An Intertextual Commentary on Romans, Volume 3: Romans 9:1—11:36

By Channing L. Crisler

An Intertextual Commentary on Romans is an exhaustive treatment of the hundreds of Old Testament citations, allusions, and echoes embedded in Paul's most famous epistle. As many scholars have acknowledged, to understand Paul's engagement with Israel's Scriptures is to understand Romans. Despite this acknowledgment, there is a dearth of reference works in which the primary focus is how the Old Testament impacts Paul's argument from Romans 1:1 to 16:27. This four-volume commentary aims to provide just such a reference. The interplay between Romans and its vast sea of Old Testament pre-texts produces unstated points of resonance that illuminate Paul's rhetorical argument from the letter's opening to its closing doxology.

Volume 3 examines the scriptural pre-texts in Romans 9:1--11:36. This section of the letter is the most intertextually dense section of the New Testament and the most theologically controversial section in the entire Pauline corpus. If interpreters hope to navigate these exegetical and theological challenges, they must carefully analyze the intertextual subtext of these chapters where Paul engages Israel's Scriptures at every rhetorical turn. This volume provides such an analysis. In this way, it also contributes to the commentary's overarching aim, which is to provide scholars, interpreters, and students with verse by verse analysis of how Israel's Scriptures impact almost every clause of Paul's most famous letter.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Oct 11, 2022
• ISBN: 9781725288072

Channing L. Crisler

Channing L. Crisler is Associate Professor of New Testament at Anderson University, South Carolina. He is the author of Reading Romans as Lament (2016) and Echoes of Lament and the Christology of Luke (2020).

Book preview

1

Introduction

Over forty years ago, Nils Dahl identified two lingering problems with exegetical treatments of Rom 9–11. He observed:

In spite of the vastness of the literature, two aspects of these chapters have not received enough attention. Scholars rarely consider Paul seriously as an interpreter of Scripture. We still have no detailed investigation of Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Romans

9

–

11

, comparing it to other Christian and Jewish interpretations of the passages quoted, and examining their wording in textual tradition and in translations. The other aspect which scholars have neglected is a formal analysis of the composition and style of Romans

9

–

11

.

¹

Since Dahl’s observation, many of these concerns have been addressed to varying degrees through commentaries, monographs, and articles. However, despite these advances, much work remains to be done, especially as it relates to a detailed investigation of how Paul uses Israel’s Scriptures in Rom 9–11 and an examination of the wording in textual tradition.

²

This commentary attempts to address both issues and more. Despite the academy’s potential exhaustion with works on Romans, one cannot investigate the intertextual subtext of the letter enough.

³

In fact, despite my best efforts, what I offer in the pages ahead is nothing more than a rudimentary attempt to understand Paul’s engagement with Israel’s Scriptures in a way that addresses the kinds of concerns laid out by Dahl. Readers will soon realize that I have only scratched the intertextual surface, based either on a failure to adequately address certain OT uses by Paul or a failure to adequately engage a seemingly endless parade of secondary literature related to the issue.

⁴

Despite these limitations, what follows is an attempt to explore the most intertextually dense section of the entire NT or early Christian literature.

⁵

The present work is volume 3 of a four-volume commentary dedicated to examining all intertextual features found in Paul’s most famous letter.

⁶

Of all four volumes, not surprisingly, this one presents the largest intertextual challenge. That is because Rom 9–11 easily contains the highest concentration of OT citations among any passage in the letter.

⁷

As Aaron Sherwood notes, Chapters 9–11 contain over half of the citations for the entire letter, at a frequency of nearly one every three verses.

⁸

What we find here is indeed what Mark Seifrid refers to as a flood of citations.

⁹

While these citations receive the bulk of interpretive attention, and rightfully so, Rom 9–11 also contains intertextual allusions and echoes which inform Paul’s argument. Therefore, these features will also receive consideration in the chapters ahead. Collectively, the interplay between the various intertextual features of Rom 9–11 indicate that Paul laments Israel’s unbelief and receives a divine answer to his lament by rereading Israel’s Scriptures through the lens of God’s mysterious, inscrutable, and loving work in Christ.

¹⁰

Before beginning this intertextual analysis in earnest, it is necessary to address a handful of preliminary issues. I will not rehash here my views on Paul’s OT hermeneutic or lay out in detail my analytic tool for examining the intertextual features of Romans.

¹¹

Instead, I will focus on three issues in what follows: (1) exegetical difficulties in Rom 9–11; (2) major intertextual treatments of Rom 9–11; and (3) a brief review of this commentary’s intertextual jargon and approach.

Exegetical Difficulties in Romans 9–11

As is well-known, several exegetical difficulties plague the interpretation of Rom 9–11. Two difficulties that stand out are: (1) the rhetorical relationship between Rom 9–11 and the rest of the letter; and (2) the major interpretive approaches to Rom 9–11. In discussing these two difficulties, I will clarify the positions taken in this commentary and discuss the relevance of those positions for our intertextual analysis.

The Relationship between Romans 9–11 and the Rest of the Letter

Rhetorical criticism offers one way to assess the relationship between Rom 9–11 and the rest of the letter.

¹²

Ben Witherington suggests, "We are probably dealing here with what Quintillian calls prolepsis, an anticipatory rebuttal which forestalls certain arguments Paul might expect to hear when he gets to Rome."

¹³

Among those possible arguments, Israel’s unbelief in Messiah Jesus and its implications for God’s ways is likely an issue that Paul would have to address upon his arrival. As Witherington explains, The passion of Paul’s words in chs. 9–11 reflects the urgency of the matter as he plans to go to Rome. There must be some semblance of concord between Jewish and Gentile believers before he gets there.

¹⁴

In addition to this rhetorically and historically conditioned link, Paul also links these two sections of the letter based on his heartfelt concern for unbelieving Israel.

¹⁵

While Paul likely had concerns about the implications of Israel’s unbelief for Jewish and Gentile relations in Rome, this was also a deeply personal concern for Paul.

¹⁶

As with any of Paul’s concerns as an apostle, this one likely drove him to prayer, specifically to lament. We hear Paul’s cry of distress in Rom 9:1–3, especially with the phrase in verse 3, For I myself could pray that I would be accursed from Christ. As I will discuss in the chapters ahead, this opening cry of distress does more than provide a window into Paul’s emotional anguish. Structurally, it is part of a larger rhetorical frame in Rom 9–11 that is shaped by an OT pattern of lament. David Wallace plainly states, Paul’s content and arrangement in these chapters follow an Old Testament lament pattern of an address, body, and a final praise.

