The passage
      v30-31. Back in 9:30a Paul asked if God's promises to Abraham had failed. Paul retains this thought in his question, "What do we now draw from all this?" If Gentiles, who never had the law of Moses and so had no reason to pursue covenant membership, end up members, blessed by God's saving mercy, while Jews, who have the law, live it to the full, end up missing out, then it does look like God's promises to Abraham have failed.
      v32a. Why was it that the majority of Jews did not retain their standing before God, having applied themselves the law of Moses? Paul's fellow Jews did not retain their covenant membership ("righteousness") because they pursued it through law-obedience rather than faith. Israel used the law as a mechanism for maintaining and progressing their standing before God. They foolishly assumed that their righteous obedience to the law secured an obligation from God.
      v32b-33. The purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ, the one who expedites the mercy which the law drives us to seek. By failing to understand the true purpose of the law, Israel stumbled over Christ. Their legalistic handling of the law blinded them to Christ and thus guaranteed their condemnation before God. Many in Israel may have been offended by Christ, yet those who believe will "never be put to shame."
      10:1. Paul declares his love for his fellows Jews and so prays that they may be saved.
      v2-3. There is no question as to the enthusiasm the Jews have in their service to the living God. Yet, their religious zeal lacked knowledge. They had no understanding of God's freely-available saving righteousness and ended up trying to secure their own self-deserving before God. So, as a consequence, they failed to access God's free mercy in Christ.
      v4. Israel thought that the purpose of the law was sanctification, to which end they were zealous, but the purpose of the law is to expose sin and so drive the sinner to God for mercy, which mercy is found in Christ. Christ is the end-purpose of the law, not zealous self-improvement. The law points us away from ourselves toward the one who is the source of God's saving mercy, which salvation is for everyone who believes.

A saving knowledge
      I was involved recently in a discussion over the essential elements of the gospel. What information is necessary for a person to properly (savingly) respond to the gospel? What information must we know to enable us to believe and be saved?
      My colleague, who is actually an evangelist, believes it is essential for a person to know that they are a sinner and thus separated from God, and to understand the atoning work of Christ to rectify this problem. So, when he preaches the gospel he focuses on the cross. Given the increasing influence of Eastern religions on Western culture, there is weight to his argument. Sin is not an issue in Eastern religions. In Eastern religions the issue is balance, harmony. Getting ourselves back into balance, into spiritual harmony, is the way to gain union with the divine. So, obviously it is important to establish human loss before the Creator, to make it clear that "there is none righteous, no not one", such that a person's standing before God cannot rest on an effort of the will, but on the redemptive work of Christ.
      None-the-less, I still believe that Christology (the person of Christ) lies at the centre of gospel proclamation. Israel had failed to understand the true character of God. They did not know him as the merciful one, and therefore they did not recognize Christ as the source of God's grace. They just submitted to the law as if obedience secured their standing before God. What Israel needed was to understand the uniqueness of Christ. Our gracious, kind, living Lord freely offers the gift of life (eternal right-standing in the presence of God) to all who ask. Those who recognize this truth, and act on it, are saved.

v30
      It is possible that we have two questions here, v30a and v30b-31, with the second question expecting the answer "yes", cf. NAB. The presence of oJti, "that", indicates that a question is intended. Most commentators opt for a statement, but a question should not be ruled out; "shall we say that ....?"
      oun "[what] then" - therefore. Usually introducing a conclusion, eg., "what then is the conclusion of this discussion?", Sandy and Headlam. Of course, Paul still has in mind the central issue of these chapters, namely, the seeming failure of God to fulfill his promises to Abraham, so he is probably harking back to 9:6a; "what then are we to say; [has God's word failed]?"
      eroumen (eipon) fut. "shall we say?" - Deliberative future, cf., v14.
      ojti "that" - Possibly introducing a dependent statement, as NIV, although it may well be causal, as 9:6b (gar, "for"); "for the Gentiles, who did not ....." Gentiles receiving covenant mercy and Jews not, implies a failure of the covenant. This problem Paul addresses in v32ff.
      eqnh "the Gentiles" - The is no article, so "some Gentiles", Dumbrell.
      ta mh diwkonta (diwkw) "who did not pursue" - not pursuing, seeking, running after, hastening, pressing on. Here probably with the image of a foot race in mind; "striving", "pursuing", even "overtaking". The participle functions as an adjective, modifying "Gentiles". "Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have won the race (= "righteousness" ??)."
      "the law that seemingly secures [righteousness]" - law of. See the introductory note for v31 where "law of righteousness" is discussed, a sense that may be intended here in Paul's use of "righteousness". Phillips attempts to draw out this possible link; "that the gentiles who never had the law's standard of righteousness to guide them, have attained righteousness, righteousness-by-faith", Phillips. Of course, there is a link to the law, but probably not in the terms of "law of righteousness"; "the pagan world did not seek righteousness, for they were ignorant of the law", Leenhardt.
      dikaiosunhn (h) "righteousness" - just, right. How is Paul using the word here and does it take the same meaning (eg. Moo suggests two meanings in this passage) in all four uses in verses 30 -31 (also 10:3, 4, 5, 6)? The word can take the meaning "uprightness", Fitzmyer, (moral), or tend toward the forensic sense of "right-standing in the presence of God", "approved before God", "covenant compliant", "of a righteousness defined by the covenant between God and Israel", Dunn. So, there is a covenant compliance "out of / based on the law", although this requires the doing of the law, v5, and there is covenant compliance "out of / based on faith." Here then lies the dilemma, the Gentiles never sought covenant inclusion, but gained it, Israel strove for it, but lost it. As to whether "righteousness" takes different meanings in the passage, it may well take a different meaning in the phrase "righteousness of God" and possibly in the phrase "law righteousness", see below.
      katelaben (katalambanw) "obtained" - attained, seized, won, made one's own, cf. BAGD. "Won".
      de "-" - Here serving to introduce an explanation of, or intensification of "righteousness", so "righteousness, that is, a righteousness of faith."
      thn ek pistewV "that is by faith" - out of, from. A righteousness "derived from faith in Christ Jesus", Fitzmyer, ie. origin. Often expressed instrumentally "through faith", NRSV.

