Bible Commentaries
Romans 10

Verses 1-21

X 1-13 Israel’s Fault is Explained— The argument is not carried further, for Paul merely enlarges on the mistaken idea of ’justness’ already stated in 9:31 f. as the cause of Israel’s stumbling. The main line of thought presents no difficulty. In the introduction, 1 f., the Apostle shows once more (cf. 9:1-5) how anxious he is to avoid the impression that his argument is coloured by prejudice or antagonism. In 10:3 f. he repeats 9:31 f., i.e. the point which he wants to prove: Israel strives after justness in her own way, but her way is not the way of God, who makes justness dependent on faith before works. In 5-13 the two ways of striving after justness are further contrasted. The first, v 5 = Leviticus 18:5, is that of the law, discussed at length in 1:18-3:21. The second, 6-13, is that of faith, fully Explained in 3:21-4:25, but here once more summarized in a series of free quotations from Deuteronomy 30:11-14; Isaiah 28:16; Joel 2:32 Vg = 3:5 MT, LXX. The main purpose of the OT quotations in 6-13 must in this context be to show that justness according to the Scriptures is to be obtained by faith, cf. 9, 10, 11, 13. At the same time they evidently have the further object of impressing upon the reader that the new way of faith is superior to the old (1) because less difficult, 6-11, and (2) because open to all, 12 f. The vivid language used to express this second object easily obscures the first and main point, that Israel’s guilt is her neglect of the theological principle of faith.

A question of general interest on which commentators disagree is the use of the OT in 6-8, where Paul quotes Moses against his own law. The simplest solution of this difficulty is that the Apostle here uses Deuteronomy 30:11-14 not as scriptural evidence for his thesis but that he has no further intention by this quotation than to clothe his own thoughts in scriptural language. This solution is based on the Greek text in which there is no change of subject at the beginning of v 8 (against Vg, DV) so that personified justness is speaking throughout 6-8. If this explanation be accepted then we have here an example of what is called in Hermeneutics ’the accommodated sense’, cf.Bar 3:29. So Cornely. For the opinion that Paul uses these texts in a ’typical sense’ see Lagrange, Boylan; cf. also SH 302-7.

Another question of general interest in 1-13 is the meaning of the title Lord given to Jesus in 9: ??? ?µ?????sð? . . . ?????? ’Iðs??+?? = if thou confess . . . the Lord Jesus, DV; Jesus for Lord, WV; that Jesus is Lord, Boylan; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:3; Acts 11:20 Philippians 2:11; 1 John 4:2. In general Boylan explains well: ’The title Lord includes all that was preached and believed concerning Jesus—His divinity, Incarnation, Work of Redemption, Resurrection and Glorification’. For a more detailed exegesis the following main interpretations may be mentioned. ’Lord’ when used as a title of Jesus Christ by St Paul has been taken: (1) for Hebrew YAHWEH, because LXX often translated the tetragammaton in the OT with kyrios, cf. HRCS II 800; and because Paul often applied such texts to Christ, cf. note on 13. So Lattey, Paul, 1939, 54. (2) For Aramaic mari=my Lord; maran(a)=our Lord, found in early Christian prayers to Christ, cf.1 Corinthians 16:22; Apoc 22:20; Didache 10:5; G. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1898, 276; Boylan 169. (3) In opposition to kyrios, kyria in the contemporary cults of hellenisticoriental syncretism; so * W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 1913, 113-25; Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 1923, 298 f. (4) In opposition to kyrios in the Roman Caesar cult, cf. Martyrol. Polycarpi 8:2. Of these four explanations the first two seem preferable because more in agreement with the continuity of apostolic doctrine. But it may well be granted that according to circumstances the other connotations were stressed; e.g. the divine king against the Roman emperor cult; the one Lord of all, of Israelites as well as Gentiles, against the pagan cults of the time, cf.Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 8:5. In any case it is generally admitted that St Paul’s usage of the title Lord for Jesus clearly implies the divinity of Christ and so does everyone of the above four explanations if logically thought out. On the whole question cf. Prat II 117-24; 437 f.; L. de Grandmaison, Jésus-Christ, Engl. Tr. III ( 1934) 379-83; BGDW, s.v. Kyrios; Lietzmann 97-101 on Romans 10:9; * H. J. Cadbury, Beginnings of Christianity V ( 1933) 360-

1. ’Paul would not have prayed if he had considered Israel to be irrevocably rejected’ (Bengel). 2. ’Zeal but not according to knowledge’: cf.John 16:2; Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:13; see also Lightfoot on Colossians 1:9.3. ’The justice of God’ = justness, justification, cf. 1:17; 3:5, 21 ff.; 9:31 f.; Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21.4. t???? ?óµ?? = the end of law: can mean (a) the fulfilment of the law, cf.Matthew 5:17; Galatians 3:24; (b) the abolition of the law, cf. 6:14 Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14. ’The law’: has here been understood (a) of law in general = all legal systems; (b) of the Mosaic Law. The latter is more in keeping with the context, cf. 9:31 f.; 10:3 f. 6 f. ’Who shall ascend into heaven . . . or descend into the deep’: is used in Deuteronomy 30:13 f. as a metaphor for something impossible. Paul’s application of the second part to the resurrection of Christ, 7, contains a noteworthy reference to Christ’s descent into limbo, cf.Acts 2:27; 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6.8. ’But what saith it’: scil. the justice = justness of v 6 f. 9. ’If thou confess with thy mouth . . . and believe in thy heart’: develops the metaphor for something near and easy quoted in 8 from Deuteronomy 30:14. The sequence ’mouth-heart’ is therefore not to be pressed. In the process of justification faith comes before outward profession, cf. 10.

