Restoration

Refresh Yourself With Rivers of Living Water

Home

Online Audio

Daily Webcasts

Sermons, Services and Bible Studies

Library

Bookstore

Discussion and News Lists

Bible Study Resources

Success Resources at Destiny Central

How You Can Help

Links

rcg@destiny-worldwide.net

PAUL AND THE LAW

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Prof. of Theology, Andrews University

Dear Members of our Sabbath Discussion List:

 Several of you have been inquiring about what happened to this

essay "Paul and the Law" which I promised to post by October 28, before

leaving for Boston to present the Sabbath Seminar. The answer is simple.

It took me far more time to complete this essay than I had anticipated.

For the past month I worked an average of 15 hours a day on this project.

To some this may seem a lot of time just to write an essay of 40 pages. But

when you consider that scholars like Roberto Badenas have spent about two

years writing a dissertation only on one of the problematic texts that I

examine on this essay, namely, Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law,"

then you can see that one month of research is hardly enough to examine all

the relevant texts dealing with Paul's teachings on the role of the law in

Christian life.

 To my surprise I found several excellent doctoral dissertations

dealing with this topic. I tried to digest all of this scholarly research

as fast as I could to have a better grasp of the major issues. This essay

"Paul and the Law" may prove to be one of the most important studies I have

produced in my life.  The reason is that today most Christians believe that

Paul teaches that Christ has put an end to the Law, and 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.

The obvious implication is that Christians are no longer obligated to

observe the Sabbath commandment since that is part of the Mosaic Law that

Christ nailed to the Cross.

  This prevailing view represents not only a blatant

misrepresentation of Paul's teachings on the role of the Law in the

Christian life, but also one of the most destructive satanic deceptions of

our time.  The slogan of "New Covenant Christians" that we have met in the

course of our SABBATH DISCUSSIONS, "Not under Law but under love" can

hardly increase the amount of true love in the world, because love without

Law soon degenerates in deceptive sentimentality. The same is true of Law

without Love, which soon degenerates in cold legalism.

 The pressing need to counteract the prevailing antinomian deception

has given a sense of urgency to this study on Paul's teaching on the role

of the law in the Christian life. Truly I can say that I have put forth my

best efforts within the limitation of time.  It is my sincere hope that

this study will make a lasting contribution to clarify one of the most

misunderstood Biblical teachings of our time.

 If you find this essay of great help, be sure to let your friends

know that they also can receive these timely Biblical studies FREE, simply

by requesting to have their names added to our ENDTIME ISSUES mailing list.

For the next few weeks we will be unmasking the deception of conscious life

after death.  As a result of your efforts in passing on the word, already

well over 5000 persons have joined this list.  For me it is a privilege to

share the insights and blessings gained from an indepth study of vital

Biblical truths.

 The essay you are about to read is one of the seven chapters of my

forthcoming book THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE: A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS OF RECENT

SABBATH/SUNDAY DEVELOPMENTS.  I am working intensively to complete this

project by the end of this year because as of January 5, 1999, I will be

back teaching fulltime.  You might be interested to know that Gregory

Watkins, a student missionary in China and a member of our list, has

produced an incredibly beautiful cover for this book.  If I can find the

way to email it to you as an attachment, I will surely send it to you, so

that you can admire a fine artistic creation.

 Please do not become discouraged if you find some sections of this

essay a little deep. I am trying hard to be as popular in my writings as I

can possibly can, but certain issues, as you will see, are rather technical

and do require indepth analysis.If you are not accustomed to read technical

Biblical studies, my suggestion is for you to read a portion at a time.

 Thank you again for the privilege of sharing my research with you.

 Christian regards

 Samuele Bacchiocchi

PAUL AND THE LAW

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Prof. of Theology, Andrews University

 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 the

recent attacks launched against the Sabbath by former Sabbatarians. For

example,  in his open letter posted in the internet on  April 1, 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 the 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 proofs that Christians

have been delivered from the 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

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 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).

Statements such as these 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 muddle 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."6

 I share 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 indeed an urgent need

to re-examine the New Testament understanding of the Law and of 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, release Christians from the observance of the

Law in general and the Sabbath commandment in particular.

 Objective of the Chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to examine

Paul's attitude toward the Law which is one of the most complex doctrinal

issue 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 will propose that the resolution to the

apparent contradiction between Paul's negative and positive statements

about the Law is to be found in the 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), then 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 in a uniform way.  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 with 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 scholars8 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 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 views the

Law, not 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 Israel 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 Daniel

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 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 as a faith-response to the gift

of life and salvation, and not as 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 the 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 challenged 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 at the time of Paul. The result is 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

man. 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 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), boasting (Rom 2:13, 23),

and to seek 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 is 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.  This brief survey of Paul's background

view of the Law, provides the setting for examining now Paul's basic

teachings about the Law.

PART 2: PAUL'S VIEW OF THE LAW

 This preceding brief survey of Paul's background view of the Law,

provides us the setting for examining now Paul's basic teachings about the

Law.

 (1) The Law Reveals God's Will.  It is important to note, first of

all, 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), presumably 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), that is to say, 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 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).  On the surface this appears to be

a contradictory statement because the very act of circumcision is obedience

to the Law.  But Paul goes on explaining that true circumcision is a matter

of the heart, and 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 reject 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 how 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).

 His 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 motivate 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 suggests 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 accomplished, 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" can hardly 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 Sin as Sin.  Being a revelation of God's will

for mankind, the Law reveals the nature of sin as disobedience to God.

Paul explains that "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20),

because the Law causes people to recognize their sins and themselves as

sinners. It is evident that this important function of the Law could hardly

have terminated by Christ, since the need to acknowledge sin in one's life

is fundamental to the life of Christians today as it was for the Israelites

of old.

 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 has in mind 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 makes increases the awareness of

transgressions (Rom 4:15b).

 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's 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

 The 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,  means 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 needs a Saviour to " have redemption,

the forgiveness of sins" (Col 1:14; cf. Eph 1:7).

 (4)  Observance of the Law can Lead to Legalism.  The goodness of

the Law is sullied when it is used in a wrongful way.   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 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 is 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 the 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 to be righteous, 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 in the primitive church among

those who refused to abandon the unlawful use of God's Law.  They failed to

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 to 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 a 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, it killed his

self-righteous complacency. "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 the attempt to establish one's

righteousness by legalistic observance of the Law, ultimately blinds a

person to the righteousness which God has made available as free gift

through Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 10:3).  This was the problem with the

legalism which prevailed 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 Galatians

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 ceremonies like

circumcision, these false teachers were preaching a "different Gospel" (Gal

1:6), which in reality 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 yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to

you all. . . . You who are trying to be justified by Law have been

alienated from Christ; you have fallen 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 gain acceptance with God by performing 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 lesson 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 disannul 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 given, not 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, sacrifices,

sanctuary services, 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 as teaching the same message of justification contained in the

Gospel.  The tutor or schoolmaster to which Paul alludes in Galatians

3:24-25 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 the 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

accomplised 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

the fact he explicitly affirms 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 Christian life. This conclusion is obviously wrong,

because Paul presents "the commandments of God" to the Gentiles as a moral

imperative, while 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

PART 3: A LOOK AT SOME MISUNDERSTOOD TEXTS

 Several Pauline passages are often used to support the contention

that the Law was done away with Christ and consequently it is no longer the

norm of Christian conduct.  In view of the limited scope of this chapter,

we will 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 suggests 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 recipient 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."20

 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 6:1-2, 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 in so far as it condemns them and held

them in bondage as a result of its unlawful, legalistic use. But they are

still "under the Law" in so far 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 have found 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

 This chapter contains a great deal that is often used to argue that

the Law has been done away with Christ and consequently Christians are no

longer bound to it as a norm for their conduct.  In view of the importance

attributed to this chapter, we shall look at it in some detail.

 The chapter opens with Paul explaining why he does not need letters

of recommendation to authenticate his ministry to the Corinthians.  The

reason is, as he puts it, "You yourselves [Corinthian believers] are our

letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by

all men" (2 Cor 3:2).  If on coming to Corinth inquiry should be made as to

whether Paul carried with him letters of recommendation, his answer is:

"You yourselves, new persons in Christ through my ministry, are my

credentials."

 Paul continues developing the imagery of the letter from the

standpoint of the Corinthians relationship to Christ: "You are a letter

from Christ delivered to us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of

the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human heart" (2

Cor 3:3). The mention of a letter written by the Spirit in the heart,

triggers in Paul's mind the graphic imagery of the ancient promises of the

New Covenant. Through the prophets God had assured His people, that the

time was coming when through His Spirit He would write His Law in their

hearts (Jer 31:33) and would take out their  heart of stone and give them a

heart of flesh (Ez 11:19; 36:26).  The change of heart that the Corinthians

had experienced as a result of Paul's ministry among them, was a tangible

proof of the fulfillment of God's promise regarding the New Covenant.

 The Letter and the Spirit.  Paul continues summing up the crucial

difference between the ministries of the Old and New Covenants, by

describing the former as a ministry of the letter and the latter as a

ministry of the Spirit. "God . . . has made us competent to be ministers of

a new covenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills,

but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6; NIV). We must now examine the

significance of the distinction which Paul makes between the letter which

kills and the Spirit which gives life.

 Is Paul saying here, as many believe, that the Law is in and of

itself something evil and death-dealing?   This can hardly be true, since

he clearly taught that "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and

just and good" (Rom 7:12) and that "the man who practices the righteousness

which is based on the law shall live by it" (Rom 10:5; cf. Gal 3:12; Lev

18:5).

 Commenting on this text in The New International Commentary on the

New Testament, Philip Hughes writes:  "Paul is a faithful follower of his

Master in that he nowhere speaks of the Law in a derogatory manner.

Christ, in fact, proclaimed that He had come to fulfil the Law, not to

destroy it (Matt 5:17).  So also the effect of Paul's doctrine was to

establish the Law (Rom 3:31). There is no question of an attack by him on

the Law here [2 Cor 3:6], since, as we have previously see, the Law is an

integral component of the New no less than it is of the Old Covenant."24

 It is unfortunate that many Christians today, including formers

Sabbatarians who have recently attacked the Sabbath, ignore this

fundamental truth that "the Law is an integral component of the New no less

than it is of the Old Covenant."  This is plainly shown by the terms used

by God to announce His New Covenant:  "I will put my Law within them" (Jer

31:33).  The intended purpose of the internalization of God's Law is: "that

they may walk in my statutes, and keep my ordinances, and do them" (Ez

11:20). Note that in the New Covenant God does not abolish the Law or gives

a new set of Laws, but internalizes His existing Law in the human heart.

 Philip Hughes states the difference between the two Covenants with

admirable clarity when he says:  "The difference between the Old and New

Covenants is that under the former the Law is written on table of stones,

confronting man as an external ordinance and condemning him because of his

failure through sin to obey its commandments, whereas under the latter the

Law is written internally within the redeemed heart by the dynamic

regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, so that through faith in Christ, the

only Law-keeper, and inward experience of His power man no longer hates but

loves God's Law and is enabled to fulfill its precepts."25

 Coming back to the distinction that Paul makes between the letter

that kills and the Spirit that gives life, it is evident that the Apostle

is comparing the Law as externally written at Sinai on tablets of stone and

the same Law as written internally in the heart of the believer by the

enabling power of the Holy Spirit.  As an external ordinance, the Law

confronts and condemns sin as the breaking of God's Law.  By revealing sin

in its true light as the transgression of God's commandments, the Law kills

since it exposes the Lawbreaker to the condemnation of death (Rom 6:23;

5:12; Ez 18:4; Prov 11:29). It is in this sense that Paul can speak

startlingly of the letter which kills.

 By contrast, the Spirit gives life  by internalizing the principles

of God's Law in the heart of the believer and by enabling the believer to

live according to "just requirement of the Law" (Rom 8:4).  When Christ is

preached and God's promises made in Christ are believed, the Spirit enters

the heart of believers, motivating them to observe God's Law, and thus

making the Law a living thing in their hearts.

 Paul knew from first hand experience how true it is that the letter

kills and the Spirit makes alive. Before his conversion he was a

self-righteous observer of the Law: "As to the Law a Pharisee, as to zeal a

persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the Law blameless"

(Phil 3:6).  Yet at the same time he "blasphemed and persecuted and

insulted him [Christ]" (1 Tim 1:13), that is, he was a transgressor of the

Law under divine judgment. His outward conformity to the Law only served to

cover up the inward corruption of his heart. It was as a result of his

encounter with Christ and of the influence of the Holy Spirit in his heart

that it became possible for Paul to conform to God's Law, not only

outwardly, in letter, but also inwardly, in spirit, or as he puts it, to

"serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit"

(Rom 7:6).

 The Ministry of Death and the Ministry of the Spirit.  Paul

develops further the contrast between the letter and the Spirit, by

comparing them to two different kinds of ministries: one the ministry of

death offered by the Law and the other the ministry of the Spirit made

possible through Christ's redemptive ministry:  "Now if the ministry that

brought death, which was engraven in letters on stone, came with glory, so

that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of

its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be

even more glorious?  If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how

much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was

glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.  And if

what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that

which lasts!" (2 Cor 3:7-11; NIV).

 It should be pointed out first of all that Paul is speaking here of

two ministries and not two dispensations. The Greek word used by Paul is

"diakonia," which means "service" or "ministry." By translating "diakonia"

as "dispensation,"  some translations (like the RSV), mislead readers into

believing that Paul here condemns the Old Covenant as a dispensation of

death.  But the Apostle is not rejecting here the Old Covenant or the Law

as something evil or inglorious, Rather he is contrasting the ministry of

death provided by the Law, with the ministry of the Spirit offered through

Christ.

