Journal: Westminster Theological JournalVolume: WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011)Article: Zeal Without Knowledge: For What Did Paul Criticize His Fellow Jews In Romans 10:2-3?Author: Dane C. Ortlund

Zeal Without Knowledge: For What Did Paul Criticize His Fellow Jews InRomans 10:2-3?

Dane C. OrtlundBiblical Studies

Dane Ortlund (Ph.D., Wheaton College Graduate School) is Senior Editor in the Bible Division at Crossway inWheaton, Ill.

I. IntroductionDscussions continue to proliferate concerning the nature of Pauls break with the Judaism in which he hadbeen immersed from youth. A key component to this area of investigation is the precise nature of Paulscriticism of his fellow Jews as he looked back on their life, which was once his. One fruitful window into thisdiscussion is Pauls use of zeal-language in describing the Judaism he had known from the inside. Pauldescribes his own pre-Damascus1 life in terms of zeal in Gal 1:14 (being extremely zealous for thetraditions of my fathers) and Phil 3:6 (as to zeal, persecuting the church). In Rom 10:2 Paul looks from thevantage point of his new life in Christ not at his own past but at his fellow Jews: They have a zeal for God,but not according to knowledge.2 It is this latter text with which we deal in this essay, concentrating on thefirst three verses of Rom 10 en route to understanding precisely what Paul means when he says that hisfellow countrymen possess zeal but not knowledge.Utilizing a distinction made by some, though mindful that any strict disjunction between these categories isartificial, we approach this text asking whether the zeal mentioned by Paul has primarily a horizontal orvertical denotation.3

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 24Is the zeal for God of Rom 10:2 preponderantly a zeal that seeks to obey and thus contribute to ones ownstanding before God (vertical) or a zeal that seeks to protect the ethnic set-apartness of the Jewish nation(horizontal)? One must bear in mind the salutary reminders of some that vertical and horizontaldimensions to Pauls thought ought not to be played off against each other as mutually exclusive options.4After all, circumcision, dietary regulations, and sabbatarianism were themselves, for the Jew, acts ofobedience as well as actions that set them off from Gentiles. Still, with appropriate cautions against artificialbifurcations in place, recent scholarship dictates that greatest clarity will come if we proceed with thiscategorization.A focus on zeal in Rom 10 as a fruitful avenue into the heart of current Pauline discussions is particularlyapt in that with the exception of James Dunn, no one has given concentrated and recurring attention to zealin Paul.5 Dunn argues in numerous places that the zeal of which Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) isnationalistic, involving three interrelated dimensions.6 First, this zeal seeks to uphold Israels ethnicdistinctiveness. Second, such aggressive loyalty may require the use of violence. Third, this violence mayneed to be directed not only toward encroaching Gentiles but also compromising fellow Jews.7 It is the firstof these, in particular, on which Dunn repeatedly focuses.Based upon a close reading of Rom 10:2-3, we argue that inter-cultural exclusivism fueled by concern forcorporate ethnic set-apartness is undeniably a concern at numerous points in Pauls letters, not least Rom9-11.8 Pauls very identity is apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13; cf. Gal 2:7-9; 1 Tim 2:7). Yet this theme issecondary in Rom 10:2-3. Pauls primary critique of his fellow Jews here is not their resistance to Gentile

inclusion but the mindset with which they approach God. In what follows we examine Rom 10:1-3 in detail,beginning with

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 25some contextual remarks and concluding with three synthetic observations about this text. Our thesis is thatDunn has emphasized an admittedly crucial dimension to Jewish zeal (the horizontal) to the neglect of themore fundamental meaning of zeal in Rom 10:2 (the vertical). This is a zeal to obeyincluding, but not tobe centrally defined as, ethnic set-apartness.

II. Exegesis Of Romans 10:1-31. Contextual RemarksIn Rom 9:6, Paul asserts that Gods word to Israel has not failed, of which the rest of 9-11 is demonstration.9The apostle defends Gods faithfulness first by affirming Gods absolute right to do as he wills (9:6-29) andthen by identifying Israels own failure (9:30-10:21). Romans 9:30-10:3 forms a bridge between these twocomponents of Pauls theodicy. After establishing OT support for Gentile-inclusion from Hosea and Isaiah,Paul pauses to reflect ( ) on what he has been saying. He articulates the paradox thatdespite not pursuing righteousness, Gentiles have attained itthe righteousness of faith (9:30). Israel, onthe other hand, pursuing a law of righteousness,10 has not attained what they anticipated (9:31), for theypursued the law as if it could be lived out by a principle of works rather than faith (9:32a).11 This led them tostumble over Christ, who became for Israel a stone over which they tripped rather than the culmination of alltheir hopes and that toward which the law led (9:32b-33).

2. Romans 10:1This brings us to ch. 10, the first four verses of which largely parallel 9:30-33.12 Although it is true that theGentiles only feature in 9:30-33 (while in 10:1-4 Paul

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 26zeroes in on Israel), both passages explain that despite the presence of a truly laudable element (9:31a;10:2a), Israel has failed to attain their goal (9:31b; 10:2b-3) due to undertaking it in the wrong way (9:32a;10:2b-3) and being blind to Christ (9:32b-33; 10:4).In 10:1 Paul launches into an agonizing affirmation of his desire () for their salvation. Despite all theadvantages that are theirs by birth (Rom 3:1-8; 9:3-5), Paul considers his fellow countrymen to be lost, apoint already underscored in 9:3I could wish that I myself were accursed [] and cut off fromChrist for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the fleshthe logical implication being that asignificant number of Pauls countrymen are accursed and cut off from Christ.13 Heikki Risnen fails tosee this when he comments that in Rom 9-10 Paul did not assume that the Jews were a massa perditionisfrom the moral point of view. On the contrary, they were aiming at righteousness (Rom 9.31) and displayingzeal for God (Rom 10.2).14 Against Risnen, these two options ought not to be considered mutuallyexclusive. Both might be true. Perhaps, for Paul, the lostness of his fellow Jews may have been not onlycompatible with but even organically tied up with their zeal for Goda point to which we will return below.

