Romans 10:6

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 Christ’s 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 one’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:6-8 Here Paul quotes three phrases from Deut 30:12-14 dealing with the law, and he applies them to the Good News about Christ. We do not need to go up to heaven to find Christ (and thus to be made right with God), because God has already brought him down to earth as a man. Nor do we need to go down to the place of the dead to find Christ, because God has already raised him from the dead. To find Christ, we must simply believe in the message that is close at hand.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 10:6. Ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη, the righteousness which is of faith) A very sweet Metonymy, i.e. a man seeking righteousness by faith.—λέγει, speaks) with himself.—μὴ εἴπῃς, 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.]—καρδίᾳ, in the heart) The mouth [Rom 10:9] is also attributed to faith; for faith speaks; but unbelief generally mutters.—τίς, κ.τ.λ.) Deu 30:11-14, LXX., ὅτι ἐντολὴ αὕτη, ἣν ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον οὐχʼ ὑπέρογκός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ μακρὰν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐστιν. οὐκ ἐν τῷ σὐρανῷ ἐστι, λέγων· τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ λήψεται ἡμῖν αὐτὴν; καὶ ἀκούσαντες αὐτὴν ποιήσομεν. οὐδε πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ἐστὶ, λέγων· τίς διαπεράσεται ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ λήψεται ἡμῖν αὐτὴν. καὶ ἀκόυσαντες αὐτὴν ποιήσομεν. ἐγγύς σου ἐστὶ τὸ ῥῆμα σφόδρα: ἐν στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσί σου, ποῖειν αὐτὸ. “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.—τίς ἀναβήσεται; 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.—τοῦτʼ ἔστι, 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Köllner, 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, Rückert, 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 γάρ a demonstration of the τέλος νόμου Χριστός, 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 Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει. Therefore it is quite wrong (see esp. Rückert, Philippi) to look upon ἡ δὲ ἐκ πιστ. δικ. as the opposite to Μωϋσῆς, and to suppose that the parallel would be more sharply drawn if Paul had said: But Christ speaks thus, etc. No, δέ places the righteousness of faith in opposition to the previously mentioned δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου; and for these two modes of righteousness the testimony of the lawgiver himself is introduced by Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει. 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 Μωϋς. γ. γρ. 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 Pauls 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 ἀναβ. εἰς τ. οὐρανόν and ΚΑΤΑΒ. ΕἸς Τ. ἌΒΥΣΣΟΝ. 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: διδάσκει πάλιν νόμου καὶ χάριτος τὴν διαφορὰν, καὶ ἀμφοτέρων εἰσάγει Μωϋσέα τὸν νομοθέτην διδάσκαλον. 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 (לַעֲשֹתו̇). Paul finds here a type, and therewith an indirect prophecy, of the demand which the righteousness of faith presents, entirely different from that ΠΟΙΕῖΝ 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 Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν and ἀναγαγεῖν (in opposition to Tholucks 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 ablesince the becoming righteous rests upon the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christto 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; secondlyand this is decisivethe fact that Rom_10:5-8 is to be a proof founded on Moses of the statement, τέλος νόμου Χριστός; but it is evident, that not from the facility of the Christian δικαιοσύνη, 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 δικαιοσύνη, the νόμος 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 τοῦτʼ ἔστι κ.τ.λ., and why he should not have retained in Rom_10:7 the words of the LXX.: τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης.

μὴ εἴπης ἐν τ. καρδ. σου] LXX.: λέγων, Heb. לֵאמֹר, 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 ἐν τ. καρδ. σου, 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, καταλλ., p. 479.)

τίς ἀναβ. εἰς τ. οὐρ.] 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, butcorrelative of that τῷ πιστεύοντι in Rom_10:4, and opposed to the ὁ ποιήσας, Rom_10:5the 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 downthis is the object, which is implied in ἈΝΑΒΉΣΕΤΑΙ ΕἸς Τ. ΟὐΡ., and by its addition Paul thus contributes a more precise explanation of the question (τοῦτʼ ἔστι: 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), ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ (Php_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 ἄβυσσος would of necessity be an object of faith, which yet it is not at all. Nor could we see why Paul should have said καταγαγεῖν 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 Glöckler, 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 τοῦτʼ ἔστι signifies: this would mean to deny the ascension of Christ. Consistently, Glöckler 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 Glöckler, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 102 f., has essentially misunderstood both verses, and Rückert the question of Rom_10:7.

