PAUL AND THE LAW
From the book "The Sabbath Under Crossfire"
by Samuele Bacchiocchi Ph.D.
In the Sabbath-Sunday debate, it has been customary to
appeal to Paul in defense of the abrogation-view of the Old
Testament Law, in general, and of the Sabbath, in particular.
This has been especially true in recent attacks launched against
the Sabbath by former Sabbatarians. For example, in his open
letter posted on the Internet on Apri11, 1995, Joseph W. Tkach,
Jr., Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God, wrote: "Paul
does not hold the Mosaic Law as a moral standard of Christian
conduct. Rather, he holds up Jesus Christ, the suffering of the
Cross, the Law of Christ, the fruit and leadership of the Holy
Spirit, nature, creation and the moral principles that were
generally understood throughout the Gentile world as the basis of
Christian ethics. He never, I repeat, never, argues that the Law
is the foundation of Christian ethics. Paul looks at Golgotha,
not Sinai."
Similar categoric statements can be found in Sabbath in
Crisis, by Dale Ratzlaff, a former Seventh-day Adventist Bible
teacher and pastor. He writes: "Paul teaches that Christians are
not under old covenant Law ... Galatians 3 states that Christians
are no longer under Sinaitic Law ... Romans 7 states that even
Jewish Christians are released from the Law as a guide to
Christian service ... Romans 10 states that Christ is the end of
the Law for the believer." 1
These categoric statements reflect the prevailing
Evangelical perception of the relationship between Law and Gospel
as one in which the observance of the Law is no longer obligatory
for Christians. Texts such as Romans 6:14; 2 Corinthians 3:1-18;
Galatians 3:15-25; Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15; and Romans
10:4 are often cited as proof that Christians have been delivered
from the obligation to observe the Law, in general, and the
Sabbath, in particular, since the latter "was the sign of the
Sinaitic Covenant and could stand for the covenant." 2
For many Christians these statements are so definitive that
any further investigation of the issue is unnecessary. They
boldly affirm that so-called "New Covenant" Christians live
"under grace" and not "under the Law;" consequently, they derive
their moral principles from the principle of love revealed by
Christ and not from the moral Law given by God to Moses on Mount
Sinai.
For example, Ratzlaff writes: "In old covenant life,
morality was often seen as an obligation to numerous specific
Laws. In the new covenant, morality springs from a response to
the living Christ" 3 "The new Law [given by Christ] is better
that the old Law [given by Moses]." 4 "In the New Covenant,
Christ's true disciples will be known by the way they love! This
commandment to love is repeated a number of times in the New
Testament, just as the Ten Commandments were repeated a number
of times in the Old." 5
This study shows that statements such as these represent a
blatant misrepresentation of the New Testament teaching regarding
the role of the Law in the life of a Christian. They ignore the
fact that the New Testament never suggests that Christ instituted
"better commandments" than those given in the Old Testament. On
the contrary, Paul unequivocally stated that "the [Old Testament]
Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good"
(Rom 7:12). "We know that the Law is good" (1 Tim 1:8).
This prevailing misunderstanding of the Law as no longer
binding upon Christians is negated by a great number of Pauline
passages that uphold the Law as a standard for Christian conduct.
When the Apostle Paul poses the question: "Do we then overthrow
the Law?" (Rom 3:31). His answer is unequivocal: "By no means! On
the contrary, we uphold the Law" (Rom 3:31). The same truth is
affirmed in the Galatian correspondence: "Is the Law then against
the promises of God? Certainly not" (Gal 3:21). These statements
should warn antinomians that, as Walter C. Kaiser puts it, "any
solution that quickly runs the Law out of town certainly cannot
look to the Scripture for any kind of comfort or support." 6
There are few teachings within the whole compass of biblical
theology so grossly misunderstood today as that of the place and
significance of the Law both in the New Testament and in the life
of Christians.
Fortunately, an increasing number of scholars are
recognizing this problem and addressing it. For example, in his
article "St.Paul and the Law," published in the Scottish Journal
of Theology, C. E. B. Cranfield writes: "The need exists today
for a thorough re-examination of the place and significance of
Law in the Bible . . . The possibility that . . . recent writings
reflect a serious degree of muddled thinking and unexamined
assumptions with regard to the attitudes of Jesus and St.Paul to
the Law ought to be reckoned with-and even the further
possibility that, behind them, there may be some muddled thinking
or, at the least, careless and imprecise statement in this
connection in some works of serious New Testament scholarship
which have helped to mould the opinions of the present generation
of ministers and teachers." 7
Ishare Cranfield's conviction that shoddy biblical
scholarship has contributed to the prevailing misconception that
Christ has released Christians from the observance of the Law.
There is an urgent need to re examine the New Testament
understanding of the Law and its place in the Christian life. The
reason for this urgency is that muddled thinking about the role
of the Law in the Christian life affects a whole spectrum of
Christian beliefs and practices. In fact, much of the
anti-sabbatarian polemic derives from the mistaken assumption
that the New Testament, especially Paul's letters, releases
Christians from the observance of the Law, in general, and the
Sabbath commandment, in particular.
Objectives of This Chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine Paul's attitude
toward the Law which is one of the most complex doctrinal issues
of his theology. To determine Paul's view of the Law, we examine
four specific areas. First, the background of Paul's view of the
Law from the perspective of his pre- and post-conversion
experience. Second, Paul's basic teachings about the nature and
function of the Law. Third, the five major misunderstood Pauline
texts frequently appealed to in support of the abrogation view of
the Law. Fourth, why legalism became a major problem among
Gentile converts.
By way of conclusion, I propose that the resolution to the
apparent contradiction between Paul's negative and positive
statements about the Law is found in their different contexts.
When he speaks of the Law in the context of salvation
(justification-right standing before God), 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), he upholds the value
and validity of God's Law (Rom 7:12; 13:8-10; 1 Cor 7:19).
PART 1 THE BACKGROUND OF PAUL'S VIEW OF THE LAW
Various Usages of "Law."
