Introduction

In Biblical studies, some scholars describe the New Testament writers' use of the Old Testament

to be extremely subjective. These authors have been accused of alluding to the Scripture in a way

that seem contrary to the original author's intended meaning. In particular, apostle Paul have

attracted a wide range of arguments concerning his hermeneutics. He has been accused of

engaging in isolative exegesis without a detailed complementary adherence to the reference text,

raising critical questions about his hermeneutical methods. Consequently, scholars have

employed several methodologies and modern tools of interpretation to decipher Paul's

hermeneutics. However, some of these extant analyses tend to focus on what Richard Hays refers

to as extreme "technical tasks of scholarship" that would be unfamiliar to any first century

writer.1 Hays posits that these "technical approaches" are often carried out in total negligence of

the hermeneutical presuppositions that may have influenced Paul's beliefs and, consequently, his

writings. Instead, Hays introduces an intertextual approach to the reading of Paul's writings.

Intertextuality is an interpretative approach that applies inter-biblical and intra-biblical exegesis

to biblical interpretation based on interconnectedness of citations and allusions. 2

Consequently, this study employs the Intertextual concept of interpretation proposed by

Richard Hay et al as a plausible approach in understanding Paul's appropriation of the Scripture,

examining the apostle’s appropriation of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10:6-8. First, this

1 Richard Hays, Echoes of the Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993),

iv-xi. The term "technical approach" as used by Richard Hays refers to modern -day exegetical methods and their
technicalities, such as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, rhetoric criticism, philological criticism,
literary criticism, etcetera .

2 Hays, Echoes of the Scripture in the Letters of Paul, x.

essay will briefly examine extant modern perspectives concerning the NT writer's Scriptural use,

focusing on Paul's writings; and second, review extant discourses on the subject of intertextuality

and its applicability to biblical interpretation. Furthermore, the essay will seek to identify Paul's

hermeneutical presuppositions as it concerns a broader view of his theology, and consequently,

offer an intertextual analysis of Paul's use of Deut. 30:11-14 in Romans 10:6-8 within the

framework of his theological presuppositions. Finally, elucidate the implications of the

methodology for New Testament Scholarship.

Extant Modern Perspectives on New Testament Writing Methodology

It is common to presume that the Enlightenment era birthed the critical evaluation of the

Scripture (Old Testament). Scholars such as F. C. Baur and David Friedrich Strauss would be

mentioned in the history and development of modern criticism. 3 These theologians stood for

several ideals: reason (logical thinking), faith in science, and liberalism. In their scholarship, they

began questioning long-held sacred beliefs of their time such as the traditional assumption of

inspiration and authority of the Bible.4 Consequently, these modern scholars, who were

unsatisfied with biblical interpretation's pietistic tradition, applied to biblical texts interpretative

methodologies used in critiquing secular classical texts.5 In particular, scholars have employed

these modern tools of interpretation to the analysis of New Testament writings, resulting in

3 William Klein and et al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 41-45.

4 David Dockery, New Testament Interpretation: A Historical Survey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1991), 1-45.

5 Robert L. Thomas, "The Principle of Single Meaning," The Master's Seminary Journal 12 no 1 (Spring

2001):33-47.

1
interpretations and counter interpretations and often predicated on the credibility or not of the

New Testament to the original intent of the Old Testament writer.

Robert Thomas, on the premises of inspiration and biblical authority, argues for what he

calls "inspired sensus plenior application" within a historical-grammatical framework in

understanding Paul’s use of the Scripture. He elaborates:

"it is 'inspired' because God inspired the whole Scripture. It is "sensus plenior" in that it
gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an
"application" because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage but
simply applies the OT wording to a new setting. 6

The sensus plenoir application seems similar to extra-biblical exegesis, but then, the concept

implicitly questions Thomas’ claim of inspiration in cases where the New Testament references

seem to misrepresent the text's original use in the OT. For instance, how would an exegete

defend inspiration claims in the case where Jesus appropriates the Isaiah 29:18 and 35:5 text in a

non-literal sense to the healing of a deaf and blind man? 7 For Bart Erhman, not only does he

question the credibility of the Old Testament's use, he denies its usefulness for the New

Testament.8 I. H. Marshall determines that "how the [Pauline] texts are expressed, both

linguistically and theologically pose great problems [for the exegete]."9 However, biblical

scholars such as Hays, Charles Gieschen, and Earle Ellis question the workability and

applicability of interpretative methodologies to the NT writings.

