, the Jews have been also. The absence of καί is strongly supported by P 46 ‫א‬1 (‫*א‬
omits vs 30) A B C D* F G 81 323 326 330 365 945 1243 1319 1506 1573 1739 1881 al cop.
e
B 1243 1505 2495 have νυνί, the emphatic form of νῦν (“now”), which appears to be a secondary heightening
of Paul’s argument.
received, in order that they themselves may also now f be shown mercy. 32/ For God
confined all personsg in disobedience, in order that he might show mercy to all.
Analysis
This pericope dealing with the mystery of salvation serves to explain the allusion in 11:23–
24* about the future engrafting of Israel alongside Gentile converts into the holy olive tree.
Although commentaries usually view this section as concentrated on Israel’s salvation,1 the
entire world is in fact in view2 with respect to the power of the gospel to overcome otherwise
irresolvable barriers. The pericope contains two major parts, a disclosure of the mystery with
scriptural support (11:25–27*) and a theological explanation of its significance for salvation
history (11:28–32*).3
f
The stylistic and logical awkwardness of a thrice repeated νῦν (“now”) may have elicited the variants present at
this point. The word is omitted by P 46 A D2 F G L Ψ 6 69 81 104 181 323 326 330 424 436 451 614 629 945
1175 1241 1243 1505 1739 1836 1874 1877 1881 2200 2344 2492 2495 Maj Lect ar b d f g o vg syp arm eth geo
Orlat Diodore Did Chr Ambst Ambr Hier Pel Aug, which conforms to the stylistic tendencies noted earlier in
these traditions. The substitution of νῦν by ὕστερον (“later, thereafter”) in 33 88 256 263 365 1319 1573 1735
1852 1912 1962 2127 pc sa fayms slav Ambstmss is a similar logical improvement. The evidence supporting the
inclusion of νῦν (‫ א‬B D*,c 1506 pc bo fayms) is not overwhelming, but it is difficult to conceive that these texts
gratuitously added a third reference to “now.” The inclusion of νῦν is therefore the more difficult reading that
should be accepted. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 465.
g
The neuter plural form τὰ πάντα (“all, all things”) in P46vid D* (F G Ir omit τά) ar b d f g o vg Ir(gr), lat Cyr2/3
Ambst Prisc Ambr Hier12/17 Aug1/10 appears to extend the condemnation beyond human agencies referred to in
the undoubtedly original masculine form τοὺς πάντας (“all persons”), found in all of the other texts. Metzger,
Textual Commentary, 465 suggests that the reading τὰ πάντα is a “scribal recollection” of Gal 3:22*. The form
τοὺς πάντας (“all persons”) is strongly supported by ‫ א‬A B D2 L Ψ 6 33 69 81 88 104 181 256 263 323 326 330
365 424 436 451 459 614 629 1175 1241 1319 1505 1506 1573 1735 1739 1836 1852 1874 1877 1881 1912
1962 2127 2200 2344 2492 2495 Lect syp,h sa bo fay arm eth geo Orlat Diodore Did Chr Theodorelat Cyr1/3 (John-
Damascus) Ambstmss Hier5/17 Aug9/10.
*
23
them in again.
24
1
See, for example, the titles for this pericope such as “Israel’s redemption” (Käsemann, 311), “Israel’s ultimate
salvation” (Schlier, 337), “the salvation of all Israel” (Moo, 710); see also Morris, 418; Stuhlmacher, 170;
Theobald, 1:302; Fitzmyer, 618; Byrne, 348; Haacker, 235.
2
See the titles for 11:25–32 by Barrett, 221, “God’s Plan Complete”; Cranfield, 2:572, “The mystery of God’s
merciful plan”; Dunn, 2:675, “The Final Mystery Revealed.”
*
25
26
27
*
28
29
30
31
32
3
See Wilckens, 3:251; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 368.
The pericope opens with a stylized disclosure formula that prepares the audience for
something significant.4 The second person singular discourse in the preceding diatribe shifts
here to second person plural forms.5 Two parallel statements about Israel’s obtuseness and
Gentile salvation in 25c* and d are followed by the declaration of the mysterious, future
salvation of all Israel in v. 26a*, a statement that is often treated as a kind of independent
centerpiece of this pericope.6 The validity of the hope of Israel’s salvation is confirmed by the
skillful creation of a four-line prophecy in 11:26c–27*, assembled from Isa 59:20–21* and Isa
27:9*.
The rest of the pericope has the form of a theological enthymeme that explains the relevance
of this mystery in terms of the gospel’s global mission. The thesis of 11:28* concerning the
enmity and election of Israel is stated in the form of an elegant, antithetical parallelism7 with
homoioptoton in the -οι endings of “enemies” and “beloved” and the -ας endings of “you” and
“patriarchs,”8 as well reduplication in the prepositions κατά and διά. Siegert observes that this
is a perfect example of paromoiosis, an elegant figure with balanced clauses and similar
sounding endings.9
κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
4
See Mullins, “Disclosure” 49–50; Siegert, Argumentation, 171.
5
Dunn, 2:677.
*
25
Romans 11:25 (NRSV)
*
26
Romans 11:26 (NRSV)
6
In “Beiträge,” 242, Weiss describes the grammatical independence of this clause and refers to it as a kind of
“Ruhepunkt” (“resting point”) in the argument. That vv. 25–27* form a secondary interpolation, as proposed by
Plag, Israels Wege, 60, is rightly rejected by Peter Stuhlmacher, “Zur Interpretation von Röm 11, 25–32, ” in H.
W. Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie. Festschrift für Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich:
Kaiser, 1971) 557.
*
26
27
*
20
And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord.
21
And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the Lord: my spirit that is upon you, and my words that I
have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouths of your children, or out of the
mouths of your children’s children, says the Lord, from now on and forever.
*
9
Therefore by this the guilt of Jacob will be expiated, and this will be the full fruit of the removal of his sin:
when he makes all the stones of the altars like chalkstones crushed to pieces, no sacred poles or incense altars
will remain standing.
Isaiah 27:9 (NRSV)
*
28
Romans 11:28 (NRSV)
7
See Weiss, “Beiträge,” 242, and Käsemann, 315: “a hard paradox in which the two lines correspond
antithetically in their individual members.” See also Siegert, Argumentation, 171–72.
8
9
Ibid., 174; for a convenient definition of paromoiosis, see Anderson, Glossary, 91–92.
ἐχθροὶ
διʼ ὑμᾶς,
κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν
ἀγαπητοὶ
διὰ τοὺς πατέρας
This thesis concerning the current hostility and continued election of Israel is explained and
elaborated in 11:29–32*, as revealed in the fourfold repetition of γάρ (“for”).10 There is “an
extremely skilful chiasmus” in the “just as … so also” figure of 11:30–31*, 11 in which the
“mercy” and “disobedience” of 11:30b* are replicated by the “disobedience” and “mercy” of
11:31a*.12 The situation of Israel and the Gentiles is shown to be parallel in their reception of
mercy despite the previous disobedience of each group. In addition, there is a striking
paranomasia in the threefold use of νῦν (“now”) of the eschatological present in vv. 30–31*
that stands in antithesis to the ποτε (“then”) of the old age. The verbs “have mercy” and “be
disobedient” are also repeated three times in this artful chiasm. The conclusion of the
argument in 11:32* takes up the categories of disobedience and mercy in their universal scope
so that the mystery of the ultimate conversion of Gentiles and Jews is brought into
consistency with the earlier argument about the sinfulness (1:18–3:20*) and salvation (3:21–
*
29
30
31
32
10
In contrast, Louw, 2:115–17, separates 11:28* into a separate cluster of cola from 11:29–31*.
*
30
31
11
Käsemann, 317; Louw, 2:16, concurs that “a complete parallelism and chiasm is achieved.”
*
30
Romans 11:30 (NRSV)
*
31
Romans 11:31 (NRSV)
12
Käsemann, 316; there is a somewhat confusing analysis of this chiasm in Louw, 2:117, but a clear and succinct
description in Weiss, “Beiträge,” 180, 242.
*
32
Romans 11:32 (NRSV)
*
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
themselves,
25
5:21*) of all humans. The word πᾶς (“all”) is reduplicated in this final verse. In the end,
divine mercy will triumph over cultural resistance in its various, destructive forms (11:30–
32*). The rhetoric of these final verses provides both a summary and a pause before the
ecstatic conclusion of 11:33–36*.13
26
unnatural,
27
error.
28
should not be done.
29
30
31
32
1
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another
you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
*
21
prophets,
22
23
24
25
26
Jesus.
27
28
29
30
same faith.
31
1
2
3
4
5
*
30
31
32
*
33
34
35
36
13
See Weiss, “Beiträge,” 242–43.
IV. The probatio

11:25–32 9. Oracular disclosure and enthymeme on the mystery of global salvation
11:25–27 a. The disclosure of the mystery
11:25–6a 1) The purpose and content of the mystery
11:25a a) The disclosure formula
11:25b b) The purpose of disclosure to the Gentiles: to prevent haughtiness
11:25c–26a c) The content of the mystery
11:25c (1) The temporary obtuseness of Israel
11:25d (2) The resultant opportunity for the Gentile mission
11:26a (3) The forthcoming salvation of “all Israel”
11:26b–27 2) The scriptural proof of Israel’s salvation
11:26c b) The promise of the eschatological deliverer, from Isa 59:20a*
11:26d c) The task of the deliverer to eliminate Israel’s ungodliness, from Isa 59:20b*
11:27a d) The promise of a new covenant, from Isa 59:21a*
11:27b e) The promise of eliminating the sin of Israel, from Isa 27:9*
11:28–32 b. The enthymeme on the theological significance of the mystery of global
salvation
11:28 1) The thesis in the form of a paromoiosis
11:28a a) Israel’s enmity to the gospel benefits the Gentiles
11:28b b) Israel’s election is guaranteed on account of the patriarchs
11:29–32 2) The clarification of the thesis
11:29 a) The unregrettability of divine gifts and calling
11:30–31 b) The parallelism between Israel and the Gentiles
11:30a (1) Gentiles were once disobedient
11:30b (2) Gentiles now receive mercy because of Israel’s disobedience
11:31a (3) Israelites are now disobedient for the sake of mercy to the Gentiles
11:31b (4) Israelites will now receive mercy
11:32 3) Concluding epigram
11:32a a) The confinement of all persons in disobedience
11:32b b) The ultimate demonstration of mercy to all
Exegesis
 25* The argumentative link with the preceding claim that Israel will be grafted back into
the olive tree (11:23–24*) is indicated by γάρ (“for”) in the opening clause.14 The disclosure
formula, οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί (“I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers”),
*
20
Isaiah 59:20 (NRSV)
*
21
Isaiah 59:21 (NRSV)
14
The substantiation of the claim of divine engrafting in 11:23–24 is inferred by Meyer, 1:229; Weiss, 493; Moo,
713, but is inappropriately extended to the entire preceding pericope by Cranfield, 2:573, and Dunn, 2:677.
replicates the formula in 1:13*, indicating again a topic of “special importance” to the
audience.15 Among examples of such disclosure formulas cited by Terrence Mullins are
P.Oxy. 12. Nr. 1493.5–9, γινώσκειν σε θέλω, ἀδελφέ, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος μηνὸς Θὼλ
ἐκομισάμην σου τὸν ὑιὸν εὐρωστοῦντα καὶ ὀλοκληροῦντα διὰ παντός (“I wish to let you
know, O brother, that in the current month of Thôl, I have welcomed your son in complete
health and totally robust in every respect”).16 Also as in 1:13*, Paul addresses his audience as
“brothers,”17 referring to male and female members of the community18 that consists of Jews
as well as Gentiles.19 On the basis of the preceding argument, it is clear that everyone in
Paul’s audience are children of God (8:14*, 15*, 19*, 21*; 9:8*, 26*) whose joint patrimony
was assured because Abraham “is the father of us all” (4:16*), and whose solidarity with Paul
and with each other was conveyed in the formulas “all who have faith” (1:16*; 3:22*; 4:11*;
10:4*, 11*), “all of you” (1:8*), and “all who call upon the name of the Lord” (10:12–13*).
*
13
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been
prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.
Romans 1:13 (NRSV)
15
Cranfield, 2:573; Meyer, 2:229; Schmithals, “ἀγνοέω κτλ.,” 21; the formulation θέλω / θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν,
ἀδελφοί is uniquely Pauline, appearing also in 1 Cor 10:1*; 12:1*; 2 Cor 1:8*; and 1 Thess 4:13*, and always
introduces a point of great importance.
P.Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Bernard P. Grenfell et al. 56 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. 1897–
1987
Nr. Document number in collections of papyri, inscriptions, or ostraca
16
Mullins, “Disclosure” 47.
17
See the references to the investigations of “brother” in connection with 1:13.
18
See BAGD (2000) 18; Beutler, “ἀδελφός,” 30.
19
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 369, notes that the “you” (pl.) in this verse should not be confused with the “you” of
the imaginary interlocutor in 11:13–24.
*
14
Romans 8:14 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 8:15 (NRSV)
*
19
Romans 8:19 (NRSV)
*
21
children of God.
Romans 8:21 (NRSV)
*
8
Romans 9:8 (NRSV)
*
26
Romans 9:26 (NRSV)
*
16
Romans 4:16 (NRSV)
*
16
The object of the verb “to be ignorant” that Paul wishes to prevent is τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο
(“this mystery”), referring to a divine disclosure that is detailed in the later part of v. 25*. The
word μυστήριον was widely used in Greco-Roman religion, particularly in the mystery
religions,20 and was equally popular in apocalyptic Judaism and various branches of early
Christianity.21 Common features of these traditions of μυστήριον 22 include the premise of
limited access to divine knowledge;23 the demand to refrain from revealing content to the
uninitiated;24 the role of prophetic or visionary characters in gaining access to such
knowledge;25 and the crucial role of angelic mediation and visionary journeys to otherwise
inaccessible realms of divine knowledge.26 A fundamental disparity between insiders to
whom the mysteries were revealed and outsiders whose access is barred27 is evident in
widespread literary references and also in the etymology of μυστήριον, derived from μύειν
(“to close”), probably referring to the maintenance of closed lips about secrets.28 In literature
close to the NT, there are frequent demands to avoid disclosure to outsiders. For example,
1QS 4:6 demands “concealment concerning the truth of the mysteries of knowledge,” and
Romans 1:16 (NRSV)

