Meyer's NT Commentary
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.
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.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.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.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.
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.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.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.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.
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.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.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)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.
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
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;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.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.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.Romans 10:10. Elucidation of Romans 10:9. With πιστ. and ὁμολ. Jesus is not to be supplied as subject (Hofmann), which is not even in accordance with the linguistic usage of the N. T., for 1 Timothy 3:16 has a singular poetical style; but the contents of the faith and of the confession are understood, according to Romans 10:9, entirely of themselves. “With the heart, namely (γάρ), one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confesses unto salvation.” In the style of Hebrew parallelism the thought is thus expressed: “With the faith of the heart is united the confession of the mouth to the result that one obtains righteousness and salvation.” The righteousness obtained through faith would, forsooth, fall to the ground again, and would not be attended by salvation, if faith had not the vital force to produce confession of the mouth (which speaks out of the fulness of the heart); see Matthew 10:32; comp. 2 Corinthians 4:13. We have thus here no merely formal parallelism, but one framed according to the actual relation of the dispensation of salvation; and in this case, moreover, Paul observes the genetic sequence in καρδίᾳ … στόματι, because he is now no longer dependent on Romans 10:8.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.Romans 10:11. Now, after that grand proposition: τέλος νόμου Χριστός κ.τ.λ. (Romans 10:4), has been proved from Moses himself (Romans 10:5-8), and this proof has received its confirmatory discussion (Romans 10:9-10), Paul brings forward, as if for the solemn sealing of all this, once more that weighty word of Scripture which he has already adduced in Romans 9:33. But this scriptural saying (Isaiah 28:16) now receives, with the object of closely connecting with it what is further to follow, the significant addition of the universal element πᾶς (perhaps already with a regard to Joel 3:5), which indeed is found neither in the LXX. nor in the Hebrew; but in the unlimited ὁ πιστεύων in Isaiah, ground and justification for its appearance was found to the apostle’s mind, since he had the sacred historical fulfilment of the prophecy before his eyes, and therein its more particular definitive character.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.Romans 10:12. Elucidation of πᾶς.
οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστ. ʼΙουδ. τε καὶ Ἕλλ.] in respect, namely, to the bestowal of blessing on the believing, Romans 10:11. Comp. Romans 3:22.
For the Lord of all is one and the same. This κύριος is Christ (Origen, Chrysostom, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Böhme, Tholuck, Flatt, Rückert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hofmann, and several others), the αὐτός of Romans 10:11, and the κύριος of Romans 10:13, who is necessarily identical with this αὐτός. Were God intended (Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and many, including Ammon, Reiche, Köllner, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Krummacher), it would in fact be necessary first to suggest the Christian character of the demonstration (as Olshausen: “God in Christ”).
κύριος-g0- πάντων-g0-] comp. Php 2:11; Acts 10:36; Romans 14:9.
πλουτῶν] comp. Ephesians 3:8 : “Quem nulla quamvis magna credentium multitudo exhaurire potest,” Bengel. In what He was rich, the Christian consciousness understood of itself; it is contained also in the previous καταισχυνθήσεται and in the subsequent σωθήσεται,—namely, in grace and salvation. Comp. Romans 5:15, Romans 11:33, and on 2 Corinthians 13:13.
εἰς πάντας] for all, for the benefit of all. See Bernhardy, p. 219; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 85.