6 Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament” The Master’s Seminary Journal 13
no 1 (Spring 2002): 79-98.

7 Ibid., 80-83.

8 Bart Erhman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1997), 72-80.

9 I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles (New York: T and T
Clark, 1999), 34-40.

2
 Hays argues that judging the apostle’s writings (or any of the New Testament writers) by

any modern approach is a total disservice to them, given that they did not have the same rules for

quotations and interpretation as is obtainable in recent hermeneutics. Hence the idea of critiquing

Paul's writings based on the modern method of interpretation is unrealistic and should be

questioned.10 Charles Gieschen observes that these technical methods place a limit on a plausible

understanding of the NT writings. He further reiterates that these methods often do not consider

the interconnectedness and relationships between words and sentences within a given passage

and thereby ignore possible implied presuppositions of a text within a broader perspective of the

entire Scripture.11 Gieschen insists that identifying a "particular" exegetical methodology in

Paul's handling of the Scripture provides a limitation towards understanding his writings.

Instead, the emphasis should reflect the actual verbal meaning of Old Testament citations and

allusions in Paul's writings related to the entire Scripture's broader literary perspective in light of

the hermeneutical presuppositions that may have influenced his beliefs and writings. 12 These

interconnections and relationships that exist between varying texts are referred to as intertextual

connections.

The Concept of Intertextuality

The concept of intertextuality gained wide and varying attention, especially within comparative

literature and cultural criticism research spheres. The concept is originally traced to Julia

Kristeva, who coined the term "intertextuality."13 Robert Brawley posits that the idea follows the

10Hays, Echoes of the Scripture in the Letters of Paul, iii-x.

11Charles Gieschen, "Listening to Intertextual relationships in Paul's Epistle with Richard Hay" Concordia
Theological Quarterly 70 no. 1 (2010) :17-32.

12 Ibid., 17-32.

13 Robert L. Brawley, "An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28 -29," Journal of Biblical
Literature 112 no.1 (1993): 434-39.

3
notion of a "multidimensional space" observable in the use of citations and allusions. 14

Intertextuality posits that every word or interpretation responds to previous words, which further

elicits elaborated or different responses— it is an observable fact of a literary text. 15 The

interpretative concept reveals that texts relate to a previous text or idea and becomes a precursor

for subsequent texts. In this sense, all texts are seen to be embedded in a more extensive web of

related texts.16

In Biblical interpretation, Hays has been particularly prominent in calling scholars'

attention to the "meaning-significance" that results from Paul's scriptural citations, allusions, and

echoes.17 He advocates that focusing on the actual verbal meaning of the Old Testament citations

and allusions in Paul's writings determines the meaning and significance of his use of the

Scripture, which scholars tend to ignore. He further argues that the technical approach used by

some biblical scholars is not suitable enough to deal with the question of the significance of any

particular passage within its literary context.18 Similarly, Steve Moyise asserts that the concept

has shown to be more productive and resourceful in the biblical interpretation of Pauline letters.

He elucidates that intertextuality deviates from the traditional descriptions of prophecy and

fulfillment, typology, allegory that were earlier seen as the basis for the use of the Scripture by

14 Ibid., 434-35. A text is a multidimensional space where various non-original writings merge to produce
meaning within a specified context. See Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the letter of Paul; He describes it as
an intertextual space that considers the cultural codes within which particular text functions and of which it is a
manifestation.

15 Brawley, "An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28 -29," 1-10.

16 Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul, ix-xiii. Grant Osborne also emphasized a
meaning-significance format in his work "The Hermeneutical Spiral." The concept of meaning – significance builds
upon the distinction between the author's intended meaning of a text, and the multifaceted significances implie d for
individual readers, dependent on the diverse circumstances.

