Sabbath vs. Sunday
An Internet Debate

Installment #17-Part 2


This is the second part of Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's discussion on "Paul and the Law."

Much of this material in this installment has come from Dr. Sam's book The Sabbath Under Crossfire: A Biblical Analysis of Recent Sabbath/Sunday Developments.

NOTE
Although some sections of this installment may seem a little "deep" or technical, this is needed in order to do justice to the topic at hand. The reader is suggested to read one portion at a time if what is read is difficult to understand.


Links to significant points in this installment
Discussion 6:
Explanation of misunderstood scriptures: 2) 2 Corinthians 3: 1-18: The Letter and the Spirit.
Discussion 7:
Explanation of misunderstood scriptures: 3) Galatians 3:15-25: Faith and Law.
Discussion 8:
Explanation of misunderstood scriptures: (4) Colossians 2:14: What Was Nailed To The Cross?
Discussion 9:
Explanation of misunderstood scriptures: (5) Romans 10:4: "Christ is the End of the Law"
Discussion 10:
The Law and the Gentiles. Law as Document of Election.

Master Index to major arguments in all installments.


Part 3: A Look at Some Misunderstood Texts
(Continued from Sabbath Debate 17 - Part 1)

(2) 2 Corinthians 3: 1-18: The Letter and the Spirit

This chapter contains a great deal that is often used to argue that the Law has been done away with Christ and consequently Christians are no longer bound to it as a norm for their conduct. In view of the importance attributed to this chapter, we shall look at it in some detail.

The chapter opens with Paul explaining why he does not need letters of recommendation to authenticate his ministry to the Corinthians. The reason is, as he puts it, "You yourselves [Corinthian believers] are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men" (2 Cor 3:2). If on coming to Corinth inquiry should be made as to whether Paul carried with him letters of recommendation, his answer is: "You yourselves, new persons in Christ through my ministry, are my credentials."

Paul continues developing the imagery of the letter from the standpoint of the Corinthians relationship to Christ: "You are a letter from Christ delivered to us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human heart" (2 Cor 3:3). The mention of a letter written by the Spirit in the heart, triggers in Paul's mind the graphic imagery of the ancient promises of the New Covenant. Through the prophets God had assured His people that the time was coming when through His Spirit He would write His Law in their hearts (Jer 31:33) and would take out their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh (Ez 11:19; 36:26). The change of heart that the Corinthians had experienced as a result of Paul's ministry among them, was a tangible proof of the fulfillment of God's promise regarding the New Covenant.

The Letter and the Spirit.

Paul continues summing up the crucial difference between the ministries of the Old and New Covenants, by describing the former as a ministry of the letter and the latter as a ministry of the Spirit. "God . . . has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6; NIV). We must now examine the significance of the distinction which Paul makes between the letter which kills and the Spirit which gives life.

Is Paul saying here, as many believe, that the Law is in and of itself something evil and death-dealing? This can hardly be true, since he clearly taught that "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12) and that "the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it" (Rom 10:5; cf. Gal 3:12; Lev 18:5).

Commenting on this text in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Philip Hughes writes:

"Paul is a faithful follower of his Master in that he nowhere speaks of the Law in a derogatory manner. Christ, in fact, proclaimed that He had come to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it (Matt 5:17). So also the effect of Paul's doctrine was to establish the Law (Rom 3:31). There is no question of an attack by him on the Law here [2 Cor 3:6], since, as we have previously see, the Law is an integral component of the New no less than it is of the Old Covenant." (24)

It is unfortunate that many Christians today, including formers Sabbatarians who have recently attacked the Sabbath, ignore this fundamental truth that "the Law is an integral component of the New no less than it is of the Old Covenant." This is plainly shown by the terms used by God to announce His New Covenant: "I will put my Law within them" (Jer 31:33). The intended purpose of the internalization of God's Law is: "that they may walk in my statutes, and keep my ordinances, and do them" (Ez 11:20). Note that in the New Covenant God does not abolish the Law or gives a new set of Laws, but internalizes His existing Law in the human heart.

Philip Hughes states the difference between the two Covenants with admirable clarity when he says:

"The difference between the Old and New Covenants is that under the former the Law is written on table of stones, confronting man as an external ordinance and condemning him because of his failure through sin to obey its commandments, whereas under the latter the Law is written internally within the redeemed heart by the dynamic regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, so that through faith in Christ, the only Law-keeper, and inward experience of His power man no longer hates but loves God's Law and is enabled to fulfill its precepts." (25)

Coming back to the distinction that Paul makes between the letter that kills and the Spirit that gives life, it is evident that the Apostle is comparing the Law as externally written at Sinai on tablets of stone and the same Law as written internally in the heart of the believer by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. As an external ordinance, the Law confronts and condemns sin as the breaking of God's Law. By revealing sin in its true light as the transgression of God's commandments, the Law kills since it exposes the Lawbreaker to the condemnation of death (Rom 6:23; 5:12; Ez 18:4; Prov 11:29). It is in this sense that Paul can speak startlingly of the letter which kills.

By contrast, the Spirit gives life by internalizing the principles of God's Law in the heart of the believer and by enabling the believer to live according to "just requirement of the Law" (Rom 8:4). When Christ is preached and God's promises made in Christ are believed, the Spirit enters the heart of believers, motivating them to observe God's Law, and thus making the Law a living thing in their hearts.

Paul knew from first hand experience how true it is that the letter kills and the Spirit makes alive. Before his conversion he was a self-righteous observer of the Law: "As to the Law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the Law blameless" (Phil 3:6). Yet at the same time he "blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him [Christ]" (1 Tim 1:13), that is, he was a transgressor of the Law under divine judgment. His outward conformity to the Law only served to cover up the inward corruption of his heart. It was as a result of his encounter with Christ and of the influence of the Holy Spirit in his heart that it became possible for Paul to conform to God's Law, not only outwardly, in letter, but also inwardly, in spirit, or as he puts it, to "serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (Rom 7:6).

The Ministry of Death and the Ministry of the Spirit

Paul develops further the contrast between the letter and the Spirit, by comparing them to two different kinds of ministries: one the ministry of death offered by the Law and the other the ministry of the Spirit made possible through Christ's redemptive ministry: "Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraven in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!" (2 Cor 3:7-11; NIV).

It should be pointed out first of all that Paul is speaking here of two ministries and not two dispensations. The Greek word used by Paul is "diakonia," which means "service" or "ministry." By translating "diakonia" as "dispensation," some translations (like the RSV), mislead readers into believing that Paul here condemns the Old Covenant as a dispensation of death. But the Apostle is not rejecting here the Old Covenant or the Law as something evil or inglorious. Rather he is contrasting the ministry of death provided by the Law, with the ministry of the Spirit offered through Christ.

The ministry of death is the service offered by the Law in condemning sin. Paul calls this a "ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor 3:9) that was mediated through Moses when he delivered the Law to the people. The ministry of the Spirit offers life and is made available through Christ (cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Both ministries derive from God, and consequently are accompanied by glory. The ministry or service of the Law coming from God was obviously glorious. This was evident to the people by the glory which Moses' countenance suffused when he came down from Mount Sinai to deliver the Law to the people. His countenance was so bright that the people had difficulty to gaze upon it (Ex 34:29-30).

The ministry or service of the Spirit rendered by Paul and other Christian preachers is accompanied by greater glory, that is, the light of God's Spirit that fills the soul. The reason such ministry is more glorious is that while the glory reflected in Moses' face at the giving of the Law was temporary and gradually faded away, the glory of the ministry of the Spirit is permanent and does not fade away. Through His Spirit, God has "made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 3:6; NIV).

Cranfield correctly summarizes the point of these verses, saying:

"Since the service rendered by Moses at the giving of the Law, which was actually going to effect 'condemnation' (2 Cor 3:9) and 'death' (2 Cor 3:7), was accompanied by glory (the glory on Moses' face-Ex 34:29ff), the service of the Spirit rendered by himself (and other Christian preachers) in the preaching of the Gospel must much more be accompanied by glory." (26)

Paul's aim is not to denigrate the service rendered by the Law in revealing and condemning sin. This is indicated by the fact that he calls such service as a "glorious" ministry: "If the ministry that condemns men is glorious . . ." (2 Cor 3:9; NIV). Rather Paul's concern is to expose the grave error of the false teachers who were exalting the Law at the expense of the Gospel. Their ministry was one of death because by the works of the Law no person can be justified (Gal 2:16; 3:11). Deliverance from condemnation and death comes not through the Law but through the Gospel. In this sense the glory of the Gospel excels that of the Law.

The important point to note here is that Paul is contrasting not the Old and New Covenants as such, rejecting the former and promoting the latter. Rather is he is contrasting two ministries. When this is recognized the passage becomes clear. The reason the glory of the Christian ministry is superior to that of Moses' ministry, is not because the Law given through Moses has been abolished, but because these two ministries had a different function with reference to Christ's redemption.

The comparison that Paul makes in verse 9 between the "ministry of condemnation" and the "ministry of righteousness," clearly implies that Paul is not disparaging or discarding the Law.

