In contrast to the righteousness offered by the law, which was exclusive and unattainable, the righteousness offered by Christ is easily accessible, open to all, and leads to salvation.
Beginning in Romans five and running through Romans eight, Paul argued both for justification by faith and that such justification is the only way to have peace with God. Paul further argued that such justification changes the believer and reorients their view of sin and righteousness. The believer is made new and presents themselves to God as instruments of righteousness. The believer remains human but is dead to sin and seeks to see relief from both habitual and occasional sin. Paul argued that what God has accomplished in the believer is nothing short of extraordinary and that this accomplishment is completely independent of any heritage or standing as a Jew or Gentile.
In Romans chapter nine Paul began to deal with the issue of how justification by faith fits in the narrative of Israel, and in particular, how God can remain sovereign, just, and loving even when his chosen people (Israel) reject justification by faith. In particular, in chapters eight through eleven, Paul argued that while the Jews have not readily embraced the Gospel, that does alone does not invalidate the Gospel.
Beginning in Romans 9:30 Paul uses a rhetorical question to address those who notice that justification by faith can result in those who were not even trying to be righteous achieving righteousness and those who were trying to achieve righteousness falling short. Paul’s argument essentially boils down to an argument from the impossibility of achieving righteousness through works.
In Romans 10:5-13, Paul uses the impossibility of achieving righteousness by works as a springboard into a discussion of the righteousness available through Christ by faith. Drawing on the Old Testament Paul argues that this perspective is not only consistent with Scripture but provides a universal solution to the sin problem.
In order to argue that the statement “Christ is the means of attaining righteousness” is consistent with the Old Testament, Paul begins by arguing that achieving righteousness through the law is an impossibility. The impossibility of achieving righteousness through the law necessitates an alternative means and that means is Christ.
In the first portion of the passage, Paul sets out to demonstrate that righteousness from the law is an impossibility. The first step in this argument is demonstrating that the righteousness from the law is only available to those who obey the law. In Romans chapter three, Paul argued that complete obedience was impossible and so by arguing that righteousness from the law is only available to those who obey the law, Paul is able to demonstrate that achieving righteousness through the law is impossible.
Paul begins his argument by citing a portion of Lev. 18:5. However, it is worth noting that the word righteousness is absent in Lev. 18:5. Paul implicitly argues that Moses, in writing Lev. 18:5, is writing about righteousness. Specifically, the accusative τὴν δικαιοσύνην in the phrase Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου (For Moses writing with respect to the righteousness which comes from the law) is an Accusative of Respect which restricts the verbal action by delineating the respect in which the verbal action is true. [1] Hence, Paul has interpreted Lev. 18:5 as dealing with righteousness. It is worth investigating such an interpretation to better understand the precedent for such an interpretation.
In the Psalms of Solomon (an apocryphal work in the LXX), the writer seems to connect the ideas of righteousness and eternal life. The writer states, “to those walking in righteousness of his commands, in the law which he commanded us unto our life.” [2] A few verses later, the writer writes, “and not so are sinners and the lawless who love the day and sharing in their sins…on account of this their inheritance is Hades”. [3] Hence, there does seem to be a precedent for interpreting righteousness, eternal life, and obedience as being interwoven. Therefore, it would not be completely foreign for Paul to connect the idea of obedience to the Law as a means of righteousness. [4] Paul appears to have connected the obedience to the law with the notion of eternal life and this is certainly consistent with Rom 2:13.
Interpreters have offered a few suggestions for why exactly Paul makes the argument about eternal life from the law here in Romans 10:5. One interpretation is that Paul is arguing here (that is in Romans 10:5) that righteousness through the law is impossible by connecting with Romans 9:31 “but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.” [5] In this interpretation, Romans 10:5 is contrasted with 10:6-8 and justification by faith.
Others interpret the passage to present a “negative conception in direct contrast to the righteousness based on faith.” [6] In this view, Paul is preparing his readers to see that Christ is bringing the whole idea of righteousness through the law to a close by arguing that Christ has rendered righteousness through the law obsolete. Proponents of this view connect strongly with the second half of Romans 10:4 “righteousness to everyone who believes.” [7] That is, this view places significant emphasis on the contrast between the righteousness on from the law and righteousness from faith.