 The ministry of death is the service offered by the Law in

condemning sin.  Paul calls this a "ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor 3:9)

that was mediated through Moses when he delivered the Law to the people.

The ministry of the Spirit offers life and is made available through Christ

(cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Both ministries derive from God, and

consequently are accompanied by glory.  The ministry or service of the Law

coming from God was obviously glorious.  This was evident to the people by

the glory which Moses' countenance suffused when he came down from Mount

Sinai to deliver the Law to the people.  His countenance was so bright that

the people had difficulty to gaze upon it (Ex 34:29-30).

 The ministry or service of the Spirit rendered by Paul and other

Christian preachers, is accompanied by greater glory, that is, the light of

God's Spirit that fills the soul. The reason such ministry is more glorious

is that while the glory reflected in Moses' face at the giving of the Law,

was temporary and gradually faded away, the glory of the ministry of the

Spirit is permanent and does not fade away.  Through His Spirit, God has

"made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge

of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 3:6; NIV).

 Cranfield correctly summarizes the point of these verses, saying:

"Since the service rendered by Moses at the giving of the Law, which was

actually going to effect 'condemnation' (2 Cor 3:9) and 'death' (2 Cor

3:7), was accompanied by glory (the glory on Moses' face-Ex 34:29ff), the

service of the Spirit rendered by himself (and other Christian preachers)

in the preaching of the Gospel must much more be accompanied by glory."26

 Paul's aim is not to denigrate the service rendered by the Law in

revealing and condemning sin. This is indicated by the fact that he calls

such service as a "glorious" ministry: "If the ministry that condemns men

is glorious . . ." (2 Cor 3:9; NIV).  Rather Paul's concern is to expose

the grave error of the false teachers who were exalting the Law at the

expense of the Gospel. Their ministry was one of death because by the works

of the Law no person can be justified (Gal 2:16; 3:11). Deliverance from

condemnation and death comes not through the Law but through the Gospel. In

this sense the glory of the Gospel excels that of the Law.

 The important point to note here is that Paul is contrasting, not

the Old and New Covenants as such, rejecting the former and promoting the

latter.  Rather is he is contrasting two ministries. When this is

recognized the passage becomes clear.  The reason the glory of the

Christian ministry is superior to that of Moses' ministry, is not because

the Law given through Moses has been abolished, but because these two

ministries had a different function with reference to Christ's redemption.

 The comparison that Paul makes in verse 9 between the "ministry of

condemnation" and the "ministry of righteousness," clearly implies that

Paul is not disparaging or discarding the Law.  "Condemnation is the

consequence of breaking the Law; righteousness is precisely the keeping of

the Law.  The Gospel is not Lawless.  It is the ministration of

righteousness to those who because of sin are under condemnation.  And this

righteousness is administered to men solely by the mediation and merit of

Christ, who alone, as the incarnate Son, has perfectly obeyed God's holy

Law."27

 With Unveiled Face.  Paul utilizes the theme of the veil in the

remaining part of the chapter (2 Cor 3:12-18) to make three basic points.

First, while the ministry of Moses was marked by concealment ("who put a

veil over his face"-v. 13), his own ministry of the Gospel is characterized

by great openness. He uses no veil. His ministry of grace and mercy is

opened to every believer who repents and believes.

 Second, Paul applies the notion of the veil to the Jews who up to

that time were unable to understand the reading of the Law in the synagogue

because a veil of darkness hided the glory which they had  deliberately

rejected (2 Cor 3:14-16).  Paul is thinking historically.  The veil that

Moses placed over his face to indicate the rebellion and unbelief of the

people which curtained the true apprehension of God's glory, symbolically

represents for Paul the veil of darkness that prevents the Jews from seeing

the glory of Christ and His Gospel (2 Cor 3:15).  But, Paul continues,

"when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed" (2 Cor 3:16).  "There is

here no suggestion," C. E. Cranfield correctly points out, "that the Law is

done away, but rather that, when men turn to Christ, they are able to

discern the true glory of the Law."28  The reason is aptly given by Calvin:

"For the Law is itself bright, but it is only when Christ appears to us in

it, that we enjoy its splendor."29

 Third, when the veil that prevents the understanding of the Law is

removed by the Spirit of the Lord, there is liberty. "Where the Spirit of

the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17).  The point that Paul is making

here, as C. E. Cranfield explains, is that when the Law "is understood in

the light of Christ, when it is established in its true character by the

Holy Spirit,, so far from being the 'bondage' into which legalism has

perverted it, is true freedom (cf. James 1:25-'the perfect Law, the Law of

liberty')."30

 In the light of the preceding analysis we conclude that in 2

Corinthians 3 Paul is not negating the value of the Law as a norm for

Christian conduct. The concern of the Apostle is to clarify the function of

the Law in reference to Christ's redemption and to the ministry of the

Spirit.  This he does by contrasting the ministry or service of the Law

with that of the Spirit. The Law kills in the sense that it reveals sin in

its true light as the transgression of God's commandments and  it exposes

the Lawbreaker to the condemnation of death (Rom 6:23; 5:12; Ez 18:4; Prov

11:29).  By contrast, the Spirit gives life  by enabling the believer to

internalize the principles of God's Law in the heart and  to live according

to "just requirement of the Law" (Rom 8:4).

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

 Perhaps more than any other Pauline passage, Galatians 3:15-25 has

led people to believe that the Law was done away by the coming of Christ.

The reason is that in this passage Paul makes some negative statements

about he Law, which taken in isolation, can lead a person to believe that

Christ terminated the function of the Law as a norm for Christian conduct.

For examples, he says : "The Law was added because of transgressions, till

the offspring should come to whom the promise had been make" (Gal 3:19).

"Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian" (Gal 3:25).

 Before examining these passages it is important to remember that

Paul's treatment of the Law varies in his letters, depending from the

situations he was facing.  Brice Martin makes this important point in

concluding his scholarly dissertation Christ and the Law in Paul.  "In his

letters Paul has faced varied situations.  In writing to the Galatians he

tends to downplay the Law because of their attempts to be saved by means of

it.  In 1 Corinthians he stresses the Law and moral values since he is

facing an antinomian front.  In Romans he gives a carefully balanced

statement and assures his readers that he is not an antinomian."31

 The Galatian Crisis.  The tone of Paul's treatment of the Law in

Galatians is influenced by his sense of urgency of his converts' situation.

False teachers had come in to "trouble," "unsettle," and "bewitch" them

(Gal 1:7; 31:1; 5:12).  Apparently they were leading his converts astray by

teaching  that in order to be saved one needs not only to have faith in

Christ, but must be circumcised. The blessings of salvation bestowed by

Christ can only be received by becoming sons of Abraham through

circumcision. Faith in Christ is of value only if such faith is based on

circumcision.

 The false teachers accused  Paul of accommodating and watering down

the Gospel by releasing Christians from circumcision and the observance of

the Mosaic Law.  His Gospel disagreed with that of the Jerusalem brethren

who upheld circumcision and the observance of the Law,  Realizing that his

entire apostolic identity and mission in Galatia was jeopardized  by  these

Judaizers infiltrators, Paul responds hurling some of his sharpest daggers

of his verbal arsenal.  "Credulity (Gal 1:6) is the operative principle of

the foolish Galatians (Gal 3:1).  Cowardice motivates the trouble-makes

(Gal 6:12). Seduction is their method of proselytizing (Gal 4:17).

Castration is their just deserts (Gal 5:12)."32

 The message of the agitators was primarily built around the

requirement of circumcision.   This is underscored by Paul's warning: "Mark

my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised,

Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Gal 5:2; NIV).   That

circumcision was the main tenet of the "other Gospel" preached by the false

teachers is indicated also by Paul's exposure of their motives:  "Those who

want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be

circumcised.  The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for

the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the Law, yet

they want you to be circumcised, they may boast about your flesh" (Gal

6:12-13).

 The emphasis of the false teachers upon circumcision reflects the

prevailing Jewish understanding that circumcision was required to become a

member of the Abrahamic covenant and receive his blessings. God made a

covenant of promise with Abraham because of his faithful observance of

God's commandments (Gen 26:5) and circumcision was the sign of that

covenant.

 Paul's Response.  In his response, Paul does admit that being a son

of Abraham is of decisive importance. He does not deny or downplay the

importance of the promise covenant that God made with Abraham. But, he

turns his opponents' argument on its head, by arguing that God's covenant

with Abraham was based on his faith response (Gen15:6; Gal 3:6) before the

sign of circumcision was given (Gen 17:9-14). In all probability the false

teachers appealed to the institution of circumcision in Genesis 17 to argue

that circumcision was indespensable to become a son of Abraham.  Paul also

point to Genesis-not of course  to Genesis 17 but to Genesis 15:6 which

says: "He [Abraham] believed the Lord and he reckoned it to him as

righteousness."   From this Paul concludes: "So you see that it is men of

faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7).

 Paul uses the same Scripture to which his opponents appealed to

show that God

announced in advance to Abraham that He would justify the Gentiles by

faith: "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by

faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying: 'In you shall all

the nations be blessed.'" (Gen 15:15:8). And again Paul concludes: "So

then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith"

(Gal 3:9).

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

syllogism:

First premise:

 God justified Abraham because of his faith before instituting

circumcision.

Second premise:

 In Abraham all people are blessed.

Conclusion:

 Therefore, all the people are blessed in Abraham (in the sense of

being justified) because of their faith (as in the case of Abraham),

irrespective of circumcision.

 Paul develops this argument further by setting the promise given to

Abraham (in Genesis 18:18) against the giving of the Law at Sinai which

occurred 430 years later (Gal 3:15-18).  Making a play on the word

diatheke, which in Greek can mean both will-testament and covenant, Paul

points out that as a valid human testament cannot be altered by later

additions, so the promise of God given to Abraham cannot be nullified by

the Law, which came 430 years later.  The fact that the covenant with

Abraham was one of promise based on faith, excludes the possibility of

earning righteousness by works. "For if the inheritance is by the Law, it

is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal 3:18).

 The same thought is expressed in Romans where Paul says that

Abraham attained righteousness by faith before the sign of circumcision had

been given (Rom 4:1-5). Circumcision, then, in its true meaning is a sign

or seal of a justifying faith (Rom 4:9-12).  "The implication of the line

of thought in Galatians 3 and Romans 4," as Eldon Ladd points out, "is that

all the Israelites who trusted God's covenant of promise to Abraham and did

not use the Law as a way of salvation by works, were assured salvation.

This becomes clear in the case of David, who, though under the Law,

pronounced a blessing on the man to whom God reckons righteousness by faith

apart from works (Rom 4:6-7)."33

 The examples of Abraham and David as men of faith under the Old

Covenant help us to interpret Paul's statement: "But now that faith has

come, we are no longer under a custodian" (Gal 3:25).  The coming of faith

for Paul does not mean that saving faith was not exercised prior to the

coming of Christ, since he cites Abraham and David as men of faith. Rather,

he uses "faith" in a historic sense identical to the proclamation of the

Gospel (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 1:16-17).  Salvation was by faith in the Old

Covenant, but faith was frustrated when people made the Law the basis of

their righteousness and boasting.

 If salvation was by way of promise (faith) and not Law, what was

then the role of the Law in God's redemptive purpose?  Paul's answer is

both novel and unacceptable to Judaism.   The Law "was added because of

transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promises had

been made" (Gal 3:19).  The Law was added  not to save men from their sins

but to reveal to them the sinfulness of their transgressions. The term

"transgression" (parabasis),  as Ernest Burton points out, implies  "not

simply the following of evil impulse, but violation of explicit Law."34

By revealing what God forbids, the Law shows the sinfulness of deeds which

otherwise might have passed without recognition.

 In this context Paul speaks of the Law in its narrow, negative

function of exposing sin, in order  to counteract the exaltation of the Law

by its opponents. Calvin offers a perceptive comment on this passage:

"Paul was disputing with perverse teachers who pretended that we merit

righteousness by the works of the Law.  Consequently, to refute their error

he was sometimes compelled to take the bare Law in a narrow sense, even

though it was otherwise graced with the covenant of free adoption."35

 The Law as a Custodian.  It is the "bare Law" understood in a

narrow sense as the Law seen apart from Christ, which was a temporary

custodian until the coming of Christ.  "When once 'the seed' has come, 'to

whom the promise hath been made,' the One who is the goal, the meaning, the

substance, of the Law, it is no longer an open possibility for those who

believe in Him to regard the Law merely in this nakedness (though even in

this forbidding nakedness it had served as a tutor to bring men to Christ).

Henceforth it is recognized in its true character 'graced' or clothed 'with

the covenant of free adoption."36

 To explain the function of the "bare Law" before Christ, Paul

compares it to a paidagogos, a guardian of children in Roman and Greek

households.  His responsibility was to accompany the children to school,

protect them from harm, and keep them from mischief.  The role of a

paidogogos is an apt illustration of how some aspects of the Law served as

a guardian and custodian of God's people in Old Testament times. For

example, circumcision which is the fundamental issue Paul is addressing,

served as a guardian to constantly remind the people of their covenant

commitment to God (Jos 5:2-8).

 When God called Israel out of Egyptian bondage He gave them not

only the Decalogue that they might see the sinfulness of sin, but also

ceremonial, religious Laws designed to exhibit the divine plan for the

forgiveness of their sins.  These Laws indeed had the function of

protecting and guiding the people until the day of their spiritual

deliverance  through Jesus Christ.  With the coming of Christ, the

ceremonial, sacrificial Laws ended, but the Decalogue is written in the

human heart (Heb 8:10) by the ministry of the Holy Spirit who enables

believers to "fulfill the just requirement of the Law" (Rom 8:4).

