Bible Commentaries

Chapter X

Contents

The object of this chapter, as of the preceding and of the one which follows, is to set forth the truth in reference to the rejection of the jews as the peculiar people of god, and the extension to all nations of the offers of salvation. The first verses are again, as those at the beginning of Romans 9, introductory and conciliatory, setting forth the ground of the rejection of the jews, Romans 10:1-4. The next section contains an exhibition of the terms of salvation, designed to show that they were as accessible to the gentiles as the jews, Romans 10:5-10. The plan of salvation being adapted to all, and god being the god of all, the gospel should be preached to all, Romans 10:11-17. The truth here taught (the calling of the gentiles, etc,) was predicted clearly in the old testament, Romans 10:18-21.

Romans 10:1-10

Analysis

With his usual tenderness, the apostle assures his brethren of his solicitude for their welfare, and of his proper appreciation of their character, Romans 10:1, Romans 10:2. The difficulty was that they would not submit to the plan of salvation proposed in the gospel, and, therefore, they rejected the Savior. This was the true ground of their excision from the people of God, Romans 10:3, Romans 10:4. The method of justification, on which the Jews insisted, was legal, and from its nature must be confined to themselves, or to those who would consent to become Jews. Its terms, when properly understood, were perfectly impracticable, Romans 10:5. But the gospel method of salvation prescribes no such severe terms, it simply requires cordial faith and open profession, Romans 10:6-10. This, he shows, in the next verses, is the doctrine of the Scriptures, and from it he infers the applicability of this plan to all men, Gentiles as well as Jews.

Commentary

Romans 10:1

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.‹55› As the truth which Paul was to reiterate in the ears of the Jew was, of all others, to them the most offensive, he endeavors to allay their enmity, first, by assuring them of his affection, and secondly, by avoiding all exaggeration in the statement of their case. The word εὐδοκία means either good pleasure, sovereign purpose, Matthew 11:26; Luke 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:9, or benevolence, kind feeling, or desire, as in Philippians 1:15. The latter sense best suits this passage. Paul meant to assure his brethren according to the flesh, that all his feelings towards them were kind, and that he earnestly desired their salvation. He had no pleasure in contemplating the evils which impended over them, his earnest desire and prayer was (εἰς σωτηρίαν) that they might be saved; literally to salvation, as expressing the end or object towards which his wishes or prayers tend; see Romans 6:22; Galatians 3:17, and frequent examples elsewhere of this use of the preposition εἰς.

return to '

Romans 10:2

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God. So far from desiring to exaggerate the evil of their conduct, the apostle, as was his uniform manner, endeavored to bring every thing commendable and exculpatory fully into view. The word for, has here its appropriate force, as it introduces the ground or reason of the preceding declaration. ‘I desire their salvation, for they themselves are far from being unconcerned as to divine things.’ Zeal of God may mean very great zeal, as cedars of God mean great cedars, according to a common Hebrew idiom; or zeal of which God is the object; the latter explanation is to be preferred. John 2:17, “The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.” Acts 21:20, “Zealous of the law.” Acts 22:3, “Zealous of God.” Galatians 1:14, etc., etc. The Jews had great zeal about God, but it was wrong as to its object, and of consequence wrong in its moral qualities. Zeal, when rightly directed, however ardent, is humble and amiable. When its object is evil, it is proud, censorious, and cruel. Hence, the importance of its being properly guided, not merely to prevent the waste of feeling and effort, but principally to prevent its evil effects on ourselves and others. But not according to knowledge. Commentators notice that Paul uses the word ἐπίγνωσις. The Jews had γνῶσις (knowledge), what they lacked was ἐπίγνωσις, correct knowledge and appreciation. Their knowledge was neither enlightened nor wise; neither right as to its objects, nor correct in its character. The former idea is here principally intended. The Jews were zealous about their law, the traditions of their fathers, and the establishment of their own merit. How naturally would a zeal for such objects make men place religion in the observance of external rites; and be connected with pride, censoriousness, and a persecuting spirit. In so far, however, as this zeal was a zeal about God, it was preferable to indifference, and is, therefore, mentioned by the apostle with qualified commendation.

