How should the “rollercoaster” phrase in Romans 10:6-8 be understood?

[allegoria]

The sequence of thought is very strange to me.

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

The logic in which the bolded part is emphasized seems to be:
A. Righteousness based on the law says “a person who does the commandments shall live by them”. But…
B. righteousness based on faith says, "do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?’" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); BECAUSE…
C. if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

- Why is B necessary for this equation? It doesn’t seem intuitively related to A or C, or necessary for the point being made.
- What does it mean to ask “who will ascend into heaven”? Does this mean either not knowing or doubting that Christ ascended? Or does it mean questioning who makes it to heaven (which, somehow, “brings Christ down from heaven”)?
- What does it mean to ask “who will descend into hell”, re: the above?
- These “locational” questions are satisfied by the nearness of the Word and “internalization” of the Word. But if it were simply a matter of reaffirming a “Christ is with us” mentality, by which the believer lives by faith, the part about “bringing Christ up from the abyss” becomes inexplicable, because in terms of location Christ is currently at the right hand of the Father.

I feel like this weird construct tells us something interesting about how Paul sees the Gospel. Could it be that he believes a Christian shouldn’t ask who is received in heaven versus in hell, because the very asking of this question somehow reduces the power of the Christian death and resurrection? That by asking “which one of us goes to hell”, we are in that very moment taking ourselves out of the salvific belief that Christ successfully rescues us from its grasp (mysteriously)? This would fall in line with the rest of what he implies, that salvation is assured via confession and belief without a person ever asking whether their actions warrant salvation.

[DCHindley]

Unfortunately I cannot help with the ascent and descent of Jesus as christ-savior.

This particular section you cited is part of materials I have attributed to a later editor to an original letter of Paul, who added his own commentary. The original Paul did not know anything about Jesus, but relied on Abraham's faith that God would ultimately honor his promise of many sons who would inherit a fruitful land as what justified him before God, and he applied that same analogy to his gentile buddies who also had faith in the coming of that future fruitful land and wished to participate too, if possible, without need for circumcision and law incumbent on those who do - the Law was a special covenant between God and his physical descendants, not those who longed to share such an age if only as respectful guests and sojourners. It was this editor who was convinced that belief that Jesus was a divine redeemer was "better, muuuuccccchhhh better," than faith like Abraham alone.

Here's the thinking:

"Original" Paul said:
10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [Paul's opponents who claim that Law observance is required to inherit] is that they may be [also be] saved [to share in this inheritance].
2 [...].
3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
4 [...].
5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. (Lv 18:5)
6 - 9 [...]

This indicates that Law practice itself does not justify the practitioner before god (a common theme of his), but they are saved though, thusly:

10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.
11 The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." (Is 28:16)
12a For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek;
12b [...].
13 For, "every one who calls upon the name of (the) LORD will be saved." (Joel 2:32)
14 - 21 [...]

In other words, his gentile friends who had faith in that coming age and wished to participate, were being welcomed by God as proved by the proof texts in brackets "()."

Then the new editor gets involved, and adds his commentary with the better way:

2 I bear them [i.e., Judeans] witness that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened
4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified
6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" (that is, to bring Christ down)
7 or "Who will descend into the abyss?" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)
8 But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); [Dt 30:12-14]
9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
12b the same (one) is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him
14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!" (Na 1:15)
16 But they have not all obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed what he has heard from us?" (Is 53:1)

17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." (Ps 19:14)
19 Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry." (Dt 32:21)
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me." (Is 65:1)
21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people." (Is 65:2)

This editor was looking at this from the prospective that law abiding Judeans had rebelled and been defeated, showing the weakness of their position that their law abiding actions alone could garner divine support. This is a terrible argument, of course <aaarrrggghhh!!!>, but the editor felt it was good enough for an ironic rebuke.

DCH

[davidmartin]

I understand the confusion and what you must be going through - you have, after all, tried to make sense of Romans

it seems to address quibbling over who gets to be "saved" within the community over various disagreements and the author is reprimanding saying that's like re-enacting the mystery all over again when you do that (Christ is "unwillingly" forced). That kind of ties up with a few other places similar thought is expressed
the stuff about "word is near you" is straight from Deuteronomy and it's riffing on it here with the classic duality between faith and law thrown in the mix. i don't see anything more than an accusation of legalism and re-assuring correcting statement

(But the usual pattern is to read a statement like this, then find the epistle itself lays down rules to follow to be saved somewhere else! That's also normal in epistle-land). If anyone in the community were, in fact, opposed to legalism they might find the epistles legalistic themselves despite the odd universalist statement).

[Baley]

Paul, or those writing under his name, is interpreting Deuteronomy 30 here in the light of his own belief.

If the life giving Law is not too hard to bear or grasp (Deut. 30:11 "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach") and if Christ is the end or culmination of the Law (Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes"), then surely it is not hard to bear or grasp the life giving Christ.

No need to ascend to heaven (hard!) and bring Christ down because he has already descended. No need to descend into the abyss (hard!) since Christ has already risen up from the dead. Just believe in the Lord with your heart and confess Jesus with your mouth to be saved (cf Deut 30:14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it").

Thus the logic of Paul.

[Peter Kirby]

Paul, or those writing under his name, is interpreting Deuteronomy 30 here in the light of his own belief.

If the life giving Law is not too hard to bear or grasp (Deut. 30:11 "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach") and if Christ is the end or culmination of the Law (Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes"), then surely it is not hard to bear or grasp the life giving Christ.

No need to ascend to heaven (hard!) and bring Christ down because he has already descended. No need to descend into the abyss (hard!) since Christ has already risen up from the dead. Just believe in the Lord with your heart and confess Jesus with your mouth to be saved (cf Deut 30:14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it").

Thus the logic of Paul.

Thanks Baley! That is a good interpretation here.

[davidmartin]

Baley good theory but the "do not ask" part
are you sure this not representing questioning who gets to go to heaven/who is saved? this question appears a few times in scripture
- because it mentions following of the law brings salvation in the 1st verse quoted, then represents the question

by the way the OP quite casually introduced "hell" into the question when paraphrasing it. this is a classic epistle verse that speaks not of hell but Sheol as being this earth, since Christ was raised from the dead right here on earth. there's no hell in the epistles just people's assumption there is

[Baley]

are you sure this not representing questioning who gets to go to heaven/who is saved? this question appears a few times in scripture

Paul talks about salvation, so yes. Whether jew or greek, he who believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth is saved. But Paul's emphasis here is on the superiority of faith over works and the Law. It's all part of an ongoing rant against the presumed stubbornness of the jews - see Romans 9. As far as I can see it's not about reenacting a mystery or believers bringing Christ down from heaven.

[davidmartin]

i'm open to being wrong here i just want to be sure
Hebrews "To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again". The idea that certain actions cause the mystery to be done again (negatively) is found here. Unfortunately I don't think this thought occurs in the epistles anywhere so I accept that
My thought was that let's say some people were yacking about who is saved or not (almost as popular a question as 'faith vs works' in Christianity)
Could Paul be censuring that while at the same time making his bigger point about faith over law which I agree with you is the big take-away
The difference in the end is slight - and the meaning is identical

Of greater interest to me is "to bring Christ up from the dead" showing the author believed in Sheol as the place of the dead. I always take the chance to point that out and suggest the idea of hell got added in later and they were able to add it to some of the later gospels but not the epistles and hell is representative of a late stage in the development of orthodoxy