The Pulpit Commentary
Brethren, my heart's desire (εὐδοκία, expressing good will) and prayer to God for them (for Israel, as in the Textus Receptus, has no good support) is, that they may be saved (literally, is unto salvation). "Non orasset Paulus, si absolute reprobati essent" (Bengel).

Rom_10:2, Rom_10:3

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God. For ζῆλον Θεοῦ, meaning zeal for God, cf. Joh_2:17; Act_22:3; Gal_1:14. The word ζῆλος was commonly used for the religious ardour of the Jews at that time (cf. Act_21:20, Πάντες ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου ὑπάρχουσι), and there was a faction among them called distinctively Ζηλωταὶ, to which Simon Zelotes (Luk_6:15; Act_1:13) is supposed to have belonged originally. St. Paul's mention of the religious zeal of the Jews of his day is apposite in this place. In Rom_9:1-5, where he was about to speak of their rejection from the inheritance of the promises, he appropriately dwelt on their ancient privileges; here, where he has in view their own failure to respond to God's purpose for them, he as appropriately refers to their undoubted zeal, which he regrets should be misdirected. But not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of (ἀγνοοῦντες, in explanation of οὐ κατ ἐπίγνωσιν preceding) God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own (righteousness, repeated here, is ill supported), they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For the meaning of God's righteousness, opposed to man's own righteousness, see on Rom_3:19, Rom_3:20; also on Rom_1:17, and Introduction.

The Pulpit Commentary
For Christ is the end of Law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. The word "end" (τέλος) might in itself mean

(1) termination,

(2) fulfilment,

(3) aim or purpose,

which is the evident meaning of the word in 1Ti_1:5 and 1Pe_1:9. This last seems best to suit the line of thought in this place. The Jews evinced ignorance, i.e. of the real meaning and purpose of Law, in resting on it for justification. This is St. Paul's constant position in speaking of the office of Law—that it could not and was never meant to justify, but rather to convince of sin; to establish the need of, and excite a craving for, redemption; and so prepare men to appreciate and accept the righteousness of God in Christ which was its τέλος (see especially ch. 7.; and cf. Gal_3:24, Ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἵνα ἐκ πίστως δικαιωθῶμεν). Νόμος being here anarthrous, we translate it according to the rule observed in this Commentary. The apostle has, indeed, in view the Mosaic Law; but it is the principle of law, as such, that he is speaking of. He next proceeds, as elsewhere throughout the Epistle, to quote from the Old Testament in illustration of the contrast between the two principles of justification, and this with the intention of showing that even in the Pentateuch that of justification by faith was intimated, and thus that it was all along the real τέλος of the Law. "Nam si prophetas suae sententiae testes citasset, haerebat tamen hic scrupulus, cum Lex aliam justitiae formam praescriberet. Hunc ergo optime discutit, quum ex ipsa Legis doctrina stabitit fidei justitiam" (Calvin).

