For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Paul has just poured out his longing for Israel's salvation. Now he does something surprising. He speaks well of the very people who rejected the gospel. He testifies to their zeal — and in the same breath names what was missing from it.
The phrase points to who their devotion was aimed at. It does not mean God gave them the zeal. One writer explains the Greek behind it, and why the old wording "zeal of God" misleads:
"Zeal of God" is a poor translation, like "faith of the Son of God" in Galatians 2:20. The Greek genitive covers far more ground than the English possessive... The Jews were zealous for God, but not according to right or true knowledge. This made the apostle care for them all the more tenderly. Their zeal carried them the further in the wrong direction. That is always what happens in the things of God when faith does not order matters by what God has revealed.
Paul is not describing strangers. He had once been the clearest example of such zeal himself:
The apostle had never been a careless, easy-going Israelite. His training was very strict, and his own zeal matched it. He gave the fullest proof of that, for he persecuted this Way to death... He was the highest example of those who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. So who could speak from personal experience like him to people who did not know God's righteousness and were trying to set up their own?
That shared history shapes how he speaks. He turns their zeal into a plea for them, yet he refuses to let it stand as enough:
He could fully sympathize with a zeal that had once been the special honour of his own name as a child of tradition. At the same time, as an apostle of truth, he exposed how useless and worthless such zeal is. So he could find it in his heart to use their zeal for God as a plea for that nation, marking it off from the nations who did not care for God. Yet he has to declare, as from God, the complete rejection of it. Unless the Spirit of truth produces and directs such zeal, it is only a dead work of the flesh.
The next verse names the missing piece: they did not know God's righteousness. Their zeal did not just fall short of it. It stood in the way:
Their zeal aimed at man's righteousness by the law. That zeal was the obstacle that kept them from knowing God's righteousness and submitting to it. When God presented His righteousness, offering it to Israel in their own Messiah, they rejected Him. They failed in their own righteousness and what was worse, they would not submit to God's.
Zeal is only speed. Its value depends on the direction it takes:
Paul, the great apostle, was not the man to waste his time praying for something that had already happened. Here he tells us that he was praying for Israel, that they might be saved. So they were not saved. Yet they were religious, they were zealous, they were doing their best. "They have a zeal for God," said the apostle, "but not according to knowledge." It should be plain to everybody that the greater a man's zeal, the worse it is for him if he is wrong. The more zealous a man is on the wrong road, the further he travels from the right destination.
So the verse raises a question: does being in earnest count with God?
Will zeal for God in itself commend any sinful creature to Him? Will being in earnest be enough to win Heaven's approval for anyone? Earnestness without subjection to God's Word will not help those to whom that Word has come.
A clear conscience is no safer than earnestness. Paul's own past proves it:
We get and keep a "good" conscience by carrying out honestly and strictly everything our conscience tells us. A zealous man whose conscience is uninformed or twisted will do the most outrageous things to keep his "good" conscience. That is how Paul acted before his conversion... This shows plainly that conscience is no safe guide on its own. The Word of God must enlighten it.
- Zeal. Their devotion was aimed at God, not given by God. Paul says so plainly, and says it in their favour.
- Direction. Zeal is speed, not guidance. The more zealous a man is on the wrong road, the further he travels from the right destination.
- Knowledge. What was missing was knowledge of God's righteousness. Their own zeal for a righteousness by law became the obstacle that blocked it.
- Conscience. Sincerity settles nothing. Conscience is no safe guide until God's Word enlightens it, as Paul the persecutor proved.
- Love. Paul names their fault as one who once shared it. He turns their zeal into a plea for them, and keeps praying for their salvation.
For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
Paul is explaining what went wrong with a people who worked hard at religion. He stacks three failures into one sentence: they did not know God's righteousness, they were building a righteousness of their own, and they would not bow to His.
The problem was not laziness but blindness. One writer says their ignorance ran deeper than one doctrine:
They ignored the righteousness of God, not just the doctrine of justification — though that follows too. They were ignorant of God's righteousness revealed in the gospel. Their hopes rested on human merit, topped up by God's promises, by priesthood, rites, and religious duties. They saw the Messiah as the crown and completion of their privileges. They did not see Him as a suffering substitute, or as a Saviour in the power of His resurrection after bearing their judgment on the tree.
Commentators differ on where that ignorance lies. Another writer points to God's own standard:
The Jews were ignorant of God's righteousness: that is, they were ignorant of how righteous God is. If they had realised that, they would have known they were under condemnation. They would have known that no effort of their own could meet His demands. Because they did not know how righteous God is, they set out to build a righteousness of their own.
The verse turns on this phrase. One writer rules out two common definitions of it, then says what it really is:
To turn "the righteousness of God" into His method of salvation by faith is a weak sense, and even a false one. Some theologians say the phrase means only Christ's obedience to the law, ending with His suffering on the cross. That idea is almost as unsatisfactory. The phrase means what it says: "the righteousness of God." It stands in contrast with man's righteousness, which the law demanded. Divine righteousness is a righteousness already accomplished in Christ. God gives it by faith. It justifies the ungodly, instead of condemning them, as the law must do. So this righteousness takes in not only Christ's holy obedience through all His life here below, but also God's righteous dealing "for us" in His death, resurrection, and ascension.
"Seeking to establish their own" describes effort poured into a job no one can finish. That effort, one writer says, exposes a double ignorance:
How many people in the Apostle Paul's day, and how many still today, are working to build a righteousness of their own. It cannot be done, if they only knew it. Such an effort shows they do not know themselves, and do not know God. Of themselves, for they can have no right sense of their guilt before God. Of God, because they think He can lower the standard of His holiness and righteousness to the level they imagine they have reached. That He never will.
The verse ends with a refusal. One writer traces it to the root that resists every other authority:
Romans 10:3 shows that natural pride is what keeps us from submitting to proper authority... How natural it is to want to be right without submitting to true righteousness! This is the snare of submitting to our own self-righteousness.
Another writer asks what to call a person who refuses:
They did not submit! What is a boy who will not submit to his parents? He is disobedient. What is a man who will not submit to the government? He is a rebel. But how shall we label the man who refuses to submit to God? By what name shall we call him? Can you find a name strong enough for him in your language? And having found the name, who among you does it describe?
Submitting is not one more effort of our own. One writer says what it is:
Now this is what God calls submitting to God's righteousness: finding a righteousness which is neither of us nor in us. It is finding Christ before God. It is the proud will, through grace, submitting to be saved by what is not of us or in us. It is Christ instead of self, instead of our place in the flesh.
And the verse leaves one door open, which is the same door it says they walked past:
All they need is submission to the righteousness of God, for it is the only righteousness possible of being established.
- Ignorance — They did not know how righteous God is. They did not know the righteousness the gospel reveals. Every other failure in the verse grows from that root.
- Effort — Building your own righteousness assumes God will lower His standard to your level. He never will, so the work never ends.
- Refusal — Behind all the busy religion sits pride. It wants to be right on its own terms, not right on God's.
- Meaning — God's righteousness is not His method of saving. It is not just Christ's law-keeping. It is a righteousness already finished in Christ, and God gives it by faith.
- Submission — To submit is to stop producing and start receiving. It is Christ instead of self, instead of our place in the flesh.