Another interpretation is that, here, Paul is not stating that the Law is impossible to keep but rather that Christ is the only person who was able to achieve the righteousness of the Law. That is, the Law is impossible for any mere man but was kept in its entirety by Christ. In this interpretation, Romans 10:5 is more closely connected with the entirety of Romans 10:4. [8] Based on the inclusion of γὰρ (for) to transition from verse four to five it seems most reasonable to interpret verse five as being tightly connected to verse four. Together with the fact that Paul seems to be connecting obedience to the law with eternal life this view seems the most appropriate.
Hence, in Romans 10:5 Paul builds an argument that Christ is the goal of the law by demonstrating that the law promised righteousness and life to the one who obeyed the law. Christ obeyed the law and satisfied the impossible requirements needed to achieve righteousness through the law.
In contrast to the impossible standard of the Law that only Christ could achieve, Romans 10:6 begins an argument that the righteousness from faith is readily accessible. The use of the conjunction δὲ (but) provides an explicit contrast. The contrast is spelled out as between righteousness from the Law and righteousness from faith. That this is a contrast and not coordination (righteousness from the Law and righteousness from faith) is well supported in the book of Romans (Rom. 3:20-22, 27-28; 4:5, 13-16; 9:32). [9]
After setting up the contrast, Paul draws on Deut. 9:4 for his statement “Do not say in your heart.” The subjunctive εἴπῃς in Μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (Do not say in your heart) is a Prohibitive Subjunctive formed through the use of μὴ + aorist subjunctive and is equivalent in force to having a negative imperative. [10] However, more than just the grammatical force of a negative imperative, Paul connects the negative imperative to the idea of rejecting spiritual pride because of one’s self-righteousness. Specifically, Paul has drawn on a passage of Scripture that definitively argues that Israel had not received the land (blessing) because of their own righteousness. Many of Paul’s readers may have noticed the context and understood that in the past, Israel had been warned that God blessed not because of their own righteousness but because of his own choice. [11] Paul is definitively stating that self-righteousness is ineffective.
The use of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (in your heart) brings out the notion of one’s seat of emotions, and conviction; the place of one’s inner life. [12] For the individual who has understood Paul’s argument, that the righteousness promised by the law is an impossible standard to reach, the resulting feeling might easily be despair. How can one possibly be right before God? Only a true hero could accomplish such a task. [13] Paul’s command is don’t get caught up in such despair. For, as he will argue, God has provided his own way.
What Paul does next is particularly difficult to understand. Drawing on Deuteronomy 30:12-14 Paul quotes “who will ascend into heaven.” Following this quotation Paul adds the phrase τοῦτʼ ἔστιν Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν (that is to bring Christ down). In its context, Deut. 20:11-20 seems to be speaking about the ability of Israel to keep the Law. Hence, on an initial look one might wonder why Paul is using a passage about Israel’s ability to keep the law in his argument. However, narrowing in on Deut. 30:12-14 the focus appears to be on the nearness of God’s Law. That is, the idea appears to be that there is no need to go to the ends of the earth and beyond to understand what God wants from his people, God’s standard is near. With this understanding, the phrase “That is to bring Christ down” completes the contrast. The Christ is the source of nearness, the source of a relationship with God, and, just as there was not a need to go beyond the ends of the earth to discover how God wanted his people to live in the past, there is presently not a need to go beyond the ends of the earth to find the Christ.
In verse seven, Paul further pushes his point using the conjunction ἤ (or) to connect another section of Deut. 30:12-14 with his imperative “do not say in your heart.” However, whereas Deut. 30:13 states “Who will go over the sea for us,” [14] Paul adjusts the language slightly stating Τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον (who will go down into the abyss). The change from the language of the sea to the abyss is not as great a stretch as some might imagine. In Judaism the terms were sometimes used interchangeably and here Paul has chosen to use a different word to draw out a Christological point. [15] Specifically, Paul is able to draw readers to the physical resurrection of Christ as completed by God. That is, the use of the abyss is likely a reference to the death of Christ. Paul is drawing a double meaning which captures both the original picture of crossing the sea in a heroic effort to find some rare treasure with the picture of Christ being raised from the dead. There is no need for individual heroism because God has completed the task. For further explanation of the word ἄβυσσος see the appendix.
