Romans 10 – Walking With Giants

10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God on behalf of my fellow Israelites is for their salvation. 10:2 For I can testify that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth. 10:3 For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.

That they may be saved – eis sōtērian, ‘unto salvation’. The following verses (5-11) will explain how this salvation will come about.

They are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth – They are ‘keen but clueless’ (Stott).

The sins of sincerity

‘If it be true that Jesus died for such as Paul, then the one thing certain is that the sins he bore included the sins of sincerity. …Christian tradition has regrettably accustomed us to think of those who brought about the Crucifixion as villians; but if we observe them through the eyes of Paul, we get a different view. ‘I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, however unenlightened’ (Rom. 10:2). No doubt they had their faults and fallacies, but each in his own way was a sincere person, honestly trying to do what was right in the interest of religion and national survival. But in all the annals of human vice, no power is as destructive or demonic as perverted sincerity.

‘It took the Cross, interpreted as the vicarious bearing of guilt to pierce the armour-plate of Paul’s self-congratulation. It proved that when he had been most confident of serving God, he had been God’s enemy; and it had revealed a love great enough to kill the enmity (Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:18-21) (Italics added).’ (Source)

The righteousness that comes from God – According to Wright and others, his ‘covenant faithfulness’.

Their own [righteousness] –

Wright explains how he came, in around 1976, to the position that was little later associated with the names of Sanders and Dunn:

‘In Rom 10:3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish their own righteousness. The wider context, not least Rom 9.30-33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within Gods purposes and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant seeking to establish their own righteousness, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse. I sat up in bed that night reading through Galatians and saw that at point after point this way of looking at Paul would make much better sense of Galatians, too, than either the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones.’ (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm)

Wright, again:

‘Paul’s critique of his fellow Jews was not that they were legalists trying to earn merit but that they were nationalists trying to keep God’s blessing for themselves instead of being the conduit for that blessing to 3ow to the Gentiles. “Seeking to establish their own righteousness,” I came to believe, meant that they were seeking to maintain a status of covenant membership for themselves and themselves only.’ (Source)

And again:

”Of course, the phrase about ‘their own righteousness’, glimpsed out of context in the dark with the light behind it, with a glass of Wittenberg beer in hand and another already on board, could no doubt be read as indicating that these Jews were guilty of proto-Pelagianism, imagining that by doing ‘good works’ in the sense of making the moral effort to keep Torah they were earning favour, or indeed ‘righteousness’, with God.’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God).

Christ is the end of the law – The word translated ‘end’ can designate either termination (cessation), or terminus (goal, outcome, purpose to which something is directed).

So, which meaning does Paul intend here?

According to F.F. Bruce,

‘the case for understanding telos as ‘termination’ is presented by Käsemann; the case for ‘goal’ by Cranfield. The two senses are combined by Barrett: Christ ‘puts an end to the law, not by destroying all that the law stood for but by realizing it’.’

See longer note below for an evaluation of these interpretations.

Christ the end of the law

Romans 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God on behalf of my fellow Israelites is for their salvation. 10:2 For I can testify that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth. 10:3 For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes. (Emphasis added)

1. Christ is the termination (end) of the law

NEB – ‘Christ ends the law.’

According to Morris, this is the majority view. It is favoured by Nygren, Käsemann, Stott, Sanday and Headlam, Dodd, Dunn and Schreiner, among others. Also Mounce (NAC), Mohrlang (Cornerstone)

Fitzmyer adds the names of Augustine, Althaus, Bammel, Bultmann, Gaugler, Gutbrod, Lagrange, Lietzmann, Linss, Martin, Michel, Mussner, Pesch, and Schlier.

Nygren (cited by Edwards):

‘When God revealed His righteousness in Christ, He put a definite end to the law as a way of salvation.’

Denney states:

‘There is no believer, Gentile or Jew, for whom law, Mosaic or other, retains validity or significance as a way to righteousness, after the revelation of the righteousness of God in Christ.’