"Condemnation is the consequence of breaking the Law; righteousness is precisely the keeping of the Law. The Gospel is not Lawless. It is the ministration of righteousness to those who because of sin are under condemnation. And this righteousness is administered to men solely by the mediation and merit of Christ, who alone, as the incarnate Son, has perfectly obeyed God's holy Law." (27)

With Unveiled Face

Paul utilizes the theme of the veil in the remaining part of the chapter (2 Cor 3:12-18) to make three basic points. First, while the ministry of Moses was marked by concealment ("who put a veil over his face"-v. 13), his own ministry of the Gospel is characterized by great openness. He uses no veil. His ministry of grace and mercy is opened to every believer who repents and believes.

Second, Paul applies the notion of the veil to the Jews who up to that time were unable to understand the reading of the Law in the synagogue because a veil of darkness hid the glory which they had deliberately rejected (2 Cor 3:14-16). Paul is thinking historically. The veil that Moses placed over his face to indicate the rebellion and unbelief of the people which curtained the true apprehension of God's glory, symbolically represents for Paul the veil of darkness that prevents the Jews from seeing the glory of Christ and His Gospel (2 Cor 3:15). But, Paul continues, "when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed" (2 Cor 3:16).

"There is here no suggestion," C. E. Cranfield correctly points out, "that the Law is done away, but rather that, when men turn to Christ, they are able to discern the true glory of the Law." (28)

The reason is aptly given by Calvin:

"For the Law is itself bright, but it is only when Christ appears to us in it, that we enjoy its splendor." (29)

Third, when the veil that prevents the understanding of the Law is removed by the Spirit of the Lord, there is liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17). The point that Paul is making here, as C. E. Cranfield explains, is that when the Law

"is understood in the light of Christ, when it is established in its true character by the Holy Spirit,, so far from being the 'bondage' into which legalism has perverted it, is true freedom (cf. James 1:25-'the perfect Law, the Law of liberty')." (30)

In the light of the preceding analysis we conclude that in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is not negating the value of the Law as a norm for Christian conduct. The concern of the Apostle is to clarify the function of the Law in reference to Christ's redemption and to the ministry of the Spirit. This he does by contrasting the ministry or service of the Law with that of the Spirit. The Law kills in the sense that it reveals sin in its true light as the transgression of God's commandments and it exposes the Lawbreaker to the condemnation of death (Rom 6:23; 5:12; Ez 18:4; Prov 11:29). By contrast, the Spirit gives life by enabling the believer to internalize the principles of God's Law in the heart and to live according to "just requirement of the Law" (Rom 8:4).

(3) Galatians 3:15-25: Faith and Law

Perhaps more than any other Pauline passage, Galatians 3:15-25 has led people to believe that the Law was done away by the coming of Christ. The reason is that in this passage Paul makes some negative statements about he Law, which taken in isolation, can lead a person to believe that Christ terminated the function of the Law as a norm for Christian conduct. For examples, he says : "The Law was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been make" (Gal 3:19). "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian" (Gal 3:25).

Before examining these passages it is important to remember that Paul's treatment of the Law varies in his letters, depending from the situations he was facing. Brice Martin makes this important point in concluding his scholarly dissertation Christ and the Law in Paul.

"In his letters Paul has faced varied situations. In writing to the Galatians he tends to downplay the Law because of their attempts to be saved by means of it. In 1 Corinthians he stresses the Law and moral values since he is facing an antinomian front. In Romans he gives a carefully balanced statement and assures his readers that he is not an antinomian." (31)

The Galatian Crisis.

The tone of Paul's treatment of the Law in Galatians is influenced by his sense of urgency of his converts' situation. False teachers had come in to "trouble," "unsettle," and "bewitch" them (Gal 1:7; 31:1; 5:12). Apparently they were leading his converts astray by teaching that in order to be saved one needs not only to have faith in Christ, but must be circumcised. The blessings of salvation bestowed by Christ can only be received by becoming sons of Abraham through circumcision. Faith in Christ is of value only if such faith is based on circumcision.

The false teachers accused Paul of accommodating and watering down the Gospel by releasing Christians from circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law. His Gospel disagreed with that of the Jerusalem brethren who upheld circumcision and the observance of the Law. Realizing that his entire apostolic identity and mission in Galatia was jeopardized by these Judaizers infiltrators, Paul responds hurling some of his sharpest daggers of his verbal arsenal.

"Credulity (Gal 1:6) is the operative principle of the foolish Galatians (Gal 3:1). Cowardice motivates the trouble-makes (Gal 6:12). Seduction is their method of proselytizing (Gal 4:17). Castration is their just deserts (Gal 5:12)." (32)

The message of the agitators was primarily built around the requirement of circumcision. This is underscored by Paul's warning: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Gal 5:2; NIV). That circumcision was the main tenet of the "other Gospel" preached by the false teachers is indicated also by Paul's exposure of their motives: "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the Law, yet they want you to be circumcised, they may boast about your flesh" (Gal 6:12-13).

The emphasis of the false teachers upon circumcision reflects the prevailing Jewish understanding that circumcision was required to become a member of the Abrahamic covenant and receive his blessings. God made a covenant of promise with Abraham because of his faithful observance of God's commandments (Gen 26:5) and circumcision was the sign of that covenant.

Paul's Response

In his response, Paul does admit that being a son of Abraham is of decisive importance. He does not deny or downplay the importance of the promise covenant that God made with Abraham. But, he turns his opponents' argument on its head, by arguing that God's covenant with Abraham was based on his faith response (Gen15:6; Gal 3:6) before the sign of circumcision was given (Gen 17:9-14). In all probability the false teachers appealed to the institution of circumcision in Genesis 17 to argue that circumcision was indispensable to become a son of Abraham. Paul also point to Genesis-not of course to Genesis 17 but to Genesis 15:6 which says: "He [Abraham] believed the Lord and he reckoned it to him as righteousness." From this Paul concludes: "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7).

Paul uses the same Scripture to which his opponents appealed to show that God announced in advance to Abraham that He would justify the Gentiles by faith: "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying: 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.'" (Gen 15:15:8). And again Paul concludes: "So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith" (Gal 3:9).

Paul's argument can be briefly summarized by means of the following syllogism:

First premise:
God justified Abraham because of his faith before instituting circumcision.
Second premise:
In Abraham all people are blessed.
Conclusion:
Therefore, all the people are blessed in Abraham (in the sense of being justified) because of their faith (as in the case of Abraham), irrespective of circumcision.

Paul develops this argument further by setting the promise given to Abraham (in Genesis 18:18) against the giving of the Law at Sinai which occurred 430 years later (Gal 3:15-18). Making a play on the word diatheke, which in Greek can mean both will-testament and covenant, Paul points out that as a valid human testament cannot be altered by later additions, so the promise of God given to Abraham cannot be nullified by the Law, which came 430 years later. The fact that the covenant with Abraham was one of promise based on faith, excludes the possibility of earning righteousness by works. "For if the inheritance is by the Law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal 3:18).

The same thought is expressed in Romans where Paul says that Abraham attained righteousness by faith before the sign of circumcision had been given (Rom 4:1-5). Circumcision, then, in its true meaning is a sign or seal of a justifying faith (Rom 4:9-12).

"The implication of the line of thought in Galatians 3 and Romans 4," as Eldon Ladd points out, "is that all the Israelites who trusted God's covenant of promise to Abraham and did not use the Law as a way of salvation by works, were assured salvation. This becomes clear in the case of David, who, though under the Law, pronounced a blessing on the man to whom God reckons righteousness by faith apart from works (Rom 4:6-7)." (33)

The examples of Abraham and David as men of faith under the Old Covenant help us to interpret Paul's statement: "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian" (Gal 3:25). The coming of faith for Paul does not mean that saving faith was not exercised prior to the coming of Christ, since he cites Abraham and David as men of faith. Rather, he uses "faith" in a historic sense identical to the proclamation of the Gospel (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 1:16-17). Salvation was by faith in the Old Covenant, but faith was frustrated when people made the Law the basis of their righteousness and boasting.

If salvation was by way of promise (faith) and not Law, what was then the role of the Law in God's redemptive purpose? Paul's answer is both novel and unacceptable to Judaism. The Law "was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promises had been made" (Gal 3:19). The Law was added not to save men from their sins but to reveal to them the sinfulness of their transgressions. The term "transgression" (parabasis), as Ernest Burton points out, implies:

"not simply the following of evil impulse, but violation of explicit Law." (34)

By revealing what God forbids, the Law shows the sinfulness of deeds which otherwise might have passed without recognition.

In this context Paul speaks of the Law in its narrow, negative function of exposing sin, in order to counteract the exaltation of the Law by its opponents. Calvin offers a perceptive comment on this passage:

"Paul was disputing with perverse teachers who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the Law. Consequently, to refute their error he was sometimes compelled to take the bare Law in a narrow sense, even though it was otherwise graced with the covenant of free adoption." (35)

The Law as a Custodian

It is the "bare Law" understood in a narrow sense as the Law seen apart from Christ, which was a temporary custodian until the coming of Christ.