17 Ibid., 1-10.

18 Ibid., 1-10.

4
the NT writers; instead, it draws its focus on the details involved in understanding the allusions

and citations of the Scripture.19

On the other hand, some exegetes question the validity of intertextual reading as a viable

method of exegesis in New Testament studies. Leonard Wee observes that although the outline

for biblical intertextuality has contributed much to understanding the Scripture's function in

Pauline letters, the method does not wholly explain how Paul uses the OT writings. He advocates

that the structure of intertextuality should be extended to incorporate what he calls the "Narrative

Summary" as a literary tool in biblical interpretation.20 Richard Longenecker cautions against the

total reliance on intertextuality in understanding the use of the Scripture in the NT and points the

biblical scholars towards extrabiblical exegesis, which involves Midrashnic exegesis as a better

tool in understanding the NT writings.21

Nevertheless, the role of Intertextuality in Biblical exegesis cannot be ignored or

underplayed. Significantly, intertextuality reduces the limitations otherwise placed on biblical

texts. It alienates the idea of the erroneous assessment of the biblical text within the context of a

particular criticism that was never used by the original authors of the texts. 22 Furthermore, the

concept of intertextuality challenges the conventional approach that simply assume a literary

sense of a text, rather, it offers refined expressions of forms and functions of a text as it relates to

19 Steven Moyise, "Intertextuality and Biblical Studies," Verbum Et Ecclesia, 23 no. 2 (2002): 418-420.

20 Leonard Wee "Beyond the Echoes: Extending the Framework for Biblical Intertextuality," Durham
University (2012), 1-5. He used the term 'Narrative Summary' to mean the summary of the OT historical narratives.
Narrative summary sets up a comparison between Jewish literature groups foun d mainly among the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Pauline writings to ascertain their influence on Paul's assumed hermeneutics.

21 Richard Longenecker, "Major Tasks of an Evangelical Hermeneutic: Some Observations on

Commonalities, Interrelations, and Differences" Bulletin for Biblical Research 14, no 1 (2004): 45-58.

22Richard Soullen, and Kendall Soullen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Kentucky: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2011), 8-87.

5
language, cultural space, traditions, and context literary systems.23 The strategies of translation of

the intertextual elements from a text are not fixed on a specific methodology. Rather, it is

identified in each given situation of a text depending on its translation case, meaning, and

relevance of the original text within the original context framework. It is worth noting t hat

intertextuality is not a total disregard to the historical context of the OT quotations. Instead, the

central involvement of intertextuality in the study of the Scripture is seen more in its approach to

quotations and allusions and its emphasis on the verbal interpretive significance of these

quotations and allusions within the context of the entire Scripture. 24 These interconnections give

the text an inexhaustible potential and, therefore, plausible meanings. These plausible meanings

are contained within the confines of accepted biblical truths. Hays posits the following

procedure for intertextual connections. First, the interpreter deciphers the authorial intention

expressed in the context and content of both the original and referred to passages; and secondly,

the interpreter can proceed to the analysis of the authorial logic and intent behind the intertextual

connection with particular attention to the citations or allusions the New Testament author

embedded in the context surrounding his use of the Old Testament.25

Consequently, the concept of intertextuality plays a significant role in Biblical

hermeneutics by presenting a correlation between the Scripture and the New Testament. It

suggests that such relationships are more like an intersection of textual surfaces rather than a

fixed meaning. Every biblical text is understood as part of a network and in light of other texts.

23 Marko Juvan, "Towards a History of Intertextuality in Literary and Culture Studies" Comparative
Literature and Culture 10, no. 3 (2008):1-10.

24 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul, ix-xiii.

25 Ibid., 20-30.

6
Inherently, intertextuality suggests that the meanings of a text are not fixed but open to revision,

and as new texts are seen and interpreted, their meaning is repositioned. 26

Paul's Presuppositions

The common ground of a discussion at any given time is usually the set of assumptions that

participants in such discussion "presuppose" within the same context. 27 Christopher Potts defines

"presuppositions" as the fragments of information that one assumes in order for words to be

meaningful in the current context.28 The presuppositions are closely related to the "assumed"

beliefs within the context of a discussion shaped or influenced by the participants' belief systems,

experiences, or values. Consequently, Pauline's writings are a function of his perceived

presuppositions that reflect his religious and cultural beliefs. These presuppositions somewhat

are his theological and philosophical starting point from where he presents his arguments to his

audience and is reflected in his use of the Scripture. 29 For Paul, the argument in scholarship has

been on his specific presuppositions.