The Pulpit Commentary
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by (literally, in) them (Le 18:5). This quotation is intended to express, in the words of Moses himself, the principle of Law, viz. the requirement of entire observance of it, such as the apostle elsewhere contends is impossible (cf. Gal_3:10-12). It may be objected that Moses himself, in the original passage, does not seem to be setting forth any such impossible requirement. He says, in the name of the Lord, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which, if a man do, he shall live in them;" implying, it would seem, that a man might so keep them as to live in them; else were the injunction delusive. In the quotation also of the same text in Eze_20:11, Eze_20:13, Eze_20:21 and Neh_9:29, only such a requirement as might have been fulfilled appears to be understood. But St. Paul (as appears from the context, and from Gal_3:12, where the text is similarly cited) refers to it as expressing the strict principle of law, as above defined. It, then, the text, in its original connection, seems to fall short of the sense put upon it, we may understand the apostle to quote it as a well-known one, sufficiently suggestive, if taken, as he intends it to be, in connection with others, such as Deu_27:26, cited with it in Gal_3:10, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them." It is his way to refer to familiar texts, or such as most readily occur to him, as suggestive of Old Testament ideas which he expects his readers to be acquainted with. Calvin's remarks on this whole passage deserve attention: "Lex bifariam accipitur. Nunc enim significat universam doctrinam a Mose proditam, nunc pattern illam quae ministerii ejus propria erat; quae scilicet praeceptis, praemis, et poenis continetur Quod ergo hic de justitia Legis dicitur referre convenit non ad totam Mosis functionem, sed ad partem istam quae peculiariter quodammodo ei commissa fuit." His drift is, that the passage before us intimates the strict principle of law, which it was the peculiar function of Moses to promulgate, whereas the passage which follows from Deuteronomy is significant of its universa doctrina. This distinction may help us to understand St. Paul's drift, in referring, as he proceeds to do, to Deu_30:11-14. The determination of this drift is attended with some difficulty. First, we observe that, whereas the original passage certainly refers to the Law given to the Israelites through Moses—to the same "statutes and judgments" that were the subject of the previous quotation—St. Paul applies it to describe justification through faith in Christ; and, secondly, that, in order to apply it, he alters some parts of it, and interposes comments of his own. One view is that he is only making a free-use of the words of the passage to clothe his own thoughts. So Bengel: "Ad hunc locum quasi parodia suavissime alludit, sine expressa allegatione." But his obvious intention, here as elsewhere, to support his positions from the old Scriptures surely precludes this view. Nor can he be supposed to cite the passage as simply prophetical of the gospel which was to supersede the Law, since it evidently was not so. The proper view seems to be that he adduces it as illustrating, in the first place. what Calvin calls the universa doctrina of the Law itself, with regard to its actual application as a norma vivendi to the needs of man. Here, he would say, the very Mosaic dispensation is presented to us, not as exacting any impossible obedience to the strict behests of law, but only such as the "circumcised in heart" could render, and be accepted still; it is presented to us, not as a rigid external code, enjoining and threatening, but as a word very nigh unto us, even in our heart, that we may do it; it is, in fact, an anticipation and foreshadowing of gospel salvation. In confirmation of this view of the apostle's meaning, it is to be observed that the passage occurs, not in the earlier books of Moses, but in Deuteronomy, which appears as an appendix to them, containing for the most part long discourses in the style of the prophets, wherein the Law is, as it were, spiritualized, and its universa doctrina opened out. In it we feel ourselves as rising out of the region of strict legal exaction into a higher and more spiritual one. Observe also that the passage before us is based on the idea of a people circumcised in heart, and loving the Lord with all the heart and all the soul (verses 6, 20); on an ideal view of a state of favour and acceptance never realized in Jewish history, but such as we find often in the prophetic writings (cf. Jer_31:31-34, the famous passage referred to more than once in the New Testament as having its eventual fulfilment in Christ). Thus the passage before us is legitimately referred to by St. Paul, as an intimation in the Pentateuch itself of the "righteousness which is of faith."

The Pulpit Commentary
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart (in the original, It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say), Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down). The parenthesis is St. Paul's own; the original has, after "heaven," and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead). Again the parenthesis is St. Paul's; and he has substituted "into the deep" (εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον) for " beyond the sea." The original is, Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that (or, because) if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The apostle's purpose in varying from the original is obvious from his interposed comments, and from the application that follows. It seems to be as though he had said, "See how, with a slight alteration, the passage in Deuteronomy becomes an exact description of our Christian doctrine." The most marked alteration is the substitution of "into the deep" for "beyond the sea." The "sea" in the original, to which the term "abyss" is applicable (cf. Job_28:14; Psa_107:26), may have suggested the word; but St. Paul here evidently means by it the regions of the dead, imagined as subterranean, equivalent to the Hebrew Sheol, and the Greek Ἅδης. For use of the word in this sense, cf. Psa_71:20, Ἐκ τῶν ἀβύσσων τῆς γῆς πάλιν ἀνήγαγές με cf. also Luk_8:31 and Rev_9:1, Rev_9:2, Rev_9:11; Rev_11:7; Rev_17:8; Rev_20:1, Rev_20:3; in which passages ἡ ἄβυσσος seems to denote the penal abode, corresponding to the Greek idea of Tartarus; but the word itself does not contain this idea, which is by no means intimated here. It may be taken to denote Hades, into which Christ "descended." Some commentators suppose the previous expression, "ascend into heaven to bring Christ down," to mean bringing him back to earth from heaven, whither he has ascended now. But the mere fact of its coming first, as well as the general sense of the passage, shows it to refer rather to the Incarnation, and what follows to the Resurrection. These were the two grand stages in the great work of redemption; both were required that "the righteousness which is of faith" might effectually be brought "nigh unto us." The impossible task of effecting either was not required of man; God has done both for us, and we have but to "believe in our hearts," that "the word" of his grace may be nigh us, in our mouth and in our heart, that we may do it. Thus all that was intimated or foreshadowed by that old passage in Deuteronomy is in its fullest sense to us fulfilled. In verse 9 the applicability of the words, "in thy mouth, and in thine heart," to the gospel dispensation is shown; the two expressions, properly understood, denoting all that is required of us. Confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth must be taken to express generally, not only fearless avowal of the Christian faith, but also consistent life, according to the full meaning of our Lord's words in Mat_10:32; Mar_8:38; Luk_10:26; Luk_12:8, etc. Confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth, too, would have a peculiar significance then, when Christians were often so sorely tempted to deny him under persecution (cf. 1Co_12:3). We may observe also how "the mouth" is elsewhere regarded as the index of the heart; as the main bodily organ whereby character is evinced and expressed (cf. Mat_12:34, Mat_12:37; Mat_15:11, etc.). Further, the belief spoken of is belief in the heart—a living operative faith, not intellectual conviction only. Nor is belief that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead to be taken as meaning belief of this one article of the Creed alone; it carries with it belief in the gospel generally, the doctrine of the Resurrection being here, as elsewhere, regarded as the central doctrine on which all the rest depends (cf. I Corinthians Luk_15:17; 1Pe_1:21). "Haec summa Evangelii est. Nam, cum credimus Christum excitatum esse e mortuis, credimus sum pro peccatis satisfecisse, et in coelis regnare, ut nos ad imaginem suam perficiat" (Bucer). In Luk_12:10, where the offices of the heart and of the mouth are denoted in general terms, the distinction between "unto righteousness" with respect to the one, and "unto salvation" with respect to the other, is significant. By faith alone we are justified; but by confession in actual life, which is the fruit of faith, our salvation is secured.