¹⁷

Though my own description of the lament pattern differs from Wallace’s, I agree with him in principle.

¹⁸

Laments in Israel’s Scriptures not only reflect ancient prayers but ancient experiences.

¹⁹

The pattern inherent to lament describes both the movements of an ancient prayer and of ancient life. In short, lament involves five fluid movements: (1) prior promise; (2) suffering; (3) cry of distress/deliverance; (4) deliverance; and (5) praise.

²⁰

These movements are fluid in the sense that they do not always occur in the same order and, in some instances, a movement is implied rather than explicitly stated. Ps 13 (12 LXX) provides a classic example of individual lament. It begins with interrogative complaints such as How long, will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? (Ps 13:2).

²¹

These complaints stem from the fact that God does not intervene while the lamenter suffers at the hands of enemies. This elicits a request: Look, answer me, O Lord, enlighten my eyes, lest I will sleep in death (Ps 13:5). Despite the lamenter’s suffering and cry of distress, the psalm ends with a statement of trust which functions as both deliverance and praise (Ps 13:6). The entire prayer is predicated upon the prior promise that God would answer such cries. These same fluid movements are evident in Rom 9–11.

The outline of Rom 9:1—11:36 follows a pattern of OT lament which contains the following movements. First, Rom 9:1–5 reflects the tension between a prior promise and suffering that in turn elicits a cry of distress. The prior promise is evoked in Rom 9:4–5 where Paul lays out Israel’s scriptural identity. The thrust of all the descriptors in these two verses is that God promised to arrive and rescue Abraham’s seed. Paul believes this has occurred with the arrival of Jesus whom he praises as God over all (ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός).

²²

However, Israel’s unbelief in Messiah Jesus causes Paul’s suffering which he describes as great grief (λύπη μεγάλη) and unceasing pain (ἀδιάλειπτος ὀδύνη) (Rom 9:2). This in turn elicits a cry of distress in which Paul mimics Moses’s cry from Exod 32:32, For I myself could pray that I would be accursed from Christ for my brethren my fellow kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom 9:3). Second, Rom 9:6—11:32 contains the answer to Paul’s cry of distress which, as is often the case in OT lament, functions as a form of deliverance. The answered lament laid out in 9:6—11:32 is theologically and intertextually dense, as we shall see in the chapters ahead. In the third and final movement of the lament pattern reflected in Rom 9–11, the answered lament leads to praise in 11:33–36. Paul underscores that God’s dealings with Israel in his day, like his dealings with them throughout the scriptural record, are paradoxically obvious and inscrutable. It is this pattern of lament that helps to make sense of the internal workings of Rom 9–11 and pinpoint its relationship to the rest of the letter.

With respect to the relationship between Rom 9–11 and the rest of the letter, Paul’s opening assertion, namely that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for the believing Jew first (Ἰουδαίῳ πρῶτον), raises a question that is largely left unanswered until this line of argumentation.

²³

How does the gospel of God’s righteousness result in salvation for the believing Jew when much of Israel rejected Messiah Jesus?

²⁴

To put it another way, how does the gospel not lead to disappointment and shame, given Israel’s unbelief? This is a question of God’s righteousness as it relates to his dealings with Israel, though this is not the only question Paul must address in the letter regarding God’s righteousness. Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11 does not represent his primary concern in the letter, nor are these chapters a mere afterthought or appendix.

²⁵

Rather, these chapters represent a key aspect of how Paul understands the gospel of God and how he wants the Christians in Rome to understand it.

²⁶

In Rom 1–8, using the theological framework from Habakkuk, Paul explains the relationship between the gospel and the suffering of the righteous in Rome, both Jewish and Gentile Christians.

²⁷

Paul lays out how the righteous in Rome can live by faith while God’s wrath is being revealed in the earth, while they are afflicted by the power of sin, and while other inimical forces are intent upon separating believers from Christ. The essence of Paul’s response is that God is righteous to judge idolatrous and judgmental humanity; however, the Christians in Rome, like the righteous in Habakkuk’s day, live by faith in the crucified and risen Christ in the face of present and eschatological wrath. In the face of present and future afflictions, Paul urges them to trust in the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel. Like Abraham their afflicted forefather, whose belief that God could raise his son Isaac from the deadness of Sarah’s womb was reckoned as righteousness, the Christians in Rome are having a similar experience.

²⁸

This experience of present suffering and future hope dominates Rom 5–8 where Paul discusses the tension of the Romans who share in Christ’s death to sin and life to God on the one hand and experience an ongoing struggle with sin and inimical forces on the other. While Paul finishes this discussion with a rhetorical flourish in which he confidently asserts that the Romans cannot be separated from God’s love in Christ, their present afflictions notwithstanding, the question of Jewish unbelief remains a source of affliction largely left unexplained by Paul.

Paul anticipates questions about unbelieving Israel in Rom 9:1, though not by employing his familiar false inference followed by μὴ γένοιτο.

²⁹

Instead, as noted above, Paul comes crashing down from the statement of trust in Rom 8:31–39 to his cry of distress in Rom 9:1–3. In this way, Rom 1–8 is linked to 9–11 through yet one more affliction that plagues both Paul and the righteous in Rome, namely Israel’s unbelief and the implications of that unbelief for the saving efficacy of God’s word which Paul so boldly announces in 1:16–17. How are the righteous to live by faith when Israel rejects its own Messiah? This stands at the heart of Paul’s lament in Rom 9:1–5 and his answered lament in 9:6—11:36.

Major Interpretive Approaches to Romans 9–11

Another difficulty related to Rom 9–11 stems from the variety of exegetical approaches that interpreters employ in their analyses. Richard Longenecker’s taxonomy of approaches helps frame our discussion here. To be sure, the inherent danger with exegetical taxonomies is that they can oversimplify the positions that interpreters hold and lump together interpreters in a way that eclipses their individual contributions. With this caution in mind, exegetical taxonomies still provide an efficient way of discussing two thousand years of biblical interpretation. Along these lines, Longenecker identifies five major ways of interpreting Rom 9–11 which provides a framework for the following discussion.

³⁰

As we shall see, many of these approaches are driven by a concern with Rom 9:6–29.

To begin, many interpreters treat Rom 9–11 with a theological understanding that highlights God’s ‘sovereign grace’ in the salvation of people.

³¹

While proponents of this understanding do not necessarily ignore the historical contingencies and rhetorical particularities of Rom 9–11 altogether, they tend to stress and explore the implications of Paul’s references to God’s elect (ἐκλογή), the hardening (σκληρύνω) of some groups, images such as the potter and the clay, and other related features.