return to '

Romans 10:3

For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not, etc. The grand mistake of the Jews was about the method of justification. Ignorance on this point implied ignorance of the character of God, of the requirements of the law, and of themselves. It was, therefore, and is, and must ever continue to be a vital point. Those who err essentially here, err fatally; and those who are right here, cannot be wrong as to other necessary truths. Their own righteousness, τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνηn, which Theophylact correctly interprets, τὴν ἐξ ἔργων ἰδίων καὶ πόνων κατορθουμένην. The phrase righteousness of God, admits here, as in other parts of the epistle, of various interpretations.

1. It may mean the divine holiness or general moral perfection of God. In this way the passage would mean, ‘Being ignorant of the perfections or holiness of God, and, of course, of the extent of his demands, and going about to establish their own excellence, etc.’ This gives a good sense, but it is not consistent with the use of the expression righteousness of God, in other similar passages, as Romans 1:17; Romans 3:21, etc. And, secondly, it requires the phrase to be taken in two different senses in the same verse; for the last clause, ‘have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,’ cannot mean, ‘They have not submitted to the divine holiness.’

2. The term may mean that righteousness of which God is the author, that which he approves and accepts. This interpretation is, in this case, peculiarly appropriate, from the opposition of the two expressions, righteousness of God and their own righteousness. ‘Being ignorant of that righteousness which God has provided, and which he bestows, and endeavoring to establish their own, they refused to accept of his.’ The sense here is perfectly good, and the interpretation may be carried through the verse, being applicable to the last clause as well as to the others. A comparison of this passage with Philippians 3:9, “Not having my own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God,” is also in favor of this interpretation. For there the phrase the righteousness which is of God, can only mean that which he gives, and with this phrase the expression the righteousness of God, in this verse, seems to be synonymous.‹56›

3. Thirdly, Some interpreters take righteousness in the sense of justification, “justification of God” being taken as equivalent to ‘God’s method of justification.’ Being ignorant of God’s method of justification, and going about to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves to the method which he has proposed.’ The cause of the rejection of the Jews was the rejection of the method of salvation through a crucified Redeemer, and their persisting in confiding in their own merits and advantages as the ground of their acceptance with God.

Although this is the meaning of the passage, it is not the sense of the words. Righteousness does not signify justification. It is that on which the sentence of justification is founded. Those who have righteousness, either personal and inherent, or imputed, are justified. As we have no righteousness of our own, nothing that we have done or experienced, nothing personal or subjective, that can answer the demands of the law, we can be justified only through the righteousness of God, imputed to us and received by faith.

return to '

Romans 10:4

For Christ Is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. The precise connection of this verse with the preceding, depends on the view taken of its meaning. The general import of the passage is sufficiently obvious, but its exact sense is not so easy to determine, on account of the ambiguity of the word (τέλος) translated end. The word may signify,

1. The object to which any thing leads. Christ is, in this sense, the end of the law, inasmuch as the law was a schoolmaster to lead us to him, Galatians 3:24; and as all its types and prophecies pointed to him, “They were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ,” Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 9:9. The meaning and connection of the passage would then be, ‘The Jews erred in seeking justification from the law, for the law was designed, not to afford justification, but to lead them to Christ, in order that they might be justified.’ To Christ all its portions tended, he was the object of its types and the subject of its predictions, and its precepts and penalty urge the soul to him as the only refuge. So Calvin, Bengel, and the majority of commentators.‹57›

2. The word may be taken in the sense of completion or fulfillment. Then Christ is the end of the law, because he fulfills all its requisitions, all its types and ceremonies, and satisfies its perceptive and penal demands See Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill;” and Romans 8:4. The Philological ground for this interpretation is slight. 1 Timothy 1:5, is compared with Romans 13:10, in order to prove that the word (τέλος) here translated end, is equivalent to the word (πλήρωμα) which is there (Romans 13:10) rendered fulfilling. The sense, according to this interpretation, is scriptural, but is not consistent with the meaning of the word.