What follows to the end of the chapter is abruptly expressed, in such wise as to render difficult a clear exposition of the intended argument. It seems (as in other parts of the Epistle) as if St. Paul had dictated rapidly, and without pausing to consider whether readers would easily follow the thoughts of which his own mind was full. First, having done with his illustrations from the Pentateuch, he resumes the line of thought expressed at the end of Rom_10:4, by παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. For, though Rom_10:11 is logically connected (in a way usual with St. Paul) with the preceding one—the quotation from Isaiah being adduced in proof of πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην in verse 10—yet what follows is really a continuation of the thought of verse 4, viz. that the "righteousness of God," spoken of in verse 3, is of faith, and also for all. In evidence of this he returns to the text from Isa_28:16, already cited in Rom_9:33, and himself supplies πᾶς at the beginning of it, so as to bring out its universal application. It may be that, quoting from memory, he had forgotten that this word was not in the original, or he may have purposely added it in order to express more clearly what the original—in which there is no limitation of ὁ πισττεύων—really implied. The latter supposition is probable, inasmuch as (according to the best-supported readings) he had previously (Rom_9:33) quoted the text without this addition, and now follows out the idea of πᾶς by giving a reason for it, and then, in Rom_9:13, adds a text from Joel in which πᾶς does occur, so as to intimate that the "calling on the Name of the Lord," spoken of by Joel, implies the "believing" spoken of by Isaiah, and hence that the two texts must be equally universal in their application.

Rom_10:11, Rom_10:12

For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed (see above, on Rom_9:33). For there is no difference (rather, distinction) between the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord of all, being rich unto all that call upon him. Here, in Rom_10:12, the apostle comments on the text from Isaiah, so as to show the universality of its application (see previous note). It is (he would say) in itself applicable to Jew and Gentile alike, and it must needs be so, since the one God is the same to all that call upon him, even as the Prophet Joel also testified. The thought thus expressed was one deeply fixed in St. Paul's mind. He elsewhere speaks Of the very unity of God as implying of necessity that he is the same alike to Jews and Gentiles (see above, on Rom_3:29).

For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Joe_2:32). The text from Joel is in a passage which is distinctly Messianic; the same that is quoted by St. Peter (Act_2:16) as fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. Hence, and from the fact of πᾶς ὃς ἂν being emphatic in the original, it is well quoted by the apostle as supplementing the previous one from Isaiah, and as conclusive for his argument.

