Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Romans 10:1 - 10:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rom_10:1-21
A. Self-righteousness, and the righteousness of faith (Rom_10:1-11)
[There is little difference of opinion among commentators respecting the meaning of this chapter as a whole. Dr. Hodge coincides most nearly with Dr. Lange in his divisions. Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer, Alford, make two sections. (1) The further exposition of the fact that the exclusion of Israel is founded on their own unbelief; Rom_10:1-13. Alford: “The Jews, though zealous for God, are yet ignorant of God’s righteousness (Rom_10:1-3), as revealed to them in their own Scriptures (Rom_10:4-13).” (2) Proof from Scripture of the same fact; Rom_10:14-21. Tholuck: “They could not excuse themselves by this, that God had not done His part to make humanity know the gospel, or that it had not reached them, or that they could not have seen what their conduct with regard to it and God’s dealings with the Gentiles would be.” The connection with Rom_9:33 is very close; and as the Apostle is accustomed to repeat, at the close of an argument, the proposition from which he started, the repetition of the quotation of Rom_9:33, in Rom_10:11, favors the division of Dr. Lange.—R.]
A. Faith, Rom_10:1-2. The fact described is no fatalistic decree.
Rom_10:1. Brethren [ Ἀäåëöïß . Bengel: “Nunc quasi superata prœcedentis tractationis severitate comiter appellat fratres.” Comp. 1Co_14:20; Gal_3:15.—R.] Though this is an address to all readers, yet it is directed with special feeling to the Jewish Christians. Repetition and carrying out of the personal reference in Rom_9:1 ff.
My heart’s desire, or, good-will [ ἡ ìὲ n åὐäïêßá ôῆò åìῆò êáñäßáò ]. A real antithesis to the ìÝí is contained in the judgment passed in Rom_10:3. [See Winer, p. 535; who thinks the antithesis was too painful to be expressed. All admit that the thought is found in Rom_10:3.—R.] Meyer, contrary to Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the early writers, as well as De Wette and Olshausen, holds that åὐäïêßá mean wish, desiderium, but only benevolence (Vulgate, voluntas; Augustine, bona voluntas; Calvin, benevolentia). Tholuck: “There is, indeed, no example as yet in which åὐäïêßá is exactly equal to ‘wish.’ But how could the Apostle have said, ‘My good pleasure and my prayer for them to God are directed to their salvation.’ ” Yet he regards it advisable to adhere to the translation: My good-will for them. [The lexical objection to rendering åὐäïêßá , desire, is weighty. On the other hand, the rendering good-will severs it from the context. The insertion of ἡ after äÝçóéò Was probably an attempt to avoid this difficulty. Alford suggests a “a mixture of constructions: the Apostle’s åὐäïêßá would be their salvation itself—his äÝçóéò , ê . ô . ë .,, was åἰò óùô .” We hold to the more usual meaning of the word. Wordsworth pushes it as far as this: “Probably he uses this word because he wishes to represent the salvation of the Jews as a thing so consonant to God’s wishes and counsel, that, as far as He is concerned, it is as good as done; and the Apostle delights in looking back, in imagination, upon that blessed result as already accomplished.” There is little warrant in the word or context for such an interpretation.—R.]
And prayer to God [ êáὶ ἡ äÝçóéòôüò èåüí . The latter phrase can be limited to äÝçóéò without adopting the poorly supported ἡ The “prayer” was undoubtedly “of his heart,” but there are no grammatical reasons for connecting that phrase with these words. ÄÝçóéò is, strictly, petition, request.—R.] We refer êáὶ ἡ äÝçóéò back to êáñäßáò , and then exclusively to ðñὸò ôὸí èåüí . My heart is not only full of good-will toward the Jews, but it can also venture to intercede for them before God—a proof that they falsely regard me as their adversary—and I have not yet given up the hope of their salvation. This also comprises a pledge of Divine compassion. [So Bengel: “Non orasset Paulus, si absolute reprobati essent.”—R.]
[On their behalf is for their salvation, ὑðÝñ áὐôῶí åἰò óùôçñßáí . The correct reading shows how close the connection with chap. 9 is. Meyer: “ Óùôçñßá is the end which my åὐäïêßá would have for them, and my prayer asks for them.” The E. V. gives the correct sense, though in a paraphrase.—R.]
Rom_10:2. For I bear them witness [ ìáñôõñῶ ãὰñ áὐôïῖò . ÃÜñ introduces the reason for the preceding declaration.—R.] He still sees, even in their error, something good: they have a zeal of God [ æῆëïí èåïῦ ἔ÷ïõóéí . Zeal for God, not great zeal, or godly zeal]. (Act_21:20; Act_22:3; Gal_1:14; Joh_2:17.) This will, indeed, not be the only ground of his åὐäïêßá , but is the ground of the cheerfulness of his intercession for them.
