The Object of the Law Is Realized in Christ: Romans 10:4 and Paul’s Justification Teaching

Originally published in the Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 6.1 (2016): 33–54.

Abstract

The meaning of telos nomou in Rom 10:4 (“Christ is telos nomou for righteousness to everyone who believes”) has been highly contested, with interpretations falling into two main camps, depending on whether telos is interpreted temporally or teleologically. A typology of interpretations is set forth and a version of the teleological interpretation is defended. It is argued that Paul presupposed that the object of the law was righteousness. The law demanded righteousness (as personal obedience to God’s moral will) and offered righteousness (as a status before God) and life to those who kept it. By affirming that Christ is telos nomou, Paul was saying that Christ has realized the object of the law, namely, righteousness. How he did so (by his obedience to the point of death) is not explicitly stated in this text, but can be teased out from other Pauline texts. Christ’s realization of the object of the law, which he accomplishes as the believer’s representative, results in a status of righteousness that is enjoyed by all who believe in him. In addition, Christ’s being the telos of the law is intimately related to the concept of “the righteousness of God.” Believers are not righteous by doing the law personally but by receiving the gift of righteousness, the righteousness of God constituted by Christ crucified and risen as their representative. Connections with related justification passages strengthen this interpretation and highlight the notion that righteousness is “reckoned” to believers by a gracious divine act.

In Rom 10:4, Paul makes a statement that has every appearance of being highly significant for his thought: τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (“Christ is the end of the law resulting in righteousness for everyone who believes”).¹ Given its importance, it is no surprise that the interpretation of this verse is highly contested in Pauline scholarship, with disagreement centering primarily on the first part of the verse, “Christ is the end of the law.” C. E. B. Cranfield observes that this Pauline sentence “has been, and still is, understood in altogether contrary senses. But its importance is not disputed …. [I]t is also clearly one of the fundamental theses of Pauline theology as a whole, since, in whatever way it is taken, it is obviously a decisive statement concerning the relation of Christ and the Law.”² My aim is to show that Rom 10:4, rightly understood, is connected with Paul’s broader doctrine of justification, specifically, his teaching concerning the righteousness of God, that is, the righteousness that is received as a gift so that believers may be reckoned as righteous in God’s sight.

I. Taxonomy of Interpretations of Romans 10:4

Interpretations fall into two main categories: those that take τέλος in a temporal sense (“termination”) and those that take it in a teleological sense (“goal”). Examination of the uses of τέλος in biblical and extra-biblical Greek brings no resolution, since the lexical data paint a mixed picture. On the one hand, Robert Badenas in his 1985 monograph, Christ the End of the Law, has convincingly argued that τέλος usually has a strongly teleological meaning in extra-biblical Greek.³ On the other hand, in the Septuagint (165 times) and the New Testament (40 times), the temporal meaning predominates, although the teleological usage is also attested.⁴ Because the lexical data are mixed, both meanings are live possibilities and the decision must ultimately be made by seeking the interpretation that fits best in the immediate context. We can further subdivide the temporal and teleological categories into two sub-views and thus lay out a taxonomy of interpretations. Not counting attempts to combine various views (which I will address briefly below), there are basically four views, which I am calling views 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.⁵ Views 1a and 1b are the two temporal views, and views 2a and 2b are the two teleological views. I will critique views 1a, 1b, and 2a, and defend view 2b.

Table: Taxonomy of Interpretations of Romans 10:4

View	Τέλος	Νόμος	Subject	Εἰς δικαιοσύνην	Scholars
1a	Temporal meaning: End as terminus, termination, cessation, abrogation	Mosaic Law as demanding works for justification	Χριστός	Result/purpose; consecutive clause	Heil, Hodge, Käsemann, Lietzmann, Meyer, Michel, Nygren, Sanday & Headlam, Stott, Talbert, Witherington
1b	Temporal meaning: End as terminus, termination, cessation, abrogation	Misuse of the Mosaic Law as a means of justification	Χριστός	Attributive, modifying νόμου	Dunn, Hübner, Hultgren, Morris, Murray, Schreiner
2a	Teleological meaning: End in prospective or prophetic sense: the goal as future; i.e. aim, object, purpose, intention, σκοπός	The Torah as scripture, which demands faith	τέλος	Result/purpose; consecutive clause	Badenas, Bechtler, Byrne, Calvin, Cranfield, Keck, Matera, Wright, Ziesler
2b	Teleological meaning: End in retrospective sense: the goal as attained; i.e. completion, culmination, attainment, fulfillment, climax, realization, actualization, πλήρωμα	Mosaic Law as demanding works for justification	Χριστός	Result/purpose; consecutive claus	Chrysostom, Fitzmyer, Haldane, Hooker, Luther, Melanchthon, Rhyne, Shedd, Stuart
	Combination of 1a with 2a				Achtemeier
	Combination of 1a with 2b				Barrett, Bruce, Moo

1. The First Temporal View (View 1a)

The first temporal view interprets “the law” as the Mosaic Law, takes “Christ” as the subject of the sentence, and understands the εἰς-clause as indicating purpose or result. The verse could be paraphrased, “Christ brings the Mosaic Law to an end so that there may be righteousness for all who believe.” This view or some version thereof is advocated by John Paul Heil, Charles Hodge, Ernst Käsemann, Hans Lietzmann, H. A. W. Meyer, Otto Michel, Anders Nygren, Sanday and Headlam, John Stott, Charles Talbert, Guy Waters, and Ben Witherington.⁶ One commentator as representative of this group translates: “The validity of the law has come to an end in Christ, in order that every believer may be a partaker of righteousness.”⁷ He argues that under the old Mosaic theocracy, the law was the God-ordained means of procuring righteousness and hence salvation. But now, under the new economy introduced by Christ’s redemptive death, “the law has … ceased to be the regulative principle for the attainment of righteousness.”⁸ Some in this camp, not wanting to think that Paul leaves the believer without any standard of morality, distinguish between the law as a covenant and the law as a rule. For example, Hodge adds this qualification: “The law is abolished by Christ, not as a rule of life, but as a covenant prescribing the condition of life.”⁹

The principal objection to view 1a is that it has difficulty providing a convincing linkage between the copula (“Christ is the end of the law”) and the εἰς-clause (“with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes”). How does the fact that “Christ is the end (in the sense of the abrogation) of the law” result in the fact “that there is righteousness for everyone who believes”? The two thoughts are not naturally and clearly connected as cause and effect.¹⁰ The abrogation of the law would not, in itself, bring about righteousness for everyone who believes. For if the law was the God-ordained means of procuring a status of righteousness before God, then Christ’s bringing the law to an end would only mean that, whereas in the former era before Christ only Jews could procure righteousness before God by keeping the Mosaic law, now, after Christ, no one can. There is no internal logic to the statement, “Christ has brought the validity of the law to an end so that there may be (or with the result that there is) righteousness for everyone who believes.”