³²

Augustine and John Calvin, rightly or wrongly, are often credited, or blamed, for this kind of approach.

³³

Second, Longenecker identifies another theological understanding of Rom 9–11 that highlights the theme of humanity’s God-given ‘free will.’

³⁴

This approach is often associated with the figures of Origen, John Chrysostom, and Jacob Arminius.

Longenecker identifies a third approach which he labels salvation history. He explains that some interpreters view these chapters as Paul’s presentation of the course of redemptive history vis-à-vis that of Judaism or Jewish Christianity.

³⁵

Proponents of this approach include Oscar Cullmann and Johannes Munck. For example, in keeping with his larger thesis that early Christians configured their conception of time around the Christ event, Cullmann argues that Paul’s discussion in Rom 9–11 is devoted to the election of the people of Israel; or the line Abraham-Christ-Church.

³⁶

Cullmann suggests that in these chapters Paul explains how he has come to understand Israel’s place in this salvation-historical line.

³⁷

Fourth, the history of religions or comparative religions approach contends that in Rom 9–11 Paul proclaims the existence of both Judaism and Christianity in a way that is in accord with God’s will and under his approval. Proponents of this reading include scholars such as Krister Stendahl and John Gager. Stendahl argues:

To me the climax of Romans is actually chapters

9

–

11

, i.e., his reflections on the relation between church and synagogue, the church and the Jewish people—not Christianity and‘Judaism, not the attitudes of the gospel versus the attitudes of the law. The question is the relation between two communities and their coexistence in the mysterious plan of God.

³⁸

Building upon the work of Stendahl, Gager offers a two-pronged reading of this section of the letter. He argues, First, Chapters 9–11 establish Paul’s claim that God has not rejected his people, Israel; and, second, Israel’s salvation, while not unrelated to the redemption of the Gentiles through Christ, does not take the form of embracing Christ.

³⁹

Finally, some interpreters approach Rom 9–11 as if it is Paul’s apologetic for God’s ways.

⁴⁰

The nature of the apologetic differs from interpreter to interpreter. Longenecker notes that some interpreters treat these chapters as Paul’s vindication of God’s actions in redeeming some people and condemning others (i.e., a ‘theodicy’).

⁴¹

Not all interpreters associated with this approach identify the tension between the redemption of some and the condemnation of others as the theodicy issue in question. For example, Richard Hays suggests that Rom 9–11 is a key part of Paul’s overall epistolary aim to show God’s justice in relation to the Abrahamic covenant and his judgment against the wicked.

⁴²

The approach taken up in what follows best fits in the apologetic category but in an eclectic and qualified manner. Romans 9:6 clearly signals Paul’s apologetic posture, But it is not as though the word of God has failed. As noted above, Paul obligates himself to make this defense based on his assertion in the propositio, namely that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for the believing Jew. Israel’s unbelief in Messiah Jesus calls this assertion into question. However, Paul’s apologetic does not occur in a philosophical vacuum. It is part of the situational nature of the letter. The warning to arrogant branches in Rom 11:17–24 signals a specific concern with Gentile Christians in Rome. Moreover, while some in Rome may have reacted to Israel’s unbelief with arrogance, others may have struggled with potential disappointment in the gospel. As I noted in volume 1 of this commentary, the phrase οὐ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in Rom 1:16 points intertextually to the Romans’ potential disappointment and shame with the gospel.

⁴³

Present and future afflictions threaten to disappoint them, including Israel’s unbelief, which Paul addresses in Rom 9–11. In this way, Paul’s apologetic is two-pronged in its objective: (1) discourage arrogance about the gospel stemming from Israel’s unbelief; and (2) encourage confidence in the gospel despite Israel’s unbelief.

One of the eclectic aspects of this approach is that it engages, to varying degrees, with the other four approaches described above. With respect to the approaches shaped by theological understanding, Rom 9–11 of course has implications for the broader and classical debate over the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. This issue is not the focal point of my analysis, because it does not appear to me that Paul engages it in a way that can ever satisfy the theological curiosity of subsequent interpreters. With that said, similar to his discussion in Rom 8:28–30, Paul stresses at various points in Rom 9–11 that God alone has the authority to elect and reject as a way of assuring both the boastful and doubtful in Rome that the word of God, that is the gospel, does not fail. At the same time, both through direct statements and intertextual engagement in Rom 9–11, Paul stresses the importance of faith in the gospel for both Jews and Gentiles.

With respect to the third approach, salvation history, I agree that Paul covers a large swath of God’s dealings with Israel, and he explains the implications of those dealings for Gentiles. As I will explain in the next chapter, the shorthand expressions of Rom 9:4–5 are intertextually laden and touch on many of the characteristics that define Israel’s history.

Additionally, though I find the history of religions approach articulated by Stendahl and Gager to be historically and rhetorically deficient, it is the case, at least in principle, that Paul holds together Jewish, Gentile, and Christian strands in Rom 9–11. I simply do not believe that he holds them together in a way that constitutes a kind of two-ways salvation, one way for Gentiles and another for Jews. I find it problematic that Gager’s analysis does not explicitly deal with Paul’s conditional statement in Rom 11:23, If they should not remain in unbelief (ἐὰν ἐπιμένωσιν τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ).

⁴⁴

Contextually, Paul identifies the same object of faith for both Jew and Gentile, namely the word of Christ (Rom 10:17). In this way, Paul binds the religious commitments of Jews and Gentiles together through a shared faith in the word of Christ.

Intertextual Treatments of Romans 9–11

I begin with a disclaimer. It is not possible in this setting to summarize all intertextual treatments of Rom 9–11 produced in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

⁴⁵

These treatments have been extensive with a focus on both intertextual minutiae and overarching hermeneutical schemes.

⁴⁶

I will interact with many of the former in the chapters ahead, but my focus here is on the latter. Specifically, I will highlight three monographs that have been especially impactful on the discussion, with the acknowledgment that these are not the only important works that have been produced over the past several decades.

To begin, in his 1993 monograph entitled Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, Richard H. Bell argues that the jealousy motif from Israel’s Scriptures is the bridge between the failure of Israel to believe the gospel and the issue of her eventual salvation, which in turn explains the so-called contradiction in Rom. 9–11.

⁴⁷

The contradiction in question is of course the apparent incongruous plight of Israel described in Rom 9–10, where only a remnant is saved, with Paul’s claim in Rom 11 that the whole of Israel will be saved due, at least in part, to its jealousy over Gentiles.

⁴⁸

Bell suggests that the best translation for παραζηλοῦν in Rom 10:19, 11:11, and 11:14 is to provoke to jealousy.

