A.
Problems
Raised by Paul’s Definition of God’s People in Romans 1-8
B.
Paul’s
Inner Turmoil in Romans 9-11 Demonstrating Continuity with Romans 1-8
C.
Textual
Structure, Features, and Characteristics of Romans 9-11
D.
The
Thought and Theme of Romans 9-11
III.
ROMANS
11.7-11: ISRAEL UNDER GOD’S CONTRIVANCE
A.
The
Role of the Passage in Chapter Eleven
B.
Verse
7: The Elect who Obtained and the Rest Who Were Hardened
C.
Verse
8: Eyes Which Cannot See and Ears Which
Refuse to Hear
D.
Verse
9-10: An Entrapping Table and Bent Back
E.
Verse
11: Hope Though They Stumbled and Provocative Gentile Salvation
IV.
CONCLUSION
A.
Paul’s
Experience and God’s Faithfulness
B.
Paul’s
Message in Romans 11.7-11
ROMANS 9-11: WHAT SHALL WE
SAY THEN OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL?
Let the reader take to mind that in
Romans 1-8 Paul has hereto taken great care to define what makes an individual
and community God’s. Faith in Jesus Christ, he asserts, is the
cornerstone for being accepted by God as justified, but at the same time, Paul
attacks the ideology Jewish peculiarity among humankind before God. Paul fervently unravels notions that ‘works
of the law’ may bring one into right standing with God Almighty. As Bruce Longenecker writes, “By denying the
salvific centrality of the law, Paul endangers the centrality of the people of
the law, whom God has placed at the center of salvation history.”[1] Here we come to the unresolved dilemma that
Paul addresses in Romans 9-11. This section is an emphatic “NO!” to the
question that inevitably comes from Roman 1-8; i.e. does the establishment of a
new entity by God based merely on faith in Jesus Christ and not ethnicity show
God to be unfaithful to his people?
Longenecker continues, “To deny the law, with its distinctively ethnic
character, is simultaneously to deny the ethnic people with whom it has been
associated, a people with whom God has entered into a covenant. Fundamentally, therefore, to remove the law
from one’s pattern of religion is simultaneously to call into question the
faithfulness of God.”[2] Thus, it can be seen that this section is no
theological appendix or afterthought added on to Paul’s masterful elucidation
of justification through Jesus Christ.[3]
Paul’s scandalous conclusion did not
come from his own intellectual tinkering.
In Galatians 1.11,12, Paul himself explains, “The gospel that was
proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human
source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus
Christ.”[4] Yet from this very self-understanding of his
call, a vexation is observed,
He had, he was convinced, .
. . a prophetic calling from God to proclaim Christ to the Gentiles, to be an
Apostle to the Gentiles. And that
brings us to face with Paul’s problem . . . Paul’s problem, causing him so much
pain . . ., was that most of his fellow Jews not only did not share his
commission, but, if aware of it at all, they doubted its authenticity.[5]
I
believe that in Paul’s mind this must of created an intrusive disturbance
giving his intellect much toil. After
the ecstatic vision of Christ that struck him with temporary blindness, Paul
possessed an experience with which he appropriated no means to classify or
understand its meaning—yet Christ left him with knowledge more real than any
knowledge he ever had before. Christ
radically transforms those whom He chooses.
His career exploited all his expertise as and orator and intellectual,
but its foundations were the encounter with Jesus Christ.[6] Romans 9-11 is a record of his mature
thought concerning what befalls Israel after the Christ factor has been
interjected into the equation of salvation history. Showing the chapters’ continuity with Romans 1-8, Dunn observes,
“The discussion . . .still revolves round the central motif enunciated in
1:16—salvation ‘to the Jew first, but also to Gentile.’”[7]
Characteristics of the text involve
the use of typical Pauline elements such as diatribe and use of statements that
foreshadow not yet supported conclusions.
In this section, Paul cites Old Testament scripture so frequently that
Dunn designates it as a midrash.[8] In fact, Old Testament quotations compromise
thirty-percent of the entire section of chapters.[9] Alan F. Segal separates chapters 9-11 into
three fairly simple arguments: (i) the failure of Israel is not incompatible
with God’s previous promises to Israel, (ii) the hardening of the Jewish hearts
is due to their own lack of faith and guilt, and (iii) the Jewish rejection of
Christ will not last forever for God will eventually have mercy and save all
Israel.[10] Another author, Otfried Hofius, divides the
chapters into two parts.