Stott thinks that the expression ‘Christ is the end of the law’ means that Christ has ‘abrogated’ the law. ‘But,’ he adds,

‘the abrogation of the law gives no legitimacy either to antinomians, who claim that they can sin as they please because they are “not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:1,15), or to those who maintain that the very category of “law” has been abolished by Christ and that the only absolute left is the command to love. When Paul wrote that we have “died” to the law, and been “released” from it (Rom 7:4,6), so that we are no longer “under” it (Rom 6:15), he was referring to the law as the way of getting right with God. Hence the second part of verse 4. The reason Christ has terminated the law is so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. In respect of salvation, Christ and the law are incompatible alternatives. If righteousness is by the law it is not by Christ, and if it is by Christ through faith it is not by the law. Christ and the law are both objective realities, both revelations and gifts of God. But now that Christ has accomplished our salvation by his death and resurrection, he has terminated the law in that role.’

But if this is what is meant, how would it fit with other scriptures?-

Mt 5:18 “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.”

Rom 7:12 ‘The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.’

Osborne notes:

‘There is no hint in Paul or the New Testament that Christ has abolished the law. The closest is Hebrew 8:13, saying it is “obsolete” and “will soon disappear.” But that is not total replacement.’

Hodge holds that ‘Christ has abolished the law, not by destroying, but by fulfilling it’ (see point 3, below). Hodge continues:

‘He has abolished the law as a rule of justification, or covenant of works, and the whole Mosaic economy having met its completion in him, has by him been brought to an end. In Luke 16:16, it is said, “The law and the prophets were until John;” then, in one sense, they ceased, or came to an end. When Christ came, the old legal system was abolished, and a new era commenced. The same idea is presented in Gal. 3:23, “Before faith came we were kept under the law,” but when Christ appeared, declaring, “Believe and thou shalt be saved,” we were no longer under that bondage. The doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture, that those who are out of Christ are under the law, subject to its demands and exposed to its penalty. His coming and work have put an end to its authority, we are no longer under the law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; we are no longer under the system which says, Do this, and live; but under that which says, Believe, and thou shalt be saved. This abrogation of the law, however, is not by setting it aside, but by fulfilling its demands. It is because Christ is the fulfiller of the law, that he is the end of it. It is the latter truth which the apostle here asserts.’

Dunn’s view is that

‘Whatever else Paul means, he intends his readers to understand that the law has come to an end in some sense, in accordance with his normal use elsewhere (1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 15:24; 2 Cor 11:15; Phil 3:19).’

But Dunn adopts a typically ‘New Perspective’ understanding of the sense in which Christ terminates the law:

‘The thought of v 4 follows on from the two preceding verses (as the repeated γάρ indicates). What Paul has in view therefore is the zeal for the law which fights to preserve Israel’s distinctiveness and righteousness defined in terms of the law as Israel’s (Israel’s law, so Israel’s righteousness). This is a misunderstanding of God’s purpose (v 2) and of God’s righteousness (v 3), now clearly exposed by the coming of Christ (Rom 3:21–22).’

Geoffrey Wilson writes that Paul’s dispute was not with the law itself, but with its misuse by the Judaizers:

‘It should be remembered that Paul’s polemic was directed against that false interpretation of the law which had erased the whole concept of grace from the Old Testament. According to the Judaizers salvation was gained by a meritorious obedience to the law. Such was Paul’s former course, and his kinsmen are still blinded by the same error (Phil 3:9). Unbelievers expect to attain righteousness by the works of the law, but this relationship to the law has been terminated by Christ for all believers, who therefore no longer regard it as the instrument of their justification.’

Citing Gal 3:23-25, Rom 3:21-4:25 and Rom 7:1-6 as closely paralleling Paul’s thought here, Longenecker concludes:

‘While concepts having to do with “purpose,” “goal,” and “fulfillment” may quite legitimately be seen as being implied in Paul’s use of τέλος here in 10:4, the feature the apostle highlights is “termination,” “end,” or “cessation” of the Mosaic law in any positive or custodial fashion in this new age of salvation history, which is characterized by the Lordship of Christ and the ministry of God’s Holy Spirit.’

2. Christ is the terminus (goal) of the law

NJB: – ‘The law found its fulfilment in Christ’.

This interpretation is favoured by Barth and Cranfield, among others. Also Hendriksen, Keener.

Fitzmyer adds the names of John Chrysostom, Bartsch, Bring, Campbell, Cerfaux, Flückiger, Howard, P. W. Meyer, Rhyne, Schaefer, Sickenberger, and Wilckens.

3. Christ is both the termination (end) and the terminus (goal) of the law

This interpretation is favoured by Calvin, Shedd, Barrett, Moo, Edwards and others.

