Romans 10

2. Two Ways of Righteousness, 10:1–13

¹Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. ²For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. ³Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. ⁴Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

⁵Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.”^a ⁶But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’^b” (that is, to bring Christ down) ⁷“or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’^c” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). ⁸But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”^d that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: ⁹That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. ¹¹As the Scripture says, “Everyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”^e ¹²For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, ¹³for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”^f

Paul is deeply concerned about his own nation (he begins each of these three chapters [9, 10, and 11] with strong statements proceeding from this concern). Here his concern has to do with Jewish error about the righteousness that meant so much to them; they put tremendous effort into securing righteousness before God but went about it the wrong way. The one way is through Christ, and Paul speaks of him as “the end of the law”.

1. The friendly address Brothers (emphatic from its position) refers of course to “brothers in Christ”, not “brothers in Israel”. But it introduces a warm statement about the Israelites (Paul does not mention them specifically; he says “them”, but the context makes it clear to whom he is referring; NIV reads the Israelites, but this is not in the Greek). He is about to give some teaching that Jewish readers may find harsh, but he first makes clear the depth of his feeling for his nation. There is no grammatical link with the preceding, and the asyndeton may well arise out of the writer’s emotion (so BDF 463). Moffatt tries to bring out something of Paul’s attitude with “Oh for their salvation, brothers!” There has been a good deal of discussion about the term NIV renders desire.¹ The word is not classical and appears to have originated in LXX.² It is practically confined to Jewish and Christian literature. Many take it in the sense “desire”, but it is hard to see this in the word. Goodspeed seems to have the sense of it with “my heart is full of good will toward them” (cf. its use in Phil. 1:15; 2 Thess. 1:11). The word “heart” is often used in the New Testament as a kind of shorthand for all the inner states; it is used on occasion to stress the intellectual faculties, but here it is rather the emotions to which it points. Paul is emphasizing his warm affection for his own people. With this affectionate goodwill he links his prayer³ to God. He not only has goodwill for them, but he does what he can for them—he prays. Prayer is, of course, always addressed to God, but by saying this specifically Paul emphasizes his concern for his fellow countrymen before the highest tribunal. His use of the third person (“for them”) seems to indicate that he is writing to a church that is predominantly Gentile. His prayer is “for salvation”, which probably indicates his purpose (though some see result as in mind).⁴

2. I can testify is not quite what Paul says; we should translate rather “I testify”. Paul is actually giving his testimony, not affirming that he could do so if necessary. He does not often use this verb (eight times out of a New Testament total of 76). Here, as H. Strathmann says, it is used “for the declaration or confirmation, on the basis of first-hand knowledge, of individual acts or general facts of experience” (TDNT, IV, p. 496). He knew the Jewish zeal from firsthand experience and indeed at one time had been as zealous as any of them and in the same way. His testimony is that the Jews “have a zeal for God”.⁵ His word “zeal” can be used in a good or a bad sense; here it will be in the good sense, with a meaning something like our “enthusiasm”. The Jews were certainly zealous, for “No nation had given itself to God with such devoted and courageous zeal as Israel” (Barrett). But unfortunately this zeal had to be qualified with not based on knowledge (cf. John 16:2; Acts 22:3; 26:9–11; Gal. 1:14).⁶ Enthusiasm is good, but enthusiasm run riot can lead to disastrous results. Calvin reminds us that “It is better, as Augustine says, to limp in the right way than to run with all our might out of the way.”

3. Since⁷ introduces the reason for the foregoing statement. The Jews were ignorant of something of first-rate importance, the righteousness that comes from God. Here Paul says no more than that they did not know; later he will make the point that their ignorance was culpable: they should have known. Luther quips that zeal according to knowledge is “to know that one does not know”. It was this that the Jews characteristically lacked. They did not understand that they could not establish their own righteousness by their own efforts, so they sought to establish it themselves.⁸ Sincerity is not enough. If we are in the wrong, no matter how sincerely we believe we are doing right, we are going astray. The Jews were doing that, Paul says, because they were in the wrong about God’s righteousness. “The righteousness of God” is the righteousness, the right standing, that comes from God (see the note on 1:17). Paul has made it clear that this is something that Christ has accomplished for us in his death and that all that we sinners need do is accept it by faith (cf. Phil. 3:9).⁹ Paul is saying that the Jews were ignorant of this (or perhaps that their lives gave no evidence of it, but this is less likely). Their activism meant that they did not submit¹⁰ to God’s righteousness; they were sure they could do it themselves. Their attempt to be righteous as their own achievement was a refusal to submit to God’s way.