One possible way that the temporal termination of the law can be understood as “making righteousness available for all who believe” is to argue that as long as the law was still in force, only those who were under the law (that is, the Jews), could possibly keep the law in order to be righteous. Gentiles were excluded. However, this leaves Paul open to the reply that the Gentiles were not excluded, since all they needed to do was take upon themselves the yoke of the law by becoming proselytes.¹¹ This interpretation puts Paul in the awkward position of critiquing the law based on a fundamental mistake about the law.

2. The Second Temporal View (View 1b)

The second temporal view interprets “the law” as the Mosaic Law misunderstood and abused as a means of justification, takes “Christ” as the subject of the sentence, and understands the εἰς-clause as an attributive prepositional phrase modifying νόμου. This view could be paraphrased, “For all who believe, Christ is the end of using the law for righteousness.” Those who adopt this view disconnect παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι from the immediately preceding prepositional phrase (εἰς δικαιοσύνην) and see it as limiting the scope of the statement as a whole. “This qualification [παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι] implies that only for the believer is Christ the end of the law for righteousness.”¹² This view is advocated by James D. G. Dunn, Hans Hübner, Arland Hultgren, Leon Morris, John Murray, and Thomas Schreiner.¹³ Schreiner argues that Paul is not making a global statement concerning the relationship between Christ and the law but is speaking experientially.¹⁴ Schreiner paraphrases: “Those who believe in Christ cease using the law as a means of establishing their own righteousness.”¹⁵ Christ is the end, not of the law itself, but “of the carnal misuse of the law.”¹⁶

One positive feature of this view is that, unlike the preceding view, it integrates the εἰς-clause with the main clause. However, Greek syntax does not support taking εἰς δικαιοσύνην attributively as modifying νόμου for two reasons.

First, it must not be overlooked that Χριστός is located between νόμου and εἰς δικαιοσύνην (τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι). This simple observation, while not conclusive by itself, should create doubt that Paul intended εἰς δικαιοσύνην to modify νόμου attributively.¹⁷ It is not absolutely impossible for a word to intervene between a prepositional phrase and the noun it modifies. But normally, such intervening words or phrases are pronouns or adjectives or articles—words that would be difficult to place elsewhere. But it is very unlikely that the intervening word would be the subject of the sentence (“Christ”).

Second, if Paul had intended εἰς δικαιοσύνην to go with νόμου, he would likely have employed a specific construction that is normally found when a prepositional phrase in postposition is intended to modify a substantive attributively. This construction involves the insertion of the article—with the same gender, number, and case of the noun—before the preposition if it is in postposition, that is, if the prepositional phrase comes after the substantive it modifies rather than in the intermediate position between the article and the substantive.¹⁸ The presence of the article is necessary to link the prepositional phrase to the noun it is intended to modify, marking the phrase as attributive.¹⁹ This construction occurs frequently in the NT (over 400 times) and can be used with any preposition.²⁰ Had Paul intended the prepositional phrase εἰς δικαιοσύνην to modify νόμου attributively, it is safe to assume that he would have moved Χριστός out of the way and inserted a masculine, genitive, singular article before εἰς, as follows: τέλος γὰρ νόμου τοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην Χριστὸς παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι.²¹

Third, view 1b misconstrues the role of παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι in the structure of the sentence. The true structure of Rom 10:4 is highlighted when it is observed that it is nearly identical to that of another sentence much earlier in the epistle, Rom 1:16.²² Both sentences begin with a main clause that is a simple predication, X is Y, followed by an εἰς-clause, to which is appended the dative participle, “to everyone who believes.” In both cases, the εἰς-clause (εἰς σωτηρίαν and εἰς δικαιοσύνην) is adverbial and denotes either purpose or result. The two texts may be aligned as follows:

Rom 1:16	τὸ εὐαγγέλιον	δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν	εἰς σωτηρίαν	παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι
Rom 10:4	Χριστός23	τέλος νόμου [ἐστιν]	εἰς δικαιοσύνην	παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι

The concluding phrase παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (which occurs only in these two verses in all of Romans) is connected to the εἰς-clause in both cases. In Rom 1:16 the thought is that the gospel is the power of God “for the salvation of all who believe,” as John Murray recognizes: “We must not discount the emphasis that the gospel is unto salvation to every one that believes.”²⁴ It would destroy the essential thought of the verse to sever the link between the εἰς-clause and the dative participial clause. It is therefore likely that the dative participial clause in Rom 10:4 has the same connection with the εἰς-clause: “Christ is the telos of the Law resulting in righteousness for all who believe.”

Having examined the two major interpretations that take τέλος temporally in the sense of termination or abrogation, we now turn to the two major interpretations that take τέλος teleologically as “goal” or “object.” These two interpretations agree that τέλος is to be taken teleologically rather than temporally, but they understand the teleological significance of τέλος differently. Badenas helpfully points out that τέλος is a nomen actionis, and that depending on the context, the issue or outcome of the action is viewed either as “preceding” or “subsequent.”²⁵ Badenas’s distinction is helpful, though the terms “prospective” and “retrospective” are clearer. When the issue or outcome of the action is viewed prospectively, τέλος is typically translated “aim,” “goal,” or “purpose.” When the issue or outcome of the action is viewed retrospectively, τέλος has a completive nuance, denoting the attainment of a previous purpose. In this case, the closest synonym of τέλος is πλήρωμα and can be rendered in English with such words as “attainment,” “completion,” “fulfillment,” or “realization.”²⁶ I prefer the last term. If X is the telos of Y, then one can paraphrase by saying that the object of Y has been realized by X. Interpreters who adopt the teleological interpretation of τέλος diverge into two sub-views depending on whether they interpret τέλος prospectively or retrospectively.

