Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 10:6 - 10:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rom_10:6-8. The righteousness which comes from faith is personified (comp. Heb_12:5), so that the following words of Moses, in which Paul recognises an allegorically and typically prophetic description of this righteousness, appear as its self-description. An increasing animation, and indeed triumphant tone in the representation, which thus introduces over-against that dark background (Rom_10:5) the bright picture the more immediately in concrete vividness. Hofmann artificially imports the antithesis, that the righteousness of the law is found only in a description of the lawgiver, but the righteousness of faith itself speaks as one existing and present. There is the less room for this supposition, since Rom_10:6 ff. are also Mosaic expressions. But that Paul actually regarded the words of Moses as a prophetical testimony to the nature of the righteousness of faith, is an opinion sanctioned only by a minority of expositors (Augustine, de nat. et grat. 83; Bucer, Balduin, Calovius, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Reiche, Köllner, Olshausen, Benecke, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Umbreit). The majority, on the other hand, assume that Paul only clothed his own thoughts in the words of Moses, and used the latter as a suitable substratum for the former. So Tholuck, Flatt, Rückert, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi: “a holy and charming play of the Spirit of God upon the word of the Lord;” van Hengel and several others, as formerly Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide; Bengel: “suavissima parodia.” But against this view is the fact that Rom_10:5 begins with γάρ a demonstration of the τέλος νόμου Χριστός , of which Rom_10:5 contains only the one, and Rom_10:6-8 the other, side; both sides, however, unite their probative force in Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει . Therefore it is quite wrong (see esp. Rückert, Philippi) to look upon ἡ δὲ ἐκ πιστ . δικ . as the opposite to Μωϋσῆς , and to suppose that the parallel would be more sharply drawn if Paul had said: But Christ speaks thus, etc. No, δέ places the righteousness of faith in opposition to the previously mentioned δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ; and for these two modes of righteousness the testimony of the lawgiver himself is introduced by Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει . “For Moses writes of the righteousness of the law, etc.; but the other kind of righteousness, the righteousness of faith, says (in the same Moses) thus, etc.” The Μωϋς . γ . γρ . thus holds good not only for Rom_10:5, but also covers Rom_10:6-8; therefore the absence of a formula of quotation before Rom_10:6 is no valid argument against our view. This applies likewise against Hofmann, according to whom that, which the righteousness of faith speaks, is intended to recall Deut. l.c.; in such a way, however, that the word of which Moses speaks is related to that which the righteousness of faith means, as the O. T. to the N. T., and thus the former is a prediction of the latter. Groundless is the further objection, that Paul nowhere else thus mixes up a biblical passage with comments. For we are acquainted with comments in the style of the Midrash in Paul’s writings (Rom_9:8; Gal_3:16; Gal_4:23-24); and that they are here interspersed is unessential, and was very naturally suggested by the opposed ἀναβ . εἰς τ . οὐρανόν and ΚΑΤΑΒ . ΕἸς Τ . ἌΒΥΣΣΟΝ . In conclusion, we must further observe that, if Paul had given the biblical words only as the clothing of his own representation, yet we should have to assume, and that for the very sake of the honesty of the apostle (which Philippi thinks endangered by our view), that he actually found in the saying the typical reference to the righteousness of faith; even the holy “play” upon words of the Spirit can be no erroneous play. Theodoret took the right view: διδάσκει πάλιν νόμου καὶ χάριτος τὴν διαφορὰν , καὶ ἀμφοτέρων εἰσάγει Μωϋσέα τὸν νομοθέτην διδάσκαλον . Erasmus, Paraphr.: “utriusque justitiae imaginem Moses ipse depinxit.” Comp. also Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 217. The Mosaic declaration itself is Deu_30:12-14, with free deviations bearing on his object, from the original and the LXX. Moses has there said of the commandment of God to Israel to fulfil His law (for the passage speaks of nothing else according to its historical sense) in Rom_10:11, that this commandment