Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Romans 10

The chapter division does not mark a break in the thought, for such key words as “righteousness,” “law,” and “faith” continue to appear, especially in the beginning of the chapter. Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure, but not censoriously. He feels deeply for his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected both in his going to the Jews first (Acts 13:46; 18:5– 6; cf. Romans 1:16) and in his praying to God on their behalf.

Paradoxically, it is Israel’s zeal for God that constitutes their greatest barrier (v.2). The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal on behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14). That zeal so preoccupied him that he considered Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted in ignorance (1 Timothy 1:13). So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge,” as ignoring “the righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In trying to establish their own righteous standing before God, the Jews have refused submission to God’s righteousness. They have attempted to achieve a standing in righteousness by imagining success in meeting the demands of the law of Moses. Paul knew whereof he spoke, for he had been where they were. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on obeying the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith .

Israel’s covenant relation to God and reliance on observing the law do not add up to salvation (Acts 4:12). For this reason Paul points to Christ and his righteousness as Israel’s great need (v.4). The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to God’s will lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the one who brought salvation in full accord with his righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul was required for his people.

Considerable debate has centered on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word translated “end” (telos; GK 5465). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and we use the expression “to the end that”— meaning either “conclusion” or “purpose”—the same dual possibility lies in the Greek word telos. The second meaning has some plausibility here, because the statement “Christ is the end of the law” fits in with Paul’s teaching about the law as that which brings people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Favorable to the first meaning (“Christ terminated the law”) is the fact that the law had a certain course to run (Galatians 3:19, 23; cf. Matthew 5:17) in the economy of God. Both concepts seem to fit rather well in our passage. The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea, however, is the contrast in 9:30–33 between the law and God’s righteousness. Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the absolute wrongness of that position, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting a divine gift.

Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as the end of the law for righteousness: he is that “for everyone who believes.” This implies that the law still applies to those who do not believe and that they still feel its power.

The chapter division does not mark a break in the thought, for such key words as “righteousness,” “law,” and “faith” continue to appear, especially in the beginning of the chapter. Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure, but not censoriously. He feels deeply for his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected both in his going to the Jews first (Acts 13:46; 18:5– 6; cf. Romans 1:16) and in his praying to God on their behalf.

Paradoxically, it is Israel’s zeal for God that constitutes their greatest barrier (v.2). The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal on behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14). That zeal so preoccupied him that he considered Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted in ignorance (1 Timothy 1:13). So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge,” as ignoring “the righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In trying to establish their own righteous standing before God, the Jews have refused submission to God’s righteousness. They have attempted to achieve a standing in righteousness by imagining success in meeting the demands of the law of Moses. Paul knew whereof he spoke, for he had been where they were. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on obeying the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith .

Israel’s covenant relation to God and reliance on observing the law do not add up to salvation (Acts 4:12). For this reason Paul points to Christ and his righteousness as Israel’s great need (v.4). The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to God’s will lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the one who brought salvation in full accord with his righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul was required for his people.

Considerable debate has centered on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word translated “end” (telos; GK 5465). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and we use the expression “to the end that”— meaning either “conclusion” or “purpose”—the same dual possibility lies in the Greek word telos. The second meaning has some plausibility here, because the statement “Christ is the end of the law” fits in with Paul’s teaching about the law as that which brings people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Favorable to the first meaning (“Christ terminated the law”) is the fact that the law had a certain course to run (Galatians 3:19, 23; cf. Matthew 5:17) in the economy of God. Both concepts seem to fit rather well in our passage. The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea, however, is the contrast in 9:30–33 between the law and God’s righteousness. Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the absolute wrongness of that position, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting a divine gift.

Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as the end of the law for righteousness: he is that “for everyone who believes.” This implies that the law still applies to those who do not believe and that they still feel its power.

The chapter division does not mark a break in the thought, for such key words as “righteousness,” “law,” and “faith” continue to appear, especially in the beginning of the chapter. Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure, but not censoriously. He feels deeply for his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected both in his going to the Jews first (Acts 13:46; 18:5– 6; cf. Romans 1:16) and in his praying to God on their behalf.

Paradoxically, it is Israel’s zeal for God that constitutes their greatest barrier (v.2). The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal on behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14). That zeal so preoccupied him that he considered Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted in ignorance (1 Timothy 1:13). So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge,” as ignoring “the righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In trying to establish their own righteous standing before God, the Jews have refused submission to God’s righteousness. They have attempted to achieve a standing in righteousness by imagining success in meeting the demands of the law of Moses. Paul knew whereof he spoke, for he had been where they were. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on obeying the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith .

Israel’s covenant relation to God and reliance on observing the law do not add up to salvation (Acts 4:12). For this reason Paul points to Christ and his righteousness as Israel’s great need (v.4). The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to God’s will lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the one who brought salvation in full accord with his righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul was required for his people.

Considerable debate has centered on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word translated “end” (telos; GK 5465). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and we use the expression “to the end that”— meaning either “conclusion” or “purpose”—the same dual possibility lies in the Greek word telos. The second meaning has some plausibility here, because the statement “Christ is the end of the law” fits in with Paul’s teaching about the law as that which brings people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Favorable to the first meaning (“Christ terminated the law”) is the fact that the law had a certain course to run (Galatians 3:19, 23; cf. Matthew 5:17) in the economy of God. Both concepts seem to fit rather well in our passage. The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea, however, is the contrast in 9:30–33 between the law and God’s righteousness. Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the absolute wrongness of that position, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting a divine gift.

Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as the end of the law for righteousness: he is that “for everyone who believes.” This implies that the law still applies to those who do not believe and that they still feel its power.

The chapter division does not mark a break in the thought, for such key words as “righteousness,” “law,” and “faith” continue to appear, especially in the beginning of the chapter. Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure, but not censoriously. He feels deeply for his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected both in his going to the Jews first (Acts 13:46; 18:5– 6; cf. Romans 1:16) and in his praying to God on their behalf.

Paradoxically, it is Israel’s zeal for God that constitutes their greatest barrier (v.2). The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal on behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14). That zeal so preoccupied him that he considered Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted in ignorance (1 Timothy 1:13). So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge,” as ignoring “the righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In trying to establish their own righteous standing before God, the Jews have refused submission to God’s righteousness. They have attempted to achieve a standing in righteousness by imagining success in meeting the demands of the law of Moses. Paul knew whereof he spoke, for he had been where they were. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on obeying the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith .

Israel’s covenant relation to God and reliance on observing the law do not add up to salvation (Acts 4:12). For this reason Paul points to Christ and his righteousness as Israel’s great need (v.4). The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to God’s will lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the one who brought salvation in full accord with his righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul was required for his people.

Considerable debate has centered on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word translated “end” (telos; GK 5465). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and we use the expression “to the end that”— meaning either “conclusion” or “purpose”—the same dual possibility lies in the Greek word telos. The second meaning has some plausibility here, because the statement “Christ is the end of the law” fits in with Paul’s teaching about the law as that which brings people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Favorable to the first meaning (“Christ terminated the law”) is the fact that the law had a certain course to run (Galatians 3:19, 23; cf. Matthew 5:17) in the economy of God. Both concepts seem to fit rather well in our passage. The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea, however, is the contrast in 9:30–33 between the law and God’s righteousness. Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the absolute wrongness of that position, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting a divine gift.

Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as the end of the law for righteousness: he is that “for everyone who believes.” This implies that the law still applies to those who do not believe and that they still feel its power.

The thread of the discourse in the next section (vv.5–13) continues the emphasis on “everyone who believes.” This is developed in two ways: first, by showing that the principle of faith is amply set forth in the OT—in fact, in the pages of Moses—and then by expressly indicating, in line with 1:16, that “everyone” includes Gentiles as well as Jews.

Paul deals first with the negative side of the attainment of righteousness by citing a passage (Leviticus 18:5) that calls for obedience and performance of the will of God as contained in his statutes and ordinances. The one who complies will live. Paul had already dealt with Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12. In both letters the emphasis in this verse falls on doing if one expects to gain life (cf. 2:13). The dark side of the picture is that a curse rests on anyone who fails to meet the law’s demands. The upshot of the matter is that the course being pursued by Israel— the attempt to gain righteousness for themselves by keeping the law (v.3)— cannot bring life because of human weakness and imperfection. It can only lead to self-deception and pride.

Next Paul addresses himself to the positive approach, for which purpose he makes use of another passage from Moses , this one designed to describe “the righteousness that is by faith.” At first sight, this passage seems inappropriate, since neither “righteousness” nor “faith” can be found here, and there is heavy emphasis on doing, as in Lev 18:5. But the context helps us, for the passage presupposes a heart attitude of loving obedience rather than a legalistic attempt to attain righteousness. The whole burden of the passage is to discourage the idea that doing God’s will means to aspire after something that is too difficult and out of reach. Actually, if life is attuned to God, his will is as near as the mouth and heart (the mouth as the organ that repeats the word of God and turns it back to him in prayer and praise; the heart as the source of desire to please him).

Paul then applies the reference to heaven (v.6) in order to emphasize certain aspects of the Gospel. There is no need to try to ascend to heaven to gain spiritual knowledge or acceptance, for Christ has come from heaven to proclaim and effect salvation for the world. In v.7 Paul substitutes “the deep” (“the abyss”) for “the sea” in Dt 30, changing the figure from one of distance to one of depth—thus making the contrast with heaven sharper. This affords opportunity to think of Christ as going down into death as a prelude to resurrection. Apparently lost to us by death, he has been returned to us by resurrection. This means that our grasp of the righteousness of God, with his Son as the object of our faith, is not difficult. Everything is of him. Our part is to believe. The saving message lies at hand, waiting to be received.