Romans 10:5

“ For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law thus: The man who hath done [the law], shall live by it. ”

In this translation we have followed, for the first of the three variants indicated in the note, the reading of the T. R., which is supported not only by the Byz. documents, but also by the Vatic. and the two ancient Latin and Syriac versions. It is easy to explain the origin of the other reading which has transposed the ὁτι, that, by placing it immediately after the verb γραφει, writes; it seemed that it should run: Moses writes that. As to the second variant, the authorities in favor of the T. R. (“he that hath done those things ”) are somewhat less strong, and especially it is probable that this object αὐτά (those things) was added under the influence of the text of the LXX.; no reason can be imagined why this word should have been rejected. With regard to the third, we think the T. R. must also be abandoned, which reads at the end of the verse ἐν αὐτοις, by them (those things), and prefer the reading ἐν αὐτῇ, by it (this righteousness). This last reading has on its side the same reasons which have decided us in regard to the second variant, and the authority of the Vaticanus besides.

Accordingly, the object of the verb γράφει, writes, is not the saying of Moses quoted afterward, but the words: the righteousness which is of the law, so that we must here take the word γράφειν, with Calvin, in the sense of describe (Moses describit): “Moses thus describes this way for him who would follow it.” Then (second variant) the participle: he who has done, must be taken in an absolute sense; for it has no expressed object; comp. Romans 4:4 (he that worketh, ὁ ἐργαζόμενος), literally: “He who has acted ” (in contrast to him who has believed). In the translation we have been obliged to supply an object; that object is: what there was to be done, consequently the law. Finally, the ἐν αὐτῇ, by it, which we adopt (third variant), refers evidently to the whole phrase: “the righteousness which is of the law.” This would be the means of salvation and life to him who should really do (the law).

But if it is certain that this way is impracticable for fallen man, how is it to be explained that Moses seriously proposed it to the people of God? Or must it be thought that there was here a sort of irony: “Try, and thou shalt see that it is too hard for thee.” It is enough to reperuse the passage of the law, Leviticus 18:5, to be convinced that the latter cannot be the sense in which this invitation was addressed to the people by the lawgiver. Now, if this exhortation and promise were serious, the way thus traced out was practicable. And, in fact, the law of Jehovah rightly understood was not given independently of His grace. The law, taken in the full sense of the word, contained an entire provision of means of grace unceasingly offered to the pious Israelite. From the moment he sinned, he could have recourse humbly to the pardon of his God, either with or without sacrifice, as the case might be; comp. Psalms 51:16-17: “Thou delightest not in sacrifice...; the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit;” Romans 10:10-12: “Create in me a clean heart, O God; let the spirit of freedom uphold me...; restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation.” The law thus humbly understood and sincerely applied was certainly the way of salvation for the believing Jew; it led him to an ever closer communion with God, as we find exemplified so often in the O. T., and what was yet wanting to this theocratic pardon and salvation was to be granted one day in the Messianic pardon and salvation which closed the perspective of the national hope. There was nothing, then, more serious for the Israelite who understood and applied the law in its true spirit and in its full breadth than the saying of Moses. But, unfortunately, there was another way of understanding the law and using it. It was possible to take the law in a narrower sense, solely in the form of command, and to make this institution thus understood a means of self-righteousness, and of proud complacency in self-merit. Such was the spirit which reigned in Israel at the time when Paul wrote, and particularly that of the school in which he had been brought up. Pharisaism, separating the commandment from grace, deemed that its fulfilment, realized by man's own strength, was the true title to divine favor. It is against this point of view that Paul here turns the law itself. He takes it as it is regarded by those whom he wishes to convince, as simple law, nuda lex (Calvin), law properly so called. And he reasons thus: “You wish to be justified by your own doing. Well! But in that case let your doing be complete! If your obedience is to make you live, it must be worthy of Him to whom it is offered.” Such is the hopeless pass into which the apostle had himself been driven by the law thus understood and practised, and into which he drives the Pharisees of his time. If man wishes to raise the edifice of his own righteousness, let him take out every element of grace in the law; for the instant he has recourse to grace for little or for much, it is all over with work: “work is no more work” (Romans 11:6). This is probably also the reason why the apostle expresses himself as he does according to the true reading, saying, not: “Moses writes that”..., but: “Moses thus describes the righteousness of the law, to wit, that”...The intention of Moses was not to urge to such righteousness. But in his saying there is formulated the programme of a righteousness that is of the law “as law.” If the law be once reduced to commandment, the saying of Leviticus certainly implies a mode of justification such as that of which the apostle speaks. Calvin is therefore right in saying: Lex bifariam accipitur; that is to say, the law may be regarded in two aspects, according as we take the Mosaic institution in its fulness, comprehending therein the elements of grace which belonged to it in view of a previous justification and a real sanctification, or as we lose these elements of grace out of view to fasten only on the commandment and turn it to the satisfaction of human pride.