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]: )
6. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh ] The “righteousness of faith” is here equivalent to “the righteousness of God.” Son 4:11; Son 4:13. Here, by a striking personification, not unlike that of the Divine Wisdom in the Proverbs, Justification is said to speak, in the words of Deuteronomy. In St Paul’s view “the Word of God” indeed “ liveth,” with a life which gives an almost personality to its doctrines. Perhaps he avoids the phrase “ Moses speaketh” because the terms of the legal covenant have just been quoted as uttered by him (Rom 10:5).
Say not in thine heart ] The original of the quotations here is Deu 30:12-14. The form of the quotation is free; but nevertheless St Paul really employs the passage as a proof, and does not merely adapt it to his purpose. For the very point of his argument just here is that, in and by the Law, Christ is suggested and announced; and if he merely adapted Mosaic words to express his own thought, this point would be missed. Alford has some admirable remarks on the passage: he argues that the practical import of the passage in Deuteronomy is that the Law, as the Revelation of God’s will, is not an unintelligible mystery to man, but a thing that can be known and loved; but that, if so, then fortiori this is true “of Him who is the end of the law, and of the commandment to believe in Him, which (1Jn 3:23) is now God’s commandment.” St Paul assumes that the O. T. is fall of Christ (Messiah;) and so it is no wonder to him to see in this Mosaic passage a divinely-designed suggestion of His exaltation, humiliation, and gospel, under words having another immediate reference.
in thine heart ] Words not in Heb. or LXX., but meaning what the Heb. (“that thou shouldest say ”) means; the “speaking” of thought.
Who shall ascend, &c.] This and the next question come of anxiety and perplexity: q. d., “In order to be saved, have I to bring the necessary Manifestation of God’s will from Heaven or Hades? Have I to procure Incarnation and Resurrection?” “No; all is now done; the Person and the Work are complete, and ready. As at Sinai, so in the Gospel, God has done His part unasked; and now thy part is to accept and own His Son as thy Justification.”
that is, &c.] The Apostle, guided by the Holy Ghost, explains the innermost intention of the Holy Ghost as He spoke by Moses. What was the meaning of Moses, consciously to himself, is only part of the question.
to bring Christ down ] In His Incarnation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But the righteousness which is of faith – It is observable here that Paul does not affirm that Moses describes any where the righteousness by faith, or the effect of the scheme of justification by faith. His object was different, to give the Law, and state its demands and rewards. Yet though he had not formally described the plan of justification by faith, yet he had used language which would fitly express that plan. The scheme of justification by faith is here personified, as if it were living and describing its own effects and nature. One describing it would say, Or the plan itself speaks in this manner. The words here quoted are taken from Deu 30:11-14. The original meaning of the passage is this: Moses, near the end of his life, having given his commandments to the Israelites exhorts them to obedience. To do this, he assures them that his commands are reasonable, plain, intelligible, and accessible.
They did not require deep research, long journeys, or painful toil. There was no need of crossing seas, and going to other lands, of looking into the profound mysteries of the high heavens, or the deep abyss; but they were near them, had been plainly set before them, and were easily understood. To see the excellency of this characteristic of the divine Law, it may be observed, that among the ancients, it was not uncommon for legislators and philosophers to travel to distant countries in pursuit of knowledge. They left their country, encountered dangers on the sea and land, to go to distant regions that had the reputation of wisdom. Egypt was especially a land of such celebrity; and in subsequent times Pythagoras, and the principal philosophers of Greece, traveled into that country to converse with their priests, and to bear the fruits of their wisdom to benefit their native land. And it is not improbable that this had been done to some extent even in or before the time of Moses. Moses says that his precepts were to be obtained by no such painful and dangerous journeys. They were near them, plain, and intelligible. This is the general meaning of this passage Moses dwells on the thought, and places it in a variety of forms by the questions, who shall go up to heaven for us, etc.; and Paul regards this as appropriately describing the language of Christian faith; but without affirming that Moses himself had any reference in the passage to the faith of the gospel.
On this wise – In this manner.
Say not in thine heart – The expression to say in the heart is the same as to think. Do not think, or suppose, that the doctrine is so difficult to be understood, that one must ascend to heaven in order to understand it.
Who shall ascend into heaven? – This expression was used among the Jews to denote any difficult undertaking. To say that it was high as heaven, or that it was necessary to ascend to heaven to understand it, was to express the highest difficulty. Thus, Job 11:7, Canst thou by searching find out God? It is high as heaven, what canst thou do? etc. Moses says it was not so with his doctrine. It was not impossible to be understood, but was plain and intelligible.
That is, to bring Christ … – Paul does not here affirm that it was the original design of Moses to affirm this of Christ. His words related to his own doctrine. Paul makes this use of the words because,
- They appropriately expressed the language of faith.
(2)If this might be affirmed of the doctrines of Moses, much more might it of the Christian religion. Religion had no such difficult work to do as to ascend to heaven to bring down a Messiah. That work was already accomplished when God gave his Son to become a man, and to die.
To save man it was indeed indispensable that Christ should have come down from heaven. But the language of faith was that this had already been done. Probably the word Christ here includes all the benefits mentioned in Rom 10:4 as resulting from the work of Christ.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. But the righteousness which is of faith] As it is most evident that there can be no justification by works, as all are sinful and all in a guilty state; if God will grant salvation at all, it must be by faith: but faith must have an object and a reason for its exercise; the object is Jesus Christ-the reason is the infinite merit of his passion and death.
Who shall ascend unto heaven? c.] As Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes, no observance of the law can procure him. Who, by the practice of the law, can bring Christ down from heaven? or, when brought down, and crucified and buried, as a sacrifice for sin, who can bring him up again from the dead? And both his death and resurrection are essentially necessary for the salvation of a lost world. Or the sense of the apostle may be this: They who will not believe in Christ crucified must in effect be seeking another Messiah to come down from heaven with a different revelation or they who will not credit the doctrine that we preach concerning his resurrection seem in effect to say, Christ yet remains to be raised from the dead, and reign over the Jews as a mighty secular sovereign, subjecting the Gentile world to the sway of his righteous sceptre.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise: by a prosopopoeia (a frequent figure in Scripture) he puts the person of a reasonable creature upon the righteousness of faith, and bringeth it in speaking and declaring itself as followeth; or else the meaning is, that the Scripture, or Moses, speaketh thus of the righteousness of faith. These words are taken out of Deu 30:12,13. The question is, Whether Paul doth properly allege this place in Deuteronemy, or only allude to it? Some think the latter, that Moses directly speaks of the law, and that the apostle, by an allusion, or by way of accommodation, applies it unto faith; hence it is, that he doth not cite the very words of Moses, but alters and adds to them, as best served his purpose. But others think, that this would extenuate the torce of St. Pauls argument, if he should only allude unto this testimony of Moses, and not confirm that which he intended by the same. Therefore their opinion is, that these words are properly cited; and that Moses himself, in that place, doth speak (though very obscurely) of the righteousness of faith; yea, the foregoing words in Deu 30:12,13 do belong to the times of the gospel. Some of the Jewish rabbis have confessed, that Moses in that chapter, especially the beginning of it, hath reference to the days of the Messiah. He speaks there of the Israelites being driven among all nations, and unto the utmost parts of heaven, which chiefly happened to them a little after the ascension of Christ, and will abide upon them till their conversion, of which see Rom 11:1-36; and then God will restore them again to the Land of Promise, to that Jerusalem which is from above, the true church of Jesus Christ; then he will circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their seed, to love the Lord with all their heart, and with all their soul; then will the Lord rejoice over them to do them good, as he rejoiced over their fathers; then, according to Gods covenant promise, the law of God shall be written in their hearts; it shall not be hidden, or afar off, but nigh them, in their mouths, and in their hearts. Thus the apostle convinceth the Jews by a testimony out of Moses, in whom they trusted.
Say not in thine heart; i.e. think not anxiously and despondingly within thyself.
Who shall ascend into heaven? i.e. to learn the will of God there concerning our righteousness and salvation, and then teach it to us; or, to see if there be any admission or room for such as I am there, and to carry me thither.
That is, to bring Christ down from above; this is in effect to deny that Christ has already come down from heaven to reveal it to us; and that he must now come to do it: or else, this is as much as to deny that Christ hath already descended from heaven, to procure and purchase salvation for us; and that he must come down again for that purpose. It were to deny the ascension of Christ into heaven; for he is gone thither, not as a private, but as a public person: he is gone thither as our Head, and thither he will bring all his members; he is there as our forerunner, as one that is gone before to prepare a place for us. For Christians to distrust their going to heaven, is to doubt whether Christ be in heaven; he had never gone thither if he had not perfected our redemption and salvation here.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. But thejustifying
righteousness which is offaith speaketh on this wise“speaketh thus”itslanguage or import is to this effect (quoting in substance Deu 30:13;Deu 30:14).