For Hays, Paul's hermeneutical presuppositions are "functionally ecclesiocentric rather

than Christocentric [or Christological]" as he argues that the apostle’s main concern was the

equality and commonality among the Gentiles and Jewish brethren.30 Peter Enns prefers

26Moyise, "Intertextuality and Biblical Studies," 418-431. This does not in any way support the concept of
multiple meaning as advocated by the "New Hermeneutics." The method is based on the presupposition of the
timelessness of a text and claims that this timelessness necessarily means that a text holds new meaning for each
new reader. This timelessness also means that the text transcends original historical context, authorial intent, or other
dimensions across which a text is evaluated. See Eryl Davies "The New Hermeneutics Part 1. However, this
research holds that intertextuality focuses on the "meaning-significance" pattern, where the core of the original
meaning is maintained and applied to diverse situations.

27 Ibid., 418. The common ground denotes a standard feature, pattern, or characteristics shared by both the
original author and interpreter. In this case, we mean the Scripture and Paul, respectively.
28 Christopher Potts, "Presupposition and Implicative?" (Stanford linguistics), 1 -6.
29 Hays, xiii. Significantly, this research does not consider the arguments and counterarguments on the issue

of which textual tradition Paul cites from, rather, the focus is on understanding his underlying hermeneutical
presuppositions for exegesis.

30 Ibid., x.

7
Christotelic to Christocentric (or Christology). For him, the telos reflects a more nuanced

appreciation of how the Old Testament refers to Christ as the ultimate purpose (telos) of, rather

than the center of Scripture— a "Christotelic hermeneutics entails an interpretative paradigm that

assumes a Christ-telos oriented perspective in understanding the purpose of the OT, including the

meaning of specific OT passages.31 Though some scholars such as Richard Longenecker who

posit that the apostle adopted the midrash interpretative style of his time, Paul carried his

hermeneutics beyond the Midrashic interpretation. 32 Further than a re-contextualization of

Midrashic exegesis, Paul's underlying interpretive framework was the revelation of Christ (Rom.

3:1-20).

Pauline hermeneutics can be described within the context of a reconceptualization of

Scripture by a Jew who has received a divine revelation concerning Christ. The central thrust of

his belief is that Christ is the promised Messiah of Israel. This Christological conviction of the

soteriological mission of Christ forms the thrust of NT beliefs and Paul's

interpretation.33 Therefore, Paul's use of the Scripture should be seen in the appropriation of his

Christological convictions to find significance for the church. Hence, it is reasonable to argue

that it is unnecessary to separate ecclesiology from Christology as Hays. Rather, ecclesiology

should be seen as predicated upon Christological foundations.

31 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 2005), 20-9.

32
See Richard Longenecker, "Major Tasks of an Evangelical Hermeneutic: Some Observations on
Commonalities, Interrelations, and Differences" Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.1 (2004): 45-58.

33 Douglas Moo, Epistle to the Romans Commentary (MI, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company:

1996), 5-25. The idea of the Midrashic procedure was a contemporizing of Scripture to apply it to or make it
meaningful for the current situation. Hence most second temple interpretative styles were used in several
arrangements to understand the various sacred texts found within the context. Such texts were then applied to a
contemporary or an expected situation.

8
 The foundational conviction underlying Paul's Christology is his call and conversion. His

conversion experience formed his fundamental conviction that the Revealed son is the expected

Messiah. Thus, he focused his Christology on the death, resurrection, and eschatological

revelation of the resurrected Christ (Parousia). Paul's pivotal argument is that God revealed

Himself to the man in Christ. Man is justified and reconciled to God through Christ. Moo

affirms that "Christology is the theological ground and starting point" of Paul's letters (Rom 1:3-

4). He supposes that God's work in Christ is the core of God's eschatological revelation through

history (Rom 3:21-26; 5:12-22). Therefore, all of his themes are grounded in the person and

work of Christ.34 In essence, Paul reinterprets the OT's exhortations and prophecies to become

witness to the Gospel of Christ.

Paul's Judaic hermeneutic has an overriding Christological paradigm with his Midrashic

hermeneutical assumptions in re-contextualization of Old Testament passages in his letter to

Rome. The approach should not be conceived as an attempt to alternate or altercate the actual

meaning of the Scripture; instead, it posits the challenge to the scholar to understand and

appreciate these interconnections within the presuppositions that formed their beliefs and

teachings. The concept of biblical intertextuality will be illustrated by the analysis of Paul's

appropriation of Deut. 30: 12-14 In Rom. 10:6-8.

