Posted By Jason Meyer on June 3, 2009
This series of posts is a slightly revised version of a discussion in my forthcoming book: Jason Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2009).
This post is the first in a series of four on the subject of Galatians 3:10, which represents a hornet’s nest of debate among Pauline scholars.
Paul attempts to dissuade the Galatians from joining a group he designates as “those who are of the works of the law” (osoi ex ergōn nomou eisin ) in Galatians 3:10.[1] Paul’s opponents appear to advocate a path to the Abrahamic blessing based upon obedience to the Law and the Galatians were in danger of acting upon their advice. Therefore, answering the question “why are those of the works of the law under a curse?” is really another way of answering the parallel question: “why can the law not provide the promised blessing?”
Difficulty surfaces in defining the phrase “from the works of the law” (ex ergōn nomou eisin)[2] This debate is especially important at this juncture because Paul contrasts two groups: (1) “those who are of faith” (hoi ek pisteōs) (Gal 3:7), and (2) “those who are of the works of the law” (osoi ex ergōn nomou eisin) (Gal 3:10). In other words, properly identifying this group depends upon properly understanding the phrase “works of the law” (ergōn nomou). The limited space available in this post will only allow a brief discussion that summarizes and analyzes the three most prominent positions.
The first view interprets “works of law” in a restricted sense as the attempt to bribe God for blessing through obedience to the law.[3] Daniel P. Fuller suggests that “works of law” is shorthand for legalism. He argues that Paul coined the term “works of the law” for the purpose of expressing a legalistic attitude.[4]
The second view reads the phrase as a restricted reference to specific badges of Jewish identity.[5] The underlying problem Paul faces is a fierce Jewish nationalistic attitude that seeks to exclude the Gentiles, which leads Israel to a misunderstanding of her covenant requirements.[6] James D. G. Dunn argues that the phrase by itself may refer to works that the law requires,[7] but Paul more specifically has the aspects of the law in view that separate Jew from Gentile.[8] This argument squares with the first appearance of the phrase in Galatians 2:16 where food laws clearly spark the debate at Antioch,[9] which immediately precedes the first use of the phrase.
A third view recognizes a simple descriptive function for the phrase.[10] Douglas J. Moo argues that a general reference to works commanded by the Law fits with Jewish literature,[11] the absolute use of “work” (ergon), and Paul’s indictment of humanity.[12] Moises Silva attempts to make a linguistic case for this position.[13]
This study adopts this simple descriptive interpretation: “works demanded by the law.” This third view remains the most natural reading because it does not suffer from the linguistic problems of the first view, nor the speculative historical reconstruction of the second view. Interpreters ought not read too much into such small semantic units of thought. Paul may attack legalism and Jewish exclusivism in Galatians, but those points do not demand that the phrase inherently means “legalism”[14] or “Jewish exclusivism.”[15] Many further points[16] sour the initial attractiveness of the second view. An examination of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” shows that Paul addresses the more universal ontological plight of sinful humanity, not the social and relational plight that springs from Jewish exclusivity.[17]
[1] Paul’s focus on faith in contrast to works of law does not come to an end at Gal 3:9. Paul has skillfully argued that “those of faith” experience entrance into the family of Abraham and receive blessing along with Abraham. Paul’s argument against works of law remains implicit throughout 3:6-9. If those of faith become sons of Abraham who are blessed with Abraham, then the other side of the coin must also be true: those of works of law are not sons of Abraham and are not blessed with Abraham. Paul moves to make these implicit points explicit in vv. 10-14. If Gal 3:1-9 declared that those
ek pisteōs are Abraham’s sons, 3:10-14 states the flip side of this equation: those
ex ergōn nouou are not Abraham’s sons. Furthermore, if 3:1-9 asserted that those
ek pisteōs receive Abraham’s blessing because they are Abraham’s sons, then by the same token those
ex ergōn nomou do not receive Abraham’s blessing, because they receive the law’s curse (3:10).
