Romans 9:30–10:13

Original Meaning

Israel’s Lack of Knowledge (10:1–4)

THE FOUR VERSES in this paragraph unfold in “staircase” sequence, as Paul justifies each of his assertions in the verse immediately following it. (Though not obvious from the NIV, each verse begins with a gar, “for.”) Filling in the logical connections that Paul leaves implicit, the argument runs as follows:

I long for Israel’s salvation (v. 1);

and I must do so for they have zeal for God but lack knowledge (v. 2);

as is seen in the fact that they seek their own righteousness while ignoring God’s (v. 3);

and seeking their own righteousness, through the law, is wrong, because Christ is the culmination of the law (v. 4)

Central to the paragraph, as in the others in this section (9:30–33; 10:5–13) is a contrast between two kinds of righteousness: “their own” and “God’s” (v. 3).

As he did in 9:1–2, Paul makes clear how deeply he feels about the failure of Israel to embrace the salvation God offers in Jesus (10:1). Verse 2 explains why Paul continues to pray for Israel’s salvation: The Jews have zeal for God but they do not have knowledge. “Zeal” for the Lord finds its outstanding Old Testament example in Phinehas, who killed an Israelite and his pagan lover for flaunting the laws of God (Num. 25). But zeal became an especially prominent and important virtue during the intertestamental period, when the very existence of Israel was threatened by persecution.

In Paul’s day the spirit of violent resistance to foreign oppression coalesced in the Zealot movement. Jesus himself displayed zeal for the Lord when he cleared the temple (John 2:17). There can therefore be no doubt that Paul regards the zeal of his fellow Israelites as a good thing. The problem, however, is that—like the pre-Christian Paul (Acts 22:3; Phil. 3:6)—their zeal was not directed by knowledge. As Paul makes clear in Romans 10:3–4, what the Jews did not understand was that God now is offering a right relationship with himself through faith in Jesus Christ, the culmination of salvation history.

Thus, instead of submitting to God’s righteousness, the Jews sought to “establish their own.” “God’s righteousness” refers to that act by which God declares sinful people to be just in his sight (see also 1:17; 3:21, 22; see comments on 1:17). But what does its opposite in this verse (“their own righteousness”) mean? James Dunn takes it to mean the right standing with God that Israel as a whole tried to keep to themselves and not share with the Gentiles. His interpretation of this phrase reflects his understanding of the critique Paul directs at Jews throughout Romans. Paul does not fault Jews, Dunn argues, because they tried to become righteous by doing the law. Rather, he faults them for refusing to see that God is now extending his offer of righteousness to Gentiles.7

Dunn certainly puts his finger on one element in Paul’s criticism of the Jews (see, e.g., 3:29–30). But he errs in making this issue so central to Paul’s concern. Paul’s ultimate criticism of Israel is not just salvation-historical—Jews failed to see that God was doing something new with the Gentiles. It is also anthropological—Jews failed to seek a relationship with God in the right way. Both criticisms are found in this context. Jews are faulted for failing to recognize Christ as the culmination of God’s plan (10:4) and the rock on which the new people of God is to be built (9:33). But Paul also faults them for being overly concerned with works and neglecting faith (9:32).

Romans 10:3 refers to both these problems. In failing to submit to God’s righteousness, the Jews were guilty of missing the decisive turn in salvation history that had come with Christ, for God’s righteousness in Paul is clearly bound up with Christ (see 1:17; 3:21–22). But in seeking to establish their own righteousness, they were also guilty of relying on their own works.

Paul refers to the idea of one’s own righteousness in only one other passage: Philippians 3:9. Here he describes his own former life as a Jew, claiming to have possessed “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law.” As a Jew, Paul is implying, he was convinced that his obedience to the law was necessary to confirm God’s gift of righteousness through the covenant. He was guilty of thinking that his own works were necessary to maintain his covenant relationship. “Their own [righteousness]” in Romans 10:3 must mean the same thing. Paul faults Israel for trying to find a relationship with God through the law.8

Verse 4 explains why it is wrong of Israel to do this. Israel’s pursuit of a righteousness based on the law completely misses the point that the era of the law has ended. For “Christ is the culmination of the law, so that righteousness might be available to everyone who believes” (pers. trans.). This, at least, is how I understand this controversial verse.