3. We may take the word in its more ordinary sense of end or termination, and understand it metonymically for he who terminates or puts an end to. The meaning and connection would then be, ‘The Jews mistake the true method of justification, because they seek it from the law, whereas Christ has abolished the law, in order that all who believe may be justified.’ Compare Ephesians 2:15, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments;” Colossians 2:14, “Blotting Out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, etc.,” Galatians 3:10, Galatians 3:12; Romans 6:14; Romans 7:4, Romans 7:6, and the general drift of the former part of the epistle. In sense, his interpretation amounts to the same with the preceding, though it differs from it in form. Christ has abolished the law, not by destroying, but by fulfilling it. He has abolished the law as a rule of justification, or covenant of works, and the whole Mosaic economy having met its completion in him, has by him been brought to an end. In Luke 16:16, it is said, “The law and the prophets were until John;” then, in one sense, they ceased, or came to an end. When Christ came, the old legal system was abolished, and a new era commenced. The same idea is presented in Galatians 3:23, “Before faith came we were kept under the law,” but when Christ appeared, declaring, “Believe and thou shalt be saved,” we were no longer under that bondage. The doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture, that those who are out of Christ are under the law, subject to its demands and exposed to its penalty. His coming and work have put an end to its authority, we are no longer under the law, but under grace, Romans 6:14; we are no longer under the system which says, Do this, and live; but under that which says, Believe, and thou shalt be saved. This abrogation of the law, however, is not by setting it aside, but by fulfilling its demands. It is because Christ is the fulfiller of the law, that he is the end of it. It is the latter truth which the apostle here asserts. The word law is obviously here used in its prevalent sense throughout this epistle, for the whole rule of duty prescribed to man, including for the Jews the whole of the Mosaic institutions. That law is intended which has been fulfilled, satisfied, or abrogated by Jesus Christ. For righteousness to every one that believeth. The general meaning of this clause, in this connection, is, ‘So that, or, in order that, every believer may be justified;’ Christ has abolished the law, ἵνα δικαιωθῇ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ, in order that every believer may attain righteousness, Which is unattainable by the law. The law is abolished by Christ, not as a rule of life, but as a covenant prescribing the condition of life. The way in Which this idea is arrived at, however, may be variously explained.

4. The preposition (εἰς) rendered for, may be rendered as to, as it relates to. ‘Christ is the end of the law, as it relates to righteousness.’

5. It may be understood of the effect, or result, and be resolved into the verbal construction with that or so that; ‘Christ is the end, etc., that righteousness is to every believer; or so that every believer is justified.’

6. It may point out the end or object. ‘Christ has abolished the law in order that every one that believes, etc.’

The last is the correct explanation. The Jews, then, did not submit to the righteousness of God, that is, to the righteousness which he had provided, for they did not submit to Christ, who is the end of the law. He has abolished the law, in order that every one that believes may be justified.

return to '

Romans 10:5

For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law. That is, concerning the righteousness which is of the law, Moses thus writes. In the last clause of the preceding verse it was clearly intimated that faith was the condition of salvation under the gospel. ‘To every one, without distinction, that believeth, is justification secured.’ On this the apostle connects his description and contrast of the two methods of justification, the one by works and the other by faith, with the design of showing that the former is in its nature impracticable, while the other is reasonable and easy, and adapted to all classes of men, Jews and Gentiles, and should therefore be offered to all.