 It is difficult to imagine that Paul would announce the abolition

of the Decalogue, God's great moral Law,  when elsewhere he affirms that

the Law was given by God (Rom 9:4; 3:2),  written by God (1 Cor 9:9; 14:21;

14:34), contains the will of God (Rom 2:17, 18), bears witness to the

righteousness of God (Rom 3:21), and is in accord with the promises of God

(Gal 3:21).  So long as sin is present in the human nature, the Law  is

needed to expose its sinfulness (Rom 3:20) and reveal the need of a Savior.

 On the basis of the above considerations we conclude that Paul's

negative comments about the Law must be understood in the light of the

polemic nature of Galatians. In this epistle the apostle is seeking to undo

the damage done by false teachers who were exalting the Law, especially

circumcision, as a means of salvation. In refuting the perverse and

excessive exaltation of the Law, Paul is forced to depreciate it in some

measures, especially since the issue at stake was the imposition of

circumcision as a means of salvation.

   C. E. Cranfield rightly warns that "to fail to make full

allowance for the special circumstances which called forth the letter would

be to proceed in a quite uncritical and unscientific manner.  In view of

what has been said, it should be clear that it would be extremely unwise to

take what Paul says in Galatians as one's starting point in trying to

understand Paul's teaching on the Law."37

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

 Christians who believe that "New Covenant Christians" are not under

the obligation to observe the Law,  usually refer to Colossians 2:14,

saying: "Does not Paul clearly teach that the Law was nailed to the Cross!"

This conclusion is drawn especially from the KJV translation which reads:

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was

contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col

2:14). The phrase "handwriting of ordinances" is interpreted as a reference

to the Mosaic Law which allegedly was nailed to the cross.

 Does Paul in this text supports the popular view that Christ

blotted out the Law and nailed it to the cross?  Is the "written

document-cheirographon" that was nailed to the cross the Law in general or

the Sabbath in particular?  Traditionally this is the way this text has

been interpreted, namely,  that God set aside and nailed to the Cross the

Mosaic Law with all its ordinances, including the Sabbath.

 This popular interpretation is unwarranted for at least two

reasons.  First, because as E. Lohse points out, "in the whole of the

epistle the word Law is not used at all.  Not only that, but the whole

significance of the Law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he

presents his Gospel, is completely absent."38

 Second, this interpretation detracts from the immediate argument

designed to prove the fullness of God's forgiveness.  The wiping out of the

moral and/or ceremonial Law would hardly provide Christians with the divine

assurance of forgiveness.  Guilt is not removed by destroying Law codes.

The latter would only leave mankind without moral principles.

 The Contest of Colossians 2:14. To understand the legal language of

Colossians 2:14 it is necessary, first of all, to grasp the arguments

advanced by Paul in the preceding verses to combat the Colossian false

teachers.  These were "beguiling" (Col 2:4) Christians to believe that they

needed to observe  ascetic  "regulations-dogmata" in order to court the

protection of those cosmic beings who allegedly could help them to

participate in the completeness and perfection of the divinity.

 To oppose this teaching, Paul emphasizes two vital truths. First he

reminds the Colossians that in Christ, and in Him alone, "the whole

fullness of the deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9) and therefore all other

forms of authority that exist are subordinate to Him, "who is the head of

all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). Secondly the Apostle reaffirms that it

is only in and through Christ that the believer can "come to the fullness

of life" (Col 2:10), because Christ not only possess the "fullness of

deity" (Col 2: 9), but also provides the fullness of "redemption" and

"forgiveness of sins" (Col 1: 14; 2:10-15; 3:1-5).

 In order to explain how Christ extends "perfection" (Col 1:28;

4:12) and "fullness" (Col 1: 19; 2:9) to the believer, Paul appeals, not to

the Law, but to baptism.  Christian perfection is the work of God who

extends to the Christian the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection

through baptism (Col 2:11-13).  The benefits of baptism are concretely

presented as the forgiveness of  "all our trespasses" (Col 2:13; 1:14;

3:13) which results in being "made alive" in Christ (Col 2:13).

 The reaffirmation of the fullness of God's forgiveness,

accomplished by Christ on the cross and extended through baptism to the

Christian, constitutes indeed Paul's basic answer to those trying to attain

to perfection by submitting to ascetic practices to gain protection from

cosmic powers and principalities. To emphasize the certainty and fullness

of divine forgiveness explicitly mentioned in verse 13, the Apostle

utilizes in verse 14 a legal metaphor, namely, that of God as a judge who

"wiped out, . . .  removed [and] nailed to the cross . . . the written

document-cheirographon."

 The Written Document Nailed to the Cross. What is the "written

document-cheirographon that was nailed to the cross? Is Paul referring to

the Mosaic Law with its ceremonial ordinances, thus declaring that God

nailed it to the cross? If one adopts this interpretation, there exists a

legitimate possibility that the Sabbath could be included among the

ordinances nailed to the cross.

 This is indeed the popular view  defended, especially in the

anti-sabbatarian literature that we have examined during the course of this

study. But besides the grammatical difficulties, 39 "it hardly seems

Pauline," writes J. Huby, "to represent God as crucifying the 'holy' (Rom

7:6) thing  that was the Mosaic Law." 40   Moreover this view would not add

to but detract from Paul's argument designed to prove the fullness of God's

forgiveness. Would the wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial Law

provide to Christians the assurance of divine forgiveness? Hardly so. It

would only leave mankind without moral principles. Guilt is not removed by

destroying Law codes.

 Recent research has shown that the term cheirographon was used to

denote either  a "certificate of indebtedness" resulting from our

transgressions or a "book containing the record of sin" used for the

condemnation of mankind.41 Both renderings, which are substantially

similar, can be supported from rabbinic and apocalyptic literature.42

This view is supported also by the clause  "and this he has removed out of

the middle" (Col 2:14).  "The middle" was the position occupied at the

center of the court or assembly by the accusing witness.  In the context of

Colossians, the accusing witness is the "record-book of sins" which God in

Christ has erased and removed out of the court.

 Ephesians 2:15.  To support the view that the "written document"

nailed to the cross  is the Mosaic Law, some appeal to the similar text of

Ephesians 2:15 which says: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even

the Law of commandments contained in ordinances"(KJV). But the similarity

between the two texts is more apparent than real. In the first place the

phrase "the Law of commandments" which occurs in Ephesians is not found in

Colossians. Secondly, the dative in Ephesians "en dogmasiv-in ordinances"

is governed by "en-in," thus expressing that the Law was set out "in

ordinances." Such a preposition does not occur in Colossians.

 Lastly, the context is substantially different. While in Ephesians

the question is how Christ removed what separated Jews from Gentiles, in

Colossians it is how Christ provided full forgiveness. The former He

accomplished by destroying "the dividing wall of hostility" (Eph 2: 14).

This is a possible allusion to the wall that divided the court of the

Gentiles from the sanctuary proper,43 making impossible for them to

participate in the worship service of the inner court with the Jews.   Such

a wall of partition was removed by Christ "by abolishing the Law of

commandments [set out] in regulations" (Eph 2:15). The qualification of

"commandments contained in ordinances" suggests that Paul is speaking not

of the moral Law, but of "ceremonial ordinances" which had the effect of

maintaining the separation between Jews and Gentiles, both in the social

life and in the sanctuary services. The moral Law did not divide Jews from

Gentiles, because speaking of the latter Paul says that what the moral "Law

requires is written on their heart" (Rom 2:15).

 In Colossians 2:14 full forgiveness is granted, not by "abolishing

the "Law of commandments contained in ordinances," but by utterly

destroying "the written record of our sins which because of the regulations

was against us. The context of the two passages is totally different, yet

none of the two suggests that the moral Law was nailed to the cross.

 Record of our Sins.  The "written record-cheirographan" that was

nailed to the cross is the record of our sins. By this daring metaphor,

Paul affirms the completeness of God's forgiveness.  Through Christ, God

has "cancelled," "set aside," "nailed to the cross" "the written record of

our sins which because of the regulations was against us."  The legal basis

of the record of sins was "the binding statutes, regulations" (tois

dogmasin), but what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground

(Law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins.

 One cannot fail to sense how through this forceful metaphor, Paul

is reaffirming the completeness of God's forgiveness provided through

Christ on the cross.  By destroying the evidence of our sins, God has also

"disarmed the principalities and powers" (Col 2:15) since it is no longer

possible for them to accuse those who have been forgiven.  There is no

reason, therefore, for Christians to feel incomplete and to seek the help

of inferior mediators, since Christ has provided complete redemption and

forgiveness.

 In this whole argument the Law, as stated by Herold Weiss, "plays

no role at all." 44  Any attempt therefore to read into the "written

record-cheirographon"  a reference to the Law, or to any other Old

Testament ordinance is altogether unwarranted. The document that was nailed

to the cross contained not moral or ceremonial Laws, but rather the record

of our sins. Is it not true even today that the memory of sin can create in

us a sense of incompleteness? The solution to this sense of inadequacy,

according to Paul, is to be found not by submitting to a system of  ascetic

"regulation," but by accepting the fact that on the cross God has blotted

out our sins and granted us full forgiveness.

 Some people object to this interpretation because in their view it

undermines the doctrine of the final judgment which will examine the good

and the bad deeds of each person who ever lived (Rom 14:10; Rev 20:12).

Their argument is that if the record of our sins was erased and nailed to

the cross, there would be no legal basis for conducting the final

judgement. This objection ignores that the imagery of God cancelling,

setting aside, and nailing the record of our sins to the cross, is designed

not to do away with human accountability on the day of judgment, but to

provide the reassurance of the totality of God's forgiveness in this

present life.

 For example, when Peter summoned the people in the Temple's

Portico, saying: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be

blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the

Lord" (Acts 3:19),  he was not implying that there will be no final

judgment for those whose sins have been blotted out. On the contrary, Peter

speak of the time when  "judgment [is] to begin with the household of God"

(1 Pet 4:17; cf. 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7).  The imageries of God being willing to

"blot out" our sins, or of casting  "all our sins into the depths of the

sea" (Mic 7:19), are not intended the negate the need of the final

judgment, but to reassure the believer of the totality of God's

forgiveness. The sins that have been forgiven, "blotted out," "nailed to

the cross," are the sins that will be automatically vindicated in the day

of judgment.

 We can conclude then by saying that Colossians 2:14 reaffirms the

essence of the Gospel-the Good News that God has nailed on the cross the

record and guilt of our sins-but it has nothing to say about the Law or the

Sabbath.  Any attempt to read into the text  a reference to the Law,  is an

unwarranted, gratuitous fantasy.

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

 Few Pauline passages have been more used and abused than Romans

10:4 which reads: "For Christ is the end [telos] of the Law for

righteousness to every one that believeth" (KJV). This text has been

utilized as an easy slogan for two contrasting views regarding the role of

the Law in the Christian life.  Most Christians assume to be self-evident

that in this text Paul teaches that Christ's coming has put an end to the

Law as a way of righteousness and consequently New Covenant Christians are

released from the observance of the Law.

 Other Christians contend just as vigorously that in this text Paul

teaches that Christ is the goal toward which the whole Law was aimed so

that its promise of righteousness may be experienced by whoever believes in

Him. Personally I subscribe to the latter interpretation because, as we

shall see, is supported by the linguistic use of telos (whose bsic meaning

is "goal" rather than "end"), the flow of Paul's argument, and the overall

Pauline teachings regarding the function of the Law.

 The Meaning of Telos: Termination or Goal? The conflicting

interpretations of this text stem mostly from a different understanding of

the meaning of telos, the term which is generally translated as "end" in

most English Bibles.  However, the English term "end" is used mostly with

the meaning of termination, the point at which something ceases.  For

example, the "end" of a movie,  a journey,  a school year, a working day,

is the termination of that particular activity. By contrast, the Greek term

telos, has an unusual wide variety of meanings. In their A Greek-English

Lexicon, William  Arndt and Wilbur Gingrich explain that telos is used not

only with the sense of  "termination, cessation," but also with the meaning

of  "goal, outcome, purpose, design, achievement."45

 The use of telos as "goal, design, purpose" was most common in

classical Greek as well as in Biblical (Septuagint) and extra-Biblical

literature. This meaning has been preserve in English compound words such

as  telephone, telescope.  In these instances tele means "designed for," or

"for the purpose of."  For example, the telephone is an instrument designed

for reproducing sounds at a distance.  The telescope is an instrument

designed for viewing distant objects. These different meanings of telos

have given rise to two major interpretation of Romans 10:4, generally

referred to as  (1)  "termination," and  (2) "teleological."

  Most Christians hold to the termination interpretation which

contends that telos in Romans 10:4 means  "termination," "cessation," or

"abrogation."  Consequently, "Christ is the end of the Law" in the sense

that "Christ has put an end to the Law" by releasing Christians from its

observance.  This view is popular among those who believe that Paul negates

the continuity of the Law for "New Covenant Christians" and is reflected

in the New English Bible translation, which reads: "For Christ ends the

Law."

 This interpretative translation eliminates any possible ambiguity,

but, by so doing, it misleads readers into believing that Paul

categorically affirms the termination of the Law with the coming of Christ.

The problem with termination interpretation is, as we shall see,  that it

contradicts the immediate context, as well as the numerous explicit Pauline

statements which affirms the validity and value of the Law (Rom 3:31; 7:12,

14; 8:4; 13:8-10).

 The teleological interpretation maintains that telos in Romans 10:4

must be translated according to the basic meaning of word, namely,  "goal"

or "object."  Consequently, "Christ is the goal of the Law" in the sense

that the Law of God, understood as the Pentateuch or the Old Testament, has

reached its purpose and fulfillment in Him. Furthermore, through Christ

believers experience the righteousness expressed by the Law.  This

interpretation has prevailed from the Early Church to the Reformation and

it is still held today by numerous scholars.

