성경 주석서

CHAPTER 10

Romans 10:1. ἡ before πρός is wanting according to a large preponderance of evidence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A hasty grammatical emendation, as ἐστίν before εἰς is supplied in Elz.

αὐτῶν] Elz.: τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, against decisive evidence. With Romans 10:1 a church-lesson begins.

Romans 10:3. After ἰδίαν, δικαιοσύνην is wanting in A B D E P, min., and several versions (including Vulg.) and Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. But the very emphasis of the thrice-occurring word, so obviously intended (comp. Romans 9:30), speaks for its originality; and how easily the omission of the second δικαιοσύνην might arise, as that of a supposed quite superfluous repetition!

Romans 10:5. αὐτοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : αὐτῇ, according to A B א*, 17, 47, 80, Copt. Arm. Vulg. Germ. Damasc. Ruf. But this would involve that, with the most of these, and with yet other witnesses, the preceding αὐτά should be omitted, as also Tisch. 8. has done. However, both αὐτῇ and the omission of αὐτά appear like an emendatory alteration, since the context contains no reference for αὐτά and αὐτοῖς. In the same light we must also regard the reading ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου (instead of τὴν δικ.… ὅτι), as Tisch. 8. has it, in A D* א*, and some min., Vulg., and some Fathers.

Romans 10:15. εἰρήνην, τῶν εὐαγγ.] is wanting in A B C א*, min., Copt. Sah. Aeth. Clem. Or. Damasc. Ruf. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Copyist’s omission, through the repetition of εὐαγγ. If it had been interpolated from the LXX. (Isaiah 52:7), ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης would have been written instead of the mere εἰρήνης. The article before ἀγαθά is, with Lachm., on decisive evidence to be omitted, although it is also wanting in the LXX.

Romans 10:17. Θεοῦ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : Χριστοῦ, according to B C D* E א*, min., several VSS., Aug. Pel. Ambrosiast. There is no genitive at all in F G, Boern. Hilar. But how readily this omission might suggest itself by a comparison of Romans 10:8! Χριστοῦ, however, appears to be a more precise definition of the sense of the divine ῥῆμα, the expression of which by ῥ. Θεοῦ is found already in Syr. and Clem.

Romans 10:19. The order Ἰσρ. οὐκ ἔγνω is supported by decisive evidence; Elz.: οὐκ ἔγνω Ισρ.

Romans 10:1. Ἀδελφοί] Address to the readers, expressive of emotion. Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:20; Galatians 3:15.

μέν] without a corresponding δέ; the thought following in Romans 10:3 loomed before the apostle, as standing in the relation of opposition to his heartfelt interest, of which the solicitude thus remained unfulfilled through the perverted striving after righteousness of the people.

εὐδοκία] does not denote the wish, the desire (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and many, including Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, de Wette, Olshausen). It may mean pleasure, delight (Bengel: “lubentissime auditurus essem de salute Israelis;” comp. Philippi), Matthew 3:17; Matthew 11:26; or goodwill (Php 1:15; Php 2:13), i.e. propensa animi voluntas. See generally Fritzsche. The latter signification is that most immediately suggested by the connection here; comp. van Hengel, “benevola propensio.” It is indeed the intention of the will (Hofmann), but conceived of and designated as the being well-disposed of the heart, as it was such.

πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν is joined to ἡ δέησις, hence there was no need of the (not genuine) article (Acts 8:24; Winer, p. 128 f. [E.T. 169 f.]); to the connection with ἐστί to be understood, εὐδοκία would not be suitable. Hence: The goodwill of my heart and my petition to God are on their behalf towards this end, that they might obtain salvation; σωτηρία is the goal which my εὐδοκία wishes for them, and my prayer entreats for them. In this view ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν belongs so necessarily to the completeness of the thought, that we are not to assume a tacit contrast to a κατά (Hofmann). The article before δέησις represents, according to the context, the personal pronoun (ἡ ἐμὴ δ.); Winer, p. 103 [E. T. 135]; Kühner, II. 1, p. 515.

On the distinction between δέησις and προσευχή, petition and prayer, see on Ephesians 6:18. Bengel aptly remarks: “Non orasset Paulus, si absolute reprobati essent.”

Romans 10:1-13. More particular discussion of the guilt of the Jews specified in Romans 9:32; introduced (Romans 10:1-2) by a reiterated assurance of the most cordial interest in their salvation.

Romans 10:2. Reason assigned why ἡ εὐδοκία … εἰς σωτηρίαν.