Paul uses the term "Law-nomos" at least 110 times in his
epistles, but not uniformly. The same term "Law" is used by Paul
to refer to such things as the Mosaic Law (Gal 4:21; Rom 7:22,
25; 1 Cor 9:9), the whole Old Testament (1 Cor 14:21; Rom 3:19,
21), the will of God written in the heart of Gentiles (Rom
2:14-15), the governing principle of conduct (works or faith-Rom
3:27), evil inclinations (Rom 7:21), and the guidance of the
Spirit (Rom 8:2).
Sometimes the term "Law" is used by Paul in a personal way
as if it were God Himself: "Whatever the Law says it speaks to
those who are under the Law" (Rom 3:19). Here the word "Law"
could be substituted for the word "God" (cf. Rom 4:15; 1 Cor
9:8).
Our immediate concern is not to ascertain the various
Pauline usages of the term "Law," but rather to establish the
apostle's view toward the Old Testament Law, in general. Did Paul
teach that Christ abrogated the Mosaic Law, in particular, and/or
the Old Testament Law, in general, so that Christians are no
longer obligated to observe them? This view has predominated
during much of Christian history and is still tenaciously
defended today by numerous scholars 8 and Christian churches.
Unfortunately, this prevailing view rests largely on a one-sided
interpretation of selected Pauline passages at the exclusion of
other important passages that negate such an interpretation.
Our procedure will be, first, to examine the positive and
negative statements that Paul makes about the Law and then to
seek a resolution to any apparent contradiction. We begin our
investigation by looking at the background of Paul's view of the
Law, because this offers valuable insights into why Paul views
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).
The Old Testament View of the Law.
To understand Paul's view of the Law, we need to look at it
from three perspectives: (1) the Old Testament, (2) Judaism, and
(3) his own personal experience. Each of these perspectives had
an impact in the development of Paul's view of the Law and is
reflected in his discussion of the nature and function of the
Law. Contrary to what many people believe, the Old Testament does
not view the Law as a means of gaining acceptance with God
through obedience, but as a way of responding to God's gracious
redemption and of binding Israel to her God. The popular view
that in the Old Covenant people were saved, not by grace but by
obeying the Law, ignores the fundamental biblical teaching that
salvation has always been a divine gift of grace and not a human
achievement.
The Law was given to the Israelites at Sinai, not to enable
them to gain acceptance with God and be saved, but to make it
possible for them to respond to what God had already accomplished
by delivering them from Egyptian bondage. The context of the Ten
Commandments is the gracious act of divine deliverance. "I am the
Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of bondage" (Ex 20:2). Israel was chosen as God's
people not because of merits gained by the people through
obedience to the Law, but because of God's love and faithfulness
to His promise. "It was not because you were more in number than
any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose
you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because
the Lord loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to
your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty
hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage" (Deut 7:7-8).
Obedience to the Law provided the Israelites with an
opportunity to preserve their covenant relationship with God, and
not to gain acceptance with Him. This is the meaning of Leviticus
18:5: "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by
doing which a man shall live." The life promised in this text is
not the life in the age to come (as in Dan 12:2), but the present
enjoyment of a peaceful and prosperous life in' fellowship with
God. Such life was God's gift to His people, a gift that could be
enjoyed and preserved by living according to the principles God
had revealed.
The choice between life and death laid before the people in
Deuteronomy 30:15-20 was determined by whether or not the people
would choose to trust and obey the Word of God. Obedience to the
Law of God was an expression of trust in God which revealed who
really were His people. The obedience demanded by the Law could
not be satisfied by legalistic observance of external commands,
like circumcision, but by an internal love-response to God. The
essence of the Law was love for God (Deut 6:5; 10:12) and for
fellow-beings (Lev 19:18). Life was understood as a gift to be
accepted by a faith response to God. As Gerhard von Rad puts it,
"Only by faith, that is, by cleaving to the God of salvation,
will the righteous have life (cf. Hab 2:4; Am 5:4, 14; Jer
38:20). It is obvious that life is here understood as a gift." 9
It was only after his conversion that Paul understood that
the Old Testament view of the function of the Law was a
faith-response to the gift of life and salvation and not a means
to gain life through legalistic obedience. Prior to his
conversion, as we shall see, Paul held to the Pharisaic view of
the Law as a means of salvation, a kind of mediator between God
and man. After his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road,
Paul was compelled to reexamine his theology. Gradually, he 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).
The Jewish View of the Law.
These considerations led Paul to realize that salvation in
the Old Testament is offered not through Law, but through the
promise of the coming Redeemer. "For if the inheritance is by the
Law, it is no longer by promise" (Gal 3:18). It was this
rediscovery of the Old Testament meaning of the Law as a response
to God's gracious salvation that caused Paul to challenge those
who wanted to make the Law a means of salvation. He said: "For no
human being will be justified in his sight by works of the Law,
since through the Law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20).
The view that the observance of the Law is an indispensable
means to gain salvation developed later during the
intertestamental period, that is, during the four centuries that
separate the last books of the Old Testament from the first books
of the New Testament. During this period a fundamental change
occurred in the understanding of the role of the Law in the life
of the people. Religious leaders came to realize that
disobedience to God's Law had resulted in the past suffering and
deportation of the people into exile. To prevent the recurrence
of such tragedies, they took measures to ensure that the people
would observe every detail of the Law. They interpreted and
applied the Law to every minute detail and circumstance of life.
At the time of Christ, this ever-increasing mass of regulations
was known as "the tradition of the elders" (Matt 15:2).
During this period, as succinctly summarized by Eldon Ladd,
"the observance of the Law becomes the basis of God's verdict
upon the individual. Resurrection will be the reward of those who
have been devoted to the Law (2 Mac 7:9). The Law is the basis of
hope of the faithful (Test of Jud 26:1), of justification (Apoc
Bar 51:3), of salvation (Apoc Bar 51:7), of righteousness (Apoc
Bar 57:6), of life (4 Ezra 7:21; 9:31).