The righteousness which is of the law. The word righteousness has here its common and proper meaning. It is that which constitutes a man righteous, which meets the demands of the law, or satisfies the claims of justice. The man who is righteous, or who possesses righteousness, cannot be condemned. The apostle in his whole argument proceeds on the assumption that God is just; that he does and must demand righteousness in those whom he justifies. There are but two possible ways in which this righteousness can be obtained — by works, or by faith. We must either have a righteousness of our own, or receive and trust in a righteousness which is not our own, but which has been wrought out for us, and presented to us, as the ground of our acceptance with God. The quotation is from Leviticus 18:5, “The man that doeth those things shall live by them.” Those things are the things prescribed in the law. It is the clear doctrine of the Scriptures, that obedience to the law, to secure justification, must be perfect. For it is said, “Cursed is every one who committeth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them;” and, he that offendeth in one point, is guilty of all. It is not necessary that a man who commits murder should also steal, in order to bring him under the penalty of the law. The legal system, then, which defended obedience, required perfect obedience. Those, and those only, who were thus free from sin, should live, i.e. shall enjoy that life which belongs to him as a rational and immortal being. It is a life which includes the whole man, soul and body, and the whole course of his existence, in this world and in that which is to come. Ζήσεται ex mente Judaeorum interpretatur de vita aeterna, ut Targum, Leviticus 18:4. The Jewish writers also well remark, that Moses says, Qui fecerit ea homo; non dicitur, Sacerdos, Levita, Israelita, sed homo; ut discas, etiam gentilem, si proselytus fiat, et det legi operam, intelligi. See Wetstein.

return to '

Romans 10:6, Romans 10:7

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not, etc. Moses says one thing; the righteousness of faith says another thing. The same kind of personification occurs in Galatians 3:23, Galatians 3:25. The phrase righteousness of faith, or as it is here, which is of faith, admits of different interpretations, if we limit ourselves to the mere force of the words. Righteousness of faith, may mean that righteousness which consists in faith; or, which flows from faith, (i.e., that inward excellence which faith produces); or, the righteousness which is received by faith. This last is the only interpretation consistent with the context, or with the analogy of Scripture. The righteousness which consists in faith, or which flows from faith, is our own righteousness. It is as true and properly our own as any righteousness of works on which Pharisees relied. Besides, it is the whole doctrine of the apostle and of the gospel, that it is Christ’s righteousness, his obedience, blood, or death, which is the ground of our acceptance with God, and which it receives and rests upon.

It is clearly implied in that verse that the attainment of justification, by a method which prescribed perfect obedience, is for sinful men impossible. It is the object of this and the succeeding verses, to declare that the gospel requires no such impossibilities; it neither requires us to scale the heavens, nor to fathom the great abyss; it demands only cordial faith and open profession. In expressing these ideas the apostle skillfully avails himself of the language of Moses, Deuteronomy 30:10-14. It is clear that the expressions used by the ancient lawgiver were a familiar mode of saying that a thing could not be done. The passage referred to is the following, “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” The obvious import of this passage is, that the knowledge of the will of God had been made perfectly accessible, no one was required to do what was impossible; neither to ascend to heaven, nor to pass the boundless sea, in order to attain it; it was neither hidden, nor afar off, but obvious and at hand. Without directly citing this passage, Paul uses nearly the same language to express the same idea. The expressions here used seem to have become proverbial among the Jews. To be “high,” or “afar off,” was to be unattainable; Psalms 139:6; Proverbs 24:7. “To ascend to heaven,” or “to go down to hell,” was to do what was impossible, Amos 9:2; Psalms 139:8, Psalms 139:9. As the sea was to the ancients impassable, it is easy to understand how the question, ‘Who can pass over the sea?’ was tantamount to ‘Who can ascend up into heaven?’ Among the later Jews the same mode of expressions not unfrequently occur. Bava Mezia, f. 94, 1. Si quis dixerit mulieri, si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata, haec conditio frustranea est. — Wetstein.

