John Calvin Commentary Romans 10:5

"For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby." — Romans 10:5 (ASV)

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.