v31
      The sense of this verse is difficult to resolve! Is Israel's pursuit of "a law of righteousness" to be viewed negatively, or is their pursuit right and proper? Paul's language is probably a poke in the eye to the law-bound, increasing the irony of a situation where irreligious Gentiles obtain the blessings of the covenant, while zealous Jews don't. Then there is the problem as to what is pursued; the Gentiles didn't pursue righteousness, but gained it, the Jews did pursue ...??... but didn't gain it. Although we would assume a parallel statement where Jews pursued righteousness, the text has them pursuing the law. Fitzmyer suggests that Paul is using "law" and "righteousness" in a double sense having drawn on the Wisdom of Solomon 2:11 for the term "law of righteousness." Jewett sees irony here and similarly sees Wisdom as the source of Paul's logic. Paul uses the phrase "law of righteousness" to "depict typical Jewish striving .... evoking Paul's own zealous pursuance of the law prior to his conversion", an "obedience to the law" in order to achieve "righteousness". Like the unconverted Paul, a faithful Jew may believe he had attained "to a righteousness under the law blameless", but in reality "he did not attain a law" (lit), ie. he did not even come close to completing it and so forfeited the prize, namely, his covenant status. So, "righteousness" in the phrase "law of righteousness" probably still retains the primary sense of "right-standing before God" / "covenant inclusion", undermined by Jewish legalism. Leenhardt nicely summarizes Paul's logic here. "The pagan world did not seek righteousness, for they were ignorant of the law, and this ignorance protected them from the difficulty to which Israel succumbed: that is, the bad use of the law, which degenerated into a mere pretext to establish merit and to win (better "maintain") righteousness."
      Israhl "Israel" - As already noted in Romans, Paul primarily addresses believing Jews, although in chapters 9-11 he widens his address to include unbelieving Jews. Israel's failure to realize the covenant is the very danger now facing believing Jews under the new covenant. The heresy that has infiltrated Israel, namely nomism (the maintenance and/or progress of standing before God by obedience to the law - sanctification by works), has led to their rejection of Christ ("they stumbled over the stumbling stone"), and it is this very heresy that is now affecting law-bound believers (most would be Jewish believers).
      nomon dikaiosunhV "a law of righteousness" - a law of righteousness. "Righteousness" most probably means "covenant compliant / right-standing before God." "Law" may refer to "a principle or rule or order", Murray; "while the chosen people were seeking a law that would put them right with God", TEV, although the law of Moses is more likely. Taking the genitive as epexegetic we end up with possibilities like "Israel, who pursued the Law which facilitates / "teaches", Lagrange ["was intended and designed to show", Cranfield] / promises / "demands", Schilier / leads to / points to / "imparts", Cassirer / "by conformity to which they hope [for]", Bruce .... righteousness (covenant compliance / right-standing before God)." I have opted for "the Law that seemingly secures right-standing before God / covenant compliance", the "seemingly" expressing the negative aspect of the Wisdom allusion, and "secures" expressing Jewish nomism. The reverse is grammatically unsound, eg. "the righteousness that comes from obeying / is based on (NRSV) / ....... the law", although surely this best expresses Paul's mind, particularly for those of us who are not acquainted with the Wisdom of Solomon!! As noted above, it is likely that we have here a negative reference to the pursuit of law righteousness. This is often taken to express legalism, ie. salvation by obedience to the law, although it is unlikely that Jews thought that obedience attained covenant standing. It is more likely that Israel's problem was nomism - the application of Mosaic law toward maintaining and/or advancing covenant standing. This "heresy" undermines faith as the only means of covenant compliance and thus of accessing the blessings of the covenant. So, the bulk of Israel failed to retain their covenant standing, while some Gentiles attained it, and this by faith. Of course, always in the back of Paul's mind is those believers who, at this very moment, were being sucked into the heresy of nomism with its potential to undermine their standing before God. Note that new perspective commentators, at this point, argue that Israel had "confused the law and the righteousness it speaks of, with works like circumcision which serve to make righteousness a function of Jewish identity (peculiarity - a marker of race)..... They confused zeal for God with the fervor for ethnic purity", Dunn. Dumbrell, always with his own "perspective", argues that Israel rightly applied themselves to the Mosaic law up to the coming of Christ, in that the Mosaic law properly expressed covenant membership and served as a tool for sanctification. After the cross, the Mosaic law neither defined new covenant status, nor served to sanctify, since faith in union with the renewing work of the Spirit now serves these ends. Israel's continued reliance on law-obedience after the cross served only to deny their new covenant membership.
      eiV nomon ouk efqasen - "has not attained it" - to that law did not arrive. Variant "law of righteousness" is an obvious fix-up so the NIV "it" is not true to the Gk. Presumably Paul still has in mind the Mosaic law, although other possibilities exist, eg., "the law of the Spirit", Origin. A satisfactory explanation of Paul's intent here is allusive so most commentators assume at least a contraction (ellipsis), although a double meaning "law / righteousness" is possible. Possibly "legal righteousness", Bruce, or better "did not succeed in fulfilling that law", NRSV.