⁴⁹

The expression of course originates from Deut 32:21, which is where Bell focuses most of his intertextual attention. He includes the whole of Deut 32:1–43, and not just 32:21, as the major origin of Paul’s jealousy motif. He suggests that Deut 32 provides a background for the whole section of Rom 9–11: the election and fall of Israel, her jealousy for the Gentiles, and then the salvation of Gentiles and Jews.

⁵⁰

Regarding the use of this pre-text in Rom 10:14–21, Bell focuses upon what kind of question it answers. He suggests that the question in Rom 10:19, ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω, is best understood as Did Israel not know/understand that the gospel (and the salvation the gospel brings) was to go to the Gentiles as well as to Israel?

⁵¹

In this way, Deut 32:21 answers in the affirmative. As Bell puts it, Moses prophesied that God would provoke Israel to jealous anger.

⁵²

With respect to the larger influence of Deut 32 on Rom 11:11 and 14, Bell argues that Paul views Israel’s jealousy as a future event linked to the salvation of Israel at the parousia. He sees τὸ πλήρωμα in Rom 11:12 as synonymous with πᾶς Ἰσραήλ in 11:26; therefore, the Deuteronomic jealousy motif is a preparation for the parousia in that it provokes Israel to emulation.

⁵³

The essence of Israel’s jealousy, according to Bell, is not that her covenant privileges have been transferred to the Gentiles but that they have been extended to the Gentiles.

⁵⁴

The sweep of Bell’s analysis culminates in his conclusion that Gentiles receive the blessing of salvation through the hardening of Israel and that Israel receives a blessing through the jealousy induced by Gentile belief. Looking beyond Paul’s first-century context, Bell asserts, We Gentiles have received an immeasurable blessing from Israel. The church can also give something precious to the Jewish people. She can so live in the power of the Holy Spirit that Israel will be provoked to jealousy and come to be saved now or when the Messiah of both Jews and Gentiles comes again.

⁵⁵

Overall, the bulk of Bell’s intertextual analysis in Rom 9–11, which supports much of his thesis, revolves around the impact of Deut 32 on Paul’s thought. He describes Paul’s exegesis of this OT pre-text as rational and contextual rather than charismatic.

⁵⁶

While I agree that Deut 32 is fundamental to Paul’s jealousy motif, and that Paul reads the pre-text contextually, the present work aims to situate the use of this motif alongside so many other intertextual engagements in Rom 9–11. Nevertheless, several of Bell’s conclusions will be reflected in the pages ahead.

A second notable monograph is J. Ross Wagner’s 2000 publication entitled Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans.

⁵⁷

I discussed Wagner’s monograph in volume 1 of this commentary as part of a broader discussion on works that analyze Paul’s use of individual OT books in Romans.

⁵⁸

Here I want to focus on Wagner’s intertextual analysis of Rom 9–11, which receives the bulk of his attention anyway. His overarching thesis is as follows:

Paul finds in Isaiah a fellow preacher of the gospel, the message that reveals God’s righteousness for all who believe, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. He uncovers in Isaiah’s heralds a veiled prefiguration of his own mission to proclaim the good news to those among the Gentiles who have not yet heard news of the victory of Israel’s God. Faced with the paradox of Israel’s unbelief, Paul discovers that Isaiah’s words give voice to his own agony of heart: Lord, who has believed our message? And finally, through adopting as his own the stories Isaiah and his fellow scriptural witnesses that tell about God’s unquenchable love for his people, Paul finds assurances that God will be faithful to redeem and restore his covenant people Israel, so that Jew and Gentile together can sing the glories of God’s name.

⁵⁹

Wagner’s thesis underscores three intertextual elements that will be helpful in the following chapters: (1) Paul’s agony over Israel’s unbelief influences the kind of pre-texts he incorporates in Rom 9–11 and how he incorporates them; (2) Paul finds in Isaiah direction for his own missional call; and (3) Isaiah, combined with other pre-texts, provides Paul with the assurance of God’s faithfulness which he needs given Israel’s unbelief.

In addition to the helpfulness of Wagner’s overarching thesis, his intertextual treatment of individual pericopes in Rom 9–11 will also provide helpful insights for the present study. I will discuss many of these insights in the chapters ahead. Here I will simply note three of his overarching conclusions about Paul’s use of Isaiah and other pre-texts in Rom 9–11 that are especially pertinent.

First, borrowing from John Hollander and Richard Hays, Wagner suggests that Rom 9–11 is a cave of resonant signification where the echoes of the many voices invoked by Paul ricochet off the cavern walls, commingling with Paul’s own words and with one another to create a complex choral symphony.

⁶⁰

For Wagner, the unifying note of this symphony is God’s faithfulness to Israel.

Second, Wagner identifies Isaiah as the most prominent voice among many others in this symphonic theodicy. Wagner explains:

Within this symphonic theodicy, Isaiah stands out, not only as a solo voice (

9

:

20

,

33

;

10

:

15

–

16

;

11

:

26

–

27

), but also as a prominent member of duets, trios and quartets: Hosea and Isaiah (

9

:

25

–

29

); Moses, Righteousness from Faith, Isaiah, and Joel (

10

:

5

–

13

); Isaiah and the psalmist (

10

:

18

); Moses and Isaiah (

10

:

19

–

21

); Moses, Isaiah, and David (

11

:

8

–

10

); Isaiah and Job (

11

:

34

–

35

).

⁶¹

Wagner’s symphonic metaphor underscores his belief that Isaiah has the most dominate intertextual voice among a host of others which together defend God’s ways with Israel in Paul’s day.

⁶²

Third, Wagner argues that by the end of the argument in Rom 11:33–36 Isaiah’s voice is merged almost imperceptibly with Paul’s. Together, their voices celebrate the inscrutable wisdom of Israel’s God, the God who, through Paul’s apostolic activity, is now accomplishing his gracious purpose to redeem Jew and Gentile together in Christ.

⁶³

I agree with Wagner that Isaiah plays a key role in Paul’s argument, though it is not necessarily the case that Isaiah has the lead voice within a symphony of intertextual engagement. Nevertheless, I appreciate Wagner’s emphasis on the diverse scriptural voices that Paul pulls together to demonstrate that God’s word to Israel has not failed. Wagner understands that Paul does not merely use these pre-texts. Rather, they affect him. Specifically, as we shall see, they answer his lament.

A third set of works that need to be mentioned here are two monographs by Brian J. Abasciano entitled Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis and Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. Although Abasciano’s works cover only Rom 9:1–18, his meticulous exegetical work warrants inclusion in this discussion.