4. “For” (which NIV omits)¹¹ gives a reason for what was implied in the previous verse even if not stated explicitly—they were wrong in the way they looked for righteousness (cf. SH). There is uncertainty about how we should take the Greek: it might be understood as “Christ ends the law and brings righteousness for everyone who has faith” (NEB) or as “Christ is the end of the law as a way to righteousness for everyone who has faith” (NEB mg.). Either is possible, and whichever we adopt Paul is speaking of the decisiveness and the finality of the work of Christ. There has been a good deal of discussion of the word translated end,¹² which may be understood as “termination” or “fulfilment” or “goal” (it has other meanings, but they do not concern us here). Most scholars these days take it in the sense “end”, “termination” and understand Paul to be saying that the work of Christ means the end of the law. But others argue for “goal”¹³ or for a combination (BAGD see goal + termination, as does Barrett; Shedd argues for all three meanings). Karl Barth argues for something like “fulfilment” as the meaning: “It is with Him and Him alone that the Law is concerned as the order of life under the promise. It is He who interprets this order and fulfils it.”¹⁴ Cf. Calvin, “This remarkable passage declares that the law in all its parts has reference to Christ, and therefore no one will be able to understand it correctly who does not constantly strive to attain this mark.” Not many have seen “fulfilment” here; it would fit in with Paul’s theology, but it is not the usual meaning of the word he uses.¹⁵

There is also division as to the meaning of “law”. Some see a reference to the law of Moses (e.g., Cranfield), others to law in general (SH, Denney). We should probably understand this as the law of Moses in the first instance, but what Paul says about that law rules out any other law. He is saying that Christ’s atoning work has made a way whereby those who believe receive a right standing before God. This means an end to the law of Moses considered as a way of attaining righteousness (of course Paul also thinks that the law of Moses pointed people to Christ and this function is not altered; it is the end of the law “for righteousness”¹⁶ of which he is speaking). But equally it means an end to all other law as a way of attaining righteousness. Once we grasp the decisive nature of Christ’s saving work we see the irrelevance of all legalism.¹⁷ It is true that Christ is the fulfilment of the law. It is true that Christ is the goal of the law. But here Paul is saying that Christ is the end of the law; he “writes ‘finis’ to the sorry spectacle of man’s vain attempt to achieve life through works of law.”¹⁸ We may certainly say that Christ is the goal of the law^18a and that he is its fulfilment. But here Paul is saying rather that Christ is the end to law as a way of attaining righteousness. This does not mean the abolishing of the law, for Paul claims that he is establishing it (3:31), and he claims value for it (e.g., 7:7). What Paul is emphasizing is the decisive end to all such claims as those of the Jews (cf. 6:14; 7:4, 6; Eph. 2:15). The saving work of Christ has brought to a close any attempt to attain righteousness by way of law.

We should not overlook the importance of for everyone who believes. This is not a way for the Jews only or for the Gentiles only; it applies to everyone. But we are not to interpret this as meaning that everyone without exception attains the righteousness in question; it is everyone who believes. Faith is absolutely necessary, and without it no one obtains the righteousness of which Paul writes.

5. Paul insists that his view of justification by faith is scriptural. It is important for him that it is not some new-fangled idea, but that God has always accepted people on this basis. So now he assembles a group of passages from Scripture to show that God has always accepted people through grace. All that has been required on their part is faith.

“For”¹⁹ (which NIV omits) gives grounds for what Paul has just said. How could the Jews be expected to know the truth of what he has been saying? Because it is the teaching of the law and the prophets. Paul begins with Leviticus 18:5, a passage which evidently meant a good deal to him (cf. 2:13; Gal. 3:12). There is a textual problem²⁰ which RSV solves by reading “Moses writes that…” (so NASB), but most recent translations, “Moses describes in this way: … ‘The man….’ ” (so NIV). RSV also sees “that” as introducing indirect speech, but the Greek word can introduce a direct quotation (as NIV). We should follow NIV, for Paul is surely quoting from Scripture (it is his point throughout this paragraph that Scripture supports his position and this is best done by quoting it). He starts, then, by saying that Moses writes about²¹ the righteousness that is of the law and proceeds to quote Scripture to that effect. There are further textual problems here,²² but they do not greatly affect the meaning.