3. Romans 10:2Probing the reason for this lostness moves us into 10:2. Paul says that he testifies to his compatriots thatthey have a zeal for God ( ), but not according to knowledge ( ). Three comments are in order at this point concerning this , a phrase to which wewill return after addressing and then v. 3.First, this zeal is for God .15 Such a construction occurs frequently in the OT (e.g., Num 25:13; 1 Kgs 19:10,

14; 2 Kgs 10:16), whereas intertestamental Judaism, with a slightly different emphasis, more often refers tozeal for the law (e.g., 1 Macc 2:26, 27, 50, 58; 1QS 9.23; 4Q258 8.7; 4Q259 4.5; though see T. Ash. 4:5).Second, to reiterate briefly the general parallel noted above between 9:30-33 and 10:1-4, they have a zealfor God in 10:2 parallels Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness in 9:31.16 Each indicates that Israelsearnest devotion, though

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 27undertaken in the wrong manner (on which more below) is not only undeniable but even commendable.Third, then, there is no indication that this zeal itself (nor the pursuit of 9:31) is in any way defective.17 Paulelsewhere speaks of in terms devoid of any negative connotation (e.g., 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1, 12, 39; 2Cor 7:7, 11; 9:2; 11:2; Titus 2:14; cf. Acts 22:3). And the LXX had already established the value of pursuingrighteousness (Prov 15:9; Sir 27:8), using the same terms as Paul does in 9:31 ( and ;Sir 27:8 also uses ). Brendan Byrne therefore rightly glosses the zeal of Rom 10:2 assingle-minded, unswerving loyalty to the God of the covenant.18Israels problem emerges when the final clause of v. 2 is dialed in. Paul explains the lostness of his fellowJews, despite their zeal, by asserting that this zeal is . We limit ourselves to twoobservations concerning this knowledge before moving to v. 3, which explains Israels ignorance andwhich will direct us full-circle back to v. 2 and a delineation of this knowledge-deficient zeal.First, has been used twice before in Romans. In 1:28 Paul says that godless Gentiles did notsee fit to acknowledge God ( ), resulting in Godsfurther handing them over to their debased passions. The sense is not essentially cerebral cognizance orperceptionon the contrary, God has made himself manifest to all in the created order (1:19-20)butrather spiritual or moral recognition, due acknowledgement of God, perhaps with a connotation ofreverence.19 The second occurrence is 3:20: through the law comes knowledge of sin []. Here is again in the moral realm, denoting a spiritual awareness of bondageunder sin (3:9) and accountability before God (3:19).20 Both 1:28 and 3:20, then, include a strong moraldimension to as opposed to, say, 2:18, where Paul affirms the Jews knowledge (using) of Gods will, a knowledge closer to cognitive comprehension of the injunctions of God.21Second, just as zeal for God (10:2) echoes the pursuit of the law of righteousness (9:31), so not accordingto knowledge in 10:2 parallels not of

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 28faith but as of works in 9:32.22 The positive attributions to Israel (zeal, pursuit of the law) are mitigated byPauls diagnosis of a critical missing elementknowledge (10:2-3), faith (9:31-32). In both instances,earnest activity exists, laudable in its own right, yet with some fundamentally misguided dimension thatinfects and ultimately renders damning the otherwise praiseworthy efforts of Israel.23

4. Romans 10:3All this brings us to v. 3, which explains the ignorance of v. 2. Syntactically, v. 3 is built around two participles( and ) and an indicative verb (). Thus: being ignorant . . . seeking(to establish) . . . they did not submit . . . . Three contested terms must be immediately clarified if we are tomake precise sense of what Paul is diagnosing here as Israels failure: righteousness (),establish (), and their own (). We take them in this order.In opening with , v. 3 provides the content of the lacking in v. 2. Thisignorance, says Paul, is of . Arriving at this phrase puts us at the brink of afirestorm of discussion, to which many significant studies have been devoted.24 We limit ourselves to a fewbrief comments. in 9:30-10:3 primarily refers to right standing before God, a status of right-ness in the

presence of a just God.25 Specifically in 10:3, Paul speaks of submitting to this righteousness, indicating that here includes the idea that this righteousness is accessed by receptive faith as a gift.26Israel is

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 29ignorant of the righteousness or salvation that comes from God, refuses to submit to it in the sense that itrefuses to receive righteousness as a gift from God and seeks to acquire it by herself.27 Paul is concerned,in the first instance, with submitting to the righteousness of God the righteousness offered wholly by Godand therefore received as a gift of grace. Such a reading is encouraged by the way righteousness of Godin 10:3 functions in a conceptually similar way to righteousness of faith in 9:30 and 10:6. Therighteousness of faith is thus neither a righteous human status that consists of faith nor a transformationwrought by faith so much as the righteous status given freely and wholly by God and therefore accessedonly by human faith.28 This is in accord with what is made more explicit in Phil 3:9the righteousness fromGod [ ] which is by faith.This is not to say that a notion of status abstractly conceived exhausts what Paul has in mind in referring tothe in 10:3. After all, Gods righteousness in Rom 3:21-22 is identified as his savingactivity in Christ, indicating a christological focus; and in 1:17, while Christ is not explicitly mentioned, Paullikely has Christ in mind, since the righteousness of God there is revealed, not given or submitted to.29It may not be inappropriate, then, to hear echoes of Gods saving activity in Christ in the reference to the in 10:3 as well,30 especially in light of the way Paul explicitly brings in Christ in 10:4. Inother words, in describing the righteousness of 10:3 in terms of status we do not mean static; therighteousness of God to which Israel did not submit is brimming with christological and eschatologicalimport, as Ridderbos in particular

