John Calvin Commentary Romans 10

We see here with what careful concern the holy man prevented offenses. For, in order to soften whatever sharpness there might have been in his manner of explaining the rejection of the Jews, he still testifies, as before, to his goodwill toward them and proves it by the effect. For their salvation was an object of concern to him before the Lord, and such a feeling arises only from genuine love.

He may also have been induced by another reason to testify to his love for the nation from which he had come. For his doctrine would never have been received by the Jews had they thought that he was openly hostile to them. And his defection would also have been suspected by the Gentiles, for they would have thought, as we have said in the last chapter, that he became an apostate from the law through his hatred of people.

For I bear to them a testimony, etc. This was intended to lend credence to his love. There was indeed a just reason why he should regard them with compassion rather than hatred, since he perceived that they had fallen only through ignorance, and not through malice, and especially as he saw that they were led only by some regard for God to persecute the kingdom of Christ.

Let us learn from this where our good intentions may lead us, if we yield to them. It is commonly thought a good and very suitable excuse when someone who is reproved pretends that they meant no harm. And this pretext is considered valid by many today, so that they do not apply their minds to find out the truth of God, because they think that whatever they do wrong through ignorance, without any deliberate malice, but with good intention, is excusable.

But none of us would excuse the Jews for having crucified Christ, for having cruelly raged against the Apostles, and for having attempted to destroy and extinguish the gospel; and yet they had the same defense in which we confidently glory. Away then with these vain evasions regarding good intention; if we seek God sincerely, let us follow the only way by which we can come to Him. For it is better, as Augustine says, even to go limping in the right way than to run with all our might in the wrong direction. If we want to be truly religious, let us remember that what Lactantius teaches is true: that true religion is only that which is connected with the word of God.

And further, since we see that those who wander in darkness with good intention still perish, let us bear in mind that we are worthy of a thousand deaths if, after having been illuminated by God, we wander knowingly and willfully from the right way.

For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, etc. See how they went astray through thoughtless zeal! For they sought to set up a righteousness of their own, and this foolish confidence proceeded from their ignorance of God’s righteousness.

Notice the contrast between the righteousness of God and that of men. We first see that they are opposed to one another as things wholly contrary and cannot stand together. Therefore, it follows that God’s righteousness is subverted as soon as men set up their own.

Again, as there is a correspondence between the things contrasted, the righteousness of God is undoubtedly His gift; and in like manner, the righteousness of men is that which they derive from themselves or believe that they bring before God. Therefore, whoever seeks to be justified through himself does not submit to God’s righteousness.

For the first step towards obtaining the righteousness of God is to renounce our own righteousness. For why is it that we seek righteousness from another, unless necessity constrains us?

We have already stated in another place how men put on the righteousness of God by faith; that is, when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them. But Paul grievously dishonors the pride by which hypocrites are inflated when they cover it with the specious mask of zeal; for he says that all such, by shaking off, as it were, the yoke, are adverse to and rebel against the righteousness of God.

For the end of the law is Christ, etc. (Romans 10:4). The word completion, does not seem unsuitable to me in this place; and Erasmus has rendered it perfection: but as the other reading is almost universally approved, and is not inappropriate, readers, for my part, may retain it.

The Apostle here pre-empts an objection that might have been made against him, for the Jews might have appeared to be following the right way by depending on the righteousness of the law. It was necessary for him to disprove this false opinion, and this is what he does here. He shows that anyone who seeks to be justified by his own works is a false interpreter of the law, because the law had been given for this purpose—to lead us, as by the hand, to another righteousness. Indeed, whatever the law teaches, whatever it commands, whatever it promises, always refers to Christ as its main object; and therefore all its parts ought to be applied to him. But this cannot be done unless we, being stripped of all righteousness and confounded by the knowledge of our sin, seek gratuitous righteousness from him alone.

It therefore follows that the wicked abuse of the law was justly rebuked in the Jews, who absurdly made an obstacle of that which was intended to be their help. Indeed, it appears that they had shamefully mutilated the law of God, for they rejected its soul and seized on the dead body of the letter.