Two exegetical decisions lead to this interpretation. (1) I am taking the prepositional phrase that ends the verse (eis dikaiosynen …) as stating the purpose of the first clause rather than as a restriction on the word “law.” Those who take it in the latter sense think that Paul is announcing the “end” of the law as a means of attaining righteousness.9 But the syntax favors my rendering.10

(2) I am interpreting the word telos as a combination of the ideas of “end” and “goal.” Many scholars opt for one or the other meaning. Paul often uses telos to mean “end,” in the sense of termination (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:24: “Then the telos will come, when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father”). This meaning would fit Paul’s purpose in the context: Jews are wrong to seek their own righteousness, based on the law (v. 3) because the law has been terminated (v. 4).11 Others, however, point to the fact that telos outside the New Testament usually means “goal,” and that Paul also uses the word with this meaning (see, e.g., 1 Tim. 1:5: “The telos of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith”). They insist that the translation “end” implies that Christ does away with the law, and that Paul does not teach this.

Interpreters who translate “goal” divide over just how it should be taken here. A few think Paul is referring to Christ as the “inner meaning” of the law, the goal to which all the law points.12 But most think he is looking at the matter from a salvation-historical perspective.13 With the coming of Christ, the goal toward which the law was pointing has been reached. I think this latter idea is close to Paul’s point. But if we think about it a minute, we will see that the idea of “end” is bound up with this meaning also. Paul may well here be thinking of the race course imagery he has used in 9:30–32 (“pursuing” and “obtaining”). Let’s picture Israel as the runner, the law as the race, and Christ as the finish line. What Israel has failed to understand, Paul is saying, is that the finish line has been reached. The Messiah and the salvation he brings have come. Thus, the “race” has attained its end and goal—or, to use the best English equivalents, its “culmination” or “climax.”14

As a result of Christ’s coming and bringing the law to its culmination, righteousness is now available for everyone who believes. Christ opens a new phase in salvation history, in which God extends his offer of a right relationship with himself to Gentiles as well as to Jews. Faith, apart from ethnic origin or works, is the sole basis for experiencing this gift he offers to the world.

Bridging Contexts

GOD’S OLD TESTAMENT “word” and his New Testament “word.” Bringing Paul’s message about “the righteousness that is by faith” in 10:6–8 into our own time requires us to investigate just why he uses wording from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:10–14 to make his points. Particularly we need to look at this matter because the texts at first sight seem so inappropriately applied. As we noted above, the Deuteronomy 30 passage is about the Mosaic law, yet Paul uses the wording of that passage to characterize the righteousness by faith in contrast to the righteousness that is by the law (v. 5). Such a tour de force certainly catches our attention! And it has caught the attention of innumerable scholars as well. Richard Hays’s provocative and stimulating book on Paul’s use of the Old Testament opens with this passage as a kind of “test case.”19 Let’s first get an idea of the situation by setting out side by side the Old Testament texts and Romans 10:6–8:

Deuteronomy	Romans 10
9:4After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say in your heart [NIV to yourself], “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 30:10… if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 11Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.	v. 6a: Do not say in your heart
12It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” [note the translation in the Aramaic targum: “Neither is the law beyond the great sea that one may say: would that we had one like the prophet Jonah who would descend into the depths of the Great Sea and bring it up for us”; cf. also Ps. 107:26: “They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths; in their peril their courage melted away.]	v. 6b: “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) v. 7: or “Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)
14No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.	v. 8: But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.