Obedience to the Law will even bring God's Kingdom and
transform the entire sin-cursed world (Jub 23). Thus the Law
attains the position of intermediary between God and man." 10
This new view of the Law became characteristic of rabbinic
Judaism which prevailed in Paul's time. The result was that the
Old Testament view of the Law "is characteristically and
decisively altered and invalidated." 11 From being a divine
revelation of the moral principle of human conduct, the Law
becomes the one and only mediator between God and the people.
Righteousness and life in the world to come can only be secured
by faithfully studying and observing the Law. "The more study of
the Law, the more life. . ." "If a person has gained for himself
words of the Law, he has gained for himself life in the world to
come." 12
Paul's Pre-Conversion Experience of the Law.
This prevailing understanding of the Law as a means of
salvation influenced Paul's early life. He himself tells us that
he was a committed Pharisee, blameless and zealous in the
observance of the Law (Phil 3:5-6; Gal 1:14). The zeal and
devotion to the Law eventually led Paul to pride (Phil 3:4,7) and
boasting (Rom 2:13,23), seeking to establish his own
righteousness based on works (Rom 3:27).
As a result of his conversion, Paul discovered that his
pride and boasting were an affront to the character of God, the
only One who deserves praise and glory (1 Cor 1:29-31; 2 Cor
10:17). "What he as a Jew had thought was righteousness, he now
realizes to be the very essence of sin, for his pride in his own
righteousness (Phil 3:9) had blinded him to the revelation of the
divine righteousness in Christ. Only the divine intervention on
the Damascus Road shattered his pride and self-righteousness and
brought him to a humble acceptance of the righteousness of God."
13
The preceding discussion of Paul's background experience of
the Law helps us to appreciate the radical change that occurred
in his understanding of the Law. Before his conversion, Paul
understood the Law like a Pharisee, that is, as the external
observance of commandments in order to gain salvation (2 Cor
5:16-17). After his conversion, he came to view the Law from the
perspective of the Cross of Christ, who came "in order that the
just requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us" through
the enabling power of His Spirit (Rom 8:4). From the perspective
of the Cross, Paul rejects the Pharisaic understanding of the Law
as a means of salvation and affirms the Old Testament view of the
Law as a revelation of God's will for human conduct.
PART 2 PAUL'S VIEW OF THE LAW
This brief survey of Paul's background view of the Law
provides us with a setting for examining now Paul's basic
teachings about the Law. For the sake of clarity, we summarize
his teachings under the following seven headings.
(1) The Law Reveals God's Will.
First of all, it is important to note that for Paul the Law
is and remains God's Law (Rom 7:22, 25). 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). Repeatedly and explicitly Paul speaks
of "the Law of God." "I delight in the Law of God in my inmost
self" (Rom 7:22); "I of myself serve the Law of God with my mind"
(Rom 7:25); the carnal mind "does not submit to God's Law" (Rom
8:7). Elsewhere he speaks of "keeping the commandments of God" (1
Cor 7:19) as being a Christian imperative.
Since God is the author of the Law, "the Law is holy, and
the commandment is holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12). The Law is
certainly included among "the oracles of God" that were entrusted
to the Jews (Rom 3:2). To the Jews was granted the special
privilege ("advantage") to be entrusted with the Law of God (Rom
3:1-2). So "the giving of the Law" is reckoned by Paul as one of
the glorious privileges granted to Israel (Rom 9:4). Statements
such as these reflect Paul's great respect for the divine origin
and authority of God's Law.
Paul clearly recognizes the inherent goodness of the moral
principles contained in the Old Testament Law. The Law "is holy
and just and good" (Rom 7:12) because its ethical demands reflect
nothing else than the very holiness, righteousness, and goodness
of God Himself. This means that the way people relate to the Law
is indicative of the way they relate to God Himself. The Law is
also "spiritual" (Rom 7:14) in the sense that it reflects the
spiritual nature of the Lawgiver and it can be internalized and
observed by the enabling power of the Spirit. Thus, only those
who walk "according to the Spirit" can fulfill "the just
requirements of the Law" (Rom 8:4).
The Law expresses the will of God for human life. However,
what the Law requires is not merely outward obedience but a
submissive, loving response to God. Ultimately, the observance of
the Law requires a heart willing to love God and fellow beings
(Rom 13:8). This was the fundamental problem of Israel "who
pursued the righteousness which is based on Law" (Rom 9:31); they
sought to attain a right standing before God through outward
obedience to God's commandments. The result was that the people
"did not succeed in fulfilling that Law" (Rom 9:31). Why? Because
their heart was not in it. The people sought to pursue
righteousness through external obedience to commandments rather
than obeying the commandments out of a faith-love response to
God. "They did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were
based on works" (Rom 9:32).
The Law of God demands much more than conformity to outward
regulations. Paul makes this point when he speaks of a man who
may accept circumcision and yet fail to keep the Law (Rom 2:25).
Superficially this appears to be a contradictory statement
because the very act of circumcision is obedience to the Law. But
Paul explains that true circumcision is a matter of the heart,
not merely something external and physical (Rom 2:28-29).
For Paul, as C. K. Barrett points out, "obedience to the Law does
not mean only carrying out the detailed precepts written in the
Pentateuch, but fulfilling that relation to God to which the Law
points; and this proves in the last resort to be a relation not
of legal obedience but of faith." 14 The failure to understand
this important distinction that Paul makes between legalistic and
loving observance of the Law has led many to wrongly conclude
that the apostle rejects the validity of the Law, when in reality
he rejects only its unlawful use.
(2) Christ Enables Believers to Obey the Law.
For Paul the function of Christ's redemptive mission is to
enable believers to live out the principles of God's Law in their
lives and not to abrogate the Law, as many Christians mistakenly
believe. Paul explains that in Christ, God does 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. Our love response to Christ
fulfills the Law because love will not commit adultery, or lie,
or steal, or covet, or harm one's neighbor (Rom 13:8-10).
The permanence of the Law is reflected in Paul's appeal to
specific commandments as the norm for Christian conduct. To
illustrate how the principle of love fulfills the Law, Paul cites
several specific commandments: "The commandments, 'You shall not
commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You
shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in the
sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does
no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the
Law" (Rom 13: 9-10).
