Brethren, the delight of my own heart and my supplication which [I address] to God for them is for salvation.
Paul has just written a hard chapter about Israel's unbelief and the judgment on it. Now he bends his knee and prays for that same nation — which raises the question: what does hard truth do to love?
Chapter 9 had set out God's settled dealings with Israel, including their rejection. Commentators note that this knowledge changed nothing about Paul's affection, and they point to a detail in the wording: the older manuscripts read "for them" rather than "for Israel."
Paul knew God's unchangeable purposes about Israel. That knowledge had not put out his love for his nation at all. It had not taken from his heart every hope that his Israelite brothers would be saved. The thought that delighted his heart and drew out his affection in prayer to God was their salvation. He says "for them," not "for Israel," as the common text has it. He is already occupied with Israel, so putting in the name would have been needless. Leaving it out is beautiful, because it shows that they and their salvation — not their judgment, however much Israel might deserve it — were before his mind.
Another writer warns that a scrap of such knowledge often hardens people toward those under God's discipline. Paul shows the opposite.
Paul had just drawn an amazingly full and connected sketch of God's revealed ways and settled purposes for man on the earth. None of it got in the way of his warm love for Israel. Men often twist a small scrap of such knowledge and use it to close their hearts to people who are to blame and under God's particular discipline. But it was not so with the apostle... There was no need to say more clearly whose blessing he cared about so much, and this all the more because of their great danger. The threats in the prophecies were coming true in Israel's deepening unbelief, and that drew out his strong crying to God on their behalf, and this for salvation. For what less than salvation could satisfy a heart that loved them?
Paul's opening address is not a filler word. One writer traces the habit across his letters.
When this word "Brothers" begins the sentence, it is always in preparation for a particularly earnest appeal.
Paul asked for one definite thing. What he asked tells you the state of the people he prayed for.
The apostle Paul — the writer of these words — is bending his knee, and praying for his own nation. He prays for something definite — their salvation. When he prays that they may be saved, is it not a proof that they are lost? Of course it must be. It is only lost people who need salvation. Was he praying then for a nation of cut-throats, drunkards, and reprobates? No; he was praying for a nation of religious people. They were religious in the extreme, but they were not saved. So we learn plainly from this first verse: religion cannot save the soul. Only Christ can do that.
Someone might blame God for Israel's loss. One writer asks where Paul's longing came from in the first place.
Nothing less than salvation is the heart's desire and prayer of Paul for Israel. Can he be accused of despising his nation? Or can God — who put such longings in the apostle's heart — be blamed for Israel's neglecting such salvation? Is God's desire not just as deep and real as was Paul's for Israel's salvation? — yes, and for that of "all men"? First Timothy 2:4 bears its clear witness. The fault is utterly in man's pride, certainly not in God's goodness.
Two writers turn the verse on the reader. One points to the Jewish people, the other to the crowd around us.
For His beloved people Israel the great apostle of the Gentiles prayed to God, that they might be saved. What an example he has given to us believers from the Gentiles. We owe a great debt to Israel; but how little prayer there is among Gentile Christians for the salvation of the Jews!
But how he grieved over the mass of deceived Jews. Are we so grieved for the mass around us? Can we say our heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they might be saved?
- Knowledge — the hardest chapter about his nation's failure left Paul's love for them untouched. A scrap of such knowledge often hardens people toward those under God's discipline; in Paul it did the opposite.
- Wording — he prayed "for them," not "for Israel," as the common text reads. Their salvation stood before his mind, not their judgment.
- Prayer — he asked for one definite thing: salvation. Only lost people need saving, and this nation was religious to the extreme.
- Source — the longing was God's before it was Paul's. The fault for Israel's refusal lies in man's pride, not in God's goodness.
- Example — Christians from the Gentiles owe a great debt to Israel, yet pray little for them. The same test applies to the crowd around us.
For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Paul has just poured out his longing for Israel's salvation. Now he does something surprising. He speaks well of the very people who rejected the gospel. He testifies to their zeal — and in the same breath names what was missing from it.
The phrase points to who their devotion was aimed at. It does not mean God gave them the zeal. One writer explains the Greek behind it, and why the old wording "zeal of God" misleads:
"Zeal of God" is a poor translation, like "faith of the Son of God" in Galatians 2:20. The Greek genitive covers far more ground than the English possessive... The Jews were zealous for God, but not according to right or true knowledge. This made the apostle care for them all the more tenderly. Their zeal carried them the further in the wrong direction. That is always what happens in the things of God when faith does not order matters by what God has revealed.
Paul is not describing strangers. He had once been the clearest example of such zeal himself:
The apostle had never been a careless, easy-going Israelite. His training was very strict, and his own zeal matched it. He gave the fullest proof of that, for he persecuted this Way to death... He was the highest example of those who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. So who could speak from personal experience like him to people who did not know God's righteousness and were trying to set up their own?