But not according to knowledge [ ἀëë ’ ïὐ êáô ’ ἐðßãíùóéí . Comp. Rom_3:20, p. 123; Col_1:9 (Lange’s Comm., p. 17).—R.] The ἐðßãíùóéò is the knowledge which, being the living principle of discernment, impels far beyond the mere historical ãíῶóéò . Meyer’s definition: in consequence of the ἐðßãí ., is incorrect. The antithesis: ἄãíïéáí , Act_3:17. The Apostle’s statement may, at all events, be designed to alleviate his charge. The bright as well as the dark side of the religious zeal of the Jews was and is a peculiar phenomenon in the history of the world. [The objective advantages of the Jews were given in Rom_9:1-5; here we have the subjective religiousness, which corresponds, although degenerating into blind fanaticism. Yet religious fanaticism, we infer from this passage, is preferable to religious indifferentism. There is something to hope for, a ground for good-will, where there is earnestness.—R.]
Rom_10:3-4. Self-righteousness, and the righteousness of faith.
Rom_10:3. For they, not knowing (mistaking) the righteousness of God [ ἀãíïῦíôåò ãÜñ ôÞí ôïῦ èåïῦ äéêáéïóýíçí ]. We take ground, with De Wette, and others, against Meyer, who does not see in the idea of ἀãíïïῦíôåò the element of mistake, but merely the declaration of ignorance. [Meyer justifies his position, by saying that Paul was only proving the “not according to knowledge.”—R.] But simple ignorance, without guilt, could have no meaning whatever in the present instance; and still less could it be the cause of wicked results. The same holds good of Rom_2:4; 1Co_14:38; see also Tholuck, in loco. Their ἀãíïåῖí is the cause of their seeking to establish their own righteousness, and consequently they did not submit themselves to the Divine righteousness revealed in the gospel for faith.
And striving to establish their own righteousness [ êáὶ ôὴí ἰäßáí äéêáéïóýíçí æçôïῦíôåò óôῆóáé . See Textual Note4]. Essentially, it is the same as the righteousness of the law, according to Php_3:9. Formally, this expression is stronger, because it not only signifies acquired righteousness in distinction from that which is bestowed, but as the real principle of this acquired righteousness, it denotes one’s own choice, power, and will, as well as man’s own will in opposition to God’s choice, grace, and order. [The point of this distinction is lost, if the phrase be construed as = their own justification.—R.] Therefore this effort remains a nugatory æãôåῖí óôῆóáé , (Rom_3:31; Heb_10:9). The óôῆóáé expresses the element of pride in their effort.
[Have not submitted themselves, &c., ôῇ äéêáéïóýíῃ … ïὐê ὑðåôÜãçóáí .] Meyer regards the ýðåôÜãçóáí as passive, as in Rom_8:20; 1Co_15:28. Tholuck, on the other hand, correctly regards it as reflexive.
Rom_10:4. For Christ is the end of the law [ ôÝëïò ãÜñ íüìïõ ×ñéóôüò ]. First, ôÝëïò must be left in its full signification, and not be considered merely as the negative end by which the íüìïò is made void; second, ×ñéóôüò is = Christ himself, not simply the foundation, the fundamental law of His theocracy (Meyer), or the doctrina Christi (Socinians, and others). In both cases, Meyer’s explanation would destroy the full meaning of the text. The same thing is declared in reality by the passages, Mat_5:17; Rom_13:10; Gal_3:24; Eph_2:15; Col_2:14. The end of the law was Christ, because Christ was, in a positive form, the fulfilment of the spiritual, essential import of the law, and therefore He was, at the same time, the making void of the imperfect Old Testament form of the law. Comp. 1Ti_1:5; 1Pe_1:9; Rev_21:6; Rev_22:13. The centre of the idea is therefore final aim, purpose, and end (Chrysostom, Melanchthon, Calvin, and others). There is no good ground for dividing this explanation into two different ones. On one hand, Erasmus, Wolf, and others, have brought out the positive view: Fulfilment of the law. The alternative here: obedientia activa, or obed. activa and passiva (see Meyer), must be removed. As for the negative view of the idea, Meyer cites a large number of authorities who harmonize with him in limiting it to this; yet he can hardly prove this by Augustine, Olshausen, and many others. Even Rom_10:4 plainly says that Christ is in so far ôÝëïò íüìïõ as He is unto righteousness toevery one that believeth, åἰò äéêáéïóýíçí ðáíôὶ ôῶ ðéóôåýïíôé , and the ãÜñ introduces just the proof that the Jews did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God, which, however, was manifested in Christ’s fulfilment of the law (comp. Rom_9:31). The question of the extent of prominence here given to the negative side of the ôÝëïò , is connected with the explanation of Rom_10:5-6. [Stuart, following Flatt, renders åἰò , with respect to. It is better to take it as indicating result or purpose. The former will be preferred, if ôåëïò be rendered aim; the latter, if it be rendered termination. The sense will then be, either: Christ is the aim of the law, so that righteousness may come to every one, &c.; or: Christ abolished (or fulfilled) the law, in order that, &c. The word righteousness has here the full sense, “righteousness of God;” but the emphasis rests on believeth.—R.]