*
22
Romans 3:22 (NRSV)
*
11
Romans 4:11 (NRSV)
*
4
Romans 10:4 (NRSV)
*
11
Romans 10:11 (NRSV)
*
8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the
world.
Romans 1:8 (NRSV)
*
12
on him.
13
20
Bornkamm, “μυστήριον, μυέω,” 803–13; Krämer, “μυστήριον,” 446–47; Wolter, “Verborgene Weisheit,”
300–303.
21
Bornkamm, “μυστήριον, μυέω,” 814–24; Krämer, “μυστήριον,” 447–49; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery,
24–126; Johnson, Function, 163; Dieter Sänger, “Rettung der Heiden und Erwählung Israels. Einige vorläufige
Erwägungen zu Römer 11, 25–27, ” KD 32 (1986) 112–15.
22
See Bornkamm, “μυστήριον, μυέω,” 816; Marvin W. Meyer, “Mystery Religions,” ABD 4 (1992) 941–44.
Raymond E. Brown, “The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion (I),” Bib 39 (1958) 426–48,
overlooks these parallels in insisting on “a purely Semitic background” (426) for the NT use of μυστήριον; he is
followed by Dunn, 2:678; Fitzmyer, 621; Johnson, 171–72; and Byrne, 354.
23
1 Cor 2:6*, 10*; 1 Thess 2:6–7*.
24
1 Cor 2:14*; 2 Cor 12:4*.
25
1 Cor 4:1*; 7:7*; 15:51*.
26
2 Cor 12:1–4*.
27
See Achtemeier, 187.
28
Meyer, “Mystery Religions,” 941–42; Bornkamm, “μυστήριον, μυέω,” 803: “the etymology leads only to the
fairly certain general conclusion that a μυστήριον is something on which silence must be kept.” Keller, Gottes
Treue, 78, concurs.
Ezra is told that “you alone were worthy to learn this secret of the Most High. Therefore write
all these things that you have seen in a book, and put it in a hidden place; and you shall teach
them to the wise among your people, whose hearts you know are able to comprehend and
keep these secrets.”29 The content of the mystery usually favors insiders at the expense of
outsiders, as, for example, in 1 En. 38.3, “When the mysteries of the Righteous One are
revealed, he shall judge the sinners; and the wicked ones will be driven from the presence of
the righteous and the elect.”
That Paul sought to overcome this insider bias in the use of the term “mystery” is evident not
only in the warning against haughty-mindedness in 11:25b* but also by first articulating the
content of the mystery by means of the carefully constructed diatribe in 11:11–24* with an
interlocutor who takes Gentile Christian prejudices against Jewish Christians to a ridiculous
extreme. In the light of these rhetorical observations, what Paul discloses here is authoritative
“new doctrine,”30 an oracle whose authority derives from God.31 Efforts to specify the precise
source of this oracle have not been successful. If it derived from spiritual interpretation of
Scripture,32 then why was the term “mystery” not applied to the many previous citations that
Paul selected, edited, and in some cases substantially transformed to fit his argumentative
purpose? If it was an answer to Paul’s prayer for Israel’s redemption (Rom 10:1*),33 why does
29
4 Ezra. 12.37–38*; see also 14.5–6*, 26*, 45–47*; 2 Bar. 20.3; 48.3.
*
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
23
them in again.
24
30
Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 170–75; see also Kühl, 390.
31
Zahn, 521; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 289.
32
Otto Betz, “Die heilsgeschichtliche Rolle Israels bei Paulus,” ThBei 9 (1978) 20; Hübner, Gottes Ich und
Israel, 113, 121; Otfried Hofius, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in
Romans 9–11, ” PSBSup 1 (1990) 33–38; Franz Mussner, “‘Ganz Israel wird gerettet werden’ (Röm 11, 26).
Versuch einer Auslegung,” Kairos 18 (1976) 249–51; Sandnes, Paul, 180–81; Bockmuehl, Revelation and
Mystery, 174–75; Keller, Gottes Treue, 124.
*
1
Romans 10:1 (NRSV)
33
Müller, Prophetie, 225–32; Zeller, 198; Sandnes, Paul, 178; Wilckens, 2:254.
Paul remain in anguish over Israel’s unbelief and continue to pray for its redemption?34 If the
mystery was disclosed at the time of Paul’s conversion, leading him to evangelize among
Gentiles while avoiding Jews,35 how is one to explain his receiving five times the customary
synagogal punishment of 39 stripes (2 Cor 11:24*)?36 Seyoon Kim’s theory is based on his
interpretation of 1 Cor 1:6–10* concerning the divine plan of salvation, which was a
development of the theophanic call patterned after Isaiah 6 and 49.37 He makes a case against
Sandnes, Hofius, and Mussner that this mystery was not derived from Paul’s scriptural work
on Isaiah 59, 27, Jeremiah 31 in the period after his conversion, but this case can hardly be
compelling with regard to the precise moment of Paul’s conversion. Kim is right to rely on
Hübner’s observation that the mystery is not entirely dependent on scriptural exegesis. The
reversed sequence that Paul develops, “the Gentiles first and then the Jews” coming into
salvation, seems strongly opposed to the LXX citations. I find the Ulrich B. Müller’s
suggestion in Prophetie more plausible, that the mystery may have originated in connection
with 1 Thess 2:14–16*.38
The strongest argument in favor of Kim’s reconstruction is that Paul never appears to have
followed the traditional rationale of mission to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles, making
the Gentile cities his base of operations and avoiding Jerusalem.39 The material contained in
Isaiah 6 and 49 reflected in Paul’s references to his conversion have material concerning the
obtuseness of Israel.40 But Kim observes that Paul does not explicitly cite these passages in
describing his conversion, “because they were not the primary sources of the ‘mystery,’ but
only confirmation of it.”41 Kim makes a much less plausible case that this mystery was
involved in an allegedly early agreement (ca. 34–35 C.E.) between Paul and Peter concerning
a division of the mission fields, suggested by Luedemann.42 The main point is more
compelling, that from the moment of Paul’s conversion it was clear to him that Israel had
experienced an obtuseness or hardening, and that the Isaianic vision would be fulfilled in
reverse order. Could Paul have not identified himself along with those zealous Jews, rendered
34
See Seyoon Kim, “The ‘Mystery’ of Rom 11:25–26* Once More,” NTS 43 (1997) 417–18.
35
Kim, Origin, 74–99; Kim, “Mystery,” 412–15, 420–29.
*
24
Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
36
See Martin, 2 Corinthians, 376–77; this historical detail also counters Nanos’s explanation in Mystery, 249–
50, that Jews were actually jealous of Paul’s missionary success with Gentiles.
*
6
just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you—
7
so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.
8
He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9
God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
10
Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement
and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.
37
Kim, “Mystery,” 412–15.
*
14
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you
suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews,
15
16
38
Müller, Prophetie, 230.
39
Kim, “Mystery,” 418–19, 428.
40
Ibid., 421.
41
Ibid., 422.
42
Luedemann, Chronologie, 79–83, 97–98.
obtuse so as to oppose the Christ? When one takes Rom 10:4* into account, describing the
dilemma of zealous Jews who reject Christ, an insight available to Paul at the moment of his
conversion could well have been in view.
Despite the discomfort of some interpreters,43 it is best to acknowledge that Paul’s use of the
word “mystery” in this context reflects the perspective of a mystic whose “revelation
experiences”44 remain partially beyond analysis. Even though it can be publicly disclosed, its
origin and content remain partially “unfathomable and incomprehensible.”45
Before revealing the content of the “mystery,” Paul cites a brief warning from Prov 3:7*. The
wording of LXX Prov 3:7a* is abbreviated46 and altered from a singular to a plural
admonition, as the comparison indicates:
LXX Prov 3:7* μὴ ἴσθι φρόνιμος παρὰ σεαυτῷ (“Do not be [wise] minded in yourself”).
Rom 11:25b* ἵνα μὴ ἦτε ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι (“lest you [pl.] become [wise] minded in
yourselves”).
The fact that being “[wise] minded” (φρόνιμος) has a positive connotation in Greco-Roman
writings47 and in most of the NT occurrences (Matt 10:16*; 24:45*; 25:2*, 4*, 8*, 9*; Luke
12:42*) strengthens the impression that the negative admonition must be derived from either a
citation of Proverbs or at least a strong echo thereof.48 In this context the reflexive pronoun
ἑαυτοῖς in combination with φρόνιμοι implies being wise in your own estimation, implying an
43
Zahn, 521; Sänger, Verkündigung, 181–93.
44
Meier, Mystik, 295, 99.
45
*
7
Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.
Proverbs 3:7 (NRSV)
*
7
Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.
Proverbs 3:7 (NRSV)
46
See note a above.
47
See Georg Bertram, “φρήν κτλ.,” TDNT 9 (1974) 221–24.
*
16
“See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Matthew 10:16 (NRSV)
*
45
“Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other
slaves their allowance of food at the proper time?
Matthew 24:45 (NRSV)
*
2
Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
Matthew 25:2 (NRSV)
*
4
but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
Matthew 25:4 (NRSV)
*
8
The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’
Matthew 25:8 (NRSV)
*
9
But the wise replied, ‘No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy
some for yourselves.’
Matthew 25:9 (NRSV)
*
42
And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his
slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time?
Luke 12:42 (NRSV)
48
Schlier, 338, speaks of a reminiscence of Prov 3:7*; Dunn, 2:679, refers to “an echo of Prov 3:7*.”
unacceptable measure of arrogance.49 The critical tone is similar to that of 1 Cor 4:10* where
Paul contrasts the inflated self-image of the proto-Gnostics with the proper humility of the
apostles: “We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise minded (φρόνιμοι) in Christ” (cf. 2
Cor 11:19*, “being wise minded yourselves”).50 The warning of Rom 11:25b* in second
person plural style makes it clear that the previous discussion with the imaginary interlocutor
has implications for the congregation as a whole. The arrogance that Paul so skillfully and
humorously depicted in the interlocutor is to some degree characteristic of the congregation as
a whole. Paul makes no distinction here between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians,51
both of whom may have had reasons to resist evangelization that would result in the
conversion of additional Gentiles and previously zealous Jews.52 But since the majority of
Gentile Christians perceived their interests to counter the mystery of Israel’s conversion, as
evident in the preceding pericope, this is where the main criticism must lie.53
It seems clear that the mystery contains three elements that had been introduced earlier in
chapter 11: making a portion of Israel obtuse, the conversion of Gentiles, and the subsequent
conversion of Jews.54 The concept of πώρωσις (“obtuseness, hardening”) was introduced by
its verbal equivalent πωρόω (“make obtuse, hard”) in 11:7*, which Paul had elaborated by
means of scriptural citations as a failure to discern and to see that was simultaneously a
willful act and divine punishment.55 That this condition had fallen only “on a part of Israel”
(ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραήλ) is consistent with 9:27*, that “only a remnant will be saved”; with
11:7*, that “the chosen” obtained righteousness in Christ, “but the others were made obtuse”;
with 11:14*, that “some” of Israel has already accepted the gospel; and with 11:17*, that only
49
Dunn, 2:679; Fitzmyer, 621; Barrett, 222: “wise in your own conceit”; Ziesler, 283: “clever in yourselves.”
*
10
We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held
in honor, but we in disrepute.
*
19
For you gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves!
50
See Paulsen, “φρονέω κτλ.,” 440.
51
See Wilckens, 2:252–53; Dunn, 2:679.
52
That Paul’s warning counters an ahistorical, charismatic enthusiasm in the Roman congregations as proposed
by Otto Glombitza, “Apostolische Sorge. Welche Sorge treibt den Apostel Paulus zu den Sätzen Röm xi 25ff.?”
NovT 7 (1964–65) 314–18, followed by Stuhlmacher, “Interpretation,” 559, remains unsupported by the
evidence in the rest of the letter.
53
Weiss, 493; Michel, 354; Cranfield, 2:574; Morris, 419; Schreiner, 614; Mussner, “‘Ganz Israel,’ ” 254. In
“Einige vorwiegend sprachliche Beobachtungen zu Römer 11.25–36, ” in L. de Lorenzi, ed., Die Israelfrage
nach Röm 9–11, SMB 3 (Rome: Abbayia S. Paolo, 1977) 193–205, Joachim Jeremias describes the domination
and intolerance of the Gentile Christians.
54
Zahn, 523; Michel, 354–55; Fitzmyer, 621; Moo, 716; Keller, Gottes Treue, 124–27.
*
7
Romans 11:7 (NRSV)
55
Schmidt and Schmidt, “παχύνω, πωρόω κτλ.,” 1024; Marie-Irma Seewann, “‘Verstockung’, ‘Verhärtung’ oder
‘Nicht-Erkennen’: Überlegungen zu Röm 11, 25, ” Kirche und Israel 12 (1997) 165–70, concludes that “non-
discernment” is the appropriate translation, which can result from either incapacity or an unwillingness to
understand.
*
27
Romans 9:27 (NRSV)
*
14
Romans 11:14 (NRSV)
*
“some” of the branches of Israel had been broken off. It is thus inappropriate to attach the
phrase ἀπὸ μέρους in an adverbial manner to the noun πώρωσις (“obtuse, hardening”) and the
verb γέγονεν (“has become”) in order to maintain the premise that Paul always refers to Israel
“as a unified whole.”56 He usually does so, but the argument in this instance would be fatally
flawed with the notion of a “partial obtuseness” and the contextual clues in the earlier
argument of Rom 9–11 should be followed. Paul knows that he himself and many of his
fellow converts had formerly been afflicted with such obtuseness, and the mystery he now
conveys is that only a portion of Israel remains blind and that this malady will ultimately be
overcome. The choice of the perfect tense in the verb γέγονεν (“has become”) implies that this
nondiscernment was imposed at a particular time and continues to the present,57 which
matches the circumstance of a portion of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Christ and its
continued hostility to the spread of the gospel.
The reference to the conversion of Gentiles begins with ἄχρις οὗ (“until which [time]”), used
elsewhere to mark the “continuous extent of time up to a point,” “until the time when.”58
Joachim Jeremias shows that ἄχρις οὗ in combination with εἰσέλθῃ (“might come in”)
functions as a prospective conjunction that points forward to the goal, in this instance, of
Gentile conversion.59 In this instance, it refers to the time period of Israel’s obtuseness lasting
until the fulfillment of the predestined plan for Gentile conversion.60 The τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν
ἐθνῶν (“full total of the Gentiles”)61 refers in this instance to the predestined number of the
elect according to an apocalytic scheme.62 Whether this full number of Gentile converts was
larger or smaller than the ultimate number of Jewish converts63 is impossible to determine on
the basis of this succinct reference. It is significant, however, that Paul employs the same term
here as in 11:12* for the full number of Jewish converts, which places both groups in a
similar status with regard to the completion of a fore-ordained number of converts. In view of
the mission proposed in this letter, the full number of Gentile converts was probably thought
by Paul to require the inclusion of Spanish converts.
Since the verb εἰσέρχομαι (“come in”) is left without an object, scholars have either suggested
that the converts were conceived as making an eschatological pilgrimage to Jerusalem64 or
17
Romans 11:17 (NRSV)
56
Dunn, 2:679.
57
Ibid.
58
BAGD (2000) 160; see also Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 68, who cites Mayer, Gottes Heilsratschluß,
282.
59
Jeremias, “Römer 11.25–36, ” 196.
60
Hofius, “All Israel,” 33.
61
For the common use of πλήρωμα as “full number,” see Overfield, “Pleroma” 384–96.
62
See particularly Stuhlmann, Eschatologische Maß, 164–78; Hübner, “πλήρωμα,” 110–11; relevant parallel
passages are cited under 11:12* above. The proposal by Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans,” 251, 257, that this “full
number” was thought to include Spanish converts participating in the Jerusalem offering raises insuperable
chronological problems because Paul planned to deliver the offering before traveling to Rome to organize the
Spanish mission.
63
Dunn, 2:680, referring to an ambiguous reference in Murray, 2:93.
*
12
Romans 11:12 (NRSV)
64
Cf. Plag, Israels Wege, 56–58; Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans,” 251–52; Schmidt, 110; Räisänen, “Römer 9–11, ”
2922; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 68–70; Ziesler, 284; Zeller, 198; Wilckens, 2:255; Tobin, Paul’s
Rhetoric, 371–72. For a skeptical assessment, see Haacker, 238.
entering into the church as the kingdom of God.65 A less likely option is that the verb implies
the engrafting into the olive tree of Israel.66 In view of the fact that εἰσέρχομαι is a technical
term for “entering the kingdom” in the gospel tradition and the later reference to the
“kingdom of God” in Rom 14:17*; and in view of the avoidance of the references to Mount
Zion and the “gospel of peace” in the citation of Isa 52:7* in Rom 10:15* as noted above, the
implied logic is more likely to be the eschatological church containing the predestined full
number of Jews and Gentiles.
 26a* The third element in the mystery conveyed to the Romans is the conversion of Israel.
By introducing it with καὶ οὕτως (“and in such a manner, and so”), Paul makes plain that the
first two components of the mystery are the means by which the final component will be
accomplished by God.67 As he explained in 11:11–14*, zealous anger at the conversion of
Gentiles and their inclusion as equally honored members of the kingdom of God is expected
to provoke the conversion of Israel, in a manner parallel to Paul’s own conversion. The logic
of the three-step mystery has led some scholars to assume a temporal sequence or to combine
the temporal with the modal dimension in the words καὶ οὕτως.68 In contrast to current
opinion,69 there is lexical support for the temporal sense.70 For example, Plato reports that
Socrates and Hippocrates arrive at Protagoras’s house but decide to “finish their discussion
and then go into the house” (ἀλλὰ διαπερανάμενοι οὕτως ἐσίοιμεν, Plato Prot. 314c). In T.
65
Sanday and Headlam, 335; Michel, 355; Käsemann, 313; Schlier, 339; Cranfield, 2:576; Murray, 2:93; Morris,
420; Stuhlmacher, 272; Fitzmyer, 622.
66
See the critique by Dunn, 2:680, albeit mistakenly attributing this view to Fitzmyer.
*
17
Romans 14:17 (NRSV)
*
7
Isaiah 52:7 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 10:15 (NRSV)
67
BAGD (2000) 742.2, “in this way, as follows”; Godet, 411; Kühl, 392; Schmidt, 199; Wilckens, 2:255; Dunn,
2:681; Moo, 720; Jeremias, “Römer 11.25–36, ” 198–99; Sänger, “Rettung der Heiden,” 108; Wright, Climax,
249–50; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 371.
*
11
12
13
14
68
Barrett, 223; Michel, 255; Käsemann, 314. Dunn, 2:681, cites André Feuillet, “L’espérance de la ‘conversion’
d’Israël en Rom 11, 25–32. L’Interprétation des versets 26 et 31, ” in M. Carrez et al., eds., De la Tôrah au
Messie. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles (Paris: Desclée, 1981), 486–87.
Dunn rightly rejects a reference to the subsequent citation of Isa 59, as proposed by Müller, Prophetie, 226–27,
and others. The temporal interpretation of καὶ οὕτως is also advocated by Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 43; Plag,
Israels Wege, 37; Stuhlmacher, “Interpretation,” 560.
69
Fitzmyer, 622–23; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 294, insists that καὶ οὕτως should be translated with “and so,”
which does not imply the chronology of an apocalyptic plan.
70
See Pieter W. van der Horst, “‘Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καὶ
οὕτως in Romans 11:26*, ” JBL 119 (2000) 521–25, citing earlier studies by Eiliv Skard, “Zum temporal
Gebrauch von οὕτως. Eine Bemerkung zu den Asteriostexten,” SO 37 (1961) 151–52, and D. Holwerda, “Heel
Israel behouden,” in Holwerda, De Schrift opent een vergezicht (Kampen: Kok-Voorhoeve, 1998) 160–93.
Prot. Protagoras
Abr. (rec. A) 7.11, the Archangel Michael tells Abraham, “I have been sent to you in order to
tell you not to forget death; but thereafter (εἶθ ̓οὕτως) I will return to him as he commanded
me.” Pieter van der Horst observes that “the modal and the temporal senses are not
necessarily mutually exclusive.71 The shift in verb tense from the perfect in the first element
of the mystery (11:25c*), to the subjunctive in the second (11:25d*), and to the future in the
third (11:26a*), provides grounds for asserting a kind of sequence in the “mystery,” but the
fact that portions of all three elements had already occurred should make one cautious in
asserting “definite stages” in the divine plan.72
Some interpreters have proposed that “all Israel” refers to elect believers, whether Jews or
Gentiles,73 but in all of the earlier references to “Israel” in Romans, the ethnic Israel is in
view. There is a broad consensus among contemporary exegetes for another interpretation,
that πᾶς Ἰσραήλ refers to “Israel as a whole, as a people, whose corporate identity and
wholeness could not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual
exceptions.”74 This is a shrewd formulation that appears to protect Paul’s reputation by paring
back his prophecy to a more reasonable level, as viewed in the light of subsequent experience.
However, the word πᾶς means “all,” “any and every entity out of a totality,” and thus it does
not lend itself to the expression of exceptions.75 There is also nothing in this context that
supports an interpretation of “most, with a few exceptions,” because v. 27* goes on to argue
that “all” of Israel’s sins will be taken away and v. 32* concludes that God will show mercy
“to all.”76 It seems most likely that Paul’s “mystery” was believed to include all members of
the house of Israel, who, without exception, would be saved.77 As Luke Johnson observes,
“Paul’s faith … is not in human possibility but in ‘the God who brings into being that which
does not exist and gives life to the dead’ (4:17*).”78 Paul’s formulation is carried by his
missional conviction that God’s word has ultimate power,79 and it is consistent with 1:5*;
T. Testament of Abraham
71
Van der Horst, “Romans 11:26*, ” 524.
72
Moo, 710, following Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 315, and Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 136. See also
Schreiner, 614.
73
Jeremias, “Römer 11.25–36, ” 200; Hervé Ponsot, “Et ainsi tout Israël sera sauvé. Rom XI,26a: Salut et
conversion,” RB 89 (1982) 413–15; François Refoulé, “‘...Et ainsi tout Israël sera sauvés.’ Romains 11, 25–32, ”
LD 117 (Paris: Cerf, 1984; repr. pp. 39–57 in J. Todd et al., Israel, the Church and the World Religions Face the
Future, EITRY 1983–84 (Jerusalem: Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, 1984); other advocates are
listed in Moo, 721.
74
Dunn, 2:681; see also Maier, Israel, 140; Zeller, Juden, 251; Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 292; Mayer, Gottes
Heilsratschluß 287–89; Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 316–18; Zahn, 524; Lagrange, 285; Barrett, 224;
Käsemann, 313; Cranfield, 2:576–77; Schlier, 340; Fitzmyer, 623; Moo, 723; Wright, Climax, 250; Nanos,
Mystery, 276–77; Kim, Romans 9–11, 138; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 372.
75
BAGD (2000) 783; Keller, Gottes Treue, 223–41.
*
27
Romans 11:27 (NRSV)
76
See particularly Franz Mussner, “Heil für alle. Der Grundgedanke des Römerbriefs,” Kairos 23 (1981) 208–
10.
77
So Jülicher, 307; Kühl, 302; Schmidt, 200–201; Ziesler, 285; Bachmanu, “Verus Israel,” 506.
*
17
Romans 4:17 (NRSV)
78
Johnson, 172; see also Richard A. Batey, “‘So All Israel Will Be Saved’: An Interpretation of Romans 11:25–
32*, ” Int 20 (1966) 227–28.
79
See Keller, Gottes Treue, 129–32, with particular reference to 9:6–13.
*
5
1:16*; 4:16*; and 11:32*. He returns to this conviction in the final section of the theological
argument of the letter in 15:9–13*, where the vision of a transformation of all nations is
expressed. There is also little doubt that the verb σωθήσεται (“they shall be saved”) refers to
evangelical conversion, as in 5:9–10*; 10:9–13*; and 11:14*.80 There is no indication in
Paul’s formulation that Jewish conversion constitutes a Sonderweg (“separate path”),81
although this remains a legitimate theological option that takes account of post-Pauline
developments. It is, in any event, clear that in Paul’s mind the identity of Israel would not be
erased by accepting Christ as the Messiah.82 The missional horizon of Romans must be kept
in view, despite all of the difficulties with subsequent interpretation and historical
developments. Paul believed that when all the peoples of the earth accept the gospel, they will
all for the first time praise God rather than themselves. The competition between nations that
had always brought war and destruction will thereby come to an end. The Pauline hope of a
world-transforming mission is viewed as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, that all nations
will find in the Messiah a new and peaceful destiny, including solidarity with one another.83
To whittle back the details of Paul’s vision to more “reasonable” levels, reflecting the fact of
their nonfulfillment in the twenty centuries past, undercuts the magnificent scope of the
“mystery” that Paul believed he had been given.
Romans 1:5 (NRSV)