"When once 'the seed' has come, 'to whom the promise hath been made,' the One who is the goal, the meaning, the substance, of the Law, it is no longer an open possibility for those who believe in Him to regard the Law merely in this nakedness (though even in this forbidding nakedness it had served as a tutor to bring men to Christ). Henceforth it is recognized in its true character 'graced' or clothed 'with the covenant of free adoption." (36)

To explain the function of the "bare Law" before Christ, Paul compares it to a paidagogos, a guardian of children in Roman and Greek households. His responsibility was to accompany the children to school, protect them from harm, and keep them from mischief. The role of a paidogogos is an apt illustration of how some aspects of the Law served as a guardian and custodian of God's people in Old Testament times. For example, circumcision which is the fundamental issue Paul is addressing, served as a guardian to constantly remind the people of their covenant commitment to God (Jos 5:2-8).

When God called Israel out of Egyptian bondage He gave them not only the Decalogue that they might see the sinfulness of sin, but also ceremonial, religious Laws designed to exhibit the divine plan for the forgiveness of their sins. These Laws indeed had the function of protecting and guiding the people until the day of their spiritual deliverance through Jesus Christ. With the coming of Christ, the ceremonial, sacrificial Laws ended, but the Decalogue is written in the human heart (Heb 8:10) by the ministry of the Holy Spirit who enables believers to "fulfill the just requirement of the Law" (Rom 8:4).

It is difficult to imagine that Paul would announce the abolition of the Decalogue, God's great moral Law, when elsewhere he affirms that the Law was given by God (Rom 9:4; 3:2), written by God (1 Cor 9:9; 14:21; 14:34), contains the will of God (Rom 2:17, 18), bears witness to the righteousness of God (Rom 3:21), and is in accord with the promises of God (Gal 3:21). So long as sin is present in the human nature, the Law is needed to expose its sinfulness (Rom 3:20) and reveal the need of a Savior.

On the basis of the above considerations we conclude that Paul's negative comments about the Law must be understood in the light of the polemic nature of Galatians. In this epistle the apostle is seeking to undo the damage done by false teachers who were exalting the Law, especially circumcision, as a means of salvation. In refuting the perverse and excessive exaltation of the Law, Paul is forced to depreciate it in some measures, especially since the issue at stake was the imposition of circumcision as a means of salvation.

C. E. Cranfield rightly warns that

"to fail to make full allowance for the special circumstances which called forth the letter would be to proceed in a quite uncritical and unscientific manner. In view of what has been said, it should be clear that it would be extremely unwise to take what Paul says in Galatians as one's starting point in trying to understand Paul's teaching on the Law." (37)

(4) Colossians 2:14: What Was Nailed To The Cross?

Christians who believe that "New Covenant Christians" are not under the obligation to observe the Law, usually refer to Colossians 2:14, saying: "Does not Paul clearly teach that the Law was nailed to the Cross!" This conclusion is drawn especially from the KJV translation which reads: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col 2:14). The phrase "handwriting of ordinances" is interpreted as a reference to the Mosaic Law which allegedly was nailed to the cross.

Does Paul in this text supports the popular view that Christ blotted out the Law and nailed it to the cross? Is the "written document-cheirographon" that was nailed to the cross the Law in general or the Sabbath in particular? Traditionally this is the way this text has been interpreted, namely, that God set aside and nailed to the Cross the Mosaic Law with all its ordinances, including the Sabbath.

This popular interpretation is unwarranted for at least two reasons. First, because as E. Lohse points out,

"in the whole of the epistle the word Law is not used at all. Not only that, but the whole significance of the Law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents his Gospel, is completely absent." (38)

Second, this interpretation detracts from the immediate argument designed to prove the fullness of God's forgiveness. The wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial Law would hardly provide Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness. Guilt is not removed by destroying Law codes. The latter would only leave mankind without moral principles.

The Contest of Colossians 2:14

To understand the legal language of Colossians 2:14 it is necessary, first of all, to grasp the arguments advanced by Paul in the preceding verses to combat the Colossian false teachers. These were "beguiling" (Col 2:4) Christians to believe that they needed to observe ascetic "regulations-dogmata" in order to court the protection of those cosmic beings who allegedly could help them to participate in the completeness and perfection of the divinity.

To oppose this teaching, Paul emphasizes two vital truths. First he reminds the Colossians that in Christ, and in Him alone, "the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9) and therefore all other forms of authority that exist are subordinate to Him, "who is the head of all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). Secondly the Apostle reaffirms that it is only in and through Christ that the believer can "come to the fullness of life" (Col 2:10), because Christ not only possess the "fullness of deity" (Col 2: 9), but also provides the fullness of "redemption" and "forgiveness of sins" (Col 1: 14; 2:10-15; 3:1-5).

In order to explain how Christ extends "perfection" (Col 1:28; 4:12) and "fullness" (Col 1: 19; 2:9) to the believer, Paul appeals, not to the Law, but to baptism. Christian perfection is the work of God who extends to the Christian the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection through baptism (Col 2:11-13). The benefits of baptism are concretely presented as the forgiveness of "all our trespasses" (Col 2:13; 1:14; 3:13) which results in being "made alive" in Christ (Col 2:13).

The reaffirmation of the fullness of God's forgiveness, accomplished by Christ on the cross and extended through baptism to the Christian, constitutes indeed Paul's basic answer to those trying to attain to perfection by submitting to ascetic practices to gain protection from cosmic powers and principalities. To emphasize the certainty and fullness of divine forgiveness explicitly mentioned in verse 13, the Apostle utilizes in verse 14 a legal metaphor, namely, that of God as a judge who "wiped out, . . . removed [and] nailed to the cross . . . the written document-cheirographon."

The Written Document Nailed to the Cross

What is the "written document" -cheirographon that was nailed to the cross? Is Paul referring to the Mosaic Law with its ceremonial ordinances, thus declaring that God nailed it to the cross? If one adopts this interpretation, there exists a legitimate possibility that the Sabbath could be included among the ordinances nailed to the cross.

This is indeed the popular view defended, especially in the anti-sabbatarian literature that we have examined during the course of this study. But besides the grammatical difficulties, (39)

"it hardly seems Pauline," writes J. Huby, "to represent God as crucifying the 'holy' (Rom 7:6) thing that was the Mosaic Law." (40)

Moreover this view would not add to but detract from Paul's argument designed to prove the fullness of God's forgiveness. Would the wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial Law provide to Christians the assurance of divine forgiveness? Hardly so. It would only leave mankind without moral principles. Guilt is not removed by destroying Law codes.

Recent research has shown that the term cheirographon was used to denote either a "certificate of indebtedness" resulting from our transgressions or a "book containing the record of sin" used for the condemnation of mankind. (41) Both renderings, which are substantially similar, can be supported from rabbinic and apocalyptic literature. (42) This view is supported also by the clause "and this he has removed out of the middle" (Col 2:14). "The middle" was the position occupied at the center of the court or assembly by the accusing witness. In the context of Colossians, the accusing witness is the "record-book of sins" which God in Christ has erased and removed out of the court.

Ephesians 2:15

To support the view that the "written document" nailed to the cross is the Mosaic Law, some appeal to the similar text of Ephesians 2:15 which says: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances"(KJV). But the similarity between the two texts is more apparent than real. In the first place the phrase "the Law of commandments" which occurs in Ephesians is not found in Colossians. Secondly, the dative in Ephesians "en dogmasiv-in ordinances" is governed by "en-in," thus expressing that the Law was set out "in ordinances." Such a preposition does not occur in Colossians.

Lastly, the context is substantially different. While in Ephesians the question is how Christ removed what separated Jews from Gentiles, in Colossians it is how Christ provided full forgiveness. The former He accomplished by destroying "the dividing wall of hostility" (Eph 2: 14). This is a possible allusion to the wall that divided the court of the Gentiles from the sanctuary proper, (43) making impossible for them to participate in the worship service of the inner court with the Jews. Such a wall of partition was removed by Christ "by abolishing the Law of commandments [set out] in regulations" (Eph 2:15). The qualification of "commandments contained in ordinances" suggests that Paul is speaking not of the moral Law, but of "ceremonial ordinances" which had the effect of maintaining the separation between Jews and Gentiles, both in the social life and in the sanctuary services. The moral Law did not divide Jews from Gentiles, because speaking of the latter Paul says that what the moral "Law requires is written on their heart" (Rom 2:15).

In Colossians 2:14 full forgiveness is granted, not by "abolishing the Law of commandments contained in ordinances," but by utterly destroying "the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was against us." The context of the two passages is totally different, yet none of the two suggests that the moral Law was nailed to the cross.

Record of our Sins

The "written record-cheirographan" that was nailed to the cross is the record of our sins. By this daring metaphor, Paul affirms the completeness of God's forgiveness. Through Christ, God has "cancelled," "set aside," "nailed to the cross" "the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was against us." The legal basis of the record of sins was "the binding statutes, regulations" (tois dogmasin), but what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (Law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins.

One cannot fail to sense how through this forceful metaphor, Paul is reaffirming the completeness of God's forgiveness provided through Christ on the cross. By destroying the evidence of our sins, God has also "disarmed the principalities and powers" (Col 2:15) since it is no longer possible for them to accuse those who have been forgiven. There is no reason, therefore, for Christians to feel incomplete and to seek the help of inferior mediators, since Christ has provided complete redemption and forgiveness.