Rom_10:5-9. The universality of the righteousness of faith is proved by the Old Testament also.
On the citations. It is evident that Rom_10:5-6 present an antithesis between the idea of the righteousness which is of works and the inward essence of righteousness. But it is clear from the place of the citations, that this antithesis means no contradiction between the Old and New Testament. The quotation in Rom_10:5 is taken from Lev_18:5; the quotation in Rom_10:6 from Deu_30:11-14. It is evident, therefore, that the Apostle places the two sides of the law in contrast, one of which is an external Jewish law of works, and the other is an inward law of the righteousness which is of faith, or a law designed for the inward life; the one is transient, the other permanent. Therefore, he takes his first statement from Leviticus, and from that part of it where the laying down of the Mosaic obstacles to marriage is introduced; the second, on the other hand, is taken from Deuteronomy, which early imparts a profoundly prophetical meaning to the law. Therefore we read, first: Moses describeth, or writeth (and what he writes is a command); but then, The righteousness which is of faith speaketh (and what it says is a proclamation). Though the Apostle holds Deuteronomy to be as fully Mosaic as Leviticus, yet, in the former, Moses administers his office as the Old Testament lawgiver of the Jews; while, in the latter, the prophetic spirit of the righteousness of faith speaks as decidedly through him as if it altogether took his place.
Rom_10:5. For Moses writeth respecting the righteousness, &c. [ Ìùõóῆò ãÜñ ãñÜöåé ôὴí äéêáéïóýíçí , ê . ô . ë .. The accusative after ãñÜöåéí is either governed by the verb in the transitive sense: to write of, to describe, or is the remote object, that concerning which it is written. The rendering: describeth is perhaps too strong, though lexically admissible.—R.] ÃñÜöåé , Joh_1:46. The citation is from Leviticus, according to the LXX., but of the same purport as the original text.
We further read: Moses writeth down, or commands: The man who hath done them [ ὅôé ðïéÞóáò áὐôὰ ἅíèñùðïò ]. The ðïéÞóáò is emphatic, yet it is significantly connected with ἅíèñùðïò ÁὐôÜ , that which is written, the commandments; the law, in the analytical form of commandments. The emphasis here rests on the doing. “But the righteousness which is of faith says: ‘The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; only confess with thy mouth, and believe in thy heart.’ ”
Shall live by them [ æÞóåôáé ἐí áὐôïῖò See Textual Note7. If áὐôῇ be adopted as the correct reading, it refers to the righteousness accruing from the doing of the commandments (Alford). Dr. Lange renders ἐí , durch, but this is too strong; in the strength of, is better.—R.] The different readings appear to have arisen from an apprehension that the Apostle’s expression might cause a misunderstanding, perhaps an acceptation of the possibility of righteousness by works. Hence the omission of ἐí , and the reading ἐí áὐôῇ (“He shall live by righteousness itself”). Cod. A. even reads: ôὴí äéê . ἐê ðßóôåùò . A proof how decidedly the early Church rejected the righteousness of works. The assurance of life has been referred to the life in Palestine. But the historical standpoint of the Mosaic economy indicates something further than the vita prospera. Proof: 1. The vita prospera in the real sense, or as the welfare of the people, is a special promise for obedience to parents; Exo_20:12. 2. The most direct meaning of the passage in Leviticus is, that the transgression of the following statutes is connected with the punishment of death; exo 18:29. 3. The passage in Deu_30:16, not to mention Eze_20:11, indicates something further than the mere vita prospera.