does not transcend the sphere of what is capable of accomplishment, nor does it lie at strange distance; and he then adds, Rom_10:12 ff., in order more precisely to depict this thought: It is neither in heaven nor beyond the sea, so that one must first ascend to the former or sail over the latter (comp. Bar_3:29-30) to fetch it, that one may hear and do it; rather is it quite near, in the mouth and in the heart (and in the hands, an addition of LXX., and in Philo); that is, the people itself carries it in its mouth, and it is stamped upon its heart, in order that they may accomplish it ( ìÇòÂùÉúå ̇). Paul finds here a type, and therewith an indirect prophecy, of the demand which the righteousness of faith presents, entirely different from that ΠΟΙΕῖΝ which is demanded by the righteousness of the law, inasmuch as the righteousness of faith forbids only unbelief in reference to Christ, as though He had not come from heaven, or had not risen from the dead, and directs men, on the other hand, to the word of faith, which, through its preachers, is laid in their mouth and heart. The sum and substance of this typically prophetic sense is therefore: “Be not unbelieving, but believing;” and here the grand historical points, to which faith as well as unbelief relate, could not be brought into relief more definitely and significantly than by means of the Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν and ἀναγαγεῖν (in opposition to Tholuck’s objection). According to Fritzsche (comp. Calovius), the sense meant is: no one can become righteous through works, “faciendo et moliendo,” Rom_10:6-7; for in fact one must otherwise have been able—since the becoming righteous rests upon the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ—to ascend into heaven in order to bring Him down, or to descend into the lower world in order to bring Him up; but (Rom_10:8) after that salvation has been obtained by Christ, we are to have faith only. But in this case, Rom_10:6-7 would surely be a warning from the mouth of the righteousness of faith against a facere et moliri, which would be of quite another kind than that of the righteousness of the law, and which even would have included in abstracto, as a presupposition, this very faith in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Still less can we, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and several others (comp. also Reithmayr, Philippi, and Krummacher), find in Rom_10:6-7 the denial of the difficulty, and then in Rom_10:8 the assurance of the facility, of becoming righteous. For against this view is the fact, in the first place, that in what Paul subjoins, Rom_10:9 ff., nothing at all is said of difficulty and facility; secondly—and this is decisive—the fact that Rom_10:5-8 is to be a proof founded on Moses of the statement, τέλος νόμου Χριστός ; but it is evident, that not from the facility of the Christian δικαιοσύνη , but from its being essentially different from the old (the latter resting on doing, the former on faith), it follows that with Christ, the Mediator of the new δικαιοσύνη , the νόμος must have reached its end. This, too, in reply to Knapp, Scr. var. arg. II. p. 558 f., who, besides the erroneous point of view of difficulty and facility, reads otherwise between the lines the most essential points of his interpretation. See, on the other hand, van Hengel, who, however, on his side assumes that Paul desired “avocare” unsettled Jewish Christians “a salutis duce longe quaerendo, quum quisque, qui Christi communione utatur, per fidem in Deo positam possideat, quod, ut ex legis alicujus observatione, sic etiam aliunde afferri non possit.” The connection with Rom_10:4 likewise tells against this view, as does also the circumstance that, if only the longe quaerere were the conception presented, it would not be easy to see why Paul should have inserted at all his explanations τοῦτʼ ἔστι κ . τ . λ ., and why he should not have retained in Rom_10:7 the words of the LXX.: τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης .
μὴ εἴπης ἐν τ . καρδ . σου ] LXX.: λέγων , Heb. ìÅàîÉø , wherein, according to the connection (“It is not in heaven that one might speak,” etc.), the forbidding sense indirectly lies. This Paul expresses directly, because his quotation is severed from the connection of the original; and he adds ἐν τ . καρδ . σου , because unbelief has its seat in the heart, and the expression “to speak in the heart” (as Psa_14:1; Mat_3:9; Rev_18:7) was very current in the mention of unholy thoughts and dispositions (Surenhusius, καταλλ ., p. 479.)
