But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
31. which followed ] Lit. following; and so better.
the law of righteousness ] Not simply “ righteousness,” as in Rom 9:30; because Israel had, what the Gentiles had not, the detailed revealed precepts. These precepts they “followed after,” i.e. strove to keep as a covenant of salvation. For this very reason they “did not attain to” them, i.e. they failed to reach the true use of the Law its revelation of God’s will to be followed by His reconciled children, His people justified by faith. “ Of righteousness: ” this phrase may, as often, be explained to mean “connected with righteousness.” So the Law is connected, whether it condemns, acquits, or guides. Israel “followed after it” as an acquitting Law, in vain; and so failed to “attain to it” as a Law guiding in the path of peace. They strove by it to make themselves just, and so failed to walk by it as the justified.
hath not attained ] Better (as in Rom 9:30) did not attain. Their whole history of effort and failure is summed up in one idea, and viewed as all past, (though numberless Jews were, and are, still making the same attempts,) because St Paul’s thought is fixed on the crisis of the calling of the Gentiles, after which the case of Israel took a new aspect in practice.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But Israel – The Jews. The apostle does not mean to affirm that none of the Jews had obtained mercy, but that as a people, or acting according to the prevalent principles of the nation to work out their own righteousness, they had not obtained it.
Which followed after the law of righteousness – The phrase, the law of righteousness, means the law of justice, or the just law. That Law demands perfect purity; and even its external observance demanded holiness. The Jews supposed that they rendered such obedience to that Law as to constitute a meritorious ground of justification. This they had followed after, that is, pursued zealously and unremittingly. The reason why they did not obtain justification in that way is fully stated in Rom. 13 where it is shown that the Law demands perfect compliance with its precepts; and that Jews, as well as Gentiles, had altogether failed in rendering such compliance.
Hath not attained to the law of righteousness – They have not come to yield true obedience to the Law, even though imperfect; not such obedience as to give evidence that they have been justified. We may remark here,
- That no conclusion could have been more humbling to a Jew than this. It constituted the whole of the prevalent religion, and was the object of their incessant toils.
(2)As they made the experiment fully, and failed: as they had the best advantages for it, and did not succeed, but reared only a miserable and delusive system of self-righteousness Phi 3:4-9; it follows, that all similar experiments must fail, and that none now can be justified by the Law.
(3)Thousands fail in the same attempt.
They seek to justify themselves before God. They attempt to weave a righteousness of their own. The moral man does this. The immoral man attempts it as much as the moral man, and is as confident in his own righteousness. The troubled sinner does this; and this it is which keeps him so long from the cross of Christ. All this must be renounced; and man must come as a poor, lost, ruined sinner, and throw himself upon the mere mercy of God in Christ for justification and life.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 31. But Israel, which followed after] But the Jews, who have hitherto been the people of God, though they have been industrious in observing a rule by which they supposed they could secure the blessings of God’s peculiar kingdom, yet have not come up to the true and only rule by which those blessings can be secured.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness; i.e. the unbelieving Jews, who paid great reverence to the law of God, regarding and observing the outward precepts and ceremonies thereof.
Hath not attained to the law of righteousness; they came short of that righteousness which the law requires, which God will accept, and which is to be attained, not by works, but by faith, as it follows in the next verse (see Rom 9:32).
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. But Israel, whichfollowed“following”
after the law ofrighteousness, hath not attained“attained not”
unto the law ofrighteousnessThe word “law” is used here, we think,in the same sense as in Ro 7:23,to denote “a principle of action”; that is, “Israel,though sincerely and steadily aiming at acceptance with God,nevertheless missed it.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness,…. The Israelites, the far greater part of the Jews, who were not called by the grace of God, were all very zealous of the law, called “the law of righteousness”; because the matter of it was righteous, it was so in its own nature; and because perfect obedience to it is righteousness; as also because they sought for righteousness by the deeds of it. They very violently and eagerly pursued after it, they tugged and toiled, and laboured with all their might, as persons in running a race, to get up to the law, and the righteousness of it; and yet Israel, with all the pains and labour taken,
hath not attained to the law of righteousness: some of them fancied they had, supposing an external conformity to it, to be all that it insisted upon; not knowing the spirituality of it, that it required truth and holiness in the inward parts; and that he that offended in one point of it, was guilty of all, and therefore could not be justified by it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Did not arrive at that law ( ). First aorist active indicative of , old verb to anticipate (1Th 4:15), now just to arrive as here and 2Co 10:14. The word “that” is not in the Greek. Legal righteousness Israel failed to reach, because to do that one had to keep perfectly all the law.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But Israel which followed after the law of righteousness,” (Israel de diokon nomon dikaiosunes) “But Israel pursuing a law of righteousness,” doggedly chasing a law – (form) of righteousness, and tradition of the elders, under the law, Mar 7:1-9; Mar 7:13; Mat 15:1-20; Rom 10:1-4 – did not attain to it Rom 11:7; 2Co 4:3-4.
2) “Hath not attained to the law of righteousness,” (eis nomon ouk ephthasen) “Did not arrive at or to a law of righteousness;” The law pointed to Christ who would become, in his sacrifice, man’s righteousness before God, at the point in time and eternity, that each by faith accepted his propitiation, 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:19-24; Gal 3:26; Rom 3:29; Rom 10:10. Israel did not attain to or obtain righteousness of God, by morality, ceremonials, or rituals under Moses’ law-neither may Jew or Gentile attain to or obtain the righteousness of God thru morality, ceremonies, or rituals of the Lord’s Church today, but by repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ, see, Luk 13:3; Gal 3:26; Eph 2:8-10; Tit 3:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
31. But Israel, by pursuing, etc. Paul openly states what seemed incredible, — that it was no wonder that the Jews gained nothing by sedulously following after righteousness; for by running out of the way, they wearied themselves in vain. But in the first place it seems to me that the law of righteousness is here an instance of transposition, and means the righteousness of the law; (315) and then, that when repeated in the second clause, it is to be taken in another sense, as signifying the model or the rule of righteousness.
The meaning then is, — “That Israel, depending on the righteousness of the law, even that which is prescribed in the law, did not understand the true method of justification.” But there is a striking contrast in the expression, when he teaches us that the legal righteousness was the cause that they had fallen away from the law of righteousness.
(315) There seems to be no necessity for this transposition. “A law (not the law) of righteousness” means a law which prescribes righteousness, and which, if done, would have conferred righteousness. But the Jews following this did not attain to a law of righteousness, such a law as secured righteousness. The Apostle often uses the same words in the same verse in a different sense, and leaves the meaning to be made out by the context. [ Grotius ] takes “law” as meaning way, “They followed the way of righteousness, but did not attain to a way of righteousness.”
What follows the question in the next verse stands more connected with Rom 9:30 than with Rom 9:31; and we must consider that the word righteousness, and not law, is referred to by “it” after the verb “pursue,” which is evidently to be understood before the words, “not by faith,” etc., as the sentence is clearly elliptical.
The verb διώκω, rendered “ sector “ by [ Calvin ] , means strictly to pursue what flees away from us, whether a wild beast or an enemy; it signifies also to follow a leader, and to run a race, and further, to desire, to attend to, or earnestly to seek a thing: and in this latter sense Paul often uses it. See Rom 12:13. Similar is the application of the corresponding verb, רדף in Hebrew. See Deu 16:20 “ Quaero — to seek,” is the word adopted by [ Grotius ]
But [ Pareus ] and [ Hammond ] consider that there are here three agonistic terms, διώκων κατέλαβε, and ἔφθασε. The first signifies the running; the third, the reaching of the goal; and the second, the laying hold on the prize: and with this corresponds the stumbling afterwards mentioned. The Gentiles did not run at all, but the Jews did, and in running, they stumbled; while the Gentiles reached the goal, not by running, or by their own efforts, but by faith, and laid hold on the prize of righteousness. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(31) Israel, on the other hand, though ostensibly pursuing a law the object of which was righteousness, did not reach such a law. They tried to keep the Law, but failed to keep it, and to bring themselves under its protection. The second righteousness is omitted in the best MSS.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
31. The law of righteousness Without the definite article, and meaning a law of righteousness which proved not to be the true law of righteousness, and so resulted in failure.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Rom 9:31-32 . Israel, on the contrary, striving after the law of righteousness, has (in respect to the mass of the people) not attained to the law of righteousness .
-g0- -g0- .] The law affording righteousness . Quite erroneous is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Bengel, Heumann, that it is a hypallage for ; and that of Rckert and Kllner is arbitrary, that Paul, in his effort after brevity and paradox, has used a condensed phrase for . On the contrary, the justifying law is in both instances (comp. , Rom 9:30 ) to be left without any more precise concrete definition, and to be regarded as the ideal (comp. also Fritzsche and Philippi), the reality of which the Israelites strove by their legal conduct to experience in themselves (to possess), but did not obtain . The justifying law! this is the idea , which they pursued, but to the reality they remained strangers. If, finally, we chose, with many others (including Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Kllner, Krehl, de Wette), to understand the first . . of the historical Mosaic law , and the second of Christianity , would be opposed to us; for this, according to Rom 9:30 , expresses not the endeavour to fulfil the law , but the endeavour to possess the law, as, indeed, must correspond to in Rom 9:30 , and therefore must simply denote non pervenit (Vulg.), not: non prae venit (Erasmus, Estius, Hammond, and others, including Ewald and Jatho). Comp. on Phi 3:16 . The reading of Lachmann, , which Hofmann follows, is explained by the latter: Israel was set upon fulfilling a law which teaches what is right ( ), but did not thereby succeed, did not become ( ); because the law remained for it, like a shadow, ever only near, but unattainable, thus Israel had not at all come to have its standpoint generally in a law and to live in it , neither in that of the Old Testament , which it sought to follow, nor in that of the New Testament , on which it turned its back. An entirely subjective artificial complication of ideas, with invented accessories, and not even historically correct, since in fact the Israelites stood and lived only too much and as , but could not withal attain to the . This is the tragic point of the negative counter-statement, and hence is indispensable in the text.
] sc . . ; answer: , sc . For, had they started from faith in their striving, they would have obtained in Christianity the realization of their endeavour, the ; through faith in Christ, to whom the law already points (Rom 3:31 , Rom 10:5 ff.; Joh 5:46 ), they would have become righteous, and would thus in the gospel have really attained what floated before them as an idea , the justifying law .
.] can neither denote a hypocritical conduct (Theophylact), nor presumed works (Fritzsche), nor quasi (van Hengel, following the Vulgate); for, indeed, the Jews really set out from the works of the law in their endeavour. On the contrary, it means: Because their was in the way, in which a starting from works is constituted; the (perverted) kind and quality of the endeavour is designated, comp. 2Co 2:17 ; Joh 1:14 . The . is by brought into fuller relief; see Klotz, ad Devar . p. 757 f.
. . .] without (see critical remarks), but thus coming in all the more strikingly: they stumbled , etc.; that is the fatal fact, which befell them in their , and caused that they . . . Had they not stumbled at the stone of stumbling, they would have entered on the right line of endeavour , instead of their perverted one . The simple appropriateness, clearness, and force, with which the . . . is thus introduced, must exclude the connection with (Lachmann), followed also by Th. Schott (“but, as could not but happen in consequence of works, came to ruin on the stone of stumbling”). The , the stone on which one stumbles (trips), is Christ , in so far as occasion for unbelief is taken at His manifestation (especially at His death on the cross, 1Co 1:23 ). Comp. Luk 2:34 ; 1Pe 2:7-8 . The figure is in perfect correspondence with the conception of the , and was perhaps selected in anticipation of the passage of Scripture to be adduced. Aptly, moreover, Theophylact remarks: . . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Ver. 31. The law of righteousness ] That is, the righteousness of the law.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
31 .] but Israel, pursuing after the law of righteousness (what is the ? Certainly not = , as Chrys., Theodoret, cum., Calv., Beza, Bengel, by the so-called, but as Thol. observes, unlogical figure of Hypallage: it may mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., an ideal law of righteousness, a justifying law , or (2) as Chrys., al., see above, the Iaw of Moses , thus described: or (3) which I believe to be the true account of the words, . is put regarding the Jews, rather than merely ., because in their case there was a prescribed norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the law, in which rule and way they, as matter of fact , followed after it. The above, as I believe, mistaken interpretations arise from supposing . to be = ., which it is not. The Jews followed after, aimed at the fulfilment of ‘ the law of righteousness ,’ thinking by the observance of that law to acquire righteousness. See ch. Rom 10:3 ; Rom 10:5 , and note; and compare John’s coming , Mat 21:32 ), arrived not at [notice the change in the verb] the law (fell far short even of that law, which was given them. It is surprising, with ch. Rom 10:3-5 before them, how De Wette and Tholuck can pronounce the reading without to be without sense. The Jews followed after, thinking to perform it entirely, their : which . the Apostle defines, ch. Rom 10:5 , to be , but they did not attain to not in this case , but the law they therefore never attained righteousness . It is surely far more easy to imagine how a transcriber should have inserted , than how he should have omitted it. It probably was a marginal gloss to explain the second , and thence found its way into the text (I may notice, that ch. Rom 10:3 is not a case in point, the here having an independent and exceptional meaning of its own, which introduces an element not belonging to there)). Wherefore? because ( pursuing it ) not by faith, but as (used subjectively, as ‘if about to obtain their object by:’ see Winer, edn. 6, 65. 9, and compare 2Pe 1:3 ) by [the] works [of the law (the evidence for and against is about equally balanced. On the one side we have the Apostle’s usage, see ch. Rom 3:28 reff., and the possibility of a transcriber omitting , either as having twice occurred already, or for more complete antithesis, and on the other we have the temptation to correct to to suit that very usage. On the whole I incline to omit , but do not regard the evidence as sufficiently clear to justify its exclusion from the text) ], they stumbled at the stone of stumbling (the similitude of a race is still kept up. The insertion of has arisen from a period being placed at . It confuses the sense, making it appear as if the stumbling was the cause of, or at all events coincident with, their pursuing . . . ., whereas it was this mistaken method of pursuing which caused them to stumble against the stone of stumbling. Thus we have instances in the Greek chariot races, of competitors, by an error in judgment in driving, striking against the round which the chariots were to turn, see Soph. Elect. 730 f.
There is a close analogy between our text and the exhortation in Heb 12:1 f. There, after the triumphs of faith have been related, we are exhorted to run with patience the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith : where notice, that the sacred Writer seems to have had in his mind the same comparison of Him to the pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the runners would be exclusively directed).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
the = a.
hath = omit.
attained. Greek. phthano. Not the same word as in 30. See Luk 11:20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
31.]-but Israel, pursuing after the law of righteousness (what is the ? Certainly not = , as Chrys., Theodoret, cum., Calv., Beza, Bengel, by the so-called, but as Thol. observes, unlogical figure of Hypallage:-it may mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., an ideal law of righteousness, a justifying law,-or (2) as Chrys., al.,-see above,-the Iaw of Moses, thus described: or (3) which I believe to be the true account of the words, . is put regarding the Jews, rather than merely ., because in their case there was a prescribed norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the law, in which rule and way they, as matter of fact, followed after it. The above, as I believe, mistaken interpretations arise from supposing . to be = ., which it is not. The Jews followed after, aimed at the fulfilment of the law of righteousness, thinking by the observance of that law to acquire righteousness. See ch. Rom 10:3; Rom 10:5, and note; and compare Johns coming , Mat 21:32), arrived not at [notice the change in the verb] the law (fell far short even of that law, which was given them. It is surprising, with ch. Rom 10:3-5 before them, how De Wette and Tholuck can pronounce the reading without to be without sense. The Jews followed after, thinking to perform it entirely, their : which . the Apostle defines, ch. Rom 10:5, to be , but they did not attain to-not in this case , but -the law-they therefore never attained righteousness. It is surely far more easy to imagine how a transcriber should have inserted , than how he should have omitted it. It probably was a marginal gloss to explain the second , and thence found its way into the text (I may notice, that ch. Rom 10:3 is not a case in point, the here having an independent and exceptional meaning of its own, which introduces an element not belonging to there)). Wherefore? because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as (used subjectively, as if about to obtain their object by: see Winer, edn. 6, 65. 9, and compare 2Pe 1:3) by [the] works [of the law (the evidence for and against is about equally balanced. On the one side we have the Apostles usage, see ch. Rom 3:28 reff.,-and the possibility of a transcriber omitting , either as having twice occurred already, or for more complete antithesis,-and on the other we have the temptation to correct to to suit that very usage. On the whole I incline to omit , but do not regard the evidence as sufficiently clear to justify its exclusion from the text)], they stumbled at the stone of stumbling (the similitude of a race is still kept up. The insertion of has arisen from a period being placed at . It confuses the sense, making it appear as if the stumbling was the cause of, or at all events coincident with, their pursuing . …, whereas it was this mistaken method of pursuing which caused them to stumble against the stone of stumbling. Thus we have instances in the Greek chariot races, of competitors, by an error in judgment in driving, striking against the round which the chariots were to turn, see Soph. Elect. 730 f.
There is a close analogy between our text and the exhortation in Heb 12:1 f. There, after the triumphs of faith have been related, we are exhorted to run with patience the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith: where notice, that the sacred Writer seems to have had in his mind the same comparison of Him to the pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the runners would be exclusively directed).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 9:31. , the law of righteousness to the law of righteousness) He did not use the word law, in the preceding verse, concerning the Gentiles; but now uses it in speaking of the Jews; and there is a ploce or repetition of the words in a different sense; concerning legal and also concerning evangelical righteousness. While Israel is following the one law, he does not attain to the other. The apostle appropriately uses the expression, the law of righteousness, for, the righteousness of the law. The Jews rather looked to the law, than to righteousness: , doctrine, .- ) did not attain.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 9:31
Rom 9:31
but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.-Israel, who, confiding in their own merit and good works, betook themselves for righteousness to their own supposed complete obedience to the law of Moses, have not found or attained to such a law of righteousness.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
righteousness
Scofield “Rom 10:3”.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
followed: Rom 9:30-32, Rom 10:2-4, Gal 3:21, Phi 3:6
hath: Rom 3:20, Rom 4:14, Rom 4:15, Rom 11:7, Gal 3:10, Gal 3:11, Gal 5:3, Gal 5:4, Jam 2:10, Jam 2:11
Reciprocal: Psa 69:27 – let them Pro 14:6 – scorner Isa 55:2 – do ye Amo 8:12 – shall run Mal 3:2 – who may abide Luk 13:24 – for Luk 18:9 – which Joh 6:29 – This Act 13:39 – from which Rom 10:3 – to establish Rom 10:6 – righteousness Gal 5:2 – that Phi 3:9 – not Col 3:11 – there
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Rom 9:31. But Israel, following the law of righteousness. Lit., a law of righteousness, but referring to the Mosaic law. Here, however, it is described as a law which affords righteousness. Israel pursued this law in order that justification might ensue, but without any true sense of its contents, or real apprehension of its mission (comp. chap. Rom 10:4). Others explain the phrase as righteousness of the law, which is ungrammatical, while some, without good reason, explain law in the general sense of rule.
Did not come unto that law. The word come unto, arrive at is here substituted for attain (Rom 9:30), and the best authorities omit of righteousness, which would naturally be inserted by the transcribers, to make the sense more obvious. The omission makes impossible that (otherwise objectionable) explanation of the verse, which takes law here as the law of faith, and in the previous clause as the law of Moses. The better view is: they did not even arrive at the real inward character of that law, which they pursued as affording righteous ness. They arrived at the letter, but not at the meaning of the Holy Spirit, for the law, rightly understood, would have led them to Christ Rom 9:32.
Wherefore? Why did they fail to arrive at that law, which they yet pursued as affording righteousness.
Because they sought it not by faith. The words they sought it are properly supplied in the E. V. Had they started from faith in their striving, they would have obtained in Christianity the realization of their endeavor(Meyer). They would have arrived at the law, in its real sense, and it would have become to them a law of righteousness. Comp. chap. Rom 10:4. Here the Apostle distinctly asserts that the Jews were themselves responsible for their position, and the general principle which is involved here, is implied in every other passage of Scripture which bears upon the awful problem. The same principle, or fact, is asserted in those doctrinal statements which lay the greatest emphasis upon Gods sovereignty; see Lange, Romans, pp. 329, 330, and comp. Hodge, Shedd, and others in loco.
But as by works. The word as implies that they imagined they were doing the works of the law, while really they failed to do them, because they did not apprehend the purpose of the law, nor the spirit in which its requirements should be met.
They stumbled. For is properly omitted. Some would join this closely with what precedes: Because they sought it not by faith, but as by works, they stumbled, etc. But this disturbs the relation to wherefore? and is far less striking.
At the stone of stumbling; to which repeated reference is made in Scripture; see references on Rom 9:33. That Christ Himself is meant is evident from the New Testament application of the phrase. The figure is very appropriate to the previous notion of following (Rom 9:30-31). Offence at Christ is culpable; it is taken, not given (Heubner).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 31. The lot of the Gentiles presents a contrast fitted to bring out more clearly the tragical character of that of Israel. This people, which alone followed the law of righteousness, is precisely the one which has not succeeded in reaching it. Some (Chrys., Calv., Beng., etc.) have stumbled at this expression, the law of righteousness, and have translated it as if it were the righteousness of the law. They have not understood the apostle’s expression. What Israel sought was not so much righteousness itself in its moral essence, as the law in all the detail of its external and manifold observances. The expression is therefore chosen deliberately, to remind the reader, as Holsten well says, of the weakness of the religious conscience of Israel, which was ever seeking an external standard. If the Jews in general had been seriously preoccupied, like young Saul, with true moral righteousness, the law thus applied would have become to them what it was in its destination, the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ (Gal 3:23-24). But seeking only the letter, they neglected the spirit. Levitical prescriptions, minutiae about Sabbaths and meats, fastings, tithes, washings of hands, of bodies, of furniture, etc., such were their sole pursuits. The object of their labor was thus really the law, from which righteousness should have proceeded, and not righteousness itself, as the true contents of the law. Therein there was a profound moral aberration which led them to the refusal of true righteousness when it was presented to them in the person of the Messiah.
By designating true righteousness in the same sentence by the same expression, the law of righteousness, the apostle wishes by the identity of terms to exhibit the contrast in the things: pursuing the shadow, they missed the reality.
The term law is taken the second time in that more general sense in which we have found it so often used in our Epistle (Rom 3:27, Rom 7:21; Rom 7:25, Rom 8:2): a certain mode of being, fitted to determine the will. The reference is to the true mode of justification.
The strongly supported reading which rejects the word , of righteousness, would signify: they have not attained to the law. But what would that mean? They have not attained to the fulfilment of the law? The expression: attain to the law, would be very strange taken in this sense. Or would it apply, as some have thought, to the law of the gospel? But where is the gospel thus called nakedly the law? This reading is therefore inadmissible, as Meyer himself acknowledges, notwithstanding his habitual predilection for the Alexandrine text, and in opposition to the opinion of Tischendorf.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. [Israel was not seeking justification. Their search was rather for a law that would produce in them a righteousness meriting justification. This craving arose from a proud, self-sufficient spirit, and God answered it by giving the law of Moses, for the express purpose of revealing their universal sinful weakness and insufficiency (Act 15:10; Gal 2:16), and need of a Saviour (Rom 7:24-25); wherefore Paul describes the law as “our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24). Realizing the impossible task of attaining justifying righteousness by the law of Moses, the Jew began adulterating that law by traditions; but even the law thus modified gave small delusive hope, and the cry was still, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luk 10:25; Luk 18:18). But to this solemn and awful question there were but two answers: (1) Keep the law of Moses (Mat 19:17; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12), and when the Jew answered, “I can not,” then (2) the “Follow me” of Christ (Mat 19:21). Since no man could keep the law of Moses, all men were and are shut in by God to the one law of salvation through faith in Christ. No wonder, then, that the Jew, seeking relief by Moses, or by a third law, failed to find any law that satisfied his soul or operated with God. Godet calls this success of the uninterested Gentile, and failure of the Jew who made the search of righteousness his daily business, “the most poignant irony in the whole of history”; yet the cases of the two parties are not wholly antithetical, as Paul clearly shows, by the use of the word “righteousness” instead of “justification.” If both parties had sought justification, the Jew would have no doubt been the first to find it. But the object of the Jewish search was a law which would give life, yet preserve his pride and self-conceit, and his search was therefore for an impossibility. The Master himself discloses the difference in heart between the Jew and the Gentile in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luk 18:9-14). The humble spirit of the Gentile accepted righteousness as the gift of the humble Christ, but the proud Jew could not so demean himself as to place himself under obligations so lofty to One so lowly. Let us note that the words “follow after” and “attain” are agonistic; that is to say, they are technical words describing the running after the prize, and the grasping of it, as used in the Olympic games. Their presence here at the end of the argument shows that the “willeth” and “runneth” of Rom 9:16 also have the agonistic force which we gave to them in interpreting that verse. Paul’s conclusion explains the willing and running. It is folly to will and run contrary to the law and will of Him who, as supreme Sovereign, has laid down the immutable rules of the great race or game of life. The prize is the free gift of the King: there is no merit in running that can win it, when the running is random and contrary to rule, as the Jews suppose. There is no merit in running that can give a legal right to it, even when the running is according to rule, but there is in him who runs a moral fitness and aptness for the prize which makes it his, according to the will of him who called him to so run for it.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
31. But Israel, following the law, did not attain unto the law of righteousness. The Jews, like the fallen churches of all ages, retrogressed into the legalistic heresies of seeking salvation by good works, thus deluded by the devil, and going headlong into apostasy and damnation, so blind that they actually killed their own Savior.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 31
The law of righteousness; the righteousness of the law, that is, justification by means of it.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:31 {28} But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
(28) The pride of men is the reason that they reject their calling, so that the cause of their damnation need not to be sought for in any other place but themselves.