Badenas, Christ the End, Introduction 단숨에 읽는 바울 6장

[Bong Hwan Goo]

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=5uiRBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ko#v=onepage&q&f=false

Christ the End of the Law

구글북스에서 미리보기로 일부 읽을 수 있다.

로마서 10:4 의 모호한 의미에 대해 탐구한 바데나스의 책이다. "그리스도는 율법의 마침이다"는 이 구절에 대해
'마침'으로 번역된 그리스어 텔로스 telos에 대한 연구는 바울신학의 아직도 풀리지 않은 난제 중 하나이다.

바클레이는 그의 책 [단바 - 단숨에 읽는 바울] 6장에서 신약의 정경이 된 바울의 편지들에 대해 말한다. 베드로후서 3:15 - 16 본문을 인용하여 바울서신이 이제 정경의 지위를 획득했음을 말한다. 그는 이 구절에서 다음 4가지의 시사점을 말한다.

첫째, 바울의 편지들은 이해하기 어렵다.
둘째, 그의 편지는 성경의 지위를 가진 권위있는 글이다.
셋째, 그의 편지는 해석상 논란의 여지가 많다.
넷째, 해석상의 논란이 너무 컸기 때문에 구원 자체가 위험에 처하게 되었다.

그의 4가지 시사점 중 마지막 것에 대해 잠시 생각해 볼 필요가 있다. 바로 로마서 10:4 에서 텔로스가 '마침'인가? 아니면 '완성'인가? 의 문제를 예로 든다.

초대교회 시기부터 속사도시대와 중세를 거쳐 종교개혁 당시까지 롬 10:4 은 구원에 있어서 구약과 신약을 연결하는 중요한 구절로 생각되었다. 이를 달리 말하면 완성론적이고 목적론적인 의미로 이해되었다. 왜냐하면 롬 10:4 에서 중요한 어휘는 텔로스보다는 '노모스(율법)'이기 때문이다. 노모스는 일반적으로 구약성경을 말하는 것으로 이해된다. 따라서 "텔로스 노무 크리스토스"는 구약이 일관되게 그리스도를 가리키며 율법의 목적이 그리스도 안에서 완성되는 것으로 이해되었다.
(Badenas, 1985, p.8.에 보면 다음과 같다. During the first 150 years of our era, the greatest part of Christian exegesis was that of the OT. Its main concern was to prove that the Hebrew Scriptures had been fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah.)


하지만 루터의 종교개혁이 일어나면서 구약과는 단절된 새로운 구원의 프레임이 요청되었다. 구약의 율법으로는 도무지 구원을 이룰 수 없는데 그 이유는 율법의 조항들을 다 지킬 수 있는 사람은 없기 때문이다. 따라서 율법이 아니라 그리스도를 믿는 믿음으로만 구원이 가능하다. 그러기 위해서 그리스도는 율법의 끝마침이 되어야 했다. 그래서 텔로스는 마침의 의미가 되어야 한다.

하지만 이런 해석은 구약 시대부터 인류의 구원을 작정하시고 실행해 오신 하나님의 섭리의 연속성이 손상을 입게 된다. 그러므로 구약의 율법을 통해 인류를 구원하고자 했던 하나님의 구속은 그리스도에 이르러 완성된 것이어야 한다. 그런데 이렇게 이해하게 되면 율법과 믿음 둘 다 구원을 이루는 방편이라는 의미를 내포하게 된다.

이 점에서 루터파와 칼빈파는 서로 다른 태도를 취하게 되었다고 바클레이는 말한다. 물론 바클레이는 텔로스에 대해 위와 같은 자세한 설명을 하지는 않는다. 다만 바울이 의도한 텔로스의 의미가 마침인가? 아니면 완성인가? 하고 질문만 제기할 뿐이다. 이 문제는 성서신학과 조직신학에서 각기 다른 방법으로 다룬다. 성서신학에서는 본문의 주해의 측면에서, 그리고 조직신학에서는 구윈론과 기독론 및 종말론 등과의 통합적인 함의의 측면에서 다룬다. 물론 이 경우에도 해석상의 문제를 언급하지만...

이 글의 제목으로 정한 Badenas는 텔로스의 문제를 집중 연구한 학자이다. 1985 년 발간된 그의 책의 서문을 보면 그는 이 문제를 성서신학의 입장에서 텔로스의 의미를 탐구한다고 한다. 아래에 그의 서문을 그대로 싣는다. 헬라어 부분은 일일히 고치지 않고 해당 페이지의 이미지를 첨부했다. 구글번역의 도움을 받으면 대략적인 의미 파악이 가능하다.