v32
      dia ti~ "why not" - "Why did Israel not retain their covenant standing having zealously applied themselves to the law of Moses?"
      "pursued" - [not by faith but by works]. The verbs must be supplied in v32a, eg. "they rested on a system of merit .... and not a system of simple faith", Pilcher. The NIV "pursued" is widely accepted, although some argue for a participle, "because seeking/pursuing it not from faith ...." "Relied on", Moffatt, works well. Even better, "their efforts were not based on faith but, mistakenly, on deeds", REB.
      "it" - Depending on the verb, an object must be supplied, which of course, causes no end of confusion, eg. Schreiner struggles to explain how the object "law" can be wrongly pursued by "works" and properly pursued by "faith". The REB approach seems best.
      oJti "because" - Here expressing cause/reason.
      wJV ex ergwn "as if it were by works" - as by works. The "as" is very important since Paul is not suggesting that righteousness could be gained by works of the law if one were faithful enough, so "as though it were possible to attain righteousness by means of works", Leenhardt.
      prosekayan (proskoptw) aor. "they stumbled" - they tripped [at/on the stone of stumbling]. "The stone that makes people stumble", Goodspeed. Of course, the big question is, what does the stone represent? Possible suggestions include "justification by faith", Mounce, but far better "Jesus the messiah whom the Jews have rejected", Hunter, also Dumbrell, Morris ("the Jews lack of faith prevented them from recognizing their Messiah"), etc. God himself is Israel's stone of stumbling, Isa. 8:14, a stone in Zion that will not harm the faithful, but crush the unrighteous. "Christ has become the stone over which they (Israel) stumbled, whereas for those who believe he has become the cornerstone set up by God himself, on which they can build without fear of failure, shame, or stumbling", Fitzmyer.

v33
      With a combination of Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 Paul makes the point that "Israel failed to recognize the stone God laid in Zion, and she bears responsibility accordingly", Morris.
      idou "see" - look at. "Pay attention", TH.
      kai "and" - Probably best taken to express an explanation, "that is to say, a rock on which they will trip", TH.
      skandalou (on) "[a rock] that makes them fall" - [a rock] of offence. The word primarily refers to "a trap" and thus to the situation faced when trapped, so "a rock to cause them trouble." The image is of a fixed block of stone which, if a person is not careful / does not look where they are going, can cause them to trip and stumble.
      oJ pisteuwn (pisteuw) pres. part. "the one who trusts" - The participle functions as a substantive.
      ou kataiscunqhsetai (kataiscunw) fut. pas. "will never be put to shame" - Will not be ashamed before God (assurance), so "will never be disappointed", CEV.