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 30helpfully brings out.31 We must be careful, then, in describing in 10:3 as a freely givenstatus, not to dissociate this from Christ, the supreme revelation of Gods righteousness.Still, in 10:3 should be understood essentially as a genitive of origin or source.32 Pauls fellow Jewswere not submitting to a righteousness from God, revealed in Christ and received through self-divestingfaith. To say this is not to opt for an abstract, ahistorical, or de-personalized concept of righteousness.Gods righteousness as understood here remains relational through and through, a frequent emphasis ofDunns understanding of Gods righteousness.33 It is precisely on account of this new standingsin andguilt having been dealt with in Christ (Rom 3:19-26; 5:1-2; 8:1-3)that fellowship with God is restored. Yetthis ought not to detract from the broader norm dimension of Gods righteousness (most clearly evident inRom 3:25-26), clarified for us by Seifrid and probably in the semantic background of 10:3.34 Nor does ourunderstanding of Gods righteousness as the gift of right standing preclude the equally Pauline truth thatrighteousness in the sense of ethical transformation in those united to Christ is inextricably linked to theforensic gift of a new status (cf. Rom 14:17 in the context of 14:10-12). Ethical transformation is not,however, the meaning of righteousness in Rom 10:3. Thus, while one can appreciate Ksemannssweeping, cosmic understanding of Gods righteousness, and our discussion does not want to deny thecreational and corporate dimensions to which the righteousness of God ultimately leads, this is not theforegrounded denotation in Rom 10:3.35 Yet with these various qualifiers set in place, it makes most senseto see the main sense of in 10:3 as the divinely provided gift of unearned right standingbefore God, accessed by faith in Christ.36The second term needing clarification in 10:3 is (from ), normally translated establish. Pauluses this term five other times in Romans. In

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 313:31, for instance, he says, we uphold [] the law. Elsewhere it refers to standing in the sense

of being firmly founded or immovably established (5:2; 11:20; 14:4 [2x]; cf. 1 Cor 7:37; 10:12; 15:1; 2 Cor1:24).37 Some object to translating the instance in Rom 10:3 with establish38 as this implies mustering uprighteousness ex nihilo when in fact, as Sanders has shown, Jews were living under the assumption thattheir standing in Gods favor had already been established from the start by virtue of being born into thecovenant. This standing required maintenance by consistently (not perfectly) adhering to Torah andappropriating the relevant sacrifices for atonement when necessary, but it would not have been consideredas requiring human establishment.39The point is well taken that a born-and-bred Jew would not consider Yahweh remote and aloof, relationallyaccessible only upon furious moral striving. Yahweh had himself graciously called Israel into covenantrelationship with himself. Yet the objection misses the point in that even seeking to confirm or maintain theirown righteousness as of works falls under Pauls critique. The translation establish is appropriate even inlight of the gracious election of the Jews evident in the Jewish literature, as it is possibleperhaps evencommonthat Jews who had already gotten in would have been tempted to strengthen that right standingby their own efforts. Theobald thus rightly argues for translating here with aufrichten (to raise,erect) rather than (as Haacker does) aufrechterhalten (to maintain, uphold),40 though to exclude a senseof maintaining or upholding righteousness here would be an unhelpful disjunction.The foregoing interpretation, however, has assumed a certain reading of that must bedefended, bringing us to the third term in need of attention. Some see their own as meaning their ownrighteousness as ethnic Jews (over against Gentiles),41 others as their own righteousness as dutiful law-observers

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 32(over against God).42 The first reading looks out, the second up. We take the latter viewwhich is not anaccusation of haughty self-righteousness but simply a reading of their own as belonging preponderantly(not exclusively) not to the social but to the ethical realm. This is for six reasons. Before outlining these weunderscore once more that to see one of these options as dominant is not to extinguish its alternative:righteousness vis--vis Gentiles and righteousness vis--vis God are not mutually exclusive options. For thefaithful Jew, for instance, protection of national purity was itself an issue of ethics, a matter of obedience.Still, recent trends in interpreting this text legitimate the query of what is in the foreground of Pauls meaningin this text.First, the immediately following clause (they did not submit to the righteousness of God) suggests aprimarily vertical reading. Paul did not write that the Jews, seeking to establish their own righteousness, didnot welcome Gentiles into that covenant status. Their own righteousness is set in antithesis to therighteousness of God. It is a question of the source, not the scope, of their righteousness.43 Second, onefinds OT precedent for a contrast between human righteousness and divine righteousness (e.g., Deut 9:4-6;Ezek 14:13-14; 33:17). While a passage such as Deut 9 also speaks on a horizontal level of the surroundingnations, this serves to highlight the wickedness of these nations in making the point that it is not the moraluprightness of Israel that prompted Gods expulsion of the nations from Israels path but the moral povertyof the nations themselves. Third, as intimated above, Phil 3:9 underscores our reading. There Paul wishesto gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own [ ] thatcomes from law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God [ ] that depends on faith. Here too a human righteousness (though, as Westerholm notes,more emphatically placed in individual terms44) is set in antithesis to a divine righteousness, arighteousness explicitly identified as .45