Coincidentally, his division splits the verses that we will soon begin
expounding upon. The first section,
Romans 9.1-11.10, presents “that God’s faithfulness to his promise and election
is demonstrated by his preservation and salvation of a remnant”[11];
whereas the second section, compromised of Romans 11.11ff, states, “the
salvation of a mere ‘remnant’ of Israel is by no means the last word on Israel . . . this hardening is temporary and will come
to an end.”[12] Dunn gives a different framework to
understand these chapters, which I prefer.
He observes Paul’s focus on the two-sided nature of God’s purpose:
1.
Election
of mercy // purpose of wrath;
2.
Gentiles
called also // only a remnant of Israel;
3.
Righteousness
from the law // righteousness from faith;
4.
A
remnant according to grace // the rest hardened;
5.
Jewish
failure—the reason // Gentile failure—a warning;
6.
Israel
hardening—Gentile incoming // Gentile fullness—Israel salvation.[13]
This
structure I prefer since it does not splice the text into parts; rather, a
dialectical interaction between interdependent ideas is introduced. I think this stays more true to the
character of the text, and for examining 11.7-11, it shows best how the verses
relate to the rest of chapters 9-11.
Paul’s attempt to answer the dilemma
can be observed in the dialectical nature of the texts—God is faithful to his
promises to Israel, yet the dimension in which they must be understood has
changed dramatically after Christ.[14] Any human conception of what God’s covenant
with his people means has been shattered and rent asunder. The method in which he accomplishes this is
based on asserting the reality of his experience with Christ and his desire to
protect the sacredness of the Hebrew Bible from allegations of inconsistency.[15] Though Paul speaks of the guilt of Israel,
he wrote chapters 9-11 in a tone of anguish and not accusation.[16] So much so does he desire for his people to
be saved, he writes in Romans 9.2, “For I could wish that I myself were
accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred
according to the flesh.” Paul himself
sees this time as initiated by God Himself—hardening his own people that the
Gentiles may come to the fullness of salvation in Christ. There, we find the platform from which we
shall examine Romans 11.7-11.
ROMANS 11.7-11: ISRAEL UNDER
GOD’S CONTRIVANCE
Before looking at each verse
individually, some maters still must be more fully refined. Romans 11.7-11 functions as a transition in
the text from the theme of the remnant within Israel (vv. 1-6) and the
fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel (vv. 12-15). Dunn writes, “vv. 7-10 are not simply a conclusion,
but, as so often with Paul’s conclusions, introduce and point forward to the
next stage of the argument.”[17] It may be said that vv. 7-10 “gathers the
threads”[18] of Paul’s
arguments thus far; whereby, he forges a platform on which v. 11 launches off
his teaching on Israel’s hope.
Chapter 11 demonstrates that being a Jew is not something of little consequence now
that Christ has come.[19] Identity is still important. Paul never once repudiates himself from the
Jews or denies that he is still a Jew.
What does he say? —“I myself
am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin”
(Romans 11.1). He himself proves that
God has not abandoned his people, for there is a remnant, “I have kept seven
thousand for myself who have not bowed their knee to Baal” (Romans 11.4b, cf. I
Kings 19.10, 18). God avers that Paul
is not alone. Verses 7-10 culminate the
implications of this situation where most Jews are estranged from and even
adversaries to God’s Christ. The Divine
retaliation is the hardening of those who fall outside the boundaries of the
remnant.[20] Despite this badgering condemnation, Paul
does not end here, but he brings forth the hope of the faithfulness of God to
his people in verse eleven.
xi.vii, What
then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.
“What then?,” is, “a summary
assessment of the total situation unfolded in verses 1-6 and viewed from the
perspective of Israel’s failure as the way of interpreting the unbelief with
which the whole passage is concerned.”[21]
Paul uses this rhetorical question to introduce what will be the result of
everything said up to this point.[22] C. K. Barret sees this question as Paul
pulling himself back into the main argument from verses 5b, 6, which he refers
to as a “parenthesis”.[23] However, calling verses 5b, 6 a parenthesis
would not do justice to the text in my opinion. Dunn’s explanation of the function of the phrase shows the
problem with this view, “ ‘what then’—a quite familiar elliptical expression
giving rhetorical flourish, not necessarily marking a break in the argument or
a new phase, but designed to keep the argument moving and lively.”[24] Verses 5b, 6 are too integral to
understanding verse 7 to be called a parenthesis.