Fitzmyer adds the names of Achtemeier, Black, Bring, Bruce, Dunn, Hellbardt, Leenhardt, Schneider, and Zeller.

Fitzmer’s claim that:

‘One sense seems to imply the denial of the other.’

…is not altogether convincing.

Moo writes,

‘Christ, Paul is saying, has all along been the goal to which the law has been pointing; and, since that goal has now been attained – Christ has come – the pursuit of the law should now be at an end. This verse stands along with Mt 5:17, as a key expression of a dominant NT theme: the culmination or ‘fulfilment’ of the old covenant law and all its institutions in Jesus the Messiah. With that culmination comes also God’s intention to offer righteousness to anyone who believes, Gentile as well as Jew.’ (see Rom 9:30 10:12-13) (NBC).

In his major commentary on Romans, Moo uses the imagery of a finishing line (an image which may indeed be implicit in the language of Paul himself), which signals both the goal and the finish of the race.

Achtemeier:

‘Christ is both the fulfillment of the intended role of the law in the relationship of creature with Creator and the end of its primary function in that relationship. Paul means both when he says “Christ is the end of the law” (v. 4). Christ is the end, the goal for which the law was established, namely trust in God (see 3:31). But Christ is also the end of the law as the primary means of a relationship with that God. Paul shows that Christ is the end of the primary role of the law in verse 5. He shows that Christ is the goal of that law in verses 6–13.’

Murray Harris agrees that

‘It is certainly defensible to say that Christ is the goal of the law, if the law’s purpose was to produce righteousness (Gal 3:22), for Christ himself fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17) and so has become believers’ righteousness (1 Cor 1:30). What the law was intended to do—but in the event was unable to do, given human frailty and sinfulness—Christ was successful in accomplishing for others. In that sense, he achieved the law’s goal.’ (Navigating Tough Texts)

But, adds Harris, the immediate context favours the sense that

‘Christ’s provision of righteousness in salvation marks the end/termination of the law in its imagined potency to produce righteousness.’

Again:

‘On this view, it is possible that “until everything is accomplished” in Matthew 5:18 looks forward to Christ’s own accomplishment—his provision of a right standing before God (= righteousness) for everyone who believes.’

Kruse thinks that if the idea is that Christ is the ‘termination’ of the law, then it would be unsatisfactory to understand this as meaning that he signals the end of the law as a way of righteousness, because Paul would say that the law was never intended as a way of obtaining righteousness. It would be better to understand the meaning to be that Christ brings an end to the law’s era of jurisdiction. This would be consistent with the idea, in Gal 3:23ff, of the law as ‘guardian’ until the coming of Christ. See also 2 Cor 3:7-11, where the temporary ministry of Moses is contrasted with the permanence of Christ’s ministry, and 2 Cor 3:13f, where Moses is said to have veiled his face so that people could not see the fading nature of the old covenant. However, as Kruse himself remarks, there are a number of objections to this second view, not least of which are the positive statements which Paul makes about the law (Rom 3:31; 7:12, 14a; 8:4; 13:8–10).

Edwards also favours a combined approach, although with a bias towards the second:

‘By exposing sin the law leads us, indeed drives us, to seek salvation in a savior who has been foretold by the prophets; but the law is not the savior. Jesus Christ is the savior, and Jesus fulfills his ministry of reconciliation apart from the law. The law, as we noted earlier, is the diagnosis of sin, but only Christ is its cure. Christ is both completion and termination of the law: he confirms the law as the just expression of God’s moral purpose for humanity, and he supersedes the law by offering forgiveness and salvation when that moral purpose is transgressed. The law is like a father who escorts his daughter down the aisle on her wedding day. At the altar the father must give the bride over to her husband, who is Christ.’

As a variant on this combined interpretation, Osborne offers:

‘Christ provided a temporal end but in the sense of “culmination” rather than replacement. The law did point to Christ, but it has been caught up in him rather than replaced by him. There is indeed a salvation-historical movement from law to gospel, but there is continuity and not just discontinuity between them.’

Post Views: 171

10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: “The one who does these things will live by them.” 10:6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) 10:7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), 10:9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

“Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?'” – From Deut 30:12.