Paul's reference to "any other commandment" presupposes the
rest of the Ten Commandments, since love fulfills not only the
last six commandments that affect our relationship with fellow
beings, but also the first four commandments that govern our
relationship with God. For example, love fulfills the Sabbath
commandment because it motivates Christians to truly love the
Lord by giving priority to Him in their thinking and living
during the hours of the Sabbath.
Central to Paul's understanding of the Law is the Cross of
Christ. From this perspective, he both negates and affirms the
Law. Negatively, the Apostle repudiates the Law as the basis of
justification: "if justification were through the Law, then
Christ died to no purpose" (Gal 2:21).
Positively, Paul teaches that the Law is "spiritual, good,
holy, just" (Rom 7:12,14,16; 1 Tim 1:8) because it exposes sin
and reveals God's ethical standards. Thus, he states that Christ
came "in order that the just requirements of the Law might be
fulfilled in us" through the dynamic power of His Spirit (Rom
8:4).
Three times Paul states: "Neither circumcision counts for
anything nor uncircumcision;" and each time he concludes this
statement with a different phrase: "but keeping the commandments
of God ... but faith working through love ... but a new creation"
(1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15). The parallelism shows that Paul
equates the keeping of God's commandments with a working faith
and a new life in Christ, which is made possible through the
enabling power of the Holy Spirit.
(3) The Law Is Established by the Ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Christ's ministry enables His Spirit to set us free from the
tyranny of sin and death (Rom 8:2) and to re-establish the true
spiritual character of the Law in our hearts. In Romans 8, Paul
explains that what the Law, frustrated and abused by sin, could
not accomplish, Christ has triumphantly accomplished by taking
upon Himself the condemnation of our sins (Rom 8:3). This Christ
has done, not to release us from the obligation to observe the
Law, but "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 8:4).
The Spirit establishes God's Law in our hearts by setting us
free from tampering with God's commandments and from "boasting"
of presumptuous observance (Rom 2:23; 3:27; 4:2). The Spirit
establishes the Law by pointing us again and again to Christ who
is the goal of the Law (Rom 10:4). The Spirit establishes the Law
by setting us free to obey God as our "Father" (Rom 8:5) in
sincerity. The Spirit enables us to recognize in God's Law the
gracious revelation of His fatherly will for His children. The
final establishment of God's Law in our hearts will not be
realized until the coming of Christ when the "revealing of the
sons of God" will take place (Rom 8:19).
The slogan of "New Covenant" Christians - "Not under Law but
under love" - does not increase the amount of true love in the
world, because love without Law soon degenerates in deceptive
sentimentality. E. C. Cranfield perceptively observes that "while
we most certainly need the general command to love (which the Law
itself provides in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18), to save
us from understanding the particular commandments in a rigid,
literalistic and pedantic manner, we also need the particular
commandments into which the Law breaks down the general
obligation of love, to save us from the sentimentality and
self-deception to which we all are prone." 15
(4) The Law Reveals the Nature of Sin.
As 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 self-evident that this important function of the
Law could not have been terminated by Christ, since the need to
acknowledge sin in one's life is as fundamental to the life of
Christians today as it was for the Israelites of old.
By showing people how their actions are contrary to the
moral principles that God has revealed, the Law increases sin in
the sense that it makes people more conscious of disobeying
definite commandments. This is what Paul meant when he says: "Law
came in, to increase the trespass" (Rom 5:20; cf. Gal 3:19). By
making people conscious of disobeying definite commandments, the
Law increases the awareness of transgressions (Rom 4:15).
The Law not only heightens the awareness of sin but also
increases sin by providing an opportunity to deliberately
transgress a divine command. This is what Paul suggests in Romans
7:11: "For sin, finding opportunity in the commandments, deceived
me and by it killed me." The term "deceived" is reminiscent of
the creation story (Gen 3:13) where the serpent found in God's
explicit prohibition (Gen 2:17) the very opportunity he wanted to
lead Adam and Eve into deliberate disobedience and rebellion
against God.
It is in this sense that "the power of sin is the Law" (1
Cor 15:56). "In the absence of Law sin is in a sense 'dead' (Rom
7:8), that is, relatively impotent; but when the Law comes, then
sin springs into activity (Rom 7:9 - 'sin revived'). And the
opposition which the Law offers to men's sinful desires has the
effect of stirring them up to greater fury." 16
Sinful human desires, unrestrained by the influence of the
Holy Spirit, as Calvin puts it in his commentary on Romans 7:5,
"break forth with greater fury, the more they are held back by
the restraints of righteousness." 17 Thus, the Law, in the
absence of the Spirit, "increases the trespass" (Rom 5:20) by
attacking sinful desires and actions. To claim that "New
Covenant" Christians are no longer under Law, in the sense that
they no longer need the Law to expose sin in their life, is to
deny or cover up the presence of sin. Sinful human beings need
the Law to "come to the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20), and need a
Saviour to "have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Col 1:14;
cf. Eph 1:7).
(5) Observance of the Law Can Lead to Legalism.
The goodness of the Law is sullied when it is used
wrongfully. Paul expresses this truth in 1 Timothy 1:8: "Now we
know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully." Contrary to
what many believe, Paul affirms the validity and goodness of the
Law, but it must be used according to God's intended purpose.
This important distinction is ignored by those who teach that
"New Covenant" Christians are no longer obligated to observe the
moral Law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, because they claim to
derive their moral principles from the principle of love revealed
by Christ. God has only one set of moral principles. Paul openly
and constantly condemns the abuse, and not the proper use of
God's Law.
The abuse was found in the attitude of the Judaizers who
promoted the works of the Law as a means to achieve
self-righteousness before God. Paul recognizes that observance of
the Law can tempt people to use it unlawfully as a means to
establish their own righteousness before God. He exposes as
hopeless the legalist's confidence of seeking 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.