Israel
failed to obtain what it was seeking. Giving
this section universal application, Barth comments,
Not only does Israel not
obtain, but he never will obtain. We
know what he is seeking for—his own righteousness, camouflaged as the
righteousness of God (x. 3). He
endeavors to justify and save men by enthroning piety. . . The search itself is
not guilty—Seek ye him, and your soul
shall live. We are guilty because
we forget the search is beyond human competence.[25]
In
light of what Barth says here, I believe my reasons for rejecting Barret’s
assertion concerning verses 5b, 6 are validated fully. This phrase looks back to 9.30ff where Paul
speaks of the Gentiles obtaining through faith what the Israelites failed to
obtain by obeying the works of the law.
In 10.3, he attributes this to their ignorance, and from this ignorance,
their own attempts to establish themselves have made it impossible for them to
submit to God’s righteousness. Their
zeal for God in 10.2 becomes their undoing.
As Morris notes, “the search was no perfunctory effort, but serious and
sustained.”[26] It is also good to note here that this
phrase introduces the first of what Moo observes to be three entities found in
this verse: Israel as a corporate whole, the elect, and the hardened.[27] In this sentence, corporate Israel is the
subject seeking yet failing to obtain—as is true universally of all humans.
The
elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. Here now appears the other two entities mentioned by Moo. In contrast to the vain struggle that does
not obtain, Barth writes of the elect,
On the frontier of human
possibility, that is to say, upon the frontier of the Church, stands a man who
does not forget, is not proud or thoughtless, the man who, bowed under the
judgement of God, has obtained righteousness, even the righteousness of God . .
. In these bearers of hope [i.e. the elect] the Church can see only the
unfathomable freedom of God, for the hope of the elect is centered upon His
grace.[28]
The
experience that is framed by Barth here is one common to all believers, and he
apparently has no reservations taking this verse and applying it to all
believers. It is relevant to all believers, but was Paul referring to all
believers originally?
There is a slight controversy that would oppose the
idea of Moo that ‘the elect’ refers to an entity within Israel. Dunn notes that because the word, eklogh (elect), is
most often used by Paul as a reference to Gentile Christians, some scholars
doubt it refers to Jewish believers.
Yet context still comes into play, and the structure of the sentence
would make the placement of a reference to Gentile Christians, exclusively,
awkward—especially with the preceding discussion of the remnant of Israel still
freshly present in our minds. The
argument is equally convincing that eklogh
refers to Jewish Christians. Dunn
continuing, “But since Paul undoubtedly regarded the opening of the Gospel to
the Gentiles as part of God’s purpose of election, and had already transferred
the closely related category eklektoi qeou to the
new reality of believing Jews and Gentiles,
it would be unjustified to argue that only
Jewish Christians are in view here.”[29] Moo’s response to Dunn is that, “the context
favors a restriction to Jews here since Paul’s concern seems to be to
distinguish two groups within
Israel.”[30] I acknowledge there exists the possibility
that Gentiles are included in the elect mentioned in this verse. The propensity is there, for we all share in
the solidarity of experiencing our utter dependence upon God, the Ground of All
Being. Hesitancy arises in me,
however. Mention of the Gentiles has
not yet occurred in chapter eleven, and to do so now and so ambiguously,
strikes me as being too awkward for the text.
I have written much about the elect but we must
remember also that the rest were
hardened. Moo makes a connection of
this phrase with 9.18.[31] F. F. Bruce sees verse 8 as telling just who
has hardened, “such inward insensitiveness is divinely inflicted as a judicial
penalty for refusal to heed the word of God”.[32] While it is true that God is the one
hardening in verse 8, it is also equally true the people Israel are the ones
who stumbled in verse 11.[33] The word for hardened here, pwrow, comes from the word pwroV. which
is a kind of marble. It means basically
“to petrify”, or medically “to cause a stone to form (as in the bladder) or a
callus”.[34] Bruce, explaining its metaphorical usage,
gives the definition, “rendered insensitive”.[35]
Barth describes it as their hearts being, “hermetically sealed against the
divine possibility”.[36] The verse does make it clear that Israel is
hardened for a reason—God has worked this.