*
9
10
11
12
shall hope.”
13
*
9
wrath of God.
10
*
9
10
11
12
on him.
13
80
Cranfield, 2:577; Fitzmyer, 623; see also Walter Radl, “σώζω,” EDNT 3 (1993) 320.
81
See, for example, Mussner, “Heil für alle,” 209–13; idem, “Ganz Israel,” 245–53; Gager, Origins, 261–62;
Lloyd Gaston, “Israel’s Misstep in the Eyes of Paul,” in Gaston, Paul, 147–49. For a comprehensive critique, see
Reidar Hvalvik, “A ‘Sonderweg’ for Israel. A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25–
27, ” JSNT 38 (1990) 87–107; other critical views include Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel” 228–29;
Sänger, “Rettung der Heiden,” 117–19. Moo, 725–26, provides an extensive bibliography on various sides of
this issue, but the most comprehensive survey is provided by Keller, Gottes Treue, 2–67.
82
See particularly Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel” 23.
83
See Juan Escarfuller, “Repudiating Assimilation in Reading Romans 9–11, ” in Khiok-Khng Yeo, ed.,
Navigating Romans through Cultures: Challenging Readings by Charting a New Course (New York / London:
T. & T. Clark International, 2004) 159: “Thus I read Paul’s message in Romans 9–11 revealing for a Gentile
social movement the role of solidarity with the oppressed as essential to God’s ways of deliverance with Israel.”
 26b–27* The traditional Jewish background of the formula “as it has been written” was
discussed in connection with 1:17*, appearing also in 2:24*; 3:4*, 10*; 4:17*; 8:36*; 9:13*,
33*; 11:8*, 26*; 15:3*, 21*. The final scriptural citation in the third proof is drawn from
Isaiah 27 and 59, providing confirmation of Paul’s disclosure of the mystery of Israel’s future
salvation.84 A coherent, four-line prophecy is thereby created, which in some ways subverts
the original meaning of these texts in order to demonstrate the mystery of triumphant grace.85
The underlining below marks which portions Paul chose to use.
Isa 59:20–21*: καὶ ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος
καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ.
καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, εἶπεν κύριος·
τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐμόν, ὅ ἐστιν ἐπὶ σοί,
καὶ τὰ ῥήματα, ἃ ἔδωκα εἰς τὸ στόμα σου.… (“And the deliverer will come for the sake of
Zion, and shall turn aside impious deeds from Jacob. And this shall be my very own covenant
*
26
27
*
17
Romans 1:17 (NRSV)
*
24
Romans 2:24 (NRSV)
*
4
Romans 3:4 (NRSV)
*
10
Romans 3:10 (NRSV)
*
36
Romans 8:36 (NRSV)
*
13
Romans 9:13 (NRSV)
*
33
Romans 9:33 (NRSV)
*
8
this very day.”
Romans 11:8 (NRSV)
*
3
Romans 15:3 (NRSV)
*
21
Romans 15:21 (NRSV)
84
Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 67, correctly observes that the citation confirms 11:26a but not 11:25.
85
Gignac, Romains 9–11, 190–92.
with them, said the Lord. My spirit, which is upon you, and my words that I put into your
mouth.…”)
Isa 27:9*: διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἡ ἀνομία Ιακωβ,
καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ,
ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (“therefore shall the lawlessness of Jacob be taken away,
and this is his blessing, when I shall have taken away his sin”)
Paul’s version: Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος,
ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ·
καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη,
ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν.
(“The deliverer will come from Zion;
He will turn aside impious deeds from Jacob.
27*/ And this, with them, [is] my very own covenant,
when I shall have taken away their sins.”)
The connective “and” that opens the LXX form of Isa 59:20–21* is deleted by Paul in order to
fit it into the new context, following the pattern of earlier citations that I have analyzed in
Romans.86 Much more significant is the change from ἕνεκεν Σιών (“for the sake of Zion”) to
ἐκ Σιών (“from Zion”). Since this change seems irrelevant for the traditionally doctrinal
interpretation of Paul’s argument, several important studies have suggested that he cites a
hitherto undiscovered form of the Isaiah oracle.87 When one takes the historical setting and
rhetorical quality of Paul’s letter into account, however, the reason that he would have had to
make this change becomes clear.88 For an audience with a Gentile Christian majority, and in a
letter arguing for a cooperative mission to the barbarians in Spain, Isaiah’s formulation that
the Messiah came “for the sake of Zion”89 would have been offensive and misleading. Paul
does not want to undercut his contention that “there is no distinction between Jews and also
Greeks. The same Lord is Lord of all, [bestowing] riches upon all who call upon him”
(10:12*). Paul’s formulation “from Zion”90 is consistent with the composite creed that opens
*
20
21
86
87
Berndt Schaller, “ΠΕΡΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ Ο ΡΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. in Röm 11:26f.,” in A.
Pietersma and C. Cox, eds., De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of John William Weavers on His Sixty-fifth
Birthday (Mississauga, Ontario: Beuben, 1984) 203, argues that the original wording of Isa 59 with ἕνεκεν
would have served Paul’s purpose more adequately because he is attempting to prove that Israel would not be
excluded, and the christological issue of coming “from Zion” seems irrelevant. Schaller explains the change by
an unlikely theory of textual corruption of εἰς Σιών (“to Zion”) to ἐκ Σιών. This assessment of argumentative
irrelevance is followed by Stanley, Scripture, 166–68; Koch, Schrift, 176; and Albl, Scripture, 167, who
conclude that Paul is citing a previously altered adaptation of this oracle. Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 39–
40, follows Schaller, “Röm 11:26f.,” 203–4, in the unlikely suggestion of textual corruption.
88
See Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah, 236–45.
89
See BAGD (2000) 334 on ἕνεκεν as “because of, on account of, for the sake of.” Wagner, Heralds, 284–86,
translates ἕνεκεν Σιών as “to Zion” in order to correlate this alteration with the expectation of the Messiah
coming (284) “from a restored Zion to bring deliverance to his people.”
*
12
on him.
Romans 10:12 (NRSV)
this letter concerning Jesus “descended from David” (1:3*) and with the reminder that Christ
came from the Israelites (9:5*) and that it was in “Zion” that Christ the stone of stumbling
was laid (9:33*).91 Zion in this citation appears to be identical with the heavenly Jerusalem
(“Jerusalem above,” Gal 4:26*),92 the place from which Christ originated and was expected to
descend at the parousia.93 It is also generally recognized that although the Isaiah citation
referred to Yahweh as ὁ ῥυόμενος (“the deliverer”), in Paul’s context this refers to the
Messiah, for whom this verb was used in 7:24* and in 1 Thess 1:10*, “Jesus who delivers
[Ἰησοῦν τὸν ῥυόμενον] us from the wrath to come.”94 The future verb “will come” is most
naturally linked with the parousia,95 which was the likely context in which Paul expected the
miraculous conversion of that portion of Israel which had hitherto resisted the gospel out of
hostile zeal. The citation thus explains the means by which Jacob’s “impiety” will be
overcome, namely, by the parousia of Christ.96
The deletion of καί (“and”) at the beginning of the second line of the Isaiah citation has a
much larger bearing on Paul’s interpretation than was the case with the initial “and.” It
improves the parallelism between the first two lines of the citation and, as Christopher Stanley
explains, it eliminates “the possibility that the second clause might be understood as following
temporally or logically after the first. This view of the relation between the two clauses is
consistent with a Christian interpretation that would see the divine promise to ‘turn away
90
The phrase ἐκ Σιών also occurs in LXX Ps 13:7*; 52:7*; 109:2*; Isa 2:3*, and although he may have followed
this tradition, as Hübner suggests in Gottes Ich und Israel, 115–56, Paul’s reason for doing so needs to be
explained.
*
3
Romans 1:3 (NRSV)
*
5
Romans 9:5 (NRSV)
91
See Aageson, “Scripture,” 285; Murray, 2:99; Fitzmyer, 625; Wright, Climax, 250–51.
*
26
92
Schlier, 341; Haacker, 240.
93
Zahn, 526; Michel, 356; Wilckens, 2:256–57.
*
24
Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
Romans 7:24 (NRSV)
*
10
and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath
that is coming.
94
See, for example, Sanday and Headlam, 337; Kühl, 393; Kuss, 3:816; Wilckens, 2:256; Cranfield, 2:578;
Hermann Lichtenberger, “ῥύομαι,” EDNT 3 (1993) 215; Dunn, 2:682; Moo, 728; Byrne, 355; Kim, Romans 9–
11, 139; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 374. Highly improbable are the suggestions by Gaston in “Israel’s Misstep,”
143, and Christopher D. Stanley, “‘The Redeemer Will Come ἐκ Σιών: Romans 11.26–27 Revisited,” in C. A.
Evans and J. A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup 83; Studies in Scripture in Early
Judaism and Christianity 1 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1993) 140–42, that the deliverer in this context is God
rather than Christ.
95
See Cranfield, 2:578; Käsemann, 314; Wilckens, 2:256; Dunn, 2:682; Moo, 727–28; Theobald, 1:304–5;
Schreiner, 619. Without providing evidence to the contrary, this link between the future verb and the parousia is
denied by Kühl, 393, and Schmidt, 199. Zeller, 199, proposes that the future verb be understood as a prophetic
future that is already fulfilled, because Christ had already come from Zion and salvation through him could only
come through justification by faith, which was already available for Jews. This strained translation is required
only if one knows precisely the process Paul had in mind with the reference to the Messiah turning aside Jacob’s
“impiety.”
96
ungodly deeds from Jacob’ as being fulfilled in the very ‘coming’ of the ‘Redeemer,’ Jesus
Christ.”97 In this case, however, it is probably the second coming of Christ that is in view
rather than earlier references to Jesus’ life and death in behalf of the ungodly (1:3–4*; 3:24–
25*; 5:6–10*; 8:34*).98
Jacob’s ἀσεβείας (“impious deeds”)99 in this new context must refer to Israel’s “stumbling,”
“trespass,” and “unfaith” in relation to the gospel message, as detailed in the preceding
pericope. A list of such impious deeds by Jewish zealots is provided in 1 Thess 2:15–16*:
they “drove us out and displease God and all people by hindering us from speaking to the
Gentiles that they may be saved.” Although the wording of Rom 11:26* is derived without
alteration from Isaiah, “impieties” also has an ironic connotation in Paul’s context, not just
because ἀσέβεια was condemned in 1:18* as a characteristically pagan abuse, but also
because it was Israel’s clinging to its own piety that led to the rejection of Christ. In this case,
zealous piety had turned into its opposite, a profound insight that was prepared in 7:7–25* and
97
Stanley, Scripture, 168; see also Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 57.
*
3
4
*
24
25
*
6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7
Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might
actually dare to die.
8
9
wrath of God.
10
*
34
Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who
indeed intercedes for us.
Romans 8:34 (NRSV)
98
See Witherington, 276, in contrast to Wright’s rejection of the parousia reference in Climax, 250.
99
Although recent commentators and translators render this as an abstract singular “impiety,” the plural
accusative form stands in parallel to the plural “sins” in 27b, as noted by Foerster, “ἀσεβής κτλ.,” 189.
Commentators who properly translate ἀσεβείας with plural forms include Meyer, 2:236; Weiss, 497; Lietzmann,
104; Kühl, 393; Schmidt, 197; Michel, 353; Barrett, 224; Cranfield, 2:572, 78; Zeller, 194.
*
15
16
*
18
Romans 1:18 (NRSV)
*
7
8
law sin lies dead.
10:1–4*. In the new context of Paul’s discussion, the Isaiah reference to the deliverer
“causing a change”100 or “converting”101 Jacob’s impieties describes the content of Israel’s
salvation. This develops the theme that was suggested in the last pericope regarding Paul’s
expectation that Israel’s zeal would be transformed into its opposite at the end of time. Otfried
Hofius aptly describes the implications of v. 26b-c*, that “Israel will come to faith in the same
way as Paul himself!”—that is, through an encounter with Christ the deliverer,102 which in my
view would turn the obtuseness of hostile zeal into urgent attachment to coexistence with
former adversaries.
The third line in the oracle constructed by Paul out of the Isaiah passages defines this
converting activity of the deliverer as ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη (“my very own covenant”) that
will be established between God and Israel. This is the second reference to “covenant” in
Romans,103 and in contrast to the plural form in 9:4* that refers to the various covenants made
between God and the patriarchs in the past, this implies a final and ultimate covenant to be
enacted in the future.104 It is possible that allusions to the “new covenant” of Jeremiah 31105 or
9
10
11
12
13
measure.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
*
1
2
3
4
100
BAGD (2000) 123 (2), referring to Ps. Sol. 18.4 (“to divert the perceptive person from unintentional sins”)
and 1 Macc 3:8* (“turning away [ἀπέστρεψεν] wrath from Israel”).
101
Gerhard Delling, “στρέφω κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 720–21, shows that ἀποστρέφω frequently appears in the
LXX with the connotation of “conversion,” as in Jer 3:10*; 23:22*; 37:23*; Ezek 3:19*; 13:22*; 14:6*; 18:21*,
and that it carries this connotation in Rom 11:26*.
102
Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 319–20, as cited and explained by Dunn, 2:683. Hofius is also cited with
approval by Haacker, 241–42.
103
For orientation, see Behm, “διαθήκη,” 129–30.
*
4
Romans 9:4 (NRSV)
104
Erich Gräßer, Der Alte Bund im Neuen. Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament, WUNT 35
(Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 24–25, overlooks the future verbs in v. 26* that provide the context for
interpreting “covenant” in v. 27*, and argues on theological grounds that the “old covenant” is in view here,
contrasting with a new covenant of justification by faith.
105
Murray, 2:99; Morris, 422; Fitzmyer, 625.
the Lord’s Supper106 are in view, but the focus here is on the future transformation of Israel.107
Wilk makes a plausible case that the verb to be supplied for the ellipse in 27a* should be
future, in line with the two previous verbs in the future.108 There is a binding promise in this
line to be faithful to the covenant promise made to Israel, which confirms Paul’s earlier
argument in 11:1*, 11*, and 24* that God will not abandon his/her people.109
Since the continuation of the oracle from Isa 59:20–21* referred to the covenant renewal as
consisting in the gift of the spirit and of divine messages, which would have been extraneous
to Paul’s argumentative purpose in this pericope, he substituted a line from Isa 27:9*.110 Since
both oracles referred to removing the guilt from “Jacob,” this substitution would have been
viewed as acceptable according to the rules of Jewish exegesis.111 The citation begins with the
temporal particle ὅταν (“when, whenever”), which, in coordination with an aorist subjunctive
verb as in this case, implies an action that must precede that of the preceding clause.112 Until
Israel’s sins are removed, the final covenant with God will not yet have been enacted. The
translation of the aorist subjunctive form, ἀφέλωμαι, is usually placed in the present, “when I
take away their sins,”113 but it more properly should be translated as a future, following the
future indicative verbs in the first two lines of the citation. The citation refers to a condition
that must be fulfilled before the “covenant” can be restored: “when I shall have taken away
their sins.”114 Paul alters the singular “sin” in the Isaiah oracle to the plural “sins,” which is
interpreted by some as evidence that the citation is inconsistent with Paul’s theology in earlier
106
Harald Hegermann, “διαθήκη,” EDNT 1 (1990) 301.
107
See Dunn, “Covenant Theology?” 17–18. Stanley, 169, argues that covenant “plays a surprisingly limited role
in Paul’s theology,” because it is traditional in 1 Cor 11:25* and merely presupposed in 2 Cor 3:6* and Gal
4:24*. This may be true, but Paul apparently felt the covenant concept was important for the present context,
because he had a choice of which material to excise. Christiansen, Covenant, 225–32, offers a more positive role
for covenant in Romans, but interprets the Isaiah citation in 11:26b–27 “both as a fulfilled prophecy with a view
back to the Christ events, indirectly stating that Old Testament prophecies of forgiveness are already fulfilled;
and … as a guarantee for the future.” Since there is no reference in the citation to past events and the “covenant”
is dependent on a future removal of Israel’s zealous sins by divine action, this is a different covenant than the
one at Sinai, and Christiansen’s elaborate theological structure collapses.
108
*
1
Romans 11:1 (NRSV)
*
11
Romans 11:11 (NRSV)
*
24
Romans 11:24 (NRSV)
109
See Christiansen, Covenant, 227–28, for the evidence that Paul viewed Israel’s covenant as still valid. She
counters the view of Wright, Climax, 241–43, that Israel’s covenant is absorbed into the Christian covenant.
110
See Koch, Schrift, 176–77; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 58. Wagner, Heralds, 294, suggests that the
citation of Isa 27:9* “keeps the focus on the fact of Israel’s redemption rather than pausing to consider its
effects” (italics in original). In contrast, Stanley, Scripture, 169–70, believes that “another interpreter” may have
been responsible for combining the two passages because of the many alleged disparities between both passages
and the traditional view of Paul’s theology.
111
Dunn, 2:684, citing Plag, Israel’s Wege, 50–52; see also Wagner, Heralds, 293–94.
112
BAGD (2000) 731 (β).
113
For example, Cranfield, 2:572; Dunn, 2:676.
114
BDF §318, 333, 379, 382. BAGD (2000) 731 shows that ὅταν followed by the aorist subjunctive refers to an
action that “precedes that of the main clause.”
chapters of Romans.115 However, the plural form was required to refer not to sin in general
but rather to particular acts of violent opposition against the gospel and its messengers on the
part of zealous Jews. That not all Jews were in view is also confirmed by Paul’s change of
Isaiah’s wording, αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (“his, i.e. Jacob’s sin”), which would refer to the sins of
Israel as a whole, to τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν (“their, i.e. the zealous Jews’ sins”). The shift in the
location of the possessive pronoun to the more natural spot at the end of line 4 is also
probably due to Paul’s rhetorical acumen.116
The verb ἀφαιρέω (“take away, put away, cut off”), which appears here for the only time in
the Pauline letters, was used in the LXX for removing sins through atonement rituals. The
same formulation appears in Heb 10:4*, which is based on OT formulations such as Num
14:18*, the Lord is merciful, “removing (ἀφαιρῶν) transgressions and iniquities and sins”; in
Lev 10:17*, the atonement ritual is required so that “you might take away (ἀφέλητε) the sin of
the congregation.” This is usually explained as “forgiveness of sins,”117 but fanatical zeal does
not yield to the promise of forgiveness, which in any case was already sufficiently available in
Judaism. Instead, Paul’s expectation is that zealous violence will be overcome by the return of
the deliverer, which will result in the cessation of such sins. It seems that Paul hopes that such
violent acts will be “taken away” just as his own sinful violence against early Christ believers
was brought to an end by his encounter with the risen Christ. Consistent with the thesis in
1:16*, Paul trusts the power of evangelical persuasion, because when it becomes evident to all
that the Crucified One is the designated Messiah, zealous violence to ensure his coming will
no longer seem appropriate. Repentance and forgiveness will only be possible when the self-
righteous madness of zealous rage is broken by divine power.
 28* The theological explanation of the mystery that continues to the end of the pericope is
opened with an elegant paromoiosis, as noted in the analysis above, whose asyndeton
indicates the beginning of a new section.118 Since each term in this rhetorical form is
multivalent, the precise connotation intended by Paul has to be inferred from the context as
well as from the internal logic of the paromoiosis itself. Interpreters agree that the subject is
the currently unbelieving portion of Israel,119 whose “impiety” and “sins” according to my
interpretation of the preceding citation consisted in zealous hostility against the gospel. It is
115
See Stanley, Scripture, 170, who takes this disparity as evidence that Paul is employing “pre-Pauline Jewish
or Christian usage.”
116
See Koch, Schrift, 109, following the rule stated in Kühner and Gerth, Grammatik, 1:619, and BDF §284 that
the possessive pronouns are normally placed “after an arthrous substantive.”
*
4
For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4 (NRSV)
*
18
‘The Lord is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but by no
means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation.’
Numbers 14:18 (NRSV)
*
17
“Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and God has given it to you that
you may remove the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the Lord.
Leviticus 10:17 (NRSV)
117
Zahn, 526; Meyer, 2:237; Cranfield, 2:579; Wilckens, 2:257; Dunn, 2:684; Stuhlmacher, 172; Moo, 729;
Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel” 26; Christiansen, Covenant, 225–27; Gräßer, Alte Bund im Neuen, 22–23.
However, since “forgiveness of sins” was readily available for both Jews and Christians, making it more
available was ineffectual as a means to overcome zealous violence. This conventional explanation is ill suited for
the Isaiah citation, which speaks of the removal of sinful actions. Morris, 422, is more on track: “God will take
such action as will remove sins from the scene.”
118
See BDF §463; Güting and Mealand, Asyndeton, 14.
119
See, for example, Weiss, 499; Michel, 357; Fitzmyer, 625; Moo, 730.
significant that Paul begins with κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (“on the one hand with regard to the
gospel”), because resistance to its proclamation and acceptance is the result of the “obtuseness
… on a part of Israel,” in the words of the first component of the mystery (11:25*). In this
context “the gospel” refers to “the proclamation of salvation”120 that evokes the obtuse enmity
of Israel. That zealous Israelites thereby make themselves into God’s “enemies” by warring
against the gospel and its proclaimers requires an active121 rather than a passive122 definition
of ἐχθροί (“enemies”). This reference to enmity against God is consistent with 5:10* and
8:7*, and, as Schmidt points out, there are no NT allusions to “enemies” as hated by God,123
which means that the currently popular compromise that Paul intended a fusion between
hating God and being hated by God124 is unsupportable. There is, however, a multivalence in
the reference to their being enemies διʼ ὑμᾶς (“on account of you”) because, while the
mystery makes plain that Israel’s obtuseness provides time for the conversion of the “fullness
of the Gentiles,”125 the reason that zealous Jews rejected the gospel was precisely because it
placed Gentiles and Jews on the same footing before God. Zealous resistance against the
gospel was directed against Gentiles and all who would accept their polluting presence in the
realm of God. Their enmity was thus in both directions “on your account,” motivated by
hostility against Gentiles while at the same time providing time for the Gentile mission.
The second half of the paromoiosis begins with the parallel formulation κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογήν
(“on the other hand in regard to election”), referring not to the election of Christian converts
as in 8:33* but of Israel as in 9:11* and 11:8*. As Jeremias observed, there is an incongruity
in this use of the preposition κατά as compared with that of v. 28a*, because it has a causal
connotation in v. 28c*, “on account of their election,”126 but this is easily accommodated
within the structure of the paromoiosis, which requires parallel prepositions. There is no
indication in this highly compressed formulation that Paul wishes to call attention to the
“character of God’s choice of Israel as a free and gracious choice,”127 because the context of
120
Käsemann, 315; see also Barrett, 324; Schlier, 341; Michel, 357. Cranfield, 2:580, extends the definition of
“gospel” too widely for the present context, including the preaching by Jesus himself and the events of Christ’s
death and resurrection.
121
Zahn, 526; Lagrange, 287; Kühl, 394; Schmidt, 201; Schlier, 341; Stuhlmacher, “Interpretation,” 564–55;
Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 321; Fitzmyer, 625; Haacker, 242.
122
Meyer, 2:239; Weiss, 499; Sanday and Headlam, 337; Lietzmann, 106; Foerster, “ἐχθρός, ἔχθρα,” 814; Kuss,
3:816; Cranfield, 2:580; Dunn, 2:693; Wilckens, 2:257.
*
10
Romans 5:10 (NRSV)
*
7
For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it
cannot,
Romans 8:7 (NRSV)
123
Schmidt, 201; also Wolter, “ἐχθρός,” 93–94.
124
Käsemann, 315; Dunn, 2:685; Moo, 84; Byrne, 356; Schreiner, 625. The problematic implication of this
compromise is visible in Jülicher, 307, who imagines that Paul depicts a struggle between God’s hatred and love,
which was rightly rejected by Schmidt, 201.
125
Meyer, 2:239; Weiss, 499–500; Cranfield, 2:580; Murray, 2:100; Fitzmyer, 625; Moo, 731.
*
33
Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Romans 8:33 (NRSV)
*
11
continue,
Romans 9:11 (NRSV)
126
Jeremias, “Römer 11.25–36, ” 202.
127
Dunn, 2:685.
this proof involves the question of whether God has now rejected Israel (11:1–2*) and
whether Israel in fact will be saved (11:26*). Thus it is the status and not the quality of
Israel’s election that is in view here.128 The prepositional phase in the expression ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ
τοὺς πατέρας can therefore be translated exactly parallel with the first member of the
paromoiosis as “beloved on account of the fathers.”129 In the OT and related literature, God’s
love for the patriarchs (e.g., Deut 10:15*; 33:12*; Isa 41:8*; Josephus Ant. 1.3.9), for Israel’s
king (2 Sam 12:24*; Neh 13:26*), for those who seek wisdom (Wis 7:28*) and righteousness
(Prov 15:9*), and for Israel as a whole (e.g., Deut 7:7*, 9–13*; Ps 127:2*; Isa 63:9*; Hos
*
1
2
128
Kühl, 394; Barrett, 225; Murray, 2:101; Zeller, 200; Moo, 732.
129
Dunn, 2:685, claims that “most” exegetes recognize that this phrase should not be translated in an identical
manner; he prefers “for the sake of the fathers,” which opens the door to the question of the quality of their
election.
*
15
yet the Lord set his heart in love on your ancestors alone and chose you, their descendants after them, out of all
the peoples, as it is today.
*
12
Of Benjamin he said: The beloved of the Lord rests in safety— the High God surrounds him all day long— the
beloved rests between his shoulders.
*
8
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
Isaiah 41:8 (NRSV)
Ant. Antiquitates Judaicae (Jewish Antiquities)
*
24
Then David consoled his wife Bathsheba, and went to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he named
him Solomon. The Lord loved him,
*
26
Did not King Solomon of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king
like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless, foreign women
made even him to sin.
Nehemiah 13:26 (NRSV)
*
28
for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
*
9
The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but he loves the one who pursues righteousness.
*
7
It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the Lord set his heart on you and chose
you—for you were the fewest of all peoples.
*
9
Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who maintains covenant loyalty with those
who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,
10
and who repays in their own person those who reject him. He does not delay but repays in their own person
those who reject him.
11
Therefore, observe diligently the commandment—the statutes and the ordinances—that I am commanding you
today.
12
If you heed these ordinances, by diligently observing them, the Lord your God will maintain with you the
covenant loyalty that he swore to your ancestors;
11:1*; 14:4*; Prov 3:12*; Ps. Sol. 18:4) is an important theme. Wischmeyer and Haacker
have shown that this remains a crucial axiom for Paul.130 With few exceptions,131 such love
has nothing to do with the peculiar virtues of Israel or the patriarchs, but is rather an
expression of divine choice, pure and simple. This was Paul’s view, in any event, as expressed
in 9:11*, that Isaac’s descendants are beloved as God’s elect, although “they were not yet
born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might
continue, not because of works but because of his call.” In support of this view, Paul cited
Mal 9:13, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What Paul maintains in 11:28* is that this love
for the patriarchs continues for their descendants, the Israel of the present time. As he goes on
to say in the next verse, this choice is “without regret”; it stands firm no matter what enmity
Israel currently expresses against God’s Messiah and his people.
 29* This verse declaring that “the gifts and the call of God are without regret” has been
viewed as the summary of Rom 9–11 as a whole,132 yet very few studies have been devoted to
its clarification.133 Joseph Sievers points to the decisive contribution of Karl Barth in
overturning the consensus that the believers were the sole heirs of these promises. In Church
Dogmatics he argued that this verse expresses the abiding commitment of God to all of God’s
beloved Jewish people, whether they believe in the gospel or not.134 Daniel Harrington
reflects the newly emerging consensus of Roman Catholic exegesis when he concludes that
13
he will love you, bless you, and multiply you; he will bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your
ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock, in the land
that he swore to your ancestors to give you.
*
2
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall go well with you.
Psalm 128:2 (NRSV)
*
9
in all their distress. It was no messenger or angel but his presence that saved them;in his love and in his pity he
redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
Isaiah 63:9 (NRSV)
*
1
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Hosea 11:1 (NRSV)
*
4
I will heal their disloyalty; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them.
Hosea 14:4 (NRSV)
*
12
for the Lord reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.
Sol. Solon
130
Haacker, “Evangelium,” 71, as cited by Dunn, 2:685; Wischmeyer, “ΑΓΑΠΗΤΟΣ,” 477–78.
131
2 Bar. 84.10 advises prayer for God’s mercy, “that he not reckon the multitude of your sins, but remember the
integrity of the fathers.” Philo Spec. 4.181 argues, in contrast, that the election of the patriarchs reflected the
“righteousness and virtue shown by the founders of the race.”
*
29
Romans 11:29 (NRSV)
132
Kühl, 394; see Joseph Sievers, “‘God’s Gifts and Call Are Irrevocable’: The Interpretation of Romans 11:29*
and Its Uses,” SBLSP (1997) 338.
133
See Sievers, “Romans 11:29* and Its Uses,” 338–39; also Joseph Sievers, “A History of the Interpretation of
Romans 11:29*, ” ASE 14.2 (1997) 381–442. The only articles devoted to this verse, prior to Sievers’s studies,
are Ceslas Spicq, “ΑΜΕΤΑΜΕΛΗΤΟΣ dans Rom XI,29, ” RB 67 (1960) 210–19, and Alberto Vaccari,
“Irrevocabilità dei favori divini. Nota a commente di Rom. 11, 29, ” in vol. 1 of P. Hennequin et al., eds.,
Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, StT 231–33 (Vatican City: Vatican Apostolic Library, 1964) 437–42. Kühl, 395,
and Ziesler, 286–87, pass over this verse without comment.
134
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936–69) II.2.303; cited by Sievers, “Romans
11:29* and Its Uses,” 427–30.
this verse “is Paul’s endorsement of the continuing nature of God’s election of Israel, even of
those Israelites who have refused to accept the gospel.”135 The exegetical details confirm this
assessment. In the context of Paul’s statement about Israel’s election in v. 28*, for which v.
29* provides the reason as indicated by γάρ (“for”), both the gifts and the call of God are
directed to Israel.136 There is a well-grounded consensus that τὰ χαρίσματα (“the gifts”) refers
back to the formal list of Israel’s divinely bestowed attributes in 9:4–5*.137 Although some
have suggested that the following words, καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ (“and the call of God”),
constitute a hendiadys meaning the “benefits of calling,”138 or refer to God’s calling as the
most important of the gifts,139 it is likely that the noun κλῆσις (“calling”) that appears here for
the only time in Romans evokes the verb καλέω (“to call”) that was used in connection with
Paul’s earlier argument that what God called the “the seed of Abraham” came through Isaac
and thus constitutes the children of promise (9:7*, 11*, 24*, 25*, 26*). Although in other
contexts Paul employs this noun in reference to the calling of Gentile and Jewish believers
(Phil 3:14*; 2 Thess 1:11*), it is likely that God’s specific election of Israel is intended here.
This is suggested by the formulation of the preceding verse, referring to Israel’s ἐκλογή
(“election”) on account of the patriarchs.140
The adjective ἀμεταμέλητος is usually translated “irrevocable,” which implies a legal axiom
that cannot be repealed,141 but the basic meaning is “without regret,”142 as in 2 Cor 7:10*, the
135
Daniel J. Harrington, Paul on the Mystery of Israel (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1992) 64.
136
Haacker, 245, properly rejects the proposal by Karl Heim (Vorlesung von 1924/25, 188–89) that this verse
refers to Gentiles as well as Jews, a contention found also in Bonda, One Purpose, 192–93, and Dunn, 2:686.
*
4
5
137
Weiss, 500; Schlier, 342; Kuss, 3:817; Michel, 358; Cranfield, 2:581; Wilckens, 2:258; Dunn, 2:686; Moo,
732; Haacker, 244; Theobald, 1:306; Schreiner, 626.
138
Cranfield, 2:581, cites Calvin as advocating this view; Käsemann, 316, appears to concur.
139
Michel, 358; Schmidt, 202.
*
7
named for you.”
Romans 9:7 (NRSV)
*
24
Romans 9:24 (NRSV)
*
25
Romans 9:25 (NRSV)
*
14
I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus.
*
11
To this end we always pray for you, asking that our God will make you worthy of his call and will fulfill by
his power every good resolve and work of faith,
140
Moo, 732, observes that κλῆσις (“call”) is cognate with ἐκλογή (“election”) in v. 28*.
141
Ceslas Spicq, “ἀμεταμέλητος,” TLNT 1 (1994) 92–94.
142
BAGD (2000) 53.
*
10
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces
death.
only other use of this term in the OT or NT: “repentance that leads to salvation and brings no
regret.” The classical parallels are mostly personal rather than judicial, as, for example,
Aesop, “but his coming was without regret” (τοῦ δὲ ἀμεταμελήτως ἐλθόντος, Fabulae 83.2.6)
or Plato, “of a deed done without regret” (ἀμεταμέλητον, Leg. 866e).143 The formulation thus
relates to the rhetorical question in 11:1*, whether God has “rejected his people,” and
reaffirms the continued status of “beloved [by God] on account of the fathers” in 11:28*. That
the God of biblical faith was in fact frequently depicted as changing his mind144 provides the
background for this denial that she had done so with regard to Israel’s distinctive gifts and
calling. Although God was free to withdraw such privileges, while humans often come to
regret and then to renege on their gifts and commitments, God’s faithfulness remains firm.145
In the end, despite the current rejection of the divinely designated Messiah by a large portion
of Israel, the divine gifts and calling will achieve their intended purpose of salvation.
 30* The carefully contrived chiasm of vv. 30–31* is embedded in a ὥσπερ (“just as”) …
οὕτως (“so also”) argumentative structure that moves from what is known and accepted by the
audience to the logical inference that Paul wishes to demonstrate.146 The exact parallelism
between the elements of this figure serves the argumentative purpose of showing that just as
the believing community was formerly disobedient and now has received God’s merciful
salvation, so also Israel’s current disobedience will be overcome by divine mercy. A
conclusion that the Gentile audience might otherwise be inclined to resist thus can be avoided
only at the price of denying their own experience of conversion. Ulrich Wilckens has
provided a lucid display of the parallelism between these antithetical elements of once/now,
you/them, disobedience/receiving mercy and the concluding dative phrases that include yet
another antithesis between disobedience and mercy:147
ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῶ
γὰρ
νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων
ἀπειθείᾳ,
οὕτως οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει,
καὶ
ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσιν·
For you once were disobedient to God
just as
but now you have been shown mercy
because of their
disobedience,
so also they now have been disobedient
because of the mercy you
received,
in they now may also be shown
order mercy.
that
Leg. Leges
143
See further examples in Spicq, “ἀμεταμέλητος,” 93.
144
For example, Gen 6:6–7*; Exod 32:14*; Deut 32:26*; 1 Sam 15:11*, 35*; Jer 18:8*, 10*; 26:13; Jonah 3:10*;
see also Dunn, 2:686, who denies that this is the appropriate context for interpreting ἀμεταμέλητος.
145
Zeller, 200; Haacker, 244.
146
See Weiss, 500–502; Cranfield, 2:582–86; Wilckens, 2:259.
147
Wilckens, 2:259; see also Tachau, Einst, 87, 110–12, 133.
That Paul refers to the formerly unconverted status of believers with the verb “to be
disobedient” was somewhat inappropriate for Gentiles who did not have the Torah to disobey,
but the parallelism with Israel’s disobedience required its use on rhetorical grounds.148
Moreover, the earlier argument of Romans provided adequate precedence for the use of
ἀπειθέω (“to disobey”) here. Gentiles had the law written on their hearts (2:15*) and inherit
Adam’s “disobedience” (παρακοή, 5:19*), while Gentiles as well as Jews who “do not obey
the truth” will receive divine “wrath and fury” (2:8*).149
To describe the salvation of believers as a matter of receiving mercy returns to what Barrett
has called the “key-note”150 for this third proof, which received extensive development in
9:15–18* beginning with a citation from Exod 33:19* and ending with the claim that God has
mercy on whomever God wills. God’s mercy is absolutely sovereign, which means that
salvation is entirely a matter of grace rather than any form of human achievement. In 9:23–
24* Paul shows that Gentile believers join with Jewish converts as “vessels of mercy” and in
15:9* he returns to this theme in explaining that Christ’s ministry aimed at Gentiles coming to
“glorify God for his mercy.” The ironic exchange in this formulation is that the message of
divine mercy, which overcame the disobedience of Gentiles, could be preached only because
Israel’s rejection of the gospel granted time for the Gentile mission. Thus the Roman
audience’s reception of mercy came τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ (“because of their disobedience”),
that is, the disobedience of Israel with regard to the gospel as in the “mystery” of 11:25*. The
implication is that Gentile believers should be thankful for rather than critical of Israel’s
148
See Cranfield, 2:582–85; Käsemann, 316; Moo, 733.
*
15
Romans 2:15 (NRSV)
*
19
Romans 5:19 (NRSV)
*
8
Romans 2:8 (NRSV)
149
See Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀπειθέω,” TDNT 6 (1968) 11; Peter Bläser, “ἀπειθέω,” EDNT 1 (1990) 118–19.
150
Barrett, 185.
*
15
compassion.”
16
17
18
*
19
Exodus 33:19 (NRSV)
*
23
24
*
9
Romans 15:9 (NRSV)
temporary disobedience. Here Paul seeks to reverse the hostility that sectarian believers
ordinarily feel toward those who reject their message and to transform it into grateful
respect.151
 31* The explanation of Israel’s disbelief on grounds of its benefit to Gentiles is continued
in the “so also” portion of the chiasm. The debate about whether the dative phrase τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει (“because of your mercy”) is attached to the immediately preceding verb ἠπείθησαν
(“they have been disobedient”) or with the subsequent ἵνα (“so that”) clause has been resolved
by Siegert, Dunn, and others on the basis of following the logic of the chiastic rhetoric and
taking the phrase as a dative of advantage: “so also have they now been disobedient because
of the mercy you received.”152 Israel’s rejection of the gospel is thus explained not on the basis
of some alleged incorrigibility on the part of Israel, as Gentile prejudice was likely to assume,
but rather for the sake of extending mercy to the Gentiles themselves. Once again Paul
reverses the trajectory of cultural hostility and bias by showing the benefit Israel’s
disobedience provided for the Gentile audience. The logic of the chiastic οὕτως καί (“so
also”) clause is ineluctable because the preceding clause describing the Gentiles’ conversion
was rooted so deeply in their experience; the argumentative inference in the somewhat more
problematic second clause derives its force from the clause that the Gentiles have already
accepted as true. Paul’s intent is not to “shock his fellow Jews into a recognition” that what
they understood as “obedience” to the Torah “is in fact disobedience to the word of faith,” as
Dunn formulates the matter,153 but to overcome Gentile bias. This explains why the dative
expression “because of the mercy you received” was placed at the point of emphasis at the
end of 11:31a*. Israel’s disobedience served the cause of “your” salvation, by which the
Gentile converts in the Roman congregation who were most likely to feel contempt for Jews
are directly addressed. The demonstrative rhetoric of Romans that concentrates on honor and
advantage surfaces with particular clarity in this brilliant chiasm.
The purpose clause that follows the chiasm elaborates the final point in the mystery of 11:25–
26*, that “all Israel will be saved.” Israel will receive salvation in exactly the form that the
Gentiles have already received, as “mercy” that they will not have earned but which places all
humans on an appropriately equal level before God.154 The invidious distinctions of human
honor and shame will have been overcome along with claims of cultural superiority. Grace
alone will unite the varied children of Adam once the legacy of his fall is finally overcome.
The final “now” in the threefold series stands in peculiar tension with this futuristic
expectation, which may well have been a factor in its deletion in several textual traditions. I
believe this reference to the eschatological present155 lends urgent emphasis to the missionary
project that the letter is currently proposing for the support of the Roman house and tenement
churches. In cooperating in the Spanish mission by which the circle of the known world
would be completed and the “fullness of the Gentiles” brought into the faith, the stage would
151
The opposite implication is imposed by Dunn, 2:695, that the “Jewish assumption of monopoly on divine
mercy and of gentile disobedience did not disqualify from mercy, and, irony of ironies, what did ‘qualify’ the
Gentiles was Jewish disobedience.” (Italics in original.)
152
Siegert, Argumentation, 174; Dunn, 2:688. See also Schlier, 343; Käsemann, 316; Wilckens, 2:260; BDF
§196. Advocates of attaching τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει (“because of your mercy”) to the subsequent “so that” clause
include Sanday and Headlam, 338; Lagrange, 288.
153
Dunn, 2:695.
*
25
26
154
See Sänger, “Rettung der Heiden,” 110–11.
155
Käsemann, 316; Dunn, 2:695; Moo, 735; Neuhäusler, “Entscheidende Augenblick,” 4–8.
be set for Israel’s conversion, according to the mystery Paul has announced. The time for
involvement in this historically culminating project is “now,” the urgent eschatological
present ordained by the Spirit.
 32* The forceful epigram that concludes this pericope employs the terms of the preceding
chiasm, “disobedience” and “mercy,” while stressing their universal scope for “all” persons.
The strikingly dramatic verb συγκλείω appears here with the meaning “to confine to specific
limits, imprison,”156 as in Gal 3:22–23*: “But the scripture confined (συνέκλεισεν) all things
to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned under the law, kept under restraint until faith
should be revealed.”157 When followed by the prepositional phrase εἰς ἀπείθειαν (“to
disobedience”), this verb is employed in a typical manner to express the idea of confining
someone in something.158 As Jeremias observed, the Septuagintal parallels have this same
structure, as, for example, Ps 30:9*, “you have not confined me into the hands of the enemy”
(οὐ συνέκλεισάς με εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθροῦ; see also Ps 77:50*, 62*; Amos 1:6*).159 The earlier
argument of Romans provides the basis for this paradoxical claim of divine imprisonment
within the consequences of sin: the threefold reiteration of God “delivered them” to the web
of sin in 1:24*, 26*, 28*; the proof that all humans are under the power of sin in 3:9–23*; the
156
BAGD (2000) 952.
*
22
But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in
Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed.
157
See Betz, Galatians, 175.
158
BAGD (2000) 952, with examples of the verb with εἰς in Polybius Hist. 3.63.3; Diodorus Siculus Hist. 2.34.5;
19.19.8, etc.
*
8
and have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; you have set my feet in a broad place.
Psalm 31:8 (NRSV)
*
50
He made a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death, but gave their lives over to the plague.
Psalm 78:50 (NRSV)
*
62
He gave his people to the sword, and vented his wrath on his heritage.
Psalm 78:62 (NRSV)
*
6
Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;because
they carried into exile entire communities, to hand them over to Edom.
Amos 1:6 (NRSV)
159
Jeremias, “Römer 11.25–36, ” 203.
*
24
themselves,
Romans 1:24 (NRSV)
*
26
unnatural,
Romans 1:26 (NRSV)
*
28
should not be done.
Romans 1:28 (NRSV)
*
9
10
universal reign of sin because each person repeats Adam’s fall in 5:12–14*; the divine
creation of “vessels of wrath” whose voluntary involvement in sin provokes the patience of
God in 9:20–22*; the creation of a stone of stumbling that will make Israel fall in 9:33*, along
with the claim that Israel was responsible for rejecting the gospel in 10:16–21*; the argument
in 11:7–25* that God made Israel’s heart obtuse so it would reject the gospel; and finally the
mystery in 11:25–26* that Israel’s obtuseness served the purpose of Gentile conversion.160
11
there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God.
12
even one.”
13
“Their throats are opened graves; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of vipers is under their lips.”
14
15
16
ruin and misery are in their paths,
17
and the way of peace they have not known.”
18
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may
be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20
21
prophets,
22
23
*
12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread
to all because all have sinned—
13
sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.
14
Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the
transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.
*
20
21
ordinary use?
22
*
16
17
18
19
20
21
*
7
8
this very day.”
9
10
11
With this climactic reference to God’s mercy, sounding the keynote of the third proof for the
ninth and final time, Paul not only expresses the essence of the gospel but also makes clear
that no remnant of claims of cultural superiority or personal entitlement through piety, social
status, or other achievement can remain legitimate.161 In the Roman context, mercy was
reserved for the worthy among captives and vanquished enemies. Nowhere in the ancient
world, outside of this text, was mercy granted in so indiscriminate and impartial a manner to
“all.” The reduplication of πᾶς (“all, i.e., all persons”) in this verse is the climactic expression
of one of the most important themes of the letter, salvation for all, found in 1:5*, 7*, 8*, 16*,
18*; 2:9–10*; 3:9*, 12*, 19*, 20*, 22*, 23*; 4:11*, 16*; 5:12*, 18*; 6:3*; 8:14*; 9:5*, 6*,
7*, 17*; 10:11–13*, 18*, 26*.162
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that supports you.
19
20
21
22
160
See also the reviews of the preceding argument in Godet, 415; Schlier, 343; Cranfield, 1:386–87; Dunn,
2:688–89.
161
See Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel” 30–38.
*
7
To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:7 (NRSV)
*
9
10
*
9
Romans 3:9 (NRSV)
*
12
even one.”
Romans 3:12 (NRSV)
*
19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may
be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Romans 3:19 (NRSV)
*
20
Romans 3:20 (NRSV)
*
As Dunn observes, this extraordinary epigram manages in only twelve words to sum up what
he takes to be “the principal themes of the whole letter,”163 climaxing in the “final
reconciliation of the whole world to God through the triumph of mercy.”164 The expectation
of universal salvation in this verse is indisputable, regardless of the logical problems it poses
for systematic theologians. What Dunn and other commentators fail to observe, however, is
how this doctrinal summary serves the purpose of overcoming cultural biases so as to clear
the way to support the Spanish mission as the means of this global reconciliation.165 If God
confines all to sin, then there is no basis for superiority claims, and if she has mercy on all,
then the conversion of other groups serves the interests of all.
23
Romans 3:23 (NRSV)
*
12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread
to all because all have sinned—
Romans 5:12 (NRSV)
*
18
Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to
justification and life for all.
Romans 5:18 (NRSV)
*
3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3 (NRSV)
*
6
Romans 9:6 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 9:17 (NRSV)
*
11
12
on him.
13
*
18
Romans 10:18 (NRSV)
162
See Byrne, 356; Mussner, “Heil für alle,” 213–14; Marianne Meye Thompson, “‘Mercy upon All’: God as
Father in the Epistle to the Romans,” in S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, eds., Romans the People of God:
Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans,
1999) 215–16.
163
Dunn, 2:696.
164
Ibid., 697; see also Achtemeier, 189; Kim, Romans 9–11, 139.
165
See Wright, Climax, 251: “These themes … result in the clear message to the Roman church: here, and
nowhere else, is the basis of the mission of the church, the mission in which Paul is engaged and for which he
now enlists their support.”
*
33
34
35
36
11 The Tenth
Pericope
Conclusion: A Hymn on the Majesty of God as Revealed in the Mysterious Plan of
Global Salvation
33/ O depth
of riches
anda of wisdom
and of knowledge of God!
How unfathomable his judgments,
and inscrutable his ways!
34/ For “who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has become his counselor?”
35/ “Or who gave first to him,
so he shall receive recompense?”
36/ Because from him
and through him
and unto him
[are] all things,
to him be the glory forever! Amen.
Analysis
The poetic quality of this composition has been widely accepted, suggesting a hymn of nine
or ten lines with triple structuring within several lines.1 The Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th
editions print the hymn out in strophic form, placing the words “and wisdom and knowledge
of God” into a separate line that results in a ten-line hymn. The recent investigation of early
Christian hymns by Gunter Kennel prefers for Rom 11:33–36* the vague category of a
“universal text” with a doxological function, but most of the criteria he develops to define
hymnic material are present in the original form of this passage.2 The anomaly in this hymn
appears not to have been taken into account by Fennel, and it is usually overlooked by
commentators. The scriptural citations in vv. 34–35* are not only unparalleled in hymnic
material, but their removal produces a more coherent hymn to God in which the fourth line
beginning with “because” provides a rationale for the foregoing.
<11:33*> Ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως θεοῦ·