In this whole argument the Law, as stated by Herold Weiss, "plays no role at all." (44) Any attempt therefore to read into the "written record-cheirographon" a reference to the Law, or to any other Old Testament ordinance is altogether unwarranted. The document that was nailed to the cross contained not moral or ceremonial Laws, but rather the record of our sins. Is it not true even today that the memory of sin can create in us a sense of incompleteness? The solution to this sense of inadequacy, according to Paul, is to be found not by submitting to a system of ascetic "regulation," but by accepting the fact that on the cross God has blotted out our sins and granted us full forgiveness.

Some people object to this interpretation because in their view it undermines the doctrine of the final judgment which will examine the good and the bad deeds of each person who ever lived (Rom 14:10; Rev 20:12). Their argument is that if the record of our sins was erased and nailed to the cross, there would be no legal basis for conducting the final judgement. This objection ignores that the imagery of God cancelling, setting aside, and nailing the record of our sins to the cross, is designed not to do away with human accountability on the day of judgment, but to provide the reassurance of the totality of God's forgiveness in this present life.

For example, when Peter summoned the people in the Temple's Portico, saying: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19), he was not implying that there will be no final judgment for those whose sins have been blotted out. On the contrary, Peter speak of the time when "judgment [is] to begin with the household of God" (1 Pet 4:17; cf. 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7). The imageries of God being willing to "blot out" our sins, or of casting "all our sins into the depths of the sea" (Mic 7:19), are not intended the negate the need of the final judgment, but to reassure the believer of the totality of God's forgiveness. The sins that have been forgiven, "blotted out," "nailed to the cross," are the sins that will be automatically vindicated in the day of judgment.

We can conclude then by saying that Colossians 2:14 reaffirms the essence of the Gospel-the Good News that God has nailed on the cross the record and guilt of our sins-but it has nothing to say about the Law or the Sabbath. Any attempt to read into the text a reference to the Law, is an unwarranted, gratuitous fantasy.

(5) Romans 10:4: "Christ is the End of the Law"

Few Pauline passages have been more used and abused than Romans 10:4 which reads: "For Christ is the end [telos] of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (KJV). This text has been utilized as an easy slogan for two contrasting views regarding the role of the Law in the Christian life. Most Christians assume to be self-evident that in this text Paul teaches that Christ's coming has put an end to the Law as a way of righteousness and consequently New Covenant Christians are released from the observance of the Law.

Other Christians contend just as vigorously that in this text Paul teaches that Christ is the goal toward which the whole Law was aimed so that its promise of righteousness may be experienced by whoever believes in Him. Personally I subscribe to the latter interpretation because, as we shall see, is supported by the linguistic use of telos (whose basic meaning is "goal" rather than "end"), the flow of Paul's argument, and the overall Pauline teachings regarding the function of the Law.

The Meaning of Telos: Termination or Goal?

The conflicting interpretations of this text stem mostly from a different understanding of the meaning of telos, the term which is generally translated as "end" in most English Bibles. However, the English term "end" is used mostly with the meaning of termination, the point at which something ceases. For example, the "end" of a movie, a journey, a school year, a working day, is the termination of that particular activity. By contrast, the Greek term telos, has an unusual wide variety of meanings. In their A Greek-English Lexicon, William Arndt and Wilbur Gingrich explain that telos is used not only with the sense of "termination, cessation," but also with the meaning of "goal, outcome, purpose, design, achievement." (45)

The use of telos as "goal, design, purpose" was most common in classical Greek as well as in Biblical (Septuagint) and extra-Biblical literature. This meaning has been preserve in English compound words such as telephone, telescope. In these instances tele means "designed for," or "for the purpose of." For example, the telephone is an instrument designed for reproducing sounds at a distance. The telescope is an instrument designed for viewing distant objects. These different meanings of telos have given rise to two major interpretation of Romans 10:4, generally referred to as (1) "termination," and (2) "teleological."

Most Christians hold to the termination interpretation which contends that telos in Romans 10:4 means "termination," "cessation," or "abrogation." Consequently, "Christ is the end of the Law" in the sense that "Christ has put an end to the Law" by releasing Christians from its observance. This view is popular among those who believe that Paul negates the continuity of the Law for "New Covenant Christians" and is reflected in the New English Bible translation, which reads: "For Christ ends the Law."

This interpretative translation eliminates any possible ambiguity, but, by so doing, it misleads readers into believing that Paul categorically affirms the termination of the Law with the coming of Christ. The problem with termination interpretation is, as we shall see, that it contradicts the immediate context, as well as the numerous explicit Pauline statements which affirms the validity and value of the Law (Rom 3:31; 7:12, 14; 8:4; 13:8-10).

The teleological interpretation maintains that telos in Romans 10:4 must be translated according to the basic meaning of word, namely, "goal" or "object." Consequently, "Christ is the goal of the Law" in the sense that the Law of God, understood as the Pentateuch or the Old Testament, has reached its purpose and fulfillment in Him. Furthermore, through Christ believers experience the righteousness expressed by the Law. This interpretation has prevailed from the Early Church to the Reformation and it is still held today by numerous scholars.

Two major considerations gives us reasons to believe that the teleological interpretation of Romans 10:4 as "Christ is the goal of the Law," correctly reflects the meaning of the passage: (1) The historical usage of telos in Biblical and extra-Biblical literature, and (2) the flow of Paul's argument in the larger and immediate context. We shall now consider these two points in their respective order.

The Historical Usage of Telos

In his masterful doctoral dissertation Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective, published by The Journal for the Study of the New Testament (University of Sheffield, England), Roberto Badenas provides a comprehensive survey of the meaning and uses of telos in Biblical and extra-Biblical literature. He concludes his survey noting that in classical Greek, the Septuagint, the Pseudepigrapha, Flavius Josephus, Philo, and Paul, the

"basic connotations [of telos] are primarily directive, purposive, and completive, not temporal [termination]. . . . Telos nomou [end of the Law] and related expressions are indicative of the purpose, fulfillment, or object of the Law, not of its abrogation. . . . In all the New Testament occurrences of phrases having the same grammatical structure as Romans 10:4, telos is unanimously translated in a teleological way." (46)

In other words, telos is used in the ancient Biblical and extra-Biblical Greek literature to express "goal" or "purpose," and not "termination" or "abrogation."

Badenas provides also a detailed historical survey of the interpretation of telos nomou ["end of the Law"] in Christian literature. For the period from the Early church to the end of the Middle Ages, he found

"an absolute predominance of the teleological and completive meanings. The Greek-speaking church understood and explained telos in Romans 10:4 by means of the terms skopos [goal], pleroma [fullness], and telesiosis [perfection], seeing in it the meanings of 'purpose,' 'object,' 'plenitude,' and 'fulfillment.' Nomos [Law] was understood as the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament (often rendered by nomos kai prophetai [Law and prophets]. Consequently, Romans 10:4 was interpreted as a statement of the fulfillment of the Old Testament, its prophecies or its purposes, in Christ." (47)

In the writings of the Latin Church the equivalent term finis was used with practically all the same meanings of the Greek telos. The Latin word finis

"was explained by the terms perfectio, intentio, plenitudo, consummatio, or, impletio [fullness]." (48)

Thus, in both the Greek and Latin literature of the Early Church, the terms telos/finis are used almost exclusively with the teleological meaning of "goal," or "purpose," and not with the temporal meaning of "termination," or "abrogation."

No significant changes occurred in the interpretation of Romans 10:4 during the Middle Ages. The text was interpreted as:

"a statement of Christ's bringing the Old Testament Law to its plenitude and completion. The Reformation, with its emphasis on literal exegesis, preserved the Greek and Latin meanings of telos/finis, giving to Romans 10:4 both teleological (e.g Luther) and perfective (e. g. Calvin) interpretations." (49)

It is unfortunate that most translation of Romans 10:4 ignore the historic use of telos as "goal, purpose, perfection," and consequently they mislead readers into believing that "Christ has put an end to the Law."

The antinomian, abrogation interpretation of Romans 10:4 developed after the Reformation largely due to the new emphasis on the discontinuity between Law and Gospel, the Old and New Testaments. The Lutherans began to apply to Romans 10:4 the negative view of the Law which Luther had expressed in other contexts. (50) The Anabaptists interpreted Romans 10:4 in terms of abrogation, according to their view that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. (51)

The lower view of Scripture fostered by the rationalistic movements of the eighteenth century, further contributed to the tendency of interpreting Romans 10:4 in the sense of abolition. (52) In the nineteenth century the overwhelming influence of German liberal theology, with its emphasis on Biblical higher criticism, caused the antinonian "abrogation of the Law" interpretation of Romans 10:4 to prevail. (53)

The termination/abrogation interpretation of Romans 10:4 is still prevalent today, advocated especially by those who emphasize the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, the Law and the Gospel. (54) During the course of our study we have found that the abrogation interpretation has been adopted even by former sabbatarians, like the Worldwide Church of God and Dale Ratzlaff in his book Sabbath in Crisis. This interpretation is largely conditioned by the mistaken theological presupposition that Paul consistently teaches the termination of the Law with the coming of Christ.