Say not in thine heart, Whoshall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, c.thatis, “Ye have not to sigh over the impossibility of attaining tojustification as if one should say, oh! if I could but get someone tomount up to heaven and fetch me down Christ, there might be somehope, but since that cannot be, mine is a desperate case.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ver. 6, 7. But the righteousness which is of faith,…. Or “with respect to the righteousness of faith”; the other righteousness before called the righteousness of God, because God is the author of it, here the righteousness of faith, because that receives it,
speaketh on this wise; the selfsame writer who describes the righteousness of the law in such a manner, that it gives no room to a fallen creature ever to expect life and salvation by it, gives such an account of the righteousness of faith, as forbids all doubting and despair:
say not in thine heart; let not such a thought enter into thy mind, much less express it with thy lips;
who shall ascend into heaven (that is, to bring Christ down from above, or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead). These words are not properly a citation of
De 30:12; but the apostle makes use of some phrases which are there, with his own explications of them; though the difference between them, stripped, of these explications is not very material: in the first clause, “who shall ascend into heaven?” the apostle leaves out the phrase, “for us”; which as to the sense was not absolutely necessary to retain; the difficulty, indeed, seems greater in the latter clause, “who shall descend into the deep?” which in the text of Moses is, “who shall go over the sea for us?” but when it is considered that the sea is often called the deep, and that sailing on it and over it, is expressed by “going down to the sea in ships”,
Ps 107:23; and moreover, when it is observed that the Jerusalem Targum paraphrases it thus,
“the law is not in heaven that it should be said, oh that we had one of us, as Moses the prophet, who could go up to heaven and bring it to us! nor is it beyond the great sea, that it should be said, oh that we had one of us, as Jonah the prophet , “who could descend into the depths of the great sea”, and bring it to us;”
the apostle is to be justified in his expressions. His sense, indeed, may seem to be different from that of Moses, and of the common interpretations of the Jewish writers, as in the above paraphrase and in the following account of them from the Talmud, understanding them of the law w;
“says Abdimo bar Chama bar Dousa, what is the meaning of that Scripture, “neither is it in heaven, nor is it beyond the sea?” it is not in heaven, for if it was in heaven you must needs go up after it, and if it was beyond the sea, you must needs go over after it; Rabba says, not in heaven is it, you will not find it in him that exalts his knowledge in himself as the heavens, nor will you find it in him that enlarges his knowledge in himself, as the sea; R. Jochanan says, not in heaven is it, you will not find it in those that are of a haughty spirit, nor beyond the sea is it, you will not find it among traders abroad, or merchants.”
Though the apostle’s sense may be brought pretty near to this, after this manner; who shall go up to heaven, or down to the deep, either to bring us the knowledge of the law, and yield an obedience to it which that requires of us, or to give us a full account of the Gospel of the grace of God? there is no room, nor reason, for men to say this in their hearts, or to make a doubt of them, as if they were not done already; to do so, is to deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and risen from the dead, who has given the true sense and knowledge of the law, and has perfectly fulfilled it, in the room and stead of his people, and by whom the doctrine of grace and truth is come, particularly the doctrine of a sinner’s justification before God; this is brought nigh in the ministration of the word, so that there is no need of such inquiries as these. Moreover, for the illustration of these words, let it be observed, that these phrases are proverbial, and often used to express things impossible, of which take the following instances;
“it is a tradition of the Rabbins x if a man says to his wife, lo, this is thy divorce, on condition that “thou ascendest to the firmament”, on condition that “thou descendest into the deep”; on condition that thou passest over the great sea on foot, this is no divorce;”
the reason is, , “because it is impossible”. Again y,
“if a man says to a woman, if thou wilt “ascend into the firmament”, or if thou wilt “descend into the deep”, lo, thou art espoused to me by this penny; but if thou wilt not go up into the firmament, nor go down into the deep, thou shalt not be espoused; and after that he puts the penny into her hand, lo, the condition becomes void, and behold she is espoused immediately, for the thing is known
, “that it is impossible” for her to fulfil the condition.”
So here are forbidden all such thoughts, words, or expressions which carry such a sense as this; who will go down to the deep to fetch such a wretch as I am out of the lowest hell, to deliver me from the curses of the law, and the wrath of God, and bring me out of this wretched miserable condition in which I am? or go up to heaven and carry me there, and put me in the possession of the undefiled inheritance? all this is as impossible to be done, as for a man to ascend to heaven, or go down into the deep: now though the righteousness of the law encourages such despondency and black despair, the righteousness of faith, or the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ’s righteousness, forbids every thing of this kind; assuring the sinner, that Christ is come down from heaven in human nature, that he has fulfilled all the righteousness of the law by his obedience in life, and has bore the penalty of it in his sufferings and death, and is risen again for justification; so that such questions should not be put, nor such despairing thoughts encouraged: besides, to think and speak in this manner, is to set aside the whole scheme of the Gospel, and supposes the person to doubt whether Christ is come down from heaven; and therefore asks, who shall go up to bring him down? and that he is not risen from the dead; and therefore puts the question, who will go down to the deep to fetch him up? whereas he is already come, has obeyed, suffered, and died, and rose again, and is become the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes.
w T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 55. 1. Maimon. Talmud Tora, c. 3. sect. 8. x T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 84. 1. & Bava Metzia, fol. 94. 1. y Maimon. Hilchot Ishot. c. 6. sect. 7. Vid. Zohar in Exod. fol. 40. 4. & 43. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Saith thus ( ). Paul personifies “the from faith righteousness” ( ). A free reproduction from De 30:11-14. Paul takes various phrases from the LXX and uses them for “his inspired conviction and experiences of the gospel” (Denney). He does not quote Moses as saying this or meaning this.
Say not in thy heart ( ). Second aorist active subjunctive with like De 8:17. To say in the heart is to think (Mt 3:9).
That is, to bring Christ down (‘ ). Second aorist active infinitive of the common verb , to bring or lead down. It is dependent on the preceding verb (shall ascend). ‘ (that is) is what is called Midrash or interpretation as in 9:8. It occurs three times here (verses 6-8). Paul applies the words of Moses to Christ. There is no need for one to go to heaven to bring Christ down to earth. The Incarnation is already a glorious fact. Today some men scout the idea of the Deity and Incarnation of Christ.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The righteousness which is of faith [ ] .
The of – faith righteousness. Righteousness is personified. Paul makes the righteousness of faith describe itself. Of faith, ejk from. Marking the source.
Speaketh on this wise [ ] . The quotation in 6 – 8 is a free citation from Deu 30:11 – 14. Paul recognizes a secondary meaning in Moses ‘ words, and thus changes the original expressions so as to apply them to the Christian faith – system. His object in the change is indicated by the explanatory words which he adds. He does not formally declare that Moses describes the righteousness of faith in these words, but appropriates the words of Moses, putting them into the mouth of the personified faith – righteousness.
Say not in thy heart. In thy heart is added by Paul. The phrase say in the heart is a Hebraism for think, compare Psa 14:1; Psa 36:1; Psa 10:11. Usually of an evil thought. Compare Mt 3:9; Mt 24:48; Rev 18:7. Who shall ascend into heaven ? The Septuagint adds for us, and bring it to us, and hearing it we will do it.
To bring down. Interpreting the Septuagint, and bring it to us.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But the righteousness which is of faith,” (he de ek pisteos dikaiosune) “but the (kind of) righteousness that is of faith,” that originates out of faith, (not deeds of the law, not mere ethical standards of righteousness, and which never saved anyone), it is this imputed righteousness that counts and it comes to men who believe, not who keep part of the law, Rom 4:6-7.
2) “Speaketh on this wise,” (houtos legei) “Speaks just like this, or as follows,” – this is not a direct quotation but an inspired summary of the wisdom – voice of divine righteousness, Isa 55:8-9.
3) “Say not in thine heart,” (eipes en te kardia soul “Say not in your heart,” center of affections; do not doubt what God says regarding acceptance of righteousness by faith, for Abraham did not doubt, Gen 15:6; Gal 3:8-9, when God preached the gospel to him and he was saved.
4) “Who shall ascend into heaven?” (tis anabesetai katagagein) “Who will ascend into the heaven of heavens?” Where Christ is; He is the resurrected Christ, the living Christ in heaven today, Act 1:8-11; Joh 14:1-3; Man is not to question the laws and commands of God, but to follow and obey them, as they apply to him, Deu 30:1-14; Rom 10:16.