Rom_10:14, Rom_10:15

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? This question may be taken, in the first place, as serving to connect the two passages from Joel and from Isaiah (see previous note). But it is further the beginning of a sorites, suggested by a new thought, which is carried out to the end of the chapter. The course of this new thought through the rest of the chapter may be expounded as follows: It might be pleaded, in behalf of the unbelieving Jews, that they had never really heard, through preachers duly sent to them, the gospel message; and hence that they were not to be blamed for rejecting it. With this idea before him, the apostle first (verses 14, 15) allows generally, in the form of a series of questions, that, as before calling on the Lord there must be faith, so before faith there must be hearing, before hearing there must be preaching, and for preaching there must be authorizing mission; and he quotes, in illustration, a passage from Isaiah, which describes beautifully the preaching of good tidings of peace by commissioned messengers to all the world. But he is careful to add (verses 16, 17) that, according to the same prophet, such universal preaching, and consequent hearing, does not involve universal hearkening; thus showing, in view of the main purpose of his argument, that the fact of the Jews not hearkening now is no evidence that they had not heard. Then he goes on to ask whether any could plead the excuse of not having heard, so as to justify want of the faith that cometh of hearing. Nay, he replies (verse 18), the sound of the good tidings has gone forth to all the earth, even like the language of nature spoken of in Psa_19:1-14. Then (verse 19), pressing his argument home to the Jews, who have been all along in view, he asks, "But I say, Did not Israel know?" The word ἕγνω, being different from ἤκουσααν previously used, must express some different meaning. But what St. Paul exactly meant by it is not quite clear. The quotations from the Old Testament that follow in proof of knowledge (verses 19, 20) seem to support the view that what Israel knew, or ought to have known, was the Divine design of the promulgation of the "good tidings" to all the world, which has just been spoken of. Such promulgation should have been to them no stumbling-block; for it had been told to them from Moses downwards, and they had full opportunity of knowing it. Lastly (verse 21), the apostle intimates that the present state of things, in which Gentiles accept the gospel while Israel in the main rejects it, far from being an objection to it, is but a further fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies, which represent God as making himself known to those who had not known him, while pleading with Israel in vain. This exposition of the supposed course of thought being borne in mind, the passage (with the further aid of some interposed comments) may become intelligible. It continues: And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard! and how shall they hear without a preacher! and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that [preach the gospel (or, good tidings) of peace, and] bring glad tidings of flood things! (Isa_3:7). The genuineness of the. words within brackets is at least doubtful. Even with them the text is not quoted in full, though sufficiently to remind of its purport.

The Pulpit Commentary
But not all obeyed (or, hearkened to) the gospel (or, good tidings). This means, apparently, that in the prophet's representation of the proclamation of the good tidings all were said to hear, but not all to hearken, For Esaias saith, Lord, who Believed our report? (The Greek word here is ἀκοῇ, the same as in Rom_10:17, there rendered "hearing," and corresponding to the verb ἀκούειν in Rom_10:14,Rom_10:18.) So then faith cometh of hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (ῥήματος Θεοῦ, God's own Word, committed to, and spoken by, preachers duly sent). But I say, Did they not hear?. The previous aorist, ὑπήκουσαν, in Rom_10:16 having been understood as referring to the prophetic representations rather than to present known facts, the aorist ἤκουσαν here must, for consistency, be similarly understood, though with a view also to the actual universality of the gospel message. The unexpressed nominative to ἤκουσαν appears from the context to be men in general, not the Jews in particular. Israel is not specified till Rom_10:19. Yea, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world (Psa_19:4). The "sound" and the "words" in the psalm are those of the heavens and the firmament. But in the second part of the psalm, beginning at Rom_10:7, the psalmist passes from God's revelation of himself in nature to his revelation of himself in his Word. Still the psalm itself cannot well be understood as intimating the universal proclamation of the gospel. Nor is it necessary to suppose that St. Paul so understood it. Enough for him that the words he quotes express admirably what he desires to say.

But I say, Did not Israel know? (see explanation given above). First, Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no nation; by a foolish nation I will anger you. It may be observed that in the Greek we have the same word, ἔθνει,, in both classes of the sentence, though, in order to bring out the supposed meaning in the first clause, it is there, in the Authorized Version, rendered "people," and in the second, "nation." The passage occurs in the song attributed to Moses in Deu_32:21, and expresses the idea of God, in consequence of the defaults of Israel, favouring those who were so far, as it were, no nation at all, so as to provoke Israel to jealousy. It is therefore aptly cited as an intimation in the Pentateuch itself of the calling of the Gentiles in place of unbelieving Israel. The idea involved in "provoke you to jealousy"—in the sense of moving to emulation, so that Israel itself as a nation might, through the calling of the Gentiles, in the end be saved—is pursued, as will be seen, in the chapter that follows.

The Pulpit Commentary
But Esaias is very hold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. (Isa_65:1). The peculiar boldness of Isaiah's utterance consists in this—that, at a time when Israel was recognized as God's one chosen people, he is said to make himself known even to those who sought him not at all.

The Pulpit Commentary
But to Israel he saith, All day long I stretched out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Isa_65:2). Tholuck remarks, "If from this passage we once more look back upon the tenth and ninth chapters, it is manifest how little Paul ever designed to revert to a decretun, absolutum, but meant to cast all blame upon the want of will in men, resisting the gracious will of God.