Typically, we see the debate "for" and "against" the Law as we compare two verses -- Mat 5:17 and Romans 10:4. Proof-texts for each of the two sides of this argument.
I think part of the problem (as with others) is tied to the fact that all of us, all of us, are literalists when comes to SOME scriptures. Which scriptures one takes as "meaning what it says" depends on a lot of issues. Those with literal applications become our major and minor premise, if you will, with the subsequent conclusion being "forced" upon us, as a logical conclusion needs to be.
If one starts with Matt 5:17 and does not see "fulfillment " in the life , death, resurrection and ascension to the right-hand of God -- then Matt 5:17 will become the prevailing and inescapable conclusion for that disciple. All other thoughts being defined in view of that reality. Ditto for Romans 10:4. I am not sure as to how we escape this predicament !!
Having said that, Romans 10:4 is a critical passage of thought...........but more because of what Paul says earlier in the Roman letter. Chapters 2 -5 are critical to my way of thinking. The law is good. It defines right and wrong to be "sin." It presents judgments from which we need to be saved -- thus it (the Law) presents us with the need for Christ. But righteousness does not come via the Law. And, so, Paul declares that our justification is by faith (the faith of Christ, I think) and not by works of Law." I believe that "obedience to law" is the very same thing as "works of law." Obedience never "saved." That is why, even hundred of years after Sinai, man was in need of a savior.
Obedience should never (IMO) be thought of as The Path to God. Without a Savior, obedience is critical to fallen man BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE FOR MAN TO FALL
jd