 Two major considerations gives us reasons to believe that the

teleological interpretation of Romans 10:4  as "Christ is the goal of the

Law," correctly reflects the meaning of  the passage:  (1) The  historical

usage of  telos  in Biblical and extra-Biblical literature, and (2) the

flow of Paul's argument in the larger and immediate context.  We shall now

consider these two points in their respective order.

 The Historical Usage of Telos.  In his masterful doctoral

dissertation Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective,

published by The Journal for the Study of the New Testament (University of

Sheffield, England), Roberto Badenas provides a comprehensive survey of the

meaning and uses of telos in Biblical and extra-Biblical literature. He

concludes his survey noting that in classical Greek, the Septuagint, the

Pseudepigrapha, Flavius Josephus, Philo, and Paul, the "basic connotations

[of telos] are primarily directive, purposive, and completive, not temporal

[termination]. . . . Telos nomou [end of the Law] and related expressions

are indicative of the purpose, fulfillment, or object of the Law, not of

its abrogation.  . . . In all the New Testament occurrences of phrases

having the same grammatical structure as Romans 10:4, telos is unanimously

translated in a teleological way."46  In other  words, telos is used  in

the ancient Biblical and extra-Biblical Greek literature  to express "goal"

or  "purpose," and not "termination" or "abrogation."

 Badenas provides also a detailed historical survey of the

interpretation of telos nomou ["end of the Law"] in Christian literature.

For the period from the Early church to the end of the Middle Ages,  he

found "an absolute predominance of the teleological and completive

meanings.  The Greek-speaking church understood and explained telos in

Romans 10:4 by means of the terms skopos [goal], pleroma [fullness], and

telesiosis [perfection], seeing in it the meanings of 'purpose,' 'object,'

'plenitude,' and 'fulfillment.'  Nomos [Law] was understood as the Holy

Scripture of the Old Testament  (often rendered by nomos kai prophetai [Law

and prophets].  Consequently, Romans 10:4 was interpreted as a statement of

the fulfillment of the Old Testament,  its prophecies or its purposes, in

Christ."47

 In the writings of the Latin Church the equivalent term finis was

used with practically all the same meanings of the Greek telos.  The Latin

word finis "was explained by the terms perfectio, intentio, plenitudo,

consummatio, or, impletio [fullness]."48 Thus, in both the Greek and Latin

literature of the Early Church, the terms telos/finis are used almost

exclusively with the teleological meaning of  "goal," or "purpose," and not

with the temporal meaning of "termination," or "abrogation."

 No significant changes occurred in the interpretation of Romans

10:4 during the Middle Ages.  The text was interpreted as  "a statement of

Christ's bringing the Old Testament Law to its plenitude and completion.

The Reformation, with its emphasis on literal exegesis, preserved the Greek

and Latin meanings of telos/finis, giving to Romans 10:4 both teleological

(e.g Luther) and perfective (e. g. Calvin) interpretations."49  It is

unfortunate that most translation of Romans 10:4 ignore the historic use of

telos as "goal, purpose, perfection," and consequently they mislead readers

into believing that "Christ has put an end to the Law."

 The antinomian, abrogation interpretation of Romans 10:4 developed

after the Reformation largely due to the new emphasis on the discontinuity

between Law and Gospel, the Old and New Testaments.  The Lutherans began to

apply to Romans 10:4 the negative view of the Law which Luther had

expressed in other contexts .50  The Anabaptists interpreted Romans 10:4 in

terms of abrogation, according to their view that the New Testament

supersedes the Old Testament.51

 The lower view of Scripture fostered by the rationalistic movements

of the eighteenth century, further contributed to the tendency of

interpreting Romans 10:4 in the sense of abolition.52  In the nineteenth

century the overwhelming influence of German liberal theology, with its

emphasis on Biblical higher criticism, caused the antinonian "abrogation of

the Law" interpretation of Romans 10:4 to prevail.53

 The termination/abrogation interpretation of Romans 10:4 is still

prevalent today, advocated especially by those who emphasize the

discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, the Law and the Gospel.54

During the course of our study we have found that the abrogation

interpretation has been adopted even by former sabbatarians, like the

Worldwide Church of God and Dale Ratzlaff in his book Sabbath in Crisis.

This interpretation is largely conditioned by the mistaken theological

presupposition that Paul consistently teaches the termination of the Law

with the coming of Christ.

 A significant development of the last two decades is that a growing

number of scholars have adopted the teleological interpretation of Romans

10:4, namely, that "Christ is the goal of the Law."  What has contributed

to this positive development is the renewed efforts to analyze this text

exegetically, rather than imposing upon it subjective theological

presuppositions.  Badenas notes that  "It is significant that-in general-

the studies which are more exegetically oriented interpret telos in a

teleological way ["Christ is the goal of the Law"], while the more

systematic [theology] approaches interpret the term temporally ["Christ had

put an end to the Law"]."55

 It is encouraging to know that new exegetical studies of Romans

10:4 are contributing to rediscover the correct meaning of this text. It is

doubtful, however, that these new studies will cause the abandonment of the

abrogation interpretation, because it has become foundational to much of

the Evangelical beliefs and practices.  In this context we can mention only

few significant studies, besides the outstanding dissertation of Roberto

Badenas already cited.

 Recent Studies of Romans 10:4.  In a lengthy article (40 pages)

published in Studia Teologica, Ragnar Bring emphasizes the culminating

significance of telos  in Romans 10:4, on the basis of the race-track

imagery in the context (Rom 9:30-10:4). He argues that in this context

telos "signifies the winning-post of a race, the completion of a task, the

climax of a matter."56  Bring explains that, since "the goal of the Law was

righteousness," the Law served as a custodian (paidagogos) directing people

to Christ, who only can give righteousness.  This means that "Christ is the

goal of the Law" in the sense that He is the eschatological fulfillment of

the Law.57

 In the article cited earlier "St. Paul and the Law," C. E. B.

Cranfield argues that in the light of the immediate and larger context of

Romans 10:4, telos should be translated as "goal."  Consequently he renders

the texts as follows: "For Christ is the goal of the Law, so that

righteousness is available to every one that believeth."58  He notes that

verse 4 begins with "for-gar" because it explains verse 3 where Paul

explains that  "The Jews in their legalistic quest after a righteous status

of their own earning, have failed to recognize and accept the righteous

status which God has sought to give them." On verse 4,  according to

Cranfield,  Paul continues his explanation by giving the reasons for the

Jews' failure to attain a righteous status before God:  "For Christ, whom

they have rejected, is the goal toward which all along the Law was

directed, and this means that in Him a righteous status before God is

available to every one who will accept it by faith."59

 On a similar vein George  E. Howard advocates a goal-oriented

interpretation of telos in Romans 10:4,  arguing that "Christ is the goal

of the Law  to everyone who believes because the ultimate goal of the Law

is that all be blessed in Abraham."60  A lengthier treatment of Romans 10:4

is provided by J. E. Tows who interprets telos as "goal" on the basis of

"linguistic and contextual grounds."61

 More recently, C. T. Rhyne has produced a perceptive dissertation

on Romans 3:31 where Paul says: "Do we then overthrow the Law by this

faith? By no means!  On the contrary, we uphold the Law."  Rhyne shows that

there is a theological connection between this verse and Romans 10:4.  This

connection supports the teleological interpretation of telos, and is more

consistent with Paul's positive understanding of the relationship between

Christ and the Law in Romans.62

  Walter Kaiser, a well-known and respected Evangelical scholar,

offers a compelling defence of the teleological interpretation of Romans

10:4, by examining closely the arguments  developed by Paul in the whole

section from Romans 9:30 to 10:13.  He notes that in this passage Paul is

"clearly contrasting two ways of obtaining righteousness-one that the

Gentiles adopted, the way of faith; the other, a work method, that many

Israelites adopted-all to no avail."63

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

"homemade Law of righteousness [adopted by many Jews] is not equivalent to

the righteousness that is from the Law of God."64  In other words, what

Paul is condemning in this passage is not "the righteousness that God had

intended to come from the Law of Moses,"  but  the homemade righteousness

which many Jews made into a Law without Christ as its object.65  Paul's

condemnation of the perverted use of the Law does not negate its proper use.

 Kaiser concludes his insightful analysis of this passage, saying:

"The term telos in Romans 10:4 means 'goal' or purposeful conclusion.  The

Law cannot be properly understood unless it moves toward the grand goal of

pointing the believer toward the Messiah, Christ.  The Law remain God's

Law, not Moses' Law (Rom 7:22; 8:7).  It still is holy, just, good, and

spiritual (Rom 7:12, 14) for the Israelite as well as for the believing

Gentile."66

 The Larger Context of Romans 10:4.  In the final analysis the

correct meaning of Romans 10:4 can only be established by a careful

analysis of Romans 10:4 in the light of its larger and immediate contexts.

This is what we intend to do now. In the larger context (Romans 9 to 11)

Paul addresses,  not the relationship between Law and Gospel, but how God's

plan of salvation-finally fulfilled with the coming of Christ-relate to the

destiny of Israel. The fact that the majority of Christian converts were

Gentiles and that the majority of the Jews had rejected Christ, raised

questions about the trustworthiness of God's promises regarding the

salvation of Israel.

 The question that Paul is discussing is stated in Romans 9:6:  "Has

the word of God failed?"  How can God's promises to Israel be true when

Israel as a nation has jeopardize its election as God's people by rejecting

Christ?  This was a crucial question in the apostolic church, which was

formed by many Jewish Christians and directed by Twelve Apostles who were

Jews. "The issue was how to explain that the people of the old covenant,

who had been blessed by God with the greatest privileges (Rom 9:4-5), were

now separated from the community of the new covenant, which, as a matter of

fact, was nothing other than the extension of Israel."67

 Paul responds to this question in Romans 9 to 11 by pointing out,

first of all, that God's word has not failed because divine election has

never been based on human merits, but on God's sovereignty and mercy.  The

inclusion of the Gentiles following Israel's disobedience, is not unjust

because it represents the triumph of God's plan as contemplated in the

Scriptures (Rom 9:6-29). "As indeed he says in Hosea, 'Those who were not

my people I will call my people" (Rom 9:25).

 Second, Paul points out that Israel's rejection of Christ comes

from their failure to understand God's purposes as revealed in Scripture

and manifested through the coming of Christ (Rom 9:30 to 10:21). Instead of

receiving the righteousness of God by faith, Israel sought to establish its

own righteousness (Rom 9:31; 10:3).

 Lastly, Paul brings out that the failure of Israel is only partial

and temporary.  God has not rejected Israel, but has used their failure for

the inclusion of the Gentiles and ultimately salvation of Israel (Rom

11:1-36).  "A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number

of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25-26).

 This bare outline of the larger context of Romans 10:4,  suffices

to show that the issue that Paul is addressing is not the relationship

between Law and Gospel,  but how God is working out His plan for the

salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, "for there is no distinction between

Jew and Greek" (Rom 10:12). This means that Romans 10:4 must be

interpreted, not on the basis of a  "Law-Gospel" debate which is foreign to

the context, but on the basis of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles which

is discussed in the context.

 The Immediate Context of Romans 10:4. The section of Romans 9:30 to

10:13 is generally regarded as the immediate context of Romans 10:4. Paul

customarily signals the next stage of his argument in Romans by the

recurring phrase: "What shall we say, then?" (Rom 9:30). And the issue he

addresses in Romans 9:30 to 10:13 is this: How did it happen that the

Gentiles who were not in the race after righteousness obtained the

righteousness of God by faith, while Israel who was in the race to attain

the righteousness promised by the Law, did not reach the goal?

 Badenas provides a convenient concise summary of Paul's argument in

Romans 9:30-33. He writes;  "Paul presents the failure of Israel in the

fact that it did not recognize from Scriptures (eis nomon ouk ephthasen-did

not attain to the Law-Rom 9:31) Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, the

goal and substance and meaning of the Law.   Looking at the Torah [Mosaic

Law] from the human perspective-as a code primarily interested in human

performance-Israel overlooked the importance of looking at it from the

perspective of God's saving acts and mercy.  Having failed to take their

own Law seriously in that particular respect, they did not see that God's

promises had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.  In other words, Israel's

misunderstanding of Torah [Mosaic Law] is presented by Paul as blindness to

the Law's witness to Christ (cf. Rom 9:31-33 with 10:4-13 and 3:21), which

was epitomized in Israel's rejection of Jesus as Messiah."68

 It is important to note that in the immediate context Paul is not

disparaging the Law, but is criticizing its improper use as a way to attain

one's own righteousness. The Jews were extremely zealous for God, but their

zeal was not based on knowledge (Rom 10:2). Being ignorant of the

righteousness that comes from God, many Jews tried "to establish their own"

righteousness" (Rom 10:3).

 The problem with the Jews was not the Law, but their

misunderstanding and misuse of it. They did not attain to the righteousness

promised by the Law because they misunderstood it and transformed it into a

tool of personal achievement (Rom 10:2-3, 5; 2:17, 27; 3:27; 4:2).  They

insisted on establishing their own righteousness (Rom 10:3), rather than

accepting the righteousness that had been revealed by God through Moses in

the Law.  They did not see that the righteousness of God had been revealed

especially through the coming of the promised Messiah.  They looked at the

Law in order to see what a person could do to become righteous before God,

instead of recognizing what God had already done for them through Jesus

Christ. They failed to recognize that Christ is the goal of the Law, as

Paul says in verse 4.

 Romans 10: 4: Goal or Termination? Paul continues his argument in

verse 4,  which literally reads:  "For Christ is the goal of the Law for

righteousness to every one that believeth."  This crucial text begins with

the conjunction "For-gar," thus indicating a continuous explanation within

the flow of Paul's thought.  This means that this text must be interpreted

in the light of its immediate context where Paul discusses the failure of

the Jews to attain the righteousness promised by the Law.