As we shall see later, the faithfulness of God to his people and
covenant is not threatened by Israel’s rejection of Christ as Messiah; rather,
it is fulfilled through this occurrence which is merely another stage in God’s
Divine Providence.
xi.xiii, as it is written, “God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that
would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
How scandalous Paul has
been thus far! He asserts not only that
in obeying God’s Torah that Israel has failed to obtain favor with God and
actually have made favor impossible, but Israel—God’s own chosen people—have
been hardened by God Himself, leaving only a remnant behind. This next verse shows Paul’s confidence in
this scandal. C. K. Barret observes,
“Paul does not shrink from the conclusion that it was God’s will (determined
ultimately by his mercy) that this must be so, and confirms the conclusion by
Old Testament quotations.”[37] But to call this a quotation of the Old
Testament stretches the boundaries of the word. I like Dunn’s description of the text as “elaborated” and
“conflated.”[38] Most likely, Paul is quoting Deuteronomy
29.4 from memory. In its context, it is
a record of Moses’s words in a final exhortation to the people of Israel before
the Jordan is crossed. Moses calls to
remembrance the great acts that their God has performed on their behalf, yet he
informs them that they will not be able to fully comprehend the work of the
Lord. The actual texts reads, “But to
this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes
to see, or ears to hear.” There is in
Paul’s quotation the omission the phrase “a mind to understand”, with the
addition of the phrase “sluggish spirit”, and the switching of the negative and
positives on the verbs. The additional
phrase is from Isaiah 29.10a. Taking
the meaning of the reworked verse, some exegetes find that there may be an
illusion to Isaiah 6.9-10 here as well.[39] The phrase is a direct quotation from the
LXX and is itself unique to the LXX.[40] Besides “a sluggish spirit”, I have observed
several scholars take the Greek phrase pneuma
katanuxew dia pantoV and translate it as “spirit of stupor”, “spirit
of deep sleep”, “spirit of torpor”, “spirit of numbness”, and “spirit of
stupefaction”. The word katanuxewV literally has the meaning
‘pricking’ or ‘stinging’, and it refers to the numbness one feels as a result
as particular types of stings.[41] Morris says that there may be a thought of
“repeated blows bringing about a state of insensibility.”[42] In its overall character, Paul has sharpened
the verse by both the contexts he places it and the reworking of its
structure. Israel is portrayed as
smitten by God. Morris has much good to
say in regard to this state,
Paul
is not making excuses for those who reject God; he is bringing out the
seriousness of their plight . . . That part of them that ought to be most
sensitive to the divine leading is not operative, not functioning as it was
intended to function. To this very day points to a continuing
attitude. Paul is not talking about
ancient history, but about an attitude, known in the past indeed, persistent up
to the time of writing.[43]
I would even go farther than Morris and say that it is
beyond an attitude. This ‘spirit’ is
the result of God surfacing the nature that lies ingrained within—making
manifest the bones and cobwebs in the whitewashed tombs.
xi.ix-x, And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a
stumbling block of retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that
they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent.”
The quotation here can be found in Psalm
69.22-23, “Let their table be a trap for them, a snare for their allies. Let their eyes be darkened so that they
cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually.” In the New Testament,
the early Christian community used Psalm 69 connecting it to Jesus’ life in
multifaceted ways.[44] Moo notes that Paul follows closely to what
the LXX reads.[45] The astute reader will notice the last part
of the quotation differs from the Hebrew translation I have quoted. Though the ending differs greatly from the Hebrew,
Paul quotes the Greek text identically—designating he is not translating the
text from the Hebrew directly.[46] “For their allies” is missing in Paul’s
quotation also, most likely to make it directly applicable. The quotation has similarities with Deuteronomy
29.4, and they fit well together, albeit with some alterations.