A significant development of the last two decades is that a growing number of scholars have adopted the teleological interpretation of Romans 10:4, namely, that "Christ is the goal of the Law." What has contributed to this positive development is the renewed efforts to analyze this text exegetically, rather than imposing upon it subjective theological presuppositions. Badenas notes that

"It is significant that in general the studies which are more exegetically oriented interpret telos in a teleological way ["Christ is the goal of the Law"], while the more systematic [theology] approaches interpret the term temporally ["Christ had put an end to the Law"]." (55)

It is encouraging to know that new exegetical studies of Romans 10:4 are contributing to rediscover the correct meaning of this text. It is doubtful, however, that these new studies will cause the abandonment of the abrogation interpretation, because it has become foundational to much of the Evangelical beliefs and practices. In this context we can mention only few significant studies, besides the outstanding dissertation of Roberto Badenas already cited.

Recent Studies of Romans 10:4

In a lengthy article (40 pages) published in Studia Teologica, Ragnar Bring emphasizes the culminating significance of telos in Romans 10:4, on the basis of the race-track imagery in the context (Rom 9:30-10:4). He argues that in this context telos

"signifies the winning-post of a race, the completion of a task, the climax of a matter." (56)

Bring explains that, since "the goal of the Law was righteousness," the Law served as a custodian (paidagogos) directing people to Christ, who only can give righteousness. This means that

"Christ is the goal of the Law" in the sense that He is the eschatological fulfillment of the Law. (57)

In the article cited earlier "St. Paul and the Law," C. E. B. Cranfield argues that in the light of the immediate and larger context of Romans 10:4, telos should be translated as "goal." Consequently he renders the texts as follows: "For Christ is the goal of the Law, so that righteousness is available to every one that believeth." (58) He notes that verse 4 begins with "for-gar" because it explains verse 3 where Paul explains that "The Jews in their legalistic quest after a righteous status of their own earning, have failed to recognize and accept the righteous status which God has sought to give them." On verse 4, according to Cranfield, Paul continues his explanation by giving the reasons for the Jews' failure to attain a righteous status before God: "For Christ, whom they have rejected, is the goal toward which all along the Law was directed, and this means that in Him a righteous status before God is available to every one who will accept it by faith." (59)

On a similar vein George E. Howard advocates a goal-oriented interpretation of telos in Romans 10:4, arguing that

"Christ is the goal of the Law to everyone who believes because the ultimate goal of the Law is that all be blessed in Abraham." (60)

A lengthier treatment of Romans 10:4 is provided by J. E. Tows who interprets telos as "goal" on the basis of "linguistic and contextual grounds." (61)

More recently, C. T. Rhyne has produced a perceptive dissertation on Romans 3:31 where Paul says: "Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law." Rhyne shows that there is a theological connection between this verse and Romans 10:4. This connection supports the teleological interpretation of telos, and is more consistent with Paul's positive understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Law in Romans. (62)

Walter Kaiser, a well-known and respected Evangelical scholar, offers a compelling defence of the teleological interpretation of Romans 10:4, by examining closely the arguments developed by Paul in the whole section from Romans 9:30 to 10:13. He notes that in this passage Paul is

"clearly contrasting two ways of obtaining righteousness-one that the Gentiles adopted, the way of faith; the other, a work method, that many Israelites adopted-all to no avail." (63)

What many fail to realize, according to Kaiser, is that the

"homemade Law of righteousness [adopted by many Jews] is not equivalent to the righteousness that is from the Law of God." (64)

In other words, what Paul is condemning in this passage is not "the righteousness that God had intended to come from the Law of Moses," but the homemade righteousness which many Jews made into a Law without Christ as its object. (65) Paul's condemnation of the perverted use of the Law does not negate its proper use.

Kaiser concludes his insightful analysis of this passage, saying:

"The term telos in Romans 10:4 means 'goal' or purposeful conclusion. The Law cannot be properly understood unless it moves toward the grand goal of pointing the believer toward the Messiah, Christ. The Law remain God's Law, not Moses' Law (Rom 7:22; 8:7). It still is holy, just, good, and spiritual (Rom 7:12, 14) for the Israelite as well as for the believing Gentile." (66)

The Larger Context of Romans 10:4

In the final analysis the correct meaning of Romans 10:4 can only be established by a careful analysis of Romans 10:4 in the light of its larger and immediate contexts. This is what we intend to do now. In the larger context (Romans 9 to 11) Paul addresses, not the relationship between Law and Gospel, but how God's plan of salvation was finally fulfilled with the coming of Christ, how it related to the destiny of Israel. The fact that the majority of Christian converts were Gentiles and that the majority of the Jews had rejected Christ, raised questions about the trustworthiness of God's promises regarding the salvation of Israel.

The question that Paul is discussing is stated in Romans 9:6: "Has the word of God failed?" How can God's promises to Israel be true when Israel as a nation has jeopardize its election as God's people by rejecting Christ? This was a crucial question in the apostolic church, which was formed by many Jewish Christians and directed by Twelve Apostles who were Jews.

"The issue was how to explain that the people of the old covenant, who had been blessed by God with the greatest privileges (Rom 9:4-5), were now separated from the community of the new covenant, which, as a matter of fact, was nothing other than the extension of Israel." (67)

Paul responds to this question in Romans 9 to 11 by pointing out, first of all, that God's word has not failed because divine election has never been based on human merits, but on God's sovereignty and mercy. The inclusion of the Gentiles following Israel's disobedience, is not unjust because it represents the triumph of God's plan as contemplated in the Scriptures (Rom 9:6-29). As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call my people" (Rom 9:25).

Second, Paul points out that Israel's rejection of Christ comes from their failure to understand God's purposes as revealed in Scripture and manifested through the coming of Christ (Rom 9:30 to 10:21). Instead of receiving the righteousness of God by faith, Israel sought to establish its own righteousness (Rom 9:31; 10:3).

Lastly, Paul brings out that the failure of Israel is only partial and temporary. God has not rejected Israel, but has used their failure for the inclusion of the Gentiles and ultimately salvation of Israel (Rom 11:1-36). "A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25-26).

This bare outline of the larger context of Romans 10:4, suffices to show that the issue that Paul is addressing is not the relationship between Law and Gospel, but how God is working out His plan for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, "for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" (Rom 10:12). This means that Romans 10:4 must be interpreted, not on the basis of a "Law-Gospel" debate which is foreign to the context, but on the basis of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles which is discussed in the context.

The Immediate Context of Romans 10:4.

The section of Romans 9:30 to 10:13 is generally regarded as the immediate context of Romans 10:4. Paul customarily signals the next stage of his argument in Romans by the recurring phrase: "What shall we say, then?" (Rom 9:30). And the issue he addresses in Romans 9:30 to 10:13 is this: How did it happen that the Gentiles who were not in the race after righteousness obtained the righteousness of God by faith, while Israel who was in the race to attain the righteousness promised by the Law, did not reach the goal?

Badenas provides a convenient concise summary of Paul's argument in Romans 9:30-33. He writes;

"Paul presents the failure of Israel in the fact that it did not recognize from Scriptures (eis nomon ouk ephthasen-did not attain to the Law-Rom 9:31) Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, the goal and substance and meaning of the Law. Looking at the Torah [Mosaic Law] from the human perspective-as a code primarily interested in human performance-Israel overlooked the importance of looking at it from the perspective of God's saving acts and mercy. Having failed to take their own Law seriously in that particular respect, they did not see that God's promises had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, Israel's misunderstanding of Torah [Mosaic Law] is presented by Paul as blindness to the Law's witness to Christ (cf. Rom 9:31-33 with 10:4-13 and 3:21), which was epitomized in Israel's rejection of Jesus as Messiah." (68)

It is important to note that in the immediate context Paul is not disparaging the Law, but is criticizing its improper use as a way to attain one's own righteousness. The Jews were extremely zealous for God, but their zeal was not based on knowledge (Rom 10:2). Being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, many Jews tried "to establish their own righteousness" (Rom 10:3).

The problem with the Jews was not the Law, but their misunderstanding and misuse of it. They did not attain to the righteousness promised by the Law because they misunderstood it and transformed it into a tool of personal achievement (Rom 10:2-3, 5; 2:17, 27; 3:27; 4:2). They insisted on establishing their own righteousness (Rom 10:3), rather than accepting the righteousness that had been revealed by God through Moses in the Law. They did not see that the righteousness of God had been revealed especially through the coming of the promised Messiah. They looked at the Law in order to see what a person could do to become righteous before God, instead of recognizing what God had already done for them through Jesus Christ. They failed to recognize that Christ is the goal of the Law, as Paul says in verse 4.

Romans 10: 4: Goal or Termination?

Paul continues his argument in verse 4, which literally reads: "For Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth." This crucial text begins with the conjunction "For-gar," thus indicating a continuous explanation within the flow of Paul's thought. This means that this text must be interpreted in the light of its immediate context where Paul discusses the failure of the Jews to attain the righteousness promised by the Law.