 In Greek the key sentence reads: "telos nomou Christos," which

literally translated means "The goal of Law [is] Christ."  The structure of

the sentence with telos nomou at the beginning,  indicates that Paul is

making a statement about the Law rather than about Christ.  The Law (nomos)

has been the center of Paul's discussion since Romans 9:6, and particularly

since Romans 9:31, where he speaks of nomos dikaiosunes-the Law of

righteousness, that is,  the Law that holds forth the promise of

righteousness.

 Note must be taken of the fact that in the immediate context Paul

does not speak of the Law and Christ as standing in an antagonistic

relationship. In Romans 9:31-33 he explains that had the Jews believed in

Christ ("the stone"), they would certainly have "attained" the Law which

promises righteousness. Consequently, in the light of the immediate

context, it is more consistent to take the Law-nomos as bearing witness to

Christ rather than as being abrogated by Christ.  The abrogation

interpretation ("Christ has put an end to the Law") disrupts Paul's flow of

thought, works against his main argument, and would have been confusing to

his readers in Rome accustomed to use telos with the sense of "goal" rather

than "termination."

 The athletic metaphors used in the immediate context (Rom 9:30-33)

suggest also that telos is used with the meaning of  "goal," because telos

was one of the terms commonly used to denote the winning-post or the finish

line.  Other athletic terms used by Paul are:  diokon (Rom 9:30-31), which

denotes the earnest pursuit of a goal; katelaben (Rom 9:30), which

describes the attaining of a goal; ouk ephthasen (Rom 9:31), which refers

to the stumbling over an obstacle in a race; kataiskuno (Rom 9:33), which

expresses the disappointment and shame of the defeat.

 The implications of the athletic metaphors are well stated by

Badenas: "If by accepting Christ the Gentiles reached the winning-post of

dikaiosune [righteousness] and, thereby, acceptance within the new people

of God (Rom 9:30), and by rejecting Christ Israel did not reach the goal of

the Law and thereby admission into God's new people, the logical conclusion

is what Romans 10:4 says: that the goal of the Law and the winning-post of

dikaiosune [righteousness] and entrance into God's eschatological people

are to be found nowhere else than in Christ."69

 The Qualifying Sentence: "For Righteousness . . ." Further support

for the teleological interpretation  is provided by the qualifying sentence

that follows: "for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4b;

KJV). The phrase "for righteousness" translates the Greek eis dikaiosunen.

Since the basic meaning of the preposition eis-"into" or "for," is

directional and purposive, it supports the teleological interpretation of

the text, which would read:  "Christ is the goal of the Law in [its promise

of] righteousness to everyone that believeth."

 This interpretation harmonizes well with the context and

contributes to the understanding of such important elements in the context

as "the word of God has not failed" (Rom 9:6), the Gentiles attained

righteousness (Rom 9:30),  Israel did not "attain" to the Law (Rom 9:31),

stumbled over the stone (Rom 9:33), and ignored God's righteousness (Rom

10:2-3). All of these major themes fit if Romans 10:4 is understood in the

sense that the Law, in its promise of righteousness to whoever believes

pointed to Christ.

 The abrogation interpretation that "Christ has put an end to the

Law as a way of righteousness by bringing righteousness to anyone who will

believe," interrupt the flow of the argument and work against it.  The same

is true of the interpretation which says that "Christ has put an end of the

Law in order that righteousness based on faith alone may be available to

all men."  The problem with these interpretations is that they wrongly

assume that prior to Christ's coming righteousness was obtainable through

the Law and that the Law was an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of

righteousness by faith, and consequently it was removed by Christ.

 This assumption that Christ put an end to the Law as a way of

salvation is discredited by the fact that in Paul's view salvation never

did come or could come by the Law (Gal 2:21; 3:21). In Romans 4 Abraham and

other Old Testament righteous people, were saved by faith in Christ (cf.

Rom 9:30-33). The rock that Israel stumbled over was Christ (Rom 9:33; cf.

1 Cor 10:4). Paul explicitly says that the Law was not an obstacle to God's

righteousness, but a witness to it (Rom 9:31; 3:21, 31).

 Another interesting point to consider is that the key to understand

Romans 10:4 may to be found in the proper understanding of the last words

of the text: "to everyone who believes." This is the view of George Howard

who notes that this is the theme of the inclusion of the Gentiles which

dominates the immediate context.  He writes:  "The Jews based their

salvation on the fact that they had the Law, the fathers, and all the

blessings which go with these.  Their extreme hostility to the Gentiles (1

Thess 2:15-16) had caused them to miss the point of the Law itself, that

is, that its very aim and goal was the ultimate unification of all nations

under the God of Abraham according to the promise.  In this sense Christ is

the telos [goal] of the Law; he was its goal to everyone who believes."70

 In the light of the preceding considerations we conclude that

Romans 10:4 represents the logical continuation and culmination of the

argument initiated in Romans 9:30-33, namely, that Christ is the goal of

the Law, because He embodies the righteousness promised by the Law for

everyone who believes.  This is the righteousness which the Gentiles

attained by faith and which most Jews rejected, because they chose to

establish their own righteousness (Rom 10:3), rather than accepting the

righteousness the Law pointed to and promised through Jesus Christ. Thus,

far for declaring the abrogation of the Law with the coming of Christ,

Romans 10:4 affirms the realization of the goal of the Law in Christ who

offers righteousness to everyone who believes.

 Romans 10:5-8: The Obedience of Faith.   In order to support his

statement in Romans 10:4 that Christ is the goal of the Law in offering

righteousness to everyone who believes,  Paul continues in verses 5 to 8

showing how the Law calls for a response, not of works in which a person

can boast, but of faith in which God receives the credit.  Paul develops

his argument by quoting two texts from the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:5 in

verse 5 and Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in verses 6 to 8.

 Romans 10:5-8 reads: "For Moses writes that the man who practices

the righteousness which is based on the Law shall live by it [quote from

Lev 18:5].  But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your

heart, 'Who will ascend to heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down) or 'Who

will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart

(that is, the word of faith which we preach)" [paraphrase of Deut

30:12-14].

 The principal problem with these verses is to establish the

relationship between the quotation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 and the

quotation of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Romans 10:6-8. Are the two quotations

intended to present two complementary aspects of righteousness or two

conflicting ways of righteousness?  The common interpretation  assumes that

the two quotations are used by Paul to contrast two ways of righteousness:

the righteousness by works of the Law  as taught in  Leviticus 18:5 and the

righteousness by faith as taught in Deuteronomy 30:12-14. The former would

represent the Jewish way of righteousness based on human obedience and the

latter the righteousness of divine grace offered by faith.

 This popular interpretation rests on two mistaken assumptions. The

first mistaken assumption is that  the two particles "gar-for . . .

de-but," which are used to introduce verses 5 and 6 respectively, serve to

contrast the two types of righteousness.  "For Moses writes . . . but the

righteousness of faith says . . ."  This assumption is wrong because the

Greek word translated "but" in verse 6 is de and not alla.   The particle

de is frequently translated as "and" without any contrast intended, while

alla is consistently translated as "but," because it serve to make a

contrast.  George Howard clearly and convincingly points out that "gar . .

. de do not mean "for . . . but," but as in Romans 7:8-9; 10:10; 11:15-16,

they mean "for . . . and."71  In other words, in this context Paul uses

this set of particles not in an adversative way but in a connective way, to

complement two aspects of righteousness.

 One Kind of Righteousness.  The second mistaken assumption is that

the two quotations used by Paul are antithetical, teaching two different

kinds of righteousness. But this can hardly be  true. If  Paul had quoted

Leviticus 18:5 as teaching righteousness by works, he could hardly have

faulted the Jews of pursuing the "the righteousness which is based on Law"

(Rom 9:31),  since they would have been doing exactly what the Law

commanded them to do. But this is contrary to Paul's charge that the Jews

had misunderstood the Scripture.

 In their original contexts both quotations say basically the same

thing, namely that the Israelites must observe God's commandments in order

to continue to enjoy the blessings of life. In Leviticus 18:5 Moses

admonishes the Israelites not to follow the ways of the heathen nations,

but to keep God's "statutes and ordinances" in order to perpetuate the life

God had given them. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 30:11-16 Moses tells the

Israelites "to obey the commandments of the Lord," because they are not

hard to observe, and ensure the blessings of life ("then you shall live and

multiply"-Deut 30:16).

 Some argue that Paul took the liberty of misinterpreting

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in order to support his teachings of righteousness by

faith. But had Paul done such a thing,  he would have exposed himself to

the legitimate criticism of his enemies who would have accused him of

misinterpreting Scripture.  Furthermore, neither Paul nor any Bible writer,

sets Moses against Moses or against any other Biblical statement.  It was

not the custom of Paul to seek out contradictions in the Scripture or to

quote the Old Testament to show that one of its statements was no longer

valid.  The fact that Paul quoted Deuteronomy 30:12-14 immediately after

Leviticus 18:5, suggests that he viewed the two passages are complementary

and not contradictory.

 The complementary function of the two quotations is not difficult

to see. In Romans 10:4 Paul affirms that Christ is the goal of the Law  in

offering righteousness to everyone who believes. In verse 5 he continues

(note "for-gar") expanding what this means  by quoting Leviticus 18:5 as a

summary expression of the righteousness of the Law, namely, that "whoever

follows the way of righteousness taught by the Law shall live by it."  This

fundamental truth had been misconstrued by the Pharisees who made the Law

so hard to observe that, to use the words of Peter, it became a "yoke upon

the neck" that nobody could bear (Acts 15:10).  Paul clarifies this

misconception in verses 6 to 8 by paraphrasing Deuteronomy 30:12-14

immediately after Leviticus 18:5, in order to show that God's Law is not

hard to observe, as the Pharisees had made it to be.  All what it takes to

obey God's commandments is a heart response: "The word is near to you, on

your lips and in your heart" (Rom 10:8).

 Daniel Fuller rightly observes that "by paraphrasing Deuteronomy

30:11-14 right after a verse spotlighting the righteousness of the Law

which Moses taught [Lev 18:5], and by affirming this paraphrase of Moses

which inserts the word 'Christ' at crucial points, Paul was showing that

the righteousness set forth by the Law was the righteousness of faith.

Since the wording of the Law can be replaced by the word 'Christ' with no

loss of meaning, Paul has demonstrated that Moses himself taught that

Christ and the Law are one piece.  Either one or both will impart

righteousness to all who believe, and thus the affirmation of Romans 10:4

[that 'Christ is the goal of the Law'] is supported by Paul's reference to

Moses in verses 5-8."72

 What Paul wishes to show in Romans 10:6-8 is that the righteousness

required by the Law in order to live (Lev 18:5), does not necessitate a

superhuman achievement, like climbing into heaven or descending into the

abyss.  This was Paul's way of expressing the impossible task  the Jews

wanted to accomplish through their own efforts. By contrast, the

righteousness required by the Law is fulfilled through the Word which is in

the heart and in the mouth, that is, by  believing and confessing the Lord

(Rom 10:10).

 The reference to the nearness of the Word in Deuteronomy 30:14

permitted Paul to link the divine grace made available by God in the Law,

with the divine grace made available by God in Christ, the Word. His

commentary on Deuteronomy 30:14 clearly shows that he understood Christ to

be the substance and content of both the Law and the Gospel.  Because of

the unity that exists between the two, he could identify the word of the

Law (Deut 30:14) with the word of the Gospel (Rom 10:8-9).

 The recognition of the unity between Law and Gospel leads Walter

Kaiser to pose a probing rhetorical question: "What will it take for modern

Christians to see that Moses, in the same way that the apostle Paul,

advocated, wanted Israel to 'believe unto righteousness' (Rom 10:10; cf.

Deut 30:14)? . . . Both Moses and Paul are in basic agreement that the life

being offered to Israel, both in those olden days and now in the Christian

era, was available and close at  hand; in fact it was so near them that it

was in their mouth and in their hearts."   It is unfortunate that so many

Christians today fail to recognize this basic unity that exists  between

the Law and the Gospel, Moses and Paul, both affirming that Christ is the

goal and culmination of the Law in its promise of righteousness to everyone

who believes.

 Conclusion. The foregoing  analysis of  Romans 10:4  has shown that

Christ is not the end but the goal of the Law.  He is the goal toward which

the whole Law was aimed so that its promise of righteousness may be

experienced by whoever believes in Him.. He is the goal of the Law in the

sense that in His person and work He fulfilled  its promises, types, and

sacrificial ceremonies (2 Cor 1:20; Rom 10:6-10; 3:21; Heb 10:1-8).   He is

the goal of the Law also in the sense that He is the only Man who was

completely obedient to its requirements (Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19; Rom 10:5). He

is also the goal of the Law in the sense that He enables the believer to

live in accordance to "the just requirements of the Law" (Rom 8:4).

PART 4: THE LAW AND THE GENTILES

 In studying some of  Paul's negative comments about the Law we

noted that such comments were occasioned by the Apostle's effort to undo

the damage done by false teachers who were exalting the Law, especially

circumcision, as a means of salvation.  To bring into sharper focus Paul's

criticism of the Law, we will now consider why the Gentiles were tempted to

adopt legalistic practices like circumcision.

 Paul's letters were written to congregations made up predominantly

of Gentile converts, most of whom were former "God-fearers" (1 Thess 1:9; 1

Cor 12:2; Gal 4:8; Rom 11:13; 1:13; Col 1:21; Eph 2:11).  A crucial problem

among Gentile-Christians was their right as Gentiles to enjoy full

citizenship in the people of God, without becoming members of the covenant

community through circumcision.

 A Jewish Problem.  This was not a uniquely Christian problem.  W.