Calvin:

‘If it is alleged that this interpretation is too forced and subtle, we should understand that the object of the Apostle was not to explain this passage exactly, but only to apply it to his treatment of the subject at hand. He does not, therefore, repeat what Moses had said syllable by syllable, but employs a gloss, by which he adapts the testimony of Moses more closely to his own purpose.’ For Rogers and McKim (Authority and Interpretation) this suggests that Calvin was not committed to biblical inerrancy in the sense in which that doctrine is usually espoused today. But Calvin also says: ‘If, therefore, we take these statements of Paul as having been made by way of amplification or as a gloss, we shall not be able to say that he has done violence or distorted the words of Moses.’

“The word” – Gl ‘rhema‘, carrying the idea:

‘of the divine initiative which, in the form of the spoken word, brings new life and new possibilities.’ (Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God)

The Torah is fulfilled, then, and covenant membership obtained, when anyone – Jew or Gentile – hears the gospel and receives it. It is not on the basis of ethnic identity or racial privilege.

v9 ‘When a Christian said these words in a Jewish context, he was declaring his faith that Jesus of Nazareth was to be identified with God – the same God whom the Jews had spoken of as “the Lord.” In a pagan context, where people believed in many different gods and goddesses, the person who confessed “Jesus is Lord” was declaring that there is only one true God who had revealed himself in and through Jesus. And at a time when the Roman emperors were claiming to be divine and demanding that all citizens in the Empire should say “Caesar is Lord,” Christians openly confessed their allegiance to Jesus as the supreme authority in heaven and on earth by saying “Jesus is Lord.” (Colin Chapman, Lion Handbook of Christian Belief, 18f)

‘The huge defect with the ‘New Perspective’ is that it denies or obscures the believer’s assurance of salvation. By making ‘justification’ / ‘righteousness’ a process the Christian must forever harbour doubts that he or she does in fact enjoy God’s favourable verdict. But Paul will have none of this. ‘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’. (Rom 10:9) The impact is intensified when we realise that Paul is speaking about individuals; the verbs ‘you confess…you believe…you will be saved’ are singular. As I confess Christ, believe in him, I will be saved. The time is foreshortened. It is as if I am in the Kingdom of God now, at this moment, immediately. This is God himself speaking, in his Gospel-word.’ (Paul Barnett)

Wright suggests that we have in vv9-13 a very clear and complete statement of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith: ‘the faithfulness of God; the work of the Messiah as the ground and basis for it all; belief in God’s raising of Jesus as the tell-tale signal that precipitates the divine verdict ‘righteous’; and the confession ‘Jesus is lord’ as the public, outward behaviour (signalling, of course, an entire world of obedience to this Jesus) which is the pathway from the initial ‘justification’, based on nothing other than faith, to the final ‘salvation’ which is based on the whole of life—life lived in the Messiah and in the power of the spirit.’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God).

‘Jesus is Lord’

‘The most frequent name for God in the OT, Yahweh (LXX Kyrios, “Lord”), now becomes the Church’s favorite name for Christ. The Church’s earliest confession of faith in Christ was in all likelihood “Jesus is Lord” (cf. Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:9–11). Hence, all that can be said about the name of Yahweh—that prophets prophesy in that name (Jer. 20:9), the righteous trust in that name (Isa. 50:10), people call upon that name (Ps. 105:1), etc.—can be and is said about the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:17f.; Jn. 14:1; 1 Cor. 1:2).’

G.W. Hawthorne, ISBE (2nd ed.), art. ‘Name’

Post Views: 171

10:10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. 10:11 For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 10:12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

There is no difference – ‘Rom At 3:22 Paul spoke of the absence of ‘distinction’ between Jew and Greek in a negative sense—all without distinction have sinned. Here he makes the corresponding positive statement—all without distinction have the same Lord, and enjoy the rich resources of his goodness and glory (cf. Rom 2:4; 9:23.’ (Barrett)

10:14 How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them? 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.” 10:16 But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 10:17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ.

How are they to believe in one they have not heard of? – TNIV translates: ‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?’ It has been noted that ‘both the NIV and the TNIV mistranslate the Greek masculine pronoun hos (him) with the neuter form “one” even though it quite obviously refers in context to the Male Person, Jesus Christ. See also, Jn 3:34, Rom 5:14.’

‘Many commentators favour translating the relative pronoun as denoting the person who is heard rather than the message that is heard (Stott, Hendriksen, Dunn, Murray, Morris). The one people are to believe in is the one preaching to them.’ (Source). In support of this interpretation we might add the names of Fitzmyer, Barrett.