Paul is selective in the portions of Deuteronomy he quotes—so selective that some scholars don’t think he is quoting at all but simply borrowing a bit of wording from these texts.20 But Paul signals his intention to quote with his three “that is” phrases, each introducing his application of the text. This kind of phrase is found elsewhere in Jewish literature to introduce interpretations of Old Testament texts.

The first reference (Deut. 9:4) is straightforward. We may think that the words are few enough as to leave doubt about whether Paul intended “Do not say in your heart” to be a quotation from the Deuteronomy text. But these words occur only here in the Old Testament, so they are distinctive.21 Moreover, they are most appropriate to Paul’s application. Moses warns the Israelites about presuming to think that the Lord has blessed them because of their own righteousness, just as Paul has scolded the Jews for seeking to establish “their own [righteousness]” in Romans 10:3.

The situation regarding the Deuteronomy 30 references is much more complicated. Paul quotes three phrases from this passage and then applies the words to the events of the gospel. The second phrase, however, is obviously different: In place of “crossing the sea” in Deuteronomy 30:13, Paul speaks of “descending into the deeps.” Some scholars therefore think that Paul may be jumping to a quotation of Psalm 107:26 (see above).22 But Old Testament and Jewish writers frequently interchanged the imagery of the “sea” and the “deep” (abyssos, the “abyss”); note the Aramaic paraphrase of Deuteronomy 30:13 we cite above. Probably, then, Paul is adapting the language of the Deuteronomy text, abetted by the easy interchange between “sea” and “the deep,” to his application to the resurrection of Christ.

The bigger question—and one harder to answer—is why Paul has applied language about “commanding” to “the righteousness that is by faith.” What conceivable hermeneutical principle can justify him in making such an application? Many allege Paul is arbitrary: He wrests the language from its context to make it mean something quite different. But we have seen again and again in Romans how the apostle bases his application of the Old Testament on solid theological reading. Some interpreters think Paul is working with an implicit identification of Christ with the law, so what the Old Testament says about the law, Paul can apply to Christ.

But we think a more likely explanation emerges when we consider the real purpose of Paul’s use of this language from Deuteronomy. This becomes clear in verse 8: The message about righteousness by faith, preached by Paul and the other apostles, is both accessible and understandable. The notion of God’s “word” is the key bridging concept. In Deuteronomy the word takes the form of a command; here in Romans, that word is the message of faith. As God made available his will to his old covenant people, so now he makes available his will for the new covenant. Yet the new covenant word has an added element of “nearness.” Christ, as the One who brings the law to its culmination (v. 4), also writes that law on the hearts of God’s people, as was predicted by Jeremiah in his famous “new covenant” prophecy (Jer. 31:31–34). So in Christ, the law has come near to God’s people in a way that it never had before. All that is now required of human beings is that they accept God’s word in faith.

Penetrating behind Paul’s appropriation of Deuteronomy 30 to its underlying rationale sheds rich light on Paul’s purposes in this passage. He wants us to see that God’s word in the gospel stands in continuity with God’s word in the Old Testament. Looked at from one perspective, that Old Testament word, as “law,” demanded an obedience that was impossible (v. 5). But, from another perspective, God’s Old Testament word was a demonstration of God’s grace, as he revealed himself and his will to a sinful and rebellious people. Now, in Christ, God has brought that word of grace to its climax—and all people need to do is accept the gift of righteousness he offers by believing.

Confessing with the mouth? When my wife and I were living in St. Andrews, Scotland, we frequently encountered a passionate, though overenthusiastic evangelist. She roamed the streets all day and much of the night, accosting people and loudly proclaiming to them her own faith and the need for them to “turn” before they “burned.” In conversation with her one day, I asked why she had such zeal for evangelism. She quoted Romans 10:10b: “It is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” Confession with the mouth, she argued, was clearly set forth as a requirement for salvation, and she was determined to make sure that she fulfilled the condition.