D. Davies has  shown that the relationship of Israel to the Gentile world

was the foremost theological problem of Judaism in the first century.73

Basically the problem for the Jews consisted in determining what

commandments the Gentiles had to observe in order for them to have a share

in the world to come.

 No clear-cut answer to this question existed in Paul's time.  Some

Jews held that Gentiles had to observe only a limited number of

commandments (Noachic Laws).  Other Jews, however, like the House of

Shammai, insisted that Gentiles had to observe the whole Law, including

circumcision.  In other words, they had to become full-fledged members of

the covenant community to share in the blessings of the world-to-come.74

 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."75

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.76  Recognition of this legalistic Gentile attitude is

important to our understanding of the background of Paul's critical remarks

about the Law.

 A Christian Problem.  The Jewish problem of whether Gentiles were

saved within or without the covenant, soon became also a Christian problem.

Before his conversion and divine commission to the Gentiles, Paul

apparently believed that Gentiles had to conform to the whole Mosaic Law,

including circumcision, in order for them to be saved.  The latter is

suggested by the phrase "but if I still preach circumcision" (Gal 5:11),

which implies that at one time he did preach circumcision as a basis of

salvation.

 After his conversion and divine commission to preach the Gospel to

the Gentiles, Paul understood that Gentiles share in the blessing of

salvation without having to become part of the covenant community through

circumcision.  To defend this conviction, we noted earlier that Paul

appeals in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 to the example of Abraham who became

the father of all who believe by faith before he was circumcised.

 In proclaiming his non-circumcision Gospel, Paul faced a double

challenge.  On the one hand, he faced the opposition of Jews and

Jewish-Christians because they failed to understand ("Israel did not

understand"-Rom 10:19) that through Christ, God had fulfilled His promises

to Abraham regarding the Gentiles.  On the other hand, Paul had to deal

with the misguided efforts of the Gentiles who were tempted to adopt

circumcision and other practices to ensure their salvation by becoming

members of the covenant community (Gal 5:2-4).

 Law as Document of Election.  To counteract the double challenge

from Jewish and Gentile Christians, Paul was forced to speak critically of

the Law as a document of election.  Several scholars have recently shown

that the concept of the covenant-so central in the Old Testament-came more

and more to be expressed by the term "Law" (torah-nomos).77  One's status

before God came to be determined by one's attitude toward the Law

(torah-nomos) as a document of election and not by obedience to specific

commandments.

 The Law came to mean a revelation of God's electing will manifested

in His covenant with Israel.  Obviously this view created a problem for the

uncircumcised Gentiles because they felt excluded from the assurance of

salvation provided by the covenant. This insecurity naturally led Gentiles

to "desire to be under Law" (Gal 4:21), that is, to become full-fledged

covenant members by receiving circumcision (Gal 5:2).  Paul felt compelled

to react strongly against this trend because it undermined the universality

of the Gospel.

 To squelch the Gentiles' "desire to be under Law,"  Paul appeals to

the Law (Pentateuch), specifically to Abraham, to argue that the mother of

his two children, Ishmael and Isaac, stand for two covenants:  the first

based on works and the second on faith (Gal 4:22-31); the first offering

"slavery" and the second resulting in "freedom."  The first, Hagar who

bears "children of slavery," is identified with the covenant of Mount Sinai

(Gal 4:24).

 Why does Paul attack so harshly the Sinai covenant which, after

all, was established by the same God who made a covenant with Abraham?

Besides, did not the Sinai covenant contain provisions of grace and

forgiveness through the sanctuary services (Ex 25-30), besides principles

of conduct (Ex 20-23)?  The answer to these questions is to be found in

Paul's concern to establish the legitimacy of the salvation of the Gentiles

as Gentiles.

 To accomplish this goal, Paul attacks the understanding of the Law

(covenant) as an exclusive document of election.  This does not mean that

he denies the possibility of salvation to Jews who accepted Christ as the

fulfillment of the Sinai covenant.  On the contrary, he explicitly

acknowledges that just as he was "entrusted with the Gospel to the

uncircumcised," so "Peter had been entrusted with the Gospel to the

circumcised" (Gal 2:7).

 Paul does not explain what was the basic difference between the two

Gospels.  We can presume that since the circumcision had become equated

with the covenant, the Gospel to the circumcised emphasized that Christ

through His blood ratified the Sinai covenant by making it operative (Matt

26:28).  This would make it possible for Jews to be saved as Jews, that is,

while retaining their identity as a covenant people.

 Note that Paul does not deny the value of circumcision for the

Jews.  On the contrary he affirms:  "Circumcision indeed is of value if you

obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision becomes

uncircumcision" (Rom 2:25).  Again in Romans 9 to 11 Paul does not rebuke

the Jews for being "Jewish" in their life-style (Rom 11:1) but rather for

failing to understand that the Gentiles in Christ have equal access to

salvation because Christ  is the goal of the Law.

CONCLUSION

 Several conclusions  emerge from our study of Paul's view of the

Law.  We noted that prior to his conversion Paul understood the Law like a

Pharisee, namely, as the external observance of commandments in order to

gain salvation (2 Cor 5:16-17). After his encounter with Christ on the

Damascus Road, Paul gradually came to realize that his Pharisaic view of

the Law as a way of salvation was wrong, because the Old Testament teaches

that salvation was promised already to Abraham through the Christ, the Seed

to come, 430 years before the giving of the Law at Sinai (Gal 3:17).

  From the perspective of the Cross, Paul rejected the Pharisaic

understanding of the Law as a means of salvation, and accepted the Old

Testament view of the Law as a revelation of God's will for human conduct.

We found that for Paul the Law is and remains God's Law (Rom 7:22, 25),

because it was given by God (Rom 9:4; 3:2),  written by Him (1 Cor 9:9;

14:21; 14:34), reveals His will (Rom 2:17, 18),  bears witness to His

righteousness (Rom 3:21), and is in accord with His promises (Gal 3:21).

  Being a revelation of God's will for mankind, the Law reveals the

nature of sin as disobedience to God.  Paul explains that "through the Law

comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20), because the Law causes people to

recognize their sins and themselves as sinners. It is evident that this

important function of the Law could hardly have terminated by Christ, since

the need to acknowledge sin in one's life is fundamental to the life of

Christians today as it was for the Israelites of old.

 The function of Christ's redemptive mission was not to abrogate the

Law, as many Christians mistakenly believe, but  to enable believers to

live out the principles of God's Law in their lives. Paul affirms that in

Christ, God has done what the Law by itself could not do, namely, He

empowers believers to live according to the "just requirements of the Law."

"For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do:

sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he

condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirements of the Law

might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according

to the Spirit" (Rom 8:3-4).

 The new life in Christ enables the Christian to keep the Law, not

as an external code, but as a loving response to God.  This is the very

thing that the Law by itself cannot do, because being an external standard

of human conduct, it cannot generate a loving response in the human heart.

By contrast, "Christ's love compels us" (2 Cor 5:14) to respond to Him by

living according to the moral principles of God's Law  (John 14:15).

 Paul recognizes that the observance of the Law can tempt people to

use it unlawfully as a means to establish their own righteousness before

God. This was the major problem of his Gentile converts who were tempted to

adopt  practices like circumcision in order to gain acceptance with God.

Paul  exposes as hopeless all attempts to be justified in God's sight by

works of the Law,  because "no human being will be justified in his sight

by the works of the Law, since through the Law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom

3:20).  Human beings in their fallen condition can never fully observe

God's Law.

 What Paul radically rejects is not of the Law, but of legalism,

that is, the attempt to establish one's righteousness through the external

observance of the Law.  Legalism ultimately blinds a person to the

righteousness which God has made available as free gift through Jesus

Christ (cf. Rom 10:3).  This was the problem with the false teachers who

were promoting circumcision as a way of salvation without Christ. By so

doing they were propagating the false notion that salvation is a human

achievement rather than a divine gift.

 The mounting pressure of Judaizers who were urging circumcision

upon the Gentiles, made it necessary for Paul to attack the exclusive

covenant-concept of the Law.  "But," as George Howard points out, "under

other circumstances he [Paul] might have insisted on the importance of

Israel's retention of her distinctiveness."78

 An understanding of the different circumstances that occasioned

Paul's discussion of the Law, is essential for resolving the apparent

contradiction between the positive and negative statements he makes about

the Law.  For example, in Ephesians 2:15, Paul speaks of the Law as having

been "abolished" by Christ, while in Romans 3:31 he explains that

justification by faith in Jesus Christ does not overthrow the Law but

"establishes" it.  In Romans 7:6, he states that "now we are discharged

from the Law" while a few verses later he writes that "the Law is holy, and

the commandment is holy and just and good" (7:12).  In Romans 3:28, he

maintains that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,"

yet in 1 Corinthians 7:19 he states that "neither circumcision counts for

anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God."

 How can Paul view the Law both as "abolished" (Eph 2:15) and

"established" (Rom 3:31), unnecessary (Rom 3:28) and necessary (1 Cor 7:19;

Eph 6:2, 3; 1 Tim 1:8-10)?  Our study suggests that the resolution to this

apparent contradiction is to be found in the  different contexts in which

Paul speaks of the Law.  When he speaks of the Law in the context of

salvation (justification-right standing before God), especially in his

polemic with Judaizers, he clearly affirms that Law-keeping is of no avail

(Rom 3:20).  On the other hand, when Paul speaks of the Law in the context

of Christian conduct (sanctification-right living before God), especially

in dealing with antinomians, then he upholds the value and validity of

God's Law (Rom 7:12; 13:8-10; 1 Cor 7:19).

 In summation, what Paul criticizes is not the moral value of the

Law as guide to Christian conduct, but the soteriological (saving)

understanding of the Law seen as a document of election that includes the

Jews and excludes the Gentiles. The failure to distinguish in Paul's

writing between his moral and soteriological usages of the Law, and the

failure to recognize that his criticism of the Law is directed especially

toward Gentiles Judaizers who were exalting the Law, especially

circumcision, as a means of salvation, has led many to fallaciously

conclude that Paul  rejects the value and validity of the Law as a whole.

Such a view is totally unwarranted because, as we have shown, Paul rejects

the Law as a method of salvation but upholds it as a moral standard of

Christian conduct.

NOTES

 I have left out intentionally the notes to be able to email this

essay in three parts of less than 50K each.  The notes will obciously

appear in the book THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE that will hopefully be out

by the end of this year.

PAUL AND THE SABBATH

PART 1: COLOSSIANS 2:14-17

APPROBATION OR CONDEMNATION OF THE SABBATH?

(1) The Colossian Heresy

 Paul's reference to the observance of "Sabbaths" in Colossians 2:16

is only one aspect of the "Colossian heresy" refuted by Paul. It is

necessary, therefore, to ascertain first of all the overall nature of the

false teachings that threatened to "disqualify" (Col 2:18) the Colossian

believers. Were these teachings Mosaic ordinances and can they be

identified with the "written document-cheirographon" which God through

Christ 'wiped out . . . removed, nailed to the cross" (Col 2:14)?

 Most commentators define the Colossian heresy as syncretistic

teachings which incorporated both Hellenistic and Jewish elements. Such a

false teaching had both a theological and practical aspect.3

 Theological Aspect. Theologically, the Colossian "philosophy" (Col

2:8) was competing with Christ for man's allegiance. Its source of

authority, according to Paul, was human "tradition" (2:8) and its object

was to impart true "wisdom" (Col 2:3, 23), "knowledge" (Col 2:2-3; 3:10)

and to assure access to and participation in the divine "fullness" (2:9-10;

1:19).

 To attain divine fullness, Christians were urged to do homage to

cosmic principalities (Col 2:10, 15), to "the elements of the universe"

(Col 2:8, 20), and to angelic powers (2:15, 18) and to follow ritualistic

ascetic practices (Col 2:11-14, 16, 17, 21-22).

 To gain protection from these cosmic powers and principalities, the

Colossian "philosophers" were urging Christians to offer cultic adoration

to angelic powers (Col 2:15,18,19,23) and to follow ritualistic and ascetic

practices (Col 2:11,14,16,17,21,22). By that process one was assured of

access to and participation in the divine "fullness-pleroma" (Col 2:9,10,

cf. 1:19). Essentially, then, the theological error consisted in

interposing inferior mediators in place of the Head Himself, Jesus Christ

(Col 2:9-10, 18-19).

 Practical Aspect. The practical outcome of the theological

speculations of the Colossian heretics was their insistence on strict

ascetism and ritualism. These consisted in "putting off the body of flesh"

(Col 2:11-apparently meaning withdrawal from the world); rigorous treatment

of the body (Col 2:23); prohibition to either taste or touch certain kinds

of foods and beverages (Col 2:16, 21), and careful observance of sacred

days and seasons-festival, new moon, Sabbath (Col 2:16).

 Christians presumably were led to believe that by submitting to

these ascetic practices, they were not surrendering their faith in Christ,

but rather they were receiving added protection and were assured of full

access to the divine fullness. This may be inferred both from Paul's

distinction between living "according to the elements of the universe" and

"according to Christ" (Col 2: 8) and from the Apostle's insistence on the

supremacy of the incarnate Christ. "In him the whole fullness of deity

dwells bodily" (Col 2:9), therefore Christian attain "the fullness-pleroma"

of life not by worshipping the elements of the universe, but through

Christ, "who is the head of all rule and authority" (2:10; cf. 1:15-20;

3:3).

 This bare outline suffice to show that the Sabbath is mentioned in

the passage not in the context of a direct discussion on the Old Covenant

law, as Ratzlaff claims,7 but rather in the context of syncretistic beliefs

and practices, which included elements from the Old Testament. Presumably

the latter provided a justification for the ascetic principles advocated by

the Colossian "philosophers." We are not informed what type of Sabbath

observance these teachers promoted, nevertheless on the basis of their

emphasis on scrupulous adherence to "regulations," it is apparent that the

day was to be observed in a most rigorous and superstitious manner.