The calling upon Christ, who nowhere in the N. T. appears as identical with the Jehovah of the O. T. (in opposition to Philippi), is not the worshipping absolutely, as it takes place only in respect of the Father, as the one absolute God; but rather worship according to that relativity in the consciousness of the worshipper, which is conditioned by the relation of Christ to the Father (whose Son of like nature, image, partner of the throne, mediator and advocate on behalf of men, etc., He is). This is not imported as an Origenistic gloss (Philippi), but is necessarily founded on the dependence and subordination in which even the glorified God-man Christ, in virtue of His munus regium, stands in relation to the Father; see on 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:28. Comp. Lücke, de invocat. J. Chr., Gott. 1843. He who calls upon Christ is conscious that he does not call upon Him as the absolute God, but as the divine-human Representative and Mediator of God exalted to the divine glory, in whom God’s adequate revelation of salvation has been given. To the mediatorial relation of Christ Hofmann also reverts. Comp. on Php 2:10-11; 1 Corinthians 1:2.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.Romans 10:13. Ground assigned for εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλ. αὐτόν, Romans 10:12, and that with words of Scripture from Joel 3:5. This passage (LXX. Romans 2:27, closely following the LXX.) treats of the coming in of the Messianic era; hence Paul might refer κυρίου, which in the original points to God, justly to Christ, who has appeared in the name of God, and continually rules as His Representative and Revealer, and Mediator, whose name was now the very specific object of the Christian calling on the Lord. That Paul writes not αὐτοῦ, but κυρίου, is from no particular motive (against Hofmann); he simply reproduces the words of Scripture, which he presumes to be well known and makes his own.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?Romans 10:14-15. Introduction: In order now that men should call on the name of the Lord, it is necessary that they should have been believing, hearing, preaching, and that the sending forth of preachers should have taken place, which sending forth also the Scripture prophesies. The object of this introduction is not already to cut off every way of escape from the Jews (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and several others, including Köllner), for this is spoken of for the first time in Romans 10:18 ff.; but the necessity of the evangelical ἀποστολή is first of all to be established generally, in order then to make the disobedience of the Jews stand out with the force of contrast. Grotius and Michaelis see in Romans 10:14-15 a Jewish objection, which alleges that the gospel had not been preached to all the Jews in the world, etc.; Paul then answers in Romans 10:16 ff. But how unsuitably he would have answered! Must he not, before everything else, make good—what he only brought in at Romans 10:18—that all Jews had heard the announcement of the gospel? The objection here assumed is made by Paul himself in Romans 10:18.
οὖν] draws an inference from Romans 10:13 : How shall they accordingly (in pursuance of the requirement of ἐπικαλεῖσθαι contained in Romans 10:13) call on, etc.? On the future of ethical possibility, see Winer, p. 262 [E. T. 348]. Important codd. and Lachm. have, instead of the futures, the deliberative subjunctive aorists: How should they, etc.? The attestation in the case of the different verbs, of which Tisch. 8. likewise reads the subjunctive forms, although he retains instead of ἀκούσωσιν the future form ἀκούσονται, is so unequal, that we can come to no decision. Comp. generally Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 734 f. The subject to ἐπικαλέσονται κ.τ.λ. is those who, according to the passage of Scripture in Romans 10:13, shall attain to salvation through calling on the name of the Lord; that to κηρύξουσιν and ἀποστάλ., the κηρύσσοντες. The impersonal rendering (Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, van Hengel, and several others) has against it the fact that κηρύξ. has not the same general subject as the foregoing verbs.
εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστ.] Him, on whom they have not become believing; see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 92.
πῶς δὲ πιστεύσουσιν κ.τ.λ·] Rightly the Vulg.: “Quomodo credent ei, quem non audierunt.” οὗ is not an adverb of place (Hofmann); for thus after εἰς ὅν the symmetry of the discourse would only be heterogeneously disturbed. Nor can it denote de quo (Luther, Castalio, and many, including Philippi and van Hengel), since ἀκούειν τινός in the sense of ἀκ. περί τινος, without a participle annexed, is entirely foreign both to the N. T. and to Greek prose (Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 9 is a case of attracted genitive); and in Homer only, Od. iv. 114, is the solitary instance of it found. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 309; Buttmann, Progr. üb. d. syntakt. Verbind. der Verba ἀκούειν and ἀκροᾶσθαι, Potsd. 1855, pp. 7, 12, and neut. Gr. p. 144 f. Just as little is the object, i.e. the contents of the preaching heard, meant by οὗ, which would rather be expressed by ὅν (Ephesians 4:21); but rather the speaking subject, who is listened to as he from whom the discourse proceeds (Mark 6:20; Mark 7:14; Luke 2:46, et al.; Winer, p. 187 [E. T. 249]), Christ being in this case conceived of as speaking through His preachers (see the following); comp. Ephesians 2:17. On the general thought, comp. Plat. Rep. p. 327 C: ἦ καὶ δύναισθʼ ἂν, ἦ δʼ ὃς, πεῖσαι μὴ ἀκούοντας;
χωρὶς κηρύσς.] without their having a preacher, apart from a preacher. Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 95; who, however, wrongly explains, οὐ πιστεύσαντες τῷ κηρύσσοντι.
ἀποσταλῶσι] Whence? διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ, Romans 10:17, informs us.