3. The First Teleological View (View 2a)

The first teleological view interprets τέλος prospectively and interprets νόμος, not as a legal covenant demanding obedience as a condition of blessing, but as the Torah or Scripture in the widest sense, including both its promises and demands.²⁷ In this broad sense, νόμος as Torah or Scripture bears witness to Christ and demands faith. Badenas writes: “Paul seems to say that faith in Christ is at the same time true faith in the Torah … [R]ight understanding of the law leads to faith in Jesus Christ … [T]he law always required a response of faith.”²⁸ Cranfield says: “It was to faith in Christ that the law was all along leading.”²⁹ This view takes τέλος as the subject of the sentence (it is the only one of the four views to do so), and understands the εἰς-clause as indicating result. To paraphrase: “The goal of the Torah is Christ so that there may be righteousness for all who believe.” This view is not new and goes back at least to John Calvin,³⁰ but it has become increasingly popular in the last two decades and is advocated by Robert Badenas, Steven Bechtler, Brendan Byrne, William S. Campbell, C. E. B. Cranfield, Leander Keck, Frank Matera, Paul W. Meyer, N. T. Wright, and John Ziesler.³¹ Christ is the object and goal to which the law had been pointing all along. Christ is the true meaning of the law. The Jews did not understand this, and to this day they have persisted in interpreting the Law without reference to its goal, which is Christ. Cranfield summarizes the view this way: “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 was seeking to give them; for all along, had they but known it, Christ was the goal and meaning and substance of that law which they were so earnestly pursuing.”³²

There are three criticisms of this view. First, in this context νόμος does not mean Torah in the sense of God’s revelation to Israel, including the revelation of the way of attaining righteousness by faith as found in such verses as Gen 15:6, a verse that Paul himself makes much of. Rather, Paul uses νόμος in this context to denote the Mosaic Law as it both demands righteousness (in the ethical sense) and offers righteousness (in the “before God” sense) to those who do all that it requires (Rom 2:13; 9:31; 10:5). The word νόμος occurs 74 times in Romans, and most often it refers to the Mosaic Law as that which demands works as the condition of righteousness and life.³³ There are a few passages where Paul uses it in a rhetorical sense, for example, “the ‘law’ of faith” (Rom 3:27) and “the ‘law’ of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2), but in these cases it is an intentional play on words and should be translated with quote marks.³⁴ There is only one instance in the epistle where νόμος means “the Torah,” that is, the five books of Moses, and here too it is a play on words: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (χωρὶς νόμου), although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it (μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν)” (Rom 3:21 ESV). The paradox is more rhetorical than real: the righteousness of God has been manifested “apart from (the works of) the law” and yet “the Law and the Prophets” have borne witness to it all along. View 2a rests on the assumption that νόμος in Rom 10:4 means “Torah as Scripture bearing witness to Christ,” a meaning that is not consistent with the usage throughout Romans, and especially not in the immediate context (Rom 9:30–10:5). Notice that in Romans, ὁ νόμος only means the Torah as Scripture when it is found in the entire phrase, “the Law and the Prophets.”

Second, if Paul had intended τέλος to be the subject of the sentence, he would have made it definite and articular, as he does elsewhere.³⁵ It may be objected that the word order most naturally suggests that τέλος νόμου, being placed at the beginning of the sentence, should be taken as the subject. But the placement of the predicate at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis is quite common.³⁶

Third, like view 1a, view 2a has trouble integrating the εἰς-clause – although admittedly it does not have as much trouble. View 2b treats Rom 10:4 as a statement about Paul’s Christocentric hermeneutic: “Christ is the hermeneutical key which makes intelligible what was always the law’s true meaning and purpose.”³⁷ But it is unclear how Christ’s being the hermeneutical key and the true meaning of the Old Testament results in “righteousness for everyone who believes.” Advocates of view 2a could attempt to make the connection between v 4a and v 4b by suggesting that Paul’s point is that reading Scripture Christologically leads one to faith in Christ and thereby to righteousness by faith. They might paraphrase Rom 10:4 as follows: “Christ is the hermeneutical key to the Scripture (or the Torah), with the result that righteousness comes by believing in the Christ who is the center of Scripture (or the Torah).” So it is not impossible to establish a plausible connection between the two verse halves, but it is not as natural a connection as one would like. The shift from hermeneutics to soteriology is too abrupt. Because view 2a interprets νόμος broadly as Torah or Scripture, not as the Mosaic Law specifically (which has strong connections with “righteousness”), the introduction in v 4b of the term “righteousness” is unexpected and somewhat out of place. But the weakness of view 2a is the strength of view 2b, the other teleological view, to which we now turn.

4. The Second Teleological View (View 2b)

This view, like its sibling, interprets τέλος teleologically, but, following Badenas’ distinction between the two types of teleology, it takes τέλος not as “goal” (the prospective teleological sense) but as “realization” (the retrospective teleological sense). More importantly, view 2b (like view 1a) takes νόμος as the Mosaic Law as demanding works for righteousness, in contrast with view 2a which takes νόμος as the Torah, broadly conceived as Scripture. Additionally, view 2a views “Christ” as the subject of the sentence, and interprets the εἰς-clause as indicating purpose or result. View 2b may be paraphrased as follows: “Christ is the culmination or fulfillment of the law so that there may be (or with the result that there is) righteousness for everyone who believes.” This view was adopted as early as Chrysostom.³⁸ Martin Luther glossed the verse as saying that Christ is “the fulfillment and the consummation” of the law.³⁹ Philip Melanchthon articulated the same interpretation but with an explicit reference to imputation: “‘Christ is the end of the Law,’ that is, its completion or consummation. He gives that which the Law requires, that is, whoever believes in Christ has that which the Law demands, that is, he is righteous by imputation.”⁴⁰ Robert Haldane puts it this way: “The moment that a man believes in Him, the end of the law is attained in that man; that is, it is fulfilled in him, and he is in possession of that righteousness which the law requires … and consequently he hath eternal life.”⁴¹ Modern scholars who adopt this interpretation include Joseph Fitzmyer, Morna D. Hooker, and Thomas Rhyne.⁴² Douglas Moo also defends it but combines it with view 1a.⁴³

