was engaged on a difficult point, he introduced a question, and, as though he were in doubt, asked
what might be said on the subject.
That the Gentiles who did not pursue, etc. Nothing appeared more unreasonable, or less befitting,
than that the Gentiles, who, having no concern for righteousness, rolled themselves in the
lasciviousness of their flesh, should be called to partake of salvation, and to obtain righteousness;
and that, on the other hand, the Jews, who assiduously laboured in the works of the law, should be
excluded from the reward of righteousness. Paul brings forward this, which was so singular a
paradox, in such a manner, that by adding a reason he softens whatever asperity there might be in
it; for he says, that the righteousness which the Gentiles attained was by faith; and that it hence
depends on the Lord’s mercy, and not on man’s own worthiness; and that a zeal for the law, by
which the Jews were actuated, was absurd; for they sought to be justified by works, and thus laboured
for what no man could attain to; and still further, they stumbled at Christ, through whom alone a
way is open to the attainment of righteousness.
But in the first clause it was the Apostle’s object to exalt the grace of God alone, that no other
reason might be sought for in the calling of the Gentiles but this, — that he deigned to embrace
them when unworthy of his favor.
He speaks expressly of righteousness, without which there can be no salvation: but by saying
that the righteousness of the Gentiles proceeded from faith, he intimates, that it was based on a
gratuitous reconciliation; for if any one imagines that they, were justified, because they had by faith
obtained the Spirit of regeneration, he departs far from the meaning of Paul; it would not indeed
have been true, that they had attained what they sought not, except God had freely embraced them
while they were straying and wandering, and had offered them righteousness, for which, being
unknown, they could have had no desire. It must also be observed, that the Gentiles could not have
obtained righteousness by faith, except God had anticipated their faith by his grace; for they followed
it when they first by faith aspired to righteousness; and so faith itself is a portion of his favor.
31.But Israel, by pursuing, etc. Paul openly states what seemed incredible, — that it was no
wonder that the Jews gained nothing by sedulously following after righteousness; for by running
out of the way, they wearied themselves in vain. But in the first place it seems to me that the law
of righteousness is here an instance of transposition, and means the righteousness of the law;^315
(^315) There seems to be no necessity for this transposition. “A law (not the law) of righteousness” means a law which prescribes
righteousness, and which, if done, would have conferred righteousness. But the Jews following this did not attain to a law of
righteousness, such a law as secured righteousness. The Apostle often uses the same words in the same verse in a different sense,
and leaves the meaning to be made out by the context. Grotius takes “law” as meaning way, “They followed the way of
righteousness, but did not attain to a way of righteousness.”
What follows the question in the next verse stands more connected with Romans 9:30 than with Romans 9:31; and we must
consider that the word righteousness, and not law, is referred to by “it” after the verb “pursue,” which is evidently to be understood
before the words, “not by faith,” etc., as the sentence is clearly elliptical.
The verb , rendered “sector“ by Calvin, means strictly to pursue what flees away from us, whether a wild beast or an
enemy; it signifies also to follow a leader, and to run a race, and further, to desire, to attend to, or earnestly to seek a thing: and
in this latter sense Paul often uses it. See Romans 12:13; Romans 14:19; 1 Corinthians 14:1. Similar is the application of the
corresponding verb, in Hebrew. See Deuteronomy 16:20; Psalm 34:14“Quaero — to seek,” is the word adopted by Grotius
But Pareus and Hammond consider that there are here three agonistic terms, , and. The first signifies the
running; the third, the reaching of the goal; and the second, the laying hold on the prize: and with this corresponds the stumbling
afterwards mentioned. The Gentiles did not run at all, but the Jews did, and in running, they stumbled; while the Gentiles reached
the goal, not by running, or by their own efforts, but by faith, and laid hold on the prize of righteousness. — Ed.