바클레이는 그의 [단바] 6장에서 이제 바울의 편지들은 구약성경과 같은 지위를 갖게 되었다고 하면서 이 지위에 맞게 특별한 읽기 방식으로 읽어야 한다고 말한다. 비로소 그의 편지들도 살아서 역사하는 하나님의 말씀의 일부가 된 것이다. 하지만 바울의 편지들이 역사적으로 어떤 과정을 거쳐 정경이 되었는지 역사학자들의 도움을 받아 정확히 알아야 한다. 그래야 우리의 신학적 탐구가 사실에 있어서도 오류가 없게 되기 때문이다. 바클레이는 6장에서 정경이 된 바울의 편지들이 갖는 애매한 표현과 문장들을 나열하면서 그러한 바울의 말들의 모호성에도 불구하고 그것이 성경이라는 것의 의미를 말한다. 바울의 편지들을 해석하는 데 얼마나 많은 역사적 지식이 필요하든지 간에 그의 목소리는 그의 생전뿐 아니라 오늘날까지도 계속 그의 독자들에게 들려야 한다. 그런 역할과 기능을 바울의 글들이 지금도 수행하고 있다. 특히 그의 편지들의 풍성한 목회적 함의들은 수세기에 걸쳐 설교자들과 교회 개척자들에게 끊임없는 자원을 제공하는 심오하고 광범위한 유산이다. 이것이 바클레이가 6장에서 말하고자 하는 요지이다.


아래 바데나스의 서문도 공부하기 바란다.



그리스도는 모든 믿는 자에게 의를 이루기 위하여 율법의 마침이 되시니라 (롬10:4)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4, KJV)



INTRODUCTION

We owe to Paul the shape of many of the most common and oft-repeated expressions of our theological language. Some of them beautifully convey, in a minimum of words, the basic concepts of Christianity, and are so concisely and successfully worded that they have become axiomatic in current theological speech. But, as is commonly known, phrases frequently repeated become so common-place that they sometimes lose not only their force but also their original meaning.
This seems to have happened with the statement 'Christ is the end of the law' (Rom 10.4). There are few Pauline statements more used and abused than this one. Utilized either as an easy caption1 or as a stereotyped slogan,2 the phrase 'Christ is the end of the law' is too often used without any specification of its meaning, which is either assumed—generally in the sense that 'Christ has put an end to the law'3—or taken for granted—in whatever sense—as absolutely self-evident.4 Paradoxically, there are few Pauline statements more ambiguous and controversial than this one. Although Rom 10.4 seems, at first glance, an 'easy text'—no textual variants, no special problems of grammar, no hapax legomena—it has exercised exegetes of all times and has been considered 'one of the most hotly debated passages in the Pauline epistles'.5 The uncertainty of its meaning is due, partly, to the confusing ambiguity which surrounds Paul's use of the term 'law' (vojaoq), but principally to the perplexing polysemy of the word 'end' (xeXoq). Thus, although there is also some difficulty in the translation of vojuioq,6 the main problem of Rom 10.4 centers around the meaning of teXoq, which seems to be the determinant element for the understanding not only of the phrase xeXoq vojutou, but of the whole verse, and possibly even of the whole passage.7 However, since vojuioq is a theologoumenon of extremely great importance in Paul's theology it has monopolized the interest of exegetes of Rom 10.4 and attracted the attention of scholarship to the question of the law. Depending on the particular place of the law in