ἢ τίς καταβ. εἰς τ. ἄβ.;] The colon after ἤ 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 ἐκ νεκρῶν (i.e. out of Scheol, ἄβυσσος). The LXX., following the original, has: τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης; 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 πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, 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, εἰς τ. ἄβυσσον (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.

ἀλλὰ τί λέγει;] But what says it (the righteousness of faith)? An unexact contrast to μὴ εἴπῃς, Rom_10:6, as though previously the negation had stood with λέγει, Rom_10:6 (οὐχ οὕτω λέγει· εἰπὲ κ.τ.λ.). The interrogative form serves ad attentionem excitandam, Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 186. 347. Comp. Gal_4:30.

ἐν τῷ στόμ. ς. κ. ἐν τ. κ. ς.] Epexegesis of ἐγγύς σού ἐστιν.

τοῦτʼ ἔστι κ.τ.λ.] This ῥῆμα, so designated by the righteousness of faith, signifies the word of faith. The genitive τ. πίστ. 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 ῥῆμα 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 κήρυγμα, whose entire summary contents are faith in Jesus Christ; comp. Rom_10:4; Rom_10:9 ff., Rom_1:5; Rom_1:17.

κηρύσσομεν] we preachers of the gospel.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 10:6 f. ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτως λέγει . 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 ( ἡ ἐντολὴ αὔτη ἢν ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον ) 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. μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου : = do not think, especially thoughts you would be ashamed to utter. τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν ; … ἢ τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ; 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. ἄβυσσος (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 εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης . These two indefinite proverbial expressions for the impossible are interpreted by Paul. With τοῦτʼ ἔστιν (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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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., Rück., 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 heart—an 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 τίς, who? has this meaning: it is not every man individually that is asked to fulfil these two conditions of salvation—obedience 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 τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι, 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 τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι 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 μὴ εἴπῃς, 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 Glöckler 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 ἤ, 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: τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι, 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 ἀναγαγεῖν, 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).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_10:6, Rom_10:7

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not, etc. Moses says one thing; the righteousness of faith says another thing. The same kind of personification occurs in Gal_3:23, Gal_3:25. The phrase righteousness of faith, or as it is here, which is of faith, admits of different interpretations, if we limit ourselves to the mere force of the words. Righteousness of faith, may mean that righteousness which consists in faith; or, which flows from faith, (i.e., that inward excellence which faith produces); or, the righteousness which is received by faith. This last is the only interpretation consistent with the context, or with the analogy of Scripture. The righteousness which consists in faith, or which flows from faith, is our own righteousness. It is as true and properly our own as any righteousness of works on which Pharisees relied. Besides, it is the whole doctrine of the apostle and of the gospel, that it is Christs righteousness, his obedience, blood, or death, which is the ground of our acceptance with God, and which it receives and rests upon.

It is clearly implied in that verse that the attainment of justification, by a method which prescribed perfect obedience, is for sinful men impossible. It is the object of this and the succeeding verses, to declare that the gospel requires no such impossibilities; it neither requires us to scale the heavens, nor to fathom the great abyss; it demands only cordial faith and open profession. In expressing these ideas the apostle skillfully avails himself of the language of Moses, Deu_30:10-14. It is clear that the expressions used by the ancient lawgiver were a familiar mode of saying that a thing could not be done. The passage referred to is the following, For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from 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, that we may hear it, and 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, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. The obvious import of this passage is, that the knowledge of the will of God had been made perfectly accessible, no one was required to do what was impossible; neither to ascend to heaven, nor to pass the boundless sea, in order to attain it; it was neither hidden, nor afar off, but obvious and at hand. Without directly citing this passage, Paul uses nearly the same language to express the same idea. The expressions here used seem to have become proverbial among the Jews. To be high, or afar off, was to be unattainable; Psa_139:6; Pro_24:7. To ascend to heaven, or to go down to hell, was to do what was impossible, Amo_9:2; Psa_139:8, Psa_139:9. As the sea was to the ancients impassable, it is easy to understand how the question, Who can pass over the sea? was tantamount to Who can ascend up into heaven? Among the later Jews the same mode of expressions not unfrequently occur. Bava Mezia, f. 94, 1. Si quis dixerit mulieri, si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata, haec conditio frustranea est. Wetstein.