There are here two antitheses: first, that of the externality of the law and the inwardness of the gospel; second, that of doing and experiencing. In the first case the promise reads: shall live by them; and in the second case there is the assurance: he shall be delivered, shall be saved. We have already observed that the Apostle did not wish to say that there is a contradiction between the Moses of Leviticus and of Deuteronomy; we may now ask, whether he has instituted an irreconcilable contrast between the two passages. This is very supposable, if Rom_10:5 be regarded as a purely hypothetical and almost ironical promise: If one fulfil all the commandments of the law, he would certainly live by them; but since no one is capable of this, no one can find life by the commandments. Therefore, after Rom_10:6, the gospel now takes the place of the law. [So Hodge, and others.] But this cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. For, first, in that case the law would have been useless from the beginning. Second, an analytical fulfilment of the law would be designated as analytical, or at least as a theoretical way of life, by the side of the practical, and thus two kinds of righteousness would be conceivable, as well as two kinds of life. But, in our opinion, Rom_10:5 is not merely designed to prove that the law is at an end, but that its end has come because Christ has come. Therefore the expression in Rom_10:5 has an enigmatical form, as that in 1Ti_3:16. Moses inscribes his precepts thus: The man which doeth those things—that is, who truly fulfils them—shall live by them. To be sure, the most direct Jewish social sense of this declaration was, that the observer of the commandments should not be subject to death, but live. But in its religious meaning, the law was as a sphynx, whose riddles every Israelite should attempt and try hard to solve until he came to self-righteousness, until the people became matured, and until the Man came who solved the riddle. In Leviticus the significance of the form of the passage under consideration, “the man which doeth those things shall live by them,” appears in the addition: “I am the Lord.” The Lord holds up the prize, and pledges it; Christ has won it. Thus Rom_10:5 means not only the fact that Christ has made void the law by the fulfilment of the law, but also that he has transposed and transformed it from the whole mass of external precepts to a principle of the inward life. Therefore the Apostle can immediately assume, in Rom_10:6, that Christ is known and is near to all, and accordingly apply the statement of Deu_30:11-14.
Rom_10:6. But the righteousness which is of faith [ ἡ äÝ ἐê ðßóôåùò äéêáéïóýíç ]. Just as Moses has referred prospectively to Christ by the law, so does the righteousness which is of faith, or the gospel, refer retrospectively to Him. The connection of the declaration in Deuteronomy is as follows: in chap. 29 the curse is threatened the people if they become apostate; and in chap. 30 mercy is promised them if they be converted. Rom_10:10 : (The Lord will bless thee) “if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul.” Then, the ground of the possibility of such a conversion consists in the heartiness in the real spiritual nature of the law, which will always reassert and prove itself. The Apostle fully develops this christological germ by applying the promise of the righteousness of faith from the law to the gospel. The development is as follows:
1. As the inward character of the law was nigh and intelligible to the Jews at that time, or during the previous period in general, so nigh and intelligble must Christ, as the end of the law, now be to them.
2. As Moses, at that time, referred to an unbelief which regarded the law as merely external, arbitrary, and therefore foreign, far-fetched, so does there now stand in the way an unbelief, which mistakes and regards as an odd and peculiar phenomenon the near Christ, the nearness of Christ, which lies in His affinity to the inmost necessities of the heart.
3. If, at that time, the unbelieving Jew could say, “Who shall bring down the law?”—namely, that which was once neglected and lost;—from above, that means, in the language of the present, “Who shall bring Christ down from above?” although He has come upon the earth, and has here finished His life, and incorporated himself with humanity.
4. If, at that time, the unbelieving Jew said: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring the law to us?”—that is, as much as to say from the future world, the lower regions—that question is now: “Who shall bring Christ to us from the dead?” although Christ has risen from the dead, and has sealed His resurrection by the outpouring of His Spirit.
5. But just as, at that time, the essence or word of the law was infinitely near to Israel as an outline of its most personal and inward nature, so is now Christ, or the gospel by Him, still more than the fulfilment and completion of the most inward nature of man to righteousness and salvation. For if the law was already glorious, how shall not the gospel exceed in glory? 2Co_3:7-11.