There are two ways of taking the words. We may understand them as meaning that the Jews did not take the law in which they delighted seriously enough. The law pronounces a curse on anyone who does not keep all its requirements (Deut. 27:26). Salvation by works meant doing all (and not just most) of the things the law teaches. If they had really taken notice of the law and compared their lives with its teaching, they would have seen that they did not and could not keep all of the law. Since they were not meeting its demands, they needed a Savior. The other way is to understand Paul to be saying that the law really pointed people to Christ. If it had been properly observed, it would have taught the Jews that God’s way is grace. As we have seen, Paul certainly taught that. It was basic to his understanding of the law. Denney comments, “the law was not a collection of statutes, but a revelation of God’s character and will, and he who sought to keep it did so not alone, but in conscious dependence on God whose grace was shown above all things else by His gift of such a revelation.” Both these ways of taking the words then are true, and both are found in Paul. There seems no reason for choosing between them.

6. But²³ introduces a contrast: over against “the righteousness that is by the law” Paul sets the righteousness that is by faith.²⁴ This does not, of course, mean that faith creates the righteousness of which Paul writes, but that faith is the means by which it is received. He goes on to speak of it in words found in Deuteronomy 30:12–14, but what he says does not agree exactly with either the Hebrew or LXX. This raises the question of whether he is quoting from one or more of these verses or whether he is using scriptural words in which to convey his thought. He does not introduce the words with “Moses says” or the like, but personifies righteousness: it is the righteousness that is by faith that says the words in question. Perhaps it is best to see him as making an ad sensum quotation (Shedd); he is giving the essential thought of the passages but not in the exact words of the original. Some scholars criticize Paul here, maintaining that the passages to which he is referring teach that the law can be attained, whereas Paul is using them for a very different purpose. But, while Moses is certainly encouraging the Israelites to obey the law (“what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach”, Deut. 30:11), we should not overlook the fact that he says, “Do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here … because of my righteousness…. It is not because of your righteousness…” (Deut. 9:4–5; cf. 8:17–18); “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts … so that you may love him” (Deut. 30:6). Paul read these passages as witnesses to the grace of God, and they fitted his argument accordingly.²⁵ Leenhardt can say, “In writing the words which he here borrows from Deuteronomy Paul knows that they revolve around a thought which is completely in conformity with the doctrine of ‘justification by faith’, which consists essentially in not claiming before God ‘a righteousness of one’s own’ [v. 3]; in other words, in not trusting to the power and might of one’s hand.”

There are two course of action which one is not to advocate in one’s heart (i.e., deep down inside one; the expression means “to think” in passages like Matt. 24:48; Luke 12:45; Rev. 18:7). The first is put in the question “Who will ascend into heaven?”, explained as²⁶to bring Christ down.²⁷ The implication of this question, Paul seems to be saying, is that the incarnation had not taken place, and the speaker plans to remedy that (though some see it as an attempt to establish contact with Christ; Käsemann, “one wishes to bring Christ back to earth” [p. 288]). This, of course, is quite impossible. The verb ascend²⁸ is used of going up to something physically higher like an upper room (Acts 1:13) or going up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1). It is used a number of times of ascending to heaven (Acts 2:34; Rev. 11:12). This is beyond the ability of mankind (John 3:13).

7. Or introduces the suggested alternative. There is a small problem with descend²⁹ into the deep (more exactly, “into the abyss”), for the passage Paul is quoting has “Who will cross the sea… ?” (Deut. 30:13). But it may be that “the sea” here is being used as the opposite of “heaven” and that Paul’s “abyss” is simply emphasizing the thought.³⁰ The abyss was seen as the abode of the dead (see BAGD), and to go there, Paul explains, is with a view to bringing about the resurrection of Christ. Mankind cannot do this, and in any case Christ has already risen. In these two verses Paul is using expressions that had become proverbial for what is impossible.³¹ “The righteousness of faith” does not demand that we be supermen; it does not set some impossible task before us.³² God has done all that is necessary, and we receive his gift of righteousness by faith.