The form of the argument is a sorites, and its conclusion: The appointment of evangelical heralds is the first condition in order to bring about the calling upon the Lord. This retrograde sorites thus leads us back to the source; and of the ἀποστολή thus suggesting itself as primarily necessary, the prophetic confirmation from Isaiah 52:7 (not closely after the LXX.) is then given. This “dulcissimum dictum” (Melanchthon), because it speaks of the message of blissful liberation from exile, therein possesses the Messianic character, as concerning the restoration of the theocracy; and therefore is legitimately understood by Paul—in connection with the Messianic idea and its historical fulfilment—as a prophecy of the evangelical preachers. These preach salvation (שָׁלו̇ם, meaning in Isaiah also not merely peace, but the theocratic cratic saving deliverance), preach good (טוֹב); that is, still more generally, omne quod felix faustumque est, which is to be received through Christ, the accomplisher of the divine dominion. That the Rabbins also understood the passage in a Messianic sense, and in what way, see Wetstein.
The opposite of the poetical: how pleasant are the feet (i.e. how welcome the arrival), etc., at Romans 3:15; Acts 5:9; Nehemiah 1:1-5; see Schaefer, ad Eur. Or. 1217; Boeckh, Expl. Pind. p. 281; Wunder, ad Soph. El. 1357 f. p. 120.
Romans 10:14-21. In order to realize this calling upon the Lord, proclaimers of the gospel had of necessity to be sent forth; nevertheless all did not obey the gospel; in which case neither does this excuse avail, that they had not heard the preaching (Romans 10:18); nor that, that Israel did not recognise the universality of the preaching (Romans 10:19 ff.). Thus, following up 1–13, there is still further set forth the people’s own guilt in their exclusion.
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?Romans 10:16. Ἀλλʼ] contrast to the prophetic saying of Romans 10:15 : But—notwithstanding that accordingly the blessed sending forth of messengers of salvation did not fail to take place—all did not obey the message of salvation, all did not submit to the requirement (of faith), which the glad news concerning Messiah and His kingdom placed before them; comp. Romans 1:5, Romans 16:26; 2 Thessalonians 1:8. With Theodore of. Mopsuestia, who takes ἀλλʼ οὐ κ.τ.λ. as a question (comp. Theodoret), Reiche thinks that ἀλλʼ … εὐαγγ. is an opponent’s objection, which Paul accordingly repels by the passage from Isaiah. Against this view the presence of the following γάρ would not be decisive—it would rather be quite in its proper place in the reply (Herm. ad Viger. p. 829; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 473 f.)—but Romans 10:18-19 (comp. Romans 11:1; Romans 11:11), to which Reiche appeals, testify directly against it, because there λέγω is found. Fritzsche, following Carpzov, refers οὐ πάντες to the Gentiles, of whom, however, although van Hengel also understands them to be intended in Romans 10:14-15, nothing is said in the whole context; hence it is not to be even taken quite generally (Hofmann), but is to be referred textually to the Jews, of whom so many, notwithstanding that the lovely feet of the messengers of salvation came to tread amongst them, yielded no result. The negative expression for this multitude is a litotes, forbearing, but making it felt quite tragically enough, that the opposite of οὐ πάντες should have been found. Comp. Romans 3:3 ἠπίστησάν τινες.
γάρ] prophetic confirmation of the sad phenomenon (οὐ πάντες κ.τ.λ.), which thus, as already predicted, enters into the connection of divine destiny, and is not an accidental occurrence. This Hofmann misapprehends, extending the reference of the γάρ to the following ἄρα ἡ πίστις κ.τ.λ., which is impossible on account of the ἄρα commencing a new sentence, since Paul has not written εἰ γὰρ Ἡσαΐας λέγει κ.τ.λ.… ἄρα ἡ πίστις κ.τ.λ., whereby to these latter words would fall the definition of the citation, as Hofmann thinks.