In his 2005 work, Abasciano works through Rom 9:1–9, giving close attention to both the echo of Exod 32–34 in Rom 9:3 and the citations of Gen 21:12 and 18:10, 14 in Rom 9:6–9. Based largely on this intertextual analysis of Rom 9:1–9, Abasciano concludes that in Rom 9–11 the themes of God’s faithfulness to Israel and the identity of the true people of God are inseparable and mutually informative.

⁶⁴

In short, he suggests that Paul is best taken as a covenant theologian.

⁶⁵

Consequently, Abasciano suggests that the underlying question in Rom 9:1–9 is who are the covenant people and on what basis are they so reckoned, a question which then becomes programmatic for the entirety of Rom 9–11.

⁶⁶

The answer, according to Abasciano, is that God’s covenant people are none other than the Church of Jews and Gentiles, the messianic community identified by God’s call in his free mercy on the basis of promise and faith.

⁶⁷

Abasciano draws out larger theological implications of his intertextual reading, focusing especially on traditional Arminian and Calvinistic readings of Rom 9. Abasciano settles on the former position, explaining, In traditional theological terminology, Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9 argues for an Arminian rather than a Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9, albeit on untraditional grounds.

⁶⁸

With respect to the larger characteristics of Paul’s engagement with Israel’s Scriptures in Rom 9:1–8, Abasciano draws at least three overarching conclusions: (1) Paul intentionally conflates OT citations; (2) typology functions as Paul’s main interpretive strategy; and (3) Paul’s use of Israel’s Scriptures is characterized by his engagement with the larger contexts of the pre-texts.

⁶⁹

In his 2013 work, Abasciano continues his intertextual analysis by examining Rom 9:10–18. Abasciano gives careful attention to Gen 25:23; Mal 1:2–3; Exod 33:19; and Exod 9:16.

⁷⁰

He suggests that his extended intertextual analysis of Rom 9:10–18 confirms his findings from the analysis of 9:1–9.

⁷¹

However, he highlights two additional points. First, based on his exegesis of Rom 9:11–12, Abasciano suggests that traditional and New Perspective interpretations of works of the Law have something to offer the interpreter. He explains, The traditional perspective that Paul’s ‘works’ language can refer to any meritorious human effort or deed receives some support from our exegesis of 9.12. But the New Perspective also receives support as correctly identifying Paul’s specific emphasis, particularly as we observed that the concepts of total Law-keeping and Jewish identity are inextricably linked and that Paul construed the divine purpose in these matters to be set on the blessing of the world facilitated by opening up salvation to Gentiles.

⁷²

Second, Abasciano suggests that Paul’s use of the OT in Rom 9:10–18 supports the possibility that Paul sometimes made use of a Hebrew Vorlage for his quotations. He points specifically to Paul’s citation of Exod 9:16 in Rom 9:17. However, Abasciano suggests that Paul makes use of the Hebrew and LXX of Exod 9:16 at the same time, a suggestion I will make from time to time in the chapters ahead.

⁷³

Regarding the exegetical payoff of his intertextual analysis of Rom 9:10–18, Abasciano argues that it clarifies how Paul maintains that God is righteous. According to Abasciano, Paul argues that God fulfills his covenant promises and purpose for election by bestowing his sovereign calling/naming on those who believe in Christ.

⁷⁴

Abasciano’s two works offer valuable insights for the intertextual analysis of Rom 9–11. He is right to underscore the hermeneutical impact that Paul’s use of Israel’s Scriptures in Rom 9:1–18 has on the entirety of Rom 9–11. Interpreters’ analysis of the former inevitably shapes their interpretation of the latter. I also find Abasciano’s suggestion that Paul’s citations sometimes reflect interaction with a Hebrew Vorlage a convincing insight, though it is probably a minority position among Pauline interpreters. However, I differ with Abasciano at certain points. Most notably, as subsequent analysis will demonstrate, I disagree with Abasciano’s interpretation of Paul’s call language. Paul has in view a divine call that is more potent than simply naming those who believe in Christ.

Our Intertextual Approach

To reiterate, I will not rehash here my overarching intertextual approach or discuss the broader issue of Paul’s OT hermeneutic. Such a discussion can be found in volume 1 of this commentary. Instead, I want to briefly review my approach for readers unfamiliar with the first two volumes. It is a simple approach that consists of three interrelated steps.

First, I list all of the OT pre-texts (citations, allusions, and echoes proper) identified in each pericope as identified by Hans Hübner, NA 28th ed., Richard B. Hays, and Mark A. Seifrid. It does not follow that I will analyze all of these pre-texts listed in these four sources. However, the lists provide the reader an opportunity to explore pre-texts that I may not specifically discuss.

Second, the intertextual analysis for each pericope varies based on the kind of pre-text under consideration. Treatments of citations in Romans includes the following: (1) a comparison of the citation in Romans, the MT, and the LXX; (2) a summary of the wider OT context of the citation; and (3) an analysis of the contextual consistency between the pre-text and text.

The analysis of allusions and echoes proper includes identifying and testing the proposed pre-texts. The intertextual tests which I employ are a modification of Hays’s proposed tests for intertextual echoes.

⁷⁵

Five tests are implemented, though not pedantically, and not every test is administered in every single instance. First, I test the volume of the echo to determine if it is strong, moderate, or low. Strong volume requires that the pre-text and text parallel contain at least three semantic parallels.

⁷⁶

In some instances, if the parallel involves a rarely used term, the volume may still qualify as strong even if it does not meet the three parallels threshold.

⁷⁷

Two parallel terms qualifies as moderate volume, and one parallel is labelled as low volume. Second, I test the contextual consistency of the echo. Do the proposed pre-text and text share common themes, images, historical referents, and/or theological concepts? Third, I will sometimes test the motif consistency between pre-text and text. This is similar to contextual consistency; however, motif consistency allows for the possibility that the pre-text and text, though using different language and historical referents, overlap with respect to their dominant patterns or ideas. For example, the pre-text and text may both feature an emphasis on divine judgment but express that emphasis through different linguistic and conceptual means. A fourth test involves the recurrence of a pre-text. Does Paul explicitly allude to the pre-text elsewhere in Romans or in another letter? Fifth, I test proposed pre-texts in relation to the history of interpretation. Have previous interpreters identified this pre-text? How have they treated its significance? This final test cannot be carried out in an exhaustive way. As noted already, the secondary literature on Paul’s use of the OT in Romans is gargantuan.