Instead of using the expression, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us?’ Paul uses the equivalent phrase, ‘Who shall descend into the deep?’ as more pertinent to his object. The word (ἄβυσσον) rendered deep, is the same which elsewhere is rendered abyss, and properly means, without bottom, bottomless, and therefore, is often applied to the sea as fathomless, Genesis 1:2; Genesis 7:11, (in the Septuagint), and also to the great cavern beneath the earth, which, in the figurative language of the Scriptures, is spoken of as the abode of the dead, and which is often opposed to heaven. Job 28:14, “The abyss says it is not in me;” compare the enumeration of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth, in Philippians 2:10, and elsewhere; see also Genesis 49:25, God “shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the abyss which lieth under.” In the New Testament, with the exception of this passage, it is always used for the abode of fallen spirits and lost souls, Luke 8:31; Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:1, and frequently in that book, where it is appropriately rendered the bottomless pit. The expression is, therefore, equivalent to that which is commonly rendered hell in our version. Psalms 139:8, “If I make my bed in hell.” Amos 9:2, “Though they dig into hell,” and was no doubt chosen by the apostle, as more suitable to the reference to the resurrection of Christ, with which he meant to connect it, than the expression used by Moses in the same general sense, “Who shall pass over the sea?”

Paul connects each of the questions, virtually borrowed from the Old Testament, with a comment designed to apply them more directly to the point which he had in view. Say not, who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, etc. The precise intent of these comments, however, may be differently understood.

1. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to namely, or to wit, and the apostle’s comment be connected, as an explanatory substitute, with the questions, ‘Say not who shall ascend into heaven? to wit, to bring Christ down; or who shall descend into the deep? to bring him up again from the dead.’ The sense would then be, ‘The plan of salvation by faith does not require us to do what cannot be done, and which is now unnecessary; it does not require us to provide a Savior, to bring him from heaven, or to raise him from the dead; a Savior has been provided, and we are now only required to believe,’ etc.

2. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to the fuller expression, that is to say, ‘To ask who shall ascend into heaven?’ is as much as to ask, Who shall bring Christ down from above? And to ask, ‘Who shall descend into the deep? is as much as to ask, who shall bring Christ again from the dead?’

The comments of the apostle may, therefore, be regarded as a reproof of the want of faith implied in such questions, and the passage may be thus understood, Do not reject the gospel. Say not in thy heart that no one can ascend to heaven, as the gospel says Christ has done: and no man can descend into the abyss and thence return, as is said of Christ. The incarnation of the Son of God, and his ascension to heaven, are not impossibilities, which would justify unbelief. The doctrines of the gospel are plain and simple.

Instead of regarding the apostle as intending to state generally the nature of the method of justification by faith, many suppose that it is his object to encourage and support a desponding and anxious inquirer. ‘Do not despairingly inquire who shall point out the way of life? No one, either from heaven or from the deep, will come to teach me the way. Speak not thus, for Christ has come from heaven, and arisen from the dead for your salvation and no other Savior is required.’‹58› But this view does not seem to harmonize with the spirit of the context.