ζῆλον Θεοῦ] zeal for God. Comp. Acts 21:20; Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14; John 2:17; 1Ma 2:58. This their zeal makes them worth that interest of my heart.

οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν] knowledge is not that, according to the measure of which they are zealous for God. We must here again (comp. on Romans 1:28) note the composite expression; for the Jews were not wanting in γνῶσις generally, but just in the very point, on which it depended whether their γνῶσις was the right and practically vital ἐπίγνωσις.

Romans 10:3. Confirmatory elucidation of οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν: “for else they would not, unacquainted with the divine righteousness (see on Romans 1:17), have insisted on their own righteousness, and striven against the divine.” This is just the actual proof that their zeal for God is wanting in knowledge.

ἀγνοοῦντες] does not mean any more than at Romans 2:4, 1 Corinthians 14:38, anything else than not knowing; Reiche, de Wette, Tholuck, Ewald, and several others: misapprehending; Hofmann: overlooking. The guilt of this not-knowing Paul does not further enter into, not so much (comp. Acts 3:17; Acts 17:30) from mild forbearance (Rückert and others), but because he had simply nothing else than the οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν to explain.

ΤῊΝ ἸΔΊΑΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΝ] ΤῊΝ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΝΌΜΟΝ, ΤῊΝ ἘΞ ἜΡΓΩΝ ἸΔΊΩΝ ΚΑῚ ΠΌΝΩΝ ΚΑΤΟΡΘΟΥΜΈΝΗΝ, Theophylact. Comp. Php 3:9, and see on Romans 1:17.

ΣΤῆΣΑΙ] stabilire, to make valid. Comp. Romans 3:31; Hebrews 10:9.

ὑπετάγησαν] The ΔΙΚ. ΘΕΟῦ is conceived of as a divine ordinance, to which one subjects oneself (through faith). The sense is not that of the passive, as Romans 8:20, but that of the middle, as in Romans 8:7, Romans 13:1, and frequently, expressing the obedience. As to the subject-matter, comp. προσέκοψαν κ.τ.λ., Romans 9:32.

Romans 10:4. For the validity of the law has come to an end in Christ, in order that every believer may be a partaker of righteousness. Herewith Paul, for the further confirmation of what was said in Romans 10:3, lays down the great principle of salvation, from the non-knowledge of which among the Jews that blinded and perverted striving after righteousness flowed.

Τέλος νόμου, which is placed first with great emphasis, is applied to Christ, in so far as, by virtue of His redemptive death (Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:5), the divine dispensation of salvation has been introduced, in which the basis of the procuring of salvation is no longer, as in the old theocracy, the Mosaic νόμος, but faith, whereby the law has therefore ceased to be the regulative principle for the attainment of righteousness. Only this view of τέλος, end, conclusion (adopted after Augustine by most of the modern expositors), is conformable to what follows, where the essentially different principles of the old and new δικαιοσύνη are stated. For its agreement with the doctrinal system of the apostle, see Romans 7:1 ff. Contrary to the meaning of the word τέλος (even in 1 Timothy 1:5), and contrary to the inherent relation of what follows, Origen, Erasmus, Vatablus, Elsner, Homberg, Estius, Wolf, Ch. Schmidt, Jatho, and several others, take it as: fulfilment of the law (“quicquid exigebat lex moralis praestitit perfectissime,” Calovius), which many dogmatic expositors understood of the satisfactio activa, or of the activa and passiva together (Calovius). Linguistically faultless, but at the same time not corresponding to the connection, is the interpretation of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Melancthon, Beza, Michaelis, and others, that the object and aim of the law was the making men righteous, and that this was accomplished through Christ; or (Theodoret, Toletus, Vorstius, Grotius, Wetstein, Loesner, Heumann, Klee, Glöckler, Krummacher), that Christ was called the object and aim of the law, because everything in the law, as the παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Galatians 3:24), led up to Him; “quicquid praecipiat, quicquid promittat, semper Christum habet pro scopo,” Calvin. Observe further, that Χριστός must be the definite historical person that appeared in Jesus, and not the promised Saviour generally, without regard to whether and in whose person He appeared (Hofmann), an abstraction which would have been impossible to Paul, particularly here, where all righteousness is traced back only to definite faith in contrast to works—as impossible as is the reference combined with it, of νόμος to any law whatever, no law has validity any longer, if the promised Saviour be at hand. See, in opposition to this, immediately below, Romans 10:5 ff.

εἰς δικαιος. παντὶ τῷ πιστ.] aim, for which Christ is the end of the law: in order that every one who believes may obtain righteousness. The principal stress lies on πιστ., as the opposite of that which the law required in order to righteousness; see Romans 10:5-6; Romans 3:21 ff.

