I will explain and defend view 2b in my next post. In this post, I want to address some of the problems with the other views.
As I mentioned in my first post, my main objection to view 1a – and this applies to view 2a as well – is that there is a weak logical connection between the two halves of the verse. Verse 4a: "Christ is the end of the law," and v 4b: "for (= so that there may be) righteousness to everyone who believes." How does the fact that Christ has abrogated the Law (view 1a) or the fact that Christ is the hermeneutical goal of the Law (view 2a) lead to righteousness being imputed to everyone who believes? The abrogation of the Law does not lead to or bring about "righteousness for all who believe" (view 1a). A Christocentric hermeneutic does not lead to or bring about "righteousness for all who believe" (view 2a). The only thing that does lead to or bring about "righteousness for all who believe" is Christ's obedience to the point of death, his active and passive obedience.
It is interesting to notice how most of the commentators who argue for views 1a and 2a tend to ignore the second half of the verse. They are so focused on the meaning of the first half ("Christ is the telos of the Law") that they almost forget about the second half ("for righteousness to everyone who believes"). But this is the key to figuring out the meaning of the verse as a whole.
Only two of the four views take the second half of the verse seriously and provide a coherent explanation of the verse as a whole. I'm referring to view 1b and 2b (my view). Let's look at view 1b. This interpretation is favored by those who claim that (a) telos must have a temporal/terminating meaning, and (b) who are allergic to the alleged antinomian implications of view 1a. They take "for righteousness" and attach it to the word "Law" as an attributive, and they take "to everyone who believes" and move it to the beginning of the sentence. Their interpretation is that "To everyone who believes, Christ is the end of the Law-for-righteousness." In other words, Christ is not the end of the Law itself, but of the carnal misuse of the Law as a means of righteousness. When a person is converted, they stop using the Law as a means of justification.
But this interpretation is grammatically unlikely. In the Greek, the word "Christ" is sandwiched between "Law" and "for righteousness," which makes it nigh unto impossible that Paul intended "for righteousness" to be an attributive prepositional phrase modifying "Law" ("the-Law-for-righteousness"). Another problem is that when a prepositional phrase is used attributively, the definite article is almost always repeated before the preposition (this construction occurs over 400x in the NT), but here it is absent.
Another problem with view 1b is that it separates "to everyone who believes" from "for righteousness." The two phrases go together in order. This can be seen by comparing Rom 10:4 with 1:16 where Paul makes a statement with the same grammatical structure:
|
Rom 1:16 |
The gospel |
is the power of God |
for salvation |
to everyone who believes |
|
Rom 10:4 |
Christ |
is the end of the Law |
for righteousness |
to everyone who believes |
Note the similar structure: X is Y so that there may be salvation (or righteousness) to everyone who believes. The phrase at the end, "to everyone who believes" is identical in Greek. And in both cases, it goes with the preceding noun ("salvation" or "righteousness").
As I see it, then, views 1a, 1b, and 2a are problematic. In my next post, I'll defend my new view, view 2b.
Comments