Paul’s Use of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Romans 10:6-8

Paul's use of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Romans 10:6-8 provides an example of his intertextual

appropriation of the Scripture in his writings within the framework of his presuppositions. The

central involvement of intertextuality in the study of Paul's use of the Old Testament is seen in its

34 Ibid., 5-25.

9
approach to quotations and allusions and its emphasis on the verbal interpretive significance of

these citations and references.35 This exegesis is not intended to be an exhaustive study of Paul's

use of the Old Testament nor an exegesis of the selected biblical passage. Instead, the study is

mainly about demonstrating the inter-textual connections of the selected biblical text and its

implications in assuming intertextuality as a plausible approach to understanding Paul's

hermeneutical style and use of the Scripture in his writings. In this sense, this research will first

attempt to establish the OT use of the text within its original context and then consider Paul's

appropriation of the text in his writings.

The Old Testament Context of Deuteronomy 30:12-14

"For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you; neither is
it far off. It is not in the heaven that you should say, `Who will go up for us into the
heaven, and will receive it for us, and having heard it, we will do it?' Neither is it beyond
the sea that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us, and receive it for us, that
we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very much near you; in your mouth and in
your heart, and in your hand to do it (Deut. 30:11-14)
Deuteronomy chapter 30 is generally viewed as the culmination of Moses' admonitions in the

law books, recording Moses' final admonition to the Israelites concerning the required obedience

to the laws of Yahweh.36 In scholarship, understanding chapter 30:12-14 within the original

framework encounters two schools of thought: the futuristic concept and the present conceptual

interpretation.

Steven Coxhead argues for the futuristic concept of Deut. 30:11-14. He views the text's

logic to flow from the restoration prophecy of the 30: 1-10 pericope. Coxhead suggests that

explaining Deuteronomy 30: 12-14 in the futuristic tense is logical, given that the verses would

35 The research assumes the traditional authorship of Moses for the book of Deuteronomy.

36 Steven Coxhead, "Deuteronomy 30:11-14 as a Prophecy of the New Covenant in Christ," Westminster

Theological Journal 68 (2006): 305-20.

10
be referring to God's placement of his law in the hearts of the people of Israel, which would

become the eventual reason for Israel's post-exilic repentance. He connects this to the idea of the

circumcision of the heart spoken of by Moses in 30:6 and the expected new move of God, which

speaks of the new covenant in terms of God's law being written in the hearts of his people.

Consequently, Coxhead suggests that the 30:12-14 passage should be seen as a future or

expected event in Israel.37 On the other hand, Moo adopts a literal understanding of the text. He

suggests that 30:12-14 is a present case of Moses calling upon his audience at that time to accept

their obligation to obey the law. The interpretation suggests that if they obey God's laws, Israel

could avoid the exile's prophecy as punishment in 30:1-10.38

The Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is a clear transition from the eschatological prophecy of

future restoration (30: 1-10) to the present situation as Israel prepares to enter the Promised

Land. The passage follows logically from chapter 29. Moses exhorts the people to keep the

covenant in the light of what God has done (29: 9-15). However, in any cause for disobedience,

he predicts that Israel will suffer the curses of the covenant, including eviction from the promised

land and oppression by other nations (29: 28-30:10). Consequently, in 30:11-14, the prediction of

inevitable curses as consequences of disobedience could be avoided if only Israel would obey the

ordinance of the covenant of YHWH. Moreover, these ordinances are not challenging to obey,

"For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far

off." Hence in the passage, Moses shifts from prophesying Israel's future restoration (30:1-10) to

exhorting his audience concerning present-day realities (30:11-14).39 The conditional statement

37 Ibid., 312-14.

38 Douglas Moo, "The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View"

in Five Views on Law and Gospel ed. Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1-30.

39 Ibid., 1-30.

11
in Deuteronomy 30:10 ἐὰν "if" identifies the transition of the admonition from the eschatological

future back to their present reality. More so, the use of the word, σήμερον "today" affirms the

transition.

Following the words of the conditional restoration, Moses returns to the present polemic

to elucidate the nearness of the covenant to the people with the questions: "who will go up for us

to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?" or "Who will go over the sea for us,

and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it.?" Moses said, "the word is very near you, in your

mouth and in your heart" (30:14). The "word" refers back to the law in 30:11 representing the

law of God revealed to the people. Therefore, it is a matter of faith and belief to accept and

respond to the revelation. Moses makes it clear that the law is realistic and practical, reminding

Israel of the nearness and clarity of God's law (30: 11-14). Consequently, he calls the people to

obey God's commands (30:15-20). The exhortations to the obedience that is seen through the

whole book of Deuteronomy moves to a culmination in the call to Israel to decide about their

allegiance to God or not. Because God has made his law so clear and understandable to them,

Israel has no excuse for failing to respond positively to the revelation of God.