In the lament of the author of Isaiah 53:1 (closely following the LXX., even with the κύριε added by them) over the unbelief of his time in the prophetic preaching (ἀκοή, see on Galatians 3:2), Paul sees—and on account of the Messianic character of the entire chapter justly—a prophecy of the Jewish unbelief of Christian times in the Christian preaching. Comp. John 12:38. Following Syr., Calovius, and others, Umbreit and Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 307, take ἀκοή as the thing heard, i.e. “that which is announced to us through the word of God (by revelation).” But the very following ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς shows, that Paul did not wish to be understood as meaning the divine communication which the preacher received, but the preaching of that word heard by the listeners. The historic aorist corresponds closely to ὑπήκουσαν. We may add that Theophylact rightly remarks: τὸ τίς ἀντὶ τοῦ σπάνιοι κεῖται ἐνταῦθα· τουτέστιν ὀλίγοι ἐπίστευσαν.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.Romans 10:17. Inference from the prophetic passage, with the view of substantially recapitulating what was said in Romans 10:14, and then pursuing the subject in Romans 10:18.
ἀκοή] the same as in Romans 10:16, the announcement, which is heard; comp. on John 12:38. From this comes faith; the heard preaching of the gospel brings about in men’s minds faith on Christ; but preaching is brought about by God’s behest (Luke 3:2; Matthew 4:4; Hebrews 11:3), set to work by the fact that God commands preachers to their office. Rightly have Beza, Piscator, Semler, Cramer, Fritzsche, Glöckler, Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, so understood ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. For the ordinary interpretation of it, also followed by Hofmann, as the preached word of God, is incorrect for this reason, that according to it ῥῆμα Θεοῦ in point of fact would not be different from ἀκοή; and this ῥῆμα Θεοῦ does not point back to Romans 10:8, but to ἀποσταλῶσι in Romans 10:15, as the remaining contents of the verse show, so that the signification saying obtains textually the more precise definition of its sense as behest. But when ἀκοή has been taken in two different senses in Romans 10:16 and Romans 10:17, so that in Romans 10:16 it signifies the preaching, but in Romans 10:17 the hearing (Rückert, de Wette, Philippi, according to whom the preaching is to be analysed into its two elements, the hearing and the word of God, comp. Tholuck); or when in διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ, instead of “God’s word,” divine revelation has been substituted (Reiche, van Hengel, comp. Olshausen, who explains it as equivalent to διὰ πνεύματος Θεοῦ): these are just makeshifts in order to separate the incorrectly assumed notion of ῬῆΜΑ ΘΕΟῦ from that of ἈΚΟΉ.
How could Paul infer also ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ from Isaiah? Certainly not from the mere address κύριε, but rather from the whole attitude of the prophet towards God, as it is expressed in κύριε … ἡμῶν,—an attitude in which the prophet stands as the servant and ambassador of God, so that God thus appears as He on whose saying, i.e. on whose command, the ἀκοή is preached.
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.Romans 10:18. A perhaps possible exculpation for the Jews is suggested by Paul as a spontaneous objection, and that in the form of a question to be negatived, and is then repelled with words from Scripture. “But I ask: Was it then in any way not possible for them to come to faith ἐξ ἀκοῆς? The preaching surely did not remain unheard by them, surely did not fail to come at all to their ears?” The correct view is simply and clearly given by Chrysostom. Incorrectly Hofmann: After Paul has introduced the prophet as speaking, he leaps over to the saying something himself, which that prophetic saying suggests to him. Against this may be urged, (1) that not here for the first time, but already in Romans 10:17, it is Paul who speaks; (2) that he, in placing himself in contradistinction to the prophet, must have written not merely ἀλλὰ λέγω, but ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ λέγω; (3) that ἀλλὰ λ. is not to be taken, with Hofmann, “Well! then I say,” since in that case ἀλλά would have the sense of agreement or concession (see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 16), which is suitable neither here nor in Romans 10:19. The ἀλλά is the quite customary ἀλλά of objection, which is made by oneself or in the name of the opponent; Baeumlein, p. 13.
On the following question: Surely it cannot be that they have not heard? observe that οὐκ is closely joined to ἤκουσαν, expressing the opposite of ἤκουσαν (Baeumlein, p. 277 f.; Winer, p. 476 [E. T. 642]; comp. 1 Corinthians 9:4; 1 Corinthians 11:22), and that the interrogative μή supposes the negative answer: by no means has it remained unheard by them, which negation of the οὐκ ἢκουσαν implies the assertion of the ἤκουσαν.
ἤκουσαν] sc. τὴν ἀκοήν. The subject is those who remained unbelieving (οὐ πάντες ὑπήκ., Romans 10:16), by whom Paul certainly means the Jews, although without expressing it directly and exclusively. The reference to the Gentiles (Origen, Calvin, Fritzsche, and others, including van Hengel and Krummacher) is quite foreign to the connection; comp. on Romans 10:15.