It has been questioned whether Paul meant, in this passage, merely to allude to the language of Moses in Deuteronomy 30:10-14, or whether he is to be understood as quoting it in such a manner as to imply that the ancient prophet was describing the method of justification by faith. This latter view is taken by Calvin, De Brais, and many others. They suppose that in the passage quoted from Leviticus 18:5, Moses describes the legal method of justification, but that here he has reference to salvation by faith. This is, no doubt, possible. For in Deuteronomy 30:10, etc., the context shows that the passage may be understood of the whole system of instruction given by Moses; a system which included in it, under its various types and prophecies, an exhibition of the true method of salvation. Moses, therefore, might say with regard to his own law, that it set before the people the way of eternal life, that they had now no need to inquire who should procure this knowledge for them from a distance, for it was near them, even in their hearts and in their mouths. But, on the other hand, it is very clear that this interpretation is by no means necessary. Paul does not say, ‘Moses describes the righteousness which is of faith in this wise,’ as immediately above he had said of the righteousness which is of the law. There is nothing in the language of the apostle to require us to understand him as quoting Moses in proof of his own doctrine. It is, indeed, more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, to consider him as merely expressing his own ideas in scriptural language, as in Romans 10:19 of this chapter, and frequently elsewhere. ‘Moses teaches us that the legal method of justification requires perfect obedience; but the righteousness which is by faith, requires no such impossibility, it demands only cordial faith and open profession.’ The modern interpreters who understand the apostle as quoting the language of Moses to prove the true nature of the gospel, differ among themselves. Meyer and most other advocates of this view of the context, assume that Paul departs entirely from the historical meaning of the original text, and gives it a sense foreign to the intention of the sacred writer. Others, as Olshausen, suppose him to give its true spiritual sense. The passage in Deuteronomy is, in this view, strictly Messianic. It describes, in contrast with the inexorable demand of obedience made by the law, the spiritual power of the future dispensation. All this, however, requires unnecessary violence done both to the passage in Deuteronomy and to the language of the apostle. In this very chapter, Romans 10:18, we have another clear example of Paul’s mode of expressing his own ideas in the language of the Scriptures. This is done without hesitation by every preacher of the gospel. The apostle, therefore, is not to be understood as saying, Moses describes the righteousness of the law in one way, and the righteousness of faith in another way; but he contrasts what Moses says of the law with what the gospel says.

According to the interpretation given above, it is assumed the design of this passage is to present the simplicity and suitableness of the gospel method of salvation, which requires only faith and confession, in opposition to the strict demands of the law, which it is as impossible for us to satisfy as it is to scale the heavens. According to the other view, mentioned above, the design of the apostle was to rebuke the unbelief of the Jews. They were not to regard the resurrection and ascension of Christ as impossible. But the whole context shows that the purpose of the apostle is to contrast the legal and the gospel method of salvation — to show that the one is impracticable, the other easy. By works of the law no flesh living can he justified; whereas, whosoever simply calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

return to '

Romans 10:6, Romans 10:7

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not, etc. Moses says one thing; the righteousness of faith says another thing. The same kind of personification occurs in Galatians 3:23, Galatians 3:25. The phrase righteousness of faith, or as it is here, which is of faith, admits of different interpretations, if we limit ourselves to the mere force of the words. Righteousness of faith, may mean that righteousness which consists in faith; or, which flows from faith, (i.e., that inward excellence which faith produces); or, the righteousness which is received by faith. This last is the only interpretation consistent with the context, or with the analogy of Scripture. The righteousness which consists in faith, or which flows from faith, is our own righteousness. It is as true and properly our own as any righteousness of works on which Pharisees relied. Besides, it is the whole doctrine of the apostle and of the gospel, that it is Christ’s righteousness, his obedience, blood, or death, which is the ground of our acceptance with God, and which it receives and rests upon.

It is clearly implied in that verse that the attainment of justification, by a method which prescribed perfect obedience, is for sinful men impossible. It is the object of this and the succeeding verses, to declare that the gospel requires no such impossibilities; it neither requires us to scale the heavens, nor to fathom the great abyss; it demands only cordial faith and open profession. In expressing these ideas the apostle skillfully avails himself of the language of Moses, Deuteronomy 30:10-14. It is clear that the expressions used by the ancient lawgiver were a familiar mode of saying that a thing could not be done. The passage referred to is the following, “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” The obvious import of this passage is, that the knowledge of the will of God had been made perfectly accessible, no one was required to do what was impossible; neither to ascend to heaven, nor to pass the boundless sea, in order to attain it; it was neither hidden, nor afar off, but obvious and at hand. Without directly citing this passage, Paul uses nearly the same language to express the same idea. The expressions here used seem to have become proverbial among the Jews. To be “high,” or “afar off,” was to be unattainable; Psalms 139:6; Proverbs 24:7. “To ascend to heaven,” or “to go down to hell,” was to do what was impossible, Amos 9:2; Psalms 139:8, Psalms 139:9. As the sea was to the ancients impassable, it is easy to understand how the question, ‘Who can pass over the sea?’ was tantamount to ‘Who can ascend up into heaven?’ Among the later Jews the same mode of expressions not unfrequently occur. Bava Mezia, f. 94, 1. Si quis dixerit mulieri, si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata, haec conditio frustranea est. — Wetstein.