A comparison between the original text in Deuteronomy and Paul's citation of the text in

Romans 10:5-8 is not strictly a word for word repetition of the OT text; rather, he selected the

core sentences to elucidate the argument he was making in Romans 10:6-8. Therefore, according

to Hays categorization, the Roman passage qualifies as an allusion:

But the righteousness of faith speaks as follows: "Do not say in your heart, "Who will go
up into heaven?", that is, to bring Christ down, or "who will go down into the abyss?"
that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does it say? "The word is near you,
in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith which we are proclaiming
(Rom. 10:6-8).

12
The place and context of Romans 10:6-8 in Paul's argument have to be considered to understand

Paul's use of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in the passage. The Romans Chapters 9-11 form the

immediate context of the Rom. 10:6-8 passage. Here, Paul grieves over Israel's unbelief in the

mission and purpose of Christ. However, he was determined to prove that God's Word has not

failed concerning his covenant with the people despite the unbelief (9: 1-5).40 He exposes

Israel's ignorance in seeking to establish God's righteousness apart from Christ. The question in

scholarship is the relation between Rom 10:5 and 10:6, that is, the function of the conjunction δὲ;

does it function as an antithetical "but" or a connective "and." Theologically, it is necessary to

determine what "righteousness" Paul refers to in the passage. Is Paul arguing for an annihilation

of the Judaic law in the light of the righteousness that is Christ? This question's response is

significant and has formative implications for understanding the relationship between the two

"righteousness" in 10:5 and 10:6 and understanding Paul's theology in the entire passage. If the

complementary position is assumed, then the two "righteousness" are in turn connective; but if

the antithetical position is assumed, then the two "righteousness" are opposing concepts. 41

Moo presumes the use of δὲ as a contrast between a "righteousness which is of faith" and

"the righteousness which is of the law," implying a shift from the law of Moses to the Law of

Christ.42 He explains that the Mosaic Law was the center of an era in God's dealing with

humanity, and the basis for God's relationship with his people in the old era, but in the new era,

the believer's relationship to God is mediated through Christ (Gal 6:2; 1 Cor 9: 19-21).43 David

40 Guy Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck
Publishers, 2006), 2-5.

41 James Denney, "St Paul's Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositors' Greek Testament ed. Robertson

Nicoll (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 668-670.

42 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 645.

43 Ibid., 645.

13
Stern argues that Paul cannot contradict Scripture with Scripture; therefore, he interprets the

conjunction as a connective. He insists that the connection demonstrates that the righteousness

that is rooted in "faith" (Rom10:6) is the same as the righteousness that is rooted in the Torah

(Rom 10:5). He contends that Paul aimed to demonstrate that the person who practices the

righteousness in the Torah will of necessity trust in the Jesus that he (Paul) presented. He further

argued that if Paul intended a contrast, he would have used the Greek word αλλα. According to

him, that would be a more appropriate word to use when contrast is intended in a sentence.

Consequently, David Stern proposes that for Paul, a person who has trust in God (which

the Torah requires) will precisely understand and respond to the gospel by trusting in the

Messiah.44 Therefore, he surmises that δὲ is the coordinating conjunction "and" the righteousness

by faith is the same as the righteousness based on the law. 45

Recall that Paul has explained this "righteousness that is based on the law" as one that is

sustained and dependent upon acts of keeping the law, a righteousness that is validated by

Israel's faithfulness to specific ordinances and status (10:4). Whereas "the righteousness that is

by faith" is one that is obtainable by a trust in the new revelation. The conjunction predicts a

contrast because, as Schreiner rightly asserts, righteousness cannot come from the law. Paul had

made it clear in preceding passages that the law incites people to sin and is not suited to attain

God's complete righteousness (Rom 5:20; 7:5; 7-13). Consequently, Romans 10:5- 8 should be

understood as a practical revelation that posit the law as fulfilled and to be seen in Christ (Rom

4:3; 9: 21-22 and Gal 3:6). Therefore, it is more appropriate and logical to read the particle δὲ as

a contrast, "but" which introduces a subordinate clause (righteousness based on faith) and

44 David Stern, Jewish New Testament (Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 235-40.

45 Ibid., 236.

14
qualifies a contrasting concept (righteousness based on the law). It indicates Paul's transition

from the righteousness based on the law to the law of Christ.