It was incredible pride and self-deception that caused the
Jews to "rely upon the Law" (Rom 2:17) to establish their own
righteousness (Rom 10:3) when in reality they were notoriously
guilty of dishonoring God by transgressing the very principles of
His Law. "You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by
breaking the Law?" (Rom 2:24). This was the problem with the
Pharisees, who outwardly gave the appearance of being righteous
and Law-abiding (Luke 16:12-15; 18:11-12), but inwardly they were
polluted, full of iniquity, and spiritually dead (Matt 23:27-28).
The Pharisaic mentality found its way into the primitive church,
among those who refused to abandon the wrongful use of God's Law.
They did not recognize that Christ's redemptive accomplishments
brought to an end those ceremonial parts of the Law, like
circumcision, that foreshadowed His person and work. They wanted
to "compel the Gentiles to live like Jews" (Gal 2:14). These
Judaizers insisted that in order to be saved, the Gentiles needed
to be circumcised and observe the covenantal distinctiveness of
the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1). In other words, the offer of
salvation by grace had to be supplemented with the observance of
Jewish ceremonies.
Paul was no stranger to the attitude of the Judaizers toward
the Law of Moses, because he held the same view himself prior to
his conversion. He was brought up as a Pharisee and trained in
the Law at the feet of Gamaliel (Phil 3:5; Acts 22:3). He
describes himself as "extremely zealous for the traditions of my
fathers" (Gal 1:14). From the perspective of a person who is
spiritually dead, Paul could claim that as far as "legalistic
righteousness" was concerned, he was " faultless" (Phil 3:6,
NIV).
After his conversion, Paul discovered that he had been
deceived into believing that he was spiritually alive and
righteous, when in reality he was spiritually dead and
unrighteous. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Paul
recognized that "having a righteousness of my [his] own, based on
Law" (Phil 3:9) was an illusion typical of the Pharisaic
mentality. Such mentality is reflected in the rich young ruler's
reply to Jesus: "Teacher, all these I have observed from my
youth" (Mark 10:20). The problem with this mentality is that it
reduced righteousness to compliance with Jewish oral Law, which
Jesus calls "the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8), instead of
recognizing in God's Law the absolute demand to love God and
fellow beings. When the Holy Spirit brought home to Paul's
consciousness the broader implications of God's commandments, his
self-righteous complacency was condemned. "I was once alive apart
from [a true understanding of] the Law, but when the commandment
came, sin revived and I died" (Rom 7:9).
In his epistles, Paul reveals his radical rejection, not of
the Law, but of legalism. He recognizes that attempting to
establish one's righteousness by legalistic observance of the Law
ultimately blinds a person to the righteousness which God has
made available as a free gift through Jesus Christ (cf. Rom
10:3). This was the problem with the prevailing legalism among
the Jews of Paul's time, namely, the failure to recognize that
observance of the Law by itself without the acceptance of Christ,
who is the goal of the Law, results in slavery. Thus, Paul
strongly opposes the false teachers who were troubling the
Galatian churches because they were promoting circumcision as a
way of salvation without Christ. By so doing, they were
propagating the legalistic notion that salvation is by works
rather than by faith-or we might say, it is a human achievement
rather than a divine gift.
By promoting salvation through the observance of such
ceremonies as circumcision, these false teachers were preaching a
"different Gospel" (Gal l:6), which was no Gospel at all (Gal
1:7-9), because salvation is a divine gift of grace through
Christ's atoning sacrifice. With this in mind, Paul warns the
Galatian Christians: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if
you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to
you at all .... You who are trying to be justified by law have
been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal
5:2,4, NIV). It is evident that what Paul opposes is the unlawful
use of the Law, that is, the attempt to earn acceptance with God
by performning rituals like circumcision, thus ignoring the
gracious provision of salvation offered through Jesus Christ.
(6) The Law Was Never Intended to Be a Means of Salvation.
After his conversion Paul understood that the Old Testament
Law was never intended to be legalistic in character, that is, a
means to earn salvation. From his personal experience, he learned
that he could not gain self-merit or justification before God by
faithfully obeying the Law. Gradually he understood that the
function of the Law is to reveal the nature of sin and the moral
standard of human conduct, but not to provide a way of salvation
through human obedience.
This truth is expressed in Galatians 2:19 where Paul says:
"For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God"
(emphasis supplied).
Paul acknowledges that it was the Law itself, that is, his
new understanding of the function of the Law, that taught him not
to seek acceptance before God through Law-works. The Law was
never intended to function as a way of salvation, but to reveal
sin and to point to the need of a Savior. This was especially
true of the promises, prophecies, ritual ordinances, and types of
the Mosaic Law which pointed forward to the Savior and His
redeeming work. In the great Bible lessons of all time, Christ
expounded "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, ... what
was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).
Paul insists that the Mosaic Law did not annul the promise
of salvation God made to Abraham (Gal 3:17,21). Rather, the Law
was added "till the offspring should come to whom the promise had
been made" (Gal 3:19). The function of the Mosaic Law was not
soteriological but typological, that is, it was not given to
provide a way of salvation through external ceremonies but to
point the people to the Savior to come, and to the moral
principles by which they ought to live.
(7) The Law Pointed to the Savior to Come.
The typological function of the Law was manifested
especially through what is known as the "ceremonial Law" - the
redemptive rituals like circumcision, sacri fices, sanctuary
services, and priesthood, all of which foreshadowed the work and
the person of Christ. Paul refers to this aspect of the Mosaic
Law when he says that "the Law was our tutor ... to Christ, that
we may justified by faith" (Gal 3:24, NASB). Here Paul sees the
Mosaic Law as pointing to Christ and teaching the same message of
justification contained in the Gospel. The tutor or schoolmaster
to which Paul alludes in Galatians 3:2425 is most likely the
ceremonial Law whose rituals typified Christ's redemptive
ministry. This is indicated by the fact that Paul was engaged in
a theological controversy with the Judaizers who made
circumcision a requirement of salvation (Gal 2:3-4; 5:2-4).