The third and final step is to asses the interpretive impact of the intertextual analysis on Paul’s argument in Romans. How does reading Paul’s argument in light of its intertextual subtext impact our understanding of his argument? Here I will attempt to articulate the points of resonance generated by the interplay between the OT pre-text and text of Romans. These points will then be verified and clarified based on how they fit with the immediate and larger rhetorical contexts of the letter.

Even with the implementation of this approach, readers will not always agree with the proposed pre-texts or with how I articulate the impact of these pre-texts on Paul’s argument. Nevertheless, it is my hope that this close intertextual reading of Rom 9–11 letter may shed a least a little more exegetical light on the meaning of Paul’s text, or perhaps it may generate further conversation and inquiries.

1

. Dahl, Future of Israel,

138

. See also Longenecker, Introducing Romans,

410

.

2

. As Aaron Sherwood notes, "There are comparatively few studies on Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans

9

–

11

, especially ones that take full account of the historical context of Romans and therefore Paul’s communicative strategy in these chapters." Sherwood, Word of God,

2

.

3

. Scholarly works on Romans often dominate studies of the Pauline corpus and the entire NT. As one scholar recently put it, There are probably more academic books on Romans than on all the other NT books combined! McKnight and Gupta, State of New Testament Studies,

3

.

4

. I attempt in the chapters ahead to engage various commentaries, monographs, and articles. However, I have not found it possible to engage with all relevant secondary literature discussing Paul’s use of the OT in this section of the letter. I ask the forgiveness of scholars who do not find their own works on the matter cited in what lies ahead. I have done the best that I can in the matter.

5

. John’s Apocalypse and the Epistle of Barnabas are certainly some of the most intertextually dense pieces of early Christian literature that we have. However, they still do not rise to the level of sustained and sophisticated intertextual engagement that we see in Rom

9

–

11

.

6

. As noted in previous volumes, the intertextual scope here is limited to the interplay between the text of Romans and pre-texts from Israel’s Scriptures. While the letter could be read in relation to a variety of Greco-Roman pre-texts, this commentary focuses upon Paul’s sustained engagement with Israel’s Scriptures. Other scholars have attempted to read Romans in relation to the Greco-Roman literary, political, and material culture of Paul’s day. See, e.g., Elliott, Arrogance of the Nations; Oakes, Reading Romans in Pompeii.

7

. Kujanpää notes that "

30

of the

51

quotations in Romans are in these chapters." Kujanpää, Rhetorical Functions,

86

. On this point, see also Witherington, Paul’s Letter to Romans,

237

–

38

.

8

. Sherwood, Word of God,

2

.

9

. Mark A. Seifrid notes, "The long drought of direct citation of the Scriptures in chapters

5

–

8

, which Paul breaks in

8

:

36

, is followed by a flood of citations in chapters

9

–

11.

Seifrid, Romans,"

638

. Of course, as I discussed in vol.

2

, Rom

5

–

8

contains its own vast sea of intertextual echoes.

10

. As I will explain in the next chapter, the pattern of lament from Israel’s Scriptures frames Paul’s argument in Rom

9

:

1

—

11

:

36

. I first made this point in an earlier monograph. See Crisler, Reading Romans as Lament,

151

–

88

. It overlaps, though, with different approaches and points of emphases with the argument in D. R. Wallace, Election of Lesser Son.

11

. For these discussions, see vol.

1

.

12

. For a lengthy discussion of a rhetorical approach for the entire letter, see Jewett, Romans,

23

–

46

.

13

. Witherington, Paul’s Letter to Romans,

238

.

14

. Witherington, Paul’s Letter to Romans,

239

.

15

. Along with Witherington’s historical link between Rom

1

–

8

and

9

–

11

, the latter chapters may also be tied to Paul’s concern with missonal support from Christians in Rome. As Stuhlmacher notes, "What Paul has to say in Romans

9

–

11

is just as decisive for the understanding of his gospel of justification as it is for the realization of his far-reaching mission plans." Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to Romans,

144

.

16

. E.g., Rom

11

:

17

–

24

indicates Paul’s concern with Gentile Christian boasting about their current position within the people of God in contrast to the position of Paul’s unbelieving Jewish kinsmen.

17

. D. R. Wallace, Election of Lesser Son,

12

.

18

. Additionally, Richard Hays observes, "Despite the difficulty of interpreting many of its individual statements, Romans

9

–

11

has a clearly recognizable overall structure, broadly analogous to the structure of a lament psalm." Hays, Echoes of Scripture,

64

.

19

. For an extensive discussion, see Crisler, Reading Romans as Lament.

20

. For a helpful discussion of patterns of lament, see Westermann, Role of Lament.

21

. Cf. Ps

44

(

43

LXX), a classic communal lament, which begins with a protracted description of the prior promise of deliverance before suddenly shifting to a cry of distress in v.

10

. For a detailed analysis of Ps

44

, see Basson, Divine Metaphors,

161

–

86

; Rom-Shiloni, "Psalm

44

."

22

. As is well known, the rendering of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός in Rom

9

:

5

is hotly debated. I will discuss the issue further in the next chapter. Here I would simply note that I largely agree with the argument in Carraway, Christ Is God over All.

23

. Interpreters often note that Rom

3

:

1

–

8

briefly anticipates Paul’s larger discussion in Rom

9

–

11

. See, e.g., Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

339

.

24

. As Cranfield puts it, the question raised is nothing less than the credibility of God. Cranfield, Epistle to Romans,

1

:

177

.

25

. Both views have been espoused within the history of interpretation. For the argument that Rom

9

–

11

represents the heart and primary concern of Paul in the letter, see Hays, Echoes of Scripture.

26

. The phrase Ἰουδαίῳ πρῶτον in Rom

1

:

16

, along with its variations in Rom

2

:

9

,

10

, and

3

:

2

, may be a key situational clue in the letter. Questions about Jews and Jewish Christians in the Roman congregation are one of the occasions for Paul’s letter. Rom

9

–

11

and

14

are the portions of the letter where Paul addresses these occasional concerns in a protracted manner.

27

. For a discussion regarding the rhetorical impact of Habakkuk on Rom

1

:

16

—

3

:

26

, see vol.

1

.

28

. For an intertextual discussion of the painful circumstances in which Abraham’s justification arises in Gen

15

:

1

–

6

, see vol.

1

.

29

. See, e.g., Rom

3

:

4

,

6

,

31

;

6

:

2

,

15

;

7

:

7

,

13

;

9

:

14

;

11

:

1

,

11

.

30

. See Longenecker, Introducing Romans,

409

–

11

; Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

765

–

68

.

31

. Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

766

.