5) “(that is, to bring Christ down from above:)” (tout estin Christon katagagein) “That is (for the purpose) to bring Christ down;” He has already come down in Incarnation to live and die for all men, and he has been raised to justify those who by faith receive him. He also is seated at the right hand of God as interceding advocate for his own, day and night, Rom 4:15; Heb 1:1-3; Heb 7:25; 1Jn 2:1-2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6 . But the righteousness (322) which is by faith, etc. This passage is such as may not a little disturb the reader, and for two reasons — for it seems to be improperly applied by Paul — and the words are also turned to a different meaning. Of the words we shall hereafter see what may be said: we shall first notice the application. It is a passage taken from Deu 30:12, where, as in the former passage, Moses speaks of the doctrine of the law, and Paul applies it to evangelic promises. This knot may be thus untied: — Moses shows, that the way to life was made plain: for the will of God was not now hid from the Jews, nor set far off from them, but placed before their eyes. If he had spoken of the law only, his reasoning would have been frivolous, since the law of God being set before their eyes, it was not easier to do it, than if it was afar off. He then means not the law only, but generally the whole of God’s truth, which includes in it the gospel: for the word of the law by itself is never in our heart, no, not the least syllable of it, until it is implanted in us by the faith of the gospel. And then, even after regeneration, the word of the law cannot properly be said to be in our heart; for it demands perfection, from which even the faithful are far distant: but the word of the gospel has a seat in the heart, though it does not fill the heart; for it offers pardon for imperfection and defect. And Moses throughout that chapter, as also in the fourth, endeavors to commend to the people the remarkable kindness of God, because he had taken them under his own tuition and government, which commendation could not have belonged to the law only. It is no objection that Moses there speaks of forming the life according to the rule of the law; for the spirit of regeneration is connected with the gratuitous righteousness of faith. Nor is there a doubt but that this verse depends on that main truth, “the Lord shall circumcise thine heart,” which he had recorded shortly before in the same chapter. They may therefore be easily disproved, who say that Moses speaks only in that passage of good works. That he speaks of works I indeed allow; but I deny it to be unreasonable, that the keeping of the law should be traced from its own fountain, even from the righteousness of faith. The explanation of the words must now follow. (323)
Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend? etc. Moses mentions heaven and the sea, as places remote and difficult of access to men. But Paul, as though there was some spiritual mystery concealed under these words, applies them to the death and resurrection of Christ. If any one thinks that this interpretation is too strained and too refined, let him understand that it was not the object of the Apostle strictly to explain this passage, but to apply it to the explanation of his present subject. He does not, therefore, repeat verbally what Moses has said, but makes alterations, by which he accommodates more suitably to his own purpose the testimony of Moses. He spoke of inaccessible places; Paul refers to those, which are indeed hid from the sight of us all, and may yet be seen by our faith. If then you take these things as spoken for illustration, or by way of improvement, you cannot say that Paul has violently or inaptly changed the words of Moses; but you will, on the contrary, allow, that without loss of meaning, he has, in a striking manner, alluded to the words heaven and the sea.
Let us now then simply explain the words of Paul: As the assurance of our salvation lies on two foundations, that is, when we understand, that life has been obtained for us, and death has been conquered for us, he teaches us that faith through the word of the gospel is sustained by both these; for Christ, by dying, destroyed death, and by rising again he obtained life in his own power. The benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection is now communicated to us by the gospel: there is then no reason for us to seek anything farther. That it may thus appear, that the righteousness of faith is abundantly sufficient for salvation, he teaches us, that included in it are these two things, which are alone necessary for salvation. The import then of the words, Who shall ascend into heaven? is the same, as though you should say, “Who knows whether the inheritance of eternal and celestial life remains for us?” And the words, Who shall descend into the deep? mean the same, as though you should say, “Who knows whether the everlasting destruction of the soul follows the death of the body?” He teaches us, that doubt on those two points is removed by the righteousness of faith; for the one would draw down Christ from heaven, and the other would bring him up again from death. Christ’s ascension into heaven ought indeed fully to confirm our faith as to eternal life; for he in a manner removes Christ himself from the possession of heaven, who doubts whether the inheritance of heaven is prepared for the faithful, in whose name, and on whose account he has entered thither. Since in like manner he underwent the horrors of hell to deliver us from them, to doubt whether the faithful are still exposed to this misery, is to render void, and, as it were, to deny his death.
(322) Righteousness is here personified, according to the usual manner of the Apostle: law and sin had before been represented in the same way. — Ed.
(323) It seems not necessary to have recourse to the distinctions made in the foregoing section. The character of the quotation given is correctly described in the words of [ Chrysostom ], as quoted by [ Poole ], “ Paulus ea transtulit et aptavit ad jusitiam fidei — Paul transferred and accommodated these things to the righteousness of faith.” He evidently borrowed the words of Moses, not literally, but substantially, for the purpose of setting forth the truth he was handling. The speaker is not Moses, but “the righteousness of faith,” represented as a person. [ Luther ], as quoted by [ Wolfius ], says, that “Paul, under the influence of the Spirit, took from Moses the occasion to form, as it were, a new and a suitable text against the justiciaries.” It appears to be an application, by way of analogy, of the words of Moses to the gospel; but [ Pareus ], [ Wolfius ], [ Turrettin ], and [ Doddridge ], consider the words as applied by way of accommodation. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) But the righteousness.In opposition to this righteousness of works, so laborious and so impracticable, the Apostle adduces another quotation to show that the righteousness which depends on faith is much easier and simpler.
The original of the quotation has, indeed, a quite different application. It referred to that very law which the Apostle is depreciating. Moses had described the Law as something quite easy and accessible; but history had shown that, especially in the development in which the Law was known to the Apostle, the words were really much more applicable to his doctrine of a righteousness which was based upon faith. He therefore regards them as spoken allegorically and typically with reference to this.
The righteousness which is of faith speaketh.This faith-righteousness is personified as if it were speaking itself, because the language used is applicable to it.
That is, to bring Christ down from above.The Apostle adds these interpretations so as to give a specially Christian meaning to the words of Moses. All that these had meant was that the Law was not remote either in one direction or in another. The Apostle in the phrase ascend into heaven sees at once an allusion to the ascended Saviour, and he interprets it as if it implied that the Christian must ascend up to Him, or; what comes to the same thing, as if He must be brought down to the Christian. In like manner, when mention is made of descending into the abyss, he sees here an allusion to the descent of Christ into Hades. Again, he repudiates the idea that the Christian is compelled to join Him there in literal bodily presence. A far easier and simpler thing is the faith of the gospel. All the Christian has to do is to listen to it when it is preached, and then to confess his own adhesion to it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Righteousness speaketh Righteousness herself is personified, like Wisdom in Proverbs. And the righteousness of faith proclaims that she offers no distant and inaccessible Saviour. He is neither above the skies nor low in the abyss. Say not in thine heart, whether in the language of doubt, discouragement, or cavil.
Ascend into heaven Beautifully and rightly (even though Moses knew it not) applied by St. Paul to the ascended Christ, who though on high is ever with us on earth.
Bring Christ down This is developed by St. Paul from the old words, as the flower is developed from the bud in which it is concealed (See note on Rom 1:2.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But the righteousness which is of faith says thus, “Do not say not in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down),” Or, “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).’
In contrast with the righteousness which is of the Law is the righteousness which is of faith. This presents us with a totally different picture. Whereas ‘observing the Law had required a constant, and unavailing struggle, the righteousness which is of faith was obtained solely by truly believing in the Messiah Who had died for them and risen again, and by genuinely confessing Him as LORD. It did not require great effort. It required submission and trust, and subsequently a whole change of attitude.
Paul exemplifies this in terms of Deu 30:11-14 LXX, although altering it from referring to God’s commandment, to referring to the Messiah, who is, of course, God’s Word (Joh 1:1-14; Heb 1:1-2; 1 John 1 1-4). It will be noted, however, that he does not in this case refer to his words as Scripture. There is no ‘the scripture says’, or ‘it says’, or ‘it is written’. It is ‘the righteousness of faith’ that ‘speaks’. It is thus an explanation of the righteousness which is by faith. The wording then, although mainly taken from Scripture, is not necessarily being cited as Scriptural evidence. He is rather using what Moses says about God’s commands as being something readily available, and applying it to the Messiah as Someone Who is readily available.
Just as it was with God’s commands to Israel so was it with the Messiah. We do not have to find some means of accessing Heaven in order to bring the Messiah down, for He has been sent by God and is already present among us. We do not have to descend into the depths of the nether world (the word ‘abyss’ could refer either to the depths of the nether world or to the depths of the sea) in order to bring the Messiah up from the dead, for He is already risen. No huge effort or mysticism is required, for the Messiah is not far away but near at hand.
In Amo 9:2 the idea of accessing Heaven or descending to the nether world was that of a task of great difficulty resulting from sheer desperation, something attempted in order to escape the hand of God. Something that the Psalmist knew was foolish to attempt, for they would find God there (Psa 139:8). So Moses and Paul are thinking of a task of great difficulty, possibly even of desperation, as men seek God’s truth. But Paul’s point is that in the case of finding the Messiah it was unnecessary. He had come among us to reveal Himself to us. We may also see here that the Messiah was sent down from Heaven, and raised up from the nether world, in order that men and women may be able to access Him. That was why He was available. God had already done the difficult work for us.