8. Paul cites another passage from Scripture (Deut. 30:14), though without any such formula as “it is written” or “Moses said”. The quotation is not exact, but it gives the sense well enough. It carries on the thought of the previous verses that God does not set his people too difficult a task. They have no such problem as how to attain heaven or descend into the abyss, for the word is near them.³³ For Paul the word³⁴ is not a series of commandments, but the word of faith, “the message that calls for faith” (TH) as he immediately explains.³⁵ This means the whole way of faith that was the burden of his preaching, the word that tells of faith and that invites to faith.³⁶ The verb we are proclaiming³⁷ is in the present tense, denoting the habitual act. Paul and his companions constantly proclaim the word of faith.

9. If we accept That, with which NIV opens this verse, Paul is giving us the content of “the word of faith” (as Murray, TH, Käsemann [p. 291], and others). But the word is identical with that for “because” (accepted by Cranfield, Lenski, and others; cf. Wilson, “ ‘because’ it has Christ himself for its content”). It is impossible to dismiss either of these views as impossible, but perhaps there is more to be said for “that”; the context looks for the content of the preaching rather than the reason for it.

Paul proceeds to speak of confessing and believing. We would have expected the reverse order, but we should probably not make too much of this. The two are in the order of “mouth” and “heart” in the passage Paul has just quoted, and he goes on to put them in the order we would expect (v. 10). In any case we should understand them to be closely related as the outward and the inward aspects of the same thing (Paul is not referring to the kind of confession that is unaccompanied by faith, as in Matt. 7:22–23; Tit. 1:10). Both the outward and the inward are important. No one is saved by the merely outward; the state of the heart is important. But Paul does not contemplate an inner state that is not reflected in outward conduct. If anyone really believes he will confess Christ, so it is natural to link the two.

The verb translated confess has a wide variety of meanings,³⁸ but confessing Christ is clearly a solemn religious act. It is a public declaration of commitment to Christ and of faith in him. Some see in this the confession that was made at baptism (e.g., Michel), but this is going beyond what Paul says. We need not doubt that such a confession was made at baptism, but it cannot have been confined to it and there is nothing here to indicate a baptismal context.³⁹

The content of the confession is “Jesus is Lord” (cf. 2 Cor. 4:5; for the word “Lord” see on 1:4). It points to the deity of Christ (the word “Lord” is used over 6,000 times in LXX for the name of God [so Cranfield] and is used frequently among the Gentiles for a deity or for the Emperor [worshipped as “god”]).⁴⁰ Some scholars have held that the use of this term in the Gentile world generally shows that its use for Christ must have originated outside Palestine and that it cannot have been a primitive designation of Jesus. But the survival of the Aramaic Marana tha, which probably means “Our Lord, come” (1 Cor. 16:22), shows that the equivalent was used in Palestine. While initially this may have been in some such sense as “Teacher”, the prayer we have just noticed shows that Christians “were addressing not a Rabbi but a heavenly being” (Barrett). This confession is important,⁴¹ for Paul tells us elsewhere that “no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3; cf. Phil. 2:11). Anyone can, of course, utter the words. What Paul is saying is that to know that Jesus is the Lord is not a human discovery; it is something revealed by the Holy Spirit.

With that confession Paul links believing⁴² in the heart. The reference to the heart points to the inwardness of faith; Paul is not referring to a superficial confession, accompanied by no more than a token faith. He is referring to a faith that takes hold of the whole of the inner man. Notice further that he speaks of believing that —. This construction is not frequent in Paul (though cf. 6:8), but what it signifies means a good deal to him. It means that faith has content; Paul is not advocating a fideism in which all that matters is to believe. To Paul it matters that we believe, but it also matters what we believe. Here he speaks of believing that God raised him from the dead. The resurrection is of critical importance. It is at the cross that God did his saving work, but Paul does not believe in a dead martyr but in a living Savior. Not only did Jesus die for our sins but God raised him, triumphant over all the forces of evil. If Christ is not raised, Paul holds, our faith is futile and we are yet in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17). But where we have the confession and the faith of which he has been speaking, we will be saved (for salvation see the note on 1:16). As usual, salvation is envisaged as future. Paul is looking to the end of this age and the coming of eternal salvation, the life of the world to come.