μενοῦνγε] imo vero. See on Romans 9:20.
εἰς πᾶσαν κ.τ.λ.] from Psalm 19:5 (close after the LXX.), where the subject spoken of is the universally diffused natural revelation of God; Paul clothes in these sacred words the expression of the going forth (ἐξῆλθεν, aor.) everywhere of the preaching of the gospel. Comp. Justin, c. Tryph. 42, Apol. 1:40.
ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν] their sound, the sound which the preachers (to these, according to the connection, αὐτῶν refers, which in the psalm refers to heaven, the handiworks of God, day and night) send forth while they preach. In the LXX. it is a translation of קַוָּם, which some have understood, with Luther, as their measuring linc (comp. Hupfeld), some, and rightly so, according to the parallelism, with the LXX., Symm., Syr., Vulg., and most expositors, as their sound.
The answer μενοῦνγε κ.τ.λ. (in which, moreover, Paul does not adduce the passage from the Psalms as a quotation) confutes the ΟὐΚ ἬΚΟΥΣΑΝ very forcibly, because it argues a majori, and even applies to all the Jews of the dispersion. But the conclusion that, according to our present passage, the gospel had at that time actually penetrated everywhere (even to China, America, etc.), is simply an arrant mistake, contrary to the nature of the popularly poetical expression, although, in imitation of the older commentators, renewed by Löhe (v. d. Kirche, p. 34 ff.), and Pistorius in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1846, II. p. 40. The universal extension of the gospel (comp. Colossians 1:6; Colossians 1:23; Clem. Cor. Romans 1:5) set on foot by the apostles on a sufficiently large scale, is continually in course of development. Comp. Romans 11:25-26.
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.Romans 10:19. A further possible exculpation, introduced in emphatic conformity with the preceding, and the repelling of it by means of scriptural declarations down to Romans 10:21. On ἈΛΛΆ Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly observes: ΠΆΛΙΝ ἙΤΈΡΑΝ ἈΝΤΊΘΕΣΙΝ ἘΠΆΓΕΙ.
ΜῊ ἸΣΡΑῊΛ ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ;] surely it did not remain unknown to the Israelites? The “it” to be supplied with ἔγνω (see Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 120, ed. 3) is: ὅτι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξελεύσεται ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν κ.τ.λ. This universal destination of the preaching of Christ expressed in Romans 10:18 must have been known by the Jews, for long ago Moses and also Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles
Isaiah likewise, the refractory spirit of opposition thereto of the Jews (Romans 10:20-21). This reference of ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ alone (followed also by de Wette, Fritzsche, and Tholuck) flows purely in accordance with the text from what immediately precedes, and is at the same time naturally in keeping with the contents of the corresponding biblical passages; for the conversion of the Gentiles and the universality of Christianity are one; since the former was prophesied to the Jews, the latter could not be unknown to them; and they could not therefore allege as the excuse for their unbelief: We did not know that Christianity is destined for the whole of humanity—the less could they do so, since Isaiah places before them the true source of their unbelief in their own spirit of resistance. The view of the passage which comes substantially nearest to ours, is that of Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Pareus, Toletus, Calovius, Turretine, Morus, Rosenmüller, Koppe, Benecke, Köllner, Ewald (comp. Tholuck), who supply with ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ: that the gospel would pass over from the Jews to the Gentiles. So Pelagius and Theodore of Mopsuestia: τὸ τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν προσειλῆφθαι εἰς τὴν εὐσέβειαν. But this is wrong, in so far as the object to be supplied is not purely borrowed from the preceding, but is already in part anticipated from what follows. Beza has vaguely and erroneously supplied Deum, with ἔγνω; Reithmayr, on the other hand, thinks no object is to be supplied; while others imagine the gospel to be the object (“Have they not learnt to know the gospel, in order to be able to believe in it?”). So Chrysostom, Vatablus, Gomarus, Hammond, Estius, and several others, including Rückert, Olshausen, van Hengel, Beyschlag, Mangold, and, with a peculiar turn, Philippi also; similarly Hofmann and others, taking up the following πρῶτος (see below). In that case—against which there is no objection in itself