On the other hand, if we bear in mind that Jesus as the Messiah was seen as ‘God’s Word to man’ (Joh 1:1-18), and as the One ‘through Whom God had spoken’ (Heb 1:2), we can see why Paul could associate Him in his mind with ‘God’s commandment’, seeing Him as God’s final commandment to men. In support of this is the reference to ‘the word’ which is ‘near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (Rom 10:8). However, it may be that Paul was deliberately contrasting ‘the commandment’ with the Messiah in order to emphasise by the substitution the contrast between works on the one hand and faith in the Messiah on the other. Either way the emphasis is on the fact that the Messiah is near at hand for all who would call upon Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 10:6-8 . The righteousness which comes from faith is personified (comp. Heb 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 (Rom 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 Rom 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, Kllner, 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, Rckert, 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 Rom 10:5 begins with a demonstration of the , of which Rom 10:5 contains only the one, and Rom 10:6-8 the other, side; both sides, however, unite their probative force in . Therefore it is quite wrong (see esp. Rckert, Philippi) to look upon . . as the opposite to , and to suppose that the parallel would be more sharply drawn if Paul had said: But Christ speaks thus, etc. No, places the righteousness of faith in opposition to the previously mentioned ; and for these two modes of righteousness the testimony of the lawgiver himself is introduced by . “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 . . . thus holds good not only for Rom 10:5 , but also covers Rom 10:6-8 ; therefore the absence of a formula of quotation before Rom 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 (Rom 9:8 ; Gal 3:16 ; Gal 4:23-24 ); and that they are here interspersed is unessential, and was very naturally suggested by the opposed . . and . . . 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: , . Erasmus, Paraphr.: “utriusque justitiae imaginem Moses ipse depinxit.” Comp. also Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf . II. p. 217. The Mosaic declaration itself is Deu 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 Rom 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, Rom 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 ( ). Paul finds here a type, and therewith an indirect prophecy, of the demand which the righteousness of faith presents, entirely different from that 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 and (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 ,” Rom 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 (Rom 10:8 ) after that salvation has been obtained by Christ, we are to have faith only. But in this case, Rom 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 Rom 10:6-7 the denial of the difficulty , and then in Rom 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, Rom 10:9 ff., nothing at all is said of difficulty and facility; secondly and this is decisive the fact that Rom 10:5-8 is to be a proof founded on Moses of the statement, ; but it is evident, that not from the facility of the Christian , 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 , the 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 Rom 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 . . ., and why he should not have retained in Rom 10:7 the words of the LXX.: .
. . ] LXX.: , Heb. , 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 . . , because unbelief has its seat in the heart , and the expression “ to speak in the heart ” (as Psa 14:1 ; Mat 3:9 ; Rev 18:7 ) was very current in the mention of unholy thoughts and dispositions (Surenhusius, ., p. 479.)
. . .] 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 in Rom 10:4 , and opposed to the , Rom 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 . ., and by its addition Paul thus contributes a more precise explanation of the question ( : 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. Rom 8:3 ), (Phi 2:6-7 ; comp. 1Jn 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 would of necessity be an object of faith, which yet it is not at all. Nor could we see why Paul should have said in Rom 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 Glckler, 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 signifies: this would mean to deny the ascension of Christ . Consistently, Glckler 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 Rom 10:7 the whole exposition is overthrown. For Rom 10:9 proves that Rom 10:7 refers to the resurrection of Christ; nor did unbelief, in truth, deny the death of Christ, but took offence at it. Like Glckler, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl . p. 102 f., has essentially misunderstood both verses, and Rckert the question of Rom 10:7 .
. . .;] The colon after 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 ( i.e. out of Scheol , ). The LXX., following the original, has: ; 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 , 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, . (Job 11:8 ; Psa 107:26 ; Psa 139:8 ; Amo 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 .
;] But what says it (the righteousness of faith)? An unexact contrast to , Rom 10:6 , as though previously the negation had stood with , Rom 10:6 ( . . .). The interrogative form serves “ad attentionem excitandam,” Dissen, ad Dem. de cor . p. 186. 347. Comp. Gal 4:30 .
. . . . . .] Epexegesis of .
. . .] This , so designated by the righteousness of faith, signifies the word of faith . The genitive . . is genit. objecti (comp. Act 20:32 ; Heb 5:13 ; Eph 1:13 ; Eph 6:15 ; Gal 3:2 ). Note here the two articles; for that 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 , whose entire summary contents are faith in Jesus Christ; comp. Rom 10:4 ; Rom 10:9 ff., Rom 1:5 ; Rom 1:17 .
] we preachers of the gospel.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 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 🙂
Ver. 6. Say not in thine heart ] The law preacheth faith in Christ, as well as the gospel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6 8 .] The righteousness which is of faith is described, in the words spoken in Scripture by Moses of the commandment given by him, as not dependent on a long and difficult process of search, but near to every man, and in every man’s power to attain . I believe the account of the following citation will be best found by bearing in mind that the Apostle is speaking of Christ as the end of the law for righteousness to the believer. He takes as a confirmation of this, a passage occurring in a prophetic part of Deut., where Moses is foretelling to the Jews the consequences of rejecting God’s law, and His mercy to them even when under chastisement, if they would return to Him. He then describes the law in nearly the words cited in this verse. Now the Apostle, regarding Christ as the end of the law, its great central aim and object, quotes these words not merely as suiting his purpose, but as bearing, where originally used, an fortiori application to faith in Him who is the end of the law, and to the commandment to believe in Him, which ( 1Jn 3:23 ) is now ‘ God’s commandment .’ If spoken of the law as a manifestation of God in man’s heart and mouth, much more were they spoken of Him, who is God manifest in the flesh , the end of the law and the prophets . This view is, it is true, different from that of almost all eminent Commentators, ancient and modern, who regard the words as merely adapted or parodied by the Apostle as suiting his present purpose. Thus, with minor shades of difference, Chrys., Beza, Grot., Vatabl., Luther, Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Rckert, De Wette, Thol., Stuart, Hodge, al. But we must remember that it is in this passage Paul’s object not merely to describe the righteousness which is of faith in Christ, but to shew it described already in the words of the law . The Commentators who have taken more or less the view that the Apostle cites the words as bearing the sense put on them , are Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Olsh.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise (personified, as Wisdom in the Prov.), Say not in thine heart (i.e. ‘think not,’ a Heb. idiom. The LXX has merely , . The Apostle cites freely, giving the explanation of , viz. thinking ), who shall go up to heaven (LXX, . ( , ) . ., see Pro 30:4 )? that is (see note above: that imports in its full and unfolded meaning), to bring down Christ: or who shall go down into the abyss (LXX, ; The Apostle substitutes . . . as the direct contrast to . . ., as in ref. Ps.; see also Amo 9:2 : and as better suiting the interpretation which follows)? that is, to bring up Christ from the dead . There is some difficulty in assigning the precise view with which the Apostle introduces these questions. Tholuck remarks, “The different interpretations may be reduced to this, that the questions are regarded either (1) as questions of unbelief , or (2) as questions of embarrassment , or (3) as questions of anxiety .” The first view is represented by De Wette, who says, “In what sense these questions, from which the righteousness which is of faith dissuades men, are to be taken, is plain from Rom 10:9 , where the Resurrection of Christ is asserted as the one most weighty point of historical Christian belief: they would be questions of unbelief, which regards this fact as not accomplished, or as now first to be accomplished. Thus also, probably, are we to understand the first question , as applying to the Incarnation of Christ .” This is more or less also the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., c [93] , Erasm., Estius, Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Rckert (who refers the doubt or the unbelief to the full accomplishment of redemption by the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ), Reiche, and Kllner (who refer . to the ascended Saviour, thereby destroying the symmetry of the whole, because the latter question undoubtedly refers to bringing Christ not from a present but from a past state, from which He has historically come). (2) The second view, that they are questions of embarrassment , is taken by L. Capellus, Wolf, Rosenm., and Stuart, which last says, “The whole (of Moses’s saying) may be summed up in one word, omitting all figurative expression: viz. the commandment is plain and accessible . You can have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting it. So in the case before us. Justification by faith in Christ is a plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious language. It is like what Moses says of the statutes which he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible, accessible. It is brought before the mind and heart of every man: and thus he is without excuse for unbelief.” (3) The third view, that they are questions of anxiety , is that of Calv., Beza, Pisc., Bengel, Knapp, Fritz., and Tholuck: by none perhaps better expressed than by Ewbank, Comm. on the Ep. to the Rom., p. 74: “Personifying the great Christian doctrine of free justification through faith, he represents it as addressing every man who is anxious to obtain salvation, in the encouraging words of Moses: ‘Say not in thine heart, (it says to such an one) &c.’ In other words, ‘Let not the man, who sighs for deliverance from his own sinfulness, suppose that the accomplishment of some impossible task is required of him, in order to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel. Let him not think that the personal presence of the Messiah is necessary to ensure his salvation. Christ needs not to be brought down from heaven, or up from the abyss, to impart to him forgiveness and holiness. No. Our Christian message contains no impossibilities. We do not mock the sinner by offering him happiness on conditions which we know that he is powerless to fulfil. We tell him that Christ’s word is near to him: so near, that he may speak of it with his mouth, and meditate on it with his heart.’ Is there any thing above human power in such a confession, and in such a belief? Surely not. It is graciously adapted to the necessity of the very weakest and most sinful of God’s creatures.”