Her use of this text, I think, was a classic instance of overinterpretation as a result of missing the rhetorical purposes of the text. “Heart” and “mouth” are found in the quotation of Deuteronomy 30:14 in Romans 10:8. Paul then plays on both these terms in verses 9–10 to show how the Deuteronomy text finds specific fulfillment in the preaching of the gospel. Nothing that he says elsewhere in his letters suggests that verbal profession is required to be saved. Obviously, Paul expects his converts to be active in sharing the gospel, and the St. Andrews evangelist puts most of us to shame on that score. But Paul also makes clear that belief in the heart is all that is needed to bring one into the kingdom of God. Insisting on verbal confession is a misreading of Paul’s rhetoric in Romans 10:10.

Contemporary Significance

THE IMPORTANCE OF the whole Bible. One of the reasons for the enduring power of Romans is its constant attention to one of the great issues in Christian theology: the relationship between the Old Testament and the New. No issue was so important in establishing the identity of the early Christian movement. Was it to be a sect of Judaism, as some of the former Pharisees apparently wanted (Acts 15:1, 5)? Or, at the opposite extreme, was it to be a new religion, with little or no relationship to the Old Testament and Judaism, as the second-century heretic Marcion wanted?

Paul takes the opportunity in Romans to face this issue head-on, for the church in Rome was in need of direction on this matter. Jewish Christians were apparently insisting on the continuing importance of law-observance; Gentile Christians saw no need to burden themselves with these requirements. Jewish Christians thought that the Old Testament guaranteed them the inside track to salvation; Gentile Christians, basking in their majority in the church, thought that they were the ones in the driver’s seat. Thus, as Paul presents his gospel to this church he has never visited, he refers again and again to its relationship to the Old Testament. Over the course of the letter, he builds a balanced view, in which both the continuity and discontinuity between Old Testament and New, law and gospel, emerge.

We have had occasion to refer to specific points of continuity and discontinuity throughout the commentary as we have encountered them in the text. Now is a good time to survey the whole picture. Basic, of course, is our understanding of the theology Paul is teaching. But, as for the Roman Christians, so it is true for us that the theology of the relation of the Old and New Testaments carries innumerable practical implications. In what follows, then, I will focus on these practical implications, keeping the theology in the background.

(1) We must continue to read, study, and meditate on the Old Testament. Christ may have fulfilled the Old Testament and brought the law to its intended goal (Rom. 10:4). But Paul is clear about its enduring value for believers. The Law and the Prophets bear witness to the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ. If we do not understand them, we will be unable to understand the gospel. For the gospel is presented in terms that can be understood only through thorough acquaintance with the Old Testament.

Consider, for instance, the great summary of the gospel in Romans 3:21–26. The key words are “righteousness from God” (vv. 21, 22), “faith” (vv. 22, 26), “sin” (v. 23), “the glory of God” (v. 23), “redemption” (v. 24), “grace” (v. 24), “sacrifice of atonement” (v. 25), and “[God’s] justice” (vv. 25, 26). We cannot hope to understand any of these words apart from the Old Testament, and more than a cursory concordance search is needed.

• Appreciating the real meaning of sin can come only as we soak ourselves in the story of the Fall and of Israel’s constant failures.

• Comprehending what it means for God to be “just” and the consequent problem that human sin causes is possible only if we have reflected on the God who is revealed as “the Holy One” and if we have absorbed the lessons of the many outbreaks of his fierce wrath against human sin.

• Cherishing “the old rugged cross” reaches new depths of emotion when we comprehend how Christ was appointed by God to be the one in whom the great and final “Day of Atonement” was celebrated.

• Appreciating what Paul is saying about the “righteousness that is by faith” in Romans 10:6–8 is impossible without being familiar with Deuteronomy and its teaching about the grace of God in the covenant with Israel.

In Romans 15:4, Paul puts what we are saying this way: “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” His reference is to the Old Testament. “Everything” in it, Paul claims, was written to teach us, and its purpose is that we “might have hope.” Scripture accomplishes this purpose by engendering in us the ability to bear up in difficult times (“endurance”) and the joy that comes from knowing God’s enduring commitment to his people (“encouragement”).

