Lorenzo Palon

The Danger of Righteousness as Identity Politics

Romans 10 is often treated as a chapter about ancient Israel’s mistake. But Paul’s words are not merely historical analysis. They are a mirror. What he saw happening among his own people is precisely what can—and often does—happen within any community that treats righteousness as something to defend rather than something to receive.

Paul begins the chapter not with smug certainty, but with anguish. “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for them,” he says, “is that they may be saved” (Rom 10:1). His tone is pastoral, not triumphalist. The problem he identifies is not rebellion or indifference. “They have zeal for God,” he writes, “but not according to knowledge” (Rom 10:2). Zeal is not the issue; misdirected zeal is.

And that is the thread that ties Romans 10 to much of Christian behavior today.

Paul makes a startling claim: Israel, in all its covenant passion, ended up “seeking to establish their own righteousness” rather than submitting to God’s righteousness (Rom 10:3). This is not a contrast between doing good and doing bad. It is the contrast between controlling covenant identity and receiving God’s fresh act of faithfulness. The tragedy is not disinterest—it is devotion that has turned inward.

Israel did not reject righteousness; they redefined it around their own boundaries. It became something to possess, guard, and prove. Identity hardened into entitlement.

Paul’s warning is that religious identity can become self-reinforcing, even self-deceptive. And once righteousness becomes something to protect, even Scripture is drafted into the service of preserving that identity.

If this sounds uncomfortably familiar, it should.

Many modern expressions of Christian legalism follow the same pattern. Righteousness becomes a visibly managed performance: the right doctrines, the right vocabulary, the right lifestyle cues, the right political loyalties. Faithfulness becomes demonstrated allegiance to a subculture rather than trust in God’s decisive action in the Messiah. Belonging is patrolled. Boundaries are policed. And “zeal for God” becomes defensiveness in God’s name.

Paul exposes the danger of this posture by reframing the Law itself. “Christ is the telos of the Law,” he says, “for righteousness” (Rom 10:4). Telos does not mean “termination.” It means goal, climax, intended destination. Torah was never designed to become a self-enclosed identity system. It was meant to prepare Israel for the moment when God would act decisively, unexpectedly, and redemptively.

Paul reaches back into Deuteronomy to show that covenant life was never about heroic achievements—going up to heaven or down into the abyss—but about trusting the word that God brings near (Deut 30:11–14; Rom 10:6–8). Faith is not new; it has always been Israel’s required posture. What is new is the form God’s faithfulness has taken: the crucified and risen Messiah.

Which is why the confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9) is not merely spiritual language. It is public allegiance. It is surrender. It relativizes every other identity marker—ethnic, moral, political, or cultural. In the first century, this confession challenged Caesar’s claims. In the present age, it challenges the smaller lords—tribal belonging, ideological purity, denominational superiority, and religious nationalism.

Paul anticipates the objection: “But surely Israel didn’t hear!” His answer is sharp: “Indeed they have” (Rom 10:18). The Scriptures were proclaimed. The message was accessible. The problem was not ignorance, but resistance to the shape of God’s fulfillment. Isaiah saw it long ago: God would be found by a people who had not sought Him, while His own people remained “disobedient and contrary” (Isa 65:1–2; Rom 10:20–21). Not immoral—contrary. Zealously contrary.

This is the heart of Paul’s warning. Scripture can be known, recited, and defended—and still be misread. Faithfulness can calcify. Obedience can be performed in ways that avoid the very thing God is doing in the present. Zeal can cloak spiritual insecurity. And righteousness can become identity politics: a badge to wear, a tribe to defend, a weapon to wield.

Identity politics, whether religious or secular, thrives on one principle:
We are righteous because we are us. They are wrong because they are them.

Paul saw a version of this in Israel’s refusal to accept Gentile inclusion—not because Gentiles were unworthy, but because their inclusion threatened familiar patterns of belonging (Rom 9:30–33). Today’s versions may be cloaked in theological language, but the mechanism is the same. Belonging becomes performance. Righteousness becomes distinction. The gospel becomes an in-group story.

This is why Romans 10 speaks with such force to the modern church. The danger is not cold apostasy, but heated sincerity that has lost the story. Communities can become so concerned with preserving their identity that they resist the very form God’s righteousness takes when it arrives.

Paul’s alternative is not a relaxed indifference to ethics. It is a return to trust—trust that God’s faithfulness, not our self-constructed righteousness, is the anchor of our identity. “Everyone who trusts in him will not be put to shame” (Rom 10:11). Trust, not tribal performance. Allegiance to the Messiah, not allegiance to a particular set of cultural codes.

And trust leads outward. “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom 10:13). The circle expands. The boundary shifts. Righteousness reveals itself not in self-protection but in openness—because the story of God is moving, surprising, enlarging.

Paul’s question for the church echoes across the centuries:

Are we submitting to God’s righteousness—or establishing our own?

The answer determines whether our zeal leads us toward the Messiah or blinds us to Him.

---

Bibliography

1. Bates, Matthew W. Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.
2. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79.
3. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. Vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
4. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
5. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
6. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
7. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
8. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.
9. Wright, N. T. Romans. In The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, edited by Leander E. Keck, 395–770. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002.