[93] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Cent y . XI.?
[I will now take up the three views afresh, and state the objections.] (1) The objection to this view, as alleged by Tholuck, is, that in it, the contrast with Rom 10:5 is lost sight of. And this is so far just, that it must be confessed we thus lose the ideas which the Apostle evidently intended us to grasp, those of insuperable difficulty in the acquisition of righteousness by the law, and of facility, by the gospel. Also, it puts too forward the allegation of the great matters of historical belief, which are not here the central point of the argument, but introduced as the objects which faith, itself that central point , apprehends. (2) The last objection has some force as against this view. The regarding the questions as mere questions of difficulty and intellectual bewilderment does not adequately represent the predicated of the Jews, on the assumption of which the whole passage proceeds. Here, however, it seems to me, we have more truth than in (1): for the plainness and simplicity of the truth to be believed is unquestionably one most important element in the righteousness which is of faith. (3) Here we have the important element just mentioned, not indeed made the prominent point of the questions, but, as it appears to me, properly and sufficiently kept in view. The anxious follower after righteousness is not disappointed by an impracticable code, nor mocked by an unintelligible revelation: the word is near him , therefore accessible; plain and simple , and therefore apprehensible ; and, taking (1) into account, we may fairly add, deals with definite historical fact , and therefore certain : so that his salvation is not contingent on an amount of performance which is beyond him , and therefore inaccessible: irrational , and therefore inapprehensible: undefined , and therefore involved in uncertainty . Thus, it seems to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the argument: and thus also it is clearly brought out, that the words themselves could never have been spoken by Moses of the righteousness which is of the law , but of that which is of faith .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 10:6 f. . It is remarkable that Paul does not make Moses his authority here, though he is about to express himself in words which certainly go back to Deu 30:12-14 . It is the righteousness of faith itself which speaks, describing its own character and accessibility in words with a fine flavour of inspiration about them. But it is not so much a quotation we find here, as a free reproduction and still freer application of a very familiar passage of the O.T. It is irrelevant to point out that what the writer in Deuteronomy means is that the law ( ) is not oppressive nor impracticable (as Paul in Rom 10:5 tacitly assumes it to be); the Apostle is not thinking in the least what the writer of Deuteronomy meant; as the representative of the righteousness of faith, he is putting his own thoughts his inspired conviction and experience of the Gospel into a free reproduction of these ancient inspired words. : = do not think, especially thoughts you would be ashamed to utter. ; ; There is no impossible preliminary to be accomplished before the true religion is got under way; we have neither to scale heaven nor descend into the abyss. (in N.T.) only in Luk 8:31 and seven times in Rev. But cf. Psa 106:26 ; 70:20. The passage in Deuteronomy has . These two indefinite proverbial expressions for the impossible are interpreted by Paul. With (Rom 10:6-7 ), he introduces a midrash upon each. The first means (in his mind) bringing Christ down; the second, bringing Christ up from the dead. Evidently the righteousness of faith is concerned with a Christ of whom both these things are true a descent from heaven, and a rising from the dead, Incarnation and Resurrection. We could not bring about either by any effort, but we do not need to; Christ incarnate and risen is here already, God’s gift to faith.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
faith. App-150. Compare Rom 1:17.
ascend. See Joh 3:13. Act 2:34.
into. App-104.
heaven = the heaven. Mat 6:9, Mat 6:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6-8.] The righteousness which is of faith is described, in the words spoken in Scripture by Moses of the commandment given by him,-as not dependent on a long and difficult process of search, but near to every man, and in every mans power to attain. I believe the account of the following citation will be best found by bearing in mind that the Apostle is speaking of Christ as the end of the law for righteousness to the believer. He takes as a confirmation of this, a passage occurring in a prophetic part of Deut., where Moses is foretelling to the Jews the consequences of rejecting Gods law, and His mercy to them even when under chastisement, if they would return to Him. He then describes the law in nearly the words cited in this verse. Now the Apostle, regarding Christ as the end of the law, its great central aim and object, quotes these words not merely as suiting his purpose, but as bearing, where originally used, an fortiori application to faith in Him who is the end of the law, and to the commandment to believe in Him, which (1Jn 3:23) is now Gods commandment. If spoken of the law as a manifestation of God in mans heart and mouth, much more were they spoken of Him, who is God manifest in the flesh, the end of the law and the prophets. This view is, it is true, different from that of almost all eminent Commentators, ancient and modern,-who regard the words as merely adapted or parodied by the Apostle as suiting his present purpose. Thus, with minor shades of difference, Chrys., Beza, Grot., Vatabl., Luther, Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Rckert, De Wette, Thol., Stuart, Hodge, al. But we must remember that it is in this passage Pauls object not merely to describe the righteousness which is of faith in Christ, but to shew it described already in the words of the law. The Commentators who have taken more or less the view that the Apostle cites the words as bearing the sense put on them, are Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Olsh.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise (personified, as Wisdom in the Prov.), Say not in thine heart (i.e. think not, a Heb. idiom. The LXX has merely , . The Apostle cites freely, giving the explanation of , viz. thinking), who shall go up to heaven (LXX, . (, ) . ., see Pro 30:4)?-that is (see note above:-that imports in its full and unfolded meaning), to bring down Christ:-or who shall go down into the abyss (LXX, ; The Apostle substitutes . . . as the direct contrast to . . ., as in ref. Ps.; see also Amo 9:2 :-and as better suiting the interpretation which follows)?-that is, to bring up Christ from the dead. There is some difficulty in assigning the precise view with which the Apostle introduces these questions. Tholuck remarks, The different interpretations may be reduced to this, that the questions are regarded either (1) as questions of unbelief, or (2) as questions of embarrassment, or (3) as questions of anxiety. The first view is represented by De Wette, who says, In what sense these questions, from which the righteousness which is of faith dissuades men, are to be taken, is plain from Rom 10:9, where the Resurrection of Christ is asserted as the one most weighty point of historical Christian belief:-they would be questions of unbelief, which regards this fact as not accomplished, or as now first to be accomplished. Thus also, probably, are we to understand the first question, as applying to the Incarnation of Christ. This is more or less also the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., c[93], Erasm., Estius, Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Rckert (who refers the doubt or the unbelief to the full accomplishment of redemption by the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ), Reiche, and Kllner (who refer . to the ascended Saviour, thereby destroying the symmetry of the whole,-because the latter question undoubtedly refers to bringing Christ not from a present but from a past state, from which He has historically come). (2) The second view, that they are questions of embarrassment, is taken by L. Capellus, Wolf, Rosenm., and Stuart, which last says, The whole (of Mosess saying) may be summed up in one word, omitting all figurative expression: viz. the commandment is plain and accessible. You can have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting it. So in the case before us. Justification by faith in Christ is a plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious language. It is like what Moses says of the statutes which he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible, accessible. It is brought before the mind and heart of every man: and thus he is without excuse for unbelief. (3) The third view, that they are questions of anxiety, is that of Calv., Beza, Pisc., Bengel, Knapp, Fritz., and Tholuck:-by none perhaps better expressed than by Ewbank, Comm. on the Ep. to the Rom., p. 74: Personifying the great Christian doctrine of free justification through faith, he represents it as addressing every man who is anxious to obtain salvation, in the encouraging words of Moses: Say not in thine heart, (it says to such an one) &c. In other words, Let not the man, who sighs for deliverance from his own sinfulness, suppose that the accomplishment of some impossible task is required of him, in order to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel. Let him not think that the personal presence of the Messiah is necessary to ensure his salvation. Christ needs not to be brought down from heaven, or up from the abyss, to impart to him forgiveness and holiness. No. Our Christian message contains no impossibilities. We do not mock the sinner by offering him happiness on conditions which we know that he is powerless to fulfil. We tell him that Christs word is near to him: so near, that he may speak of it with his mouth, and meditate on it with his heart. Is there any thing above human power in such a confession, and in such a belief? Surely not. It is graciously adapted to the necessity of the very weakest and most sinful of Gods creatures.
[93] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Centy. XI.?