Speaketh thus [ ïὕôùò ëÝãåé ]. The Apostle’s decided intention of finding in the passage in Deuteronomy itself the real sense which he further expounds, is evident; from the fact that he allows the righteousness which is of faith, personified in that passage, itself to speak. The multifarious surprise expressed by expositors on the Apostle’s citation is chiefly traceable to a defective construction of the passage in Deuteronomy. According to Meyer, the meaning of the Mosaic passage is: The commandment is neither too hard nor too far; the people speak of it, and it is impressed in their hearts, in order that it may be performed. De Wette adopts the same view. According to Tholuck, the words would say: The faithful observance of the law is made so easy to man after the revelation that has taken place. But how can Moses say to the people, whose apostasy he hypothetically assumes, in their apostasy: Thy God will again accept thee if thou turn to Him, for thou hast the law in thy mouth and in thy heart—in the sense that the people are still living in the knowledge of the law, that the law is still in their hearts, and that they only need to perform it? The explanation of Rom_10:14 lies rather in Rom_10:15 : The law is the true life of man himself; it is his real good. The transgression of the law is death and evil. God can therefore deliver man from the transgression of the law, because the law is as an inalienable appointment in his heart, and because he returns to his God when he comes to himself (Luk_15:17). Because of this inwardness of the law in itself, it can be written upon man’s heart (see Deu_30:6); it can always revive afresh in him. The law is therefore not merely concealed from, or foreign to, man; it is not simply something positive from heaven, which may again altogether vanish to heaven; and it is no simple promise or threat from the future world, or from the realm of the dead, “from over the sea,” which may be forgotten until death. Rather, it is still with Christ. For undoubtedly the Apostle will not merely say, in Rom_10:8, Faith is so nigh to men, because Christ is preached to them as the One who has become man, and is risen from the dead; but because the truth of Christ’s incarnation and resurrection can unite, in the faith of their heart and in the confession of their mouth, for the completion and salvation of their inmost nature. The typical prophecy of the Mosaic passage, which Paul, the great master, has strikingly brought out, lies in thefact that conversion to the law is the beginning of its hearty reception, but that faith in the gospel is its completion; or, objectively defined, that the law is the shadow of the inward life, and that Christ is the life of this life itself.
On the different misunderstandings of this typical prophecy, see Tholuck, who speaks of a profound parody, p. 557 ff. Explanations: Only an application of the words of the law in the Old Testament (Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c. down to Neander); accommodatio (Thomasius, Semler); ὑðüíïéá (Grotius); allusio (Calixtus); suavissima parodia (Bengel, and others).
The explanations divide themselves into two principal classes. According to one, Paul has made use of the words of Moses for clothing his thoughts, with the knowledge that they, considered in themselves, expressed something altogether different. Philippi calls it “a holy and lovely play of God’s Spirit upon the word of the Lord.” But would not that be a very unlovely play of the Apostle upon the word of the Lord? Likewise Tholuck is of the opinion, that there has been a failure to prove an application corresponding to the meaning of the text, and, still less, the identity of the historical meaning with the Pauline interpretation. Naturally, the constructions of this class are partly of a critical (Semler) and partly of an apologetical nature (Bengel).
The other class accept, that in the declaration of Moses the Apostle has really found the prophecy declared by him. But this again divides into two subdivisions: 1. He was the expositor of that passage in his spiritual illumination as an Apostle; 2. Rather, one intimately acquainted with the rabbinical hermeneutics. Calvin, and others, who belong to the first subdivision, hold that universa doctrina verbi divini is meant; Knapp, the commandment of love toward God; Hackspan, and others, the messianic promise; Luther, who is frequently hesitating, belongs to both of the principal classes (Tholuck, p. 558). The expositors of the other subdivision regard Paul’s interpretation as an allegorical exegesis—that Paul, using the Jewish expository art, has allegorized the passage, and has found in it a Midrash, or secret meaning. Meyer regards the sum of the oracular meaning to be this: “Be not unbelieving, but believing!” A Midrash, indeed, which might well be drawn from every verse of the Bible.
[The majority of commentators adopt the view, that Paul does not cite the words of Moses as such, but merely adapts them to his purpose. But the position of Dr. Lange seems preferable, not only because this “adaptation” or “accommodation” is not what we would expect from such a writer as Paul, but because the other view is more in accordance with the context. As Forbes well says: “St. Paul’s great object in reasoning with his countrymen is to prove to them, out of their own Scriptures, that God’s mode of salvation, from the first, had been always the same (simple faith in Him), and that their Law was but a provisional dispensation, designed to prepare for the universal Gospel, which was to embrace all equally, Gentiles as well as Jews. Is it likely that the arguments adduced to persuade the Jews of this from their own Scriptures would, even in part, be words turned from their true meaning in the Jewish Scriptures?” Rom_10:2-3 show how necessary this proof is. This view accords, too, with Rom_10:4, and the real position of the law. Alford: “The Apostle, regarding Christ as the end of the law, its great central aim and object, quotes these words not merely as suiting his purpose, but as bearing, where originally used, an à fortiori application to faith in Him who is the end of the law, and to the commandment to believe in Him, which is now ‘God’s commandment.’ If spoken of the law as a manifestation of God in man’s heart and mouth, much more were they spoken of Him, who is God manifest in the flesh, the end of the law and the prophets.” “In this passage it is Paul’s object not merely to describe the righteousness which is of faith in Christ, but to show it described already in the words of the law.” Thus the connection as well as the contrast of law and gospel are preserved. This view suits the precise circumstances of the original utterance (see Forbes, pp. 356 ff.). That the variation (in Rom_10:7) and the omission of parts of the original, do not interfere with it, is obvious.—R.]