Instead of using the expression, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us?’ Paul uses the equivalent phrase, ‘Who shall descend into the deep?’ as more pertinent to his object. The word (ἄβυσσον) rendered deep, is the same which elsewhere is rendered abyss, and properly means, without bottom, bottomless, and therefore, is often applied to the sea as fathomless, Genesis 1:2; Genesis 7:11, (in the Septuagint), and also to the great cavern beneath the earth, which, in the figurative language of the Scriptures, is spoken of as the abode of the dead, and which is often opposed to heaven. Job 28:14, “The abyss says it is not in me;” compare the enumeration of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth, in Philippians 2:10, and elsewhere; see also Genesis 49:25, God “shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the abyss which lieth under.” In the New Testament, with the exception of this passage, it is always used for the abode of fallen spirits and lost souls, Luke 8:31; Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:1, and frequently in that book, where it is appropriately rendered the bottomless pit. The expression is, therefore, equivalent to that which is commonly rendered hell in our version. Psalms 139:8, “If I make my bed in hell.” Amos 9:2, “Though they dig into hell,” and was no doubt chosen by the apostle, as more suitable to the reference to the resurrection of Christ, with which he meant to connect it, than the expression used by Moses in the same general sense, “Who shall pass over the sea?”

Paul connects each of the questions, virtually borrowed from the Old Testament, with a comment designed to apply them more directly to the point which he had in view. Say not, who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, etc. The precise intent of these comments, however, may be differently understood.

1. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to namely, or to wit, and the apostle’s comment be connected, as an explanatory substitute, with the questions, ‘Say not who shall ascend into heaven? to wit, to bring Christ down; or who shall descend into the deep? to bring him up again from the dead.’ The sense would then be, ‘The plan of salvation by faith does not require us to do what cannot be done, and which is now unnecessary; it does not require us to provide a Savior, to bring him from heaven, or to raise him from the dead; a Savior has been provided, and we are now only required to believe,’ etc.

2. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to the fuller expression, that is to say, ‘To ask who shall ascend into heaven?’ is as much as to ask, Who shall bring Christ down from above? And to ask, ‘Who shall descend into the deep? is as much as to ask, who shall bring Christ again from the dead?’

The comments of the apostle may, therefore, be regarded as a reproof of the want of faith implied in such questions, and the passage may be thus understood, Do not reject the gospel. Say not in thy heart that no one can ascend to heaven, as the gospel says Christ has done: and no man can descend into the abyss and thence return, as is said of Christ. The incarnation of the Son of God, and his ascension to heaven, are not impossibilities, which would justify unbelief. The doctrines of the gospel are plain and simple.

Instead of regarding the apostle as intending to state generally the nature of the method of justification by faith, many suppose that it is his object to encourage and support a desponding and anxious inquirer. ‘Do not despairingly inquire who shall point out the way of life? No one, either from heaven or from the deep, will come to teach me the way. Speak not thus, for Christ has come from heaven, and arisen from the dead for your salvation and no other Savior is required.’‹58› But this view does not seem to harmonize with the spirit of the context.

