Thoughts on Romans 10:4

Note updated to correct some typos and flesh out the idea a bit more.

In the MSI Romans class, we talk a fair amount about two Greek words:

• telos - Usually translated "end", but more often means "goal" or "purpose"
• nomos - Usually translated either "law" or "Law", but can also mean "rule" or "instruction"

In Romans 10:4, Paul uses these two words together.  It is generally translated as something along the line:

"Christ is the end (telos) of the Law (nomos) so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

Various translators and commentators have struggled mightily with this phrase, trying to reconcile the meaning of "end of the Law" with the Paul who is depicted in Acts as a Torah-observant Jew.

Some bail entirely on the question of whether telos means "cessation" or "goal" here, and refer to the latter portion of the verse "so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" to establish the idea that either way, the Law is irrelevant for the Believer.

I would like us to look at another word to try to identify how a Torah-observant Jew might have written and meant Romans 10:4 - Christos

In the 1st Century, there were a number of different expectations or images of the Messiah. For our purpose here, we'll focus on two of them:

• Moshiach ben David - the conquering King who brings the Kingdom of God to Earth
• Moshiach ben Joseph - the suffering servant who takes upon himself the penalty for sin.

Each of these visions of the Messiah are testified to by the Prophets, hence the two different images of the Messiah.  I would like us to consider these two Christoi in the light of Paul's statement.  This may be the key question in applying this passage: Which Messiah is the "end game" of God's promise to mankind (via Israel)?

If Easter and Pentecost are the end game of Scripture, then the question of the "cessation of the Law" is up for consideration for both Paul and us.  Christ clearly died as Moshiach ben Joseph and that is that.

But what about Moshiach ben David?  If you take the position that the Revelation is a stand-alone document, and needs no support from the Old Testament to be valid, then you don't need Moshiach ben David to support the return as a conquering king.   However, there is very little in Revelation that makes one lick of sense without the Old Testament.

If, however, Moshiach ben David is the end game of Scripture, then no matter how we want to play with telos and nomos, Torah still has meaning and purpose, because the Messiah that is the telos of the nomos is still to come.

So, either the death and resurrection of the Messiah brings righteousness for everyone who believes, or the return of the Davidic King to establish God's reign on the Earth brings righteousness for everyone who believes.

If it is the death and resurrection that brings righteousness, then what are we to make of Paul's own struggle with sin as detailed elsewhere in the letter?

I suspect that Paul was looking towards the Davidic reign, when "the full number of Gentiles" has come in, and "all Israel will be saved". 

I plan on developing these thoughts further, but for the moment, I invite comment.