In what sense is Christ the end of the Law?

By rejecting Christ Israel lost all contact with its own roots, for Christ is ultimately the outcome of the law of Moses. Christ did not deviate from God’s path, but his opponents certainly did: For Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). The law culminates in faith. For during his life on earth Jesus constantly called people to faith. All the sick and the demon-possessed people were healed by faith. Jesus taught the children of Abraham and Sarah the power of faith again when he said to a woman, Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease (Mark 5:34). He also said to a waiting father of a little daughter who died, Do not fear, only believe Mark 5:36b). In Jesus’ days, this faith brought Israel into the realm of forgiveness and healing, namely the righteousness of God. This realm is the ocean into which the river of the law empties itself.

The commentaries on Romans 10:4 contain a great deal of discussion about what the word telos actually means (see, for example, Schreiner¹. and²). The word literally means purpose or end and in this context it is said to be employed either in the sense of the 1. fulfilment, 2. the goal, or 3. the conclusion of the law. The discussions concerning these alternatives are somewhat arbitrary, however, for in making each of these choices the commentaries often define law differently, so that the end result is actually almost always the same. Those who opt for fulfilment often place particular focus on the promises and/or the demands of the law. For goal, the focus generally falls on the law as a whole. For conclusion, the focus is more on the demands of the law. All the exegetes, however, eventually reach the conclusion that the reference to Christ in Romans 10:4 is connected to the intention of the law, which is indeed Paul’s point here. He is not writing about the manner in which the law is fulfilled in Christ, whether in a fulfilling or a concluding sense. In Romans 10:4 he is simply positing only that there is a clear link, which allows him to elaborate further in the passage which follows.

Hills advocates for the following translation: Christ has always been the goal of the law in order to expel the idea that faith in the Messiah was not integrally part of the old covenant.³

However, by simply translating the sentence as Christ is the goal of the law, the same is achieved, for Paul nowhere ever implies that the law originally lacked a goal, or supposedly had a different goal.^4,5