Nowhere in the Old Testament do I find such endurance and encouragement as in the Psalms. Luther once expressed amazement that any Christian would not know the book of Psalms by heart. I confess I don’t, even though I spend more time there (in comparison with other Old Testament books) than I should. But “overhearing” the psalmists express their complaints about injustice, their laments about God’s apparent unconcern for them, and their thanksgiving for his assuring presence and activity extraordinarily stimulates my own devotion.

In different ways, all the Old Testament accomplishes the same purpose. Yet I find that many believers in our day are abysmally ignorant of the Old Testament. To the degree that they read the Bible at all, they focus all too often on the New Testament alone. I remember suggesting in our midweek Bible study some years ago that we study Micah for a few weeks. One would have thought that I proposed studying the Code of Hammurabi in its original language. I was amazed at the reaction: What in the world would an Old Testament prophet with a strange name have to say to us today? Paul would certainly deplore this attitude. For by neglecting the Old Testament, we neglect the only source we have to fill out the meaning of the gospel and make it more than mere words for us.

(2) We are no longer obliged to obey the commandments of the Old Testament law. Many Christians generally agree here, but the exact relationship of the Old Testament law to the Christian believer has been a dividing point between systems of Protestant theology. Lutherans and dispensationalists, to differing degrees and with some nuancing, tend to include all Old Testament laws in the assertion above. Those in the Reformed camp, following the lead of Calvin, Zwingli, the Westminster divines, and most of the Puritans, usually insist that at least the Ten Commandments remain directly applicable to the Christian believer. They argue that in these commandments we are given God’s eternal moral law, and it can no more be revoked than God can change his eternal moral standards.

We would need an entire volume adequately to deal with these issues.23 I have already sketched my own view and some of the exegetical evidence to support it in the Contemporary Significance section on 7:1–6. So I will concentrate here on the practical implications of my view.

Lest you dismiss me too quickly as a wild-eyed fanatic, two factors that lessen the practical impact of the view I am arguing should be mentioned. What I am doing is simply applying to a small part of the Old Testament law what almost all Christians do with most of it already. We agree that Christ’s fulfilling of the law means that we need no longer obey the “ritual law” and the “civil” law. We do not have to slaughter lambs at church, nor do we stone adulterers.24 Most of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy fall into these categories. With my view, the principle is simply extended to what is sometimes called the “moral” law.

As I have argued before, the New Testament writers treat the law of Moses as a unity. If it is fulfilled (Matt. 5:17), all of it is fulfilled. Christ is the “culmination” of the law—not just a part of it. So when Paul claims that we have “died” to the law (Rom. 7:4) and are no longer “under” it (6:14–15), we must accept that, as new covenant believers, we are freed from obligation to the old covenant law in toto. But the effect of this view is that we read all the Old Testament law just as we already read most of it.

Another important mitigating factor is the fact that the moral law of the Old Testament law is taken up into and repeated in “the law of Christ.” Nine of the Ten Commandments are explicitly repeated in the New Testament as binding on believers. The exception is the Sabbath command, and this is partly why Christians have disagreed so much about the new covenant day of worship (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists) and what behavior is appropriate for that day.25 When students ask what practical difference it would make were they to adopt my view as opposed to the typical “moral law” view, I answer, “Not much. The differences lie more in how we put together the Testaments than in what we would actually do or avoid doing.”

At the risk of extreme generalization, we may therefore conclude that Paul in Romans says an emphatic “yes” to the Old Testament but a qualified “no” to the law. I say “qualified” because Paul certainly gives Jews, “born under the law,” the right to continue to obey the law as means of expressing their piety. Obeying God’s law is not a bad thing; one just cannot insist that Gentiles do it. And the law, along with the rest of the Old Testament, must continue to be read and studied for the light it sheds on God’s character and the moral requirements of the gospel.