That shared history shapes how he speaks. He turns their zeal into a plea for them, yet he refuses to let it stand as enough:
He could fully sympathize with a zeal that had once been the special honour of his own name as a child of tradition. At the same time, as an apostle of truth, he exposed how useless and worthless such zeal is. So he could find it in his heart to use their zeal for God as a plea for that nation, marking it off from the nations who did not care for God. Yet he has to declare, as from God, the complete rejection of it. Unless the Spirit of truth produces and directs such zeal, it is only a dead work of the flesh.
The next verse names the missing piece: they did not know God's righteousness. Their zeal did not just fall short of it. It stood in the way:
Their zeal aimed at man's righteousness by the law. That zeal was the obstacle that kept them from knowing God's righteousness and submitting to it. When God presented His righteousness, offering it to Israel in their own Messiah, they rejected Him. They failed in their own righteousness and what was worse, they would not submit to God's.
Zeal is only speed. Its value depends on the direction it takes:
Paul, the great apostle, was not the man to waste his time praying for something that had already happened. Here he tells us that he was praying for Israel, that they might be saved. So they were not saved. Yet they were religious, they were zealous, they were doing their best. "They have a zeal for God," said the apostle, "but not according to knowledge." It should be plain to everybody that the greater a man's zeal, the worse it is for him if he is wrong. The more zealous a man is on the wrong road, the further he travels from the right destination.
So the verse raises a question: does being in earnest count with God?
Will zeal for God in itself commend any sinful creature to Him? Will being in earnest be enough to win Heaven's approval for anyone? Earnestness without subjection to God's Word will not help those to whom that Word has come.
A clear conscience is no safer than earnestness. Paul's own past proves it:
We get and keep a "good" conscience by carrying out honestly and strictly everything our conscience tells us. A zealous man whose conscience is uninformed or twisted will do the most outrageous things to keep his "good" conscience. That is how Paul acted before his conversion... This shows plainly that conscience is no safe guide on its own. The Word of God must enlighten it.
- Zeal. Their devotion was aimed at God, not given by God. Paul says so plainly, and says it in their favour.
- Direction. Zeal is speed, not guidance. The more zealous a man is on the wrong road, the further he travels from the right destination.
- Knowledge. What was missing was knowledge of God's righteousness. Their own zeal for a righteousness by law became the obstacle that blocked it.
- Conscience. Sincerity settles nothing. Conscience is no safe guide until God's Word enlightens it, as Paul the persecutor proved.
- Love. Paul names their fault as one who once shared it. He turns their zeal into a plea for them, and keeps praying for their salvation.
For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
Paul is explaining what went wrong with a people who worked hard at religion. He stacks three failures into one sentence: they did not know God's righteousness, they were building a righteousness of their own, and they would not bow to His.
The problem was not laziness but blindness. One writer says their ignorance ran deeper than one doctrine:
They ignored the righteousness of God, not just the doctrine of justification — though that follows too. They were ignorant of God's righteousness revealed in the gospel. Their hopes rested on human merit, topped up by God's promises, by priesthood, rites, and religious duties. They saw the Messiah as the crown and completion of their privileges. They did not see Him as a suffering substitute, or as a Saviour in the power of His resurrection after bearing their judgment on the tree.
Commentators differ on where that ignorance lies. Another writer points to God's own standard:
The Jews were ignorant of God's righteousness: that is, they were ignorant of how righteous God is. If they had realised that, they would have known they were under condemnation. They would have known that no effort of their own could meet His demands. Because they did not know how righteous God is, they set out to build a righteousness of their own.
The verse turns on this phrase. One writer rules out two common definitions of it, then says what it really is:
To turn "the righteousness of God" into His method of salvation by faith is a weak sense, and even a false one. Some theologians say the phrase means only Christ's obedience to the law, ending with His suffering on the cross. That idea is almost as unsatisfactory. The phrase means what it says: "the righteousness of God." It stands in contrast with man's righteousness, which the law demanded. Divine righteousness is a righteousness already accomplished in Christ. God gives it by faith. It justifies the ungodly, instead of condemning them, as the law must do. So this righteousness takes in not only Christ's holy obedience through all His life here below, but also God's righteous dealing "for us" in His death, resurrection, and ascension.
"Seeking to establish their own" describes effort poured into a job no one can finish. That effort, one writer says, exposes a double ignorance:
How many people in the Apostle Paul's day, and how many still today, are working to build a righteousness of their own. It cannot be done, if they only knew it. Such an effort shows they do not know themselves, and do not know God. Of themselves, for they can have no right sense of their guilt before God. Of God, because they think He can lower the standard of His holiness and righteousness to the level they imagine they have reached. That He never will.
The verse ends with a refusal. One writer traces it to the root that resists every other authority:
Romans 10:3 shows that natural pride is what keeps us from submitting to proper authority... How natural it is to want to be right without submitting to true righteousness! This is the snare of submitting to our own self-righteousness.
Another writer asks what to call a person who refuses:
They did not submit! What is a boy who will not submit to his parents? He is disobedient. What is a man who will not submit to the government? He is a rebel. But how shall we label the man who refuses to submit to God? By what name shall we call him? Can you find a name strong enough for him in your language? And having found the name, who among you does it describe?