32

. As I will discuss in the chapters ahead, Paul uses a variety of lexemes and images to articulate these concepts.

33

. Augustine intended to write a full-blown commentary on Romans, but it appears that he gave up the effort after commenting on Rom

1

:

1

–

7

. Nevertheless, his comments elsewhere regarding God’s sovereign grace and predestination often stem from his engagement with Rom

9

–

11

. See Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

766

n

4

. Regarding Calvin’s overall approach to Rom

9

–

11

, see Calvin, Romans,

332

–

48

.

34

. Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

767

.

35

. Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

767.

36

. Cullmann also stresses that in Rom

9

–

11

and elsewhere Paul focuses upon how his apostleship fits into the entire redemptive plan. Cullmann, Christ and Time,

110

.

37

. Cullmann explains, "On this basis Paul is filled with wondering amazement at the very point where he has recognized the mystery of the divine plan (Rom.

11

:

33

); according to this mystery the history of the election of the people of Israel, the Israel ‘according to the flesh,’ continues on through the times, in spite of their hardening, and at the end finds its crown in the conversion of the people." Cullmann, Christ and Time,

138

.

38

. Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles,

4

.

39

. Gager, Reinventing Paul,

142

.

40

. Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

767

.

41

. Longenecker, Epistle to Romans,

767

.

42

. See Hays, Echoes of Scripture,

41

.

43

. Cf. the use of οὐ καταισχύνει in Rom

5

:

5

. See also Rom

9

:

33

and

10

:

11,

which cite Isa

28

:

16

.

44

. Gager largely skips over the olive tree metaphor in Rom

11

:

17

–

24

. See Gager, Reinventing Paul,

141

.

45

. Such an endeavor would be a monograph in itself.

46

. See, e.g., Aageson, Scripture and Structure; Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

; Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

10

–

18

; Aletti, "Argumentation paulinienne en Romains

9

; Aletti, Interpreting Romans

11

:

14

; Allison, Background of Romans

11

:

11

–

15

; Avemarie, Israels rätselhafter Ungehorsam; Barclay, I Will Have Mercy; Barrett, Romans

9

.

30

—

10

.

21

; Battle, Paul’s Use of Old Testament; Beale, Exegetical and Theological Consideration; Beasley-Murray, Righteousness of God; Beker, Faithfulness of God; Bekken, Paul’s Use of Deut

30

.

12

–

14

"; Bekken, Word Is Near You; Betz, Geschichte und Selbstopfer; Boers, Problem of Jews and Gentiles; Bring, Paul and Old Testament; Bruno, Deliverer from Zion; Chilton, "Romans

9

–

11

as Scriptural Interpretation; Clements, Remnant Chosen by Grace; Cohen, Mystery of Israel’s Salvation; Cosgrove, Rhetorical Suspense in Romans

9

–

11

; Cranford, Election and Ethnicity; Eastman, Israel and Mercy of God; Edgar, Paul and the Law; Estes, Calling on the Name; Evans, Paul and Hermeneutics of ‘True Prophecy’; Evans, Paul and the Prophets; Fisk, Paul among the Storytellers"; Foster, Renaming Abraham’s Children; Gadenz, Lord Will Accomplish His Word; Gathercole, Torah, Life, and Salvation; Gaventa, On Calling-into-Being of Israel; Getty, Paul and Salvation of Israel; Getty, Paul on the Covenants; Gignac, Bonne Nouvelle d’Esaïe; Gignac, "Citation de Lévitique

18

,

5

; Hafemann, Salvation of Israel in Romans

11

:

25

–

32

; Ito, Written Torah and Oral Gospel; Koch, Quotations of Isaiah; Kowalski, Zur Funktion der Schriftzitate"; Munck, Christ and Israel; Naselli, From Typology to Doxology; Oropeza, Paul and Theodicy; Osborne, Old Testament Background; Piper, "Prolegomena to Understanding Romans

9

:

14

–

15

; Popkes, Und David Spricht; Quesnel, Figure de Moïse; Räisänen, Paul, God, and Israel; Reasoner, Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah; Rowe, Romans

10

:

13

; Seifrid, Paul’s Approach"; Sherwood, Word of God; Stanley, Redeemer Will Come; Stanley, "Significance of Romans

11

:

3

–

4

; Stegner, Romans

9

.

6

–

29

; Steyn, Observations on Text Form; Suggs, Word Is Near You; Tanner, New Covenant; Thielman, Unexpected Mercy; Villiers, Salvation of Israel; Wagner, Not from Jews Only; Westerholm, Paul and Law in Romans

9

–

11

"; Whittle, Covenant Renewal; Wolter, Exegetischer und theologischer Blick.

47

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

3

. See also Bell, Irrevocable Call of God,

190

–

288

.

48

. Bell notes that this contradiction was especially bothersome to Bultmann who described Paul’s answer in Rom

9

–

11

as "widerspruchsvoll" (full of contradictions). See Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

3

; Bultmann, Geschichte und Eschatologie,

101

.

49

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

358

.

50

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

360

.

51

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

359

.

52

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

106

.

53

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

359

.

54

. Bell provides three additional reasons for Israel’s jealousy. He explains, "

1

. There has been an exchange of roles: the Gentiles have been called and Israel, although in full possession of the covenant privileges, is hardened.

2

. The life of the Christian is characterised by life under the grace and freedom of the gospel: on the other hand, the life of the Jew, at least as far as Paul understood it, is characterised by works-righteousness.

3

. According to Paul, all (including Israel) have lost the image of God, and only for those in Christ is the image being re-formed." Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

359

.

55

. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

362

.

56

. On these divergent views, see Bell, Provoked to Jealousy,

361

.

57

. I will be using the

2003

edition of Wagner’s monograph here and in subsequent chapters.

58

. See vol.

1

.

59

. Wagner, Heralds of Good News,

356

.

60

. Wagner, Heralds of Good News,

305

.

61

. Wagner, Heralds of Good News,

305

.

62

. As Wagner puts it, The part Isaiah sings is distinctively his, and yet, under Paul’s direction, it blends harmoniously with this multiplicity of potentially discordant scriptural voices. Wagner, Heralds of Good News,

305

.

63

. Wagner, Heralds of Good News,

305

.

64

. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

,

216

.

65

. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

,

219

.

66

. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

,

216

.

67

. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

,

217

.

68

. Along these lines, Abasciano suggests Paul speaks not of unconditional eternal decrees regarding individual election and salvation, but of the corporate election and naming of God’s people. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

,

218

–

19

.