Consequently, Rom.10:6-8 contrasts two ways a person may try to gain righteousness

before God: righteousness based on human attempts to obey the Mosaic Law or righteousness

based on Christ. To furthermore explicate the meaning for his audience, Paul consequently refers

to Deut. 30:12-14. First, Rom. 10:4 describes a change in how a person approaches God. Placing

faith in Christ means to cease from using the law in seeking God's righteousness, not necessarily

an annihilation of the law. Paul interprets Deut. 30:12-14 as a reference to Christ rather than the

law to continue his argument in Rom 10:4 that Christ is the fulfillment or culmination of the law.

The law cannot give eternal life "…if a law had been given which could make alive, then

righteousness would indeed be by the law" (Gal 2:21). Typically, Paul reads the Scripture as a

finding fulfillment in Christ (10:4, 6-7, and 9). Therefore, arguably, the apostle appropriates the

OT passage principle by comparing the situation that was true under the law to Christ's mission

and accomplishment. He introduces a transition; as James Denney posits, "It is an argument from

lesser to greater" righteousness; from lesser revelation to the revelation. 46

Deuteronomy 30:12-14 shows that the Israelites did not have to do anything to obtain the

law. God, through Moses, had made the law easy, accessible, and available for them. Hence, they

are inexcusable if they fail to obey the commandments of God. Paul focuses on this OT principle

to establish the fact that God gives grace in establishing his relationship with his people,

implying that the Jews did not need to do anything to obtain God's righteousness, instead God

had secured and made available his righteousness to them "the word is near you, it is in your

mouth." Thus, just as God brought the law close to Israel so they could not plead ignorance or

46 Denney, "St Paul's Epistle to the Romans," 668-670.

15
helplessness as an excuse in failing to keep the law, so also in Christ, God has brought the

Gospel message clearly and readily available to all humanity "in your mouth and in your heart."

Furthermore, in Deut. 30:13, Paul substitutes the word "sea" with "abyss." This

substitution has led some scholars to believe that he had not intentionally quoted the OT text.

Denney asserts that Paul was not thinking of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 and its significance to his

arguments; instead, he applied his thoughts based on his inspired conviction and experience.

Therefore, he suggests that in Romans 10:5-6, Paul applied a "free reproduction of these ancient,

inspired words."47

However, Moo argues that "sea" and "abyss" were somehow used interchangeably within

the OT and early Judaism context. He further observes that some Aramaic paraphrases for Deut.

30:13 used the term "abyss." Therefore, he suggests that Paul changed the descriptions of the

crossing of the sea in 30:13 to a "conceptually similar" description of descending into the

"underworld." This, he says, is to facilitate Pauline's Christological application.48 D.A. Oss

presents a more plausible explanation. He argues that the substitution of the "sea" for "abyss" is a

case of textual emendation. That is, Paul interpolates the description of the sea as seen in

Deuteronomy 30:13 into his present context to indicate the descent of Christ into death and his

resurrection as the foundation on which Paul lays his gospel. 49

Contrary to Denney's assertions, Paul's reference to Moses in 10:6 is an indication of an

intentional citation. Paul’s statement "Do not say in your heart…" is not an offhanded assertion;

instead, Paul intentionally referred to Deuteronomy 30:12-14 to drive home his point on the

47 Ibid., 668-670.

48 Moo, The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,”1-30.

49 D.A. Oss "The Interpretation of the Stone Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study," Journal of

Evangelical Theological Studies 32(1989), 185-200.

16
accessibility of God's word and the fact that Israel is not left without a witness. The unbelieving

Jews have refused to grasp the central point of the Torah. They were blinded to the fact that the

Scripture points to the revelation of the Messiah, who is Christ. More so, Paul's explicit mention

of Moses indicates the fact that he relied mostly on the Pentateuch (Torah) for his interpretations

and recognized the authority of the Scriptures. Paul does not only deliberately cite the OT text;

he also offered a deliberate interpretation of them. The verbal significance between the OT and

the NT text cannot be underestimated.