10. For introduces a reason, or more precisely a further explanation of the preceding. We should not treat the two clauses as though they were detailing separate happenings. They belong together and are “two modes of the same thing: viz., the new divine life in the soul. Christian confession is as truly a gracious and holy act, as Christian faith” (Shedd). We now have them in the natural order—faith first, then confession. NIV has it is with your heart that you believe, but in fact the verb is an impersonal passive.⁴³ It may be used, as Shedd thinks, “for the sake of abstract universality.” Certainly we should not overlook the fact that Paul’s argument throughout this whole section is that Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same way. He speaks of believing “unto righteousness”.⁴⁴ Once again we have this leading idea of Paul’s that righteousness is not a matter of law works; we attain it by faith. All that we can do is to believe. Here it is linked to confession (again the impersonal passive) which issues in salvation. As in the preceding verse we should not think of faith as leading to righteousness and confession as a different act that leads to salvation (for this noun see the note on 1:16). These are but two parts of the same saving experience.

11. Once again Paul cites a scriptural passage that witnesses to the importance of faith (Isa. 28:16). He has already quoted these words in 9:33 (where see the notes). “For the Scripture says” is a more usual way of introducing Scripture than in the quotations he has just made, though it makes no difference to the authority Paul sees inherent in all the sacred writings. “For” gives the ground for what the apostle has just said, but significantly the quotation is concerned with faith, not confession. It is in faith that Paul’s deep interest lies, and it is on faith that he constantly places his emphasis. In 9:33 the passage was quoted in the form “the one who trusts”, whereas here Paul has everyone who trusts. The word everyone is not found in the Hebrew or LXX, and it seems that Paul has inserted it. But we may fairly say that he is doing no more than bringing out a truth that is implicit in the original. Isaiah speaks of salvation as through faith (and not anything else), and this means that it is open to all. Paul is simply leaving no doubt that every believer enjoys this promise. None will be put to shame.⁴⁵

12. For carries the argument along in logical sequence (as in the other two affirmations in vv. 12–13). Paul has been emphasizing the importance of faith as the one way to God. This in itself implies that Jews and Gentiles are saved in exactly the same way, but the apostle now becomes explicit on this point. There is no difference, he says. Earlier he made the point that there is no difference in sin (3:22); now he says there is no difference in salvation. Once again Paul links Jew and Greek, the fifth time he has done so in this epistle (1:16; 2:9, 10; 3:9; see further the note on 1:16). These two, Cragg says, “were divided at every significant point. Racially, culturally, and religiously there were distinctions between the two. Moreover, both were proud races….” But for Paul these divisions have been overcome. There is but one God, who saves people by the way of the cross, that is to say, by grace and through faith, and that means that distinctions like those between Jew and Greek are irrelevant. God is not bound to the Jews (or for that matter to the Gentiles). SH see both a warning and a consolation to the Jews: a warning if they seek salvation in their own way, but a consolation if they realize that they are free from the law.

A second “for” (which NIV omits) carries the argument a stage further. The expression is elliptical (Paul says “for the same Lord of all”), and NIV rightly supplies the words that are to be understood “the same Lord (is Lord) of all” (cf. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:5). Jews and Greeks must have the one way of salvation because there is but one Lord over both. Lord could refer to God or to Christ; Paul more commonly uses the term of Christ, but it often refers to the Father, and this is just possible here. But Paul has just spoken of confessing that “Jesus is Lord” (v. 9), and that seems decisive. At this point he is speaking of Christ whose “unsearchable riches” (Eph. 3:8) bring salvation to all, Jew and Gentile alike. This Lord has the riches to bring blessing to all; the Jew need not fear that there will not be enough to go around.⁴⁶ Chrysostom comments, “He who considereth it as riches to Himself to save us, will not cease to be rich. Since even this is riches, the fact of the gift being shed forth unto all” (p. 474).⁴⁷ The Lord’s generosity is extended to all who call⁴⁸ on him, and it is significant that Paul uses this verb of calling on Christ. It is the language of the suppliant to deity.⁴⁹