τίς ἀναβ . εἰς τ . οὐρ .] Who will ascend into heaven? In the sense of the apostle, the inquiry is one not expressive of a wish (“utinam quis sit, qui nos e longinquo in viam salutis ducat,” van Hengel), nor yet of despair, but—correlative of that τῷ πιστεύοντι in Rom_10:4, and opposed to the ὁ ποιήσας , Rom_10:5—the inquiry of unbelief, which holds the appearance of Christ from heaven, i.e. His incarnation, as not having taken place, and as an impossibility. Therefore Paul adds the Midrashistic interpretation: that expresses, that signifies: in order to bring Christ down—this is the object, which is implied in ἈΝΑΒΉΣΕΤΑΙ ΕἸς Τ . ΟὐΡ ., and by its addition Paul thus contributes a more precise explanation of the question ( τοῦτʼ ἔστι : scilicet), namely, as respects its tendency, as respects that at which it aims. Thus more exactly defined, the question would presuppose, that he who puts it does not believe that Christ has come out of the heavenly world and has appeared in the flesh (comp. Rom_8:3), ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ (Php_2:6-7; comp. 1Jn_4:2). Following Melancthon, Castalio, Calvin, and others, Reiche thinks that unbelief in regard to the session of Christ on the right hand of God is meant. But if there were here a prohibition of the desire to behold with the eyes this object of faith (Reiche), the second question, which nevertheless is manifestly quite parallel, would be highly inappropriate; for then an existence of Christ in the ἄβυσσος would of necessity be an object of faith, which yet it is not at all. Nor could we see why Paul should have said καταγαγεῖν in Rom_10:6, since the matter would in fact turn only on a seeing of Christ in heaven. Moreover, Paul, considering the freedom with which he handles this passage from Moses, would have transposed the two questions, in order to avoid the glaring historical prothysteron which occurs, if the first question refers to the session of Christ at the right hand of God, to which van Hengel also refers it. According to Glöckler, the question, Who will go up into heaven? means to ask, Who will accomplish redemption? for the ascension was a necessary requisite for the Mediator; and therefore τοῦτʼ ἔστι signifies: this would mean to deny the ascension of Christ. Consistently, Glöckler then understands the second question as, Who will (voluntarily) go into death? this would mean to deny the death of Christ. But by this necessarily consistent view of Rom_10:7 the whole exposition is overthrown. For Rom_10:9 proves that Rom_10:7 refers to the resurrection of Christ; nor did unbelief, in truth, deny the death of Christ, but took offence at it. Like Glöckler, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 102 f., has essentially misunderstood both verses, and Rückert the question of Rom_10:7.
ἢ τίς καταβ . εἰς τ . ἄβ .;] The colon after ἤ is to be omitted. The question is, in the sense of the apostle, likewise a question of unbelief, and that in reference to the fact and the possibility of the resurrection of Christ ἐκ νεκρῶν (i.e. out of Scheol, ἄβυσσος ). The LXX., following the original, has: τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ; But Paul, in his typical reference to Christ, had sufficient cause and liberty, from the standpoint of the historical fulfilment, to put expressly, instead of πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης , even without reflecting that the springs of the sea lie in the lowest depth of the earth (see Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 112), the familiar contrast to heaven, εἰς τ . ἄβυσσον (Job_11:8; Psa_107:26; Psa_139:8; Amo_9:2; Sir_16:18; Sir_24:5). For Christ is the object of justifying faith, not merely as He who came from heaven, but also as He who descended into Hades, and came up again thence, and rose from the dead.
ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ;] But what says it (the righteousness of faith)? An unexact contrast to μὴ εἴπῃς , Rom_10:6, as though previously the negation had stood with λέγει , Rom_10:6 ( οὐχ οὕτω λέγει · εἰπὲ κ . τ . λ .). The interrogative form serves “ad attentionem excitandam,” Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 186. 347. Comp. Gal_4:30.
ἐν τῷ στόμ . ς . κ . ἐν τ . κ . ς .] Epexegesis of ἐγγύς σού ἐστιν .
τοῦτʼ ἔστι κ . τ . λ .] This ῥῆμα , so designated by the righteousness of faith, signifies the word of faith. The genitive τ . πίστ . is genit. objecti (comp. Act_20:32; Heb_5:13; Eph_1:13; Eph_6:15; Gal_3:2). Note here the two articles; for that ῥῆμα intended by the righteousness of faith is not generally “a word of faith,” whose contents desire to be believed as historical reality (as Hofmann takes it), but the definite specific κήρυγμα , whose entire summary contents are faith in Jesus Christ; comp. Rom_10:4; Rom_10:9 ff., Rom_1:5; Rom_1:17.
κηρύσσομεν ] we preachers of the gospel.