 Circumcision and Baptism. To combat the above false teachings, Paul

chose to extol the centrality and superiority of Christ who possesses "the

fullness of deity" (Col 2:9) and provides full redemption and forgiveness

of sin (Col 2:11-14). To emphasize the certainty and fullness of Christ's

forgiveness, Paul utilizes three metaphors: circumcision, baptism, and "the

written document" (Col 2:11-14).

  Of the first two metaphors Paul says: "In him also you were

circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body

of flesh in the circumcision of Christ ; and you were buried with him in

baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the

working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in

trespasses and the uncircumcision of the flesh, God has made alive together

with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses" (Col 2:11-13).

 To support his contention that the Sabbath is part of the Old

Covenant nailed to the Cross, Ratzlaff interprets Paul's reference to the

circumcision and baptism in this passage as indicating that the Old

Covenant, of which circumcision was the entrance sign, has been replaced by

the New Covenant, of which baptism is the entrance sign. "Circumcision not

only served as the entrance sign to the old covenant, Paul shows how it

also pointed forward to Christ, yet it does not continue as a sign in the

new covenant. In the new covenant baptism replaces circumcision."8

 The problem with Ratzlaff's interpretation is his failure to

recognize that in this passage Paul is not comparing or contrasting the Old

and New Covenants, but merely affirming the benefits of Christ's death and

resurrection through the imageries of circumcision and baptism. The

imageries of circumcision and baptism are used by Paul, not to discuss the

Old and New Covenants, but to affirm the fullness of God's forgiveness,

accomplished by Christ on the cross and extended through baptism to the

Christian. The proclamation of God's forgiveness constitutes indeed Paul's

basic answer to those trying to attain to perfection by submitting to

worship of angels (Col 2:18), of the "elements of the world" (Col 2:8) by

means of ascetic practices.

(2) The Written Document Nailed to the Cross

 To further emphasize the certainty and the fullness of divine

forgiveness explicitly mentioned in verses 11-13, Paul utilizes in verse 14

a legal metaphor, namely that of God as a judge who "wiped out, . . .

removed [and] nailed to the cross . . . the written document-cheirographon."

 Mosaic Law? What is the "written document-cheirographon" nailed to

the Cross? Traditionally it has been interpreted to be the Mosaic Law with

all its ordinances, including the Sabbath, which God allegedly set aside

and nailed to the Cross. This interpretation is defended by Ratzlaff who

writes:  "What was the 'certificate of debt' or 'decrees' which were nailed

to the cross? In context, Paul has been speaking of the old covenant. Was

the old covenant 'against us'? We should remember from our study of the old

covenant that one of its functions was to act as a 'testimony' against

Israel if they sinned . . . (Deut 31:26). The cursing associated with the

broken law and the ability of the law to condemn were both taken away when

Christ was nailed to the Cross. 'There is therefore no condemnation for

those who are in Christ Jesus'" (Rom 8:1)."9

 There are several serious problems with this interpretation. First,

there is the wrong assumption that the Old Covenant was "against us." If

that were true, God would be guilty of establishing a covenant that was

against His people. Could a gracious, redeeming God do such a horrible

thing? What was against the people was not the covenant, which is God's

commitment to save, but their sins which were exposed by the Law. The

reason there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom

8:1), is not because Christ nailed to the Cross "the ability of the law to

condemn," thus leaving mankind without moral principles, but because God

sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . in order that the

just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not

according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:3-4).

 Even more serious is Ratzlaff's misinterpretation of the "written

document" that was nailed to the Cross. He interprets this document to be

the Old Covenant including the Sabbath, which God allegedly set aside and

nailed to the Cross.10 This popular and traditional interpretation has

largely been discredited by modern scholarship, for at least two reasons.

First, because as Eduard Lohse points out in his commentary to Colossians,

"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."11

 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 validity of these comments is acknowledged even by Douglas R.

De Lacey, Professor of New Testament at Cambridge University and

contributor to the scholarly symposium From Sabbath to the Lord's Day,

which is largely a response to my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. De

Lacey writes: "Bacchiocchi lays great stress on the fact that the term

nomos [law] is entirely absent from Colossians, and although his own

interpretation at times fails to convince, he is surely right in his

conclusion that this passage cannot be interpreted as stating that the

Mosaic law itself was 'wiped out' in the death of Christ."12

 Record-Book of Sin. The meaning of cheirographon, which occurs only

once in the Scripture (Col 2:14), has been clarified by recent studies on

the usage of the term in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature.13 The term is

used to denote the "record-book of sins" or a "certificate of

sin-indebtedness" but not the moral or ceremonial law. 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.

 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," or "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.

 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.

 We conclude then that the document nailed to the Cross is not the

Law in general or the Sabbath in particular, but rather the record of our

sins. Any attempt to read into this text a reference to the Law or the

Sabbath, lacks contextual and linguistic support.

(3) Approbation or Condemnation of Sabbathkeeping?

 Having refuted the theological speculations of the Colossian false

teachers by reaffirming the supremacy of Christ and the fullness of His

redemption (Col 2:8-15), Paul turns to some practical aspects of their

religious practices, saying: "Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in

questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a

sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance

belongs to Christ" (Col 2:16-17).

 Warning Against the Sabbath? Historically this passage has been

interpreted, as stated by Luther, that "here Paul abolished the Sabbath by

name and called it a bygone shadow because the body, which is Christ

himself, has come."14  Ratzlaff interprets the passage along the same line,

saying: "The context makes it clear that Paul is against those who are

trying to force the Colossians to keep the Sabbath and other old covenant

convocations. They are to allow no one to make them feel guilty for not

observing them."15  He interprets the statement "Therefore, let no one pass

judgment on you . . ." as a warning from Paul against the five mentioned

practices, which include the Sabbath.16

  This interpretation is wrong because in this passage Paul warns

the Colossians not against the observances of these practices as such, but

against "anyone" (tis) who passes judgment on how to eat, to drink, and to

observe sacred times. The judge who passed judgment is not Paul but the

Colossian false teachers who imposed "regulations" (Col 2:20) on how to

observe these practices in order to achieve "rigor of devotion and

self-abasement and severity to the body" (Col 2:23).

  Douglas De Lacey, a contributor to the scholarly symposium From

Sabbath to the Lord's Day cited earlier, rightly comments: "The judge is

likely to be a man of ascetic tendencies who objects to the Colossians'

eating and drinking. The most natural way of taking the rest of the passage

is not that he also imposes a ritual of feast days, but rather that he

objects to certain elements of such observation."17 Presumably the "judge"

wanted the community to observe these practices in a more ascetic way

("severity to the body"-Col 2:23, 21); to put it crudely, he wanted the

Colossian believers to do less feasting and more fasting.

 Approbation of the Sabbath. By warning against the right of the

false teachers to "pass judgment" on how to observe festivals, Paul is

challenging not the validity of the festivals as such but the authority of

the false teachers to legislate on the manner of their observance. The

obvious implication then is that Paul in this text is expressing not a

condemnation but an approbation of the mentioned practices, which include

Sabbathkeeping.

 It is noteworthy that even De Lacey reaches this conclusion, in

spite of his view that Paul did not expect Gentile converts to observe the

Sabbath. He writes: "Here again (Col 2:16), then, it seems that Paul could

happily countenance Sabbathkeeping . . . However, we interpret the

situation, Paul's statement 'Let no one pass judgement on you,' indicates

that no stringent regulations are to be laid down over the use of

festivals."18

 Troy Martin, Professor at Saint Xavier University in Chicago, comes

to the same conclusion in a recent article published in New Testament

Studies. He writes: "This essay provides evidence that the Pauline

community at Colossae, not the opponents, practices the temporal schemes

outlined by Colossians 2:16. . . . This investigation into the function of

the list in Colossians 2:16 indicates that the Colossians Christians, not

their critics, participate in a religious calendar that includes festivals,

new moons, and Sabbaths."19

 It is encouraging to see scholars finally recognizing that,

contrary to the traditional and popular interpretation advocated by people

like Ratzlaff, Colossians 2:16 is not the death knell of Sabbathkeeping in

the New Testament, but instead a proof of its Pauline approbation. Why does

Ratzlaff totally ignores the conclusion of Prof. De Lacey (and others),

though he uses the symposium as the major resource for his own book?  Most

likely because he does not want readers to learn about anything that

contradicts from his anti-Sabbath interpretation of Colossians 2:16. This

methodology is hardly reflective of responsible scholarship which requires

the examination of opposing views, before presenting one's own conclusions.

(4) The Manner of Sabbathkeeping

  . What is the nature of the "regulations" promoted by the

Colossians false teachers regarding food and festivals, including the

weekly Sabbath? Regretfully, Paul gives us only few catch phrases such as

"self-abasement and worship of angels," "rigor of devotion . . . severity

to the body" (Col 2:18, 23) and that they taught: "Do not handle, Do not

taste, Do not touch" (Col 2:21). These catch phrases indicate that the

regulations did not derive from the Levitical law since nowhere does the

latter contemplate such an ascetic program. Though the nomenclature of the

festivals is Jewish, the motivation and manner of their observance stems

from pagan syncretistic ideologies.

 In the ancient world there was a widespread belief that ascetism

and fasting enabled a person to come closer to a deity and to receive

divine revelation.21 In the case of the Colossian "philosophy," the dietary

taboos and the observance of sacred times were apparently regarded as an

expression of subjection to and worship of the cosmic powers (elements) of

the universe.

 Paul's warning against the "regulations" of the false teachers, can

hardly be interpreted as a condemnation of Mosaic laws regarding food and

festivals, since what the Apostle condemns is not the teachings of Moses

but their perverted use by the Colossian false teachers. A precept is not

nullified by the condemnation of its perversion.

 Shadow of the Reality. Paul continues his argument in the following

verse, saying: "These are the shadow of what is to come; but the substance

belongs to Christ" (Col 2:17). To what does the relative pronoun "these"

(ha in Greek) refer? Does it refer to the five practices mentioned in the

previous verse or to the "regulations" (dogmata) regarding these practices

promoted by the false teachers?

 In a previous study I argued for the former, suggesting that Paul

places dietary practices and the observance of days "in their proper

perspective with Christ by means of the contrast 'shadow-body.'"22

Additional reflection has caused me to change my mind and to agree with

Eduard Lohse that the relative pronoun "these" refers not to the five

mentioned-practices as such, but rather to the "regulations" regarding such

practices promoted by the false teachers.23

 A Reference to "Regulations." This conclusion is supported by two

considerations. First, in verse 16 Paul is not warning against the merits

or demerits of the Mosaic law regarding food and festivals, but against the

"regulations" regarding these practices advocated by the false teachers.

Thus, it is more plausible to take "the regulations" rather than the actual

practices as the antecedent of "these."

 Second, in the verses that immediately follow, Paul continues his

warning against the deceptive teachings, saying, for example, "Let no one

disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement . . ." (Col 2:18); "Why do you

submit to regulations, 'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch'" (Col

2:20-21)? Since what precedes and what follows that relative pronoun

"these" deals with the "regulations" of the Colossian "philosophy," it is

most likely that Paul describes the latter as "a shadow of what is to come"

(Col 2:17).

 The proponents of the Colossian "philosophy" presumably maintained

that their "regulations" represented a copy which enabled the believer to

have access to the reality ("fullness"). In such a case, Paul is turning

their argument against them by saying that their regulations "are only a

shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col 2:17).

By emphasizing that Christ is the "body" and the "head" (Col 2:17, 19),

Paul indicates that any "shadow" cast by the regulations has no significant

value.

 In the light of the above indications, we conclude that what Paul

calls a "bygone shadow" is not the Sabbath but the deceptive teachings of

the Colossian "philosophy" which promoted dietary practices and the

observance of sacred times as auxiliary aids to salvation.

(5) The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16

  The "regulations" advocated by the Colossian "philosophy" had to

do not only with "food and drink" but also with sacred times referred to as

"a festival or a new moon or a sabbath" (Col 2:16). Commentators agree that

these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual,

monthly, and weekly), as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times.

This interpretation is validated by the occurrence of these terms in

similar or reverse sequence five times in the Septuagint and several other

times in other literature.24

 Some view the "sabbaths-sabbaton" as a reference to annual

ceremonial Sabbaths rather than the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:6-8, 21, 24- 25,

27- 28, 37- 38).25 Such a view, however, breaks the logical and progressive

sequence and ignores the fact that in the Septuagint the annual ceremonial

Sabbaths are never designated simply as "sabbath" (sabbaton), but always

with the compound expression "Sabbath of Sabbaths" (sabbata sabbaton).

Indications such as these compellingly show that the word "sabbaton" used

in Colossians 2:16 cannot refer to any of the annual ceremonial Sabbaths.

 Weekdays. The plural form "Sabbaths" (sabbaton) is used in the

Scripture to designate not only the seventh-day Sabbath but also the week

as a whole (LXX Ps 23:1; 47:1; 93:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7). This

fact suggests the possibility that the term "Sabbath" may refer to weekdays

as a whole.26 The latter view harmonizes better with the sequence of the

enumeration which suggests yearly, monthly, and weekly festivities.

 A similar sequence, though in a reverse order, is given by Paul in

Galatians 4:10 where he opposes a strikingly similar teaching which

included the observance of "days, and months, and seasons, and years." The

fact that the Galatian list begins with "days" (hemeras, plural), suggests

the possibility that the "Sabbaths" in Colossians may also refer to

weekdays in general rather than to the seventh-day Sabbath in particular.