ΜῊ ἸΣΡΑῊΛ ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ would be so complete a parallel to ΜῊ ΟὐΚ ἬΚΟΥΣΑΝ in Romans 10:18, that here, as there, the gospel would have to be supplied. But as this is by no means necessary (in opposition to Hofmann)—since it fully satisfies the symmetry of the discourse, if in both instances ἀλλὰ λέγω has its reference to what immediately precedes—so it is directly opposed by the fact, that the following reply beginning with ΠΡῶΤΟς would not be suitable. For if we were to assume that Paul has given an indirect answer (“when he shows that the Gentiles believe, he says: How should not, could not Israel have believed, if it had willed?” Olsh.), this would only be a makeshift, in which the answer would appear the more unsuitable in proportion to its indirectness, and still leave open the possibility of the οὐκ ἔγνω. Or if we were to suppose with Rückert, that the thought is: “Want of knowledge is not the cause, but God is now putting into penal execution what He has threatened, and is allowing salvation to pass over to the Gentiles, in order thereby to convert the Jews to a better disposition,” the point of the ἜΓΝΩ would not be entered into at all, and moreover, the essential part of the interpretation would simply be supplied by the reader. This objection is at the same time valid against van Hengel, according to whom it is to be made to appear from the following prophetic quotations that Israel had indeed known, but had shamefully despised, the gospel. Or if, finally, with Philippi, we are to say that the passages from the prophets contained not a refutation, but a substantiation, of the fact that verily Israel had rejected the gospel (which rejection lies in οὐκ ἔγνω), this would be inconsistent with the interrogative form with μή (comp. on Romans 3:5), which necessarily presupposes the denial of the οὐκ ἔγνω (consequently the affirmative: ἜΓΝΩ). In entire deviation from the views just given, Reiche thinks that ἸΣΡΑΉΛ is accusative, and Θεός to be supplied as subject. “Did not God recognise Israel for His people? How could He permit it to be so blinded and hardened?” It is decisive against this view, that to supply ΘΕΌς as subject, especially after Romans 10:18, is highly arbitrary, and that the following passages of Scripture would be quite inappropriate.
ΠΡῶΤΟς] not in the sense of ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟς (which, regarded by itself, might indeed be the case according to the context; see on John 1:15); but, since Moses is quoted, with whom the testimony of God in the O. T. begins: as the first (who in Scripture comes forward in opposition to this) speaks Moses. Of the later testimonies of Scripture, Paul then contents himself with adducing only the bold divine utterances of Isaiah. Theodore of Mopsuestia well gives it: εὐθὺς Μωϋσής. Wetstein, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Hofmann, connect ΠΡῶΤΟς with ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩ. But the supposed sense: “Did not Israel first learn to know it (the gospel)?” or, as Hofmann expresses it: “Was it possibly to stand in such a position, that Israel did not obtain the first experience of it?” must have been expressed without μή.
ἐγὼ παραζ. κ.τ.λ.] Deuteronomy 32:21, almost exactly after the LXX. God there, in the song of Moses, threatens the idolatrous Israelites, that He on His part (ἐγώ) will bless a Gentile people, and thereby incite the former to jealousy and to wrath, as they had incited Him by their worship of idols. Paul recognises in this—according to the rule of the constancy of the divine ways in the history of the development of the theocracy—a type of the attaining of the Gentiles to participation in the communion of God’s people, whereby the jealousy and wrath of the Jews will be excited.
ἐπʼ οὐκ ἔθνει] בְּלֹא עָם, in respect to a not-people; for only the people of God was the real one, the people corresponding to the divine idea of a people; every other is the negation of this idea. Comp. Romans 9:25; 1 Peter 2:10. On the connection of Οὐ with nouns, cancelling the notion objectively, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 129; Grimm on 2Ma 4:13. Often found in Thucydides (Krüger on i. 137. 4). On ἐπί, over, on the ground, that is, on account of, comp. Demosthenes, 1448. 4 : παροξυνθέντων ἐπὶ τῷ γεγενημένῳ, Polyb. iv. 7. 5.
ἀσυνέτῳ] τί γὰρ Ἑλλήνων ἀσυνετώτερον ξύλοις καὶ λίθοις προσκεχηνότων; Theophylact. Comp. i. 21.
But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.Romans 10:20-21. Δέ] marking the transition to another prophet, as at Romans 9:27.