[I will now take up the three views afresh, and state the objections.] (1) The objection to this view, as alleged by Tholuck, is, that in it, the contrast with Rom 10:5 is lost sight of. And this is so far just, that it must be confessed we thus lose the ideas which the Apostle evidently intended us to grasp, those of insuperable difficulty in the acquisition of righteousness by the law, and of facility,-by the gospel. Also,-it puts too forward the allegation of the great matters of historical belief, which are not here the central point of the argument, but introduced as the objects which faith, itself that central point, apprehends. (2) The last objection has some force as against this view. The regarding the questions as mere questions of difficulty and intellectual bewilderment does not adequately represent the predicated of the Jews, on the assumption of which the whole passage proceeds. Here, however, it seems to me, we have more truth than in (1): for the plainness and simplicity of the truth to be believed is unquestionably one most important element in the righteousness which is of faith. (3) Here we have the important element just mentioned, not indeed made the prominent point of the questions, but, as it appears to me, properly and sufficiently kept in view. The anxious follower after righteousness is not disappointed by an impracticable code, nor mocked by an unintelligible revelation: the word is near him, therefore accessible; plain and simple, and therefore apprehensible; and, taking (1) into account, we may fairly add,-deals with definite historical fact, and therefore certain: so that his salvation is not contingent on an amount of performance which is beyond him, and therefore inaccessible: irrational, and therefore inapprehensible: undefined, and therefore involved in uncertainty. Thus, it seems to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the argument: and thus also it is clearly brought out, that the words themselves could never have been spoken by Moses of the righteousness which is of the law, but of that which is of faith.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 10:6. , the righteousness which is of faith) A very sweet Metonymy, i.e. a man seeking righteousness by faith.-, speaks) with himself.- , say not) for he, who says so, does not find in the law what he seeks; and he does not seek, what he might find in the Gospel: viz. righteousness and salvation, which are in Christ and are ready for believers in the Gospel. And yet, whoever only hears and heeds that from Moses, The man that doeth shall live, considers it necessary, thus to say [who shall ascend into heaven, etc.]-, in the heart) The mouth [Rom 10:9] is also attributed to faith; for faith speaks; but unbelief generally mutters.-, …) Deu 30:11-14, LXX., , , . , , ; . , . . : , , . For this commandment which I command thee this day is not overwhelmingly great; nor is it far from thee; it is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, who amongst us shall go up to heaven and obtain it for us, that we may hear it and do it? nor is it across the sea, that thou shouldst say, who shall cross the sea and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? The word is very near to thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart and in thy hands to do it. This paraphrase, so to speak, very sweetly alludes to this passage, without expressly quoting it. Moses speaks of heaven, as well as Paul, but the former afterwards says, across the sea, instead of which Paul most dexterously turns his discourse to the abyss, that he may on the contrary [in antithesis to their question as to the abyss] make mention of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. The abyss is a huge cavity in the terraqueous globe, at once under the sea and the land. Compare, as to many things connected with this subject, Job 28:14; Job 28:22; Php 2:10, note.- ; who shall ascend?) He, who thus speaks, shows his willingness, but declares his inability to ascend and descend, so as to fetch righteousness and salvation from afar.- , that is) Their perverseness is reproved, who say, Who shall ascend into heaven? for they speak just as if the word concerning the Lord of heaven were not at hand, whom the mouth of the believer confesses to be Lord, Rom 10:9, and they who wish to bring salvation down from heaven, wish to bring Christ (as being the One, without whom there is no salvation) down from heaven, whence He has already descended: but as the latter cannot take place, so neither can the former. The words, That is, in the present is thrice used, with great force.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 10:6-7
Rom 10:6-7
But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus,- [Paul here personifies the righteousness by faith, and in that character is represented as doing what the living teacher of righteousness by faith does. Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, and in so doing shows it to be impossible.]
Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).-Do not demand ocular demonstration of Christs coming down from heaven or coming up from the grave. These things are not to be seen, save by those who were his chosen witnesses, who have borne their testimony in such manner that all can hear and believe. Nothing wonderful or difficult is required. [The Jews expected a Savior, reigning upon the earth, a visible king of an earthly kingdom; hence, they said: Bring Christ down from heaven, where you say he is, and we will believe on him. Another thing that caused the Jews to stumble was the death and burial of Christ. When Jesus died on the cross, they held it to be positive proof that he was not the Christ. They still demanded that they should see the risen Christ with their own eyes, or that he should be brought up from the dead.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
righteousness: Rom 3:22, Rom 3:25, Rom 4:13, Rom 9:31, Phi 3:9, Heb 11:7
Say not: The Apostle here takes the general sentiment, and expresses it in his own language; beautifully accommodating what Moses says of the law to his present purpose. Deu 30:11-14, Pro 30:4
to bring: Joh 3:12, Joh 3:13, Joh 6:33, Joh 6:38, Joh 6:50, Joh 6:51, Joh 6:58, Eph 4:8-10, Heb 1:3
Reciprocal: Deu 6:25 – General Deu 30:12 – General Deu 32:47 – General Job 36:3 – fetch Isa 51:5 – righteousness Isa 56:1 – for Act 7:38 – lively Rom 4:11 – righteousness Gal 3:12 – the law Heb 5:13 – the word
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0:6
Rom 10:6. Righteousness which is of faith still means the Gospel system. Paul quotes from Deu 30:11-13, but adds some words to make it apply to the law of Christ, whose active principle is faith; “take God at his word,” without demanding why or how the divine truths and facts were accomplished. On this basis, one should not be concerned about “who” or “how” it was that Christ came down from above.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 10:6. But the righteousness of faith. (Which is may be omitted; the form in the similar expression of Rom 10:5 is fuller.) As already indicated, but introduces a contrast with the other righteousness of doing (Rom 10:5). The personification is quite natural.
Saith thus; not, speaketh, which suggests a contrast with writeth.
Say not in thy heart (LXX., defectively; saying; E. V: that thou shouldst say.) This phrase is = think not, but usually suggests an evil thought
Who shall ascend into heaven? For us (LXX.) is omitted. This question is thus explained by the Apostle in his own language, which he substitutes for the clause of design in the Old Testament passage. Similar clauses are substituted in Rom 10:7-8.
That is, to bring Christ down. That is introduces the explanation, but the whole clause may mean either (1.) Whoever asks this question, says, in effect, who will bring Christ down? thus denying that He has come; or (2.) That is, in order to bring Christ down; substituting this purpose for that expressed in Deuteronomy. The fatter sense agrees best with the view that Paul is interpreting the passage in Deuteronomy; the former with the other theories respecting his use of it. We interpret this clause as referring to the Incarnation, the coming down from heaven of the preexistent and promised Messiah (comp. Rom 10:9). Others refer it to the present exalted position of Christ
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
In which words the apostle seems to set forth the great anxiety and trouble of mind which is found with an awakened sinner; he is at a loss to find out the way how he shall stand justified in the sight of God. The law propounds to him life, but it is upon an impossible condition; but the gospel clearly reveals to him, that Christ has performed what is necessary for his justification, and that by a practical and lively faith he shall have an interest in it.
We need not therefore say, Who shall ascend into heaven for us? for Christ being ascended, hath given us a convincing proof that the propitiation for our sins is perfect; for otherwise our Surety had not been received into God’s sanctuary: therefore to be under perplexities how we may be justified, is to deny the value of his righteousness and the truth of his ascension. And say not, Who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bear the torments of hell, and expiate sin; for this is to deny the virtue of his death, whereby he appeased God and redeemed us from wrath to come.
In the law, the condemning righteousness of God is made visible: in the gospel, his justifying righteousness is revealed from faith to faith. Eternally maginifed be omnipotent Love, that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ has graciously discovered how God may show mercy to repenting and returning sinners, without any prejudice or injury done to his justice. Hereby the soul is at once freed from the fear of God’s wrath and anger, and has a lively hope of his love and favour.
Lord! what sins are there, which so entire a satisfaction doth not expiate? What torments can they deserve, which his wounds and stripes have not removed! God is just as well as merciful, in justifying him that believeth on Jesus.