Good news for everyone. Another of the great themes of Romans is the universality of the gospel. From the opening statement of the letter’s theme (1:16), Paul has made clear that the gospel he preaches is for Jew and Gentile alike. In the verses we have just interpreted, Paul restates this theme in no uncertain terms:

“Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (v. 11; cf. Isa. 28:16)

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him” (v. 12)

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (v. 13; cf. Joel 2:32)

Paul focuses on Jew and Gentile because of the Old Testament background and because of the specific situation in the Roman church. But clearly the “no difference” principle, while applied specifically to Jew and Gentile, is all encompassing. In the Contemporary Significance section on 4:9–12, we applied the principle to the life of the church. Here, because of the context, we might apply the point to the missionary work of the church.

Offering the gospel to all nations and ethnic groups is the logical conclusion from the principle we see in these verses. The church of Christ in general has committed itself to this great and yet unfinished task. But we are easily deflected from that goal. Ironically, one of the causes of the problem in recent years has been a theology that has emerged from within the Christian missionary movement itself. Some of its theoreticians have put forth what is sometimes called the “church growth” approach to missions. Quite pragmatic, this approach argues—with understandable logic—that the church should concentrate its resources on people groups who are receptive to the gospel. The result, of course, is a lack of attention to those people groups that are not now receptive—the Islamic world being a prime example.

Church growth strategists are sincere in their concern to win as many to Christ as possible, and they stress that the day for these other ethnic groups will come. But I wonder whether the pragmatic allocation of missionary resources that these missiologists advocate does justice to the principle of universality that Paul enunciates in passages such as this one. Decisions about where to send missionaries are not easy, but we cannot predict where God will call his people to minister. Nor should we direct or deflect that call on the basis of pragmatics.

Original Meaning

Righteousness for Everyone Who Believes (10:5–13)

VERSES 5–13 ELABORATE on the two key points Paul has made in verse 4: Christ ends the era of the law, making available a righteousness that can be attained through faith (vv. 5–10); and this righteousness is now available to anyone who believes (vv. 11–13).

In verses 5–6 we find the third contrast between two kinds of righteousness. The “law of righteousness” of 9:31 and “their own [righteousness]” of 10:3 is now described as “the righteousness that is by the law”; while, as in 9:30, “God’s righteousness” (10:3) is defined as the “righteousness that is by faith.” Paul then identifies each righteousness by means of the Old Testament.

The apostle cites Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 to describe legal righteousness: “The man who does these things will live by them.” Paul is not suggesting here that Moses taught that one could be saved by doing the law. “Living” in the Old Testament context refers to the enjoyment of covenant privilege and not necessarily to eternal life.15 Rather, Paul’s point is that any righteousness based on the law is, by definition, something one can get only by “doing.” For “doing” is what the law is all about, as Leviticus 18:5 makes clear (see also Gal. 3:12, where Paul quotes Lev. 18:5 with a similar application).16

In contrast to this legal righteousness, then, is the “righteousness that is by faith.” Paul uses a figure of speech, putting words from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:10–14 on the lips of this righteousness. The general point he wants to make about the righteousness by faith is clear enough: Through Christ’s being brought down to earth (i.e., his incarnation, Rom. 10:6) and his being brought up from the dead (10:7), God has made righteousness readily available (10:8). One does not have to ascend into heaven or plumb the depths of the sea to discover it. All one needs to do to attain righteousness is to respond in faith to the gospel as it is preached.