a
The absence of καί (“and”) in 321 lat may be a dictation mistake, but it enhances the coherence of the hymn by
attaching “riches” to wisdom and knowledge, i.e., that God is rich in wisdom and knowledge.
1
Käsemann, 318, refers to Norden’s Agnostos Theos, 240ff. Michel, 354, refers to Harder, Gebet, 51–55, 79ff.
Cranfield, 2:589, refers to Bornkamm, Experience, 105–11. See also Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 61–64; Gloer,
“Homologies and Hymns” 123; Johnson, Function, 164–68.
Nestle-Aland Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. 1979. 27th ed. 1993. New
York: American Bible Society
2
Gunter Kennel, Frühchristliche Hymnen? Gattungskritische Studien zur Frage nach den Liedern der frühen
Christenheit, WMANT 71 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995) 281.
*
34
35
*
33
ὡς ἀνεξεραύνητα τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστοι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ.
<11:36*> ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα·
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
The removal of the citations produces a hymn in the style of ellipsis that concentrates entirely
on God. Two eloquent exclamations, beginning with identical sounds, ὦ (“O!”) and ὡς
(“How!”), open the hymn. The threefold attributes of God in the first line are echoed in the
fourth line by the threefold formula of “from … through … for him.”3 The two adjectives in
the second exclamation have the poetic alpha-privative and display parachesis in their similar
sounds: ἀνεξεραύνητα and ἀνεξιχνίαστοι (“unsearchable” and “inscrutable”).4 Lines 2 and 3
end with αὐτοῦ (“his”), which is reduplicated by the end of the next line. The hymn concludes
with a poetic confession and doxology. The confessional line (11:35*) has a threefold
elaboration concerning the origin of τὰ πάντα (“all things”), alluding back to the expression
ἐπὶ πάντων (“over all”) in the rhetorical counterpart to this section, 11:5*. The doxology to
God in 11:36* is the counterpart to the doxology to Christ as God in 9:5*. Since the removal
of the citations produces a hymn of superior coherence and stylistic conformity, it is likely
that they were added at a later stage.5 Since there are no explicitly Christian references in the
hymn, it could well have arisen in a Hellenistic Jewish setting,6 but its citation in this critical
location of Paul’s letter strongly suggests that it was known and used by believers in Rome. It
has also been suggested that Paul himself is the author of the original hymn,7 but the lack of
explicitly Christian elements and the indications of later redaction make this seem unlikely.8
The insertion of the citations from Isaiah and Job in vv. 34–35* is likely to have come from
Paul’s hand, transforming the original hymn into a suitable climax for the third proof. The
choice and redaction of the citations are very skillfully accomplished,9 matching Pauline
citations earlier in the letter. The triple elaboration of the first exclamation provides a chiastic
Romans 11:33 (NRSV)