13. Yet another for carries the argument along, and once again this is done by citing Scripture. Paul quotes Joel 2:32 for the thought that Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (cf. Acts 2:21). This is comprehensive; there is no exception.⁵⁰ We must understand calls on in no mere formal sense; it is a calling on the Lord out of a sense of inadequacy and need and proceeds from a genuine conviction that the Lord can be relied on. It is significant that once again Paul takes words which in the Old Testament are used of Yahweh and uses them of Christ. Characteristically we have the future of the verb “to save”; it is salvation in the final state of affairs that Paul has in mind. The salvation Christ brings is adequate through eternity as well as in the here and now.

3. Worldwide Proclamation, 10:14–21

¹⁴How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? ¹⁵And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”^a

¹⁶But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”^b ¹⁷Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. ¹⁸But I ask, Did they not hear? Of course they did:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.”^c

¹⁹Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,

“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;

I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”^d

²⁰And Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;

I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”^e

²¹But concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands

to a disobedient and obstinate people.”^f

There is division of opinion as to whether we should take verses 14–15 with the preceding or the following, and great names can be cited for either view. Both make sense, but on the whole it seems best to tie in closely the verses which speak so forcefully of the preaching with the attitude of the Jews who rejected the preaching. Paul has been at pains to show that God’s way is not that of legalism. He saves people by grace, as the Gentiles who have come into the church show so clearly. But perhaps the Jews have not had a fair deal? Perhaps the way has never been made clear to them? Paul proceeds to make it plain from the Bible that God has dealt fairly with the Jews. Grace is clear throughout Scripture, and if they did not know it, that was because they had not taken sufficient notice of what God had said to them. It was all there, in Scripture. This is an important part of Paul’s argument.⁵¹

14. Paul now launches into a series of rhetorical questions.⁵² The first is How, then,⁵³ can they call⁵⁴ on the one they have not believed in?⁵⁵ Paul does not define his they. Obviously this is a term with wide application and may be seen as equivalent to “all people”. But the apostle may have the Jews especially in view. Throughout these chapters he is discussing the plight of his own nation, and they will be prominently in mind, whatever other application we may fairly discern. Paul advances to And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? It is possible to cavil at NIV’s rendering of whom they have not heard, a translation shared by several recent translations. But NASB has it right with “How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?”⁵⁶ The point is that Christ is present in the preachers; to hear them is to hear him (cf. Luke 10:16), and people ought to believe when they hear him. Paul’s third question is And how can they hear without⁵⁷ someone preaching to them? It is important to see the impossibility of hearing without someone preaching. “Hearing” is a reflection of first-century life. Paul does not raise the possibility of the message being read. While there were people who could read, the ordinary first-century citizen depended rather on being able to hear something. If the message of God was going to be effective in biblical times, it had to be heard. And for this a preacher was needed.⁵⁸

15. The climax to which Paul builds up is And how can they preach unless they are sent? We should not confuse preach here with the modern Sunday morning sermon (that, too, may be included in Paul’s meaning, but it is not the kind of thing he has primarily in mind). His verb properly denotes the action of a herald, someone who was given a message and told to proclaim it. The notion of a higher authority is implicit in the concept: a self-appointed herald is a contradiction in terms.⁵⁹ Paul is saying that the preaching of the Christian message is impossible without the divine commission. A herald can have nothing to say unless it be given him. The gospel is derivative. It does not originate with preachers, and the other side of that coin is that nobody can operate as a preacher in the sense in which Paul is using the term here unless God has sent him. The words also point to a certain confidence. Paul is sure that those who proclaimed the gospel did so because God had sent them.