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 33Fourth, of God is fronted in the first instance of righteousness of God in 10:3, perhaps indicating anemphasis on this righteousness being from God.46 Fifth, in light of the parallels already adduced between

9:30-33 and 10:1-4 as well as the parallel between the righteousness of God . . . apart from the law andthe righteousness of God through faith in Rom 3:21-22,47 righteousness of God in 10:3 is probablyparallel to righteousness of faith in 9:30 (cf. 10:6) in a way that contrasts humanly achieved with divinelygranted righteousness. Sixth, the ensuing context appears to confirm a fundamentally vertical reading oftheir own. For in the verses that follow 10:3, nothing is said about Gentile inclusion until 10:11-13. Whilespace limitations prevent a detailed reading of vv. 4-10,48 the thrust of this section of Pauls argument dealswith a personified contrast between the righteousness from the law (v. 5) and the righteousness fromfaith (v. 6), the latter of which is then further explained in terms of another contrast between salvation andjustification, on the one hand (vv. 9-10), and ascending into heaven or descending into the abyss by onesown self-resourced qualifications or disqualifications on the other (vv. 6-7). Helpful here is Moo, who pointsout that do not say in your heart in Rom 10:6 is drawn from Deut 9:4, which goes on to speak of a self-achieved righteousness: Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust [the nations] outbefore you, It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land . . . (9:4-5).49This reading of their own does not necessitate viewing Israels establishment of righteousness as rife withsmug haughtiness.50 Such an attitude may have existed. To put the matter in perspective, however, it is noless evident that moral haughtiness can exist among many Christians, back then or today, in spite ofavowed acknowledgments of grace. The point is that this righteousness-establishment, regardless of thedegree to which pride is involved, is concerned most fundamentally with obedience and juxtaposed with God(vertically), rather than with ethnic boundary-guarding and juxtaposed with Gentiles (horizontally). This is notto eliminate all traces of ethnic exclusivism. It is to say that whatever ethnic exclusivism existed wassubsumed within Pauls primary concern in 10:3. Israel sought to establish its own righteousness indistinction from Gentiles but did this because, in an organically connected but even more fundamental way,they sought to establish their own righteousness rather than self-divestingly receive Gods.

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 34

5. Synthesis Of Romans 10:1-3We are now in a position to return to Pauls notion of zeal without knowledge in 10:2. Our analysisculminates in three concluding observations: the nature of Israels ignorance; the focus of their zeal; and,bringing the two together, the heart of Pauls critique in Rom 10:2-3.First, knowledge in the context of the flow of thought in this passage appears to be the spiritualperception, superlatively clarified in light of the salvation-historical shift inaugurated with the Christ event,that right standing with God is freely given, appropriated through trust in the stone, Christ, and thusrequiring personal divestment of all self-resourced contribution to that standing .51 This is conceptuallysimilar to 1 Tim 1:13, which joins knowledge/ignorance with faith/unbelief when it speaks of actingignorantly [] in unbelief [ ] (cf. 2 Tim 2:25).52 Faith and knowledge are againcoordinated in Eph 4:13 and Phlm 6. The OT provides precedence for such faith-circumscribed or spirituallyperceptive knowledge (e.g., Ps 119:66; Prov 22:17-19; Isa 43:10; Hos 4:1, 6-7; 6:6). Perhaps another cluethat we are on the right track regarding knowledge in Rom 10:2 is the way Paul sets gospel in parallel withknowledge (here ) in 2 Cor 4:4, 6.53 Aletti thus puts it well, drawing on the end of Rom 10 as hedescribes Israels failure in 10:1-3: Leur ignorance ne vient pas de ce quils nont pas connu ou comprislvangile (vv. 18-19), mais de ce quils nont pas voulu le connatre (v. 21).54 To summarize, Israelsignorance was anthropological (ignorance of the depth of their moral inability and the potential for even zealto go awry), christological (ignorance of Jesus as Gods means of divinely provided righteousness), andsalvation-historical (ignorance of the new age that had dawned in Christ).55Second, i n Rom 10:2 denotes Jewish ardency to discharge the injunctions of Torah holisticallyconceived, with an eye toward God . The fatal combination of this zeal with blindness to Gods

righteousness, however, resulted in this lawkeeping being carried out in such a way that resisted Gods freeapprobation through faith in Christ. To be sure, such obedience would be circumscribed not by a vaguemoral sense of the good, as some Hellenistic philosophies might, but by the ethnically

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 35circumscribed Torah.56 Among the most conspicuous manifestations of such lawkeeping, moreover, wouldbe those elements that visibly set one off from Gentiles, such as dietary regulations and sabbatarianism.This would especially be true in times of inter-cultural upheaval, such as that described in 1 Macc 2.Yet some have taken this ethnic dimension to zeal too far and unhelpfully restricted the sense of Rom 10:2.The trouble with Israels zeal, writes Dunn of this text, was that it was too nationalistically centered, toomuch concerned to defend national prerogative as the people of (the one) God.57 Pauline zeal is adedication to maintain Israels set-apartness to God.58 Others understand this zeal similarly, such as E.Elizabeth Johnson, Don Garlington, and N. T. Wright.59 To be sure, it would be artificial and simplistic todisentangle cleanly the ethical or moral from the nationalistic or ethnic. Both vertical and horizontalmotivations were organically intertwined for ancient Jews. Maintenance of ethnic distinction was, after all, forthe Jew an act of obedience to God. And those acts of obedience that were not particularly boundary-reinforcingsay, the command to love ones neighborwere enjoined upon the Jew by the Torah, the lawgiven to them as a nation. Yet Dunn has fixated on one kind of expression of Jewish obediencethat whichmost visibly reinforced Israels ethnic distinctivenessin such a way that throws Pauls true concern out ofbalance. Whereas Dunn and others see zeal in Paul as earnest devotion to God, the God of Israel , it ismore accurate to emphasize that zeal in Paul is earnest devotion to God , the God of Israel. Zeal in Rom10:2 includes but ought not to be limited to nationalistic concerns.60 It is, in short, a zeal to obey.61Third, bringing together all that has been said thus far, Pauls articulation of Israels fault in Rom 10:2-3 is,counterintuitively, concerned not with their failure to discharge the law but with their success. It is not opentrespass but something about the way Israel has been doing the Torah that Paul sees as problematic.62 Inone sense,

