ISRAEL’S FAILURE: IT IS DERIVED FROM ITS OWN REFUSAL (9:30–10:21)
35. Israel Has Stumbled in Its Pursuit of Uprightness (9:30–33)
9 30 What then shall we say? That Gentiles who did not pursue uprightness have attained it, an uprightness based on faith, 31 whereas Israel, which was pursuing a law of uprightness, did not achieve it? 32 Why was this? Because they pursued it not with faith, but as if it were by deeds. They stumbled over “the stumbling stone,” 33 as it stands written: “Look, I am setting in Zion a stone to stumble against, a rock to trip over; and no one who believes in him shall be put to shame.”
COMMENT
Paul has concluded the first step in his treatment of Israel’s place in God’s new dispensation of salvation: what has happened to Israel does not mean that God has been unfaithful to his promises to it. God is still displaying his grace and mercy to it. Now Paul begins the second step, arguing that the cause of Israel’s failure is not to be found in God, but in Israel itself. What has happened to Israel is not contrary to God’s direction of human history, for its infidelity was already foreseen in the Scriptures of old. Rather, its situation is derived from its own misstep. In other words, in chap. 9 Paul has so far considered the problem of Israel from the standpoint of God; now he begins to consider it from the standpoint of Israel. Paul reveals here the reasons for his sorrow and anguish (9:2): pagans who have not even been trying to attain rectitude before God have reached that goal by faith and trust, whereas Israel, which was pursuing such a goal, has failed to do so. Pagans have responded to “God’s gospel” (1:1), whereas most of God’s own people have resisted it. What has gone wrong has caused Paul’s sorrow and anguish.
In this section Paul considers the problem of Israel and the Gentiles from both the human and the divine viewpoint. Israel’s misstep was in some sense part of God’s plan, but in reality it remains the fault of Israel. The tension between these viewpoints is realized by Paul, who in these chapters is facing the age-old problem of God’s foreknowledge and human responsibility and freedom. Paul does not have a clear-cut solution to this problem; he is interested only in safeguarding the faithfulness of God and in laying the blame where it should be laid.
Verses 30–33 are transitional to chap. 10, where the second step in his argument is mainly developed. From here to the end of chap. 10 the argument moves in four stages: (1) Israel has preferred its own way of uprightness to God’s way (9:30–33); (2) Paul expresses his sorrow that Israel has failed to recognize Christ as the end of the law, through whom uprightness has now been made attainable (10:1–4); (3) the old way of attaining uprightness was difficult and arduous, whereas the new way is easy, within the reach of all and proclaimed to all, as Scripture shows (10:5–13); and (4) Israel has not taken advantage of this opportunity offered by the prophets and the gospel; so the responsibility lies with it (10:14–21).
NOTES
9:30. What then shall we say? A diatribe-like rhetorical question advances the argument to a new stage. See the Note on 6:1.
That Gentiles who did not pursue uprightness have attained it. Paul stresses the irony of the situation in that some (not all) Gentiles have succeeded in the matter of uprightness by putting faith in Christ. They have sought this “harmonious relation with God from which alone life and salvation can spring. This relation was not a concern of the Gentile world, though its inharmonious and sinful life bore witness—to those who had ears to hear—to the lack of it. It was only under the preaching of the Gospel that they had discovered faith, stumbling upon it unexpectedly” (Barrett, Romans, 193). Recall 2:14. For such pagans the status of rectitude in the sight of God the Judge had not really been a goal to attain. The vb. diōkein means “hasten, run (after), press on” (to a goal); the figure is that of the racecourse, runners trying to reach the goal; cf. Phil 3:12, 14; Sir 11:10; 27:8; Lam 1:13. The “pursuit” of uprightness is an expression that Paul derives from the OT, from Prov 15:9, where it is contrasted with the “paths, ways” of the godless. See also Deut 16:20; Isa 51:1 (rōdēp ṣedeq); Wis 6:4. The pair of vbs. diōkein, “pursue,” and katalambanein, “attain,” is found in Exod 15:9; Sir 11:10; 27:8.
This part of the verse, beginning with hoti, is problematic. It is here taken as a second question, explaining tí oun eroumen in v 30a. This reading would make the rest of the verse conform to Paul’s usual practice of following up such an initial rhetorical question by a second one (as in 9:14). It makes, however, the introduction of the appositive in the following phrase somewhat difficult. An alternative would be to take this clause to be the answer to the initial rhetorical question, as Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 278–79) prefer.
an uprightness based on faith. Lit., “an uprightness from faith.” The rectitude that the Gentiles have attained is derived from faith in Christ Jesus and corresponds to the mode of uprightness revealed in Paul’s gospel. The full meaning of “faith” will be developed by Paul in chap. 10. See esp. 10:2–3. Note too that the contrast of uprightness here echoes what Paul has written in Phil 3:9.
31. whereas Israel, which was pursuing a law of uprightness, did not achieve it? Lit., “did not catch up with the law.” The verse thus expresses the anomaly of Israel vis-à-vis the mode of attaining uprightness in the sight of God. See 11:7. But Paul’s sentence is not clear; he undoubtedly means something like, “Israel was pursuing uprightness of the law, (but) did not achieve (such) uprightness,” i.e., did not reach the goal. Instead he inverts the words, using a phrase from Wis 2:11, and speaks of a “law of uprightness.” Thus in vv 30–31 Paul uses both dikaiosynē and nomos in a double sense.
The meaning of the phrase “a law of uprightness” has, however, been diversely understood. Since John Chrysostom (In ep. ad Romanos hom. 16.10 [PG 60.563]), many commentators have taken it to mean “the uprightness of/from the law” (tēn ek tou nomou dikaiosynēn), but that interpretation is abandoned today. The phrase could mean “the law that teaches uprightness” (so Thomas Aquinas; Huby, Romains, 360; Lagrange, Romains, 249), or “the law that demands uprightness” (Schlier, Römerbrief, 307), or “the law that promises uprightness” (so Schlier, ibid.; Cranfield, Romans, 508 n. 1; Käsemann, Commentary, 279; Meyer, “Romans 10:4,” 62; Rhyne, CBQ 47 [1985]: 489). It hardly means, however, the law “misused if treated as a means of attaining” uprightness, as Barrett would have it (Romans, 193). By this phrase Paul undoubtedly means a law that would lead Israel to uprightness. So he characterizes the Mosaic law, which he never says has been mistakenly identified by Israel; yet he does say that Israel has not caught up with “the law.” The problem is not with Israel’s goal, viz., “uprightness,” but with the way in which it sought to pursue it, as vv 16 and 32 make clear. For uprightness before God depends not on human will or exertion; it depends on God’s mercy.
There is also the problem of the meaning of “the law” that Israel did not “catch up with.” For Cranfield (Romans, 508), it would mean the object of Israel’s pursuit; similarly Michel (Brief an die Römer, 321 n. 5): eschatological goal (of the law). But Origen (In ep. ad Romanos 7.19 [PG 14.1155]) understood it as the law “of the Spirit,” in other words, the gospel; similarly Zahn (Römer, 470): “the law of faith.” The latter meaning is impossible.
Because of this inconcinnity, some MSS (א2, Ψ, and the Koinē text-tradition) and Latin and Syriac versions read nomon dikaiosynēs, “(they did not catch up with the) law of uprightness.” Yet most of the better MSS (P46, א*, A, B, D, F, G, 6, 81, 1739, etc.) read simply nomon. See 2:13; 11:7.
32. why was this? Lit., “for what reason?” Again, an imaginary interlocutor’s question advances the argument beyond Paul’s unexpected assertions in the previous verses.
Because they pursued it not with faith, but as if it were by deeds. Lit., “because not with faith, but as by deeds.” Some verb has to be supplied with these phrases. I have used ediōxan, following Cranfield (Romans, 509); but Käsemann (Commentary, 277) uses “did not live,” a verb that does not occur in the context. The vb. diōkein, however, creates something of a problem with the first phrase, because the uprightness of faith is a gift and is not really the object of pursuit. But that is precisely the problem: what verb can govern the two phrases in some identical sense?
Again, the two phrases could be an introduction to the statement that follows in the coming clause: “because they pursued … deeds, they stumbled.…” As Cranfield (Romans, 509) rightly notes, the pursuit of the goal was not wrong, but the mode of doing so had become inadequate. The contrast of pistis, “faith,” and erga, “deeds,” surfaces again; see 3:20, 28 and the Notes on 2:15 and 3:20. By “faith” Paul must mean faith in Christ, as patristic writers generally understood it (also Schlier, Römerbrief, 308; Refoulé, RB 92 [1985]: 179). Other commentators often understand it, however, as faith in God (e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 510; Lyonnet, Quaestiones ser. 2 [1962], 82). The real explanation of this problem will be given by Paul in 10:2, where he will speak of Israel’s “zeal for God,” which is, however, “not well informed.” How could Israel believe in Christ, if it were determined to pursue its goal “by deeds”? Cf. Isa 51:1; Wis 6:4.
Some MSS (אc, D, K, P, Ψ, 33, 81, 614, and the Koinē text-tradition) add nomou, “of the law,” after ergōn. That, however, is a copyist’s harmonization of the text with 3:20 and 28. The shorter form of the text is found in MSS P46, א*, A, B, G, and 1739, as well as some ancient versions.
They stumbled over “the stumbling stone.” Lit., “they have run into the block (stone) that causes one to stumble.” Running ahead madly in pursuit of a certain kind of uprightness, Israel has failed to see the obstacle on its rough road. It has failed to acknowledge Christ, him who is the meaning and goal of the law (10:4), which notion Paul anticipates here. This seems to be the sense of the following verse, in which Paul explains his position by quoting the OT.
Nevertheless, some commentators (P. W. Meyer, “Romans 10:4,” 64; Barrett, “Romans 9,30,” 112) refer it to the Torah itself, because there is no mention of Christ in the context. True, that understanding of the stumbling stone might fit this context, but then it gives to the law still another (questionably) negative role. So it seems better to stay with the usual interpretation: they stumbled over the gospel. Cf. 1 Cor 1:23.
According to Gager, Israel has stumbled because it has not “accepted the legitimacy of Paul’s gospel to and about the Gentiles” (The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 252). Once again such an interpretation unduly restricts Paul’s meaning. Israel has stumbled over the gospel of God’s uprightness (1:16), which proclaims faith in Christ Jesus, “that a human being is justified by faith apart from deeds prescribed by the law” (3:28; cf. 3:21–26; 10:5–13).
33. as it stands written. See the Note on 1:17.
“Look, I am setting in Zion a stone to stumble against, a rock to trip over; and no one who believes in him shall be put to shame.” Paul begins to quote Isa 28:16, but not exactly according to the LXX, and then introduces phrases from the LXX of Isa 8:14. The result is a conflation that disregards the contexts of the original and makes the OT say almost the opposite of what it actually does say. Paul thus accommodates Isaiah’s meaning to his own literary purpose.
According to the MT of Isa 28:16, the stone laid by Yahweh in Zion (the eastern hill of Jerusalem on which the Temple was built) was a symbol of salvation for those who trusted in him, and not in the arrogant rulers of Jerusalem: “Look, I am laying a stone in Zion, a stone that has been tested, a cornerstone valuable as a sure foundation; as for the one who trusts, it will not shake.” As Paul uses it, however, he makes the stone to be trusted into lithon proskommatos, “stone of stumbling,” a phrase derived from Isa 8:14, where Yahweh himself is so described for the disobedient two houses of Israel. What was meant to be a basis of security has become a stumbling block. Now, however, Paul makes the “stone” refer to Christ, and neglect of him makes the stone a stumbling block for the vast majority of Israel. Yet those who believe in him (the remnant and the Gentiles) will not come to grief over that stone. Paul thus adds a christological dimension to the stumbling of Israel; it is not merely disobedience to Yahweh, but now disobedience to the gospel of his Son. For those who pursue uprightness by their own deeds, hoi ek nomou, Christ has become the stone over which they stumble, whereas for those who believe, hoi ek pisteōs, he has become the cornerstone set up by God himself, on which they can build without fear of failure, shame, or stumbling. Thus Christ himself has become the source both of stumbling and of faith.
The prep. phrase epʾ autō, derived from the LXX of Isa 28:16, refers directly to masc. lithon, “stone,” but because that stone is understood to be “Christ,” it is usually translated, “(believes) in him”; it could also be “(trusts) in it,” or even “in him,” meaning God himself (so Meyer, Romans, 1157). See 10:11. In any case Paul quotes the Hebrew Scriptures, which themselves announce the stumbling stone, which is Christ. So Paul quotes against the Jews the authority of their own Scriptures.
Other NT writers have also made use of or alluded to Isa 28:16: 1 Pet 2:6–8; Matt 21:42; Luke 20:17; Eph 2:20; 2 Tim 2:19. See Oss, “The Interpretation.”
The Qumran sect also applied Isa 28:16 to itself, looking on its community as a temple: “This is the tested wall, the precious cornerstone; its foundations will not tremble; it will not shake from its place” (1QS 8:7–8). In the fourth-century Tg. of Isaiah the “stone” of the MT becomes “a king in Zion, a mighty king, heroic and awesome.” Thus it is understood in a personal sense, perhaps even in a messianic sense, if that is what is implied by “king” in this late Jewish text. Paul had earlier interpreted it in a personal sense without specifying Christ as Messiah. Pace Evans (“Paul”), it is highly unlikely that “this targumic tradition” of such a late date would have suggested such an interpretation to the Apostle.
Some MSS (K, P, Ψ, 33, 88, 326, 614, 1739 and the Koinē text-tradition) add pas, “all,” after kai in the second part of the quotation, which makes the quotation conform with the way it is quoted in 10:11. But MSS א, A, B, D, G, 81, 1881 and ancient versions omit pas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, C. K., “Romans 9:30–10:21: Fall and Responsibility of Israel,” Die Israelfrage, ed. L. de Lorenzi, 99–130.
Black, M., “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” NTS 18 (1971–72): 1–14.
Bring, R., “Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the Ideas of Election, Faith and Law in Paul, with Special Reference to Romans 9:30–10:30 [sic],” ST 25 (1971): 21–60.
Cranfield, C. E. B., “Romans 9:30–10:4,” Int 34 (1980): 70–74.
———, “Some Notes on Romans 9:30–33,” Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel …, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 35–43.
Dülmen, A. van, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus, SBM 5 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), 123–27.
Evans, C. A., “Paul and the Hermeneutics of ‘True Prophecy’: A Study of Romans 9–11,” Bib 65 (1984): 560–70.
Flusser, D., “From the Essenes to Romans 9:24–33,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 75–87.
Gordon, T. D., “Why Israel Did not Obtain Torah-Righteousness: A Translation Note on Rom 9:32,” WTJ 54 (1992): 163–66.
Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis, 157.
Meyer, P. W., “Romans 10:4 and the ‘End’ of the Law,” The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel (New York: Ktav, 1980), 59–78.
Müller, K., Anstoss und Gericht: Eine Studie zum jüdischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalonbegriffs (Munich: Kösel, 1969).
Oss, D.A., “The Interpretation of the ‘Stone’ Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study,” JETS 32 (1989): 181–200.
Refoulé, F., “Note sur Romains ix, 30–33,” RB 92 (1985): 161–86.
Roberts, J. J. M., “Yahweh’s Foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16),” JBL 106 (1987): 27–45.
Schreiner, T., “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3,” TrinJ 12 (1991): 209–20.
Via, D. O., Jr., “A Structuralist Approach to Paul’s Old Testament Hermeneutic,” Int 28 (1974): 201–20.
Veldhuizen, A. van, “Rom. 9:30–33,” ThStud 29 (1911): 439.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please only leave comment If you are interested in the topic discussed above. No spam will be tolerated so don't even try to spam my readers.