Say not in thine heart [ ìÞ åἴðῇò ἐí ôῃ êáñäßᾳ óïõ . LXX.: ëÝãùí ; Hebrew, ìֵàîֹã . The passage is taken out of its grammatical connection, and “in thine heart” added, as might well be done. The phrase is = think not (Alford).—R.] This is the ever-recurring secret or expressed language of the unbeliever: Revelation is something thoroughly heterogeneous and strange to, and in disagreement with, my nature. To the words say not, Paul has added in thine heart, perhaps to bring out the contradiction, that a witness of faith can assert itself in the same heart in which unbelief speaks negatively.
Who shall ascend into heaven? [ Ôßò ἀíáâÞóåôáé åἰò ôüí ïὐñáíüí ; The ἡìῖí of the LXX. is omitted.] This formerly meant: It is impossible to bring down from heaven the law (that which we have lost, because it was foreign to us); but it now means: Who shall bring Christ down from heaven, that He may become man? the incarnation of the Son of God is inconceivable. Thus the actual incarnation of Christ is, to Paul, the full consequence of the moral truth of the Mosaic law.
[That is, to bring Christ down, ôïῦô ’ ἔóôéí ×ñéóôὸí êáôáãáãåῖí ]. The ôïῦô ’ ἔóôéí lays down the meaning of the Old Testament language in the New Testament sense. On the different explanations of it, see Tholuck, p. 565. [The two leading interpretations are (1) That is to say—i. e., whoever asks this question, says, in effect, Who will bring Christ down? thus he denies that He has come already—makes of the Incarnation an impossibility. (So Erasmus, Calvin, Philippi, and others.) (2) That is, in order to bring Christ down. This gives the purpose of the ascending. In this view, ôïῦô ’ ἔóôéí is = the rabbinical åְæֶä . This implies also a denial of the Incarnation. See Meyer. In its favor is the fact, that a final clause follows in Deuteronomy. The reference to the present position of Christ at the right hand of God (Calvin, Reiche, and others) is out of keeping with the context,especially the order in Rom_10:9. The passage has been tortured into a variety of special applications, but the majority of commentators now support the reference to the Incarnation, though differing as to the precise character of the questions (see below). It should be noticed, that this view assumes the certainty of the preëxistence of Christ.—R.]
Who shall descend into the deep? [ ἤ Ôßò êáôáâÞóåôáé åἰò ôὴí ἄâõóóõí ; LXX.: ôßò äéáðåñÜóåé ἡìῖí åἰò ôὸ ðÝñáí ôῆò èáëÜóóçò ]. An explanation of the Mosaic passage: Beyond the sea! According to Schulz, (Deuteronomium), Beyond the sea refers only to the vast extent of the sea. This would be tautology in relation to the fore-going. To bring from beyond the sea, can also not mean (according to Vitringa), to bring over from the Greeks. That the sea may be considered as úְּäåֹí , ἄâõóóïò , is proved by the harmony of the Septuagint. But úְּäåֹí is not éַí , and over the sea is altogether a different idea from into the deep. The probable solution of the difference is, that the ideas over the ocean and beneath the earth coincide as designations of the realm of the dead. The Greek Tartarus is, indeed, under the earth, but not a real cavern under the earth. The Greek Elysium lies far out in the ocean, on the Isles of the Blessed. Also, in the present passage, Paul has evidently found the realm of the dead to be indicated by the words beyond the sea. Similar notions existed among the Celts and Germans. Meyer dismisses the question in a very untenable manner, when he says: The view of Reiche, Bolten, and Ammon—that the place of the blessed (over the sea) is also meant in the Hebrew—confounds a heathen representation with the Jewish one of Sheol (see Job_26:5-6).
[Dr. Lange (following Chrysostom, De Wette, Meyer, and others) assumes throughout that these questions are questions of unbelief, although finding in the passage something more than Meyer’s brief statement: “Be not unbelieving, but believing.” Alford gives a full discussion of the three views: questions of unbelief, of embarrassment, of anxiety. He combines all three: The anxious follower after righteousness is not disappointed by an impracticable code, nor mocked by an unintelligible revelation; the word is near him, therefore accessible; plain and simple, and therefore apprehensible—deals with definite historical fact, and therefore certain; so that his salvation is not contingent on an amount of performance which is beyond him, and therefore inaccessible; irrational, and therefore inapprehensible; undefined, and therefore involved in uncertainty. Thus, it seems to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the argument; and thus, also, it is clearly brought out that the words themselves could never have been spoken by Moses of the righteousness which is of the law, but of that which is of faith.” Dr. Hodge does not clearly define which view he adopts, although objecting to the thought, that the object is to encourage an anxious inquirer.—R.] The reference of unbelief to an unbelief in the sitting of Christ at the right hand of God (by Melanchthon, Calvin, and others), removes the centre of the object of faith; this centre is the resurrection.