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 36of course, doing the law in the way of which Paul is accusing Israel (namely, as of works; not according toknowledge) is not in fact doing the law. Nevertheless, Israels fault is bound up with their pursuit of (notdisdain for) the law and their zeal for (not contempt of) God.Hbner has drawn this out with particular force, explaining that Pauls diagnosis of his fellow Jews error inRom 10:1-3 is the polar opposite (geradezu entgegengesetzter Weise) of the error articulated in Rom 2, inwhich the accusation is indeed outright transgression.

Wegen seines unbestreitbaren Eifers fr Gott kann in 10,2 nicht die bertretung der Gebotedes Gesetzes durch Israel gemeint sein. Nein, in nomistischer Weise, darin freilich Gott undsein Gesetz vllig miverstehend und somit pervertierend, versuchten die zum Volke IsraelGehrenden (nicht alle, aber wohl die Majoritt, 9,6ff.) ihre eigene Gerechtigkeit vor Gott zustellen, se coram Deo pro-stituere, .63

Hbner then makes the link with Rom 2 by arguing that both texts fall generally under the indictment ofSich-Rhmen, even though occurs only in the earlier context (2:17, 23).64 It may beillegitimate to identify self-glory in 9:30-10:4; Paul does not explicitly articulate the psychological state of hisfellow Jews, and attributions of legalistic works righteousness as the modus operandi of Second TempleJews by appeal to passages such as Rom 9:30-10:4 ought to be set aside once and for all. In acommentary as recent as 2008, Dmitri Royster speaks of the zeal of Rom 10:2 in terms of pride, judgment,self-righteousness and elitism, not to mention unkindness.65 The unfortunate but deeply embeddedstereotype of early Judaism as a categorically legalistic religion is still uncritically absorbed by too manytoday. The point remains, however, as Vos, Stuhlmacher, Schlier, and Wilckens all note, that Paul puts his

finger here on an infected law-doing , not a more obvious law-breaking .66 This is not a reversion to the oldBultmannian paradigm by which any attempt to keep the law at all is already sinful.67 Against Bultmann, it isnot the discharging of the law itself but the manner in which it is discharged that is problematic; not pursuitof the law, but pursuit of the law as of works; not zeal, but zeal without knowledge.In brief, the zeal of Rom 10:2 is a Jewish fervency to keep Torah which, when divorced from knowledge ofand submission to the gift-nature of Gods righteousness, funnels into the misplaced attempt to establishones

WTJ 73:1 (Spring 2011) p. 37own righteousness. While this zeal would include in its manifestation those elements of Torah that markedoff Jews from their Gentile neighbors, ethnically distinguishing markers would themselves be subsumedwithin the broader concern of obedience to the law.

III. ConclusionThere is nothing that belongs to Christian experience that is more liable to a corrupt mixture than zeal,wrote Jonathan Edwards.68 Mature Christian self-awareness understands the universal human proclivity tobe tempted to find emotional and psychological security, in subtle and even self-deceiving ways, in personalobedience to a religious norm. Such a norm might be self-imposed, a construct of conscience. Or it may beadherence to an externally imposed ethical norm. Yet, as such zeal emerges from a fleshly heart, a heartnot transformed by the Spirit, such zealous rule-keeping will be opposed to, not evincing of, the gospel ofChrist.69 Zeal did not, after all, find its way onto the Apostles list of what he described as the fruit of theSpirit (Gal 5:22-23) but it was described instead as a work of the flesh (5:19-20). Paul had come to see,as Schlatter puts it, the way in which zeal for works [Eifer fr das Werk ] regularly was the death of faith andhow trivialization of divine grace resulted from reliance on ones own achievements.70As Paul looked around at his fellow Jews, he saw much of the same blindness (cf. 2 Cor 4:4-6) to which hehimself had been subject before the Damascus Roada blindness to Gods gracious provision in Christswork, the personal appropriation of which requires nothing but the faith that lays down the subtle thoughresilient efforts to self-resource partial mitigation of ones moral inadequacy, and looks to Christ.1

In what follows we refer to Pauls life before and after the Damascus Road experience as pre-Damascusand post-Damascus, respectively, rather than pre-conversion and post-conversion. One need notendorse everything argued by Stendahls influential article, The Apostle Paul and the IntrospectiveConscience of the West, HTR 56 (1963): 199-215, to appreciate the point that the post-Damascus Paul didnot consider himself to have changed religions; he viewed his new understanding of and submission toChrist as comprising the culmination of, not the antithesis to, Judaism.2

The root - occurs 36 times in the NT (excluding ): 16 as the noun , 8 as the noun, 11 as the verb , and once as the verb . Twenty-one of these occur in Paul. Theinstances in both the NT generally and Paul specifically are used in both negative and positive senses.3

The categories vertical and horizontal are used by, e.g., Haddon Willmer, Vertical and Horizontal inPauls Theology of Reconciliation in the Letter to the Romans, Transformation 24 (2007): 151-60; MichaelBird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective (Eugene,Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 1, 101-2, 153, 182 (implicitly endorsed by James D. G. Dunn, The NewPerspective on Paul [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 20 n. 82); Dunn, New Perspective , 208-10;G. K. Beale, The Overstated New Perspective? BBR 19 (2009): 92; Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting theCruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2009), 45, 48-53, 58, 61, 87-90, 102-3.4

James D. G. Dunn, The Dialogue Progresses, in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beitrge zueinem Schlsselproblem der gegenwrtigen exegetischen Diskussion (ed. Michael Bachmann; WUNT 182;Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 405; Dunn, New Perspective , 29 n. 112; N. T. Wright, Justification: GodsPlan and Pauls Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), 126-27, 169.5

See esp. his The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 346-55; cf. 366-76, 514-16; also his The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC 9; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 60-62; Romans (2vols.; WBC 38; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), 2:586-87, 596; The Partings of the Ways between Christianityand Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991), 121-22; NewPerspective, 11-12, 31 n. 117, 37, 360-62, 374, 478; New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Nashville:Abingdon, 2009), 101-3; Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 339-46.6

One must beware of anachronism in using the term nationalism; we employ it throughout this study asDunn does, to speak of religio-ethnic distinctiveness(The Dialogue Progresses, 407).7

Dunn, Theology of Paul , 351; Dunn, New Perspective , 361.8

Vincent M. Smiles may overly downplay this dimension to Rom 10:2: e.g., zeals concern was law-observance in order to maintain the covenant, not in order to exclude Gentiles(The Concept of Zeal inSecond-Temple Judaism and Pauls Critique of It in Romans 10:2, CBQ 64 [2002]: 297).9

Dunn, Romans, 2:539; Dunn, Theology of Paul , 501; Michael Theobald, Studien zum Rmerbrief (WUNT136; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 335-36; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia;Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 571.10

Probably the Mosaic law viewed as a witness to righteousness (Douglas Moo, Law, Works of the Law,and Legalism in Paul, WTJ 45 [1983]: 78 n. 22); cf. Hans Hbner, Gottes Ich und Israel: ZumSchriftgebrauch des Paulus in Rmer 9-11 (FRLANT 136; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 61-63, 65.11

We do not have space to address the debated question of what Paul means by works in 9:32; for defensesof our interpretation of here as general obedience to Torah, see A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, andthe Covenant (Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, 2001), 237-42; Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law inRomans 9-11, in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 223-29. Cf. Rom 9:11-12; 11:5-6.12

See esp. David J. Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosyne withinMetaphoric and Narratorial Settings (WUNT 2/240; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 217-21, 230-32; alsoUlrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer (3 vols.; 2d ed.; EKK 6; Zrich: Benziger, 1978), 2:218; Hans-Martin Lbking, Paulus und Israel im Rmerbrief: Eine Untersuchung zu Rm 9-11 (EHS 260; Frankfurt:Peter Lang, 1986), 84; Jean-Nol Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interprter lptre auxRomains (Paris: ditions du Seuil, 1991), 122; Thomas R. Schreiner, Israels Failure to AttainRighteousness in Romans 9:30-10:3, TJ 12 (1991): 214-15; Per Jarle Bekken, The Word Is Near You: A

Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Pauls Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context (BZNW 144; Berlin: deGruyter, 2007), 162, 169-70, 220.13

See Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 548-49, 632 n.8. Douglas A. Campbells assertion that in the series of Jewish privileges in Rom 9:4, there is no realdespair here fails to read 9:4 in light of 9:1-3 (The Quest for Pauls Gospel: A Suggested Strategy[JSNTSup 274; London: T&T Clark, 2005], 169).14

Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 108 n. 80; emphasis original.15

An objective genitive; see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to theRomans (2 vols.; ICC 32; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979), 2:514; Otto Kuss, Der Rmerbrief (3 vols.;Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963-1978), 3:749-50; Dunn, Romans, 2:586; Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr,Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jdische Identitt des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT62; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 28; Simon Lgasse, Lptre de Paul aux Romains (LD Commentaires10; Paris: Cerf, 2002), 656 n. 11.16

Schreiner, Romans 9.30-10.3, 215; Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the NewPerspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 23, 328, 330.17

Cranfield, Romans, 2:514; Dunn rightly points out that there was nothing inherently wrong in the pursuit ofthe law in 9:31-32 (New Perspective , 384 n. 8); contra John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness inPaul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972),205; Otfried Hofius, All Israel Will Be Saved: Divine Salvation and Israels Deliverance in Romans 9-11,PSB Supplementary Issue 1 (1990): 24; and Mark A. Seifrid, who writes that Paul does not contemplate(nor could he conceive of) a doing the law by faith, which some imagine to find in 9:30-33 (Romans, inCommentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; GrandRapids: Baker, 2007], 653).18

Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1996), 311.19

See esp. Hbner, Gottes Ich und Israel , 74. Cf. Moo, Romans, 117; Jewett, Romans, 181-82; Gerhard H.Visscher, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise (Studies in BiblicalLiterature 122; New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 60. Erwin Ochsenmeier connects the connaissance of 1:28with that of 10:2 (Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1-3: tude exgtique et thologique[BZNW 155; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007], 87 n. 171).20

See Hbner, Gottes Ich und Israel , 74-75.21

Cf. Moo, Romans, 210 n. 67.22

Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness, 219, 231.23

Thus it is simplistic to decide between a positive view of the law in 9:30-10:8 and a negative one, as C.

Marvin Pate does, opting for the negative view (The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law[WUNT 2/114; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 244, 248). A distinction must be made between the law asconsidered in itself (holy, righteous, and good) and the law as it engages human sin (by which the lawbecomes an agent of failure). Rightly Geerhardus Vos, The Alleged Legalism in Pauls Doctrine ofJustification, in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos(ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 388-91.24

E.g., Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2d ed.; FRLANT 87; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1966); Karl Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus: Studien zur Struktur und zumBedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs (2d ed.; NTAbh 3; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1967);Ziesler, Righteousness in Paul; Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of aCentral Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992); Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: PaulsTheology of Justification (New Studies in Biblical Theology 9; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000);Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective(Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2007).25

So John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), 2:48-49; Cranfield, Romans, 2:515; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexical Semantics of the GreekNew Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on SemanticDomains (SBLRBS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 99. Similarly Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of theApostles (trans. Andreas J. Kstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 235 (cf. Hans-Martin Rieger, AdolfSchlatters Rechtfertigungslehre und die Mglichkeit kumenischer Verstndigung [AzTh 92; Stuttgart:Calwer, 2000], though Rieger rarely integrates Rom 10:3 into his discussion).26

See John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (ed. and trans. JohnOwen; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 383; Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 38, 149; Schlatter,Theology of the Apostles , 217, 279.27

Brice L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul (NovTSup 62; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 138. SimilarlyWesterholm, Perspectives Old and New , 390, 399. Contra Robert Badenas, who writes that Israels refusalto submit cannot mean anything but Israels rejection of Christ (Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 inPauline Perspective [JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985], 110); similarly Robert B.Sloan, Paul and the Law: Why the Law Cannot Save, NovT 33 (1991): 56-60. A focus on Israelschristological error here ought not to cause neglect of a concomitant anthropological error.28

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker,2003 2008), 4:209, 211; cf. 185; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (trans. John R. deWitt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 163; Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie und Evangelium:Gesammelte Aufstze (WUNT 146; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 45; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes,100; Lbking, Paulus und Israel , 84; Michael Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp an die Philipper: Schlaglichterauf die frhe Rezeption des Basissatzes von der Rechtfertigung, in Lutherische und NeuesPaulusperspektive, 359-60. Contra Douglas A. Campbell, who reads the righteousness of faith in 9:30-32as Jesus fidelity despite acknowledging that it is human trust in 9:33b; 10:9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 (TheDeliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009],783).29

Some go too far, however, in associating Christ and righteous living, identifying Christ as the righteous one

of Rom 1:17 (Desta Heliso, Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of Romans 1:17 against theBackground of Scripture and Second Temple Jewish Literature [WUNT 2/235; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,2007], 120-21, 243-54; J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 47-48).30

See Ridderbos, Paul , 163-64; Karin Finsterbusch, Die Thora als Lebensweisung fr Heidenchristen:Studien zur Bedeutung der Thora fr die paulinische Ethik (SUNT 20; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1996), 79-80; Moo, Romans, 632-34; Bird, Saving Righteousness, 12-18.31

Paul , 161-74, 236-37.32

So Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949), 378-79; C. K. Barrett, TheEpistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: Black, 1957), 196; Gottlob Schrenk, , in TDNT 2:203;Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969),218-20; Ridderbos, Paul , 171; Cranfield, Romans, 2:514-15; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyondthe Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 110; Karl F.Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma und zum paulinischen Verstndnis vonGlaube und Rechtfertigung (WUNT 2/227; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 233.33

See, e.g., Dunn, Theology of Paul , 340-44; Dunn, New Perspective , 2-4, 369-71; Dunn, New TestamentTheology , 76-77.34

Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 42-45; Seifrid, Pauls Use of Righteousness Language Against ItsHellenistic Background, in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (vol. 1 of Justification andVariegated Nomism; ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. OBrien, and Mark A. Seifrid; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker,2004), 42-44. Similarly Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles , 229.35

Ernst Ksemann, The Righteousness of God in Paul, in New Testament Questions of Today(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168-82; cf. the extensive study by Paul F. M. Zahl, Die RechtfertigungslehreErnst Ksemanns (Calwer Theologische Monographien, Reihe B: Systematische Theologie undKirchengeschichte 13; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1996). Similar to Ksemann is Stuhlmacher (e.g., BiblischeTheologie und Evangelium, 28).36

Karl Barth strikes out on his own and defines Gods righteousness here as his freedom (The Epistle to theRomans [trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns; London: Oxford University Press, 1933], 373).37

Cf. BDAG 482-83.38

E.g., Jewett, Romans, 617.39

See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1977), 75, 422.40

Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp, 360; Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer (THKNT; Leipzig:

Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1999), 205; reiterated in Haacker, Verdienste und Grenzen der neuenPerspektive der Paulus-Auslegung, in Lutherische und Neues Paulusperspektive , 9.41

E.g., George E. Howard, Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff, JBL 88 (1969): 336;E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 38; Lloyd Gaston, Pauland the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 129, 141-42, 178; Bruce W.Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1-11 (JSNTSup 57;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 218-19; Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, andPerseverance: Aspects of Pauls Letter to the Romans (WUNT 79; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 62-63;Daniel J-S Chae, Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and Its Influence on theSoteriological Argument in Romans (Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Carlisle, U.K.:Paternoster, 1997), 241; Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the ApostlesConvictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 258, 284; N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said:Was Paul of Tarsus the Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 108, 130-31; Wright,Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 47; Wright, Justification, 244 (cf. 150); Jean-NolAletti, Isral et la loi dans la lettre aux Romains (LD 173; Paris: Cerf, 1998), 210-11; Aletti, Comment Dieuest-il juste?, 115-16, 118; Dunn, Romans, 2:587-88; Dunn, New Perspective , 11, 203, 373, 388 n. 24;Bekken, Word Is Near You , 164; Jewett, Romans, 618.42

E.g., Calvin, Romans, 383; Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies (Entry Nos. 501-832) (vol. 18 of TheWorks of Jonathan Edwards; ed. Ava Chamberlain; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 164-66; Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Pauls Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective(trans. Daniel P. Bailey; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001), 43; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 92-93; Ziesler, Righteousness in Paul , 206; Heinrich Schlier, Der Rmerbrief: Kommentar (HTKNT 6; Leipzig:St. Benno, 1978), 310; Cranfield, Romans, 2:505, 515; Kuss, Rmerbrief , 3:748; Seyoon Kim, Paul and theNew Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Pauls Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 75-81; Hofius, All Israel Will Be Saved, 26; Theobald, Rmerbrief , 283; Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp,359-60; Moo, Romans, 631, 634-35; Klaus Haacker, Paulus: Der Werdegang eines Apostels (SBS 171;Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997), 66; Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches frPaulus (FRLANT 179; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 398; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans(BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 543-44; Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles , 235; Seifrid, Christ, OurRighteousness, 156; Pate, Reverse of the Curse , 247-48; Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant , 241;Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New , 284-85, 311-13, 399; cf. 328-30; C. K. Barrett, On Paul: Aspectsof His Life, Work, and Influence in the Early Church (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 146; Watson, Paul,Judaism, and the Gentiles, 313.43

Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Pauls Response in Romans 1-5(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 228.44

Perspectives Old and New , 266.45

Theobald, Paulus und Polykarp, 359-60; Meyer, End of the Law , 223; contra Udoh, Pauls Views on theLaw, 224; Dunn, New Perspective , 483. Ulrichs notes that in both Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:2 Paul speaks ofhaving (), either righteousness or zeal (noting also in Rom 4:2, which speaks of boasting beforeGod), though it would be easy to overstate the significance of a common word such as (Christusglaube, 236-37).46

Seifrid, Romans, 653.47

Bekken, Word Is Near You , 167-68.48

For a recent detailed exposition see ibid., 153-218.49

Romans, 650-51.50

Contra Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 58.51

See Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody, Mass.:Hendrickson, 1995), 213; J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 9; J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concertin the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 187-88. Contra Moo, who reads Israels ignorance asmainly salvation-historical (Romans, 618; also 619 n. 12); similarly Haacker, Paulus, 103. This is true butincomplete; Israel has failed not only to see Christ as salvation-historically climactic but also to understandthe gift-nature of Gods righteousness.52

See Barths connection of Rom 10:2 with 1 Tim 1:13 in Church Dogmatics, IV/3 (trans. G. W. Bromiley;Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1061), 200; cf. Haacker, Paulus, 78.53

Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 131; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective , 112; Finny Philip, The Originsof Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in theEarly Development of Pauls Theology (WUNT 2/194; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 172 n. 26.54

Isral et la loi , 207; emphasis added.55

Cf. Roland Bergmeier, Das Gesetz im Rmerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament (WUNT 121;Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 1; cf. 77.56

However edifying and appropriate it may have been to his generation, therefore, Barths application to theChristian church of Israels zeal for God misses the concrete ethnic circumscription of this zeal, despite thepropriety of Barths identification within the church of the same root error that Paul detects in Israel(Romans, 371-72).57

Romans, 2:595; cf. Dunn, Partings of the Ways , 121-22.58

Dunn, New Perspective , 12.59

Johnson, Romans 9-11: The Faithfulness and Impartiality of God, in Pauline Theology , Vol. 3: Romans(ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 227; Don B. Garlington, TheObedience of Faith: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context (WUNT 2/38; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991),247; Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance , 65-67; Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said , 25-37;

Wright, Justification, 244.60

Jewetts otherwise strong analysis of Rom 10:2 neglects the ethnic dimension of this zeal (The BasicHuman Dilemma: Weakness or Zealous Violence? Romans 7:7-25 and 10:1-18, ExA 13 [1997]: 102-4);similarly Smiles, Concept of Zeal, 282-99.61

Rightly Lauri Thurn, Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law(Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 153; Smiles, Concept of Zeal, 292-97. Cf.Westerholm, Paul and the Law, 227-31.62

Contra Badenas (End of the Law , 109) and Pate (Reverse of the Curse , 246), who read Israels error hereas refusal to obey; similarly Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968),185; cf. 144; rightly Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (trans. Frank Clarke; Richmond,Va.: John Knox, 1959), 149; Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 324.63

Gottes Ich und Israel , 70-71; also 62; likewise Prigent, Romains, 137; Ridderbos, Paul , 140. Jrgen Beckerhints at this distinction between Rom 2 and 10 but does not draw it out (Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles [trans.O. C. Dean, Jr.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993], 359).64

Gottes Ich und Israel , 71.65

St Pauls Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary (Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimirs Seminary Press,2008), 256.66

Vos, Alleged Legalism, 390-99; cf. Vos, The Theology of Paul, in Redemptive History and BiblicalInterpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.:Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 357-58; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Vol. 1,Grundlegung von Jesus zu Paulus (3d ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 277; Schlier,Rmerbrief , 307; Wilckens, Rmer , 2:213-14.67

See the helpful comments in this regard in Byrne, Sons of God , 230-31.68

Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival , in The Great Awakening (vol. 4 of The Works of JonathanEdwards; ed. C. C. Goen; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1972), 460.69

See Kuss, Rmerbrief , 3:749-50; Jrg Frey, Die paulinische Antithese von Fleisch und Geist und diepalstinisch-jdische Weisheitstradition, ZNW 90 (1999): 74; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective , 156.70

Theology of the Apostles , 102.current : : uid:851 (institution)