69

. Abasciano rejects Barnabas Lindars’s suggestion that for Paul the OT is never acting as the master or leading the way, nor even guiding the process of thought behind the scenes. Lindars, Place of Old Testament,

75

. In response to Lindars, Abasciano observes, We have found that the Old Testament is both master and servant in Paul’s theology and argumentation—much like Paul’s Lord! Paul interprets the Old Testament through the lens of Christ and the gospel even as he interprets Christ and the gospel through the lens of the Old Testament. Very often the gospel provides the presuppositions by which to interpret the Old Testament, and in addition to argumentative proof or illustration, the Old Testament provides much of the content and direction of Paul’s teaching within the metanarrative of the gospel and redemptive history. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

1

–

9

,

235

.

70

. This is of course the order in which these citations appear in Rom

9

:

10

–

18

. Abasciano treats them in this order.

71

. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

10

–

18

,

225

–

26

.

72

. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

10

–

18

,

226

.

73

. He explains, "It appears that Paul was aware of both the Hebrew text and the LXX of Exod.

9

.

16

, and that he made use of both in his quotation in Rom.

9

.

17

in a way that would best apply his understanding of the passage to his context and make his point most effectively." Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

10

–

18

,

228

.

74

. Abasciano summarizes in four points how it follows from this action that God is righteous. He explains, "God, Paul suggests, is righteous (in the sense of faithful to his covenant promises) to do so because (

1

) the election of God’s people depended wholly on his sovereign will from the beginning and therefore remained subject to the dictates of his own will; (

2

) the fundamental nature of his covenant with Israel from its inception allowed for the rejection of the unfaithful and covenant blessing for those who trust in God’s chosen means of mediating it; (

3

) the bestowing of covenantal election by faith rather than works or ancestry, which hardened ethnic Israel, enables God to fulfill his covenant promises by allowing him to include all the nations of the earth in the covenant, which is the climactic covenant promise representative of them all; and (

4

) God’s nature when relating to sinful humanity is both merciful and sovereign in the determination of the beneficiaries of his mercy, including any conditions for choosing them." Abasciano, Paul’s Use of Old Testament in Romans

9

.

10

–

18

,

228

.

75

. As is well-known, Hays lays out seven tests: (

1

) availability; (

2

) volume; (

3

) recurrence; (

4

) thematic coherence; (

5

) historical plausibility; (

6

) history of interpretation; and (

7

) satisfaction. See Hays, Echoes of Scripture,

29

–

31

.

76

. Three points of contact is not a random number within the criteria. Rather, it is based upon the recommendation of Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold in their examination of biblical quotations and allusions in Second Temple literature. They explain, "Allusions are employments of anterior texts in which the anterior text is still linguistically recognizable in the posterior text but not morphologically identical with it. We recognize any parallel of at least three words to another as an implicit allusion." Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions,

25

.

77

. As Lange and Weigold notes, In some cases a parallel of two rare and one common word can mark an allusion by one text to another. Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions,

32

.

2

Romans 9:1–5

Paul turns sharply from his statement of trust in Rom 8:31–39, necessitated by the slaughter of believers (Rom 8:36; Ps 43:23 LXX), to his cry of distress in 9:1–5, necessitated by Israel’s unbelief. In this sudden rhetorical jolt, a move typical of OT lament, Paul shifts from the assurance that no created thing can separate the Christians in Rome from God’s love to the lament that he wishes he could be accursed from Christ for the sake of his Jewish kinsmen.

⁷⁸

The asyndeton in Rom 9:1 indicates that Paul believes the logical connection between the two texts is sufficiently clear.

⁷⁹

One way to understand the connection between these two texts is by considering how they both use OT lament language. As Seifrid notes, Paul’s grief over Israel’s unbelief finds no answer, just as there is presently no visible answer to the suffering of believers (8:35–36); therefore, the lament.

⁸⁰

Simply put, Paul laments both Christians who constantly suffer like sheep for slaughter and Israel’s unbelief.

⁸¹

The pattern of lament that Paul evokes in Rom 9:1–5 provides the framework for all of 9:1—11:36.

⁸²

Paul eventually moves from a cry of distress over Israel’s unbelief to praise for God’s unfathomable ways. The cause of this shift lies in the argument situated between the cry in Rom 9:1–5 and the praise in 11:33–36. This cry and its accompanying details set the tone for Paul’s subsequent rhetorical argument and his engagement with Israel’s Scriptures.

Romans 9:1–5

I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, while my conscience testifies in me in the Holy Spirit, that great grief and unceasing pain are in my heart. For I myself could pray that I would be accursed from Christ for my brethren my fellow kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom are the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service and the promises, whose are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever, amen.

⁸³

While these verses do not contain an OT citation, they evoke two critical intertextual strands.

⁸⁴

First, Rom 9:3 contains an echo proper of Exod 32:32, the lament uttered by Moses during the golden calf incident. Second, the flurry of descriptors in Rom 9:4–5 constitutes a sweeping scriptural description of Israel. These two intertextual strands set the tone for the subsequent rhetorical argument which rests upon the thickest intertextual subtext in the entire Pauline corpus.

Suggested Pre-texts in Romans 9:1–5

Hans Hübner identifies the following pre-texts: Gen 15:8; 26:3–5; 32:29; Exod 2:24; 4:22; 12:26–28; 13:5; 15:6, 11; 16:10; 19:1–25; 24:1–18; 25–31; 32:31–32; 40:28; Lev 27:28; Deut 1:31; 8:5; 14:1–2; 1 Kgs 8:11; 22:20; Isa 1:2; Hos 11:1 (Rom 9:3–4); Ps LXX 40:14 (Rom 9:5).

⁸⁵

NA 28th ed. lists the following pre-texts: Rom 9:3 (Exod 32:32); 9:4 (Exod 4:22; 16:7–10; Deut 14:1; Hos 11:1); 9:5 (Exod 13:5; Ps 41:4).

Hays rejects the argument that Rom 9:3 echoes Exod 32:30–34, noting, The suggestion is often made that Paul is recalling the story of Moses’s offering of himself to atone for the sin of Israel (Exod. 32:30–34). There are, however, no direct verbal echoes of the Exodus text in Rom. 9:3.

⁸⁶

As the following discussion will indicate, I disagree entirely with Hays’s position.

Seifrid, in contrast to Hays, argues that the Exod 32 pre-text is instrumental in Paul’s argument. He explains, Paul takes much the same role as Moses, whose request is to be ‘blotted out of the book’ of the Lord for the sake of Israel, whom the Lord rejects.

⁸⁷

Romans 9:1–2 and the Echo of Psalm 12 LXX

Before Paul evokes