Romans 9:31

9:31 who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law (literally who pursued the law of righteousness): Law of righteousness is an idiom that means “righteousness through the law.”

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

Rom 9:31. Νόμον δικαιοσύνης εἰς νόμον δικαιοσύνης, the law of righteousness to the law of righteousness) He did not use the word law, in the preceding verse, concerning the Gentiles; but now uses it in speaking of the Jews; and there is a ploce or repetition of the words in a different sense; concerning legal and also concerning evangelical righteousness. While Israel is following the one law, he does not attain to the other. The apostle appropriately uses the expression, the law of righteousness, for, the righteousness of the law. The Jews rather looked to the law, than to righteousness: νόμος, doctrine, תורה.—οὐκ ἔφθασε) did not attain.

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

Rom_9:31-32. Israel, on the contrary, striving after the law of righteousness, has (in respect to the mass of the people) not attained to the law of righteousness.

νόμον-g0- δικαιος-g0-.] The law affording righteousness. Quite erroneous is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Bengel, Heumann, that it is a hypallage for δικαιοσύνην νόμου; and that of Rückert and Köllner is arbitrary, that Paul, in his effort after brevity and paradox, has used a condensed phrase for τὸν νόμον ὡς νόμον δικ. On the contrary, the justifying law is in both instances (comp. δικαιοσύνην, Rom_9:30) to be left without any more precise concrete definition, and to be regarded as the ideal (comp. also Fritzsche and Philippi), the reality of which the Israelites strove by their legal conduct to experience in themselves (to possess), but did not obtain. The justifying law! this is the idea, which they pursued, but to the reality they remained strangers. If, finally, we chose, with many others (including Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, Krehl, de Wette), to understand the first νὸμ. δικ. of the historical Mosaic law, and the second of Christianity, διώκων would be opposed to us; for this, according to Rom_9:30, expresses not the endeavour to fulfil the law, but the endeavour to possess the law, as, indeed, οὐκ ἔφθασε εἰς must correspond to κατέλαβε in Rom_9:30, and therefore must simply denote non pervenit (Vulg.), not: non praevenit (Erasmus, Estius, Hammond, and others, including Ewald and Jatho). Comp. on Php_3:16. The reading of Lachmann, εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασε, which Hofmann follows, is explained by the latter: Israel was set upon fulfilling a law which teaches what is right (διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης), but did not thereby succeed, did not become ἔννομος (εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασε); because the law remained for it, like a shadow, ever only near, but unattainable, thus Israel had not at all come to have its standpoint generally in a law and to live in it, neither in that of the Old Testament, which it sought to follow, nor in that of the New Testament, on which it turned its back. An entirely subjective artificial complication of ideas, with invented accessories, and not even historically correct, since in fact the Israelites stood and lived only too much ἐν νόμῳ and as ἔννομοι, but could not withal attain to the νόμος δικαιοσύνης. This δικαιοσύνης is the tragic point of the negative counter-statement, and hence is indispensable in the text.

διὰ τί] sc. εἰς νόμον δικ. οὐκ ἔφθασεν; answer: ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, sc ἐδίωξαν νόμον δικ. For, had they started from faith in their striving, they would have obtained in Christianity the realization of their endeavour, the νόμον δικαιοσύνης; through faith in Christ, to whom the law already points (Rom_3:31, Rom_10:5 ff.; Joh_5:46), they would have become righteous, and would thus in the gospel have really attained what floated before them as an idea, the justifying law.

ὡς ἐξ ἔργ.] ὡς can neither denote a hypocritical conduct (Theophylact), nor presumed works (Fritzsche), nor quasi (van Hengel, following the Vulgate); for, indeed, the Jews really set out from the works of the law in their endeavour. On the contrary, it means: Because their διώκειν was in the way, in which a διώκειν starting from works is constituted; the (perverted) kind and quality of the endeavour is designated, comp. 2Co_2:17; Joh_1:14. The ἐξ ἔργ. is by ὡς brought into fuller relief; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 757 f.

προσέκοψαν κ.τ.λ.] without γάρ (see critical remarks), but thus coming in all the more strikingly: they stumbled, etc.; that is the fatal fact, which befell them in their διώκειν, and caused that they οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως κ.τ.λ. Had they not stumbled at the stone of stumbling, they would have entered on the right line of endeavour ἐκ πίστεως, instead of their perverted one ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. The simple appropriateness, clearness, and force, with which the προσέκοψαν κ.τ.λ. is thus introduced, must exclude the connection with ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (Lachmann), followed also by Th. Schott (but, as could not but happen in consequence of works, came to ruin on the stone of stumbling). The λίθος προσκόμματος, the stone on which one stumbles (trips), is Christ, in so far as occasion for unbelief is taken at His manifestation (especially at His death on the cross, 1Co_1:23). Comp. Luk_2:34; 1Pe_2:7-8. The figure is in perfect correspondence with the conception of the διώκειν, and was perhaps selected in anticipation of the passage of Scripture to be adduced. Aptly, moreover, Theophylact remarks: λίθ. προσκ. κ. πέτρα σκανδ. ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους καὶ τῆς ἐκβάσεως τῶν ἀπιστησάντων ὠνόμασται ὁ Χριστός· αὐτὸς γὰρ καθʼ ἑαυτὸν θεμέλιος καὶ ἑδραίωμα ἐτέθη.

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_9:31

What the Gentiles thus attained, the Jews failed to secure. The former he had described as not following after righteous less; the latter he characterizes as those who follow after the law of righteousness. The expression law of righteousness may be variously explained.

1. Law may be taken in its general sense of rule, as in Rom_3:27, and elsewhere. The meaning would then be, They followed after, i.e. they attended diligently to, the rule which they thought would lead to their attaining righteousness or being justified, but they did not attain unto that rule which actually leads to such results. Law of righteousness is, then, norma juxta quam Deus justificat. This is the interpretation of Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, and many others. Or,

2. The word law may be redundant, and Paul may mean to say nothing more than that The Jews sought righteousness or justification, but did not attain it. This, no doubt, is the substance, though it may not be the precise form of the thought.

3. Law of righteousness is often understood here as equivalent to righteousness which is of the law. This, however, is rather forced, and not very consistent with the latter clause of the verse, Have not attained to the law of righteousness, which can hardly be so interpreted. Meyer, Tholuck, and others, take the phrase law of righteousness in both parts of the verse in what they call an ideal sense. The Jews strove to realize the justifying law, i.e., to attain that standard which secured their justification. It is more common to take the words as referring to the Mosaic and moral law, as revealed in the Scriptures, in the former part of the verse, and in the latter, the law of faith. The Jews made the Mosaic law, (the law of works,) the object of their zeal, as the means of attaining righteousness, and therefore did not attain to that law (the law of faith, Rom_3:27) which really secures righteousness. They were zealous to attain righteousness, but failed. Why? The answer is given in the next verse.

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

The pride of men is the cause that they condemn vocation, so that the cause of their damnation need not to be sought for any other where but in themselves.

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

But Israel, which followed--"following"

after the law of righteousness, hath not attained--"attained not"

unto the law of righteousness--The word "law" is used here, we think, in the same sense as in Rom 7:23, to denote "a principle of action"; that is, "Israel, though sincerely and steadily aiming at acceptance with God, nevertheless missed it."

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 31. But Israel, which followed after] But the Jews, who have hitherto been the people of God, though they have been industrious in observing a rule by which they supposed they could secure the blessings of God's peculiar kingdom, yet have not come up to the true and only rule by which those blessings can be secured.

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

31. But Israel, by pursuing, etc. Paul openly states what seemed incredible, — that it was no wonder that the Jews gained nothing by sedulously following after righteousness; for by running out of the way, they wearied themselves in vain. But in the first place it seems to me that the law of righteousness is here an instance of transposition, and means the righteousness of the law; and then, that when repeated in the second clause, it is to be taken in another sense, as signifying the model or the rule of righteousness.

The meaning then is, — “That Israel, depending on the righteousness of the law, even that which is prescribed in the law, did not understand the true method of justification.” But there is a striking contrast in the expression, when he teaches us that the legal righteousness was the cause that they had fallen away from the law of righteousness.

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.

(31) Israel, on the other hand, though ostensibly pursuing a law the object of which was righteousness, did not reach such a law. They tried to keep the Law, but failed to keep it, and to bring themselves under its protection. The second “righteousness” is omitted in the best MSS.

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

31. which followed] Lit. following; and so better.

the law of righteousness] Not simply “righteousness,” as in Rom_9:30; because Israel had, what the Gentiles had not, the detailed revealed precepts. These precepts they “followed after,” i.e. strove to keep as a covenant of salvation. For this very reason they “did not attain to” them, i.e. they failed to reach the true use of the Law—its revelation of God’s will to be followed by His reconciled children, His people justified by faith.—“Of righteousness:”—this phrase may, as often, be explained to mean “connected with righteousness.” So the Law is connected, whether it condemns, acquits, or guides. Israel “followed after it” as an acquitting Law, in vain; and so failed to “attain to it” as a Law guiding in the path of peace. They strove by it to make themselves just, and so failed to walk by it as the justified.

hath not attained] Better (as in Rom_9:30) did not attain. Their whole history of effort and failure is summed up in one idea, and viewed as all past, (though numberless Jews were, and are, still making the same attempts,) because St Paul’s thought is fixed on the crisis of the calling of the Gentiles, after which the case of Israel took a new aspect in practice.

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.

Wherefore? because they sought it not by faith,.... The question is asked, why they did not attain to that, which with so much diligence they pressed after? the answer is, because, as they did not seek for righteousness in a right place, or object, they sought for it in the law, and the works of it, where it is never to be found by a sinful creature, and not in Christ, in whom only are righteousness and strength; so they did not seek for it in a right way, by faith in Christ, without which it is impossible to please God, and by which only true righteousness is discerned and received:

but as it were by the works of the law; not by works which looked like works of the law, and were not; but they sought it as if they expected their justification before God was to be by works of righteousness done by them; or as if it was partly by their own works, and partly by the goodness of God, accepting of them for a justifying righteousness. The Alexandrian Copy, and some others, read only, "as it were by works"; and so does the Vulgate Latin version: another reason, or else a reason of the former is,

for they stumbled at that stumbling stone; meaning the word of the Gospel, at which Peter says they stumbled, and particularly the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ; or rather Christ himself, who was "to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness", Co1 1:23.

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

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Ver. 31. The law of righteousness] That is, the righteousness of the law.

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 Israel - The Jews. The apostle does not mean to affirm that none of the Jews had obtained mercy, but that “as a people,” or acting according to the prevalent principles of the nation to work out their own righteousness, they had not obtained it.

Which followed after the law of righteousness - The phrase, “the law of righteousness,” means the law of justice, or “the just law.” That Law demands perfect purity; and even its external observance demanded holiness. The Jews supposed that they rendered such obedience to that Law as to constitute “a meritorious” ground of justification. This they had “followed after,” that is, pursued zealously and unremittingly. The reason why they did not obtain justification in that way is fully stated in Rom. 1–3 where it is shown that the Law demands perfect compliance with its precepts; and that Jews, as well as Gentiles, had altogether failed in rendering such compliance.

Hath not attained to the law of righteousness - They have not come to yield true obedience to the Law, even though imperfect; not such obedience as to give evidence that they have been justified. We may remark here,

That no conclusion could have been more humbling to a Jew than this. It constituted the whole of the prevalent religion, and was the object of their incessant toils.

(2)As they made the experiment fully, and failed: as they had the best advantages for it, and did not succeed, but reared only a miserable and delusive system of self-righteousness Phi 3:4-9; it follows, that all similar experiments must fail, and that none now can be justified by the Law.

(3)Thousands fail in the same attempt.

They seek to justify themselves before God. They attempt to weave a righteousness of their own. The moral man does this. The immoral man attempts it as much as the moral man, and is as confident in his own righteousness. The troubled sinner does this; and this it is which keeps him so long from the cross of Christ. All this must be renounced; and man must come as a poor, lost, ruined sinner, and throw himself upon the mere mercy of God in Christ for justification and life.

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

Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness; i.e. the unbelieving Jews, who paid great reverence to the law of God, regarding and observing the outward precepts and ceremonies thereof.

Hath not attained to the law of righteousness; they came short of that righteousness which the law requires, which God will accept, and which is to be attained, not by works, but by faith, as it follows in the next verse (see Rom 9:32).

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

31. The law of righteousness—Without the definite article, and meaning a law of righteousness which proved not to be the true law of righteousness, and so resulted in failure.

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

righteousness

Scofield "Rom 10:3".

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31. “But Israel, following the law, did not attain unto the law of righteousness.” The Jews, like the fallen churches of all ages, retrogressed into the legalistic heresies of seeking salvation by good works, thus deluded by the devil, and going headlong into apostasy and damnation, so blind that they actually killed their own Savior.

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

but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law . [Israel was not seeking justification. Their search was rather for a law that would produce in them a righteousness meriting justification. This craving arose from a proud, self-sufficient spirit, and God answered it by giving the law of Moses, for the express purpose of revealing their universal sinful weakness and insufficiency ( Act_15:10 ; Gal_2:16 ), and need of a Saviour ( Rom_7:24-25 ); wherefore Paul describes the law as "our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" ( Gal_3:24 ). Realizing the impossible task of attaining justifying righteousness by the law of Moses, the Jew began adulterating that law by traditions; but even the law thus modified gave small delusive hope, and the cry was still, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" ( Luk_10:25 ; Luk_18:18 ). But to this solemn and awful question there were but two answers: (1) Keep the law of Moses ( Mat_19:17 ; Rom_10:5 ; Gal_3:12 ), and when the Jew answered, "I can not," then (2) the "Follow me" of Christ ( Mat_19:21 ). Since no man could keep the law of Moses, all men were and are shut in by God to the one law of salvation through faith in Christ. No wonder, then, that the Jew, seeking relief by Moses, or by a third law, failed to find any law that satisfied his soul or operated with God. Godet calls this success of the uninterested Gentile, and failure of the Jew who made the search of righteousness his daily business, "the most poignant irony in the whole of history"; yet the cases of the two parties are not wholly antithetical, as Paul clearly shows, by the use of the word "righteousness" instead of "justification." If both parties had sought justification, the Jew would have no doubt been the first to find it. But the object of the Jewish search was a law which would give life, yet preserve his pride and self-conceit, and his search was therefore for an impossibility. The Master himself discloses the difference in heart between the Jew and the Gentile in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican ( Luk_18:9-14 ). The humble spirit of the Gentile accepted righteousness as the gift of the humble Christ, but the proud Jew could not so demean himself as to place himself under obligations so lofty to One so lowly. Let us note that the words "follow after" and "attain" are agonistic; that is to say, they are technical words describing the running after the prize, and the grasping of it, as used in the Olympic games. Their presence here at the end of the argument shows that the "willeth" and "runneth" of Rom_9:16 also have the agonistic force which we gave to them in interpreting that verse. Paul's conclusion explains the willing and running. It is folly to will and run contrary to the law and will of Him who, as supreme Sovereign, has laid down the immutable rules of the great race or game of life. The prize is the free gift of the King: there is no merit in running that can win it, when the running is random and contrary to rule, as the Jews suppose. There is no merit in running that can give a legal right to it, even when the running is according to rule, but there is in him who runs a moral fitness and aptness for the prize which makes it his, according to the will of him who called him to so run for it.]

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.

31. Ἰσραὴλ. The name of privilege; cf. on Rom 9:4.

νόμον δικαιοσύνης. A law embodying righteousness, almost = a legal righteousness; cf. Rom 2:23, Wis 2:11.

ἔφθασεν did not reach; of. 2Co 10:14; Php 3:16. Only in 1Th 4:15 does the idea of anticipation certainly occur.

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.

31.]—but Israel, pursuing after the law of righteousness (what is the νόμος δικαιοσύνης? Certainly not = δικαιοσύνη νόμου, as Chrys., Theodoret, Œcum., Calv., Beza, Bengel, by the so-called, but as Thol. observes, unlogical figure of Hypallage:—it may mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., an ideal law of righteousness, a justifying law,—or (2) as Chrys., al.,—see above,—the Iaw of Moses, thus described: or (3) which I believe to be the true account of the words, νόμος δικαιος. is put regarding the Jews, rather than merely δικαιος., because in their case there was a prescribed norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the law, in which rule and way they, as matter of fact, followed after it. The above, as I believe, mistaken interpretations arise from supposing νόμον δικαιος. to be = δικαιος., which it is not. The Jews followed after, aimed at the fulfilment of ‘the law of righteousness,’ thinking by the observance of that law to acquire righteousness. See ch. 10:3, 5, and note; and compare John’s coming ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, Mat 21:32), arrived not at [notice the change in the verb] the law (fell far short even of that law, which was given them. It is surprising, with ch. 10:3-5 before them, how De Wette and Tholuck can pronounce the reading νόμον without δικαιοσύνης to be without sense. The Jews followed after, thinking to perform it entirely, their νόμος δικαιοσύνης: which δικαιος. ἐκ τοῦ νόμου the Apostle defines, ch. 10:5, to be ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς, but they did not attain to—not in this case κατέλαβεν, but ἔφθασεν εἰς—the law—they therefore never attained righteousness. It is surely far more easy to imagine how a transcriber should have inserted δικαιοσύνης, than how he should have omitted it. It probably was a marginal gloss to explain the second νόμον, and thence found its way into the text (I may notice, that ch. 10:3 is not a case in point, the νόμον here having an independent and exceptional meaning of its own, which introduces an element not belonging to ἰδίαν there)). Wherefore? because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as (used subjectively, as ‘if about to obtain their object by:’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9, and compare 2Pe 1:3) by [the] works [of the law (the evidence for and against νόμου is about equally balanced. On the one side we have the Apostle’s usage, see ch. 3:28 reff.,—and the possibility of a transcriber omitting νόμου, either as having twice occurred already, or for more complete antithesis,—and on the other we have the temptation to correct ἔργων to ἔργων νόμου to suit that very usage. On the whole I incline to omit νόμου, but do not regard the evidence as sufficiently clear to justify its exclusion from the text)], they stumbled at the stone of stumbling (the similitude of a race is still kept up. The insertion of γάρ has arisen from a period being placed at νόμου. It confuses the sense, making it appear as if the stumbling was the cause of, or at all events coincident with, their pursuing οὐκ ἐκ π. κ.τ.λ., whereas it was this mistaken method of pursuing which caused them to stumble against the stone of stumbling. Thus we have instances in the Greek chariot races, of competitors, by an error in judgment in driving, striking against the στήλη round which the chariots were to turn, see Soph. Elect. 730 f.

There is a close analogy between our text and the exhortation in Heb 12:1 f. There, after the triumphs of faith have been related, we are exhorted to run with patience the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith: where notice, that the sacred Writer seems to have had in his mind the same comparison of Him to the pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the runners would be exclusively directed).

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

31. Ἰσραὴλ δὲ κ.τ.λ. These words contain the real difficulty of the statement, of which alone an explanation is necessary, and is given. ‘In spite of the fact that some Gentiles even without seeking it have attained righteousness, Israel has failed.’

νόμον δικαιοσύνης: ‘a rule of life which would produce righteousness’: cf. 3:27 νόμος πίστεως: 7:21.

οὐκ ἔφθασε: ‘did not attain it’; they are represented as continually pursuing after something, the accomplishment of which as continually escapes them. All idea of anticipation has been lost in φθάνω in later Greek, cf. Php 3:16; Dan 4:19 (Theod.) ἔφθασεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.

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

Vv. 31. The lot of the Gentiles presents a contrast fitted to bring out more clearly the tragical character of that of Israel. This people, which alone followed the law of righteousness, is precisely the one which has not succeeded in reaching it. Some (Chrys., Calv., Beng., etc.) have stumbled at this expression, the law of righteousness, and have translated it as if it were the righteousness of the law. They have not understood the apostle’s expression. What Israel sought was not so much righteousness itself in its moral essence, as the law in all the detail of its external and manifold observances. The expression is therefore chosen deliberately, “to remind the reader,” as Holsten well says, “of the weakness of the religious conscience of Israel, which was ever seeking an external standard.” If the Jews in general had been seriously preoccupied, like young Saul, with true moral righteousness, the law thus applied would have become to them what it was in its destination, the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ (Gal 3:23-24). But seeking only the letter, they neglected the spirit. Levitical prescriptions, minutiae about Sabbaths and meats, fastings, tithes, washings of hands, of bodies, of furniture, etc., such were their sole pursuits. The object of their labor was thus really the law, from which righteousness should have proceeded, and not righteousness itself, as the true contents of the law. Therein there was a profound moral aberration which led them to the refusal of true righteousness when it was presented to them in the person of the Messiah.

By designating true righteousness in the same sentence by the same expression, the law of righteousness, the apostle wishes by the identity of terms to exhibit the contrast in the things: pursuing the shadow, they missed the reality.

The term law is taken the second time in that more general sense in which we have found it so often used in our Epistle (Rom 3:27, Rom 7:21; Rom 7:25, Rom 8:2): a certain mode of being, fitted to determine the will. The reference is to the true mode of justification.

The strongly supported reading which rejects the word δικαιοσύνης, of righteousness, would signify: “they have not attained to the law.” But what would that mean? They have not attained to the fulfilment of the law? The expression: “attain to the law,” would be very strange taken in this sense. Or would it apply, as some have thought, to the law of the gospel? But where is the gospel thus called nakedly the law? This reading is therefore inadmissible, as Meyer himself acknowledges, notwithstanding his habitual predilection for the Alexandrine text, and in opposition to the opinion of Tischendorf.

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.