*
36
Romans 11:36 (NRSV)
3
See Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 62. On the triadic structure of the hymn, see Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 377.
4
These distinctive six-syllable adjectives match ἀμεταμέλητα (“without regret”) in 11:29, lending a sense of
grandeur to the final sections of this proof.
*
35
Romans 11:35 (NRSV)
*
5
Romans 11:5 (NRSV)
*
5
Romans 9:5 (NRSV)
5
The hymn without the citations focuses entirely on God’s attributes with no gesture of human response, no
human involvement. The LXX citations baldly introduce human responses vis-à-vis God’s greatness and raise
the question about whether God would require a counselor or recompense.
6
Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus 62–63; Johnson, Function, 172. Among Hellenistic elements in the hymn are the
acclamation ὦ (“O!”), which occurs only here in the NT and never in the LXX, because there is no Hebrew
equivalent, according to Michel, 360.
7
Bornkamm, Experience, 105; Käsemann, 318; Cranfield, 2:589; Dunn, 2:698; Fitzmyer, 633; Byrne, 59; Moo,
740.
8
See Gloer, “Homologies and Hymns” 123.
9
For example, the citations are not introduced with standard formulas such as “as it is written,” which would
destroy the hymnic quality; the citations are well embedded in the text.
series that is replicated in reverse sequence by the three questions of vv. 34–35a*.10 “Riches
… wisdom … knowledge” are taken up in reverse order by the scriptural citations describing
divine knowledge in v. 34a*, wisdom in v. 34b*, and riches in v. 35*.11 The techniques of
editing biblical texts to fit Paul’s argumentative purpose are visible not only in the choice of
these citations but also in the manner of their redaction, analyzed in the exegesis below. There
are solid reasons, therefore, to infer that Paul himself was responsible for the insertion of the
citations, in order to transform the hymn into a suitable climax of the argument in the third
proof.
The thought progression in the redacted hymn comprises three phases: the acclamation of the
greatness of God, the rhetorical questions about the incapacity of humans to grasp such
majesty, and the ascription of glory to God alone.12 The passage thus leads to a suitable
rectification of the human pretension and unwillingness to glorify God as developed in 1:18–
25*, and of cultural feelings of superiority and prejudice against others that Paul counters in
9:20*; 10:2–3*; 11:20*, 25*.
10
Although the chiasmus was noted by Bengel, Gnomon, 134, Käsemann, 319, refers to Günther Bornkamm,
Experience, 107, and Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 62. See also Jeremias, “Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen,” ZNW
49 (1958) 145–56; Lund, Chiasmus, 222.
*
34
Romans 11:34 (NRSV)
11
Harvey, Listening, 203; Siegert, Argumentation, 178.
12
See Louw, 2:118; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 377.
*
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
themselves,
25
*
20
Romans 9:20 (NRSV)
*
2
3
*
20
Romans 11:20 (NRSV)
*
25
Romans 11:25 (NRSV)
There are Jewish hymns probably deriving in part from worship settings that share some of
the characteristics of the original hymn in Rom 11:33–36*. Michael Lattke has surveyed a
large number of such hymns and hymnic fragments, including 1 En. 84.2–3 that addresses
God as creator:13
Blessed are you, O Great King,
you are mighty in your greatness.
O Lord of all the creation of heaven,
King of kings and God of the whole world.
Your authority and kingdom abide forever and ever;
and your dominion throughout all the generations of generations;
all the heavens are your throne forever,
and the whole earth is your footstool forever and ever and ever.…
Everything you know, you see, and you hear;
nothing exists that can be hidden from you, for everything you expose.
The Hebrew hymn that concludes 1QS14 contains some thematic links with the redacted form
of the hymn in Rom 11:33–36*:
Blessed be you, my God, who opens the heart of your servant to knowledge! Establish all his
deeds in justice, and raise up the son of your handmaid to stand everlastingly in your
presence.… You have taught all knowledge and all that exists is so by your will. Beyond you
there is no-one to oppose your counsel, to understand any of your holy thoughts, or to gaze
into the abyss of your mysteries, to fathom all your marvels or the strength of your might.
Who can endure your glory? (1QS 11:15b–20)
Thomas Tobin cites the thanksgiving hymn from Qumran as “the most enlightening passage
for understanding Rom 11:33–36*” because it contains three rhetorical questions about the
possibility of humans understanding the divine mysteries:15
I give you [thanks, Lord,]
because you have taught me your truth,
you have made me know your wonderful mysteries,
your kindness with [sinful] men,
your bountiful compassion with the depraved of heart.
Who is like you, Lord, among the gods?
Who is like your truth?
Who, before you, is just when judged?
No spirit can reply to your reproach,
no one can stand up against your anger.
All the sons of your truth
you take to forgiveness in your presence,
you purify them from their sins
by the greatness of your goodness,
and in your bountiful mercy,
to make them stand in your presence,
13
Michael Lattke, Hymnus. Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie, NTOA 19 (Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 118.
14
See Lattke, Hymnus, 126.
15
for ever and ever.
For you are an eternal God
and all your paths remain from eternity to eternity.
And there is no one apart from you.
What is empty man, owner of futility,
to understand your wondrous deeds?16
As the detailed analysis below demonstrates, the hymn of 11:33–36* provides an eloquent
conclusion for the third proof.17
IV. The probatio