Because it is not always clearly distinguished from the other teleological view, view 2b has been overshadowed and somewhat overlooked by its more popular cousin, view 2a. Since they both take τέλος teleologically, they are often lumped together, and scholars sometimes fail to highlight the distinction between them. But the distinction is significant. Moo helpfully articulates the distinction as follows: on view 2a, “Paul is asserting something about the true meaning of the OT, with the assumption that Jews all along should have seen Christ ‘in’ the law.” View 2b “is more historically focused, the idea being that the Jews should now recognize in Christ the goal to which the law was pointing.”⁴⁴

5. Other Views

In addition to these four main views, there are also attempts to combine the first temporal view (view 1a) with one of the teleological views. It has been argued that τέλος in some cases has a double meaning. Depending on what it is, when something reaches its telos in the teleological sense of goal or aim, the result is that the entity also comes to an end in a temporal sense. Because of scenarios such as this when the temporal and teleological meaning coincide, some argue that both meanings are being activated in Rom 10:4. Paul Achtemeier combines the first temporal view (view 1a) with the first teleological view (view 2a).⁴⁵ C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, and Douglas Moo combine it with the second teleological view (view 2b).⁴⁶ There are also other views that do not fit into my taxonomy. For example, several New Perspective scholars take the goal of the law to be the unification of Jews and Gentiles under one God.⁴⁷

II. Righteousness, the Object of the Law

Having laid out a taxonomy of views, we must now give further attention to view 2b, in particular, to the premise on which it rests, namely, that righteousness is the object of the law.⁴⁸ According to view 2b, the object of the law is righteousness, and Christ is the one in whom the law’s object is realized. But we must be sure that it is in fact the case that righteousness was the law’s goal or object. A survey of the Old Testament and of Jewish literature would demonstrate that righteousness was perceived to be the goal of the law in Second Temple Judaism. Space prohibits an examination of that literature here. But more modestly, I think it can be shown that this presupposition was shared by Paul. Righteousness comes from living uprightly in accordance with the law. Those who do the law are therefore righteous coram Deo (“before God”).

It seems that Paul derived this presupposition from his reading of the Old Testament, specifically Lev 18:5, which I quote here in the LXX: “And you shall keep all my ordinances and all my judgments, and you shall do these things which, if a person does them, he shall live by them” (NETS⁴⁹) (καὶ φυλάξεσθε πάντα τὰ προστάγματά μου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίματά μου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά, ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς). On Paul’s reading of this key verse from the Mosaic Law, the object of the law was righteousness and life. In other words, doing the law leads to life, but there is an implied middle term—righteousness. That Paul read Lev 18:5 as implicitly containing this middle term (“righteousness”) is supported by his quotation of it in the verse immediately following our text, Rom 10:5: “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them” (ESV) (Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς). Paul develops the idea of Lev 18:5 by explicating it in terms of the concept of righteousness, even though that word does not explicitly appear in the text. He claims that Lev 18:5 is “about the righteousness that is based on (or comes from) the law” (ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου). Evidently, Paul sees in the law’s offer of “life” an assumed middle term: law-keeping → righteousness → life. The law itself offers the status of “righteousness” to the one who perfectly fulfills it.⁵⁰

In addition, there are three verses in Romans alone where the Lev 18:5 principle appears to be at work even if it is not explicitly quoted. We may begin with Rom 2:13: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (ESV) (οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, ἀλλʼ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται). The verb δικαιωθήσονται is equivalent to δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, which suggests that “justified” here simply means “be regarded as righteous.” Of course, the interpretation of this verse is highly contested in Pauline scholarship, but it is best to adopt the “empty set” interpretation which seems to be on the decline but still has its defenders today.⁵¹

The next verse that uses the Lev 18:5 principle without quoting it explicitly is Rom 7:10: “I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death” (NIV) (εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωὴν αὕτη εἰς θάνατον). Paul’s immediate point is that as much as one might assent intellectually to the goodness of the things that the law requires, the law actually brought death. Nevertheless, in principle, the law was intended to bring life, and were it not for human inability under the dominion of sin, the law would bring life if one were able to fully do what it requires.⁵²

Finally, there is Rom 9:31: “… but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness [lit. a law of righteousness] did not succeed in reaching that law” (ESV) (Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν). The phrase νόμον δικαιοσύνης is debated, but it is reasonable to take it as “a law that holds out the promise of righteousness in return for the effort given in its observance and pursuit.”⁵³

Of course, Paul would deny that there are any humans, after Adam’s primal sin, who actually fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly (Rom 3:9-20). Although Paul is not claiming that righteousness is attainable for sinners by doing the law, the fact remains that for Paul, the law demands righteousness and, if humans were free from the dominion of sin and were able to keep that law, “righteousness would indeed be by the law” (Gal 3:21). It may be an empty set, but it is a real offer. Were perfect law-keeping possible, the doers of the law would be declared righteous (Rom 2:13).⁵⁴

With this presupposition in place, when we return to Rom 10:4 and look at it again through this lens, we can more fully appreciate Paul’s breathtaking affirmation: “The object of the law (namely, righteousness) is realized in Christ, so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (my paraphrase).

III. Romans 10:4 and the Righteousness of God

It will be helpful now to step back and look at Rom 10:4 in the context of the bigger picture of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. In particular, this verse needs to be read in light of Paul’s theological concept of “the righteousness of God,” which I take to be the central, organizing theme of Romans. In his thesis statement at the outset of his epistle, he writes:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “He who is righteous by faith shall live” (Rom 1:16-17 ESV modified).

At this point Paul places the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ on the table without much explanation, but as the Habakkuk citation suggests, it must have something to do with humans being righteous before God by faith (“He who is righteous by faith shall live”).⁵⁵ Before explaining what the righteousness of God is, Paul first takes the time to demonstrate that both Jews and Gentiles stand guilty before God, devoid of righteousness and desperately in need of righteousness. “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10). He makes this clear beginning in Rom 1:18 and down through 3:20. Then, in Rom 3:21, he reprises his theme, stating:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith (Rom 3:21-25 ESV).

