Christ is the End of the Law- Paul’s View

According to Paul, was Christ the “goal” or the “end” of the law? What are the various interpretations Bruce offers for the statement “Christ is the end of the law.” How is this statement understood in the various traditions? Which understanding do you think is best explanation? Why?

The book of Romans contains one of the most profound theological expressions written by the Apostle Paul: “For Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10:4 [NASB]). In order to interpret the phrase accurately, it is first necessary to define the words “end” and “law.” First, Douglas Moo suggests that academia has defended four definitions of law within a Pauline context, which include a system of law, a broad reference to the Old Testament, a form of legalism, and a specific reference to the Mosaic Law.[1] The significant majority of scholars conclude that Paul’s definition of law most closely aligns with the Mosaic Law.[2] Second, Moo proposes that the definition of the word end, telos in Greek, could mean termination, goal, or result.[3] If termination were the appropriate definition for telos, then Paul would be suggesting that the meaning of the word was purely transient or temporal.[4] In other words, Christ’s arrival terminated the relevance or influence of the Mosaic Law. Thomas Schreiner agrees with Moo but adds clarity to the conversation by suggesting that Christ is the end of the Mosaic Law “in the sense that he is the end of using the law to establish one’s own righteousness.”[5] Alternatively, Moo continues, if goal or result were the appropriate definitions for telos, then Paul would be suggesting an interrelationship between the law and Christ.[6] In other words, the law would somehow teleologically lead to Christ.

For the following three reasons, Moo claims the evidence appears to point primarily to “end” or “termination” as the most appropriate meaning of telos, assuming a teleological aspect is not completely abandoned. First, the temporal definition of telos is the predominate meaning in the LXX and the New Testament.[7] Second, the context of Romans 10:3-4 represents Paul’s attempt to disconnect the law from Christ by explaining that the Jews were attempting to establish their own righteousness through the law.[8] Finally, Paul also confirms the discontinuous nature of Christ’s relationship with the law in a number of different passages including Romans 3:20-23, 9:30-32a, and 10:5-8.[9] Although the evidence points to “end” as the more appropriate definition for telos, in some sense, the law also purposefully led to a climax: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Schreiner once again agrees with Moo that Romans 10:4 does not absolutely end the law for believers, but then emphatically proposes that the purpose of the phrase in Romans 10:4 is not “to provide some global statement on the relationship between the Testaments!”[10] Interestingly, it appears both Schreiner and Moo agree that Christ is not the goal of the law, but neither do they desire to completely disconnect the law from Christ.

Regarding the phrase ‘Christ is the end of the law’ F. F. Bruce initially references Rabbi Leo Baeck who claimed that Paul’s cultural influence encouraged a belief in “a doctrine of three epochs” that assumed the law would culminate in a Messiah, but Baeck’s assertion is inconclusive.[11] However, Bruce suggests that the definition of the word “end” in the phrase Christ is the end of the law means both “goal” and “terminus.”[12] Whereas Moo attempts to compartmentalize the proposed definitions, Bruce interconnects the two definitions by contending that the “goal” of the law was the “end” or terminus of the law in the form of a “temporal provision.”[13] In other words, the goal of the law was to be a temporary “tutor to lead us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24). Accordingly, Bruce concludes that the definition of Christ is the end of the law means: “Now that Christ has come there is no more place for law in man’s approach to God.”[14] It is important to note the nuances between Moo and Bruce. Moo appears to place emphasis on the importance of discontinuity between the Christ and the law, whereas Bruce appears to emphasize the continuity between the law and Christ by closely connecting the law’s purpose with its termination. However, both authors arrive at the same conclusion, which is that the righteousness of God does not come through the law but through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22; 10:3-4).

Bruce focuses on two primary traditional interpretations of the law within the phrase Christ is the end of the law. The two primary interpretations originate from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.[15] The Lutheran tradition proposes three aspects of the law. First, the law’s purpose is to deter malicious behavior, which Bruce suggests is “not an aspect of the gospel.”[16] Second, the law’s purpose is to encourage repentance, but Bruce notes that Paul’s preaching focused on freedom and did not “use the law in this way.”[17] Finally, the Lutheran perspective claims the law’s purpose was to guide the church, but again, Bruce cautions the use of the law as a function of governance since Paul’s usage of the law was in a “non-legal sense.”[18] The Reformed tradition, under the influence of Calvin, suggests that although adherence to the law is not determinate in salvation, individuals remain under the law “as a rule of life.”[19] Again, Bruce astutely recognizes that the Reformed perspective does not have the authority and support of Paul.[20] Furthermore, referencing Calvin, Bruce notes that occasionally Christ is the end of the law means the “end of the ceremonial law…but not of the moral law.”[21] Bruce quickly acknowledges that the ceremonial and moral law distinction has “no place in Pauline exegesis.”[22] Finally, Bruce briefly mentions the perspective of Karl Barth’s Neo-orthodoxy and Ernst Fuch’s existentialist view regarding Christ as the end of the law, but adds little commentary.[23]

Personally, a discontinuous understanding of the phrase Christ is the end of the law, whereby Christ and the law are disjointed and Christ is the end, as opposed to the goal, appears most reasonable. The reason for this belief is not that a continuity is completely absent, but that a priority on the continuity of Christ and the law significantly increases the risk of self-reliance and the belief that human effort has the capacity not only to justify, but also to sanctify. Richard Lovelace summarizes the problem currently facing the church: “Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand upon Luther’s platform: you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in that quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love.”[24] In other words, the paradox of the outworking of grace is that it must ultimately lead to obedience or it is simply not grace. Paul confirms this concept by emphatically stating that Christ, the conduit of grace, may never be a minister or conduit of sin (Gal. 2:17). Accordingly, accusations of antinomianism are not due to an abundance of grace but a lack of an appropriation of grace. Timothy Keller provides a practical insight for all believers into the outworking of grace by explaining that when individuals view their identity not in their moral achievements, but in being completely loved and accepted by Christ it leads “to deeper humility as well as deeper confidence, without either sniveling or swaggering.”[25] In other words, grace leads to obedience and an emphasis on the continuity between Christ and the law risks undermining Christ’s work on the Cross within a modern context.