Rom_10:8. But what saith it? [ ἀëëὰ ôß ëÝãåé ] After the Apostle has shown what the righteousness which is of faith forbids saying, he brings out what it says itself to unbelief. Rückert and Philippi [Hodge and Stuart] have intensified too much the antithesis between Moses and the righteousness of faith; Meyer obliterates it by formally referring even the expression concerning the righteousness of faith to “For Moses writeth.” [The former position is almost inseparable from the view of Rom_10:4, and of the use of Old Testament language, which these commentators hold.—R.]
The word is nigh thee [ ἐããýò óïõ ôὸ ῥῆìÜ ἐóôéí ]. The ἐããýò óïõ is stronger than if it were ἐããýò óïé . It is one next to thee, a neighbor, a relative of thine. The opinion of Chrysostom, Grotius, and others [held to some extent by Stuart, Hodge, and others], that this verse is an assurance how easy it is to become righteous, is foreign to the context. We must not suppose that this is an expression of merely the historical acquaintance with Christianity. If this were the case, how could it be said to the doubter and unbeliever: It is in thy mouth and in thy heart? [The Apostle evidently here says, not what is, but what may be, just as Moses had done (Tholuck).—R.] But as the word of life, which, should be peculiarly in the mouth and in the heart, it is attested in a twofold way. First, it is the word of faith, which we, the apostles, as God’s heralds and Christ’s witnesses, preach. Second, its effect is, that he who confesses Jesus with the mouth as his Lord, and believes in his heart that He is risen from the dead to a blessed life, shall be saved.
Rom_10:9. Because [ ὅôé . The E. V. follows Beza, the Vulgate, &c., in rendering ὅôé , that, indicating the purport of the word preached. Dr. Hodge gives, besides, a view which connects this verse directly with the former part of Rom_10:8 : it says that, &c.; but this is opposed by any proper view of the citation from Deuteronomy. The sense, as now generally agreed (Tholuck, Stuart, De Wette, Meyer, Alford), is that of because, or for, giving a proof of what precedes. To mouth and heart correspond confession and belief. This purport of the preaching would scarcely be stated in this form.—R.]
[If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, ἐÜí ὁìïëïãÞóῃò ἐí ôῷ óôüìáôß óïõ . Confession is put first here, on account of the connection with the words quoted in Rom_10:8. This is a further proof of the meaning because. In Rom_10:10, belief comes first.—R.]
Jesus as Lord [ êýñéïí Ἰçóïῦí . The mass of commentators are disposed to take êýñéïí as a predicate placed first for emphasis, and render as above. So Tholuck, Stuart, Hodge, De Wette, Meyer, Schaff, Webster and Wilkinson, Noyes, Lange. Alford doubts this interpretation; comp. his note in loco. See Textual Note 9. Hodge: “To confess Christ as Lord, is to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, recognized as such of God, and invested with all the power and prerogatives of the mediatorial throne.” Used in such close connection with a citation from the LXX., which translates Jehovah by the same word êýñéïò , it certainly means more than an acknowledgment of power and moral excellence; especially as this part of our verse corresponds with the coming down from heaven alluded to in Rom_10:6.—R.] Just as the words “Lord Jesus” correspond with to bring down from heaven, so raised himfrom the dead corresponds with to bring up from the dead.—[Thou shalt be saved, óùèÞóῃ . Belief, with the heart, in the central fact of redemption, the resurrection, not as an isolated historical event, but as linked indissolubly with the coming down of the Son of God, now the ascended Lord—and hence confession of Him as such—these are the requisites for salvation. “A dumb faith is no faith” (Olshausen).—R.]
Rom_10:10. The experimental proof of the righteousness which is of faith.
For with the heart faith is exercised unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The Apostle presents, in this verse, the parallelism with reference to Rom_10:9, and the underlying passage of Deu_30:14. Yet he now reverses the order of heart and mouth, in harmony with the genesis of the life of faith, especially in the New Testament. As a matter of course, faith and confession are connected with each other, just as the heart and the mouth, or as the heart and speech; that faith without confession, would return to unbelief, but confession without faith would be hypocrisy. However, the distinction is correct: first, faith in the heart, then, confession with the mouth. There is the same distinction of effects. Faith in the heart results in justification; confession with the mouth—that is, the decided standing up for faith with word and deed—results in óùôçñßá in its final signification, deliverance from evil to salvation, with the joy and freshness of faith. It is natural to man that only that first becomes his complete possession and his perfect joy which he confesses socially with his mouth, and which he maintains by his life. See Tholuck, p. 571, on the apprehension of the early Protestant orthodoxy, that by a distinction of the two parts åἰò äéêáéïóýíçí and åἰò óùôçñßáí prejudice would be done to the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of the righteousness which is of faith has, indeed, been carried to such excess, that it has been regarded as prejudiced by the requirement of the fruits of faith in the final judgment. This reduces it to a dead-letter affair, and is a failure to appreciate the necessary elements in the development of life. The Apostle’s testimony is so decidedly one of experience, that it expresses the permanent force of the law of faith by the passive forms: ðéóôåýåôáé , ὁìïëïãåῖôáé . This is its custom; thus is the kingdom of heaven taken by force.