Typically he hammers home the point with a quotation from Scripture (Isa. 52:7; cf. Nah. 1:15; the rabbis understood the former passage in a messianic sense see [SBk]). How⁶⁰ beautiful⁶¹ are the feet of those who bring good news. It is interesting to have the feet selected as the beautiful parts of the body. But, of course, the messengers normally travelled on foot and the feet were the significant members. They might be dirty and smelly after a long, hot journey, but to those who eagerly awaited good news they were beautiful. Those who bring good news are always welcome.⁶²

16. But (contrary to what might have been expected)⁶³ not all the Israelites accepted the good news. NIV makes Paul a little more definite with the Israelites; the apostle simply says “all”. Some take this to mean the Gentiles while others think it refers to both Jews and Gentiles. The language is broad enough to include both, but the thrust of the argument is such that we should see a reference to the Jews. Since the whole of the argument in chapters 9–11 has to do with the problem of the Jewish failure to accept Christ as the Messiah, we would need strong reasons for seeing a general term applying to others here. That is not to say that the words do not suit Gentiles as well as Jews. They do. But Paul’s argument here concerns Jews, and we should understand him to be writing about the Jews accordingly. Not all is a masterly understatement (cf. 3:3). Accepted is rather “obeyed”; it is not the verb we expect (and clearly the translators of NIV did not expect it). But we must not overlook the fact that the gospel contains an implicit demand for obedience (cf. 1:5). To decline the gospel invitation is to disobey God.⁶⁴

Characteristically Paul hammers home a point by quoting Scripture (Isa. 53:1), this time introducing it with Isaiah says. His for shows that this is logical: that all who hear the gospel do not respond “should not seem strange to any acquainted with prophecy: it is the very testimony of Isaiah” (Haldane). Scripture shows that a message from God himself is not always received as it should be, nor does it necessarily result in faith.⁶⁵ Lord is not in the Hebrew, but it is in LXX. The question who has believed our message? implies that not many have believed it.⁶⁶ Paul implies that they ought to have believed but did not.⁶⁷

17. This verse has caused some difference of opinion. Some think it out of place and transfer it to another position, others think it a scribal gloss. It is better to regard it as a “summarizing conclusion” to the argument so far (Hendriksen). Verse 16 has introduced the thought of “hearing”, a concept that Paul will develop further. He therefore inserts here an appropriate remark about hearing which arises out of what he has said and leads on to the next stage of his argument.⁶⁸ His statement here is very succinct and, for example, there is no verb. English versions usually supply “comes” or the like, and this gives the sense of it (NIV supplies both comes and is heard). NIV’s hearing the message translates one word (which it rendered “message” in v. 16 [where see note] and goes on to render “message” when it occurs a second time in this verse). Here it may mean “the act of hearing” (cf. v. 14) or “the message”. And if “the message”, is it the message heard or the message preached? These last two come to much the same, however, when we reflect that it may be viewed either from the standpoint of the preacher or from that of the hearer.⁶⁹ Whichever way we may prefer to translate, Paul is speaking of the derivative nature of the Christian gospel. It is not something that wise men have made up; it comes from hearing the message given by those sent from God. This is further brought out with “hearing through the word of Christ.” Whether we take this to mean “the word about Christ” or “the word from Christ”, it locates the content of the preaching in what God has given, not in what the preacher has thought up. It is possible to understand this expression either as referring to the teaching of the historical Jesus passed on in the church or to the teaching of the exalted Lord, the Lord of the church. Probably it is both, for there seems no reason for separating the two.⁷⁰

18. Paul proceeds to an objection that might be raised, or perhaps it is an excuse that might be offered. He introduces it with the strong adversative “But (in contradiction)”,⁷¹ and proceeds to an interesting double negative construction.⁷² The effect is to rule out entirely the possibility that “they did not hear”.⁷³ “They” is not defined, but as throughout this passage it means “the Jews”. Paul quotes from Scripture but without a formula of quotation. He introduces it with an expression NIV translates Of course they did.⁷⁴ Some reason from the absence of a recognized quotation formula that Paul is not so much quoting as giving his own thought in biblical language. But since he has the exact words of Psalm 19:4, this is very improbable; he is surely invoking the authority of Scripture for the point he is making. This Psalm deals with nature, with the heavens declaring the glory of God and the skies his handiwork, with day and night playing their part. In all the earth God is revealed in the processes of nature. The second line in parallelism repeats the essential thought of the first.⁷⁵ “The ends of the world”⁷⁶ means that the message has penetrated to the remotest part of the inhabited earth. This raises questions. Does Paul really mean that every person in all the earth had heard the gospel? Or even every Jew? The answer in either case can scarcely be “Yes”. In this very letter Paul is envisaging a missionary trip to Spain which implies that there were people there who had not heard the gospel. His meaning is rather what Bruce calls “representative universalism”; the gospel had been widely enough preached for it to be said that representatives of Judaism throughout the known world had heard it (for this way of speaking cf. Col. 1:5–6, 23). Those who did not respond to the gospel “had at any rate as a body had the opportunities of hearing it” (SH).