When Paul speaks of the Law as pointing to Christ and teaching
that justification comes through faith in Christ (Gal 3:24), it
is evident that he was thinking of sacrificial ordinances that
typified the Messianic redemption to come. This was also true of
circumcision that pointed to the "putting off of the body of
flesh," that is, the moral renewal to be accomplished by Christ.
"In him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of
Christ" (Col 2:11). The moral principles of the Ten Commandments,
like "you shall not steal," hardly represented the redemptive
work of Christ.
Paul insists that now that Christ, the object of our faith,
has come, we no longer need the tutorship aspect of the Mosaic
Law that pointed to Christ (Gal 3:25). By this Paul did not mean
to negate the continuity and validity of the moral Law, in
general. This is indicated by his explicit affirmation in 1
Corinthians 7:19: "For neither circumcision counts for anything
nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God." Usually
Paul does not distinguish between the ethical and ceremonial
aspects of the Law, but in passages such as this the distinction
is abundantly clear. Commenting on this text, Eldon Ladd notes:
"Although circumcision is a command of God and a part of the Law,
Paul sets circumcision in contrast to the commandments, and in
doing so separates the ethical from the ceremonial-the permanent
from the temporal." 18
The failure to make such a distinction has led many
Christians to mistakenly conclude that Paul teaches the
abrogation of the Law in general as a rule for the Chri stian
life. This conclusion is obviously wrong, because Paul while
presents to the Gentiles "the commandments of God" as a moral
imperative, he adamantly rejects the ceremonial ordinances, such
as circumcision, for these were a type of the redemption
accomplished by Christ (1 Cor 7:19).
For Paul, the typological function of the ceremonial Law, as
well as the unlawful legalistic use of the Law, came to an end
with Christ; but the Law as an expression of the will of God is
permanent. The believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit is energized
to live according to "the just requirements of the Law" (Rom
8:4).
The starting point of Paul's reflection about the Law is
that atonement for sin and salvation come only through Christ's
death and resurrection, and not by means of the Law. This
starting point enables Paul, as well stated by Brice Martin, "to
make the distinction between the Law as a way of salvation and as
a norm of life, between the Law as it encounters those in the
flesh and those in the Spirit, between the Law as a means of
achieving self-righteousness and as an expression of the will of
God to be obeyed in faith.... The moral Law remains valid for the
believer." 19
...................
To be continued
2. PAUL and the LAW?How he Taught it!PAUL AND THE LAW
Part Two
by Samuele Bacciocchi Ph.D.
A LOOK AT SOME MISUNDERSTOOD TEXTS
Several Pauline passages are often used to support the
contention that the Law was done away with by Christ and
consequently is no longer the norm of Christian conduct. In view
of the limited scope of this chapter, we examine the five major
passages frequently appealed to in support of the abrogation view
of the Law.
(1) Romans 6:14: "Not Under Law"
Romans 6:14 is perhaps the most frequently quoted Pauline
text to prove that Christians have been released from the
observance of the Law. The text reads: "For sin will have no
dominion over you, since you are not under Law but under grace."
The common interpretation of this text is that Christians are no
longer under the Mosaic Law as a rule of conduct because their
moral values derive from the principle of love revealed by
Christ.
This is a serious misreading of this passage because there
is nothing in the immediate context to suggest that Paul is
speaking of the Mosaic Law. In the immediate and larger context
of the whole chapter, Paul contrasts the dominion of sin with the
power of Christ's grace. The antithesis indicates that "under
Law" simply means that Christians are no longer "under the
dominion of sin" and, consequently, "under the condemnation of
the Law" because the grace of Christ has liberated them from both
of them.
To interpret the phrase "under Law" to mean "under the
economy of the Mosaic Law" would imply that believers who were
under the Mosaic economy were not the recipients of grace. Such
an idea is altogether absurd. Furthermore, as John Murray
perceptively observes, "Relief from the Mosaic Law as an economy
does not of itself place persons in the category of being under
grace." 20
"The 'dominion of Law' from which believers have been
'released' is forthrightly explained by Paul to be the condition
of being 'in sinful nature,' being 'controlled' by 'sinful
passions ... so that we bore fruit for death' (Rom 7:1-6). From
this spiritual bondage and impotence, the marvellous grace of
God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has set
believers free; but it has not set them free to sin against God's
moral principles." 21
Since "under grace" means under God's undeserved favor, the
contrast with "under Law" presupposes the idea of being under
God's disfavor or condemnation pronounced by the Law. Thus, in
Romans 6:14 Paul teaches that believers should not be controlled
by sin (cf. Rom 6:12,6,11-13) because God's grace has liberated
them from the dominion of sin and the condemnation of the Law.
In this passage, as John Murray brings out, "there is an absolute
antithesis between the potency and provision of the Law and the
potency and provision of grace. Grace is the sovereign will and
power of God coming to expression for the deliverance of men from
the servitude of sin. Because this is so, to be 'under grace' is
the guarantee that sin will not exercise the dominion-'sin will
not lord it over you, for ye are not under Law but under
grace.'" 22
Not Under the Condemnation of the Law.
Paul expresses the same thought in Romans 7 where he says:
"Brethren, you have died to the Law through the body of Christ
.... Now we are discharged from the Law, dead to that which held
us captive" (Rom 7:4,6). The meaning here is that through
Christ's death, Christians have been discharged from the
condemnation of the Law and from all the legalistic
misunderstanding and misuse of the Law. To put it differently,
Christians have died to the Law and have been discharged from it
insofar as it condemns them and holds them in bondage as a result
of its unlawful, legalistic use. But they are still "under the
Law" insofar as the Law reveals to them the moral principles by
which to live.
This interpretation is supported by the immediate context
where Paul affirms that "the Law is holy, and the commandment is
holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12). Again he says: "We know that
the Law is spiritual" (Rom 7:14). And again, "So then, I of
myself serve the Law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I
serve the Law of sin" (Rom 7:25). These statements clearly
indicate that for Paul the Law is and remains the Law of God,
which reveals the moral standard of Christian conduct.