10. A clear text against any theory that faith of the heart alone is sufficient. The profession of faith here demanded is the practice of faith in everyday life. There is no reason or limiting it to times of persecution. ’Justness . . . salvation’: appear to be parallel.

12. ’The same is Lord over all’ = Christ, not YAHWEH; because of context, cf. 9 ff.; Matthew 28:18; Acts 10:36; Ephesians 3:4 ff.; Philippians 2:11. 13. ’Lord’: here refers to Christ, but in Joel 3:5 (= 2, 32 Vg) it refers to YAHWEH. Similar examples of YAHWEH texts applied to Christ are 1 Corinthians 1:31 = 2 Corinthians 10:17 = Jeremiah 9:23 f.; 1 Corinthians 2:16 = Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 10:21 = Malachi 1:7; 2 Corinthians 3:16 = Exodus 34:34; Philippians 2:10 = Isaiah 45:24. 858e

14-21 Israel’s Fault Is further Explained— There is no change of subject here. The discussion of Israel’s guilt continues. The Apostle’s object, however, is no longer merely to show the fact of Israel’s fault as in 1-13, but rather to prove that she is also fully responsible for that fault. She is culpable; she has no excuse.

The four excuses that might be made, 14-15a, 16a, 18a, 19a, are not convincing. First excuse, 14-15a: Where, in the case of the Gospel, is the authority which all preaching needs to make faith reasonable? How can Israel believe the Christian missionaries, without their having proper credentials? Answer, 15b: The principle of authority here invoked is perfectly true. But to question the Christian missionaries’ authority is forgetting Isaiah 52:7 where the authority of the evangelists (e?a??e????µ???? = messengers of the good news) is clearly foretold. Second excuse, 16a: If so, the authority of these evangelists must be considered insufficient because they have been unable to convince and convert Israel. Answer, 16b, 17: ’That complaint is as old as Isaiah’s time’ (C. J. Vaughan) and therefore no more disproves the authority of the Apostles than that of Isaias himself, Isaiah 53:1. Third excuse, 18a: But has Israel really heard the Gospel? Answer, 18b: All the world has heard of it. Fourth excuse, 19a: But is Israel aware of what is at stake? Does Israel understand the Gospel? Answer, 19-21: Surely Israel can understand what the Gentiles can understand. The true explanation is not lack of understanding, but that principle of rebellion which underlies all the history of Israel. As in the days of Moses and Isaias, so now; it is disobedience and contradiction in spite of all that God has done for Israel. This explanation of 14-21 follows St Chrysostom; cf. Lagrange. Its advantage is that it brings out clearly what is generally considered to be Paul’s main line of thought. But it must be admitted that it strains the text. To explain the OT quotations in 15b and 16b as answers is a possible but at the same time a harsh construction. For a similar construction, however, see 11:8. For two other arrangements of the text see Cornely, v. Soden, Jülicher.

The style of 14-21 has been described as obscure by such careful philological scholars as Jowett and SH. The obscurity arises from the method employed in this argument. St Paul answers various objections with Scripture texts, but does not explain the relation of these quotations to the points under discussion. The reason for this is easy to see. When the Apostle dictated the text his intonation would leave no doubt whether, e.g. 15b was meant as a question or as an answer. But to read such a compressed dialogue is a very different matter.

A point of special interest in 14-21 is the meaning of the four questions in 14, 15a. They are, of course, not four real difficulties but four rhetorical questions, arranged according to the figures of speech called climax. It is also clear that these four questions express only one objection: Israel cannot be expected to call upon the name of Christ, 13, without accredited preachers or teachers = apostles. But the amazing freature is the solemnity with which this objection is expressed, arguing ’back from effect to cause through the series of Prayer, Faith, Hearing, Preaching, Sending’ (Gifford). Why so elaborate and solemn? The best explanation would seem to be that ’apostolic (= sent) authority and continuity’ were points of general interest and great importance in the Church at that time, cf. 1:1, 5; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 5:20; Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:18-; Galatians 2:9; Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 4:11; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 1 Timothy 2:7; 1 Timothy 3:1 ff.; 2 Timothy 1:1, 2 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:1, Titus 1:5.

14. ’Whom they have not heard’, WV. 15 quotes freely Isaiah 52:7. The original text speaks of the messenger (singular!) that brings to Jerusalem the good news of the return from the Babylonian Exile. The LXX by using the verb e?a??e?í?es?a? = to evangelize, favoured St. Paul’s application of the text to the Christian missionaries = apostles. 17. ’Through the word of Christ" = (1) the commandment of Christ, cf.Luke 5:5; so Cornely, Eaton; or (2) the Gospel, the message of salvation as in 8; so Lagrange. Boylan seems to combine the two meanings.