In Greek the key sentence reads: "telos nomou Christos," which literally translated means "The goal of Law [is] Christ." The structure of the sentence with telos nomou at the beginning, indicates that Paul is making a statement about the Law rather than about Christ. The Law (nomos) has been the center of Paul's discussion since Romans 9:6, and particularly since Romans 9:31, where he speaks of nomos dikaiosunes-the Law of righteousness, that is, the Law that holds forth the promise of righteousness.

Note must be taken of the fact that in the immediate context Paul does not speak of the Law and Christ as standing in an antagonistic relationship. In Romans 9:31-33 he explains that had the Jews believed in Christ ("the stone"), they would certainly have "attained" the Law which promises righteousness. Consequently, in the light of the immediate context, it is more consistent to take the Law-nomos as bearing witness to Christ rather than as being abrogated by Christ. The abrogation interpretation ("Christ has put an end to the Law") disrupts Paul's flow of thought, works against his main argument, and would have been confusing to his readers in Rome accustomed to use telos with the sense of "goal" rather than "termination."

The athletic metaphors used in the immediate context (Rom 9:30-33) suggest also that telos is used with the meaning of "goal," because telos was one of the terms commonly used to denote the winning-post or the finish line. Other athletic terms used by Paul are: diokon (Rom 9:30-31), which denotes the earnest pursuit of a goal; katelaben (Rom 9:30), which describes the attaining of a goal; ouk ephthasen (Rom 9:31), which refers to the stumbling over an obstacle in a race; kataiskuno (Rom 9:33), which expresses the disappointment and shame of the defeat.

The implications of the athletic metaphors are well stated by Badenas:

"If by accepting Christ the Gentiles reached the winning-post of dikaiosune [righteousness] and, thereby, acceptance within the new people of God (Rom 9:30), and by rejecting Christ Israel did not reach the goal of the Law and thereby admission into God's new people, the logical conclusion is what Romans 10:4 says: that the goal of the Law and the winning-post of dikaiosune [righteousness] and entrance into God's eschatological people are to be found nowhere else than in Christ." (69)

The Qualifying Sentence: "For Righteousness . . ."

Further support for the teleological interpretation is provided by the qualifying sentence that follows: "for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4b; KJV). The phrase "for righteousness" translates the Greek eis dikaiosunen. Since the basic meaning of the preposition eis-"into" or "for," is directional and purposive, it supports the teleological interpretation of the text, which would read: "Christ is the goal of the Law in [its promise of] righteousness to everyone that believeth."

This interpretation harmonizes well with the context and contributes to the understanding of such important elements in the context as "the word of God has not failed" (Rom 9:6), the Gentiles attained righteousness (Rom 9:30), Israel did not "attain" to the Law (Rom 9:31), stumbled over the stone (Rom 9:33), and ignored God's righteousness (Rom 10:2-3). All of these major themes fit if Romans 10:4 is understood in the sense that the Law, in its promise of righteousness to whoever believes pointed to Christ.

The abrogation interpretation that "Christ has put an end to the Law as a way of righteousness by bringing righteousness to anyone who will believe," interrupt the flow of the argument and work against it. The same is true of the interpretation which says that "Christ has put an end of the Law in order that righteousness based on faith alone may be available to all men." The problem with these interpretations is that they wrongly assume that prior to Christ's coming righteousness was obtainable through the Law and that the Law was an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of righteousness by faith, and consequently it was removed by Christ.

This assumption that Christ put an end to the Law as a way of salvation is discredited by the fact that in Paul's view salvation never did come or could come by the Law (Gal 2:21; 3:21). In Romans 4 Abraham and other Old Testament righteous people, were saved by faith in Christ (cf. Rom 9:30-33). The rock that Israel stumbled over was Christ (Rom 9:33; cf. 1 Cor 10:4). Paul explicitly says that the Law was not an obstacle to God's righteousness, but a witness to it (Rom 9:31; 3:21, 31).

Another interesting point to consider is that the key to understand Romans 10:4 may to be found in the proper understanding of the last words of the text: "to everyone who believes." This is the view of George Howard who notes that this is the theme of the inclusion of the Gentiles which dominates the immediate context. He writes:

"The Jews based their salvation on the fact that they had the Law, the fathers, and all the blessings which go with these. Their extreme hostility to the Gentiles (1 Thess 2:15-16) had caused them to miss the point of the Law itself, that is, that its very aim and goal was the ultimate unification of all nations under the God of Abraham according to the promise. In this sense Christ is the telos [goal] of the Law; he was its goal to everyone who believes." (70)

In the light of the preceding considerations we conclude that Romans 10:4 represents the logical continuation and culmination of the argument initiated in Romans 9:30-33, namely, that Christ is the goal of the Law, because He embodies the righteousness promised by the Law for everyone who believes. This is the righteousness which the Gentiles attained by faith and which most Jews rejected, because they chose to establish their own righteousness (Rom 10:3), rather than accepting the righteousness the Law pointed to and promised through Jesus Christ. Thus, far for declaring the abrogation of the Law with the coming of Christ, Romans 10:4 affirms the realization of the goal of the Law in Christ who offers righteousness to everyone who believes.

Romans 10:5-8: The Obedience of Faith

In order to support his statement in Romans 10:4 that Christ is the goal of the Law in offering righteousness to everyone who believes, Paul continues in verses 5 to 8 showing how the Law calls for a response, not of works in which a person can boast, but of faith in which God receives the credit. Paul develops his argument by quoting two texts from the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:5 in verse 5 and Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in verses 6 to 8.

Romans 10:5-8 reads: "For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the Law shall live by it [quote from Lev 18:5]. But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend to 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, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach)" [paraphrase of Deut. 30:12-14].

The principal problem with these verses is to establish the relationship between the quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 and the quotation of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Romans 10:6-8. Are the two quotations intended to present two complementary aspects of righteousness or two conflicting ways of righteousness? The common interpretation assumes that the two quotations are used by Paul to contrast two ways of righteousness: the righteousness by works of the Law as taught in Leviticus 18:5 and the righteousness by faith as taught in Deuteronomy 30:12-14. The former would represent the Jewish way of righteousness based on human obedience and the latter the righteousness of divine grace offered by faith.

This popular interpretation rests on two mistaken assumptions. The first mistaken assumption is that the two particles "gar-for . . . de-but," which are used to introduce verses 5 and 6 respectively, serve to contrast the two types of righteousness. "For Moses writes . . . but the righteousness of faith says . . ." This assumption is wrong because the Greek word translated "but" in verse 6 is de and not alla. The particle de is frequently translated as "and" without any contrast intended, while alla is consistently translated as "but," because it serve to make a contrast. George Howard clearly and convincingly points out that:

"gar . . . de do not mean "for . . . but," but as in Romans 7:8-9; 10:10; 11:15-16, they mean "for . . . and." (71)

In other words, in this context Paul uses this set of particles not in an adversative way but in a connective way, to complement two aspects of righteousness

One Kind of Righteousness

The second mistaken assumption is that the two quotations used by Paul are antithetical, teaching two different kinds of righteousness. But this can hardly be true. If Paul had quoted Leviticus 18:5 as teaching righteousness by works, he could hardly have faulted the Jews of pursuing the "the righteousness which is based on Law" (Rom 9:31), since they would have been doing exactly what the Law commanded them to do. But this is contrary to Paul's charge that the Jews had misunderstood the Scripture.

In their original contexts both quotations say basically the same thing, namely that the Israelites must observe God's commandments in order to continue to enjoy the blessings of life. In Leviticus 18:5 Moses admonishes the Israelites not to follow the ways of the heathen nations, but to keep God's "statutes and ordinances" in order to perpetuate the life God had given them. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 30:11-16 Moses tells the Israelites "to obey the commandments of the Lord," because they are not hard to observe, and ensure the blessings of life ("then you shall live and multiply"-Deut 30:16).

Some argue that Paul took the liberty of misinterpreting Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in order to support his teachings of righteousness by faith. But had Paul done such a thing, he would have exposed himself to the legitimate criticism of his enemies who would have accused him of misinterpreting Scripture. Furthermore, neither Paul nor any Bible writer, sets Moses against Moses or against any other Biblical statement. It was not the custom of Paul to seek out contradictions in the Scripture or to quote the Old Testament to show that one of its statements was no longer valid. The fact that Paul quoted Deuteronomy 30:12-14 immediately after Leviticus 18:5, suggests that he viewed the two passages are complementary and not contradictory.

The complementary function of the two quotations is not difficult to see. In Romans 10:4 Paul affirms that Christ is the goal of the Law in offering righteousness to everyone who believes. In verse 5 he continues (note "for-gar") expanding what this means by quoting Leviticus 18:5 as a summary expression of the righteousness of the Law, namely, that "whoever follows the way of righteousness taught by the Law shall live by it." This fundamental truth had been misconstrued by the Pharisees who made the Law so hard to observe that, to use the words of Peter, it became a "yoke upon the neck" that nobody could bear (Acts 15:10). Paul clarifies this misconception in verses 6 to 8 by paraphrasing Deuteronomy 30:12-14 immediately after Leviticus 18:5, in order to show that God's Law is not hard to observe, as the Pharisees had made it to be. All what it takes to obey God's commandments is a heart response: "The word is near to you, on your lips and in your heart" (Rom 10:8).