11:33–36 10. Conclusion: a hymn on the majesty of God as revealed in the mysterious
plan of global salvation
11:33 a. The mysterious majesty of God
11:33a 1. An exclamation about the depth of God
a) “Of riches”
b) “Of wisdom”
c) “Of knowledge”
11:33b-c 2. An exclamation about the mysteries of God
11:33b a) God’s judgments are “unsearchable”
11:33c b) God’s ways are “inscrutable”
11:34–35 b. The scriptural proof of the inability of humans to control the mystery of God
11:34a 1. The citation of Isa 40:13*, a rhetorical question about knowing “the mind of
God”
11:34b 2. Continuation of Isa 40:13*, a rhetorical question about being God’s
“counselor”
11:35a 3. The emended citation of Job 41:3*, a rhetorical question about paying off God
11:35b 4. Continuation of Job 41:3*, a rhetorical question about placing God in debt
11:36 c. The praise of God’s majesty
11:36a 1. The confession of omnipotence: “the all” (cf. Rom 9:5*) was created—
a) “From God”
b) “Through God”
c) “For God”
11:36b 2. The doxology
a) The ascription of glory to God
b) The “Amen”
16
Cited by Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 377–78, from Florintino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated:
The Qumran Texts in English, 2d ed.(Leiden: Brill, 1996) 344–45.
17
Kim, Romans 9–11, 139–41, identifies this as a peroration for the whole of Rom 9–11.
*
13
Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor has instructed him?
Isaiah 40:13 (NRSV)
*
3
Will it make many supplications to you? Will it speak soft words to you?
Job 41:3 (NRSV)
Exegesis
 33* The hymn opens with an exclamation about the mysterious depth of divinity: the word
ὦ conveys awe and wonder, and is used in the negative sense by Isa 6:5*, “O wretched me!”
(ὦ τάλας ἐγώ), and in the positive sense by Philo Fug. 149, “O admirable assay! O sacred
test!”18 The word βάθος (“depth”) is formulated in asyndeton (without the article) that lends
eloquence to the hymnic style. That the hymn was addressed to “the depth” itself therefore
seems unlikely.19 Such an address is unlikely to have been in Paul’s mind, in view of 8:39*
where he denied the power of the “depth” to separate believers from Christ.20 The “depth” in
the Romans hymn is perceived to convey “the thought of the inexhaustible and unsearchable
‘fullness’ ” of God.21 Philo refers to the “depth of knowledge” (βάθους… ἐπιστήμης) in Post.
130 and extols the “depth” of wisdom in Ebr. 112, “For wisdom lies deep below the surface
and gives forth a sweet stream of true nobility for thirsty souls.” As an example of the utter
limit in the negative sense, Prov 18:3* says that “when impiety reaches to the depth of evil”
(ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἀσεβὴς εἰς βάθος κακῶν), it will be scorned. The connotation is probably close to
the use of βάθος in 1 Cor 2:10*, which suggests the limit of divine profundity that is barred to
humans except with divine assistance: “For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of
God.”
The reference to “riches” in the possessive seems peculiar at first glance (how can riches be
deep?), but the formulation would not have seemed odd in the ancient world, in which riches
were conceived as precious metal piled in mounds that are βαθύς (“deep” or “high”),
depending on one’s viewing position. 22 There is a classical parallel to this link between
“depth” and “riches” in Sophocles Aj. 130, in which Athena warns Odysseus against
arrogance because one’s adversary might prove “mightier in hand or in depth of great wealth
(ἢ μακροῦ πλούτον βάθει).” The reference to “riches” makes special sense in the context of
Paul’s earlier discourse that described the spiritual as well as material blessings that accrue to
participants in the new age. In 2:4* he referred to the “riches of God’s kindness and
*
5
And I said: “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet
my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Isaiah 6:5 (NRSV)
Fug. De fuga et inventione
18
See BDF §146.2 and BAGD (2000) 1100 with other examples.
19
Dunn, 2:699, rightly rejects this suggestion by Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 62, but Dunn does not explain the
significance of asyndeton in the hymn.
*
39
Romans 8:39 (NRSV)
20
See Adolf Strobel, “βάθος,” EDNT 1 (1990) 190; Heinrich Schlier, “βάθος,” TDNT 1 (1964) 517–18.
21
Strobel, “βάθος,” 190; see also Schlier, “βάθος,” 517.
Post. De posteritate Caini
Ebr. De ebrietate ii
*
3
When wickedness comes, contempt comes also; and with dishonor comes disgrace.
*
10
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of
God.
22
See LSJM 301.
Aj. Ajax
*
forbearance and patience”; in 9:23* “the riches of his glory” are granted to “the vessels of
mercy”; in 11:12*, Paul refers to “riches for the world” and “riches for the Gentiles” that
would come as a result of global conversion; in 11:17* converts are promised a share in “the
richness of the olive tree.” In the context of Romans, the word πλοῦτος (“riches”) is thus not a
mere modifier of the following references to wisdom and knowledge,23 but rather an explicit
reminder of the material and spiritual benefits that the enactment of God’s “mystery” (11:25*)
will bring.24 That Paul intended the term “riches” to be understood in this manner is also
suggested by the citation of Job 41:3* in 11:35* involving “payment” and “gift,” as well as by
the final line of the hymn that claims that “all things,” which would include everything both
material and spiritual, are from God, through God, and for God.
The second divine attribute in the hymn is σοφία (“wisdom”), which resonates with a broad
stream of biblical, apocalyptic, and Hellenistic Jewish thought.25 In the context of creation,
Wis 7:21* insists, for example, that σοφία provides “certain knowledge of the things that are,
namely to know how the world was made and the operation of its elements.” Sir 1:4* claims
that σοφία “was created before all things” (1:4*) and was active in the creation itself (24:1–
6*). Σοφία occurs here for the only time in Romans, in contrast to 1 Corinthians, where it is a
major theme involving the contrast between human arrogance and the realm of divine mystery
known only to those who receive the Spirit of God. As I noted with regard to 11:25*, the
same antithesis was stated with regard to the mystery of the plan of salvation. Some
commentators thus assume that wisdom in the context of this proof is intended to refer to “the
mystery of God’s saving purpose for all” disclosed in 11:25–26*.26 That this mystery has
4
Romans 2:4 (NRSV)
*
23
Romans 9:23 (NRSV)
*
12
Romans 11:12 (NRSV)
*
17
Romans 11:17 (NRSV)
23
Godet, 416; Murray, 300; Morris, 427–28; for a correct grammatical assessment, see Weiss, 505.
24
See Kühl, 400; Schlier, 345; Michel, 360.
25
See Georg Fohrer and Ulrich Wilckens, “σοφία,” TDNT 7 (1971) 489–509.
*
21
I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,
*
4
Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity.
Sirach 1:4 (NRSV)
*
1
Wisdom praises herself, and tells of her glory in the midst of her people.
2
In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth, and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory:
3
“I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.
4
I dwelt in the highest heavens, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
5
Alone I compassed the vault of heaven and traversed the depths of the abyss.
6
Over waves of the sea, over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held sway.
Sirach 24:1–6 (NRSV)
*
“depth” that no human can penetrate without mystical disclosure is self-evident, not just
because of the limitation of finite intelligence but also because of cultural biases that the
preceding argument of Romans has sought to overcome. If Paul’s gospel is accepted by the
Roman believers, that God’s mercy is wide enough to cover habitual antagonisms between
Jews and Gentiles, Greco-Romans and barbarians, educated and uneducated, they will be able
to join him in praising God for this “depth of wisdom” that offers an end to lethal human
conflict.
The third attribute cited in the hymn is the “depth of … knowledge.” Although the γνώσεως
θεοῦ (“knowledge of God”) was usually understood as an objective genitive, namely, human
knowledge about God (e.g., Hos 4:1*; 6:6*; Isa 11:2*, 9*),27 there are in fact no other
references in the NT to God’s own knowledge.28 It is quite possible, therefore, that the
Hellenistic Jewish context of the original hymn understood γνώσεως θεοῦ as knowledge about
God granted to the righteous. In the context of Paul’s argument, however, divine “knowledge”
probably would have been understood in the light of the previous references to God’s
foreknowledge about Israel in 11:2* and about those who would accept the gospel and enter
the realm of grace in 8:29–30*.29 That God alone knew the murky hearts of Israel and the
various Gentile peoples is an unspoken premise of the mystery disclosed in 11:25–26* and its
preceding argument, because it is anything but self-evident that a mission to convert Gentiles
in Spain would ultimately have a positive effect on Israel. In the words of the Psalm found at
25
26
26
Dunn, 2:699. Other scholars on this track include Kuss, 3:827; Schlier, 345; Dupont, Gnosis, 91–93.
*
1
Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel; for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the
land. There is no faithfulness or loyalty, and no knowledge of God in the land.
Hosea 4:1 (NRSV)
*
6
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6 (NRSV)
*
2
The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
Isaiah 11:2 (NRSV)
*
9
They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as
the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:9 (NRSV)
27
See particularly Bultmann, “γινώσκω κτλ.,” 700–703.
28
*
2
Romans 11:2 (NRSV)
*
29
30
29
Godet, 417; Dunn, 2:699; Moo, 741–42; Bultmann, “γινώσκω κτλ.,” 706–7; Schmithals, γινώσκω κτλ.,” 249;
Qumran, “who can discern your thoughts, O God?” (4Q381, frg. 31.5), except for the
disclosure of this astounding mystery.
The following exclamation beginning with ὡς (“how!”) is typical for biblical hymns.30 For
example, Ps 8:2*, 10* exclaim, “How wonderful (ὡς θαυμαστόν) is your name in all the
earth!”31 After extolling the depths of divine riches, wisdom, and knowledge, it follows
logically that the unfathomability of God’s judgment should be named. The adjective
ἀνεξεραύνητος (“unfathomable, unassertainable”) appears in biblical Greek only in two
textual variants (Symmachus of Prov 25:3* and Jer 17:9*) and is also rarely found in classical
texts.32 It correlates in an elegant fashion with the word “depth” in the preceding sentence
and, in the context of Paul’s argument, it carries forward the theme of the divine mystery that
is accessible only through special revelation. In Hellenistic Judaism where this hymn probably
originated, “God’s judgments” (τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ) comprise actions against oppressors and in
behalf of the oppressed that are extolled as “true and righteous altogether” (Ps 18:10*).33
Sirach 21:5* promises that in response to a “poor man’s prayer,” God’s judgment “comes
speedily.” In the context of conflicts between nations, Wis 12:12* asks, “Who shall withstand
your judgment?” As in the hymn, which originally flowed directly from v. 35* to the theme of
creation in v. 36*, Ps 104:6* calls the faithful to remember the wonders that God made, “his
marvels and the judgments of his mouth (τὰ τέρατα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ κρίματα τοῦ στόματος
αὐτοῦ).” In the context of Romans, the “judgments” of God are concentrated in the sphere of
establishing righteousness through grace alone. In 2:16* in response to the hypocritical piety
4Q381 Non-Canonical Psalms B