Submitting is not one more effort of our own. One writer says what it is:
Now this is what God calls submitting to God's righteousness: finding a righteousness which is neither of us nor in us. It is finding Christ before God. It is the proud will, through grace, submitting to be saved by what is not of us or in us. It is Christ instead of self, instead of our place in the flesh.
And the verse leaves one door open, which is the same door it says they walked past:
All they need is submission to the righteousness of God, for it is the only righteousness possible of being established.
- Ignorance — They did not know how righteous God is. They did not know the righteousness the gospel reveals. Every other failure in the verse grows from that root.
- Effort — Building your own righteousness assumes God will lower His standard to your level. He never will, so the work never ends.
- Refusal — Behind all the busy religion sits pride. It wants to be right on its own terms, not right on God's.
- Meaning — God's righteousness is not His method of saving. It is not just Christ's law-keeping. It is a righteousness already finished in Christ, and God gives it by faith.
- Submission — To submit is to stop producing and start receiving. It is Christ instead of self, instead of our place in the flesh.
For Christ is [the] end of law for righteousness to every one that believes.
Paul has just said that his people's zeal for God ran ahead of their knowledge. They were busy building a righteousness of their own. Verse 4 is his answer: everything the law reached for ends in a Person, and God gives that Person to anyone who believes.
The tragedy in Israel was not indifference. It was energy aimed the wrong way. One commentator shows where it went wrong:
Their zeal aimed at man's righteousness according to the law. That zeal was the very thing that kept them from knowing God's righteousness and submitting to it. When God presented His righteousness, offering it to Israel in their own Messiah, they rejected Him.
Commentators differ over the word "end." One writer weighs the options and settles on termination:
One view, held from ancient times and perhaps even more today, is that Christ is the fulfilment of the law. But "end" and "fulfilment" are different words, and there seems no ground at all for confusing them. Others take it in the sense of "object" or "aim." But the simplest meaning, as the context decides, appears to be "termination"... "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." The Christ of God is made righteousness to us.
Others read "end" as the goal the law aimed at all along:
The word "end" is used here, we believe, just as it is in 2 Corinthians 3:13, meaning the object in view. The law was really given with Christ in view. It paved the way for Him. If only Israel had been able to look steadily to the end of the law, they would have seen Christ. It is quite true, of course, that now Christ has come, all thought of reaching righteousness by law is finished. But that is not the primary meaning of verse 4.
Either way, the result is the same. One writer found the door of a local shop boarded up, with a notice reading "Entrance round the corner":
We did not waste time trying to force our way through that old door. We followed the plain directions, entered by the new way, and got what we wanted. Men need righteousness if they are to be at peace with God. If the law could have given that righteousness, the law would have stood as the way of blessing. But no sinful foot ever walked that road, so no one was justified, or could be justified, by the deeds of the law. Now God has closed that way for ever. He has replaced it with Christ, and through Him the worst of men may receive the blessing without works.
The verse does not say the believer receives a quality. One writer presses the difference:
Scripture nowhere says that Christ's righteousness is credited to us, but that He Himself is our righteousness... We are not justified because of a righteousness the Lord Jesus worked out in His life. That righteousness was entirely His own. We are justified because He Himself is our righteousness. Better to have Christ as your righteousness than ten thousand righteousnesses of your own.
A holy law cannot just be set aside. How can believers go free without bearing the penalty? One writer answers:
Look for the answer at that central cross on Calvary. Hanging there is One who did no sin, who had kept the law in every detail, and who delighted to do so. The law had no judgment for Him, and death had no claim on Him. Yet He bore the curse of the law and died for us. He met its full demands by the sacrifice of Himself. He was there as our substitute, and in our place He paid the penalty, and we died in Him.
The last phrase removes Israel's special claim. The door now stands open to all:
So it is a matter of believing on the Lord Jesus and confessing Him, and we are saved. But this lets in everyone who does so, and the national relationship drops away... Before, we had "no difference," because all have sinned. Now we have "no difference," because the same Lord is rich toward all who call on Him. Sin levelled everyone alike before God. Grace raises everyone alike through faith.
Ending the law for righteousness raises an obvious question. One writer answers it:
Is the believer then lawless? No. As risen with Christ, he is to live to God, and Christ is his law in the new resurrection sphere. The grace that came by Christ teaches us to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age... Grace gives the driving power to fulfil the righteousness of the law. The law itself never could do that, and was never meant to.
- Wrong target. Israel's zeal was real, but aimed at a righteousness of their own. It blinded them to God's righteousness, offered in their own Messiah.
- The word "end." Commentators differ. Some read it as termination: the law is finished as a way to righteousness. Others read it as the goal the law pointed to all along.
- The cost. God did not cancel the law's claims. Christ paid them. He bore its curse in our place, so the ending is just.
- The gift. Righteousness is not a quality handed over. It is a Person: Christ Himself is the believer's righteousness.
- The reach. "Everyone who believes" levels the ground. Sin made no difference; now grace makes none either.