Instead of using the expression, Who shall go over the sea for us? Paul uses the equivalent phrase, Who shall descend into the deep? as more pertinent to his object. The word (ἄβυσσον) rendered deep, is the same which elsewhere is rendered abyss, and properly means, without bottom, bottomless, and therefore, is often applied to the sea as fathomless, Gen_1:2; Gen_7:11, (in the Septuagint), and also to the great cavern beneath the earth, which, in the figurative language of the Scriptures, is spoken of as the abode of the dead, and which is often opposed to heaven. Job_28:14, The abyss says it is not in me; compare the enumeration of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth, in Phi_2:10, and elsewhere; see also Gen_49:25, God shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the abyss which lieth under. In the New Testament, with the exception of this passage, it is always used for the abode of fallen spirits and lost souls, Luk_8:31; Rev_17:8; Rev_20:1, and frequently in that book, where it is appropriately rendered the bottomless pit. The expression is, therefore, equivalent to that which is commonly rendered hell in our version. Psa_139:8, If I make my bed in hell. Amo_9:2, Though they dig into hell, and was no doubt chosen by the apostle, as more suitable to the reference to the resurrection of Christ, with which he meant to connect it, than the expression used by Moses in the same general sense, Who shall pass over the sea?

Paul connects each of the questions, virtually borrowed from the Old Testament, with a comment designed to apply them more directly to the point which he had in view. Say not, who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, etc. The precise intent of these comments, however, may be differently understood.

1. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to namely, or to wit, and the apostles comment be connected, as an explanatory substitute, with the questions, Say not who shall ascend into heaven? to wit, to bring Christ down; or who shall descend into the deep? to bring him up again from the dead. The sense would then be, The plan of salvation by faith does not require us to do what cannot be done, and which is now unnecessary; it does not require us to provide a Savior, to bring him from heaven, or to raise him from the dead; a Savior has been provided, and we are now only required to believe, etc.

2. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to the fuller expression, that is to say, To ask who shall ascend into heaven? is as much as to ask, Who shall bring Christ down from above? And to ask, Who shall descend into the deep? is as much as to ask, who shall bring Christ again from the dead?

The comments of the apostle may, therefore, be regarded as a reproof of the want of faith implied in such questions, and the passage may be thus understood, Do not reject the gospel. Say not in thy heart that no one can ascend to heaven, as the gospel says Christ has done: and no man can descend into the abyss and thence return, as is said of Christ. The incarnation of the Son of God, and his ascension to heaven, are not impossibilities, which would justify unbelief. The doctrines of the gospel are plain and simple.

Instead of regarding the apostle as intending to state generally the nature of the method of justification by faith, many suppose that it is his object to encourage and support a desponding and anxious inquirer. Do not despairingly inquire who shall point out the way of life? No one, either from heaven or from the deep, will come to teach me the way. Speak not thus, for Christ has come from heaven, and arisen from the dead for your salvation and no other Savior is required.‹58› But this view does not seem to harmonize with the spirit of the context.

It has been questioned whether Paul meant, in this passage, merely to allude to the language of Moses in Deu_30:10-14, or whether he is to be understood as quoting it in such a manner as to imply that the ancient prophet was describing the method of justification by faith. This latter view is taken by Calvin, De Brais, and many others. They suppose that in the passage quoted from Lev_18:5, Moses describes the legal method of justification, but that here he has reference to salvation by faith. This is, no doubt, possible. For in Deu_30:10, etc., the context shows that the passage may be understood of the whole system of instruction given by Moses; a system which included in it, under its various types and prophecies, an exhibition of the true method of salvation. Moses, therefore, might say with regard to his own law, that it set before the people the way of eternal life, that they had now no need to inquire who should procure this knowledge for them from a distance, for it was near them, even in their hearts and in their mouths. But, on the other hand, it is very clear that this interpretation is by no means necessary. Paul does not say, Moses describes the righteousness which is of faith in this wise, as immediately above he had said of the righteousness which is of the law. There is nothing in the language of the apostle to require us to understand him as quoting Moses in proof of his own doctrine. It is, indeed, more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, to consider him as merely expressing his own ideas in scriptural language, as in Rom_10:19 of this chapter, and frequently elsewhere. Moses teaches us that the legal method of justification requires perfect obedience; but the righteousness which is by faith, requires no such impossibility, it demands only cordial faith and open profession. The modern interpreters who understand the apostle as quoting the language of Moses to prove the true nature of the gospel, differ among themselves. Meyer and most other advocates of this view of the context, assume that Paul departs entirely from the historical meaning of the original text, and gives it a sense foreign to the intention of the sacred writer. Others, as Olshausen, suppose him to give its true spiritual sense. The passage in Deuteronomy is, in this view, strictly Messianic. It describes, in contrast with the inexorable demand of obedience made by the law, the spiritual power of the future dispensation. All this, however, requires unnecessary violence done both to the passage in Deuteronomy and to the language of the apostle. In this very chapter, Rom_10:18, we have another clear example of Pauls mode of expressing his own ideas in the language of the Scriptures. This is done without hesitation by every preacher of the gospel. The apostle, therefore, is not to be understood as saying, Moses describes the righteousness of the law in one way, and the righteousness of faith in another way; but he contrasts what Moses says of the law with what the gospel says.

According to the interpretation given above, it is assumed the design of this passage is to present the simplicity and suitableness of the gospel method of salvation, which requires only faith and confession, in opposition to the strict demands of the law, which it is as impossible for us to satisfy as it is to scale the heavens. According to the other view, mentioned above, the design of the apostle was to rebuke the unbelief of the Jews. They were not to regard the resurrection and ascension of Christ as impossible. But the whole context shows that the purpose of the apostle is to contrast the legal and the gospel method of salvation to show that the one is impracticable, the other easy. By works of the law no flesh living can he justified; whereas, whosoever simply calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Think not with thyself, as men that are staggering use to do.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

But the--justifying

righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise--"speaketh thus"--its language or import is to this effect (quoting in substance Deu 30:13-14).

Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, &c.--that is, "Ye have not to sigh over the impossibility of attaining to justification; as if one should say, oh! if I could but get someone to mount up to heaven and fetch me down Christ, there might be some hope, but since that cannot be, mine is a desperate case."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. But the righteousness 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 Deuteronomy 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.

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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 à 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Deu 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", Psa 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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. Paul’s 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 God’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 6-10. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart (in the original, It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say), Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down). The parenthesis is St. Paul"s own; the original has, after "heaven," and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead). Again the parenthesis is St. Paul"s; and he has substituted "into the deep" (eiv th) for beyond the sea. " The original is, Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart (the original adds, that thou mayest do it; and the LXX, after "heart," has, and in thy hands): that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that (or, because) if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The apostle"s purpose in varying from the original is obvious from his interposed comments, and from the application that follows. It seems to be as though he had said, "See how, with a slight alteration, the passage in Deuteronomy becomes an exact description of our Christian doctrine." The most marked alteration is the substitution of "into the deep" for "beyond the sea." The "sea" in the original, to which the term "abyss" is applicable, (cf. Job_28:14 Psa_107:26) may have suggested the word; but St. Paul here evidently means by it the regions of the dead, imagined as subterranean, equivalent to the Hebrew Sheol, and the Greek Adhv . For use of the word in this sense, cf. Psa_71:20 (which may have been present to his mind), Ek twn abusswn thv ghv palin anhgagev me cf. also Luk_8:31 and Rev_9:1, Rev_9:2, 11 11:7 17:8 20:1, 3; in which passages hh abussov seems to denote the penal abode, corresponding to the Greek idea of Tartarus; but the word itself does not contain this idea, which is by no means intimated here. It may be taken to denote Hades, into which Christ "descended." Some commentators suppose the previous expression, "ascend into heaven to bring Christ down," to mean bringing him back to earth from heaven, whither he has ascended now. But the mere fact of its coming first, as well as the general sense of the passage, shows it to refer rather to the Incarnation, and what follows to the Resurrection. These were the two grand stages in the great work of redemption; both were required that "the righteousness which is of faith" might effectually be brought "nigh unto us." The impossible task of effecting either was not required of man; God has done both for us, and we have but to "believe in our hearts," that "the word" of his grace may be nigh us, in our mouth and in our heart, that we may do it. Thus all that was intimated or foreshadowed by that old passage in Deuteronomy is in its fullest sense to us fulfilled. (It may be observed, in passing, that the application to the Incarnation of katagagein , etc., is, if correct, one of the instances of St. Paul"s recognition of the Divine pre-existence of our Lord.) In ver. 9 the applicability of the words, "in thy mouth, and in thine heart," to the gospel dispensation is shown; the two expressions, properly understood, denoting all that is required of us. Confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth must be taken to express generally, not only fearless avowal of the Christian faith, but also consistent life, according to the full meaning of our Lord"s words in Mat_10:32 Mar_8:38 Luk_10:26 Luk_12:8, etc. Confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth, too, would have a peculiar significance then, when Christians were often so sorely tempted to deny him under persecution. (cf. 1Co_12:3) We may observe also how "the mouth" is elsewhere regarded as the index of the heart; as the main bodily organ whereby character is evinced and expressed. (cf. Mat_12:34, 37 15:11, etc.) Further, the belief spoken of is belief in the heart a living operative faith, not intellectual conviction only. Nor is belief that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead to be taken as meaning belief of this one article of the Creed alone; it carries with it belief in the gospel generally, the doctrine of the Resurrection being here, as elsewhere, regarded as the central doctrine on which all the rest depends. (cf. 1Co_15:17 1Pe_1:21) "Haec summa Evangelii est. Nam, cum credimus Christum excitatum esse e mortuis, credimus sum pro peccatis satisfecisse, et in coelis regnare, ut nos ad imaginem suam perficiat" (Bucer). In ver. 10, where the offices of the heart and of the mouth are denoted in general terms, the distinction between "unto righteousness" with respect to the one, and "unto salvation" with respect to the other, is significant. By faith alone we are justified; but by confession in actual life, which is the fruit of faith, our salvation is secured.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But the righteousness which is by faith - The method of becoming righteous by believing. Speaketh a very different language, 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: or, Who shall descend into the grave, as if it were to bring him again from the dead - Do not imagine that these things are to be done now, in order to procure thy pardon and salvation. Deut. xxx, 14.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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;)

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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:)

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. But the righteousness which is of faith. That is, “God's righteousness” in contrast with that of the law. The passage that follows is quoted freely from Deut. 30:11–14. Paul modifies it somewhat in order to bring out more strongly its spiritual application. It was applied at first to certain commands addressed by Moses to Israel, but its spirit applies to the gospel. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven? The Jews expected a Savior, reigning upon the earth, a visible king of an earthly kingdom, and hence said, “Bring down Christ from heaven, where you say he is, and we will believe upon him.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

But the righteousness that comes from faith says this

Here "righteousness" is described as a person who can speak. AT: "But Moses writes this about how faith makes a person right before God" (See: Personification)

Do not say in your heart

Moses was addressing the people as if he were speaking to only one person. Here "heart" is a metonym for a person's mind or inner being. AT: "Do not say to yourself" (See: Forms of You and Metonymy)

Who will ascend into heaven?

Moses uses a question to teach his audience. His previous instruction of, "Do not say" requires a negative answer to this question. You can translate this question as a statement. AT: "No one is able to go up to heaven" (See: Rhetorical Question)

that is, to bring Christ down

"in order that they might have Christ come down to earth"

Who will descend into the abyss

Moses uses a question to teach his audience. His previous instruction of, "Do not say" requires a negative answer to this question. You can translate this as a statement. AT: "No person can go down and enter the place where the spirits of dead persons are" (See: Rhetorical Question)

from the dead

From among all those who have died. This expression describes all dead people together in the underworld. To be brought up from among them is to become alive again.

dead

This word speaks of physical death.

translationWords

righteous

faith

heart

heaven

Christ

abyss

die

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

6. ἡ δὲ ἐκ π. δ. A personification, a dramatisation of the appeal of the Gospel to man, to make plain the nature of the demand made by it, in contrast to the demand made by the Law. The demand of the Gospel is not for impossible effort, but for trust and confession. Note that S. Paul finds faith-righteousness already included in O. T. teaching; cf. Rom 4:13 f.; Giff. on Rom 10:10.

μὴ εἴπῃς κ.τ.λ. The allusions are to Deu 30:11 f. The questions, which are set aside, embody the hesitations of the man who supposes that the facts, on which this righteousness is based, are dependent upon human activity, whereas they are the accomplished acts of GOD in Christ; and what is demanded is trust in Him who has done these acts, and confession of His Lordship.

τοῦτ’ ἔστιν. Simply explanatory = that is to say; so in Rom 10:7-8.

Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν … ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν. The reference is to the Incarnation and Resurrection. These are the fundamental acts of GOD by which His righteousness is revealed, and made possible for man. The fact that they are GOD’S acts determines the human condition of righteousness, namely, faith in GOD through the incarnate and risen Son, and consequent confession of Him; cf. Php 2:1-11.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 à 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, Rückert, 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 λέγων, לֵאמֹר. The Apostle cites freely, giving the explanation of λέγων, viz. thinking), who shall go up to heaven (LXX, ἀναβ. ἡμῖν(ἡμῶν, Α) εἰς τ. οὐρ., 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, τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης; The Apostle substitutes τίς κατ. εἰς τ. ἄβ. as the direct contrast to τίς ἀν. εἰς τ. οὐρ., 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 ver. 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., Œ, Erasm., Estius, Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Rückert (who refers the doubt or the unbelief to the full accomplishment of redemption by the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ), Reiche, and Köllner (who refer καταγ. 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.”

[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 ver. 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 ζῆλος θεοῦ 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6-8. The language of St. Paul in these verses is based upon the LXX of Deu 30:11-14. Moses is enumerating the blessings of Israel if they keep his law: ‘if thou shalt obey the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul’; he then goes on (the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX): ‘11[For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, nor is it far from thee. 12Not in heaven above] saying, Who shall go up for us into heaven [and receive it for us, and having heard of it we shall do it? 13Nor is it beyond the sea], saying, Who will go over to the further side of the sea for us, [and receive it for us, and make it heard by us, and we shall do it?] 14But the word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, [and in thy hands, that thou mayest do it].’ The Apostle selects certain words out of this passage and uses them to describe the characteristics of the new righteousness by faith as he conceives it.

It is important to notice the very numerous variations between the quotation and the LXX. In the first place only a few phrases are selected: the portions not quoted are enclosed in brackets in the translation given above. Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very considerable changes: (1) for the λέγων of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical translation of the Hebrew, and is without construction, is substituted μὴ εἰπῇς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου from Deu 8:17, Deu 9:4: (2) for τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης is substituted τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον in order to make the passage better suit the purpose for which it is quoted: (3) in ver. 8 the words σφόδρα … ἐν ταῖς χερσί σου are omitted (this agrees with the Hebrew), as also ποιεῖν αὐτό.

6. ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτω λέγει. It is noticeable that St. Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture (as ver. 11), nor on the authority of Moses (as ver. 5), but merely as a declaration of righteousness in its own nature. On the personification compare that of Wisdom in Pro 1:20; Luk 11:49; of παράκλησις Heb 12:5.

τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; In the original passage these words mean: The law which I command you is not far off, it is not in heaven, so that you will have to ask, Who will go up to bring it down for us? it is very near and not hard to attain. St. Paul uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with a completely different application. ‘The Gospel as opposed to the Law is not difficult or hard to attain to.’

τοῦτʼ ἔστι, Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν: ‘that is to say, to bring Christ down.’ Just as Moses had said that there was no need for anyone to go up into heaven to bring down the law, so it is true—far more true indeed—to say that there is no need to go into heaven to bring down the object of faith and source of righteousness—Christ. Christ has become man and dwelt among us. Faith is not a difficult matter since Christ has come.

The interpretations suggested of this and the following verses have been very numerous. τοῦτʼ ἔστιν occurs three times in this passage, and we must give it the same force in each place. In the third instance (ver. 8) it is used to give a meaning or explanation to the word τὸ ῥῆμα, which occurs in the quotation; it introduces in fact what would be technically known as a ‘Midrash’ on the text quoted (so Mey. Lid. Lips. and apparently Va. Gif.). That is the meaning with which the phrase has been used in 9:8, and is also the meaning which it must have here. The infinitive cannot be dependent on τοῦτʼ ἔστι (for in all the passages where the phrase is used the words that follow it are in the same construction as the words that precede), but is dependent on ἀναβήσεται which it explains: so Xen. Mem. I. v. 2 (Goodwin, Greek Moods and Tenses, § 97) εἰ βουλοίμεθα τῷ ἐπιτρέψαι ἢ παῖδας παιδεῦσαι, ἢ χρήματα διασῶσαι. In this and similar cases it is not necessary to emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. (nempe ut Christum in orbem terrarum deducat) and Lips. (nämlich um Christum herabzuholen), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so apparently Va. Gif.). The LXX here reads τίς ἀναβήσεται … καὶ λήψεται; the construction is changed because τοῦτʼ ἔστιν καὶ κατάξει would hardly have been clear.

Of other interpretations, some do not suit the grammar. ‘That would be the same thing as to say Who will bring Christ down?’ would require τίς κατάξει τὸν Χριστόν. Weiss translates ‘that would be the same thing as to bring Christ down,’ apparently making the infinitive dependent on τοῦτʼ ἔστιν. Other translations or paraphrases do not suit the context: ‘Do not attempt great things, only believe’: or, ‘Do not waver and ask, Is Christ really come? only believe.’ The object of the passage is not to exhort to faith or to show the necessity of faith—that has been done in the early part of the Epistle; but to prove that the method of faith was one which, for several reasons, should not have been ignored and left on one side by the Jews.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The righteousness which is of faith [η εκ πιστεως δικαιοσυνη] .

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 [ουτως λεγει] . 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.