Here now Paul explains what the righteousness of God is. The righteousness of God is a righteousness based on the atoning sacrifice of Christ. It comes from God as a gift and is received by faith alone, apart from doing the works demanded by the Law.⁵⁶ The next chapter (Rom 4) is Paul’s exposition of Gen 15:6 which makes the same connection as Hab 2:4 between righteousness and faith.

We cannot explore the thread of Paul’s argument in the next four chapters (Rom 5–8), but in Rom 9, Paul realizes that his doctrine that humans are righteous before God as a gift, by faith, not by doing what the law requires, naturally raises the question, “Why has Israel failed to receive this gift of righteousness in Christ?” In Rom 9, it emerges that the reason they did not succeed in attaining righteousness is “because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it could be attained by works” (Rom 9:32 translation mine). In Rom 10:3, Paul states that the Jews failed to submit to the righteousness of God. They insisted on doing the works of the law as the means of righteousness, rather than receiving righteousness as a gift from God by faith. This interpretation is suggested by the antithesis between “seeking to establish their own [righteousness]” and “submitting to God’s righteousness.” Paul conceives of faith as a form of submission or obedience.⁵⁷ The metaphor of faith as submission picks up and develops the metaphor of faith as not stumbling over but resting on the rock, which is Christ, a metaphor from a few verses earlier: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom 9:33 ESV). In this Scripture quotation, Paul weaves the language of “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (Isa 8:14) into the main quotation from Isa 28:16 which, as Paul interprets it, is a prophecy of Israel’s failure to believe in Christ.⁵⁸ By doing so, he implies that believing in Christ is the opposite of stumbling over Christ. Why might the Jews stumble over the stone that God has laid in Zion? Because they are clinging to their own law-keeping as their righteousness before God. The Jews are offended at the suggestion that they cannot be righteous before God by keeping the law and must instead trust in a crucified and exalted Messiah for righteousness.

Paul says that the Jews ought to have submitted to the righteousness of God by giving up the quest for their own righteousness by law-keeping and instead receiving the righteousness from God as a gift. Why ought they to have done so? Because (γάρ) “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:4). It is only in Christ that the law’s aim is achieved, so that everyone who believes in Christ may attain the status of being counted righteous coram Deo. Believing in Christ for righteousness requires giving up one’s attempt to achieve righteousness by the works of the law. Faith in Christ means submitting to the righteousness of God, that is, ceasing the futile attempt to erect one’s own righteousness and yielding to and receiving the righteousness that God has provided in Christ freely as a gift, apart from the works of the law.

Paul’s immediate concern is to underscore that righteousness (which is the aim and object of the law) has been attained for those who believe. Believers in Christ are reckoned as those who have fulfilled the law. This is what Paul means when he says the law is established or upheld by faith (Rom 3:31).⁵⁹ To attain the end of the law means that one has attained the status of being counted righteous in God’s sight, which is what the law aimed at and promised. That is why it is called “a law of righteousness” (Rom 9:30).⁶⁰ Paul’s point is that the way the telos or object of the law is achieved is not by works—that is, by attempting to do the law, which is not possible for sinners, since the law requires perfect obedience—but by faith in Christ, that is, by believing in and receiving Christ for righteousness as he is offered in the gospel, which results in our being reckoned righteous in God’s sight. If taken in conjunction with Paul’s statement that “Christ is our righteousness” (1 Cor 1:30), we can conclude that Christ is the τέλος of the law in the sense that he is the one in whom the righteousness that the law promised is brought to realization. The end of the law (righteousness before God) is attained for all those under the representative headship of Christ.

Moo summarizes this interpretation nicely: “Israel has chosen to keep her focus on the law, seeking to find righteousness through it, when Christ, the culmination of that law and the only source of righteousness, has already come (see 10:4). For it is only in Christ that the demand of the law is fully met; and only, therefore, by accepting him in faith that a person can find the righteousness that the law promises.”⁶¹

IV. Connections with Related Justification Passages

We may now draw some connections between Rom 10:4 and other Pauline passages that concern his justification teaching, both in Romans and beyond.

To begin with, we must consider the passage where Paul uses the reckoning language in connection with justification (Rom 4:1-11). Paul zeroes in on the word “reckon” (λογίζομαι) in Gen 15:6: “And Abram believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην)” (NETS). He paraphrases Gen 15:6 by rearranging the syntax so that “righteousness” becomes the direct object of the reckoning or crediting: “… to whom God credits righteousness (ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην)” (Rom 4:6 NIV).⁶² In light of Rom 4:1-11, the righteousness that Christ is said to be “for all who believe” in Rom 10:4 is best interpreted as a reckoned righteousness, that is, a righteousness that is not properly their own inherent righteousness but a righteousness that is graciously reckoned to their account so that they be accepted and treated as righteous before God.

In the following chapter, Rom 5, there are additional building blocks of Paul’s doctrine of justification. There is the reference to “the free gift of righteousness” (ἡ δωρεὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης) in Rom 5:17. This meshes well with the concept of “the righteousness of God,” which Paul has already mentioned in Rom 1:17 and 3:21-22, and which he will explore further in Rom 10:3-4. In addition, we must not overlook Paul’s sweeping summation of all of history under the two federal representatives, Adam and Christ (Rom 5:12-21; cp. 1 Cor 15:20-23, 45). Just as Adam’s disobedience was reckoned to all those whom he represented, so Christ’s obedience is reckoned to those whom he represents.

Moving outside of Romans to Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, a verse that stands out and claims our attention is Paul’s dictum that “Christ is our righteousness” (1 Cor 1:30). This can be understood in terms of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to those who put their faith in him.⁶³ In addition, we would also want to bring 2 Cor 5:21 into conversation with these passages. That verse describes the wonderful exchange that has taken place: the sins of believers have been charged to Christ (God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf”) and his righteousness has been credited to them (“so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”) (NASB).