Fitzmyer: ‘The Greek vb. akouein governs the gen. and means “listen to someone,” not “hear about.”’

‘The point is that Christ is present in the preachers; to hear them is to hear him (cf. Luke 10:16), and people ought to believe when they hear him.’ (Morris)

‘One of the saddest statistics of our day is that 95% of all church members have never led anyone to Christ.’-Dr. D. James Kennedy

How are they to preach unless they are sent? –

The ‘chain of revelation’

This theology of the shaliach or “sent one” is developed fully in the Gospel of John as part of the “chain of revelation.”

First, God “sends” his Son as the living revealer, the very voice of God (logos in Jn 1:1–18, Jesus as the “sent one” some thirty times).
Then the Father and the Son send the Spirit to “convict” the world (Jn 16:8–15).
Finally, the triune God “sends” the believer with the message of salvation (Jn 17:18; 20:21–23). When we preach, the Godhead speaks through us!

(Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, p439, re-formatted)

v17 ‘It is no use moaning that we seem to suffer from a chronic unbelief, or envying others (“I wish I had your faith”), as if our lack of faith were like our temperament, a congenital condition which cannot be changed. For God himself has given us the means to increase our faith…We have to take time and trouble to hear in order to believe.’ (Stott, Understanding the Bible, 189)

John Owen referred to this verse in his famous discussion of definite atonement. Naselli summarises Owen’s argument: ‘it is unbecoming of God’s wisdom to send Jesus to die for all humans without exception while knowing that millions of humans never hear this good news. “What wise man would pay a ransom for the delivery of those captives which he is sure shall never come to the knowledge of any such payment made, and so never be the better for it?”. Or what physician with “a medicine that will cure all diseases” would intend to heal all without exception, but then tell relatively few people about his medicine?’

10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Yes, they have: Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. 10:19 But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.” 10:20 And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for me.” 10:21 But about Israel he says, “All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient and stubborn people!”

Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world – This is a verbatim quotation from Psa 19:4 (LXX; 18:5 there). There are a couple of interpretative challenges with Paul’s quotation.

(a) The first challenge is that of the appropriateness, or relevance, of the quotation. The words quoted from Psa 19:4 refer to ‘natural revelation’, whereas Paul is thinking of ‘special revelation’.

Some think that Paul is using biblical language to express his own thought. ‘Paul probably quotes Ps. 19:4 (v 18b) not as a prophecy of the preaching of the gospel, but simply in order to use its language to assert the widespread proclamation of the gospel to Jews throughout the Mediterranean world’ (NBC). But Morris thinks that this is ‘very unlikely’, because even though Paul does not employ a standard quotation formula he does quote the exact words of the psalm.

Hendriksen thinks that Paul ‘is not trying to tell us that the Old Testament Psalm was describing the universal spread of the gospel. What he means is that what in Ps. 19 applies to the language of the heavenly bodies is also applicable to the spread of the gospel.’

Similarly, Osborne, following Moo and Hays, suggests that Paul ‘uses the language of the psalm to say that in the same way that God has revealed himself in nature to the ends of the world, he has also revealed himself even more clearly through the gospel via the universal mission of the church.’

Michael Heiser thinks that Paul is quoting Psalm 19 precisely to say that the gospel (or, at least, the arrival of a divine king) has been published in the heavens for all to see; that

‘there were celestial events, celestial signs, that could have and should have telegraphed to everyone that a divine king had come to earth.’

(b) The second challenge has to do with the extent of the gospel’s reach. Did Paul really think that the gospel had already reached ‘the ends of the earth’?

On the rapid spread of the gospel, see Rom 15:22–24; Phil 1:12, 13; Col 1:6, 23; cf. John 12:19; Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 17:6.

Bruce thinks that Paul is implying a ‘representative universalism’; the gospel was in process of reaching the four corners of the world, with no people group excluded from its reach. The spread of the gospel is, in principle, as extensive as that of the light of the heavenly bodies. Morris, Edwards, Osborne and others take a similar view.

v19 ‘In other words, God will—as Moses warned [Deut 32:21]!—bring in people who are not from Israel, people who will then share ‘the sonship, the glory, the covenants’ and so on, and who will thus make Israel itself realize the result of turning away from God, failing to submit to his righteousness and refusing to believe in the messianic good news.’

Post Views: 171