  Assuming for the sake of inquiry that the "sabbaths" in Colossians

do refer to or include the Sabbath day, the question to be considered is:

What kind of Sabbath observance would the false teachers advocate? The data

provided by Colossians are too meager to answer this question conclusively.

Yet the nature of the heresy allows us to conclude that the rigoristic

emphasis on the observance of dietary rules would undoubtedly be carried

over to Sabbathkeeping as well. The veneration of "the elements of the

universe" would also affect the observance of the Sabbath and of sacred

times, since it was commonly believed that the astral powers, which direct

the stars, control both the calendar and human lives.27

 We know that in the pagan world Saturday was regarded as an unlucky

day because of its association with the planet Saturn.28 In view of the

prevailing astral superstitions associated with the days of the week, any

Sabbath observance promoted by the Colossians' ascetic teachers-known for

their worship of the elements of the world-could only have been of a

rigorous, superstitious type. A warning against such a superstitious type

of Sabbathkeeping by Paul would have been not only appropriate but also

desirable. In this case Paul could be attacking not the principle of

Sabbathkeeping but its perverted function and motivation which adulterated

the ground of salvation. This conclusion is confirmed by two other Pauline

passages (Rom 14:4-5; Gal 4:10) to be considered now.

PART 2

THE SABBATH IN ROMANS AND GALATIANS

(1) The Sabbath in Romans

 The Sabbath is not specifically mentioned in Paul's Epistle to the

Romans. However, in chapter 14, the Apostle distinguishes between two types

of believers: the "strong" who believed "he may eat anything" and the

"weak" who ate only "vegetables" and drank no wine (Rom 14:2, 21). The

difference extended also to the observance of days, as indicated by Paul's

statement: "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another

man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own

mind" (Rom 14:5).

 Many Christians maintain that the weekly Sabbath comes within the

scope of this distinction respecting days. They presume that the "weak"

believers esteemed the Sabbath better than other days while "the strong"

treated the Sabbath like the rest of the weekdays. For example, the

Worldwide Church of God uses Romans 14:5 to argue that "Paul did not teach

Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath. He actually told them that the

Sabbath was not an area in which we should be judged."29 "That is because

something had happened to change the basis of our relationship with God . .

. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because of that, the

Old Covenant laws came to an end. Days are no longer a matter for judging

behavior."30 On a similar vein Ratzlaff concludes that "The 'days'

mentioned in this chapter [Rom 14:5] that some 'regard' and 'observe' over

other days, are probably Sabbath days, although the evidence is not

conclusive."31

 No Reference to Mosaic Law. Can the Sabbath be legitimately read

into this passage? The answer is "No!" for at least three reasons. First,

the conflict between the "weak" and the "strong" over diet and days can

hardly be traced back to the Mosaic law. The "weak man" who "eats only

vegetables" (Rom 14:2). drinks no wine, (Rom 14:21) and "esteems one day as

better [apparently for fasting] than another" (Rom 14:5) can claim no

support for such convictions from the Old Testament. Nowhere does the

Mosaic law prescribe strict vegetarianism, total abstinence from fermented

and unfermented wine32 and a preference for fasting days.

 Similarly the "strong man" who "believes he may eat anything" (Rom

14:2) and who "esteems all days alike" is not asserting his freedom from

the Mosaic law but from ascetic beliefs apparently derived from sectarian

movements. The whole discussion then is not about freedom to observe the

law versus freedom from its observance, but concerns "unessential" scruples

of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human conventions and

superstitions. Since these differing convictions and practices did not

undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and

respect in this matter.

 That the Mosaic law is not at stake in Romans 14 is also indicated

by the term "koinos-common" which is used in verse 14 to designate

"unclean" food. This term is radically different from the word

"akathartos-impure" used in Leviticus 11 (Septuagint) to designate unlawful

foods. This suggest that the dispute was over meat which was unlawful

according to the Mosaic Law, but about meat which per se was lawful to eat

but because of its association with idol worship (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-13) was

regarded by some as "koinos-common," that is, to be avoided by Christians.

 The whole discussion in Romans 14 is not about freedom to observe

the Law versus freedom from its observance, but concerns "unessential"

scruples of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human

conventions and superstitions. Since these differing convictions and

practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual

tolerance and respect in this matter.

 A second point to note is that Paul applies the basic principle

"observe it in honor of the Lord" (Rom 14:6) only to the case of the person

"who observes the day." He never says the opposite, namely, "the man who

esteems all days alike, esteems them in honor of the Lord."

 In other words, with regard to diet, Paul teaches that one can

honor the Lord both by eating and by abstaining (Rom 14:6) but with regard

to days, he does not even concede that the person who regards all the days

alike does so to the Lord. Thus Paul hardly gives his endorsement to those

who esteemed all days alike.

 Sabbathkeeping: For "Weak" Believers? Finally, if as generally

presumed, it was the "weak" believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would

classify himself with the "weak" since he observed the Sabbath and other

Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4, 19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views

himself as "strong" ("we who are strong"-Rom 15:1); thus, he could hardly

have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over

days.

 Support for this conclusion is provided also by Paul's advice: "Let

every one be fully convinced in his own mind" (14:5). It is difficult to

see how Paul could reduce the observance of holy days such as the Sabbath,

Passover, and Pentecost to a matter of personal conviction, without ever

explaining the reasons for it. This is all the more surprising since he

labors at great length to explain why circumcision was not binding upon the

Gentiles.

 If Paul had taught his Gentile converts to regard Sabbathkeeping as

a personal matter, Jewish Christians would readily have attacked his

temerity in setting aside the Sabbath law, as they did regarding

circumcision (Acts 21:21). The fact that there is no hint of any such

controversy in the New Testament indicates that Paul never discouraged

Sabbathkeeping or encouraged Sundaykeeping instead.33

 No Hint of Conflict. The preference over days in Romans presumably

had to do with fast-days rather than feast-days, since the context deals

with abstinence from meat and wine (Rom 14:2, 6, 21). Support for this view

is provided by the Didache (ch. 8) which enjoins Christians to fast on

Wednesday and Friday rather than on Monday and Thursday like the Jews.

 Paul refuses to deliberate on such private matters such as fasting,

because he recognizes that spiritual exercises can be performed in

different ways by different people. The important thing for Paul is to

"pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding" (Rom 14:19).

  If the conflict in the Roman Church had been over the observance

of holy days, the problem would have been even more manifest than the one

over diet. After all, eating habits are a private matter, but

Sabbathkeeping is a public, religious exercise of the whole community. Any

disagreement on the latter would have been not only noticeable but also

inflammatory.

 The fact that Paul devotes 21 verses to the discussion of food and

less than two verses (Rom 14:5-6) to that of days suggests that the latter

was a very limited problem for the Roman Church, presumably because it had

to do with private conviction on the merit or demerit of doing certain

spiritual exercises such as fasting on some specific days.

 In the Roman world there was a superstitious belief that certain

days were more favorable than others for undertaking some specific

projects. The Fathers frequently rebuked Christians for adopting such a

superstitious mentality.34 It is possible that Paul alludes to this kind of

problem, which at his time, however, was still too small to deserve much

attention. Since these practices did not undermine the essence of the

Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect on this matter. In the

light of these considerations, we conclude that it is hardly possible that

Sabbathkeeping is included in the "days" of Romans 14:5.

(2) The Sabbath in Galatians

 In Galatians, as in Romans, there is no specific reference to the

Sabbath. Paul does mention, however, that some Galatian Christians had

themselves circumcised (Gal 6:12; 5:2) and had begun to "observe days, and

months, and seasons, and years" (Gal 4:10).

 In many respects the polemic in Galatians 4:8-11 is strikingly

similar to that of Colossians 2:8-23. In both places the superstitious

observance of sacred times is described as slavery to the "elements." In

Galatians, however, the denunciation of the "false teachers" is stronger.

They are regarded as "accursed" (Gal 1:8, 9) because they were teaching a

"different gospel." Their teaching that the observance of days and seasons

was necessary to justification and salvation perverted the very heart of

the Gospel (Gal 5:4).

 Pagan Days or Sabbath Day?  The question to be addressed is whether

the "days" (hemerai-Gal 4:10) observed by the Galatians were superstitious

pagan holidays or the Biblical Sabbath day. Some scholars argue on the

basis of the parallel passage of Colossians 2:16, where "sabbaths" are

explicitly mentioned, that the "days" mentioned in Galatians were the

Biblical seventh-day Sabbaths 35

 Ratzlaff affirms categorically this conclusion saying: "We have a

clear reference to the seventh-day Sabbath in this passage [Gal 4:10] for

the following four reasons. (1) The context of the book of Galatians,

including chapter 4, is dealing with those "who want to be under the law."

(2) Paul's use of "elemental things" usually, if not always, refer to that

which is contained in the old covenant. (3) The Galatians were observing

days, months, seasons, and years, thus placing themselves back under the

old covenant law. (40 These convocations are listed in order."36

 Comparison of Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10. The fundamental

problem with Ratzlaff's four reasons, is the fact that they are based on

gratuitous assumptions rather than on a careful analysis of the context. In

the immediate context Paul reminds the Galatians that in their

pre-Christian days they "were slaves to the elemental spirits of the

universe" (Gal 4:3). The "elemental spirits-stoikeia tou kosmou" have

nothing to do with the Old Covenant, since the Mosaic Law was unknown to

the Corinthians in their pagan days. Most scholars interpret the "elements"

as the basic elements of this world, such as the earth, water, air, and

fire, or pagan astral gods who were credited with controlling human

destiny.37

 The context clearly indicates that Paul rebukes the Galatians for

turning back to their pagan days by reverting to their pagan calendar.

Thus, the issue is not their adoption of Jewish Holy Days, but their

returning to observance of pagan superstitious days. Paul makes this point

rather clearly: "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage

to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know

God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak

and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more? You

observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid that I have

labored over you in vain" (Gal 4:8-10).

 Two recent articles by Troy Martin, published in New Testament

Studies and the Journal of Biblical Literature, make a significant

contribution to the understanding of the passage under consideration.

Martin points out that there is a clear difference between the time-keeping

scheme found in Galatians 4:10 ("days, and months, and seasons, and years")

and that found in Colossians 2:16 ("a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths").

He shows that while the list in Colossians 2:16 is unquestionably Jewish

because the temporal categories of festival, new moon, and Sabbaths are

characteristic of the Jewish religious calendar, the list in Galatians 4:10

of "days, and months, and seasons, and years" "describes a pagan calendar

unacceptable to Paul and his communities."38

 Martin reaches this conclusion by examining not only the time

structure of pagan calendars,39 but especially the immediate context where

Paul condemns the Galatians' attempt to return to their pagan practices

(Gal 4:8-9) by reverting to the use of their pagan calendar. "As the

immediate context clearly states, Paul is worried that he has labored for

the Galatians in vain since they have returned to their former pagan life

as evidenced by their renewed preconversion reckoning of time. Because of

its association with idolatry and false deities, marking time according to

this pagan scheme is tantamount to rejecting Paul's Gospel and the one and

only true God it proclaims (Gal 4:8-9). Galatians 4:10, therefore,

stipulates that when the Galatians accepted Paul's Gospel with its aversion

to idolatry (Gal 4:8), they discarded their pagan method of reckoning time.

. . . A comparison of these lists demonstrates that the Gentile conversion

to Paul's gospel involves rejection of idolatrous pagan temporal schemes in

favor of the Jewish liturgical calendar."40

 Gentiles' Adoption of Jewish Calendar. The conclusion of Troy

Martin that the Gentiles' conversion to the Gospel involved the rejection

of their pagan calendar built upon the idolatrous worship of many gods, and

the adoption of the Jewish religious calendar which had been transformed by

Christ's coming, represents in my view a significant breakthrough in our

understanding of the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.

 Paul's time references clearly reflect his adoption of the Jewish

religious calendar, though modified and transformed by the coming of

Christ. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul recommends a fund-raising

plan for the Jerusalem church consisting of laying aside at home some money

kata mian sabbaton, that is, "every first day from the Sabbath." The fact

that Paul refers to the first day of the week, not by the prevailing pagan

name dies solis-Day of the Sun, but by the Jewish designation "first day

from the Sabbath," reveals that he taught his Gentile converts to regulate

their lives by the Jewish calendar.

 In the same epistle Paul builds an elaborate argument based upon

the festival of Passover and unleavened bread (1 Cor 5:6-8) in order to

exhort the Corinthians, "Let us keep the festival" (1 Cor 5:6-8). The whole

argument and exhortation to keep Passover would have been meaningless to

the Gentile congregation of Corinth, unless Paul had taught about the

Jewish religious calendar. In the light of these considerations we would

conclude with Martin, that " although the temporal references in Paul's

letters are sparse, 1 Corinthians provides strong evidence for the Pauline

adoption of the Jewish practice that marked time by festivals and

Sabbaths."41

 The fact that Paul taught his Gentile congregations to reject their

pagan calendar where the days were named after planetary gods and the

months after deified emperors, and to reckon time instead according to the

Jewish religious calendar, does not necessarily mean that he taught them to

practice Jewish religious rituals. The Romans themselves replaced just

before the origin of Christianity their "eight day week-nundinum" with the

Jewish seven day week, and adopted in the first century the Jewish Sabbath

as their new day for rest and feasting, without the concomitant adoption of

the Jewish rituals.43 By the same token Paul taught his Gentile converts to

reckon time according to the Jewish religious calendar, without expecting

them to practice the rituals associated with it. A good example is Paul's

discussion of the new meaning of the feasts of Passover and Unleavened

Bread in the light of Christ's event (1 Cor 5:6-8).43

 Superstitious Motivation. Our preceding discussion has served to

show that the temporal categories of Galatians 4:10 ("days, and months, and

seasons, and years" ) are pagan and not Jewish, like the list found in