Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Romans 10:3

"For being ignorant of God`s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." — Romans 10:3 (ASV)

The chapter division does not mark a break in the thought, for such key words as “righteousness,” “law,” and “faith” continue to appear, especially in the beginning of the chapter. Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure, but not censoriously. He feels deeply for his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected both in his going to the Jews first (Acts 13:46; 18:5– 6; cf. Romans 1:16) and in his praying to God on their behalf.

Paradoxically, it is Israel’s zeal for God that constitutes their greatest barrier (v.2). The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal on behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14). That zeal so preoccupied him that he considered Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted in ignorance (1 Timothy 1:13). So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge,” as ignoring “the righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In trying to establish their own righteous standing before God, the Jews have refused submission to God’s righteousness. They have attempted to achieve a standing in righteousness by imagining success in meeting the demands of the law of Moses. Paul knew whereof he spoke, for he had been where they were. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on obeying the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith .

Israel’s covenant relation to God and reliance on observing the law do not add up to salvation (Acts 4:12). For this reason Paul points to Christ and his righteousness as Israel’s great need (v.4). The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to God’s will lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the one who brought salvation in full accord with his righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul was required for his people.

Considerable debate has centered on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word translated “end” (telos; GK 5465). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and we use the expression “to the end that”— meaning either “conclusion” or “purpose”—the same dual possibility lies in the Greek word telos. The second meaning has some plausibility here, because the statement “Christ is the end of the law” fits in with Paul’s teaching about the law as that which brings people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Favorable to the first meaning (“Christ terminated the law”) is the fact that the law had a certain course to run (Galatians 3:19, 23; cf. Matthew 5:17) in the economy of God. Both concepts seem to fit rather well in our passage. The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea, however, is the contrast in 9:30–33 between the law and God’s righteousness. Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the absolute wrongness of that position, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting a divine gift.

Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as the end of the law for righteousness: he is that “for everyone who believes.” This implies that the law still applies to those who do not believe and that they still feel its power.