Romans 10:5. Now follows, as far as Romans 10:10, the proof of Romans 10:4, and that from Moses himself.

γράφει τὴν δικ.] writes concerning righteousness, John 1:46; Hermann, ad Eur. Phoen. 574. As to the use of the present tense, comp. the frequent λέγει in scriptural citations.

The passage introduced by the recitative ὅτι is Leviticus 18:5, almost exactly after the LXX. Comp. Nehemiah 9:29; Ezekiel 20:21; Galatians 3:12.

αὐτά] refers in the original, and so also here, to the προστάγματα Θεοῦ, which Paul supposes as well known; but the principal stress lies upon ποιήσας: he who shall have done them, so that thus Moses exhibits the doing as the condition of the attainment of ζωή (which is referred by Paul not to the happy and prosperous life in Palestine, but to its antitype, the ζωὴ αἰώνιος).

ἐν αὐτοῖς] i.e. by the fact, that they are fulfilled.

Romans 10:6-8. The righteousness which comes from faith is personified (comp. Hebrews 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 (Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 10:5 begins with γάρ a demonstration of the τέλος νόμου Χριστός, of which Romans 10:5 contains only the one, and Romans 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 Romans 10:5, but also covers Romans 10:6-8; therefore the absence of a formula of quotation before Romans 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 (Romans 9:8; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 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 Deuteronomy 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 Romans 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, Romans 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 (לַעֲשֹתו̇). 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,” Romans 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 (Romans 10:8) after that salvation has been obtained by Christ, we are to have faith only. But in this case, Romans 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 Romans 10:6-7 the denial of the difficulty, and then in Romans 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, Romans 10:9 ff., nothing at all is said of difficulty and facility; secondly—and this is decisive—the fact that Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 10:7 the words of the LXX.: τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης.

μὴ εἴπης ἐν τ. καρδ. σου] LXX.: λέγων, Heb. לֵאמֹר, 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 Psalm 14:1; Matthew 3:9; Revelation 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 Romans 10:4, and opposed to the ὁ ποιήσας, Romans 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. Romans 8:3), ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ (Php 2:6-7; comp. 1 John 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 Romans 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 Romans 10:7 the whole exposition is overthrown. For Romans 10:9 proves that Romans 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 Romans 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; Psalm 107:26; Psalm 139:8; Amos 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, Romans 10:6, as though previously the negation had stood with λέγει, Romans 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. Galatians 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. Acts 20:32; Hebrews 5:13; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 6:15; Galatians 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. Romans 10:4; Romans 10:9 ff., Romans 1:5; Romans 1:17.

κηρύσσομεν] we preachers of the gospel.

Romans 10:9. Not a statement of the contents of the ῥῆμα, but assigning the ground of the immediately previous τοῦτʼ ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσς. The force of the argument lies in the fact that, in respect of the ῥῆμα published by its preachers, confession and faith (mouth and heart) must be consentaneous in order to obtain salvation, which is what Moses also means of the ῥῆμα (Romans 10:8).

ὁμολ. ἐν τ. στόμ. σου] corresponds to ἐν τῷ στόμ. σου (ἐστι) in Romans 10:8, as afterwards πίστ. ἐν τ. καρδ. σου to ἐν τ. καρδ. σου in Romans 10:8.

κύριον] as Lord (comp. 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Php 2:11). “In hac appellatione est summa fidei et salutis,” Bengel. It refers to the question τίς ἀναβ. εἰς τ. οὐρ., Romans 10:6; for the whole acknowledgment of the heavenly κυριότης of Jesus as the σύνθρονος of God is conditioned by the acknowledgment of the preceding descent from heaven, the incarnation of the Son of God; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Php 2:6, et al.

ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν] corresponds to the question of Romans 10:7.

σωθήσῃ] corresponds to ζήσεται in Romans 10:6, but characterizes the latter, according to the doctrinal system of the apostle (Romans 1:16, Romans 5:9-10, et al.), as a deliverance from destruction to the Messianic salvation.

The confession of the mouth (of high essential importance for the relations of every time, and peculiarly of that time!) and faith in the heart are not separate things, as though one without the other had as its consequence the σωτηρία, but they are mutually dependent requisites. Comp. Knapp, p. 565 ff.

The resurrection of the Lord here appears, as suggested by Romans 10:7, and according to Romans 4:25 quite justly, as the object of that faith which makes blessed. Without it, His death would not be the atoning death, 1 Corinthians 15:17-18, nor would He Himself be the Son of God, Romans 1:4.