19. “But”⁷⁷ perhaps the trouble was that Israel did not understand? “Knowing” was not included in the series of questions in verses 14–15, and some may have felt that, though the Jews heard all right with their physical ears, this was of little importance because they did not understand what the words meant. The question, like that in verse 18, has two negatives which add up to the fact that a negative answer is anticipated.⁷⁸ Paul does not say what it was that Israel did not know. Most think that he means the gospel (the message about the Messiah [SH and others]). Others think it is the fact that the Gentiles would be saved (Hodge), or that the promise to Abraham was universal in its scope (Shedd). In the end there is not a world of difference between these views; they all add up to the thought that Israel went serenely on its own way not realizing that the gospel of God’s grace meant that the way of faith was open to the Gentiles and always had been. The point is of critical importance to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, so he cites both the law and the prophets to show that this was in God’s plan.

First comes a quotation from the law (Deut. 32:21). God says I will make you envious, where I renders the emphatic pronoun: it is none less than God who does this. The verb is usually rendered “provoke”:⁷⁹ when Israel sees what is happening among the Gentiles she will be provoked into securing some of that blessing for herself, an argument Paul will take up and expand in chapter 11. It is interesting that he does not appeal to the success of his Gentile mission to make his point, but to Scripture. Quoting from LXX, he substitutes “you” for “them” in both lines. This make the words personal to Israel. The passage does not refer explicitly to “Gentiles”, but to “a not-nation”. Bruce points out that “To one acquainted with the Hebrew Bible, as Paul was, the comparison between Moses’ ‘no-people’ (lo’-’am) and Hosea’s ‘not my people’ (lo’-’ammi) suggested itself readily”. In the second line the quotation replaces “provoke” with “make angry”,⁸⁰ a verb which makes clear the divine attitude to the nation’s sinful rejection of what God had revealed. The Gentiles are characterized as “senseless”.⁸¹ On this point Manson comments, “The Gentiles were not very bright theologically—‘a foolish nation’. They did not know how or where to seek. Yet they have found. Therefore mere ignorance is no obstacle.”⁸² If Gentiles could know the way, Israel could too.

20. Now comes a quotation from Isaiah 65:1,⁸³ introduced in an unusual fashion with boldly says.⁸⁴ Haldane sees the reason as “If Moses predicted, somewhat obscurely, the calling of the Gentiles, Isaiah had foretold it very plainly, and placed it in a light most offensive to the Jews.” For some reason Paul reverses the order of the lines. In the quotation the words are from God, who speaks of being found by people who had not looked for him.⁸⁵ The parallel statement refers to his becoming visible.⁸⁶ The Gentiles did not consciously look for God as the Jews did. But in the end they found him, because he revealed himself to people of faith. It is a mark of God’s sovereignty, on which Paul is insisting throughout this whole argument.⁸⁷

21. But a continuation of the words quoted in verse 20 brings out the point that Israel rejected very differently from the Gentiles.⁸⁸ The speaker continues to be God, and the words bring out the depth of his concern for his wayward people. All day long brings out the continuing nature of the Lord’s entreaty, while the stretching out⁸⁹ of the hands is a bold anthropomorphism to bring out the tender concern of God.⁹⁰ The people⁹¹ are described as disobedient⁹² and obstinate.⁹³ Israel point-blank refused the gracious invitation. God’s call went unheeded.⁹⁴

One more comment should be made. Paul has made some strong statements about predestination in earlier passages such as chapter 9. In this chapter he has insisted on Israel’s responsibility. This does not cancel out what has been said previously. As Käsemann says, “The predestinarian statements in ch. 9 are not revoked in our entire chapter. They are unflinchingly adopted in the appeal to Scripture” (p. 297). If we are to understand what Paul is saying in Romans we must hold both truths at the same time, no matter how hard we find it to reconcile them to one another.

↑ Back to top