Romans 10:6,7

“ 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 Romans 10:5 to Romans 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, Deuteronomy 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 Romans 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. Galatians 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. Matthew 3:9; Revelation 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 Romans 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. Romans 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; Amos 9:2; Psalms 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 (Romans 10:7), and on the other, the full salvation to which He raises us (Romans 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 (Romans 10:6) and risen (Romans 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 Romans 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 Romans 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. Romans 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., 1 Corinthians 15:55-56. To support his explanation of the questions Romans 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 Romans 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, Romans 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 (Luke 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, Romans 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 Romans 10:9 expressly speaks of the resurrection; but he resolves this objection himself when he says, in the explanation of Romans 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 (Romans 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, Romans 10:8, after it has forbidden us, Romans 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 (Romans 10:4).