Surprisingly, even Rudolf Bultmann, known for his radical
rejection of the cardinal doctrines of the New Testament, reaches
the same conclusion. "Though the Christian in a certain sense is
no longer 'under Law' (Gal 5:18; Rom 6:14), that does not mean
that the demands of the Law are no longer valid for him; for the
agape [love] demanded of him is nothing else than the fulfillment
of the Law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14)." 23
The point is well made, because we find that in Romans
13:8-13 Paul explains how love fulfills the Law by citing four
specific commandments and by including "any other commandment."
In the light of these considerations, we conclude that far from
dismissing the authority of the Law, Paul teaches that believers
should not transgress the Law simply because God's grace has "set
[them] free from sin" (Rom 6:18). It is only the sinful mind that
"does not submit to God's Law" (Rom 8:7). But Christians have the
mind of the Spirit who enables them to fulfill "the just
requirements of the Law" (Rom 8:4). Thus, Christians are no
longer "under the Law," in the sense that God's grace has
released them from the dominion of sin and the condemnation of
the Law, but they are still "under Law" in the sense that they
are bound to govern their lives by its moral principles. Thanks
to God's grace, believers have "become obedient from the heart to
the standard of teachings" (Rom 6:17) and moral principles
contained in God's Law.
(2) 2 Corinthians 3:1-18: The Letter and the Spirit
2 Corinthians 3 contains a great deal that is often used to
argue that the Law has been done away with by 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 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 given is, "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 hearts" (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 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 remove 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 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 as 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 of itself
something evil and death-dealing? This cannot 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 seen, 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
former Sabbatarians who attack the Sabbath, ignore the
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 give a
new set of Laws; instead He internalizes His existing Law in the
human heart.
Philip Hughes states the difference between the two
Covenants with admirable clarity: "The difference between the Old
and New Covenants is that under the former the Law is written on
tables 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 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 the "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 selfrighteous 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 engraved 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 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 gazing 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 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 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
shows 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 evety 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 obscured 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,
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 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
1)." 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. He does this by
contrasting the ministry 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 misled people into believing that the Law was done
away with 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 example, he says: "The Law was added because of
transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the
promise had been made" (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
on the situation 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. They taught that 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 upon circumcision.
The false teachers accused Paul of accommodating and
watering down the Gospel by releasing Christians from
circumcision and 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 by 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-makers (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 on circumcision reflects
the prevailing Jewish understanding that circumcision was
required to become a member of the Abrahamic covenant and receive
its 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 (Gen
15:6; 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 points 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.'" (Gal 3:8). 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 prornise
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
then was 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 not
added to save men from their sins, but to reveal 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. The guardian's 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 human hearts (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), was
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 measure,
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
documentcheirographon" 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, 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 to grasp the arguments advanced by Paul in the
preceding verses to combat the Colossian false teachers. They
were "beguiling" (Cot 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"
(Cot 2:10). Second, 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 possesses 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 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
documentcheirographon."
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
antisabbatarian 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 condemna tion 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.
Second, the dative in Ephesians "en dogmasivin ordinances"
is governed by "en-in," thus expressing that the Law was set out
"in ordinances." Such a preposition does not occur in Colossians.
Last, the context is substantially different. While in Ephesians
the question is how Christ removed what separated Jews from
Gentiles, in Colossians the question 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 it impossible for them to
participate in the worship service of the inner court with the
Jews.
The 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 neither of the two suggests
that the moral Law was nailed to the Cross.
Record of Our Sins.
The "written record-cheirographon" 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 recordcheirographon" 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 judgment. 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 spoke 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 to 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," and
"nailed to the Cross," are the sins that will be automatically
vindicated in the day of judgment.
We conclude 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. I subscribe to the latter
interpretation because, as we shall see, it is supported by the
linguistic use of telos (its basic meaning is "goal" rather than
"end"), the flow of Paul's argument, and the overall Pauline
teaching 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, or 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 preserved 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 ofthe Law with
the coming ofChrist. The problem with termination interpretation,
as we shall see, is that it contradicts the immediate context as
well as the numerous explicit Pauline statements which affirm 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 the
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 give us reason 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 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 by 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,"
not "termination" or "abrogation."
Badenas also provides 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 translations 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 Testaments 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 antinomian "abrogation of the Law"
interpretation of Romans 10:4 to prevails. 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 generalthe 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 that new exegetical studies of Romans 10:4
are contributing to a rediscovery of the correct meaning of this
text. It is doubtful, however, that these new studies will cause
an abandonment of the abrogation interpretation because it has
become foundational to many Evangelical beliefs and practices. In
this context, we can mention only a few significant studies,
besides the outstanding dissertation of Roberto Badenas already
cited.
..................
To be continued
Paul and the Law - Part three
The Law is Holy, Just, and Good!
by Dr. Samuele Bacciocchi Ph.D.
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
Similarly, 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 defense 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
with these words: "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 remains 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 examination 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
salvationfinally fulfilled with the coming of Christ relates 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 jeopardized 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 first by
pointing out 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 ofreceiving the righteousness of God by
faith, Israel sought to establish its own righteousness (Rom
9:31; 10:3).
Last, 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
the 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.
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,
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? P
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
9:3033) also suggest 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; and '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 Clause: "For Righteousness ..."
Further support for the teleological interpretation is
provided by the qualifying clause 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) but stumbled over the stone (Rom
9:33), and ignored God's righteousness (Rom 10:23). All 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," interrupts the flow of the argument and
works against it. The same is true of the interpretation which
says "Christ has put an end to 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.
The 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 (Gat 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 important point to consider is that the key to
understanding Romans 10:4 may to be found in the proper
comprehension 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 2:1516) 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 accept the righteousness
the Law pointed to and promised through Jesus Christ. Thus, far
from 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 the 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 in establishing
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 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 serves 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 cannot be true. If Paul had quoted
Leviticus 18:5 as teaching righteousness by works, he could
hardly have faulted the Jews for 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 essentially
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 otherbiblical 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 as 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 30:1214 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 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 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 shows 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 also the goal of the Law 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 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 in order to share
in the blessings of the world-tocome. 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 one hand, he faced the opposition of Jews
and JewishChristians because they failed to understand ("Israel
did not under stand"-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
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 mothers 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 wouldmake 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 already promised 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), was 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 not have been terminated by Christ, since the
need to acknowledge sin in one's life is as 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 a 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"
(Rom 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 shows that the resolution to this apparent
contradiction is 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, Paul criticizes 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 Jews and excludes Gentiles. Failure to distinguish in
Paul's writing between his moral and soteriological usages of the
Law, and failure to recognize that his criticism of the Law is
directed especially toward Gentile 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.