Though Moo says that such an examination would be
fruitless due to the fact that “Paul probably did not intend to apply the
details in the quotation to the Jews in his own day,”[47]
I find the phrases in the quotation too tempting not to examine. Taking Moo’s suggestion would be too cynical
for my tastes, yet I also do not think it is worth the effort to look at every opinion. First there is the phrase: Let their table become a snare and a trap. One interpretation I particularly liked
was of, “a person sitting at a low table on which are decorative cloths in
which he gets entangled when he springs up suddenly in response to some
emergency”.[48] Barth sees the table as their whole behavior
becoming a trap—thus inescapable no matter where they turn.[49] When the Greek text says that those who
oppose God’s anointed are cursed to keep their backs forever bent, exegetes have found two meanings, either guilt
or slavery. I would agree with Dunn that
the Greek dia pantoV is
more properly translated as “continually” instead of “forever” due to the
implications of the ideas found in verse eleven.[50] In my opinion, the phrase most likely
reveals being in bondage with the incredibly heave burden under sin due to the
nature of the translation of the
Hebrew “trembling loins.”
xi.xi, So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles,
so as to make Israel jealous.
This verse is Paul’s action of
turning his attention fully upon the sinning majority as it was once solely
upon the remnant in 11.1-6. Otfried
Hofius states, “The extraordinary thing about Paul’s exposition in Romans 9-11,
however, is that the apostle does not close . . . and end the discussion at
Romans 11:10.”[51] Dunn views 7-10 as Paul’s platform for
launching his complete solution to the problem facing his faith by Israel’s
disobedience and antagonism with regards to the gospel.[52] Hope defies the grim characteristics that Paul
has just applied to Israel. This is
daring hope, in that even some passages of the gospels appear to extinguish
hope for Israel (e.g. Matthew 21.43, 27.25).[53] For Paul, to think that Israel has totally
fallen beyond hope is preposterous.[54] The hope presented that is initiated by
verse eleven in this section is that God’s purpose will come full circle back
to Israel. Moo gives an observation of
this, which begins with and supervenes verse eleven,
vv. 11-12: “trespass of Israel” " ”salvation for the Gentiles” " ”their fullness”
v. 15:
“their rejection” " ”reconciliation
of the world” " ”their
acceptance”
vv. 25-26: “Hardening of Israel” " ”fullness of Gentiles” " ”all Israel will
be
saved”
vv. 30-31: Disobedience of
Israel" Mercy
for Gentiles" Mercy
to Israel
The catalyst for this entire turning around Paul sees as
God making Israel jealous. It is worthwhile to note that Paul does not
count this jealousy as an unworthy incentive to bring Israel to repentance.[55]
Relating
all this to the Church, have we made Israel envious? Does our light so shine forth that Israel sees itself as
lacking? The real answer to this is a
sobering, “No.” “Instead of showing to
God’s ancient people the attractiveness of the Christian way Christians have
characteristically treated the Jews with hatred, prejudice, persecution,
malice, and all uncharitableness.”[56] May God change us, the Church, that we may
fulfill His plan—I am sure He will.
CONCLUSION
God be praised for the
wonderful works that He has left His Church to examine and marvel over. The glimpse we have taken into the work of
the Spirit in Paul’s thought life has shown the richness of His Glory. As a Jew dismissed by the majority of his
people as a liar and/or a fool, Paul was left only with the reality he
encountered in Christ. He knew God’s
Messiah was Christ, yet an expected outcome troubled him, the Jews reject Jesus
yet the numbers of Gentiles who confess Jesus as Lord multiplied heartily. Many difficulties in his mind manifested as
a result of his experience (e. g. had God rejected his people Israel?), but he
used his skills acquired prior to understand his climactic experience, the Old
Testament promises of God with Israel, and most personally, his own Apostleship
to the Gentiles.
As does
the entire epistle, 11.7-11 brings out Paul’s genius that discovered—by
revelation of the Spirit—God’s Plan for the disobedient Israel in light of his
transforming encounter with Christ.
Seeing God’s work in the Gentiles, he understands his mission as
integral and not counter to God’s working with Israel. Israel’s position as the first to receive
the good news has been forfeited by their rejection of Christ as Messiah, and
now Israel shall not witness fulfillment until the fullness of the
Gentiles. Paul works to hasten this
fulfillment. God is faithful and has
not repudiated this stiff-necked people, and Paul—a member of the remnant of
Israel— lives as a witness that the Lord continues to work in favor of the
Hebrew nation.
Bibliography
Barrett,
C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Harper Row, 1957.
Barth,
Karl. The Epistle to Romans.
Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns.
New York: Oxford
University Press, 1968.
Beasely-Murray, G. R. “The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the
Nations:
Romans 9-11.” Review
and Expositor 73 (1976): 437-450.
Bruce,
F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans.
“The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.”
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Dunn, James D. G.
Word Biblical Commentary vol. 38ba: Romans
1-8. Ed. David A. Hubbard,
Glenn W. Barker†, and Ralph M. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
—. Word
Biblical Commentary vol. 38b: Romans 9-16.
Ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W.
Barker†, and Ralph M. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
Hofius,
Otfried. “ ‘All Israel will be
saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s
Deliverance in
Romans 9-11.” Translated by Judith Gundry Volf. Princeton
Seminary Bulletin no. 1
[supplementary issue] (1990): 19-39.
Longenecker,
Bruce W. “Different Answers to Different
Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and
Salvation History in Romans 9-11.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament
36 (1989): 95-123.
Moo,
Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans.
“The New International Commentary on the New
Testament.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Morris,
Leon. The Epistle to the Romans.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Murray,
John. The Epistle to the Romans: the English Text with Introduction,
Exposition, and
Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Segal,
Alan F. “Paul’s experience and Romans
9-11.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin no. 1
[supplementary issue] (1990): 56-70.
Van
Buren, Paul M. “The Church and Israel:
Romans 9-11.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin
no. 1
[supplementary issue] (1990): 5-18.
[1] Bruce W. Longenecker, “Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9-11,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (1989): 95
[2] Ibid.
[3] G. R. Beasely-Murray, “The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the Nations: Romans 9-11,” Review and Expositor 73 (1976): 437
[4] All quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from the New Revised Standard Version © 1977 by Oxford University Press.
[5] Paul M. Van Buren, “The Church and Israel: Romans 9-11,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin no. 1 [supplementary issue] (1990): 10
[6] Alan F. Segal, “Paul’s experience and Romans 9-11,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin no. 1 [supplementary issue] (1990): 70
[7] James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 38b: Romans 9-16. Ed. David A.
Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker†, and Ralph M. Martin (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 521
[8] Ibid., 518
[9] Ibid., 519
[10] Segal, 56
[11] Otfried Hofius, “ ‘All Israel will be saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in Romans 9-11,” trans. Judith Gundry Volf. Princeton Seminary Bulletin no. 1 [supplementary issue] (1990): 30
[12] Ibid., 32
[13] Dunn, 519
[14] Segal, 57
[15] Ibid.
[16] Hofius, 26-27
[17] Dunn, 634
[18] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, “The New International Commentary on the New Testament” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 672
[19] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 397
[20] Moo, 672
[21] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: the English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 71
[22] Morris, 402
[23] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper Row,
1957), 209
[24] James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 38a: Romans 1-8. Ed. David A.
Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker†, and Ralph M. Martin (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 340
[25] Barth, Karl. The Epistle to Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 398
[26] Morris, 403
[27] Moo, 679
[28] Barth, 398-399. It might be helpful to the reader to note that in his exegesis Barth usually sees the Church and Israel as interchangeable entities in his commentary. Not that he feels Paul was actually writing about the Church, rather with incredible genius, Barth makes the passages relevant to today— piercing the heart of the believer.
[29] Dunn, 640
[30] Moo, 680
[31] Ibid.
[32] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, “The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 201
[33] Morris, 403
[34] Dunn, 640
[35] Bruce, 201
[36] Barth, 399
[37] Barret, 210
[38] Dunn, 648-649
[39] Moo, 682; cf. Dunn, 641
[40] Ibid. 648
[41] Bruce, 202
[42] Morris, 403
[43] Ibid., 403-404
[44] Moo, 682. Other quotations and feasible allusions to Ps. 69 can be found in Mk. 3.21, 15.23; Lk. 13.35; Jn. 2.17, 15.25; Acts 1.20; Rm. 15.3; Phil. 4.3; Rev. 3.5, 16.1.
[45] Moo, 682
[46] Dunn, 642
[47] Ibid., 683
[48] Morris, 404
[49] Barth, 399
[50] Dunn, 643
[51] Hofius, 31. Hofius also makes the astute observation that whereas the Qumran community views the remnant of Israel as the definitive answer to Israel’s salvation, Paul’s thought portrays the remnant as merely a temporal entity and not God’s last word.
[52] Dunn, 648
[53] Barret, 212
[54] Morris, 406
[55] Murray, 77
[56] Morris, 407