Two more passages outside of Romans demand our attention. The first is Gal 4:4, where Paul speaks of Christ as “born of a woman, born under the law.” This is significant because it coincides with Rom 10:4 in relating Christ’s redeeming work to the Mosaic Law. The second verse is Phil 3:9 where Paul expresses his desire to be found “in him” (= Christ), not having a righteousness of his own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, “the righteousness from God” (ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη) on the basis of faith.

We may press further and ask what is this righteousness that is given to believers? If the above passages are taken as a guide (especially 1 Cor 1:30), Paul would say that it is Christ himself. But Christ could only be their righteousness because of his obedience, a truth taught by Paul in Rom 5:18-19 (“one act of righteousness” and “one man’s obedience”) and Phil 2:8 (“obedient to the point of death”), an obedience that was rendered “under the law” (Gal 4:4). We have sufficient evidence to conclude that the righteousness of Christ is constituted by his whole obedience, or his obedience to the point of death.

When viewed in the light of these other Pauline pronouncements, Rom 10:4 stands out as a fundamental focal point or hub for all the spokes of the wheel of the doctrine of the justification, that is, the doctrine that believers are accepted as righteous in God’s sight by faith. “The object of the law (= righteousness) is realized by Christ so that righteousness may be reckoned to those who believe.”

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. Translation mine. I would like to thank those who read an earlier draft of this paper and provided helpful comments: S. M. Baugh, Andrew Cowan, Ben Dunson, Bryan Estelle, T. David Gordon, Seyoon Kim, and Scott Yoshikawa. ↩

2. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2.515. ↩

3. Robert Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, JSNTSup 10 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 38-80. ↩

4. Undisputed New Testament examples of the temporal usage include Mk 3:26; Lk 1:33; Heb 7:3, in addition to the numerous instances of the adverbial phrases τὸ τέλος (“finally”), ἄχρι τέλος (“to the end”), and εἰς τέλος (“finally”). But at least eight NT occurrences have a clearly teleological meaning: six times τέλος is rendered by the NASB as “outcome” (Matt 26:58; Rom 6:21-22; James 5:11; 1 Pet 1:9; 4:17), once as “goal” (1 Tim 1:5), and once as “fulfillment” (Lk 22:37). ↩

5. The four views are to be understood as clusters of views sharing a family resemblance. Not all of the scholars placed within a particular view articulate that view in precisely the same way and may differ from one another with regard to various exegetical details. ↩

6. John Paul Heil, “Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30–10:8),” CBQ 63 (2001): 484-98; Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans, rev. ed. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983; originally 1864), 335-37; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 279-83; Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer, 3rd ed., HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928), 96; Heinrich Augustus Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans, trans. John C. Moore; rev. and ed. William P. Dickson (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 404-5; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 222-25; Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949), 379-80; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 283-85; John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World, BST (Leicester/Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1994), 281-82; Charles H. Talbert, Romans, SHBC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 255-56; Guy P. Waters, “Romans 10:5 and the Covenant of Works,” in The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, ed. Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2009), 234-37; Ben Witherington III, with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 260-61. N.B.: Sanday and Headlam take νόμος as a method or principle of righteousness, not as the Mosaic Law. This makes their view very similar to view 1b. The reason I do not include it under view 1b is that Sanday and Headlam do not take the εἰς-clause as an attributive prepositional phrase modifying νόμου. ↩

7. H. A. W. Meyer, Romans, 404. ↩

8. Ibid., 405. ↩

9. Hodge, Romans, 336. Put in more contemporary language, “the Law retains its role as a code of moral behavior, but loses its role as a way of attaining righteousness with God” (Heil, “Christ, the Termination of the Law,” 486). Similarly, Otfried Hofius argues that for Paul the law itself continues to have a normative role for the believer, and so Rom 10:4 is to be taken as affirming that Christ brings to an end, not the law as such, but rather the law’s condemning function (Hofius, “Das Gesetz des Mose und das Gesetz Christi,” pp. 50-74 in Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989], see esp. 63-66). ↩

10. “The supporters of this interpretation have cut the verse into two clauses and have related them to each other by inserting a connecting καί. Thus they translate this verse: ‘Christ ends the law and brings righteousness for everyone who has faith’” (Badenas, Christ, 115, quoting the New English Bible). ↩

11. Paul F. Stuehrenberg, “Proselyte,” ABD 5.503-5. ↩

12. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 2.50. ↩

13. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 2.596-98; Dunn, Romans, DBC 6 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001), 120-21; Hans Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, trans. James C. G. Greig, ed. John Riches (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), 138, 148-49; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011), 382-5; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1988), 379-81; Murray, Romans, 2.49-51; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 544-48. ↩

14. Schreiner, Romans, 548. ↩

15. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10:4-5,” WTJ 55 (1993): 113-35, see 121. ↩

16. Hübner, Law, 148-49. ↩

17. View 1b “seems extremely unlikely in view of the order of the sentence (had Paul meant this, he would surely at least have placed εἰς δικαιοσύνην next to νόμου)” (Cranfield, Romans, 2.520). ↩

18. “If in postposition, the repetition of the article appears to be especially necessary for the sake of clarity” (BDF §272). ↩

19. Prepositional phrases not thus tagged by an immediately preceding article are usually adverbial clauses or predicates. ↩

20. Contra Douglas Moo who thinks this typical Classical construction “is no longer the usual construction” in NT Greek (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 637 n34). An example of this construction may illustrate: in Rom 7:10, Paul writes: εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωὴν αὕτη εἰς θάνατον. Note the repetition of the article ἡ before the preposition εἰς. The phrase ἡ εἰς yields the following translation (the words in italics): “I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death” (NIV). ↩

21. While this Greek sentence is the correct retroversion of view 1b’s translation, it still falls short of being what view 1b needs to support its overall interpretation. For view 1b argues that the Law was never intended for righteousness (i.e. justification) in the first place, and that therefore Christ is the end of “misinterpreting or misusing the Law for righteousness.” As it stands, the hypothetical Greek sentence behind view 1b’s translation implies that the Law was in fact “intended for righteousness.” ↩

22. Another sentence with a similar structure (X is Y + εἰς-clause + dat. ptc. phrase) is Rom 13:4d: θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν, ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι. ↩