2 Christ the End of the Law

the theology of each scholar, xekoq has been translated in a positive or in a negative way. Not being a theological term per se, and playing only an auxiliary role in Paul's theological language, xekoq has been given very little attention thus far.
Yet, even lesser words may have been used by Paul in certain statements with a very important theological intention. They may significantly modify key sentences and introduce into them some particular nuances revealing profound aspects of Paul's thought. The contention of the present study is that xehD<; in Rom 10.4 is one of these words, and that the determination of its meaning is crucial for the understanding of the whole passage.
The problem of the interpretation of Rom 10.4 is a long-unresolved question. Moses Stuart, 150 years ago, already called Rom 10.4 'a long agitated and much controverted text'.8 In spite of all the efforts which have been devoted to the exegesis of this verse, the endless debate around the meaning of xekoq not only has never ceased, but 'has always been a focus of exegetical discussion'.9 Notwithstanding the considerable amount of literature recently dedicated to the problem of Rom 10.4, including three doctoral dissertations,10 the 'never-ceasing controversy'11 still goes on. The question of the meaning of xeXoq has not been resolved, and Rom 10.4 is still today a 'much disputed and notorious crux'.12 The polysemy of reAxx;13 has given rise to an incredibly wide spectrum of interpretations, covering practically the whole range of meaning of the Greek word, namely: 'termination',14 'terminus',15 'limit',16 'cessation',17 'abrogation',18 'abolition',19 'conclusion',20 'consummation',21 'completion',22 'culmination',23 'climax',24 'ful-fillment',25 'aim',26 'goal',27 'purpose',28 'object',29 'intent',30 'Final Cause',31 'sense and meaning',32 and even 'toll'.33 On the basis of the numerous meanings of xeXoq and the various nuances of vo^icx;, Rom 10.4 has been interpreted in such different ways as: 'Christ means the end of the struggle for righteousness-by-the-law',34 'Christ has brought the era of the law to an end',35 '(in Christ) the Jewish religion is superseded',36 'The law is set aside as a way of salvation by the Christ event',37 'Christ has superseded the law',38 'Christ is the climactic development of the law',39 'Christ has brought the law to completion',40 'The law finds its fulfillment in Christ',41 'Christ is the end that the law had in view',42 'Christ is the goal to which the law pointed',43 or 'Christ has completed the purpose of the law'.44

Introduction 3

Although some of the above interpretations deserve to be treated separately, they may conveniently be summed up into three categories corresponding to the three main shades of meaning which have been traditionally attributed to zekoq in Rom 10.4:
(1) temporal/terminal;
(2) perfective/completive; and
(3) teleological.

The controversy and debate centers particularly on the opposition between the temporal and the teleological interpretations,45 although there is increasing interest in a mediating position which defends the compatability of both interpretations.
The supporters of the temporal interpretation contend that xeXoq must be translated in Rom 10.4 by 'end' in the sense of'termination', 'cessation', or 'abrogation'. Since they generally approach Rom 9.30-10.21 from the hermeneutical perspective of law versus gospel (or works versus faith), they interpret the phrase 'Christ is the end of the law' in the sense that 'Christ has put an end to the law', implying by it that the law is no longer binding for Christians.46 Thus, as Rhyne has rightly observed, 'more than any other text Rom 10.4 has become the locus classicus for expressing the discontinuity between the Church and the Old Testament'.47 Explained in several different ways,48 the temporal interpretation is the prevailing one in modern Pauline scholarship.49 However, the temporal interpretation is not the earliest nor has it been universally accepted. The Early Fathers, the Reformers, and many among their theological heirs have claimed for zzkoq the basic meaning that was common to this word in classical Greek. Thus, understanding zehzq either as 'goal', 'object', or 'fulfillment', they have interpreted Rom 10.4 as one of the basic statements of the continuity between the Hebrew Scriptures and Christ, meaning that in Christ the law (understood as the law of God, as the Jewish Torah, or as the Old Testament) has reached its purpose, completion, or fulfillment.50 So we face the surprising situation that the same text is used to support two opposite views of the relationship between the law and Christ, both by those who see a total rupture between the Old Testament and Christianity, and by those who see a harmonious continuity between the two.
But, equally surprising, we find that Rom 10.4 has also become the most important rallying point for those who attempt to mediate between the extremes of discontinuity and continuity! For a growing number of scholars51 the temporal and the teleological meanings of are not exclusive, but complementary. Thus, they contend that