Daniel Fuller rightly observes that:

"by paraphrasing Deuteronomy 30:11-14 right after a verse spotlighting the righteousness of the Law which Moses taught [Lev 18:5], and by affirming this paraphrase of Moses which inserts the word 'Christ' at crucial points, Paul was showing that the righteousness set forth by the Law was the righteousness of faith. Since the wording of the Law can be replaced by the word 'Christ' with no loss of meaning, Paul has demonstrated that Moses himself taught that Christ and the Law are one piece. Either one or both will impart righteousness to all who believe, and thus the affirmation of Romans 10:4 [that 'Christ is the goal of the Law'] is supported by Paul's reference to Moses in verses 5-8." (72)

What Paul wishes to show in Romans 10:6-8 is that the righteousness required by the Law in order to live (Lev 18:5), does not necessitate a superhuman achievement, like climbing into heaven or descending into the abyss. This was Paul's way of expressing the impossible task the Jews wanted to accomplish through their own efforts. By contrast, the righteousness required by the Law is fulfilled through the Word which is in the heart and in the mouth, that is, by believing and confessing the Lord (Rom 10:10).

The reference to the nearness of the Word in Deuteronomy 30:14 permitted Paul to link the divine grace made available by God in the Law, with the divine grace made available by God in Christ, the Word. His commentary on Deuteronomy 30:14 clearly shows that he understood Christ to be the substance and content of both the Law and the Gospel. Because of the unity that exists between the two, he could identify the word of the Law (Deut 30:14) with the word of the Gospel (Rom 10:8-9).

The recognition of the unity between Law and Gospel leads Walter Kaiser to pose a probing rhetorical question:

"What will it take for modern Christians to see that Moses, in the same way that the apostle Paul, advocated, wanted Israel to 'believe unto righteousness' (Rom 10:10; cf. Deut 30:14)? . . . Both Moses and Paul are in basic agreement that the life being offered to Israel, both in those olden days and now in the Christian era, was available and close at hand; in fact it was so near them that it was in their mouth and in their hearts." (73)

It is unfortunate that so many Christians today fail to recognize this basic unity that exists between the Law and the Gospel, Moses and Paul, both affirming that Christ is the goal and culmination of the Law in its promise of righteousness to everyone who believes.

Conclusion

The foregoing analysis of Romans 10:4 has shown that Christ is not the end but the goal of the Law. He is the goal toward which the whole Law was aimed so that its promise of righteousness may be experienced by whoever believes in Him.. He is the goal of the Law in the sense that in His person and work He fulfilled its promises, types, and sacrificial ceremonies (2 Cor 1:20; Rom 10:6-10; 3:21; Heb 10:1-8). He is the goal of the Law also in the sense that He is the only Man who was completely obedient to its requirements (Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19; Rom 10:5). He is also the goal of the Law in the sense that He enables the believer to live in accordance to "the just requirements of the Law" (Rom 8:4).

Part 4: The Law and the Gentiles

In studying some of Paul's negative comments about the Law we noted that such comments were occasioned by the Apostle's effort to undo the damage done by false teachers who were exalting the Law, especially circumcision, as a means of salvation. To bring into sharper focus Paul's criticism of the Law, we will now consider why the Gentiles were tempted to adopt legalistic practices like circumcision.

Paul's letters were written to congregations made up predominantly of Gentile converts, most of whom were former "God-fearers" (1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 12:2; Gal 4:8; Rom 11:13; 1:13; Col 1:21; Eph 2:11). A crucial problem among Gentile-Christians was their right as Gentiles to enjoy full citizenship in the people of God, without becoming members of the covenant community through circumcision.

A Jewish Problem

This was not a uniquely Christian problem. W. D. Davies has shown that the relationship of Israel to the Gentile world was the foremost theological problem of Judaism in the first century. (74) Basically the problem for the Jews consisted in determining what commandments the Gentiles had to observe in order for them to have a share in the world to come.

No clear-cut answer to this question existed in Paul's time. Some Jews held that Gentiles had to observe only a limited number of commandments (Noachic Laws). Other Jews, however, like the House of Shammai, insisted that Gentiles had to observe the whole Law, including circumcision. In other words, they had to become full-fledged members of the covenant community to share in the blessings of the world-to-come. (75)

Lloyd Gaston perceptively notes that:

"it was because of this unclarity that legalism-the doing of certain works to win God's favor and be counted righteous-arose a Gentile and not a Jewish problem at all." (76)

Salvation was for all who were members of the covenant community, but since the God-fearers were not under the covenant, they had to establish their own righteousness to gain such an assurance of salvation.

Marcus Barth has shown that the phrase "works of the Law" is not found in Jewish texts and designates the adoption of selected Jewish practices by the Gentiles to ensure their salvation as part of the covenant people of God. (77) Recognition of this legalistic Gentile attitude is important to our understanding of the background of Paul's critical remarks about the Law.

A Christian Problem

The Jewish problem of whether Gentiles were saved within or without the covenant, soon became also a Christian problem. Before his conversion and divine commission to the Gentiles, Paul apparently believed that Gentiles had to conform to the whole Mosaic Law, including circumcision, in order for them to be saved. The latter is suggested by the phrase "but if I still preach circumcision" (Gal 5:11), which implies that at one time he did preach circumcision as a basis of salvation.

After his conversion and divine commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, Paul understood that Gentiles share in the blessing of salvation without having to become part of the covenant community through circumcision. To defend this conviction, we noted earlier that Paul appeals in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 to the example of Abraham who became the father of all who believe by faith before he was circumcised.

In proclaiming his non-circumcision Gospel, Paul faced a double challenge. On the one hand, he faced the opposition of Jews and Jewish-Christians because they failed to understand ("Israel did not understand"-Rom 10:19) that through Christ, God had fulfilled His promises to Abraham regarding the Gentiles. On the other hand, Paul had to deal with the misguided efforts of the Gentiles who were tempted to adopt circumcision and other practices to ensure their salvation by becoming members of the covenant community (Gal 5:2-4).

Law as Document of Election

To counteract the double challenge from Jewish and Gentile Christians, Paul was forced to speak critically of the Law as a document of election. Several scholars have recently shown that the concept of the covenant-so central in the Old Testament-came more and more to be expressed by the term "Law" (torah-nomos). (78) One's status before God came to be determined by one's attitude toward the Law (torah-nomos) as a document of election and not by obedience to specific commandments.

The Law came to mean a revelation of God's electing will manifested in His covenant with Israel. Obviously this view created a problem for the uncircumcised Gentiles because they felt excluded from the assurance of salvation provided by the covenant. This insecurity naturally led Gentiles to "desire to be under Law" (Gal 4:21), that is, to become full-fledged covenant members by receiving circumcision (Gal 5:2). Paul felt compelled to react strongly against this trend because it undermined the universality of the Gospel.

To squelch the Gentiles' "desire to be under Law," Paul appeals to the Law (Pentateuch), specifically to Abraham, to argue that the mother of his two children, Ishmael and Isaac, stand for two covenants: the first based on works and the second on faith (Gal 4:22-31); the first offering "slavery" and the second resulting in "freedom." The first, Hagar who bears "children of slavery," is identified with the covenant of Mount Sinai (Gal 4:24).

Why does Paul attack so harshly the Sinai covenant which, after all, was established by the same God who made a covenant with Abraham? Besides, did not the Sinai covenant contain provisions of grace and forgiveness through the sanctuary services (Ex 25-30), besides principles of conduct (Ex 20-23)? The answer to these questions is to be found in Paul's concern to establish the legitimacy of the salvation of the Gentiles as Gentiles.

To accomplish this goal, Paul attacks the understanding of the Law (covenant) as an exclusive document of election. This does not mean that he denies the possibility of salvation to Jews who accepted Christ as the fulfillment of the Sinai covenant. On the contrary, he explicitly acknowledges that just as he was "entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised," so "Peter had been entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised" (Gal 2:7).

Paul does not explain what was the basic difference between the two Gospels. We can presume that since the circumcision had become equated with the covenant, the Gospel to the circumcised emphasized that Christ through His blood ratified the Sinai covenant by making it operative (Matt 26:28). This would make it possible for Jews to be saved as Jews, that is, while retaining their identity as a covenant people.

Note that Paul does not deny the value of circumcision for the Jews. On the contrary he affirms: "Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision" (Rom 2:25). Again in Romans 9 to 11 Paul does not rebuke the Jews for being "Jewish" in their life-style (Rom 11:1) but rather for failing to understand that the Gentiles in Christ have equal access to salvation because Christ is the goal of the Law.

CONCLUSION

Several conclusions emerge from our study of Paul's view of the Law. We noted that prior to his conversion Paul understood the Law like a Pharisee, namely, as the external observance of commandments in order to gain salvation (2 Cor 5:16-17). After his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road, Paul gradually came to realize that his Pharisaic view of the Law as a way of salvation was wrong, because the Old Testament teaches that salvation was promised already to Abraham through the Christ, the Seed to come, 430 years before the giving of the Law at Sinai (Gal 3:17).