23. I have moved Χριστός to the front of the sentence to highlight the parallelism. ↩

24. Murray, Romans, 1.28. ↩

25. Badenas, Christ, 42. ↩

26. Badenas, Christ, 43, citing Paul J. Du Plessis, Teleiosis: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1959). ↩

27. “What law is intended here? We do not regard the Law in this section as the Old Testament law misused, or as the Mosaic law which is only part of the total revelation of God … but ‘as the Law in its fulness as a revelation of God’s promises and righteous demands which were fulfilled in Christ and therefore reached their end in Him’” (William S. Campbell, “Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4,” in Studia Biblica 1978: III. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3–7 April 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone, JSNTSup 3 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980], 75, quoting A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching [Kampen: Kok, 1964], 106). “Paul uses νόμος in the sense of Torah as it stands for Scripture … as the living word of God (Paul’s only Bible!)” (Badenas, Christ, 148). ↩

28. Badenas, Christ, 149-50. ↩

29. Cranfield, Romans, 2.505. ↩

30. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. Ross MacKenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 221-22. “[E]very doctrine of the law, every command, every promise, always points to Christ …. This remarkable passage declares that the law in all its parts has reference to Christ, and therefore no one will be able to understand it correctly who does not constantly strive to attain this mark.” ↩

31. Badenas, Christ; Steven Richard Bechtler, “Christ, the Τέλος of the Law: the Goal of Romans 10: 4,” CBQ 56.2 (1994): 288-308; Brendan Byrne, S. J., Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 312, 315; William S. Campbell, “Christ the End of the Law,” 73-81; Cranfield, Romans, 2.515-20; Cranfield, “Romans 9:30–10:4,” Interpretation 34.1 (1980): 70-74; Leander E. Keck, Romans, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 248-50; Frank J. Matera, Romans, PCNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 245-46; Paul W. Meyer, “Romans 10:4 and the ‘End’ of the Law,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel (New York: Ktav, 1980), 59-78; N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10.655-58; John Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, TPINTC (London: SCM/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 257-58. ↩

32. Cranfield, Romans, 2.520. ↩

33. “What is vital for any accurate understanding of Paul’s doctrine of law is to realize that Paul uses nomos most often and most basically of the Mosaic Law” (Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 [1983]: 73-100, see 80). ↩

34. Moo, Romans, 249-50, 475; Heikki Räisänen, “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm 3.27) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Röm 8.2),” NTS 26 (1979–80): 101-17. ↩

35. τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος (Rom 6:21); τὸ δὲ τέλος ζωὴν αἰώνιον (Rom 6:22); τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη (1 Tim 1:5). “The natural way to construe it is to take τέλος νόμου as the predicate thrown forward for the sake of emphasis and Χριστός as the subject. Had Paul intended to say that the τέλος of (the) law is Christ, he would surely have used the article with τέλος” (Cranfield, Romans, 2.515; cp. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 584). ↩

36. The predicate-copula-subject word order is common in Greek. In the following NT examples, the predicate is “fronted” and the subject comes at the end: μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, etc. (Matt 5:3-10); ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός (Matt 6:22); κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Matt 12:8); φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος (Acts 28:4); μάρτυς γάρ μού ἐστιν ὁ θεός (Rom 1:9; cp. Phil 1:8); πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη (Rom 13:10b); ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία (1 Tim 6:10). ↩

37. Badenas, Christ, 150. N. T. Wright takes it a step further and sees Rom 10:4 as a summary of Paul’s theology: the Messiah is “the climax” of the long story narrated in the Torah concerning God’s covenant relationship with Israel (Wright, “Romans,” NIB 10.658; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 241-44). ↩

38. Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily XVII (NPNF1 11.472-3). “For what was the object of the Law? To make man righteous. But it had not the power, for no one fulfilled it … But this end Christ gave a fuller accomplishment of through faith … If thou believest in Him, then thou hast fulfilled it also, and much more than it commanded. For thou hast received a much greater righteousness.” ↩

39. Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 25, ed. Hilton C. Oswald (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 89. “For Christ is the end of the Law, that is, the fulfillment and the consummation, the fullness, and not our works, which is to say, that the Law without Christ is nothing, for it seeks and reaches out not for itself but for Him as its end, unto righteousness to everyone that believes.” ↩

40. Translation mine. The Latin reads: Christus est finis Legis, id est, impletio seu consummatio, donat id quod Lex requirit, hoc est, qui credit in Christum, habet id quod Lex postulat, id est, est iustus imputatione. Philipp Melanchthon, Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos (Strassburg: Apud Cratonem Mylium, 1540). Latin text retrieved from the Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts. ↩

41. Robert Haldane, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988; originally 1853), 510-12. Two other 19th century commentators who adopted this view are Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 3rd ed. (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1854), 455-57; and William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 313. ↩

42. Fitzmyer, Romans, 584; Morna D. Hooker, “Christ: the ‘End’ of the Law,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen, NovTSup 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 126-46, esp. 132; C. Thomas Rhyne, “Nomos Dikaiosynēs and the Meaning of Romans 10:4,” CBQ 47 (1985): 486-99. In his earlier work, Rhyne put it this way: “Whenever someone receives righteousness by faith in Christ, the law’s goal of righteousness is realized in this act of faith in the work of the resurrected and exalted Christ” (Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, SBLDS 55 [Chico: Scholars Press, 1981], 120). ↩

43. Moo, Romans, 636-43. ↩

44. Moo, Romans, 639 n39. ↩

45. Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1985), 168. ↩

46. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, rev. ed., BNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 184; F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC 6 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008), 200; Moo, Romans, 636-43. ↩

47. Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 619-20; George E. Howard, “Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff,” JBL 88.3 (1969): 331-37. N. T. Wright’s interpretation may also be included here, since he paraphrases Rom 10:4: “The Messiah is the culmination of the Torah, so that there may be dikaiosynē, covenant membership, for all who believe” (Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009], 244). ↩

48. It should be pointed out that view 1a, at least as formulated by some (e.g. H. A. W. Meyer, Charles Hodge, and John Paul Heil; see quotes above), also depends on this premise. ↩