4 Christ the End of the Law

somewhat opposing meanings of'goal', 'fulfillment', and/or 'termin-ation' are simultaneously possible in the word under discussion.
So, the inevitable question is: What is the real meaning of xeAxx; in Rom 10.4? Is it temporal ('Christ has abolished the law'), completive ('Christ has fulfilled the law'), teleological ('the law pointed to Christ'), or all of these at the same time? Is there a way of removing the ambiguity of this perplexing phrase, or must we conclude, with John W. Drane, that 'the ambiguity was intentional on Paul's part'52 and, therefore, resign ourselves never to know what Paul meant?
The importance of these questions cannot be disputed, for, as Cranfield has rightly observed, Rom 10.4 represents 'one of the fundamental theses of Pauline theology as a whole, since, in whatever way it is taken, it is obviously a decisive statement concerning the relation of Christ and the law'.53 Getty argues that 'an interpretation of this verse in its context is crucial for understanding the religious problem of the relation between Christianity and Judaism'.54 J.A.
Sanders states that Rom 10.4 'summarizes the central belief of the early church',55 and Kirk affirms that this verse is 'an epigram summarizing the gospel'.56 The fact that such great importance is accorded to Rom 10.4 and that it is used in support of such different theological positions is sufficient to prove the importance of deter-mining the meaning of this verse and to show the existence of a semantic/exegetical problem which needs to be solved.
The heart of the problem seems to be the lack of methodological criteria for determining the sense of -ceAxx;. This lack is primarily due to the fact that a comprehensive study of the meanings and usages of xekoq in biblical literature has not yet been produced. Consequently the interpreters depend almost exclusively on the context for finding out the sense of this word. Yet the context of Rom 10.4 (9.30-10.21) is one of the most difficult passages in Paul, more often avoided as an additional source of problems than interpreted as an aid for clarification. Therefore, the exegesis of this passage is often governed and controlled by the only criteria easily available to would-be interpreters, namely, their own theological convictions. And thus, as H.A.W. Meyer rightly observed, 'the understanding of 10.4 depends on decisions that one has made elsewhere'.57 This is made particularly evident in the survey of the history of the interpretation of this passage which constitutes the first chapter of the present study.

Introduction 5

The contention of the present study is that Rom 10.4 needs, first of all, lexical and exegetical clarification. This passage is far more eagerly used than explained. In most cases, reA,o<;, the key word of the passage, is either ambiguously translated by 'end', without any explanation of what is meant, or interpreted in the sense of'termin-ation', 'fulfillment', or 'goal' without any convincing rationale for the choice of meaning. Sometimes two, three, or even more of the above-mentioned meanings are proposed as simultaneously valid. It is clear that, even though several translations are theoretically acceptable, all of them cannot be equally probable, nor simultaneously possible— unless the ambiguity was intended by Paul himself, and even in that case it would need to be proved. Therefore, a more comprehensive lexical study of the use of zekoq is needed, in order to provide a better basis—if there is any—for the interpretation of Rom 10.4.
In spite of the many excellent studies on Rom 10.4 and its context that have been published thus far, and in spite of their extremely valuable contribution to the understanding of this verse, it must be acknowledged that Rom 10.4 has almost exclusively been approached from the perspective of law theology in its relation to the 'law-gospel' debate. The thrust of the passage has been largely disregarded, as well as the relation of Rom 10.4 to its immediate context (Rom 9-11) and to the purpose of the Epistle.
In order to enhance research in some of the basic areas where it is needed, the present study aims:
1. To survey and eval‎uate, in Chapter 1, the most representative interpretations of Rom 10.4 from the early Church to our days, in order to provide the necessary background for a correct appreciation of the current trends in their historical perspective.
2. To provide, by means of a semantic study of the use of reAxx;, and, especially, of the meaning of the phrase xeXoq vojuioi) and related expressions in biblical and cognate literature, in Chapter 2, some objective criteria for the determination of the meaning of xeXoq vojuoi) in Rom 10.4.
3. To interpret Rom 10.4 in context (9.30-10.21), and, with due consideration to the thrust of the section (chs. 9-11), and to the main purpose of Paul in the epistle to the Romans, to pay particular attention to Paul's view of Scripture, and to the relationship between Xpiar6<; and V O J U K X ; obtained through Paul's hermeneutical perspec-tive, in order to discover whether Paul's view of that relationship is basically 'temporal' or 'teleologicar (Chapter 3).


6 Christ the End of the Law

Since the object of the present research is only to ascertain the meaning of xtXoq in Rom 10.4, it is limited to the field of biblical studies, and, as far as possible, avoids the problems pertaining to systematic theology. Thus, it does not deal with the concept of 'end'—which could hardly be limited to a single word—nor with the theological question of the 'end of the law'—which would imply that the meaning of xe^oq in Rom 10.4 had already been decided. This is, then, only an exegetical approach concentrated on a single word in a single passage. Its object is to provide—as a groundwork intended for clarification—a modest but hopefully useful contribution to a further and more encompassing study on Paul's view of the law in its relation to Christ. The reason for this limitation is not that the exegetical approach is considered more important than the systematic, but the literature on the subject is so vast that a thorough study of both areas would go far beyond the scope of the present undertaking. In any case, the stated limitations do not imply a total disregard for doctrinal questions.