However, Paul’s choice of words from Deuteronomy 30:10–14 to express this point is provocative, for that passage is about the law, not the gospel. Paul betrays here again his hermeneutical boldness in reading the Old Testament in light of Christ. He seems to be implying that the grace of God offered to Israel in the old covenant is now available to all people through the new covenant (see, for more detail, the Bridging Contexts section).17

Verses 9–10 draw conclusions from what Paul has said about “the righteousness that is by faith” in verses 6–8. Deuteronomy 30:14, which Paul cites in Romans 10:8, refers to the “mouth” and the “heart.” In verse 9 he elaborates each of these. With the mouth one confesses “Jesus is Lord.” The confession that Jesus is Lord is one of the most basic distinguishing marks of being a Christian (see esp. Phil. 2:11; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). With the heart one believes that God raised Jesus from the dead. The fulfillment of these two conditions brings salvation. Verse 10 elaborates further, only now in reverse order (chiasm), with the heart coming first and then the mouth. Heart belief leads to justification, confession with the mouth to salvation.

Verse 11 is transitional. It grounds verse 10 by showing from the Old Testament that putting one’s trust in Christ will bring vindication in the judgment. The quotation is from Isaiah 28:16, which Paul has already quoted in Romans 9:33. The “him” in the quotation is actually the “stone,” as a quotation of the full verse reveals: “So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.’ ” But Paul has implicitly identified that “stone” with Christ in 9:32–33 (see also 1 Peter 2:6–8). “Trusts” in verse 11 translates the Greek verb pisteuo (to believe), so the tie with believing in Romans 10:10a is clear. “Put to shame” is often in the Bible a metaphor for condemnation at the judgment. Note, for example, Isaiah 50:7–8:

Because the Sovereign LORD helps me,

I will not be disgraced.

Therefore have I set my face like flint,

and I know I will not be put to shame.

He who vindicates me is near.

Who then will bring charges against me?

Let us face each other!

Who is my accuser?

Let him confront me!18

In addition to looking back to verse 10, the quotation in verse 11 also anticipates what is to come. For it stresses that the faith that leads to vindication in the judgment is open to “anyone.” Paul elaborates this in verse 12, returning to his central claim that the gospel opens the doors to salvation to all people on the same basis. As he does elsewhere in Romans, the “no difference” principle among people is to be applied especially to the key divide created by the Old Testament between Jew and Gentile (1:16; 2:9, 10, 11; cf. 3:22–23). The confession “Jesus is Lord” unites both in the same faith and the same hope, for Jesus is “Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him.”

The verb “call on” (epikaleo) is apparently the trigger that leads Paul to yet another Old Testament text that underscores the universality of God’s offer in the gospel (Joel 2:32): “Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved.” The “LORD” in Joel is Yahweh, the covenant name of God. But Paul identifies this “Lord” with Jesus (see Rom. 10:9, 12), the “stone” of Isaiah 28:16 (Rom. 10:11). Verse 13, then, is important evidence that the early Christians identified Jesus with God.

Bridging Contexts

GOD’S OLD TESTAMENT “word” and his New Testament “word.” Bringing Paul’s message about “the righteousness that is by faith” in 10:6–8 into our own time requires us to investigate just why he uses wording from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:10–14 to make his points. Particularly we need to look at this matter because the texts at first sight seem so inappropriately applied. As we noted above, the Deuteronomy 30 passage is about the Mosaic law, yet Paul uses the wording of that passage to characterize the righteousness by faith in contrast to the righteousness that is by the law (v. 5). Such a tour de force certainly catches our attention! And it has caught the attention of innumerable scholars as well. Richard Hays’s provocative and stimulating book on Paul’s use of the Old Testament opens with this passage as a kind of “test case.”19 Let’s first get an idea of the situation by setting out side by side the Old Testament texts and Romans 10:6–8:

Deuteronomy	Romans 10
9:4After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say in your heart [NIV to yourself], “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 30:10… if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 11Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.	v. 6a: Do not say in your heart
12It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” [note the translation in the Aramaic targum: “Neither is the law beyond the great sea that one may say: would that we had one like the prophet Jonah who would descend into the depths of the Great Sea and bring it up for us”; cf. also Ps. 107:26: “They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths; in their peril their courage melted away.]	v. 6b: “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) v. 7: or “Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)
14No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.	v. 8: But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.