NOTES:P
1. Dale Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Crisis (Applegate, California,
1990), pp.200,218,219.
2. Ibid., p.49.
3. Ibid., p.74.
4. Ibid., p.73.
5. Ibid., p.181.
6. Walter C. Kaiser, "The Law as God's Gracious Guidance for the
Promotion of Holiness," in Law, The Gospel, and the Modern
Christian (Grand Rapids, 1993), p.178.
7. C.E.B.Cranfield, "St.Paul and the Law," Scottish Journal of
Theology 17 (March 1964), pp.43-44.
8. A convenient survey of those scholars (Albert Schweitzer, H.
J. Schoeps, Ernest Kaseman, F.F.Bruce, Walter Gutbrod) who argue
that the Law is no longer valid for Christians, is provided by
Brice Martin's Christ and the Law in Paul (Leiden, Holland,
1989), pp.55-58.
9. Gerhard von Rad, "Zao," Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, 1974), p.845.
10. George Eldon Ladd, "A Theology of the New Testament" (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1974), p.497.
11. H. Kleinknech, "Bible Key Words" (Grand Rapids, Michigan
1962), p.69.
12. "Pike Aboth" 2:7. For other references, see H. Kleinknech
(note 11), p.76.
13. George Eldon Ladd (note 11), p.501.
14. C.K.Barrett, "Commentary on the Book of Romans" (New York,
1957), p.58.
15. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p.47.
16. Ibid., pp.66-67.
17. John Calvin, "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans
and to the Thessalonians," trans. R. Mackenzie (Edinburg, 1961),
p. 141.
18. George Eldon Ladd (note 10), p.541.
19. Brice L. Martin, "Christ and the Law in Paul" (Leiden,
Holland, 1989), pp.53,68.
20. John Murray, "The Epistle to the Romans" (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982), p.229.
21. Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and
Gospel," in "Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian" (Grand
Rapids, 1993), p.106.
22. John Murray (note 20), p.229.
23. Rudolf Bultmann, "Theology of the New Testament" (New York,
1970), vol.1, p.262.
24. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, "Paul's Second Epistle to the
Corinthians," in "The New International Commentary on the New
Testament" (Grand Rapids, 1962), p.97.
25. Ibid., p.94.
26. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p.58.
27. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (note 24), p.104.
28. C.E.B.Cranfield (note 7), p.59.
29. 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.
30. C.E.B. Cranfield (note 7), p.61.
31. Brice L. Martin (note 19), p.155.
32. 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.
33. George Eldon Ladd (note 11), p.507.
34. Ernest De Will Burton, "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Epistle to the Galatians" (Edinburgh, 1962), p.188.
35. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F.
L. Battles (London, 1961), vol. II, VI, 2.
36. C.E.B.Cranfield (note 7), p.63.
37. Ibid., p.62.
38. Eduard Lohse, " Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians
and to Philemon "(Philadelphia, 1971), p.116.
39. 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. v.11) to say that the
document "consisted in ordinances" (L. Epitre de St.Paul aux
Colossians [Paris, 1950], p.128).
40. J.Huby, Saint Paul: ies Epitres de la captivate (Paris,
1947), p.73. Charles Masson (note 37), p.128, mentions that for
Schlatter, Huby, and Percy, "the idea ofthe Law nailed on the
Cross with Christ would have been unthinkable for Paul."
41. 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.
42. For references of rabbinical and apocalyptic literature, see
Samuele Bacchiocchi (note 41), pp.339-340.
43. See Josephus, Jewish Wars 5,5, 2; 6, 2, 4.
44. Herold Weiss, "The Law in the Epistle to the Colossians," The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972), p.311, note 10.
45. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, "A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament" (Chicago, 1979), p.811.
46. 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.
47. Ibid., p.34.
48. Ibid., p.34.
49. Ibid., pp.19-26.
50. Ibid., p.22.
51. Ibid., p.22.
52. Ibid., p.24.
53. Ibid., pp.25-27.
54. For a representative list of scholars who advocate the
termination interpretation of Romans 10:4, see Robert Badenas
(note 46), pp.3032.
55. Ibid., p.32.
56. 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.
57. Ibid., p.47.
58. C.E.B.Cranfield (note 7), p.49.
59. Ibid., p.49.
60. George E. Howard, "Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of
Romans 10:4ff," Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969), p.337.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Walter C.Kaiser (note 6), p.182.
64. Ibid., p.184.
65. Ibid., p.182.
66. Ibid., p.188.
67. Roberto Badenas (note 46), p.93.
68. Ibid., p.107.
69. Ibid., p.115.
70. George E. Howard (note 60), p.336.
71. Ibid., pp.335-336.
72. Daniel P. Fuller, "Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continum?"
(Grand Rapids, Michigan 1980), p.86.
73. Walter C.Kaiser (note 6), p.187.
74. W.D.Davies, "From Schweitzer to Scholem. Reflections on
Sabbatai Svi," Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976), p.547.
75. For an informative discussion of the Jewish understanding of
the salvation oflsrael and ofthe 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.
76. 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.
77. Marcus Barth, Ephesians, Anchor Bible (Grand Rapids, 1974.),
pp.244-248.
78. See D.Rossler, Gesetz and Geschichte (Neukirchen, 1960); E.
P.Saunders (note 75), p.41, concludes: "Salvation comes by
membership in the covenant, while obedience to the commandments
preserves one's place in the covenant."
79. George E.Howard, "Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early
Christian Theology" (Cambridge, 1979), p.81.
.....................
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment