But they did not understand this righteousness. They supposed that outward correctness alone was sufficient. They did not care about the heart, or about feelings and dispositions toward God and neighbor.
They were content with this active, outward side alone. They falsely believed that the whole righteousness of God consisted in it.
But this was not God’s righteousness. It was a righteousness of their own invention, which they attempted to set in place of God’s righteousness.
What came of this? It came about that they did not submit to the righteousness of God. This may be understood in two ways.
First, they did not submit to the righteousness of God as it was portrayed and prescribed in the Old Testament. This is evident from the very structure of their life.
They distorted the meaning of that righteousness of God and established themselves in patterns of life contrary to its true meaning. Chrysostom says: “By these words the Apostle shows that the Jews fell into error and did not even establish the righteousness required by the Law.”
Or, second, they did not submit to the righteousness of God now newly preached, the evangelical righteousness. For that righteousness of their own invention, consisting only in outward correctness of legal behavior, pleased them greatly.
It pleased them because it was easy and did not require sacrifices of the heart or self-denial. Therefore they rested upon it and did not want to accept any new righteousness.
They did not want to receive this new one. They stubbornly stood for their own and defended it.
This passage may also be understood this way. Even if the Jews had maintained Old Testament righteousness in its true meaning, still now evangelical righteousness is being introduced by God’s command.
Therefore they are not free from the accusation that they seek to establish their own righteousness, while not submitting to the evangelical righteousness of God now offered.
Old Testament righteousness was God’s righteousness for a time. Whoever submitted to it submitted to God and pleased Him.
But when its term ended, and God Himself introduces a new righteousness by abolishing the former, the one who holds to the former no longer submits to God, but to his own temper.
He no longer follows God’s will, but his own. He does not seek to establish God’s righteousness, but his own.
By seeking to establish this righteousness, which is now his own, he does not submit to the righteousness of God.
Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle called their own righteousness the untimely keeping of the Law. For they strive to keep a Law that has already lost its force. By the righteousness of God he meant the righteousness acquired by grace through faith.”
There may be still another thought here. One’s own righteousness is that which is acquired by one’s own labors. God’s righteousness is that which is established in the heart by the grace of God.
This latter alone is the true righteousness of God. Every other righteousness is already not God’s righteousness.
The Apostle says that the Jews did not understand this. They did not understand that only that righteousness which God creates in the heart is God’s righteousness.
They stood on the idea that one must attain the perfection of righteousness by one’s own labors. Therefore, when by God’s command we propose that they go to receive God’s righteousness from God through evangelical faith, they do not submit.
Chrysostom says: “The Apostle calls the righteousness of the Jews their own either because it is acquired by labors and sweat, or because the Law no longer has force. He calls the righteousness of faith God’s righteousness because it is acquired solely by grace from above, and we are justified not by labors but by God’s gift. On the contrary, those who constantly resist the Holy Spirit and strive to be justified through the Law are far from faith. Being far from faith, they have not received the justification given by faith. Nor can they be justified by the Law. Therefore they have lost everything.”
THEOSIS