Implications and Conclusion

Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the book of Romans is well within the interpretative

paradigm of Scripture. He simply appropriates the OT with a respectful contemporaneous Jewish

hermeneutic to demonstrate Jesus’ Messiahship, which evidences that he was not an enemy of

the Torah, nor was he introducing a new religion. However, he was pointing his audience to his

hermeneutical axiom, namely that Jesus was the ultimate realization of the Messianic aspirations

of Jewish Scripture. A disregard for these interpretative intertextual connections may lead to the

assumption that Paul read meaning into the Scripture. As Denney observes,

“even though Paul's application may be somehow different from the original meaning of the text,

it is a valid implication of the text's teachings.”50

In the select passage, Paul assumed a literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 and

then explored its logically for existing situations. Therefore, his eschatological "Christological"

presuppositions of the Scripture should be appreciated and also recognized as a guide to

understanding his appropriation of the Scripture. Christ is the underlying presuppositions to all of

50 Denney, "St Paul's Epistle to the Romans," 668-670.

17
Paul’s arguments and polemics. His references to Deuteronomy to support his message about the

Messiah may at first seem inappropriate; however, based on his eschatological and

Christological presuppositions for scriptural interpretation, he relates the principles taught in

these OT passages to his contemporary situation.

This paper has argued and illustrated using the concept of intertextuality that Paul's use of

the OT was based on his hermeneutical presuppositions reasoned according to the fundamental

principle of the original passages. Furthermore, this research has demonstrated that Paul

employed the words of the Scripture to illuminate the fundamental character of the new

covenant, elucidating the work and mission of Christ. In his interpretation of Deut. 30:11-14,

Paul neither misquoted nor misappropriated the passage, instead, he espoused the Scripture to

explain the gospel message to his audience. Furthermore, as Hays et al rightly note, whether

Pauline hermeneutics is repudiated or acclaimed, it cannot be denied that his appropriation of

Scripture does not accord with modern interpretative methods or hermeneutical practices. More

so, his Scriptural interpretation was, for all the so-called inconsistency and incongruity

indictment, never illogical. Indeed, what stands out in Paul's interpretation of the Scriptures is his

interest to express the liberating power of God's communication in and through the gospel.51

51 Hay, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul, ix-xiii.

18
 Bibliography

Brawley, Robert L. "An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29."Journal of

Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 434-39.
Denney, James. "St Paul's Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositors' Greek Testament. Edited by
Robertson Nicoll. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
Dockery, David. New Testament Interpretation: A Historical Survey. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.
Erhman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Gieschen, Charles. "Listening to Intertextual relationships in Paul's Epistle with Richard Hay."
Concordia Theological Quarter 70 (2010) :17-32.
Guy Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul. Mohr: Siebeck Publishers, 2006.
Hays, Richard. Echoes of the Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1993.
Juvan, Marko. "Towards a History of Intertextuality in Literary and Culture
Studies." Comparative Literature and Culture 10 no. 3 (2008):1-10.
Klein William et al. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.
Marshall, I. Howard. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles. New
York: T and T Clark, 1999.
Moo, Douglas. Epistle to the Romans Commentary Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing
Company: 1996.
Moo, Douglas. "The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran
View" in Five Views on Law and Gospel. Edited by Wayne G. Strickland. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996.
Moyise, Steven. "Intertextuality and Biblical Studies." Verbum Et Ecclesia JRG 23 no. 2, (2002):
418-420.
Oss D.A. "The Interpretation of the Stone Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study. "
Journal of Evangelical Theological Studies 32 no. 1 (1989):185-200.
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005.
Richard Longenecker, "Major Tasks of an Evangelical Hermeneutic: Some Observations on
Commonalities, Interrelations, and Differences" Bulletin for Biblical Research 14 no. 1
(2004): 45-58.
Richard Soullen, and Kendall Soullen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Kentucky: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2011.

19
Stern, David. Jewish New Testament. Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992.
Steven Coxhead, "Deuteronomy 30:11-14 as a Prophecy of the New Covenant in
Christ," Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 305-20.
Thomas, Robert L. "The Principle of Single Meaning." The Master's Seminary Journal 12 no. 1
(Spring 2001):33-47.
Thomas, Robert L. “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament.” The Master’s Seminary
Journal 13 no. 1 (Spring 2002) 79-98.

20