30
Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 61; Dunn, 2:699.
*
1
To the leader: according to The Gittith. A Psalm of David. O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name
in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:1 (NRSV)
*
9
O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Psalm 8:9 (NRSV)
31
See also Ps 66:3*; 83:2*; 103:24*; Sir 17:29*.
*
3
Like the heavens for height, like the earth for depth, so the mind of kings is unsearchable.
*
9
The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse— who can understand it?
32
BAGD (2000) 77 lists Heraclitus Ephesius Frag. 18 and Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 69.14, “For the multitude of
those who perished by famine, disease, and fire was unascertainable (ἀνεξερεύνητον ἦν).” The Heraclitus
citation comes from Clement of Alexandria Stro. II, 17.4, “If one does not expect the unexpected one will not
find it, since it is not to be ascertained (ἀνεξερεύνητον) and difficult to locate.”
*
9
the fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever; the ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
Psalm 19:9 (NRSV)
33
Büchsel and Herntrich, “κρίνω κτλ.,” 942.
*
5
The prayer of the poor goes from their lips to the ears of God,and his judgment comes speedily.
Sirach 21:5 (NRSV)
*
12
For who will say, “What have you done?” or will resist your judgment? Who will accuse you for the
destruction of nations that you made? Or who will come before you to plead as an advocate for the unrighteous?
*
6
O offspring of his servant Abraham,children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
Psalm 105:6 (NRSV)
*
of a Jewish interlocutor, Paul insists that “God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus,” for
God’s judgment is impartial (2:2*; 3:6*). The righteous judgment of God is extended in
Christ to those who have faith in the gospel (3:21–26*). Abraham was reckoned as righteous
on the basis of faith alone (4:3–5*), and his true descendants are made righteous by grace
rather than through the performance of works (4:13–16*). In the third proof, for which this
hymn provides the conclusion, the theme of God’s righteous judgment is extensively
developed in the metaphor of the potter’s right to shape the clay into varied objects of
judgment (9:20–23*); in the analysis that Israel’s quest for righteousness was ruined by the
quest for status that was repudiated by impartial judgment (9:30–10:3*); in the insistence that
16
on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
Romans 2:16 (NRSV)
*
2
You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.”
Romans 2:2 (NRSV)
*
6
By no means! For then how could God judge the world?
Romans 3:6 (NRSV)
*
21
prophets,
22
23
24
25
26
Jesus.
*
3
4
5
*
13
14
15
16
*
20
21
ordinary use?
22
23
*
30
through faith;
31
although God has broken off some Jewish branches of the olive tree, God’s judgment allows
no favoritism for the engrafted Gentile branches (11:21*), and thus that no person or group
should dare to be “wise in their own eyes” (11:25*). Particularly unfathomable was the idea
of a divinely imposed obtuseness of Israel that provided time for the Gentile mission,
combined with the expectation that its completion would provoke a transformation of Israel’s
rejection of the gospel (11:11–14*, 25–26*). Indeed, as the later history of Christian–Jewish
relations after the death of Paul revealed, it appears that God’s judgments were also
unfathomable for the apostle himself.
The reference to God’s inscrutable ways employs the Semitic term ὁδός (“path, way”) as a
metaphor for acting. In particular, as Dunn points out,34 the expression “the way of the Lord”
is a characteristic biblical expression (Gen 18:19*; Exod 33:13*; Deut 26:17–18*; Ps 81:13*;
103:7*; Prov 8:22*; Jer 32:30*; Ezek 18:25–29*). Ordinarily, the ὁδοί κυρίου refers to the
32
33
1
2
3
*
21
Romans 11:21 (NRSV)
*
11
12
13
14
34
Dunn, 2:699; see also Wilhelm Michaelis, “ὁδός κτλ.,” TDNT 5 (1967) 48–65.
*
19
No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the
Lord by doing righteousness and justice; so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised
him.”
*
13
Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your
sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”
Exodus 33:13 (NRSV)
*
17
Today you have obtained the Lord’s agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his
statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.
18
Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his
commandments;
*
13
O that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!
Psalm 81:13 (NRSV)
*
7
He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel.
Psalm 103:7 (NRSV)
*
22
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,the first of his acts of long ago.
path of the commandments that the faithful should follow,35 and this was probably the
connotation intended in the original hymn. The adjective ἀνεξιχνίαστος (“inscrutable,
incomprehensible”) appears three times in Job (5:9*; 9:10*; 34:24*) and elsewhere in Greek
and Hebrew literature to depict the transcendence of God.36 In 4Q381, frg. 35.3 God’s
wisdom is “unsearchable,” and in the Odes Sol. 12.6 the “mercy of God’s promise” is extolled
as “immeasurable and inscrutable” (ἀμέτητριόν τε καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστός). The Prayer of
Manasseh 6 states that the “promised mercies” of God are “unending and immeasurable.” In
the context of Paul’s argument, God’s “ways” of dealing with Israel and the Gentiles can be
understood only on the basis of the disclosure of the “mystery,” which pertains to a salvation
through response to the gospel rather than through conformity to the commandments. In a
parallel manner, the reversal of traditional expectations that God will favor the in-group and
that salvation can be gained by good performance or the achievement of honorable status by
other means remains incomprehensible, except for the revelation of divine righteousness in
the Christ event.
 34* The citation from Isa 40:13* and the following citation from Job 41:3* were carefully
selected to produce a chiastic development of “riches and wisdom and knowledge of God” in
11:33*.37 As one can see from the illustration below, in which the correspondence is
underlined, the citation related to “knowledge” and “wisdom” is virtually verbatim:
Isa 40:13* Τίς ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου;
καὶ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο; (“Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has
become his counselor?”)
Rom 11:34* Τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν κυρίου;
ἢ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο; (“For ‘who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has
become his counselor?’”)
*
30
For the people of Israel and the people of Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth; the
people of Israel have done nothing but provoke me to anger by the work of their hands, says the Lord.
*
25
Yet you say, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way unfair? Is it not your
ways that are unfair?
26
When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the
iniquity that they have committed they shall die.
27
Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right,
they shall save their life.
28
Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall
surely live; they shall not die.
29
Yet the house of Israel says, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” O house of Israel, are my ways unfair? Is it not
your ways that are unfair?
Ezekiel 18:25–29 (NRSV)
35
Michaelis, “ὁδος κτλ.,” 51–53.
*
9
He does great things and unsearchable, marvelous things without number.
Job 5:9 (NRSV)
*
10
who does great things beyond understanding, and marvelous things without number.
Job 9:10 (NRSV)
*
24
He shatters the mighty without investigation, and sets others in their place.
Job 34:24 (NRSV)
36
BAGD (2000) 77.
Odes Odes of Solomon
37
Bornkamm, Experience, 107–8; Koch, Schrift 178; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 307–8.
The insertion of γάρ (“for”) was required as a transitional device,38 showing that the following
citation confirms the hymnic celebration of unsearchability and inscrutability of God. The
replacement of καί (“and”) by ἤ (“or”) augments the stylistic unity of the hymn by bringing
the beginning of v. 34b* into conformity with the ἢ at the beginning of v. 35a*. The two
successive “or’s” intensify the “negativity” of the citation by insisting that no human being is
in the position of trumping the wisdom and riches of God as demonstrated in the previous
three chapters concerning the mysterious course of the gospel mission with regard to Israel. 39
The function of this citation is therefore quite different from Paul’s citation of the same verse
in 1 Cor 2:16*.40 Since the mystery of God’s plan has just been disclosed in vv. 25–26*, the
rhetorical questions in the citation are not intended to evoke the generic response “No one!”41
In the original context of Isaiah’s discourse, the rhetorical questions countered skepticism and
disbelief regarding God’s bringing Israel back home to Zion.42 In the context of the closing
pericope of the third proof of Romans 9–11, the νοῦς κυρίου (“mind of the Lord”) now relates
to God’s disposition and purpose that includes an unbreakable promise to Israel.43
The σύμβουλος (“counselor”) reference44 is similar to Philo’s criticism in Migr. 136 of those
who pretend to be “self-wise” to the degree that they think they know what happened at
creation; they delude themselves into thinking that “they were counselors (σύμβουλοι) with
the Creator concerning the things he was fashioning.” In the context of the third proof, this
reference evokes the mysterious strategy of making Israel’s heart obtuse so as to cause a delay
in their conversion that would allow time for the Gentile mission, at the fulfillment of which
Israel’s zeal would be transformed and Israel thereby saved.45 The issue here is not whether
God’s plan was known or not, because Paul has just revealed the mystery of its threefold
strategy. The rhetorical questions drive home the discourse of the entire third proof, which
aimed to overcome the cultural superiority and prejudice that resisted this divinely disclosed
38
Koch, Schrift, 178.
39
Ibid., 270, elaborated by Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 309.
*
16
“For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
40
See Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 287–92, 309. Lim, Holy Scripture, 159–60, suggests that Paul knew
two versions of the Isaiah citation (visible in 1QIsaa), which might explain the different use in 1 Corinthians as
compared with Romans.
41
See Haacker, 247. A generic response of “No one!” is advocated by Schlier, 347; Moo, 743; Shum, Paul’s Use
of Isaiah, 246, and would match the rhetorical questions in 2 Bar. 14.8–9 (“O Lord, my Lord, who can
understand your judgment? Or who can explore the depth of your way? Or who can discern the majesty of your
path? Or who can discern your incomprehensible counsel? Or who of those who are born has ever discovered the
beginning and the end of your wisdom?”).
42
Wagner, Heralds, 302–3.
43
See Johannes Behm, “νοῦς,” TDNT 4 (1967) 959, “the saving purpose of God in which Paul finds the solution
to the problem of R. 9–11 … the hidden plan of salvation.” A TLG search turns up no examples of the
expression, but Philo Migr. 134, maintains that “the limit of knowledge is to realize that nothing can be known,
since God alone is wise, who is also God alone (ἑνὸς ὄντος μόνου σόφου τοῦ καὶ μόνου θεοῦ).”
44
BAGD (2000) 957 makes clear that the verbal form of σύμβουλος (συμβουλεύω) depicts tactical and strategic
“advice on a course of action,” “plotting a course of action,” as in Philo Mut. 104.3; Fug. 6.5; Jos. 60.3; Legat.
203.4. The noun σύμβουλος occurs here for the only time in the NT and is not adequately analyzed by the
commentaries. The self-delusion of counselors is depicted by Philo Legat. 203.4, as Caligula’s problematic
scheme to erect a gold statue in the temple at Jerusalem was made “on the consent of his most excellent and wise
counselors (συμβούλοις χρησάμενος τοῖς ἀριστοῖς καὶ σοφωτάτοις).” Philo Migr. 204.4 and 206.2, sarcastically
identifies these “wise counselors” as Helikon, a former slave, and Apelles, a former stage actor, both of whom
later fell victim to Caligula for their “impiety” (ἀσεβεία).
Migr. De migratione Abrahami
45
The rhetorical question does not turn on the question of whether any human can serve as God’s counselor (as
in Haacker, 247, citing Isa 55:8–9*), but whether the plan as announced in the “mystery” of 11:33* necessarily
conforms to human preferences.
scheme that would redeem the entire world, including the antagonistic groups of converts in
Rome. The “who” in the rhetorical questions therefore includes the Christian congregations in
Rome that continue to be “haughty-minded” with regard to other cultural groups. In this
context, the rhetorical questions constitute a direct challenge to the Christian groups in Rome:
‘Now that God’s plan has been revealed, do you dare to oppose it? Do you think you are in a
position to advise God to suit your preferences?’ The answer required by these first two
rhetorical questions, therefore, is suggested by the earlier warning: ‘No, we had better not be
haughty-minded!’
 35* The citation from this verse appears to come from a version of Job 41:3* that is quite
different from the LXX and the Hebrew texts, as visible below where the exact parallel is
marked with underlining:
Job 41:3 MT ‫“( מי הקדמני ואׁשלם‬Will he make requests of you and speak ingratiatingly to
you?”)
Job 41:3* LXX ἢ τίς ἀντιστήσεταί μοι
καὶ ὑπομονεῖ; (“Or who will resist me, and abide?”)
Rom 11:35* ἢ τίς προέδωκεν αὐτῷ,
καὶ ἀνταποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ; (“Or who gave first to him, so he shall receive recompense?”)
Although there is a broad consensus that Paul is citing Job 41:3*, the differences are so great
that caution is required.46 A further allusion to Job 35:7* has been suggested47 (“what will you
give him [τί δώσεις αὐτῷ], or what shall he receive from your hand”), which comes closer to
providing a basis for the distinctive verbs προδίδωμι or ἀνταποδίδομαι. Paul’s opening ἢ τίς
(“or who?”) matches the LXX of Job 41:3*, 48 but there are no correspondences thereafter.
Since the LXX misses the irony of the Job query, it appears certain that Paul’s ironic version
returns in one way or another to the spirit, if not the precise wording, of the original Hebrew
text. The syntax of Paul’s version includes a καί (“and, so”) in the second line that probably
has the sense of “a result that comes from what precedes,”49 so that earning the repayment
from God rests on indebtedness incurred when someone gives a gift to God.50 An explanation
of this wording derived from Strack-Billerbeck is that Paul cites an early form of the Targum
on Job 41:3*, but the formulation is not close enough to be very plausible: “Who comes
before me in the works of creation, that I must repay him.”51 Berndt Schaller argues that Paul
is probably citing from a corrected version of the LXX that brings it closer to the Hebrew text.
This line of reasoning was first developed by Adolf Deissmann in 1905 with regard to other
citations, and it has been partially confirmed by Qumran texts.52 It is plausible that an earlier
MT Masoretic text
*
11
Who can confront it and be safe?—under the whole heaven, who?
Job 41:11 (NRSV)
46
Nestle-Aland prints the entire verse in italics as if the entirety were from Job 41:3*, which seems rather
audacious since only ἢ τίς is actually cited.
*
7
If you are righteous, what do you give to him; or what does he receive from your hand?
Job 35:7 (NRSV)
47
Fitzmyer, 635; Johnson, 174.
48
The expression ἢ τίς appears in other biblical texts, such as Job 6:11*; 9:12*; Isa 40:14*; Wis 9:13*; 12:12*;
19:15*; Sir 2:10*; Jer 15:5*; 21:13*.
49
BAGD (2000) 495; see also Wilckens, 2:268, followed by Moo, 743.
50
That this verse refers to the preexistent Christ as the one “to whom God disclosed his whole mind” (Hanson,
Interpretation, 91) is properly rejected by Johnson, Function, 167–68.
51
Str-B 3:295, cited by Käsemann, 318, and Wilckens, 2:271.
52
Berndt Schaller, “Zum Textcharakter der Hiobzitate im paulinischen Schrifttum,” ZNW 71 (1980) 23–26.
corrector of the LXX or Paul himself selected ἀνταποδιδόναι (“recompense, pay back”) as a
translation of the Hebrew ‫ׁשלם‬, which occurred in two other locations in Job, in 21:19*,
31*.53 But there is no parallel for προδιδόναι (“give in advance, first”) as a translation of the
rare Hebrew verb ‫קדם‬, which occurs only in Job 41:3* and Amos 9:10*. Moreover, in the
other textually clear passages in the LXX (4 Kgs 6:11*; 2 Macc 7:37*; 4 Macc 4.1*),
προδιδόναι occurs with the alternative definition of “betray” or “turn over” rather than “give
in advance.” Although Schaller’s suggestion is cited with approval,54 no evidence has yet
appeared of this hypothetical pre-Christian correction of the Job text, and it is more plausible
to conclude that Paul himself is responsible for the corrected translation.
However one explains the origin of this citation, its succinct wit surpasses both the Hebrew
and the LXX versions. That one could provide a gift that would place God in one’s debt,55
requiring God in accordance with the ancient laws of reciprocity to provide a healthy
recompense, is preposterous within the framework of Jewish and Christian monotheism.56
Moreover, as Dahl observed, “That no [one] holds God in his debt, so that what he receives
from God is never merited, is a fundamental idea which underlies all of Romans.”57 The
revised citation aptly picks up the theme of God’s “riches” from 11:33*, and carries forward
the crucial theme of Israel’s trespass and ultimate conversion providing “riches for the world
… and for the Gentiles” in 11:12*, 17*. Although commentators restrict this to the spiritual
riches of “saving grace,”58 there is nothing in this context to eliminate the inclusion of
material riches as well. The implication of the two citations is that to question the “mystery”
is to reverse the system of unmerited grace that has redeemed the congregations in Rome and
placed them in the position to enjoy both material and spiritual benefits. Do the splintered
congregations in Rome really wish to throw away these immense benefits by opposing the
mission to Spain?
*
19
You say, ‘God stores up their iniquity for their children.’ Let it be paid back to them, so that they may know it.
Job 21:19 (NRSV)
*
31
Who declares their way to their face, and who repays them for what they have done?
Job 21:31 (NRSV)
53
Ibid., 25.
*
10
All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, who say, “Evil shall not overtake or meet us.”
Amos 9:10 (NRSV)
*
11
The mind of the king of Aram was greatly perturbed because of this; he called his officers and said to them,
“Now tell me who among us sides with the king of Israel?”
2 Kings 6:11 (NRSV)
*
37
I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon
to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God,
*
1
Now there was a certain Simon, a political opponent of the noble and good man, Onias, who then held the high
priesthood for life. When despite all manner of slander he was unable to injure Onias in the eyes of the nation, he
fled the country with the purpose of betraying it.
54
Koch, Schrift, 72–73; Wilk, Bedeutung des Jesajabuches, 270, 309–10.
55
See Newman and Nida, 230–31.
56
See Bornkamm, Experience, 107; Haacker, 248, citing Mott, “Hellenistic Benevolence” 64–67.
57
Dahl, Studies, 157, cited with approval by Johnson, Function, 174.
58
Byrne, 359; see also Wilckens, 2:272; Moo, 743.
 36* The hymn originally continued from v. 33* to this series of prepositional phrases with
God as the source of τὰ πάντα (“all things”), following a style that was widespread in the
Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish environments. In 1 Cor 8:6* there is a closely related
example of such hymnic material in an explicitly Christian form, with Christ playing a crucial
role in the divine drama that is missing in the Roman example: “But for us there is one God,
the Father, from whom (ἐξ οὗ) are all things (τὰ πάντα), and we [exist] for him (εἰς αὐτόν),
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things (τὰ πάντα) and we [exist] through
him (διʼ αὐτοῦ).” The preposition ἐξ (“from”) appears in both hymns, with ἐξ αὐτοῦ (“from
him”) in Romans and ἐξ οὗ (“from whom”) in 1 Corinthians emphasizing that God is the
source of the entire creation and everything in it.59 The phrase διʼ αὐτοῦ (“through him”)
claims that God’s own wisdom and power were the means by which the universe was created.
Both of these phrases repudiate a deistic view of God as one who remains uninvolved in the
created order.60 Both claims are found in Philo Cher. 125–26:
For in order for there to be a genesis to anything, it is necessary for many things to come
together: something that comes “by which”; something that comes “from which”; something
that comes “through which”; something that comes “on account of which” (τὸ ὑφʼ οὗ, τὸ ἐξ
οὗ, τὸ διʼ οὗ, τὸ δι ̓οὗ), and the first of these is the cause, the second the material, the third the
means, and the fourth the end or object.
Although not sharing the Jewish doctrine of creation, there is a similar formulation with the
prepositions ἐκ (“from”) and διά (“through”) in the Stoic text of Pseudo-Aristotle Mund. 6, ὃτι
ἐκ θεοῦ πάντα καὶ διὰ θεοῦ συνέστηκε (“because everything comes from God and is sustained
by God”). Asclepius 34 contains a similar series of prepositional phrases in Latin: omnia enim
ab eo et in ipso et per ipsum (“For everything is from him, and in itself, and through itself”).
However, in the context of the third proof, the phrases “from him” and “through him” refer
not to creation itself but rather to salvation by faith (10:9–13*) defined as mercy (9:16–18*,
*
6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
59
See also Col 1:16–17*.
60
See Haacker, 249, citing Gustav Stählin, “Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bei Josephus,” in O. Betz et
al., eds., Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto
Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 329: in the NT there is no
such thing as accident because “it all comes from God.”
Cher. De cherubim
Mund. De mundo
*
9
10
11
12
on him.
13
*
16
17
18
23*; 11:32*) and global reconciliation (11:15*), and resulting in material and spiritual gifts of
“wealth for the world” (11:12*) and the “fatness” of the olive tree (11:17*).
That the universe goes “to him” (εἰς αὐτόν), as the third phrase in the Roman hymn claims,
implies a historical concept of creation that begins and ends with a purposeful God. Philo
makes a similar claim in Spec. 1.208, ἓν τὰ πάντα ἣ ὅτι ἐξ ἑνός τε καὶ εἰς ἕν … (“all things are
one, or that they come from one and return to one …”). There are also Stoic texts that include
the “from” and “to” God formulas, while lacking the “through” formula: Marcus Aurelius Τὰ
εἰς ἑαυτὸν 4.23, writes, ἐκ σου πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα (“all things [are] from you;
all things [are] in you; all things [are] for you”), and Seneca Ep. 65.8, has the Latin
equivalent, Quinque ergo causae sunt, ut Plato dicit: id ex quo, id a quo, id in quo, id ad quo,
id propter quod (“Therefore there are five causes, as Plato says: ‘What comes out of which,
that which comes from which, what is in which, what is to which, and what is near which’ ”).
In the Pauline context, this third phrase reiterates earlier claims of salvation for Jews and
Gentiles alike (3:22*; 11:23–24*, 32*). Jan Bonda has discerned this universalistic dimension
most clearly: “These two words, ‘to him,’ exclude the possibility that any creature could be
created by God for the purpose of being and remaining far from him … eternal destruction is
not the final word. For even those who are eternally far from him, are created ‘to him.’ That
they remain. Therefore, their destiny is that eventually they come, from their eternal
destruction, ‘to him.’ ”61 Paul’s purpose, however, was more missional than doctrinal. In the
context of the third proof, that “all things” will return to God, despite their current distance
from the gospel, reinforces the claim that Israel’s sins will be “removed” (11:27*), that the
full number of Jews as well as Gentiles will come into the realm of grace (11:12*, 25*), and
that all humans will thereby be shown “mercy” (11:30–32*).
In view of the language employed, as we have seen, the creation theology in the original
hymn cited was typical for Hellenistic Judaism. The riches, wisdom, and knowledge of God
are visible in the created order that originated “from God” and was created through his divine
*
32
Romans 11:32 (NRSV)
*
15
Romans 11:15 (NRSV)
Spec. De specialibus legibus
Τὰ εἰς ̠Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτὸν / Meditations
Ep. Epistulae morales
*
22
Romans 3:22 (NRSV)
*
23
them in again.
24
61
Bonda, One Purpose, 195.
*
27
Romans 11:27 (NRSV)
*
30
31
32
power, and will serve her purpose in the end. The unfathomability and inscrutability of God
are thus primarily manifest in the creation.
In the context of the third proof, however, and particularly in the light of the immediately
preceding scriptural insertions, the three prepositional phrases no longer primarily express a
doctrine of creation. Instead, they reinforce the mystery of salvation disclosed in 11:25–26* as
derived from the absolute transcendence of God over the entire created order and over all
forms of cultural resistance and prejudice.62 To resist the mystery63 on the grounds of
defending culturally shaped advantages in power and status is to deprive one’s group of the
far greater benefits that come from the Lord of all creation. While no group or person is in the
position of placing the Creator in their debt, they all are granted access through grace to the
largesse of “the all.”
The conclusion of the original hymn is unchanged in this Pauline version, giving suitable
glory to God. In the original context of Hellenistic Judaism, this doxology ascribes all glory to
God for all eternity.64 The wording but not the form is reminiscent of Ps 85:12*, “I will
glorify your name forever,” and 1 En. 63.3, “your glory is forever and ever.” While echoing
the conclusion of many Psalms,65 the form of the NT doxologies appears to derive from
Judaism,66 as reflected in 3 Ezra 4.40, “Glory be to the God of truth,” referring to truth as
revealed in 3 Ezra. There is a virtually identical formulation in the closing words of 4 Macc
18:24*, Ὧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν (“To him be the glory for ever and ever,
Amen”). Here again the deity praised grants blessings only on those who unfailingly obey the
Torah (4 Macc 4:16–6:30*; 16:14–17:23*; 18:23*).
62
63
See Kühl, 402.
64
See Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 35–40, 64.
*
12
I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart, and I will glorify your name forever.
Psalm 86:12 (NRSV)
65
Ernst Jenni, “Zu den doxologischen Schlussformeln des Psalters,” ThZ 40 (1984) 114–20.
66
See Alfred Stuiber, “Doxologie,” RAC 4 (1959) 212–14, and Samuel Vollenweider, “Doxologie. I.
Formgeschichtlich. 2. Neues Testament,” RGG4 2 (1999) 963. G. H. R. Horsley, “An Acclamation to ‘the Lord,
Forever,’ ” NDIEC 2 (1982) 35, discusses the parallel formulations in the Roman civic cult.
*
24
to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
*
16
who removed Onias from the priesthood and appointed Onias’s brother Jason as high priest.
17
Jason agreed that if the office were conferred on him he would pay the king three thousand six hundred sixty
talents annually.
18
So the king appointed him high priest and ruler of the nation.
19
Jason changed the nation’s way of life and altered its form of government in complete violation of the law,
20
so that not only was a gymnasium constructed at the very citadel of our native land, but also the temple service
was abolished.
21
The divine justice was angered by these acts and caused Antiochus himself to make war on them.
22
For when he was warring against Ptolemy in Egypt, he heard that a rumor of his death had spread and that the
people of Jerusalem had rejoiced greatly. He speedily marched against them,
23
and after he had plundered them he issued a decree that if any of them were found observing the ancestral law
they should die.
24
When, by means of his decrees, he had not been able in any way to put an end to the people’s observance of
the law, but saw that all his threats and punishments were being disregarded
25
—even to the extent that women, because they had circumcised their sons, were thrown headlong from heights
along with their infants, though they had known beforehand that they would suffer this—
26
when, I say, his decrees were despised by the people, he himself tried through torture to compel everyone in
the nation to eat defiling foods and to renounce Judaism.
1
The tyrant Antiochus, sitting in state with his counselors on a certain high place, and with his armed soldiers
standing around him,
Paul employs this kind of doxology in Phil 4:20*, “To our God and Father be the glory for
ever and ever,” bringing the argument of that letter to a formal conclusion.67 In the earlier
argument of Romans, this doxology was prepared by the claim that sinful humans do not
“glorify God as God” (1:21*) but that the mysterious process of salvation for both Jews and
Gentiles demonstrates the “riches of God’s glory” (9:23*). The αὐτῷ (“to him”) in the
doxology is therefore not the God of the Jews or the Gentiles, as shown in 3:29*, but the one
2
ordered the guards to seize each and every Hebrew and to compel them to eat pork and food sacrificed to idols.
3
If any were not willing to eat defiling food, they were to be broken on the wheel and killed.
4
When many persons had been rounded up, one man, Eleazar by name, leader of the flock, was brought before
the king. He was a man of priestly family, learned in the law, advanced in age, and known to many in the
tyrant’s court because of his philosophy.
5
When Antiochus saw him he said,
4 Maccabees 4:16–6:30 (NRSV)
*
14
O mother, soldier of God in the cause of religion, elder and woman! By steadfastness you have conquered
even a tyrant, and in word and deed you have proved more powerful than a man.
15
For when you and your sons were arrested together, you stood and watched Eleazar being tortured, and said to
your sons in the Hebrew language,
16
“My sons, noble is the contest to which you are called to bear witness for the nation. Fight zealously for our
ancestral law.
17
For it would be shameful if, while an aged man endures such agonies for the sake of religion, you young men
were to be terrified by tortures.
18
Remember that it is through God that you have had a share in the world and have enjoyed life,
19
and therefore you ought to endure any suffering for the sake of God.
20
For his sake also our father Abraham was zealous to sacrifice his son Isaac, the ancestor of our nation; and
when Isaac saw his father’s hand wielding a knife and descending upon him, he did not cower.
21
Daniel the righteous was thrown to the lions, and Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael were hurled into the fiery
furnace and endured it for the sake of God.
22
You too must have the same faith in God and not be grieved.
23
It is unreasonable for people who have religious knowledge not to withstand pain.”
24
By these words the mother of the seven encouraged and persuaded each of her sons to die rather than violate
God’s commandment.
25
They knew also that those who die for the sake of God live to God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all
the patriarchs.
1
Some of the guards said that when she also was about to be seized and put to death she threw herself into the
flames so that no one might touch her body.
2
O mother, who with your seven sons nullified the violence of the tyrant, frustrated his evil designs, and showed
the courage of your faith!
3
Nobly set like a roof on the pillars of your sons, you held firm and unswerving against the earthquake of the
tortures.
4
Take courage, therefore, O holy-minded mother, maintaining firm an enduring hope in God.
4 Maccabees 16:14–17:23 (NRSV)
*
23
But the sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus of the fathers, and
have received pure and immortal souls from God,
*
20
To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.
67
See Fee, Philippians, 455; O’Brien, Philippians, 549–50.
*
21
Romans 1:21 (NRSV)
*
29
God (3:30*) proclaimed by the gospel. This doxology therefore prepares the way for the
climactic vision of 15:9–12*, in which all nations join in the chorus of glorifying God,68
picking up an important motif in traditional Jewish and early Christian worship of augmenting
divine glory by human praise.69 Only in the Pauline doxologies, however, can it be said that
cultural chauvinism is explicitly eliminated.
The “Amen” at the end of the doxology conforms to a pattern established in the Psalms, “to
attest the praise of God in response to a doxology.”70 In LXX Ps 41:13*; 72:19*; 89:52*;
106:48* the Hebrew “Amen” is translated with γένοιτο, γένοιτο (“so be it, so be it!”), which
captures the intended validation. Other Hellenistic Jewish writings simply transliterate the
Hebrew with the Greek ἀμήν,71 which Paul always employs. In synagogue worship, the
congregation affirms its “concurrence” in the praise of God by uttering “Amen!”72 In the
original doxology, the creation theology expressed therein is thereby affirmed by the
believing community.
As in the two earlier occurrences of “Amen” in Rom 1:25* and 9:5*, Paul expects the
congregation to confirm the specific theological point of his argument; there is explicit
confirmation of such a liturgical expectation in 1 Cor 14:16* where Paul asks, “how can
Romans 3:29 (NRSV)