For though the law promises a reward to those who observe its righteousness, yet after proving all guilty, it substitutes another righteousness in Christ, which is not attained by works but is received by faith as a free gift. Thus the righteousness of faith, (as we have seen in the first chapter), receives testimony from the law. We then have here a remarkable passage, which proves that the law in all its parts referred to Christ; and therefore, no one can rightly understand it who does not continually aim at this mark.

For Moses, etc. To make it clear how much the righteousness of faith and that of works are at variance, he now compares them; for by comparison, the opposition between contrary things becomes clearer. He is not now referring to the oracles of the Prophets, but to the testimony of Moses. He does this so that the Jews might understand that the law was not given by Moses to keep them dependent on works but, on the contrary, to lead them to Christ. He might indeed have referred to the Prophets as witnesses, but this doubt would still have remained: “How was it that the law prescribed another rule of righteousness?” He then removes this doubt in the best way, by confirming the righteousness of faith through the teaching of the law itself.

But we should understand why Paul harmonizes the law with faith, and yet sets the righteousness of the one in opposition to that of the other: The law has a twofold meaning. It sometimes includes everything taught by Moses, and sometimes only that part unique to his ministry, which consisted of precepts, rewards, and punishments.

But Moses had this common office: to teach the people the true rule of religion. This being the case, he needed to preach repentance and faith. Faith, however, is not taught except by setting forth promises of divine mercy, and those freely given. Thus, he also needed to be a preacher of the gospel—an office he faithfully performed, as is evident from many passages.

To instruct the people in the doctrine of repentance, it was necessary for him to teach what kind of life was acceptable to God; and this he included in the precepts of the law. So that he might also instill in the minds of the people the love of righteousness and implant in them the hatred of iniquity, promises and threats were added. These proposed rewards to the just and proclaimed dreadful punishments on sinners. It was then the duty of the people to consider in how many ways they brought curses upon themselves and how far they were from deserving anything from God by their works. This realization was intended to lead them to despair of their own righteousness, so they might flee to the refuge of divine goodness, and thus to Christ himself. This was the end or design of the Mosaic dispensation.

But since gospel promises are found only scattered in the writings of Moses, and are also somewhat obscure, and since the precepts and rewards assigned to those who observe the law frequently occur, it rightly belonged to Moses, as his own particular office, to teach what is the real righteousness of works. His office was also to show what reward awaits its observance and what punishment awaits those who fall short of it. For this reason, Moses is compared by John to Christ, when it is said:

That the law was given by Moses, but that grace
and truth came by Christ (John 1:17).

And whenever the word “law” is understood so strictly, Moses is by implication opposed to Christ; and then we must consider what the law contains when separated from the gospel. Therefore, what is said here about the righteousness of the law must be applied not to the whole office of Moses, but to that part which was, in a way, specially committed to him. I come now to the words.

For Moses describes, etc. Paul uses γράφει (writes), which is used for a verb meaning “to describe,” by removing a part of it [from ἐπιγράφει]. The passage is taken from Leviticus 18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who keep his law; for it is in this sense, as you see, that Paul has understood the passage, and not as referring only to temporal life, as some think.

Paul indeed reasons in this way: “Since no one can attain the righteousness prescribed in the law unless they strictly fulfill every part of it, and since all people have always fallen far short of this perfection, it is futile for anyone to strive in this way for salvation. Israel, then, was very foolish to expect to attain the righteousness of the law, from which we are all excluded.” See how from the promise itself he proves that it can be of no avail to us, for the reason that the condition is impossible.

What a futile strategy it is, then, to cite legal promises in order to establish the righteousness of the law! For with these promises, an unavoidable curse comes to us; so far are they from being a source of salvation. All the more detestable on this account is the folly of the Papists, who think it enough to prove merits by citing mere promises.

“It is not in vain,” they say, “that God has promised life to his servants.” But at the same time, they do not see that it has been promised so that a consciousness of their own transgressions might strike everyone with the fear of death, and so that, being thus constrained by their own deficiency, they might learn to flee to Christ.