…the identification by Paul of the concept of law with that of the Jewish-synagogical nomism does not mean that Paul attributed this conception to Moses. Paul sometimes seems to appeal to Moses for this conception, for example, when he says, in Romans 10.5, that Moses defines the righteousness of the law thus: “the man who does [these things] shall live thereby” (c.f. Galatians 3.12). But this is no more than appearance. For this cannot mean that Moses himself was the promoter of this righteousness by the law. Without regard to the places where Paul appeals for the opposite principle (the righteousness by faith) to “the law” (of Moses)—for which see above—such a view is contradicted by the verse that follows Romans 10.5, in which the righteousness that is by faith is defined with a pronouncement likewise derived from Moses. Now, some have wished to resolve this in such a way that Moses himself, as it were, is said to have posited two possibilities, of which the first (righteousness by the law) was intended by him as a way impossible for the sinner. But not only is such certainty not the intention of Moses in Leviticus 18.5—who after all sets “this do and live” as the rule of the covenant—but it also does not appear from the context that Paul wishes here to attribute this conception to Moses (namely, that the law cannot be fulfilled by sinful man). What Paul means to say is this, that he who strives after the righteousness that is by the law is then bound to the word of Moses, that is, to do what the law demands. Likewise the wrong use of the law, to be zealous for the law without understanding, finds in the law itself the standard to which, if it is to have a chance of success, it must measure up. In that sense it can be said that Moses (or the law itself) “defines” the righteousness that is of the law. This is not an appeal to Moses in support of “a false position,” but a binding of this position to its own point of departure: he who seeks righteousness in the law faces, as appears from the law itself, the requirement of doing (cf. Galatians 3.10, 12).
p. 155, 156
I don’t quite understand Ridderbos’s argument when he’s explaining the positive content of Paul’s teaching. The part that starts with “What Paul means to say is this . . .”
Frankly, I’m wondering about it too. I just couldn’t bring myself to cut short the paragraph. I’m going to read more and see if I can figure it out.
Is ridderbos saying that the law wasn’t ever given as a system of righteousness. If you treat it as such (really), or if you treat it as such in a synagogical manner (wrongly) then you end up bound by the words of it which mean you have to do it all.