In verse 8 Paul draws on a Contextual Perfective Present through the phrase ἀλλὰ τί λέγει; (But what does it say?) in which an Old Testament quotation is cited as having been spoken in the past but having continuing results or force in the present. [16] A question that deserves attention is the referent of the third person in λέγει. In the wider context the referent appears to be the righteousness from faith mentioned in verse six. [17]
The quotation in verse eight is taken from Deut. 30:14 [18] (But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart so that you can do it.), [19] with the exception that Paul omits לַעֲשֹׂתֹֽו (so that you do it). [20] Originally, Deut. 30:14 demonstrated that God’s word was available and accessible to Israel. Here, Paul reinterprets the word of God to be to be the word of faith, reminding his readers that the whereas the righteousness of the law proved unattainable, the righteousness of faith is readily available and accessible. The word of faith is that which ὃ κηρύσσομεν (we are preaching). In this way the word of faith refers to the message that Paul and the apostles had proclaimed. More precisely, the word of faith is both the content of faith and the act of trusting. [21]
In a carefully constructed play on ideas, Paul argues that the righteousness promised through the Law, and the Law itself are not some arbitrary ideas that needed to be fetched from the ends of the earth. Rather, the Law was written down and codified. Yet the Law was impossible to keep and its righteousness impossible to achieve for all but one, Christ. To the one who understands these facts, there is no need to despair, for just as the Law was not some unknowable standard to be fetched, neither is the Christ. That is, Christ is near at hand and not just some far fetched hope. Just as God had been the one to provide the Law, so God had provided Christ. There was no need to go to heaven to search for Christ or to try to conjure the powers over death to release Christ from the dead. God had sent Christ to earth and God had raised Christ from the dead. Christ, the fulfilment of the law is already at hand.
Just as Israel was commanded not to count their own righteousness as the source of blessing in Deuteronomy 9:4 so here the reader is reminded that it is God who provides the solution.
In the previous four verses, Paul argued that, while the righteousness promised through the law was unattainable, there was a righteousness available through the word of faith that was near at hand and available. In what follows Paul presents the mechanisms through which an individual can have the righteousness that is available through the word of faith.
In verse nine Paul explains a means of receiving righteousness, confession and belief. The ὅτι (that) which begins the verse demonstrates that what follows is the content of the word of faith. Structurally, the construction ἐαν + subjunctive provides a third-class condition in which, grammatically, the fulfillment of the apodosis is uncertain but likely or a fifth-class condition in which the fulfillment of the apodosis is realized in the present [22] . In this case, the fifth-class condition seems appropriate given the nature of the claim being made.
The protasis of the statement involves both confession and belief. The first item that needs to be addressed is the object of confession. The condition given is that one should confess with their mouth that κύριον Ἰησοῦν (Jesus is Lord). The question remains, what does it mean to confess Jesus is Lord? Several competing propositions have been made by various theologians, but what seems most appropriate is a confession that Jesus is none other than God himself. Given the context of the Roman empire, one may further see the notion of Lord as conveying some form of loyalty. That is, one confesses that Jesus is Lord meaning that Jesus is both the God of the universes and worthy of one’s loyalty. [23] More details can be found in the Appendix. There is also a minor textual variation that deserves some attention. A few manuscripts add το ρημα to ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν. This addition makes the formula more clearly a confession and more liturgical but is likely not original. More details can be found in the Appendix.
The second aspect of the protasis is belief ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (in your heart). In this case ἐν seems to indicate the location where belief occurs rather than the object of that belief. [24] The belief is a belief ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν (that God raised him from the dead). In particular, the belief is not a belief that God could raise the dead but a specific belief that God did raise Jesus from the dead. [25]
What Paul has presented in this protasis is in perfect correspondence with Romans 10:8 where the word was in the mouth and in the heart. The apodosis is salvation. Here Paul has connected the righteousness available with the notion of salvation. That is, the word of faith brings righteousness near at hand providing salvation.
One final note on the conditional sentence deserves attention. Specifically, the inverse of a condition is not necessarily false even if the condition was true. [26] Hence, failure to confess does not imply a person is unsaved. Rather the statement is that those who confess and believe are ensured salvation. [27] In the subsequent verses Paul provides more details.
In verse ten, Paul reinforces the connection between the righteousness he had been discussing and the salvation he brought into verse nine while providing a transition to his discussion of the universal availability of salvation. The conjunction γαρ (for) indicates that what follows is further explanation of what has been stated. [28] In fact, verses nine and ten appear to be a A B B’ A’ chiastic structure which serves to highlight Paul’s intention not to necessarily compartmentalize distinct steps to salvation but rather to demonstrate that the steps are mutually defining. [29]
At first glance, verse ten suggests that the one who believes is justified and the one who confesses is saved. However, Paul is not considering each of these as independent of the other but rather, in light of verse nine, he is arguing that that belief and confession go hand in hand and justification and salvation likewise are hand in hand. [30] Certainly, the words δικαιοσύνην (righteousness) and σωτηρίαν (salvation) are distinct words with different meanings, but from the passage here, Paul seems to want to connect the idea righteousness and salvation. Perhaps the point is that in being declared righteous (justified) the individual is saved.
Having made a very clear statement about the inability of realizing the righteousness of the law and the simplicity of the righteousness through Christ, Paul again turns to Scripture to defend his statements and demonstrate that this righteousness through Christ is available to all. In another perfective present, λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή (for the Scripture says), Paul cites Scripture as evidence for his argument.
Anyone who has carefully read Paul’s argument up to this point might notice that Paul’s argument allows for anybody to be saved. Such an argument would have been surprising to many and especially significant compared with the righteousness of the Law which was only available to a select few. Paul, drawing on scripture, affirms this is in fact the case.
The clause Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται (everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame) is a variation from Isa. 28:16. In particular, the use of Πᾶς (everyone) is a Pauline insertion not found in either the MT or the LXX. [31] In fact, Paul had referenced exactly the same passage in Rom. 9:33. However, whereas here Paul adds Πᾶς (everyone), in Rom 9:33 Paul chose not to add Πᾶς. In Rom. 9:33 Paul was contrasting gentile faith with Israelite unbelief. [32] However, here Paul seems to be placing emphasis instead on the universal availability of the Gospel. Paul’s inclusion of Πᾶς helps demonstrate his argument.
The statement οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται (will not be put to shame) is not a reference to a psychological or emotional state but rather a reference to an eschatological promise. [33] Specifically, at the future judgement, those who confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead will be vindicated when God recognizes the righteousness that comes through Christ.
In verse twelve, Paul makes explicit the underlying implication present in the passage. Regarding the righteousness available through Christ, there is no distinction made between Jew and Gentile. The construction of genitive + καὶ + genitive in the phrase οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος can be classified as a Genitive after Certain Noun. In this case the construction requires the translator to supply the word “between”. [34] That is, “for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek.”
The language Paul uses in verse twelve is identical to his statement in Romans 3:22d. In fact, the overall message of Romans 3:21-31 was the universal availability of righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. In Romans three, Paul’s argument was that the existence of a single God necessitated that such a God was a god of both the Jew and a Gentile. Here, Paul will use a similar argument to reach a similar conclusion. [35]
The phrase ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων (for the same Lord is overall) appeals to the uniqueness of the Lord as evidence that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. In Romans 3:30 Paul, in noting there was one God, appears to be considering God the Father. Here, in the context of Romans 10:9 Paul is arguing that Jesus Christ is the same Lord who is over both Jew and Gentile. Specifically, since Jesus is himself the sovereign God of all, the righteousness he offers I available to all. Ultimately, the ascription of the title Lord to Jesus, together with the proclamation that Jesus is Lord over all, may take an early Christian credal statement and use it to argue that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. [36]
The phrase πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας (being rich on all) brings to mind both the concept of unlimited divine wealth, and also the mercy of God. In fact, in Eph. 1:7 and Eph. 2:7, the notion of God being rich in mercy is made explicit. That is, God who is abounding in mercy, makes that mercy available to all, Jew or Gentile, τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν (who call upon him). The verb ἐπικαλέω was frequently used to describe the act of calling upon a deity for any purpose and term was often used by Greeks to capture the idea of calling upon a god for help or intervention. [37] The main point is the idea of calling on God for help.
In verse 12 Paul had emphasized that the Lord is rich to all who call upon him. Now drawing again on Scripture for his support, Paul summarizes the whole argument by stating that calling upon God is the key to salvation, regardless of whether one is a Jew or Gentile.
Paul uses the conjunction γὰρ (for) to introduce a word-for-word quote of Joel 2:32 from the LXX. In both a summary statement and provision of strong evidence that Scripture supports the universal availability of righteousness, Paul argues that anyone has access to salvation. The use of a subjunctive in πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται (For everyone who calls upon) is an example of a subjunctive in an indefinite relative clause. That is, a subjunctive following ὃς which indicates a generic subject and is similar to a third class or fifth class condition. [38] In this case, the potentiality is in the subject. That is, emphasis is placed on the universality of the condition. “All who call” can partake in the result.
The direct object of the call is τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου (the name of the Lord). In Joel 2:32 the name of the Lord was without a doubt יְהוָ֖ה However, here in context Paul almost certainly has the name of Jesus in mind equating Jesus with the God of Israel. The idea of calling on the name of the Lord is that of identification with the community of those who call on the Lord. In Joel there was a coming day when God would provide his blessings on his people and, as noted in Joel 2:32, a key aspect of this day was people identifying with God by calling on his name. Here Paul has revealed that the Lord with whom the people identify is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. [39]
The result of calling on the Lord, that is identifying with Jesus, is σωθήσεται (will be saved). The verb σωθήσεται is a future passive and wraps up Paul’s argument with a strong result. Calling on the name of the Lord results in salvation for all not just the Jews but also the Gentiles. The salvation is not something that anyone does for themselves but is rather an action of God to bring the person to salvation.
Justification by faith can result in those who were not even trying to be righteous achieving righteousness and those who were trying to achieve righteousness falling short. However, this is part of God’s plan and provides salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. To the one who might think it is unfair that God provides salvation to those who do not manage to keep the Law, Paul has argued that no-one except Christ was able to keep the Law. Therefore, all have mutually benefitid from God’s grace.
Christ fulfilled the Law and in so doing made the impossible task of receiving righteousness from the Law possible by receiving righteousness through Christ. Whereas the righteousness of the Law was accessible (codified or near), it was not attainable. The righteousness of Christ, on the other hand, can be attained through the act of belief and confession. Moreover, all of this is consistent with Scripture.
In Romans chapter eight, Paul began to argue that while the Jews have not readily embraced the Gospel, that does alone does not invalidate the Gospel. With the simple principle of calling on the Lord to be saved in hand, Paul is prepared to begin his next argument that follows in Rom. 10:14-10:21.
Specifically, Paul has set the stage to argue that Jews having the Word of God, and the outstretched hands of God (Rom 10:21), remain disobedient and contrary to the very things of God. A Jew might look on Paul’s presentation and declare that it is unfair for God to offer salvation to those who are not trying to achieve righteousness from the Law. Paul has set the stage to argue, that in reality, the Jew has been disobedient to the clear Gospel of Christ. The simple fact is that all those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.
A key theme of the passage is that, for the individual, salvation is easy. Specifically, the individual does not need to go to the ends of the earth or expend great effort in order to achieve righteousness. The individual simply needs to confess and believe the message of the Gospel, a message attested to by Scripture and the apostles. [40] In sharing the Gospel, the evangelist must be careful to not overly complicate the Gospel. There is a time for depth of understanding, but the Gospel itself is simple. The evangelist should consider and evaluate their presentations of the Gospel to ensure that they are keeping it simple enough for the situation in which they find themselves. At times, a question asked may require more details, but when such events arise, the evangelist should remind themselves, and possibly the person being evangelized, that the Gospel is simple.
The universal availability of the Gospel is another important theme in the passage. In Romans, Paul is dealing explicitly with the universal availability of the Gospel to both Jew and Gentile. However, the Gospel crosses other barriers as well. Specifically, the Gospel does not distinguish between race, culture, socio-economic-status, intelligence, or athletic ability. The same God is over all and hence the Gospel is applicable to all. The follower of Christ should not hesitate to share the Gospel with any individual regardless of who they are. A church filled with people who look, and act, exactly alike is a church that may need to ask itself if it is properly handling the universal availability of the Gospel.
The textual problem in Romans 10:9 is three-fold and involves the phrase ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν. Two witnesses add Χριστον to the end of the phrase, a few add ότι between σου and κύριον, and a couple witnesses add το ρημα to the beginning of the phrase. Neither adding Χριστον to the end of the phrase or adding ότι significantly changes the meaning. However, adding το ρημα to the beginning could turn the confession into a creed to be repeated. Transcriptional evidence is mixed. On the one hand a scribe could have overlooked the words and unintentionally left the words off. On the other hand, a scribe may have intentionally added words to make the phrasing smoother or for liturgical purposes. [41] The canon of the shorter reading is preferred supports the omission in all three cases. Intrinsic probability would allow for either inclusion or exclusion of Χριστον as Paul frequently uses both Ἰησοῦν and Ἰησοῦν Χριστον. Similarly, the inclusion or exclusion of ότι is possible in Paul. Intrinsic probability for το ρημα may be supported by the inclusion of το ρημα in verse eight. Internally, inclusion of Χριστον has excellent date and character being found in P46(II, Alexandrian), A(V, Alexandrian). Inclusion of ότι has reasonable date and character being found in B(IV, Alexandrian), 81(X, Alexandrian), l249(IX, Other), a Coptic translation in Sahidic, and Clement of Alexandria (215 AD). Inclusion of το ρημα is only found in B(IV, Alexandrian) and Clement of Alexandria (215 AD). Exclusion has excellent date, character, and geographic distribution being found in numerous (more than 20) manuscripts including א(IV, Alexandrian), G(IX, Western), and K(IX, Byzantine). Considering all the options, internally, omission is preferred. The widespread and early omission suggests that early manuscripts excluded the words. The canon of which reading best explains the other readings suggest that a scribe added the word Χριστον and ότι to provide a smoother style. The word το ρημα was probably added to support liturgy. Therefore, omissions of words is most likely representative of the original. [42]
In the classical period (900-300 BC), the word ἀβθσσος was used to refer to something unfathomable or bottomless. [43] For example, in Aeschylus, Suppliant Women line 470 the word appears in the phrase ἄτης ἄβυσσον πέλαγος (It is a bottomless sea). The word was also used to describe the “world of the dead.” [44]
In the LXX the term appears 35 times and is used in a variety of ways but most frequently, to translate the Hebrew word תְּהוֹם with the idea of the depths of the sea. For example, in Jonah 2:6 the word is used in ἄβυσσος ἐκύκλωσέν με (the deep surrounded me). Other examples include the great deep of Gen. 7:11, of subterranean fountains in Deut. 8:7. Drawing on Gen. 1,2 the idea of a cosmic abyss can be considered. [45] Consistent with the classical period, the word is also used in Ps. 71:20 to allude to the world of the dead. [46]
The term appears in a few documents especially the magic papyri during the Koine period (300 BC – AD 100). [47] While no extant Greek manuscripts are known, the Book of Jubilees 5:6 likely contained the word as a reference to the place where demons are confined (He bade us to bind them in the depths of the earth[48]). In Philo On Creation 29, the word is used as contrasted with heaven, τὴν δʼ ἄβυσσον[49] (and the other he called the abyss).[50] When quoting or paraphrasing Moses, Philo does use the word to refer to the flood but the general sense of the word in the Koine period seems to be something more akin to the opposite of heaven. Hence the Koine period seems to take the classical and LXX realm of the dead and more directly compare that with heaven.
In the NT the term is used nine times. The term is used once in the gospels to refer to the place where demons are sent. Luke 8:31 states εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν (to depart into ἀβύσσου). In Pauline literature the term is only used in Romans 10:7, the verse under consideration. In non-Pauline literature, the verse only occurs in Revelation where it appears seven times all of which appear to have something to do with a bottomless pit or place of confinement. For example, in Revelation 9:1 the word is used in the phrase καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου (and he gave him the key to the shaft of the ἀβύσσου). According to BDAG ἀβθσσος refers to “a transcendent place associated with the dead and hostile powers.” [51] Some lexica place the emphasis on “the very deep place” noting that this can be the bottomless pit. [52] The association of ἀβθσσος with the world of the dead is the choice many scholars choose in Rom. 10:7. [53] Within the parallelism that Paul appears to be constructing between verse six and seven, this seems an appropriate view. [54]
The question under consideration here is the meaning of κύριον Ἰησοῦν in ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν. Understanding this phrase has become a significant aspect of understanding soteriology. Several interpretations are present: the view that one must confess the Lord Jesus, an individual must confess that Jesus is master to be saved, and the view that an individual must confess that Jesus is the God of Israel to be saved.
The view that one must confess the Lord Jesus interprets κύριον Ἰησοῦν as simple apposition. In this view the Lord Jesus is the object of confession rather than a clause. This view is grammatically possible and consistent with the translation choice of both the KJV and NKJV. However, grammatically, κύριον Ἰησοῦν may also be taken as a Double Accusative of Object-Complement. That is, a construction whereby one accusative is the direct object and the other predicates. If taken in this way, the proper name must be the object in the object complement construction and κύριον the object compliment. [55] Three facts support taking the object compliment approach. First, not every verb can take an object compliment but the verb ὁμολογεω can (Jn. 9:22). Second, the confessions in 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3; and Phil. 2:11 are all not merely apposition. In particular, Phil. 2:11 has some strong parallels and does not make sense to read as Simple Apposition. Third, the Vaticanus has a textual variant that appears to clarify the interpretation by presenting a nominative subject-predicate construction. [56]
Therefore, the preferable translation is of the form Jesus is Lord and one of the remaining options needs to be chosen.
The view that an individual must confess that Jesus is master to be saved is part of a stronger argument that calls for individuals to submit to the lordship of Jesus. [57] In particular, this view requires the individual to obediently submit to the direct sovereignty of Jesus over their life. James 2:19 which suggests that believing in one God is not, in and of itself, sufficient for salvation is often cited in support of this view. Other passages such as Matt. 19:16-22 and Luke 9:57-62 suggest that merely knowing something about Jesus is not sufficient for salvation, and Phil 2:9-11 certainly connects the idea of bowing to Jesus with his title of Lord. Theologically, the Bible seems to suggest that more than just knowing facts about Jesus is necessary. However, these arguments fail to demonstrate that, in this particular passage, Paul is arguing that someone must confess Jesus as master to be saved.
In fact, within the context of the passage Paul seems to be arguing that Israel is incapable of achieving works-based righteousness and needs to turn to Christ in faith. Paul’s declaration in Romans 10:13 suggests that the usage of Lord is a reference to the God of Israel. [58] In fact, Paul is quoting from Joel 2:32 in the LXX where ὄνομα Κυρίου is a clear reference to the God of Israel. [59] Hence, in context the use of ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν seems to be a reference to confessing that Jesus is the God of Israel. Hence the proclamation that Jesus is Lord is a proclamation of objective Lordship rather than subjective lordship. [60] That is, one needs to proclaim that Jesus, as God, is sovereign over the universe (objective) but one may not recognize the personal application of that sovereignty to their own life (subjective lordship) in order to be saved.
Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου
ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας °αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς.
ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτως λέγει·
Μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου·
Τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν;
τοῦτʼ ἔστιν Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν·
ἤ· Τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον;
τοῦτʼ ἔστιν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν.
ἀλλὰ τί λέγει;
Ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου,
τοῦτʼ ἔστιν τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν.
ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ⸂ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν
καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου
ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν,
σωθήσῃ·
καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην,
στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν.
λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή·
Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος,
ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος [ἐστιν κύριους] πάντων,
πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν·
Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου
σωθήσεται. [61]
[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 467-468.
[2] τοῖς πορευομένοις ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ προσταγμάτων αὐτοῦ, ἐν νόμῳ ᾧ ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν εἰς ζωὴν ἡμῶν. Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909), Ps Sol 14:1.
[3] καὶ οὐχ οὕτως οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ καὶ παράνομοι, οἳ ἠγάπησαν ἡμέραν ἐν μετοχῇ ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν·… διὰ τοῦτο ἡ κληρονομία αὐτῶν ᾅδης Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint, Ps Sol 14:4–6.
[4] Frank Thielman, Romans: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018). 490-491.
[5] ESV
[6] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids: Eeardmans, 1996). Loc 24094.
[7] ESV
[8] C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 521–522.
[9] Thielman, Romans, 491.
[10] Wallace, Grammar, 469.
[11] Moo, Romans, Loc 24148.
[12] BDAG, καρδία.
[13] Thielman, Romans, 492.
[14] ESV
[15] Moo, Romans, Loc 24225.
[16] Wallace, Grammar, 532.
[17] Thielman, Romans, 493.
[18] Paul nearly quotes the LXX exactly modulo a few changes in word order.
[19] ESV
[20] Paul’s decision to omit לַעֲשֹׂתֹֽו is consistent with his choice to emphasize that there is nothing any person can do to achieve salvation.
[21] Thomas Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998). Loc 16537.
[22] Wallace, Grammar, 697.
[23] Thielman, Romans, 496.
[24] Wallace, Grammar, 359.
[25] Thielman, Romans, 496.
[26] Wallace, Grammar, 686, refers to this is the reverse condition, but in logic the term inverse is more appropriate.
[27] This is not in any way to imply universalism but rather to emphasize that a rejection of universalism cannot be made from this passage.
[28] Thielman, Romans, 497.
[29] Thielman, Romans, 497.
[30] Moo, Romans, Loc 24265.
[31] Schreiner, Romans, Loc. 16537.
[32] Thielman, Romans, 498.
[33] Schreiner, Romans, Loc. 16550.
[34] Wallace, Grammar, 135.
[35] Schreiner, Romans, Loc. 16550.
[36] Moo, Romans, Loc. 24279.
[37] BDAG, ἐπικαλέω.
Moo, Romans, Loc. 24293.
[38] Wallace, Grammar, 478.
[39] Thielman, Romans, 498-499.
[40] Thielman, Romans, 505.
[41] Schreiner, Romans, Loc. 16613.
[42] This is also the conclusion drawn by Schreiner Romans, Loc. 16613 and James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16: Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014). Loc 4328.
[43] LSJ
[44] J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:9
[45] Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003), ἀβυσσος
[46] J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:9
[47] M-M, ἀβυσσος.
[48] It is important to note that there are not any extant Greek manuscripts of Jubilee 5:6 and so the best that can be done is translate backward. The English translation here is taken from Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 20.
[49] Philo, “Philo: Greek Text,” The Loeb Classical Library (London; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1929–1962), 22.
[50] Charles Duke Yonge with Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 5.
[51] BDAG, ἀβθσσος.
[52] DBL, ἀβθσσος.
[53] J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:10.
[54] W. Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of the Romans, 3d ed., International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1897), 288. It is worth noting that this language is probably figurative and a reference to death. Nothing in the language requires that we view this as a reference to Christ being bound in Hell for a period of time.
[55] Wallace, Grammar, 182-188.
[56] Wallace, Grammar, 188.
[57] The MacArthur Study Bible strongly advocates for this view. John MacArthur, ed., The MacArthur Study bible, ed. John MacArthur (Nashville: Word Bibles, 1997). 1712. In John MacArthur, Romans 9-16: The MacArthur New Testement Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1994). 73-74 the term Lord is interpreted as one’s own sovereign.
[58] Blauvelt, Jr. Livingston, "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation," Bibliotheca Sacra, 1986: 37-45.
[59] Thielman, Romans, 499.
[60] Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989). 70-73.
[61] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Ro 10:5–13.
This web page was created with Mobirise website templates