ἀποτολμᾷ κ. λέγει] is emboldened and says. The latter is the immediate consequence of the former; hence here not a Hebraizing mode of expression for the adverbial notion (he freely speaks out), but ἀποτολμ. is absolute (Hom. Il. x. 232, xii. 51, et al). Comp. Winer, p. 437 f. [E. T. 588 f.]; Buttmann, p. 249; and see Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 173; Hom. Il. i. 92: θάρσησε καὶ ηὔδα μάντις.
ἀποτολμᾷ] ἐβιάσατο γυμνὴν εἰπεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ κινδυνεῦσαι ἢ ἀποσιωπῆσαι, Theophylact. Yet the prophet of bold speech is represented as present, as previously Moses in λέγει. The citation is Isaiah 65:1, freely from the LXX., and with undesigned transposition of the two parallel clauses. According to its historical sense, the passage refers to the Jews who had become apostate from God through immorality and idolatry, on whose behalf the prophet has just begged for grace, to which entreaty Jehovah begins His answer by reminding them how He had given Himself to be found, and revealed Himself with prevenient undeserved kindness to the faithless people. But in the apostate Israel, which was in fact sunk into an idolatrous condition (see esp. Isaiah 64:6; Isaiah 65:3 ff.), and in the relation to it which Jehovah here affirms of Himself, Paul sees a typical representation of the Gentile world, which (as ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, Ephesians 2:12) did not concern itself about God, but to which God has given Himself to be found, and (epexegetic parallel) to be recognised in His self-revelation (through the gospel). The Gentiles have accepted this prevenient divine compassion, but Israel in its obstinate apostasy has resisted it; hence Paul continues in Romans 10:21 with πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ λέγει. The latter clearly indicates that Paul really found in Romans 10:20 the prophetic reference to the Gentile world (of which Israel is the opposite); and not, as Hofmann with strict adherence to the historical sense of the original supposes, the fruitlessness of the divine long-suffering towards Israel, which justifies God’s dealing if He now rests not until He has requited its disobedience. According to this interpretation, πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραήλ would have been already said in Romans 10:20, against which view Romans 10:21 testifies.
εὑρέθην] not: “I have allowed myself to be found” (Reiche and others), but: I have been found. On the sense, comp. Acts 17:27; and on the connection of εὑρ. and ἐμφ. ἐγεν., Wis 1:1 f. The aorists are, in the sense of the apostle, to be understood of that which has taken place in the Christian present.
τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτ.] who inquired not of me, namely, respecting revelation; comp. Ezekiel 20:1; Dem. 1072. 12.
Romans 10:21. πρός] not adversus (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Toletus, Grotius, Cramer, Koppe), since in itself—without a more special indication of the text which would yield the hostile sense—it denotes only the simple placing in contrast. Hence, either: in reference to Israel (Estius, Wolf, Ch. Schmidt, and others, including Tholuck, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi), like Hebrews 1:7-8, Luke 12:41; Luke 20:19; or, “in the case of Israel He declares” (Köllner, Rückert, Ewald, and others, following Luther and Vulg.). The former view, which is adopted also by van Hengel, is to be preferred for this reason, that δέ introduces a contrast, not with those to whom the previous passage was directed, but with those to whom it refers in respect of its figurative application.
λέγει] Isaiah, namely. That he speaks in the name of God, is understood of itself.
ὅλην τὴν ἡμέρ.] the whole day, like Romans 8:36. Expresses the unremitting nature of the love.
ἀπειθ. κ. ἀντιλέγοντα] present participle, denoting the continuance of the conduct. ἀντιλέγ. is not to be explained, with Grotius, Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and most, as to be refractory, which it does not mean, but to contradict. The Jews—although God stretched out His saving hands towards them from early morning till evening (comp. Proverbs 1:24)—are disobedient, and say: We will not! Comp. Matthew 23:37; Titus 2:9; 3Ma 2:28; Lucian. D. M. xxx. 3; and see on John 19:12. Also in Achilles Tatius, 5:27 (in opposition to Kypke and Fritzsche), ἀντιλέγειν is conceived as contradiction; as also ἀντιλογία, Hebrews 12:3. Note how opposed the passage is to absolute predestination, and particularly to the Calvinistic “voluntas beneplaciti et signi.”
But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.