From the perspective of the Cross, Paul rejected the Pharisaic understanding of the Law as a means of salvation, and accepted the Old Testament view of the Law as a revelation of God's will for human conduct. We found that for Paul the Law is and remains God's Law (Rom 7:22, 25), because it was given by God (Rom 9:4; 3:2), written by Him (1 Cor 9:9; 14:21; 14:34), reveals His will (Rom 2:17, 18), bears witness to His righteousness (Rom 3:21), and is in accord with His promises (Gal 3:21).

Being a revelation of God's will for mankind, the Law reveals the nature of sin as disobedience to God. Paul explains that "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20), because the Law causes people to recognize their sins and themselves as sinners. It is evident that this important function of the Law could hardly have terminated by Christ, since the need to acknowledge sin in one's life is fundamental to the life of Christians today as it was for the Israelites of old.

The function of Christ's redemptive mission was not to abrogate the Law, as many Christians mistakenly believe, but to enable believers to live out the principles of God's Law in their lives. Paul affirms that in Christ, God has done what the Law by itself could not do, namely, He empowers believers to live according to the "just requirements of the Law." "For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:3-4).

The new life in Christ enables the Christian to keep the Law, not as an external code, but as a loving response to God. This is the very thing that the Law by itself cannot do, because being an external standard of human conduct, it cannot generate a loving response in the human heart. By contrast, "Christ's love compels us" (2 Cor 5:14) to respond to Him by living according to the moral principles of God's Law (John 14:15).

Paul recognizes that the observance of the Law can tempt people to use it unlawfully as a means to establish their own righteousness before God. This was the major problem of his Gentile converts who were tempted to adopt practices like circumcision in order to gain acceptance with God. Paul exposes as hopeless all attempts to be justified in God's sight by works of the Law, because "no human being will be justified in his sight by the works of the Law, since through the Law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). Human beings in their fallen condition can never fully observe God's Law.

What Paul radically rejects is not of the Law, but of legalism, that is, the attempt to establish one's righteousness through the external observance of the Law. Legalism ultimately blinds a person to the righteousness which God has made available as free gift through Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 10:3). This was the problem with the false teachers who were promoting circumcision as a way of salvation without Christ. By so doing they were propagating the false notion that salvation is a human achievement rather than a divine gift.

The mounting pressure of Judaizers who were urging circumcision upon the Gentiles, made it necessary for Paul to attack the exclusive covenant-concept of the Law.

"But," as George Howard points out, "under other circumstances he [Paul] might have insisted on the importance of Israel's retention of her distinctiveness." (79)

An understanding of the different circumstances that occasioned Paul's discussion of the Law, is essential for resolving the apparent contradiction between the positive and negative statements he makes about the Law. For example, in Ephesians 2:15, Paul speaks of the Law as having been "abolished" by Christ, while in Romans 3:31 he explains that justification by faith in Jesus Christ does not overthrow the Law but "establishes" it. In Romans 7:6, he states that "now we are discharged from the Law" while a few verses later he writes that "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (7:12). In Romans 3:28, he maintains that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," yet in 1 Corinthians 7:19 he states that "neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God."

How can Paul view the Law both as "abolished" (Eph 2:15) and "established" (Rom 3:31), unnecessary (Rom 3:28) and necessary (1 Cor 7:19; Eph 6:2, 3; 1 Tim 1:8-10)? Our study suggests that the resolution to this apparent contradiction is to be found in the different contexts in which Paul speaks of the Law. When he speaks of the Law in the context of salvation (justification-right standing before God), especially in his polemic with Judaizers, he clearly affirms that Law-keeping is of no avail (Rom 3:20). On the other hand, when Paul speaks of the Law in the context of Christian conduct (sanctification-right living before God), especially in dealing with antinomians, then he upholds the value and validity of God's Law (Rom 7:12; 13:8-10; 1 Cor 7:19).

In summation, what Paul criticizes is not the moral value of the Law as guide to Christian conduct, but the soteriological (saving) understanding of the Law seen as a document of election that includes the Jews and excludes the Gentiles. The failure to distinguish in Paul's writing between his moral and soteriological usages of the Law, and the failure to recognize that his criticism of the Law is directed especially toward Gentiles Judaizers who were exalting the Law, especially circumcision, as a means of salvation, has led many to fallaciously conclude that Paul rejects the value and validity of the Law as a whole. Such a view is totally unwarranted because, as we have shown, Paul rejects the Law as a method of salvation but upholds it as a moral standard of Christian conduct.

Footnotes

  1. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1962), p. 97
  2. Ibid., p. 94
  3. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p. 58.
  4. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (note 24), p. 104
  5. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p. 59.
  6. John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. by J. Pringle (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1948), vol. 2, p. 183
  7. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p. 61
  8. Bruce L. Martin (note 19), p. 155.
  9. Ardel Bruce Caneday, "The Curse of the Law and the Cross: Works of the Law and Faith in Galatians 3:1-14," Doctoral dissertation submitted at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois, 1992), p. 58.
  10. George Eldon Ladd (note 11), p. 507
  11. Ernest De Will Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh, 1962), p. 188.
  12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles (London, 1961), vol. II, VI, 2.
  13. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p. 63.
  14. Ibid., p. 62.
  15. Eduard Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Philadelphia, 1971), p. 116.
  16. To justify this interpretation, the phrase "cheirographon tois dogmasiv" is translated "the document consisting in ordinances." But, Charles Masson explains that "the grammatical justification for this construction is highly debatable....It should have by rule the preposition en (cf. c. 11) to say that the document "consisted in ordinances" (LÊpitre de St. Paul aux Colossiens [Paris, 1950], p. 128)
  17. J. Huby, Saint Paul: les Êpitres de la captivite (Paris, 1947), p. 73. Charles Masson (note 37), p. 128, mentions that for Schlatter, Huby, and Percy, "the idea of the Law nailed on the Cross with Christ would have been unthinkable for Paul."
  18. For a lengthy list of commentators who interpret the cheirographon either as the "certificate of indebtedness" resulting from our transgressions or as the "book containing the record of sin," see Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome, Italy, 1977), p. 349.
  19. For references of rabbinical and apocalyptic literature, see Samuele Bacchiocchi (note 41), pp. 339-340.
  20. See Josephus, Jewish Wars 5, 5, 2; 6, 2, 4.
  21. Herold Weiss, "The Law in the Epistle to the Colossians," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972), p. 311, note 10.
  22. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1979), p. 811.
  23. Roberto Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective, published as Supplement Series 10, Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Sheffield, England, 1985), pp. 79-80.
  24. Ibid., p. 34.
  25. Ibid., p. 34.
  26. Ibid., p. 19-26.
  27. Ibid., p. 22.
  28. Ibid., p. 22.
  29. Ibid., p. 24.
  30. Ibid., p. 25-27.
  31. For a representative list of scholars who advocate the termination interpretation of Romans 10:4, see Robert Badenas (note 46), pp. 30-32.
  32. Ibid., p. 32.
  33. Ragnar Bring, "Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the Ideas of Election, Faith, and Law in Paul, with Special Reference to Romans 9:30-10:13, " Studia Theologica 25 (1971), p. 42.
  34. Ibid., p. 47.
  35. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p. 49.
  36. Ibid., p. 49.
  37. George E. Howard, "Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff," Journal of the Biblical Literature 88 (1969), p. 337.
  38. John E. Toews, "The Law in Paul's Letter to the Romans. A Study of Romans 9:30-10:13," Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University (1977), pp. 219-245.
  39. Clyde Thomas Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law: A Study on the Continuity between Judaism and Christianity, Romans 3:31, SBL Dissertation Series, 55 (Missoula, 1981), pp. 114-116.
  40. Walter C. Kaiser (note 6), p. 182
  41. Ibid., p. 184.
  42. Ibid., p. 182.
  43. Ibid., p. 188.
  44. Roberto Badenas (note 46), p. 93.
  45. Ibid., p. 107.
  46. Ibid., p. 115.
  47. George E. Howard (note 60), p. 336.
  48. Ibid., pp. 335-336.
  49. Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continum? (Grand Rapids, Michigan 1980), p. 86.
  50. Walter C. Kaiser (note 6), p. 187.
  51. W. D. Davies, "From Schweitzer to Scholem. Reflections on Sabbatai Svi," Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976), p. 547.
  52. For an informative discussion of the Jewish understanding of the salvation of Israel and of the Gentiles, see E. P. Sanders, "The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism," Jews, Greeks and Christians (Leiden, 1976), pp. 11-44.
  53. Lloyd Gaston, "Paul and the Torah" in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Alan T. Davis (New York, 1979), p. 58. Gaston provides a most perceptive analysis of Paul's attitude toward the Law.
  54. Marcus Barth, Ephesians, Anchor Bible (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 244-248.
  55. See D. Rössler, Gesetz und Geschichte (Neukirchen, 1960); E. P. Saunders (note 75), p. 41, concludes: "Salvation comes by membership in the convenant, while obedience to the commandments preserves one's place in the covenant."
  56. George E. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology (Cambridge, 1979), p. 81.

[Installment #17-Part1] | [Installment #18]

This article taken from the Bible Study Web Site at http://www.biblestudy.org/