Rom_10:11. The testimony of Scripture for the righteousness of faith.
For the Scripture saith (Isa_28:16). “ ÉÉᾶò ,” says Meyer, “is neither in the LXX. nor in the Hebrew, but Paul has added it in order to mark the (to him) important feature of universality, which he found in the unlimited ὁ ðéóôåýùí .” This is, in meaning, certainly contained in the äַîַּàֲîִéï . The weight of the clause lies in the fact that only faith is here desired. The Apostle has very justifiably referred the ἐð ’ áὐôῷ to Christ.
Shall not be put to shame. That is, shall attain to salvation (see Rom_5:5; Rom_9:33).
B. The universality of faith. Rom_10:12-13 : The testimony of Scripture for the universality of faith.
Rom_10:12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek [ ïὐ ãÜñ ἐóôéí äéáôïëὴ Ἰïõäáßïõ ôå êáὶ Ἕëëçíïò . This rendering is more literal than that of the E. V. See Textual Note11. Greek stands here for Gentile. Comp. Rom_1:18; also in Rom_3:22.—R.] No difference in reference to the freedom of faith; in reference to the possibility and necessity of attaining to salvation by faith. The right of faith is the same to Jews and Gentiles. Proof:
For the same is Lord of all [ ὁ ãÜñ áὐôὸò êýñéïò ðÜíôùí . See Textual Note12.] Strictly speaking, we must suppose a breviloquence also here: One and the same Lord is Lord over all. The one Lord is Christ, according to Origen, Chrysostom, Bengel, Tholuck, and most other expositors (see Rom_10:9). Others refer the expression to God (Grotius, Ammon, Köllner, &c.); Meyer, on the other hand, has good ground for observing that it was first necessary to introduce the Christian character, as Olshausen has done (“God in Christ”); see Act_10:36; Php_2:11.
Rich. [Lange: erweisend sich reich.] ÉÉëïíôῶí (see Rom_8:32; Rom_11:33; Eph_1:7; Eph_2:7; Eph_3:8).
Unto all [ åἰò ðÜíôáò . Alford: toward all; Lange: über Alle; Meyer: für Alle, zum Beston Aller; Olshausen: “By åἰò is signified the direction in winch the stream of grace rushes forth.”—R.] This is both the enlargement and restriction of Christ’s rich proofs of salvation. Only those who call upon him [ ôïὺò ἐðéêáëïõìÝíïõò ], but also all who call upon him, share in His salvation. The calling upon Him is the specific proof of faith, by which they accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.
Rom_10:13. [For every one whosoever, &c., ðᾶò ãὰñ ὅò , ê . ô . ë .. See Textual Note13. Scriptural proof: Joe_3:5. [LXX. and E. V., 2:32.] Tholuck: “The omission of the exact form of the quotation occurs either in universally known declarations, as in Eph_5:31, or where the Apostle makes an Old Testament statement the substratum of his own thought, as in Rom_11:34-35.” Paul has specified the name êýñéïò in Joel as the name of the God of revelation, in harmony with the messianic passage. [If we accept a reference to Christ in Rom_10:12, we must do the same here, as, indeed, the next verse also requires. Alford well says: “There is hardly a stronger proof, or one more irrefragable by those who deny the Godhead of our Blessed Lord, of the unhesitating application to Himby the Apostle of the name and attributes of Jehovah.”—R.]
Rom_10:14-15 : The realization of the universal righteousness of faith through the universality of preaching and the apostolic mission.
Rom_10:14. How then can they call on him? [ ðῶò ïὖí ἐðéêáëÝóùíôáé åἰò , ê . ô . ë .. See Textual Note14, and below.] The proof, clothed in the vivacious form of a question, of the necessity of the universal apostleship and of his preaching, is a sorites. Faith in the Lord precedes calling upon Him (in order to be saved); the hearing of the message of faith precedes faith; but His message presupposes preachers, and preaching presupposes again a corresponding mission. From this it then follows, that the apo