It has been questioned whether Paul meant, in this passage, merely to allude to the language of Moses in Deuteronomy 30:10-14, or whether he is to be understood as quoting it in such a manner as to imply that the ancient prophet was describing the method of justification by faith. This latter view is taken by Calvin, De Brais, and many others. They suppose that in the passage quoted from Leviticus 18:5, Moses describes the legal method of justification, but that here he has reference to salvation by faith. This is, no doubt, possible. For in Deuteronomy 30:10, etc., the context shows that the passage may be understood of the whole system of instruction given by Moses; a system which included in it, under its various types and prophecies, an exhibition of the true method of salvation. Moses, therefore, might say with regard to his own law, that it set before the people the way of eternal life, that they had now no need to inquire who should procure this knowledge for them from a distance, for it was near them, even in their hearts and in their mouths. But, on the other hand, it is very clear that this interpretation is by no means necessary. Paul does not say, ‘Moses describes the righteousness which is of faith in this wise,’ as immediately above he had said of the righteousness which is of the law. There is nothing in the language of the apostle to require us to understand him as quoting Moses in proof of his own doctrine. It is, indeed, more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, to consider him as merely expressing his own ideas in scriptural language, as in Romans 10:19 of this chapter, and frequently elsewhere. ‘Moses teaches us that the legal method of justification requires perfect obedience; but the righteousness which is by faith, requires no such impossibility, it demands only cordial faith and open profession.’ The modern interpreters who understand the apostle as quoting the language of Moses to prove the true nature of the gospel, differ among themselves. Meyer and most other advocates of this view of the context, assume that Paul departs entirely from the historical meaning of the original text, and gives it a sense foreign to the intention of the sacred writer. Others, as Olshausen, suppose him to give its true spiritual sense. The passage in Deuteronomy is, in this view, strictly Messianic. It describes, in contrast with the inexorable demand of obedience made by the law, the spiritual power of the future dispensation. All this, however, requires unnecessary violence done both to the passage in Deuteronomy and to the language of the apostle. In this very chapter, Romans 10:18, we have another clear example of Paul’s mode of expressing his own ideas in the language of the Scriptures. This is done without hesitation by every preacher of the gospel. The apostle, therefore, is not to be understood as saying, Moses describes the righteousness of the law in one way, and the righteousness of faith in another way; but he contrasts what Moses says of the law with what the gospel says.

According to the interpretation given above, it is assumed the design of this passage is to present the simplicity and suitableness of the gospel method of salvation, which requires only faith and confession, in opposition to the strict demands of the law, which it is as impossible for us to satisfy as it is to scale the heavens. According to the other view, mentioned above, the design of the apostle was to rebuke the unbelief of the Jews. They were not to regard the resurrection and ascension of Christ as impossible. But the whole context shows that the purpose of the apostle is to contrast the legal and the gospel method of salvation — to show that the one is impracticable, the other easy. By works of the law no flesh living can he justified; whereas, whosoever simply calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

return to '

Romans 10:8

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach. As the expressions to be hidden, to be far off, imply that the thing to which they refer is inaccessible or difficult, so to be near, to be in the mouth and in the heart, mean to be accessible, easy and familiar. They are frequently thus used; see Joshua 1:8, “This law shall not depart out of thy mouth,” i.e. it shall be constantly familiar to thee; Exodus 13:9, “That the law may be in thy mouth;” Psalms 37:31; Psalms 40:8. The meaning of this passage then is, ‘The gospel, instead of directing us to ascend into heaven, or to go down to the abyss, tells us the thing required is simple and easy. Believe with thy heart and thou shalt be saved.’ The word is nigh thee, i.e. the doctrine or truth contemplated, and by implication, what that doctrine demands. Paul, therefore, represents the gospel as speaking of itself. The method of justification by faith says, ‘The word is near thee, in thy mouth, i.e. the word or doctrine of faith is thus easy and familiar.’ This is Paul’s own explanation. The expression, word of faith, may mean the word or doctrine concerning faith, or the word to which faith is due, which should be believed. In either case, it is the gospel, or doctrine of justification, which is here intended.

return to '