Romans 9:32,33

“ Wherefore? Because [seeking] not by faith, but as it were by works, they stumbled at the stumbling-stone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence: and he who believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. ”

The apostle has just declared (Romans 9:30) the moral fact which is the real cause of Israel's rejection, and he now asks how this fact could have come about. The question, wherefore? does not signify for what end (εἰς τί)? but on account of what (διὰ τί)? If, with the T. R. and some Byz. Mjj., we read γάρ, for, with they stumbled, this verb necessarily begins a new proposition, and a finite verb must be understood with the conjunction because: “because they sought, not by faith, but as it were by works.” But this reading seems too slenderly supported to be admissible, and it is difficult to extract from it a rational meaning; for the act of stumbling is rather the effect than the cause, or than the proof of seeking in a false way. It would require, consequently, to be, “they stumbled therefore. ” If, with the most numerous and important documents, we reject, the for, two possible constructions remain: Either the whole may be taken as a single proposition (see the translation); the two regimens: not by faith and as it were by works, depend in this case on they stumbled, the participle seeking being understood; this construction is somewhat analogous to that of Romans 9:11. The meaning is excellent. “Wherefore did they not find true righteousness? Because, seeking it in the way of works, they ended in stumbling against the stumbling-stone, the Messiah who brought to them true righteousness, that of faith.” Or it is possible, even without the for, to find here two propositions, as is done by most commentators; the first: “Because they sought not in the way of faith, but in that of works;” the second, which would follow by way of asyndeton, and which would require to be regarded as pronounced with emotion: “Yea; they stumbled”...! But what prevents us from adopting this last construction is, that the idea of stumbling thus comes on us too abruptly. It would require a καὶ οὕτως, and so, to establish the relation between the two acts of seeking in the false way and stumbling. We hold, therefore, by the preceding construction.

Paul can with good reason make it a charge against the Jews that they have not sought righteousness in the way of faith; for he had shown (chap. 4) by the example of Abraham that this way was already marked out in the O. T.; comp. also the saying of Habakkuk quoted (Romans 1:17), and that of Isaiah about to be referred to (Romans 9:33), etc. Every day the experiences made under the law should have brought the serious Jew to the feet of Jehovah in the way of repentance and faith to obtain pardon and help (see the Psalms). And following this course, they would have avoided stumbling at the Messianic righteousness; they would, on the contrary, have grasped it greedily, as was done by the élite of the people. The as it were, added to the regimen by works, signifies quite naturally: “As if it were possible to find righteousness by this means.” Meyer explains it somewhat differently. “To seek righteousness by a process such as that of works.” But the first meaning much better describes the contrast between the real and the imaginary means.

The complement νόμου, of the law, in the T. R. is omitted by the Alexs. and the Greco-Latins; it adds nothing to the idea. Seeking in this false way, they have ended by stumbling on the stone which made them fall. This stone was Jesus, who brought them a righteousness acquired by Himself and offered only to faith. The figure of stumbling is in keeping with all those that precede: follow after, attain to, reach (obtain). In their foolish course, Israel thought they were advancing on a clear path, and lo! all at once there was found on this way an obstacle upon which they were broken. And this obstacle was the very Messiah whom they had so long invoked in all their prayers! But even this result was foretold.