From the whole note, That the way of acceptance with God is so clearly stated and discovered in the gospel, that we need not be in any doubtful suspense where to find it, or seek other satisfaction than God has given us in his word. The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart; that word of faith which we preach.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Rom 10:6-9. Blot the righteousness which is of faith The method of becoming righteous by believing; speaketh A very different language from that of the law, and may be considered as expressing itself thus; (to accommodate to our present subject the words which Moses spake touching the plainness of his law:) Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? as if it were to bring Christ down To teach and instruct us, or to atone for our offences. The Jews, it would seem, thought it not reasonable to believe on Jesus as the Christ, unless he was brought from heaven in a visible manner, to take possession of his kingdom: which some think was the sign from heaven which they expected, Mat 16:1. Or, Who shall descend into the deep? Into the grave, as if it were to bring up Christ again from the dead Do not imagine that these things are now to be done in order to prove Jesus to be the true Messiah, or to confirm his doctrine. The Jews expected that the Messiah would abide with them for ever, Joh 12:34. Wherefore, when the disciples saw Jesus expire on the cross, they gave up all hope of his being the Christ: Luk 24:21, We trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel. It is true, the objection taken from Christs death was fully removed by his resurrection. But the Jews, pretending not to have sufficient proof of that miracle, insisted that Jesus should appear in person among them, to convince them that he was really risen. This they expressed by ones descending into the abyss to bring Christ up from the dead. Macknight. But what saith it Namely, the gospel, or righteousness of faith: what is its language? Even these words, so remarkably applicable to the subject before us. All is done ready to thy hand. The word is nigh thee Within thy reach; easy to be understood, remembered, practised; in thy mouth and in thy heart Let thy mouth and heart perform the offices assigned them and thou shalt be saved; that is, the word of faith The doctrine of the gospel, which teaches men to believe in Christ for salvation, Rom 1:16-17; which we preach Which we, the apostles and ministers of Christ, declare to you, and exhort you to embrace. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Shalt make a free confession of thy faith in Christ and his truths, both by words and deeds, even in the time of persecution, when such a confession would expose thee to imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom: and shalt believe in thy heart Sincerely, and with a faith that influences thy heart, and worketh by love; that God hath raised him from the dead And thereby demonstrated him to be the Messiah; manifested the certain truth and infinite importance of his doctrine; the acceptableness and efficacy of the atonement which he made for sin; hath broken the power of death, and ensured to his followers an immortal life; as also the Holy Spirit to prepare them for it, by raising them from the death of sin to the life of righteousness: thou shalt be saved From sin here, and its consequences hereafter. The apostle mentions the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as the principal article to be believed in order to salvation, because by that miracle God demonstrated Jesus to be his Son, established his authority as a lawgiver, and rendered all the things which he taught and promised indubitable. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 6, 7. 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. Or, who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.
Few passages have been so variously understood as this. And, first, was the intention of the apostle to give a real explanation of the passage quoted (Aug., Abail., Buc., Cal., Olsh., Fritzs., Meyer, Reuss)whether this explanation be regarded historically exact, or as a violence done to the text of Moses (as Meyer, who here finds an application of the Rabbinical method of seeking hidden meanings in the simplest texts; or Reuss, who expresses himself thus: Paul finds a passage from which he extorts the desired sense…by means of explanations which contradict the meaning of the original)?
Or must it be held that the apostle only meant here to employ the expressions of which Moses made use, while giving them a new sense (Chrys., Beza, Beng., Thol., Rck., Philip., Hofm., etc.)? A third class may be formed of those who, like Calvin, Lange, Hodge, etc., find in Paul a fundamental thought identical with that of the text of Moses, but one which is expounded here with great freedom in form. It is clear that these three classes, the last two especially, cannot always be distinguished precisely.
Let us remark in the outset the change of subject as we pass from Rom 10:5 to Rom 10:6. Paul no longer says here: Moses writes (or describes). It is no longer he who speaks either directly or indirectly. It is the righteousness of faith itself which takes the word, borrowing, in order to reveal its essence, certain expressions from the passage quoted, Deu 30:11-14. Meyer endeavors in vain to weaken the bearing of this difference. It is clear that Paul is no longer quoting Moses himself as in Rom 10:5, but making another personage speak, while ascribing to him in a free way the language of Moses.
What now did the latter mean when uttering the words quoted here? The passage in the original context applies to the law which Moses had just been repeating to the people according to its spirit rather than according to its letter. Moses means that the people need not distress themselves about the possibility of understanding and practicing this law. They need not imagine that some one must be sent to heaven or beyond the seas, to bring back the explanation of its commandments, or make its fulfilment possible. This law has been so revealed by the Lord, that every Israelite is in a condition to understand it with the heart and profess it with the mouth; its fulfilment even is within the reach of all. It is evident that in expressing himself thus the lawgiver is not taking up the standpoint of an independent morality, but of Israelitish faith, of confidence in the nearness of Jehovah, and in the promise of His grace and succor. It is not without meaning that the Decalogue began with the words: I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and that every series of laws terminated with the refrain: I am the Lord. Consequently the understanding and fulfilling of the law which Moses declares possible, have nothing in common with meritorious work; they are the fruits of a heart in the full communion of confidence and love with the God of the covenant. And how, indeed, could Moses, who had written of Abraham the words: His faith was imputed to him for righteousness, have thought that the way of faith was to be replaced after a few centuries by that of meritorious work? Comp. Gal 3:17 et seq. That element of grace which, according to Moses himself, formed the basis of the whole covenant throughout its different phases, patriarchal and Mosaic, is here disentangled by Paul from its temporary wrapping (in Deuteronomy), as Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount disentangles the spirit from the letter of the Decalogue. He does not put into the passage of Moses what is not there, but he draws from it, in order to set in relief its profoundest element, the grace of Jehovah wrapped up and attested in the commandment itself. This grace, already existing in the Jewish theocracy, was the fruitful germ deposited under the surface, which was one day to burst forth and become the peculiar character of the new covenant. The apostle therefore was perfectly right in taking this saying as the prelude of gospel grace. It is easy, however, to understand why, feeling himself at some distance from the letter, in this application, he has not introduced Moses himself, but the righteousness of faith emerging as it were itself in the expressions of the lawgiver.
The differences between the texts of Moses and that of Paul are numerous. Moses says: This commandment is not in heaven above, saying (that is, thou shouldst say)…Paul adds: in thy heartan expression which, as Philippi says, commonly refers to an evil thought which one is afraid to utter. Comp. Mat 3:9; Rev 18:7. Moses continues thus: and having heard, we shall do it. Paul omits these words as not having to do directly with his object, namely, to bring out the element of grace contained in the passage. He does so also with the same expressions repeated Rom 10:13-14. Finally, for the phrase beyond the sea, he substitutes: into the deep (abyss), a word which evidently denotes here the abode of the dead; comp. Rom 10:7. Did he understand the expression beyond the sea in the sense of the depth, or has he departed entirely from the figure supported by the fact that the word abyss sometimes denotes the immensity of the seas? or, finally, is he alluding to the idea of antiquity, which placed the fields of the blessed beyond the ocean? None of these is probable; he has been led to the expression by the contrast so frequent in Scripture between heaven and Hades (Job 11:8; Amo 9:2; Psa 107:26; Psa 139:8). He wished to contrast what is deepest with what is highest; to depict on the one hand the condemnation from which Christ rescues us (Rom 10:7), and on the other, the full salvation to which He raises us (Rom 10:6); and, keeping as close as possible to the figurative expressions of Moses, he has taken Sheol and heaven as types of these two states. By these slight transformations Paul substitutes for the yet imperfect grace attached by the Lord to the gift of the law, the perfect bestowals of grace belonging to the new covenant. In the application which he makes of the saying of Moses, he points out not only the help of Jehovah ever near the believer to sustain him in the fulfilment of the law, but the law already completely fulfilled, both in its prescriptions and threatenings, by the life and death of Christ, so that all that remains for him who seeks salvation is to appropriate and apply this fulfilment as his own. Moses reassured the sincere Jew by showing him that doing would follow easily from believing. Paul reassures every man desirous of salvation by offering to him a doing wrought by another, and which his believing has only to lay hold of. To penetrate, therefore, to the spirit of Moses’ saying, and to prolong the lines of the figures used by him, are all that is needed to land us in the gospel. There was a piquancy in thus replying to Moses by Moses, and in showing that what the lawgiver had written was still more true of the gospel than of the law.
The meaning of this saying in Paul is not, therefore, as was believed by the Greek Fathers, and as is still thought by Meyer and a good many others: Beware of being unbelieving toward Christ incarnate (Rom 10:6) and risen (Rom 10:7). 1. This thought is foreign to the context, for Paul has no idea of contrasting believing with not believing, but doing with believing. 2. There would be no connection between the application of this saying by Paul, and its signification in Deuteronomy 3. How could we suppose the apostle addressing this saying to non-believers? Has the righteousness of faith then the right to say to them: I prohibit your not believing? What would be the use of such a prohibition? The apostle is addressing Christians, who hold the supernatural facts of Christ’s history, but who do not yet understand the full saving efficacy contained in them; and this is what he would have them to perceive. The same objections apply equally to other explanations, such as that of Reiche: Who shall ascend into heaven to convince himself that Jesus is really there? and: Who shall descend into the abyss to assure himself that He has indeed risen from it? Or that of Grimm: Who shall ascend to bring Christ down from heaven, and thus prove the reality of His glorified existence? Or that of Holsten: Who shall go to convince himself in heaven and in the abyss that God has power to effect the incarnation of Christ and the resurrection of His body? In all these explanations the person dealt with is always one who has to be convinced of the facts of salvation. But we do not convince of a historical fact by giving command to believe it. He to whom the righteousness of faith speaks with this tone of authority is one who believes those facts, and whom it exhorts to draw the saving consequences which rationally flow from them.
Calvin already comes near the true practical bearing of the passage when he thus explains: Who shall ascend into heaven to prepare our abode there? Who shall descend into the abyss to rescue us from the sepulchre? Only the context proves that the subject in question is not our future resurrection and glorification, but our present justification by faith.