*
30
same faith.
Romans 3:30 (NRSV)
*
9
10
11
12
shall hope.”
68
See du Toit, “Doxologische Gemeinschaft,” 75.
69
Champion, Benedictions and Doxologies, 95–97.
70
Heinrich Schlier, “ἀμήν,” TDNT 1 (1964) 335. Jenni, “Schlussformeln des Psalters,” 16–20, argues that the
concluding “Amen” was probably spoken by the believing community rather than sung.
*
13
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen.
Psalm 41:13 (NRSV)
*
19
Blessed be his glorious name forever; may his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen.
Psalm 72:19 (NRSV)
*
52
Blessed be the Lord forever. Amen and Amen.
Psalm 89:52 (NRSV)
*
48
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. And let all the people say, “Amen.”
Praise the Lord!
Psalm 106:48 (NRSV)
71
See BAGD (2000) 53.
72
Schlier, “ἀμήν,” 336; Bruce Chilton, “Amen,” ABD 1 (1992) 184–85.
*
25
Romans 1:25 (NRSV)
*
16
Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the “Amen”
to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying?
anyone in the position of an outsider say the ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving when he does not
know what you are saying?”73 So, in Rom 11:36*, the congregation is invited to assent to the
entire argument of the third proof, including the controversial “mystery” of Gentile and
Jewish conversion that counters the prejudicial inclinations in the various house and tenement
churches in Rome. By concurring in glorifying this one God of both Jews and Gentiles, they
take decisive steps against their own chauvinistic tendencies and open themselves to the
challenging project of the Spanish mission for which the entire letter provides a rationale.1
73
Schlier, “ἀμήν,” 336; Heckel, Segen, 308–12; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 239.
1
Robert Jewett et al., Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the
BibleMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006).

Jewett

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jewett

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9:1–5* The Third Proof

9 The First Pericope

1/ I am telling the truth in Christ,a I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness

IV. The probatio

Psalm 89:51 (NRSV)

9:6–18* The Third Proof

9 The Second Pericope

Romans 9:6–8 (NRSV)

IV. The probatio

Romans 3:2 (NRSV)

9:19–29* The Third Proof

9 The Third Pericope

IV. The probatio

Vitae Vitae philosophorum

Ephesians 3:16 (NRSV)

9:30–10:4* The Third Proof

9 The Fourth Pericope

IV. The probatio

10 The Fifth Pericope

Math. Adversus mathematicos

IV. The probatio

Romans 8:17 (NRSV)

10:14–21* The Third Proof

Romans 2:24 (NRSV)

Isaiah 52:7 (NRSV)

11:1–10* The Third Proof

Isaiah 50:5 (NRSV)

That 11:1–10* is an integral pericope is widely acknowledged in the commentaries.1 This

IV. The probatio

Romans 8:29 (NRSV)

1 Thessalonians 1:4 (NRSV)

Romans 14:13 (NRSV)

11:11–24* The Third Proof

Romans 11:16–18 (NRSV)

IV. The probatio

Romans 11:23 (NRSV)

Romans 5:15–19 (NRSV)

Galatians 2:9 (NRSV)

2 Corinthians 11:23 (NRSV)

Inst. Institio oratoria

Ephesians 2:5 (NRSV)

11 The Ninth Pericope

IV. The probatio

Romans 1:16 (NRSV)

Romans 1:5 (NRSV)

11:33–36* The Third Proof

Romans 11:33–36 (NRSV)

Romans 11:33 (NRSV)

IV. The probatio

4Q381 Non-Canonical Psalms B

Romans 3:29 (NRSV)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen