Romans 10.5-13 commentary

[Randy Kluth]

Romans 10.5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

I think this is a great verse, and for years I've tried to grasp what is being said. Some of it is very plain and clear: we are saved simply by confessing Jesus to be our Lord. When we confess him, somehow he enters into our heart, and with our heart we can believe in him, confess him, and do what he wishes.

Jesus is able to enter into our hearts because he gives his Spirit to those who choose to follow him. But part of understanding this passage requires a little more effort.

Paul is actually talking about the righteousness of the Law and the exclusivity of Israel's relationship with God under the Law that God gave only to them. We know that the Law kept Israel, by covenant, in good relations with God, and saved the nation, politically, from hostile forces when they were obedient, as a nation, to God.

Nevertheless, Paul's Gospel insists that the Law was never intended to bring eternal life to Israel, but only to certify that inasmuch as they had a real relationship with God, they had definite hope that it was coming. Paul's Gospel was that eternal life came only by the new covenant that Christ established by his death and resurrection.

Believers in Christ, Jewish or not, could believe in Jesus' atonement, and receive what the Law and its atonements could not deliver. By entering into Christ spiritually, simply by believing in his gift of the Spirit, we could align ourselves both with his death and with his atonement, so that not only would our sins be forgiven but we would also obtain eternal life.

Paul's argument here is that under the Law Israel could not go directly up to heaven, as if they were not condemned as sinners. They were. And neither could they go down into the earth to die, and rise from the dead, as if they were not condemned to death. They were.

Rather, Paul is saying that Christ did for Israel what they could not, under the Law, do for themselves. He went up to heaven, not being disqualified by any sin. And he went down into death and was able to rise from the dead for the same reason--he wasn't a sinner.

We must enter into the covenant of Christ, and Israel cannot rely on the Law, for the atonement we need to be able to do these things. If we want to rise to heaven, and to overcome death, it must be by believing in Jesus, resulting in his Spirit coming into our life. When we choose him as our Lord, obeying him in everything, we qualify as God's children, through the atonement Christ won for us.

Does this interpretation of this passage come close for you?

 

[DNB]

Romans 10.5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

I think this is a great verse, and for years I've tried to grasp what is being said. Some of it is very plain and clear: we are saved simply by confessing Jesus to be our Lord. When we confess him, somehow he enters into our heart, and with our heart we can believe in him, confess him, and do what he wishes.

Jesus is able to enter into our hearts because he gives his Spirit to those who choose to follow him. But part of understanding this passage requires a little more effort.

Paul is actually talking about the righteousness of the Law and the exclusivity of Israel's relationship with God under the Law that God gave only to them. We know that the Law kept Israel, by covenant, in good relations with God, and saved the nation, politically, from hostile forces when they were obedient, as a nation, to God.

Nevertheless, Paul's Gospel insists that the Law was never intended to bring eternal life to Israel, but only to certify that inasmuch as they had a real relationship with God, they had definite hope that it was coming. Paul's Gospel was that eternal life came only by the new covenant that Christ established by his death and resurrection.

Believers in Christ, Jewish or not, could believe in Jesus' atonement, and receive what the Law and its atonements could not deliver. By entering into Christ spiritually, simply by believing in his gift of the Spirit, we could align ourselves both with his death and with his atonement, so that not only would our sins be forgiven but we would also obtain eternal life.

Paul's argument here is that under the Law Israel could not go directly up to heaven, as if they were not condemned as sinners. They were. And neither could they go down into the earth to die, and rise from the dead, as if they were not condemned to death. They were.

Rather, Paul is saying that Christ did for Israel what they could not, under the Law, do for themselves. He went up to heaven, not being disqualified by any sin. And he went down into death and was able to rise from the dead for the same reason--he wasn't a sinner.

We must enter into the covenant of Christ, and Israel cannot rely on the Law, for the atonement we need to be able to do these things. If we want to rise to heaven, and to overcome death, it must be by believing in Jesus, resulting in his Spirit coming into our life. When we choose him as our Lord, obeying him in everything, we qualify as God's children, through the atonement Christ won for us.

Does this interpretation of this passage come close for you?

Hi Randy, a very good take on, what I believe to be, a rather mysterious and controversial issue.
In short, I do believe that the Law brought the Israelites eternal life - 'For he that abides by them, will live by them'. Yes, live here could mean on earth in safety, health and prosperity. But where this is used, is in the context of Paul juxtapositioning the austerity of the Law, with the grace of Faith. In other words, both lead to life, whereas one was an extremely more precarious way to get there, as opposed to the freedom of the other.

That is, how was Abraham saved, by faith yes, but not faith in Christ. How was Moses saved, definitely by adherence to the Law which he promulgated himself, but I don't believe that he had any cognizance of a suffering Messiah that was destined to come and abrogate the Law, in order to implement a new one. For, how was Joshua saved, or Nathan the prophet, or Samuel, or king Hezekiah or king Josiah, or Ezra or Nehemiah? It would be extremely difficult to claim that any of these devout men had any awareness of Christ as we know of him after 30AD +-. For even Christ's contemporaries had an incorrect view of the meaning of his Messiaship.

I believe that in Romans 10:5-13, Paul is comparing the two covenants that both lead to salvation, but is emphasizing the grace and greater glory that comes with the latter. Works, as an external testimony, expose a devotion but do not reveal an intent. Many can feign doing good works and following rituals. Whereas Faith, is indeed interior and discreet, but divulges the deepest sentiments of one's convictions. Especially in the manner that God implemented it - belief in a rather gruesome and humiliating event, then subsequently, the supernatural circumstances that occurred after.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have to say that this passage--Romans 10--very much interests me right now. It may be ever so plain to others, who have been Christians for awhile. But I've just taken such an interest in it right now. This year God has seemed to emphasize that the power to do good in Christ comes from his word of command. When he tell us to do something, we are able to do it because it is his word activating the ability for us to do this.

Under the Law, God gave Israel the ability to carry out the works of the Law. Again, the power to do these good things came by the power of God's word to them, so that Israel could carry out these commands. These works did not obtain eternal life, but they were designed to give Israel not just a relationship with God, but more, the hope of eternal fellowship with God.

Similarly under the New Covenant of Christ we are given the ability to carry out Christ's commandments, as well as obtain the certainty of eternal life. Paul is telling us, in Romans 10, that there is this very special difference between the Law and Grace that gives us the ability to rise from the dead and enter heaven, in God's presence, forever.

Under the Law Israel's efforts could not obtain for them the ability to go to heaven, nor to rise from the dead. But under the covenant of Christ, we can do these things *through him!*

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy, a very good take on, what I believe to be, a rather mysterious and controversial issue.
In short, I do believe that the Law brought the Israelites eternal life - 'For he that abides by them, will live by them'. Yes, live here could mean on earth in safety, health and prosperity. But where this is used, is in the context of Paul juxtapositioning the austerity of the Law, with the grace of Faith. In other words, both lead to life, whereas one was an extremely more precarious way to get there, as opposed to the freedom of the other.

That is, how was Abraham saved, by faith yes, but not faith in Christ. How was Moses saved, definitely by adherence to the Law which he promulgated himself, but I don't believe that he had any cognizance of a suffering Messiah that was destined to come and abrogate the Law, in order to implement a new one. For, how was Joshua saved, or Nathan the prophet, or Samuel, or king Hezekiah or king Josiah, or Ezra or Nehemiah? It would be extremely difficult to claim that any of these devout men had any awareness of Christ as we know of him after 30AD +-. For even Christ's contemporaries had an incorrect view of the meaning of his Messiaship.

I believe that in Romans 10:5-13, Paul is comparing the two covenants that both lead to salvation, but is emphasizing the grace and greater glory that comes with the latter. Works, as an external testimony, expose a devotion but do not reveal an intent. Many can feign doing good works and following rituals. Whereas Faith, is indeed interior and discreet, but divulges the deepest sentiments of one's convictions. Especially in the manner that God implemented it - belief in a rather gruesome and humiliating event, then subsequently, the supernatural circumstances that occurred after.

Hi brother: thanks for replying. I added a bit from another forum where I describe, more briefly, what I'm trying to say.

To respond to your specific points, I agree with you. These things can be controversial, and works can be feigned, whereas faith is genuine. And in both covenants there are works that lead to eternal life.

The only difference between the testaments, I believe, is that Christ actually had to come, in history, to provide his atonement. Otherwise, eternal life would not have been possible for anyone. It was the act that Jesus performed on the cross that brought us all, NT and OT, eternal life.

So some of this is just semantics. We can say that OT saints did good works that got them saved. But what that really means is that their faith was proven in their good works--not that the Law did this in any other way than point towards the cross. Certainly they did not fully understand the cross, but they did, as you suggest, understand faith.

So faith operated under the Law, and even apart from the Law, leading men to ultimate salvation. It's just that even though faith was the basis of their salvation, that salvation had to actually be legally appropriated at the cross.

This had to happen before Israel was released from their obedience under the Law, which was just an expression of faith. That faith brought salvation, but only after Christ rose from the dead. Their faith was required to take expression in the Law before Jesus came and accomplished that feat.

In other words, God has always required that faith be expressed in works. But eternal life took place legally only after the cross. Works of the Law are no longer required because the temporary form of atonement they relied on at that time has been supplanted by the greater redemption that Christ won at the cross, accomplishing eternal life for us.

The biggest problem that makes this "controversial" are the semantics, in which Paul depicts the Law in an almost hostile way, indicating it failed at obtaining eternal life. But this was just his way of arguing for the need for the Jews to give up the Law for the better covenant, which indeed brought them eternal life. A final atonement is much better than a temporary atonement that could never, on its own, bring eternal life.

 

[DNB]

Hi brother: thanks for replying. I added a bit from another forum where I describe, more briefly, what I'm trying to say.

To respond to your specific points, I agree with you. These things can be controversial, and works can be feigned, whereas faith is genuine. And in both covenants there are works that lead to eternal life.

The only difference between the testaments, I believe, is that Christ actually had to come, in history, to provide his atonement. Otherwise, eternal life would not have been possible for anyone. It was the act that Jesus performed on the cross that brought us all, NT and OT, eternal life.

So some of this is just semantics. We can say that OT saints did good works that got them saved. But what that really means is that their faith was proven in their good works--not that the Law did this in any other way than point towards the cross. Certainly they did not fully understand the cross, but they did, as you suggest, understand faith.

So faith operated under the Law, and even apart from the Law, leading men to ultimate salvation. It's just that even though faith was the basis of their salvation, that salvation had to actually be legally appropriated at the cross.

This had to happen before Israel was released from their obedience under the Law, which was just an expression of faith. That faith brought salvation, but only after Christ rose from the dead. Their faith was required to take expression in the Law before Jesus came and accomplished that feat.

In other words, God has always required that faith be expressed in works. But eternal life took place legally only after the cross. Works of the Law are no longer required because the temporary form of atonement they relied on at that time has been supplanted by the greater redemption that Christ won at the cross, accomplishing eternal life for us.

The biggest problem that makes this "controversial" are the semantics, in which Paul depicts the Law in an almost hostile way, indicating it failed at obtaining eternal life. But this was just his way of arguing for the need for the Jews to give up the Law for the better covenant, which indeed brought them eternal life. A final atonement is much better than a temporary atonement that could never, on its own, bring eternal life.

I see, thank you for that clarification. Yes, very insightful what you extrapolated, I would agree - there is a profundity in both Covenants i.e. faith, despite the first appearing seemingly basal or regimentary.

But, is it that you are saying that without the final oblation of Christ, Moses or Jeremiah, for example, would not have been saved, or neither Enoch and Elijah? As far as the latter two are concerned, I don't believe that either were translated to heaven, but seemed to receive some approbation from God all the same. Again, you bring up a great and profound point - would anyone be permitted into heaven without Christ's exaltation, or consequently, without him seated at the right-hand side of God?

I've always argued from a Soteriological standpoint, that Christ's sacrifice was the legal means in which God was able to rescind a duly ratified Covenant, as the Law - not one jot or tittle will fail until all is completed. Just to emphasize, this is my Atonement Theory (Covenantal, I refer to it as). Thus, I wouldn't be prepared to say that no one could attain heaven until Christ ended the Law, but that no one could be saved by means of Grace, until the Law was legally abrogated.

But, there is not a single Christian worth mentioning, who can deny that Christ as the head of all mankind, was the intended Word established by God, before the beginning of time. Therefore, if your position is that without Christ, all Old Testaments saints would never receive redemption, even Abraham, you do have indisputably, a very fundamental point on your side. You have put me on the fence right now, I have to give this more study and thought. Thank you for, again, a very insightful view on harmonizing Salvation in regards to both Covenants!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I see, thank you for that clarification. Yes, very insightful what you extrapolated, I would agree - there is a profundity in both Covenants i.e. faith, despite the first appearing seemingly basal or regimentary.

But, is it that you are saying that without the final oblation of Christ, Moses or Jeremiah, for example, would not have been saved, or neither Enoch and Elijah? As far as the latter two are concerned, I don't believe that either were translated to heaven, but seemed to receive some approbation from God all the same. Again, you bring up a great and profound point - would anyone be permitted into heaven without Christ's exaltation, or consequently, without him seated at the right-hand side of God?

I've always argued from a Soteriological standpoint, that Christ's sacrifice was the legal means in which God was able to rescind a duly ratified Covenant, as the Law - not one jot or tittle will fail until all is completed. Just to emphasize, this is my Atonement Theory (Covenantal, I refer to it as). Thus, I wouldn't be prepared to say that no one could attain heaven until Christ ended the Law, but that no one could be saved by means of Grace, until the Law was legally abrogated.

But, there is not a single Christian worth mentioning, who can deny that Christ as the head of all mankind, was the intended Word established by God, before the beginning of time. Therefore, if your position is that without Christ, all Old Testaments saints would never receive redemption, even Abraham, you do have indisputably, a very fundamental point on your side. You have put me on the fence right now, I have to give this more study and thought. Thank you for, again, a very insightful view on harmonizing Salvation in regards to both Covenants!

Your atonement theory has value, I believe, in the sense that God established a legal basis by which He alone decided He would have to resolve it. It had to meet the requirements of His own design.

It was, in other words, self-initiated. It was *His wisdom.* And that legal basis did not require that the Law be ended, but foresaw that it would be ended, due to Israel's inexorable destination in national apostasy (a 2nd time, after the Babylonian apostasy). This was the final divorce, and yet fully anticipated by God.

I think you're right in the sense that God did not give the Law to frustrate Israel, but rather, to frustrate the sin nature of man. It could not, independent of God, achieve salvation. And yet it was designed to be obeyed, and thus to bring hope to Israel. It could be followed, by some, and for some time by the whole nation. And it did bring temporary blessings for the few sometimes, and also sometimes for the nation as a whole.

But salvation was never meant to be under this system, which was, as I said, doomed to failure. The nation would succumb to the law of environmental influence, the presence of leaven leavening the whole lump (or nation). But never could it be said that the moral value of the Law was lost. No, it could've continued on forever--it just would not have brought eternal life, because the presence of the sin nature in man could not, by God's own decree, achieve eternal life without Christ's sacrifice.

Again, you're right, if I get you right, that the Law could've continued in theory past the point of Christ's atonement--it just wouldn't have been necessary. It would've been redundant in view of Christ's sacrifice which made all previous forms of atonement unnecessary. His sacrifice supplied atonement for all sin, past, present, and future. It would be superfluous to offer animal sacrifices, which were only designed to meet the need for forgiveness for isolated items, or for the year.

My own sense of Christ's atonement is, therefore, a heavenly scheme that was designed to be completely distinct from the earthly Law, even though the Law was somewhat like it and prepared for it. When Israel failed, then Christ came, a different kind of priest than under the Law, and made a sacrifice that unlike the Law covered both Israel and all other nations.

Like the Law, Christ brought to earth a system that could be followed. But unlike the Law it could achieve eternal life, rather than just moral virtue. God does not save moral virtue alone, but rather, moral virtue plus acceptance of Christ as the only source of atonement. This is God's standard, the acceptance of His own moral virtue as exhibited in Christ through his death for our sins and resurrection from the dead. We choose a live beyond our sinful selves, placing our confidence in his righteousness alone.

Atonement is purely an act of God's love, who has always loved, and forgives those in whom there is hope. The hope is to endow people with this love, to restore them to what they were originally supposed to be. The real need is to find those willing to take that love, and to return to it. That's salvation to me.

 

[justbyfaith]

Commentary on Romans.

 

[Ziggy]

Hi brother: thanks for replying. I added a bit from another forum where I describe, more briefly, what I'm trying to say.

To respond to your specific points, I agree with you. These things can be controversial, and works can be feigned, whereas faith is genuine. And in both covenants there are works that lead to eternal life.

The only difference between the testaments, I believe, is that Christ actually had to come, in history, to provide his atonement. Otherwise, eternal life would not have been possible for anyone. It was the act that Jesus performed on the cross that brought us all, NT and OT, eternal life.

So some of this is just semantics. We can say that OT saints did good works that got them saved. But what that really means is that their faith was proven in their good works--not that the Law did this in any other way than point towards the cross. Certainly they did not fully understand the cross, but they did, as you suggest, understand faith.

So faith operated under the Law, and even apart from the Law, leading men to ultimate salvation. It's just that even though faith was the basis of their salvation, that salvation had to actually be legally appropriated at the cross.

This had to happen before Israel was released from their obedience under the Law, which was just an expression of faith. That faith brought salvation, but only after Christ rose from the dead. Their faith was required to take expression in the Law before Jesus came and accomplished that feat.

In other words, God has always required that faith be expressed in works. But eternal life took place legally only after the cross. Works of the Law are no longer required because the temporary form of atonement they relied on at that time has been supplanted by the greater redemption that Christ won at the cross, accomplishing eternal life for us.

The biggest problem that makes this "controversial" are the semantics, in which Paul depicts the Law in an almost hostile way, indicating it failed at obtaining eternal life. But this was just his way of arguing for the need for the Jews to give up the Law for the better covenant, which indeed brought them eternal life. A final atonement is much better than a temporary atonement that could never, on its own, bring eternal life.

The most important factor for me is Jesus showed us God's true characteristics. His caring, His reaching out and wanting to be our Father.
In the OT I see most followed because they were afraid not to. Not because they sincerely chose to from the heart.
I hear this:
Jhn 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jhn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

This is personal. This is God reaching out to us through His son saying Here I am.

Hugs

 

[DNB]

Your atonement theory has value, I believe, in the sense that God established a legal basis by which He alone decided He would have to resolve it. It had to meet the requirements of His own design.

It was, in other words, self-initiated. It was *His wisdom.* And that legal basis did not require that the Law be ended, but foresaw that it would be ended, due to Israel's inexorable destination in national apostasy (a 2nd time, after the Babylonian apostasy). This was the final divorce, and yet fully anticipated by God.

I think you're right in the sense that God did not give the Law to frustrate Israel, but rather, to frustrate the sin nature of man. It could not, independent of God, achieve salvation. And yet it was designed to be obeyed, and thus to bring hope to Israel. It could be followed, by some, and for some time by the whole nation. And it did bring temporary blessings for the few sometimes, and also sometimes for the nation as a whole.

But salvation was never meant to be under this system, which was, as I said, doomed to failure. The nation would succumb to the law of environmental influence, the presence of leaven leavening the whole lump (or nation). But never could it be said that the moral value of the Law was lost. No, it could've continued on forever--it just would not have brought eternal life, because the presence of the sin nature in man could not, by God's own decree, achieve eternal life without Christ's sacrifice.

Again, you're right, if I get you right, that the Law could've continued in theory past the point of Christ's atonement--it just wouldn't have been necessary. It would've been redundant in view of Christ's sacrifice which made all previous forms of atonement unnecessary. His sacrifice supplied atonement for all sin, past, present, and future. It would be superfluous to offer animal sacrifices, which were only designed to meet the need for forgiveness for isolated items, or for the year.

My own sense of Christ's atonement is, therefore, a heavenly scheme that was designed to be completely distinct from the earthly Law, even though the Law was somewhat like it and prepared for it. When Israel failed, then Christ came, a different kind of priest than under the Law, and made a sacrifice that unlike the Law covered both Israel and all other nations.

Like the Law, Christ brought to earth a system that could be followed. But unlike the Law it could achieve eternal life, rather than just moral virtue. God does not save moral virtue alone, but rather, moral virtue plus acceptance of Christ as the only source of atonement. This is God's standard, the acceptance of His own moral virtue as exhibited in Christ through his death for our sins and resurrection from the dead. We choose a live beyond our sinful selves, placing our confidence in his righteousness alone.

Atonement is purely an act of God's love, who has always loved, and forgives those in whom there is hope. The hope is to endow people with this love, to restore them to what they were originally supposed to be. The real need is to find those willing to take that love, and to return to it. That's salvation to me.

Hi Randy, thank you for that. And, sorry if I missed something, somewhere, but are you of the position that neither Jacob nor Moses, David nor Abiathar, Haggai or Malachi, would've attained salvation if, hypothetically, Christ never came or failed in his purpose?
That is, did all the OT saints believe in Christ himself, or was their adherence to the Law an act of sufficient faith, in and of itself?
From the beginning of time, was no one saved outside of Christ? At this point, I personally would say that many were saved without actually believing in the Atonement of Christ.

 

[Ziggy]

Noah built an Ark. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son. Moses was God's right hand man and led the Hebrews to freedom.
Lots more..
That takes faith, I figure..
HUGS

 

[justbyfaith]

Old Testament saints and prophets looked forward to the coming of Christ; as this doctrine was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ziggy]

Old Testament saints and prophets looked forward to the coming of Christ; as this doctrine was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.