Philippi, Lange, and Reuss seem to us to come still nearer the truth when they take these words as indicating works which Christ has already really accomplished to save us, so that it only remains for us to accept this fully wrought salvation. But when Philippi and Lange apply the first question, that of Rom 10:6, to the fact of the incarnation, explaining it with Meyer: Who shall ascend to bring Christ down (by incarnation) to work out our salvation? it is impossible for me to follow them; first, because there is no need of an ascension, but prayer is enough to obtain a gift of grace from God; and further, because in that case there would cease to be any real connection between the application made by Paul of this saying and its meaning in Moses.
If we start, as is natural, from this last point (the original meaning of the saying), the following is the explanation of Rom 10:6-7 : O thou, who desirest to reach the heaven of communion with God, say not: How shall I ascend to it? as if it were necessary for thee thyself to accomplish this ascent on the steps of thine own obedience. That of which thou sayest: Who will do it (how shall I do it)? is a thing done; to ask such a question is to deny that Christ has really done it. It is to undo, at least so far as thou art concerned, what He has done. Thou whom thy sins torment, say not any more: Who shall descend into the abyss, there to undergo my punishment? That of which thou sayest: Who will do it (how shall I do it)? is a thing done. To ask such a question is to deny that Christ has done it; it is to undo, at least so far as thou art concerned, what He has done. Expiation is accomplished; thou canst have it by faith.
The form , who? has this meaning: it is not every man individually that is asked to fulfil these two conditions of salvationobedience and expiation. In that case every man would be called to be his own Christ. The righteousness of faith forbids us to make such pretensions, which can only issue in our discouragement or embitterment. Instead of the part of Christs, it brings us down to that of believers; and hence the reason why Paul, in the following words, makes use twice of the name of Christ, and not that of Jesus, as he would certainly do if he meant to speak here of the historical facts as such: comp. Rom 8:11.
Twice the apostle interrupts his quotation of the Mosaic saying with one of those brief explanations which, in the Rabbins, get the name of Midrasch, and of which we find other examples in Paul, e.g., 1Co 15:55-56. To support his explanation of the questions Rom 10:6-7 (as addressed to an unbeliever), Meyer, with many others, has been obliged to make these two short explanations, interjected by the apostle, dependent on the two preceding questions, as if they were a continuation of them: Who shall ascend into heaven, that is to say, with the view of bringing the Christ down? Who shall descend into the deep, that is to say, with the view of bringing the Christ up? This meaning of , that is to say, is far from natural; for what we expect is the indication of the reason why the righteousness of faith forbids such speaking, not the mention of the motive which leads the interrogator to raise this question. Besides, there is a perfectly parallel in Rom 10:8; now, there it is impossible to take the phrase in the sense which Meyer here gives to it. The word is therefore directly connected with , say not. Say not: Who shall ascend? for that (speaking thus) is to bring down…, or: Who shall descend? for that (speaking thus) is to bring up…And, in point of fact, to wish to do a thing oneself (or ask that some one should do it) is evidently equivalent to denying that it is already done. Consequently, to say: Who shall ascend to open heaven for us? is to deny that Christ has already ascended for this end; it is logically to bring Him down again to this earth. It is therefore impossible to follow the almost unanimous leading of commentators, and refer the here imagined descent of Christ to the incarnation; rather it is a giving of the lie to the fact of the ascension (as Glckler has understood it): What thou wouldst do, ascend to heaven by thine own obedience, thou canst not; but Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won heaven both for Himself and thee. To ask: How shall I do it? or: Who shall do it? is therefore equivalent to denying that He has ascended. If thou dost really believe in His ascension, as thou professest to do, thou canst not deal thus with it.
In the second question, Rom 10:7, De Wette and Meyer observe that there is no need of putting two points (:) after the , or; the quotation continues.
The abyss frequently denotes the abode of the dead and of fallen angels (Luk 8:31). For as the azure of the sky represents perfect salvation, so the depth of the sea is the natural figure for the abode of death and the state of condemnation.
The meaning given by Meyer: , that is to say, is still more inadmissible here than above. In fact it is an impossible supposition, that of a man going down into hell to raise up Christ there. If He is the Christ, He will certainly rise of Himself: if He is not, He will not rise at all. And in whose mouth should we put such a question? In that of a believer? But a believer does not doubt the resurrection. In that of an unbeliever? But an unbeliever would say: Who shall descend? not certainly with the view of going to raise Him up, which has no meaning, but with the view of going to see whether He has risen, or of going to prove that he has not; and besides, such a man would not thus off-hand call Jesus the Christ. It seems to me that it is a mistake to refer the word , to bring up, to cause to ascend, as is generally done, to the fact of the resurrection. This expression must of course be understood in a sense analogous to that of the word bring down, Rom 10:6. Now this latter signified: to deny, by wishing to gain heaven oneself, that Christ has ascended thither to open it for us; to replace things as they would be without the ascension. To bring up consequently signifies: to deny, by wishing oneself to undergo condemnation for his sins, that Christ has blotted them out; to replace things as they would be without His expiatory death. Meyer objects that Rom 10:9 expressly speaks of the resurrection; but he resolves this objection himself when he says, in the explanation of Rom 10:9 : Without the resurrection, the death of Jesus would not be the expiatory death. What is in question here is not the historical fact of His death, but its expiatory value, of which the resurrection is the monument. It is by the resurrection that the death appears not merely as that of Jesus, but as that of the Christ. Meyer again objects, that the death would require to have been placed by Paul before the ascension. But Paul was following the order of the words of Moses, and this order really better suited the didactic meaning which he was introducing into them. First the conquest of heaven by Christ’s holy life and perfect obedience; then the abolition of condemnation by His expiatory death.
We may now sum up the general meaning of the passage: All the doing asked of man by the law (Rom 10:5), and which he could never accomplish otherwise than imperfectly, is now accomplished perfectly by the Christ, whether it relate to the conquest of heaven by holiness, or to the abolition of condemnation by expiation. All, therefore, that remains to man in order to be saved, is to believe in this work by applying it to himself; and this is what is commanded us by the righteousness of faith, Rom 10:8, after it has forbidden us, Rom 10:6-7, to pretend ourselves to open heaven or to close hell. This argument showed at a glance, that Christ having charged Himself with the doing, and having left us only the believing, His work put an end to the legal dispensation, which the apostle wished to prove (Rom 10:4).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But [marking the irreconcilable contrast and antagonism between the new gospel and the old law] the righteousness which is of faith saith thus [we would here expect Christ to speak, as the antithesis of Moses in Rom 10:5 . But if Jesus had been made spokesman, Paul would have been limited to a quotation of the exact words of the Master. It, therefore, suited his purpose better to personify Righteousness-which-is-of-faith, or the gospel, and let it speak for itself. Compare his personifications of Faith and Law at Gal 3:23-25). By doing this, he (Paul) could, in this his final summary of the gospel’s sufficiency and applicability to the needs of men, employ words similar to those in which Moses in his final summary of the law, spake of its sufficiency and applicability (Deu 30:11-14). Thus on a similar occasion, and with a similar theme, Paul speaks words similar to those of Moses; so varying them, however, as to bring into vivid contrast the differences between the law and the gospel–between that which typified and foreshadowed, and that which in its superlative superiority fulfilled, terminated and forever abolished. Moses said of the law: “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” His meaning is, first, that the law is not so hard but that a man who makes right use of it may please God in it (this was true of the law till the gospel abolished it); second, the law was the fully prepared gift of God, and, being possessed by the Jews, they neither had to scale the heavens to get false gods to give a law to them, nor did they have to cross the sea (a dangerous and rarely attempted task among those of Moses’ day) to get unknown, remote and inaccessible nations of men to bring a law to them. They were required to perform no impractical, semi-miraculous feat to secure the law–it was theirs already by gift of God, and that so fully and utterly that, instead of being locked in the holy seclusion of the sanctuary, it was their common property, found in their mottles (daily talk) and hearts (worshipful, reverential meditation– Exo 13:9; Jos 1:8; Psa 37:30-31; Psa 1:2; Psa 119:14-16). Such was the law as described by Moses. In contrast with it Paul lets the gospel describe itself thus], Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
6. For the righteousness of faith speaketh thus: Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend up into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down;)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, {e} Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]:)
(e) Do not think to yourself, as men that are doubting do.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Positively Moses taught that justification came by faith (Deu 30:11-14). In the context of Moses’ statement there is a strong emphasis on an attitude of loving obedience rather than a legalistic approach to earning righteousness (Deu 30:6-10). Moses’ point was that the Israelites should not think that pleasing God was something beyond their reach. A proper attitude of faith toward God is essentially what He required.
In quoting this passage Paul made his own application of it in harmony with his argument. It was vain for the Israelites to think that they had to be good enough to ascend into heaven to bring the promised Messiah down to earth to save His people. Likewise it was foolish for them to think that they had to be good enough to raise Messiah up from the death that the prophets had predicted He would die. God had already done those things for the ungodly in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ. All they had to do was accept what God had done for them in Christ.