10:1
      "My hearts desire is for the salvation of my people. But alas, they go the wrong way about it - they want to save themselves by works. Faith is the true way", Hunter, v1-4. It does seem that these verses are a continuation of the previous passage although there is no linking conjunction in the Gk.
      adelfoi "brothers" - "Brothers in Christ", Morris.
      h eudokia "desire" - the good pleasure, wish, desire [of me]. Expressing heightened emotion; "my deepest desire", NEB.
      autwn "the Israelites" - them. The NIV rightly takes the liberty of telling us who the "them" are.
      eiV "that [they may be saved]" - to. Here expressing purpose, "has their salvation as its (the prayer) purpose", Moule.

v2
      marturw (marturew) pres. "I can testify" - I bear witness. "Can" is unnecessary, as if something Paul can do if asked, rather, "this I will say for them", Barclay.
      zhlon (oV) "zeal" - Expressing religious enthusiasm / fervor, a "technical term for Jewish piety", Jewett; "I know from experience what a passion for God they have", Phillips.
      qeou (oV) "for God" - Obviously an objective genitive, so "for God."
      ou kata epignwsin (iV ewV) "not based on knowledge" - not according to knowledge. "Jews have a zeal for God's honor, but it is not based on knowledge", Dumbrell. The sense is of a knowledge "not with discernment / recognition", Black, and thus Israel failed to recognize God's "saving activity" in Christ. In fact, Jewett argues for a stronger sense in that the "wording places unbelieving Jews squarely in the context of Paul's earlier argument concerning the universal human tendency to suppress the truth, developed in 1:18-31."

v3
      Cranfield suggests that the two participle clauses, "being ignorant ..." and "seeking ....." are explanations of Israel's lack of knowledge, v2, and that the main clause "did not submit ....." is the consequence. The Jews "are doing everything exactly backwards (= lack of knowledge, v2). They don't seem to realize that this comprehensive setting-things-right that is salvation, is God's business, and a most flourishing business it is. Right across the street they set up their own salvation shops and noisily hawk their wares. After all these years of refusing to really deal with God on his terms, insisting instead on making their own deals, they have nothing to show for it." Peterson.
      gar "since" - for. Expressing cause / reason. Reason / explanation for Israel's blind zeal.
      agnoounteV (agoew) pres. part. "they did not know" - not knowing, being ignorant of. Attendant circumstance participle. "This kind of ignorance involves a fundamental misperception of what God wills for the world, indeed, of who God is, as revealed in Christ", Jewett.
      tou qeou dikaiosunhn "the righteousness that comes from God" - the righteousness of God. The simple limiting function of the genitive with a noun, its "adjectival" function of defining or describing, is too often bypassed for some esoteric sense. So, here Paul may be using the genitive "of God" to simply identify the particular "covenant compliance" he is talking about. Paul is addressing the God kind of covenant compliance, that is, the kind that is based on faith, not works of the law. As to how the genitive "of God" limits "righteousness" we are bound to choose between the genitive "of God" being partitive, "that status of being right with God which comes as his gift", O'Brien, as NIV; or possessive/subjective, "the saving activity of God", Talbert, "God's dynamic fidelity to his covenant promises", Dumbrell. See The righteousness of God.
      zhtounteV (zhtew) pres. part. "sought" - seeing. As with "being ignorant" the participle is attendant circumstance expressing action accompanying the main verb "they did not submit." The present tense is durative, expressing an ongoing searching, while the word itself carries an intensive sense. "Sought" probably expresses the idea that "Israel continued to devote itself to all that the Torah commanded in order to establish its status before God", Schreiner.
      sthsai (iJsthmi) aor. inf. "[sought] to establish" - The infinitive is probably complementary, completing the sense of "sought", but see above for adverbial of purpose. Possibly of setting up something that is theirs; "set up", NEB / or validating; "seeking to validate", Jewett / or mandating; "to mandate", Dumbrell".
      thn idian "their own" - the own. The variant "their own righteousness" certainly solves the problem of "their own" what?, but of course, since "righteousness" is probably intended we must regard the variant as a nice fix, but not original. Usually translated "their own", although better "that which is peculiar to them", cf. BAGD. Those with a reformed bent understand the "what" as "a righteous status of their own earning", Cranfield, while those of a more liberal mind understand the "what" as a technical righteousness where "the law is used in a misguided way ... to enable sinful man in some way to deserve grace", Leenhardt. New perspective commentators lean toward "their own covenant identification", Dumbrell; Israel's "collective righteousness, to the exclusion of the gentiles", Howard, cf. Wright; "Israel's covenant-consciousness." Dunn. The point is that Israel sought to establish "its [own] status [standing] before God", Schreiner. "They set out to find their own way of accessing this standing before God."
      ouc uJpetaghsan (uJpotassw) aor. pas. "they did not submit [to God's righteousness]" - they did not submit. Moo makes the point that "not submitting is equivalent to not having faith." "The Jews were infused with blind zeal because they did not know ..... and sought ...... and so were unable to rest in the saving mercy of God."