49. NETS = A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). ↩

50. Although it is contested, many scholars have ably defended the reading assumed here, namely, that Lev 18:5 contains a hypothetical promise of life conditional on perfect obedience: Moo, Romans, 647-49 nn13, 15; Bryan D. Estelle, “Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:1-14 in Biblical Theological Development: Entitlement to Heaven Foreclosed and Proffered,” in The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, ed. Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2009), 109-46; Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, NSBT 31 (Nottingham: Apollos; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), 59-73. The following scholars also defend the conditional interpretation of Lev 18:5 but do not think it required perfect, sinless obedience: Simon J. Gathercole, “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig A. Evans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 126-45; Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 318-23; Preston M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul, WUNT II/241 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); James W. Carlson, The Curse of the Law and its Promise of Life: The Interpretation and Juxtaposition of Deuteronomy 27.26 and Leviticus 18.5 in Judaism and in Paul (Ph.D. Dissertation; Fuller Theological Seminary, 2011). ↩

51. Calvin, Romans, 45-50; Hodge, Romans, 53-57; Murray, Romans, 1.107; Byrne, Romans, 89-90, 117-18; Moo, Romans, 140-57, 211. See also Geerhardus Vos, “The Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 393-94; Jean-Noël Alletti, “Rm 1,18–3,20. Incohérence ou cohérence de l’argumentation paulinienne?” Bib 69 (1988): 54-61; Andrew T. Lincoln, “From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel, and Audience in the Theology of Romans 1:18–4:25,” in Pauline Theology, Vol. III: Romans, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 141-46; and Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 186-91. ↩

52. Some commentators see the “commandment” in Rom 7:10 as an allusion to the commandment given to Adam in paradise (Gen 2:16-17). See Barrett, Romans, 134-5; Byrne, Romans, 223; Cranfield, Romans, 1.352-3; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 379-85. However, these commentators also recognize that the experience of Israel with the law recapitulates the experience of Adam with the Edenic commandment and so a reference to the Mosaic Law is also included. ↩

53. P. W. Meyer, “Romans 10:4 and the ‘End’ of the Law,” 62; cp. Moo, Romans, 625; Bechtler, “Christ, the Τέλος of the Law,” 293. ↩

54. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to explore fully, certain considerations need to be taken into account when attempting a broader biblical-theological synthesis of Paul’s teaching concerning the Mosaic Law. It must suffice to state here that it is of great importance to recognize that the Mosaic Law’s offer of life (Lev 18:5), as well as its curse (Deut 27:26), operated at the typological level of Israel’s retention of the land and therefore did not compete with or undermine the underlying covenant of grace by which individual elect Israelites were justified and saved. Paul himself recognized the Mosaic Law’s character as a secondary overlay that was not contrary to the Abrahamic promises (Gal 3:17-21). However, Paul does not dwell on the historical operation of the sanctions in the land of Canaan, and focuses rather on the offer of life in its anti-typical, eschatological (and ultimately Christological) meaning. This is because Paul saw the Mosaic Law as an eschatological intrusion of the works principle that righteousness obtains the reward of eternal life. When projected into the typological sphere of Israel’s life in the land, the principle was applied in a mitigated form that did not require absolute perfection, but only required basic national fidelity for the purposes of typological legibility. But due to his Christological and soteriological concerns, Paul frequently bypasses the national, typological expression of the works principle and reads the Lev 18:5 offer of life in terms of the eschatological core (eternal life) contained within and symbolized by the outer typological shell (long life in the land). Ultimately, for Paul, the Mosaic Law was a pedagogue leading to Christ (Gal 3:22-24), who alone fulfills the unmitigated works principle at the eschatological core. For the distinction between shell and core, see Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 156-58. On the works principle in the typal kingdom and the concept of typological legibility, see also Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 320-23, 352. ↩

55. I follow those commentators who take ἐκ πίστεως with ὁ δίκαιος rather than ζήσεται (Barrett, Romans, 32; Cranfield, Romans, 1.101-2; Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008], 11.43-44; Lietzmann, Römer, 31; Moo, Romans, 78; Nygren, Romans, 85-90). This reading seems to be required by Paul’s appeal to Hab 2:4 in support his doctrine (stated first in Rom 1:17 and argued at length in 3:21–5:1) that righteousness or justification is by faith. Within that section, Paul also appeals to Gen 15:6 to make the same point that righteousness is reckoned by faith (Rom 4:1-25). Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 are key texts for Paul, one from “the Law” and the other from “the Prophets,” so that he can say that the righteousness of God apart from the law (that is, righteousness by faith) is a truth to which the Law and the Prophets bear witness (Rom 3:21). ↩

56. Intense debate surrounds the interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul, with many (most notably Ernst Käsemann and N. T. Wright) arguing that θεοῦ is not a genevitus auctoris (or genitive of source) but a subjective genitive, and that δικαιοσύνη does not mean “righteousness” in the sense of the status of righteousness before God. Such interpretive moves yield various alternative renderings, such as “the saving activity of God” or “the covenant faithfulness of God” or some combination of the two. For a critical examination of these proposals, see Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation, WUNT II/386 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). ↩

57. Elsewhere Paul uses the language of “obedience” to describe faith in Christ: “the obedience of faith” (ὑπακοὴ πίστεως) (Rom 1:5; cp. 16:26); and “they have not all obeyed the gospel” (οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) (Rom 10:16). ↩

58. J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 126-31. ↩

59. Haldane, Romans, 165; Moo, Romans, 254-55. ↩

60. “[W]e should understand the phrase to mean ‘the law whose object is righteousness’: the law ‘promises’ righteousness when its demands are met” (Moo, Romans, 625). ↩

61. Moo, Romans, 627. “Paradoxically, then, the righteousness demanded by the law can only be attained apart from the law, by faith in Christ” (Stephen Westerholm, “Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 234). ↩

62. Cp. “… in order that righteousness might be credited (εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι δικαιοσύνην)” (Rom 4:11 NIV). ↩

63. Although this interpretation of 1 Cor 1:30 has been disputed by N. T. Wright (Justification, 155-58), it is ably defended by Brian Vickers (Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation [Wheaton: Crossway, 2006], 200-5). ↩