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.