[2] This debate is particularly difficult because of general debate over nomos in Paul and the more specific debate over ergōn nouou in Paul. For convenient summary articles on Paul and the Law, see Douglas J. Moo, “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years,” Scottish Journal of Theology 40 (1987): 287-307; Calvin Roetzel, “Paul and the Law: Whence and Whither?” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 3 (1995): 249-75; See R. Barry Matlock, “A Future for Paul?” in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies, vol. 269, ed. David J. A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1998), 144-83. For the best discussion of “works of the law” see Schreiner, “‘Works of Law’,” 217-44. See also Hilary B. P. Mijoga, The Pauline Notion of Deeds of the Law, ISP (Lanham, MD: Scholars Press, 1999). These discussions show that four positions have come to prominence: (1) legalism, (2) Jewish nationalism, (3) traditional, and (4) redemptive-historical. More recent discussions have debated whether the “works of law” refer to the prescriptions of the law or the actual performance of the law. Michael Bachmann actively contends for the former view. See Michael Bachmann, “Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus,” Theologische Zeitschrift 49 (1993): 1-33. Otfried Hofius writes in refutation of Bachmann’s view in a recent work. Otfried Hofius, “‘Werke des Gesetzes’: Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den e;rgwn no,mou,” in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur, ed. Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 273-85. Dunn also faults Bachmann for creating a false dichotomy between prescription and performance. James D. G. Dunn, “Noch einmal ‘Works of the Law:’ The Dialogue Continues,” in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 185 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005), 410 .
[3] Rudolf Bultmann states the main theme of this view when he says that the effort to gain salvation through the law “itself in the end is already sin.” See Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM, 1952), 1:264. F. F. Bruce also adopts this logic in his interpretation of Galatians 3:10 as the “legal path to salvation.” He says “that even for one who does persevere in doing all things written in the book of the law justification is thereby not assured.” See Bruce, Galatians, 160. Bruce also brings elements of the third view into Galatians 3:10 because he mentions the impossibility of obeying the whole law. Ibid., 159.
[4] He argues that Deut 27 refers to a “legalistic frame of mind.” Daniel P. Fuller, “Paul and ‘the Works of the Law,” Westminster Theological Journal 38 (1975): 32-33. See also idem, Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 92; idem, The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God’s Plan for Humanity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 181. C. E. B. Cranfield also argues that the Greek language did not possess any words for legalism. C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964): 43-68; idem, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43 (1991): 93-94.
[5] See James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 523-42; idem, The Theology of Paul, 355; Martin G. Abegg, “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law’,” in Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. P. W. Flint and T. Kim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 203-16; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 238.
[6] See James D. G. Dunn for this misunderstanding motif especially. Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 366.
[7] Ibid., 358 n. 97.
[8] James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians: Galatians 2:12, 2:16, 3:6, 4:10, 6:16,” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 147-48.
[9] Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 359.
[10] Mijoga states this conclusion with exacting force. Works of the Law refer to “the deeds prescribed by the Mosaic law…these deeds have nothing to do with merit, getting in and staying in the covenant, setting boundaries around the people of God, disastrous consequences effected by the law, social and cultural achievements. These deeds have to do with carrying out the prescriptions of the Mosaic law.” See Mijoga, The Pauline Notion, 166. See also Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 82; In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 81 (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1993), 135; idem, “Does Paul Misrepresent the Jewish Law? Law and Covenant in Galatians 3:1-14,” Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 174; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 2nd ed., Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 29 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1983), 177.
[11]See 4QFlor 1.7. Conceptual and verbal equivalents to Paul’s phrase in Jewish literature fit this third sense. Moo argues that Paul’s phrase is materially equivalent to the rabbinic idea of “works” or “commandments,” despite the formal difference in wording. See Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 193.
[12] Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism,” 93-101.
[13] Silva establishes a framework for approaching genitive constructions in general before arguing for his interpretation of this particular construction. He asserts that the genitive case conveys an unspecified relationship between the two terms. He argues that the least prejudicial way of representing the relationship is “law-works.” Therefore, the phrase ergōn nomou refers to “works that are somehow connected with the law,” and context must provide the necessary interpretive clues that will clarify the relationship further. Moises Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, volume 2, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004), 217-48.
[14] F. F. Bruce does not adopt Daniel P. Fuller’s interpretation of Gal 3:10 because it places an “improbable strain” on Paul’s language, even though Bruce believes Paul addresses those who seek justification by legal works. See Bruce, Galatians, 158. Fuller’s view also falters in that Deut 27 does not give any evidence of a legalistic mindset. The curse comes upon those who fail to obey all the law, not upon those who seek to obey the law for the sake of receiving the promised blessing of the law. So also Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 59. “There is no indication here that the author of Deuteronomy condemns any kind of legalism. He censures failure to practice what the law commands.”
[15] The fact that Dunn concedes the meaning of the phrase as “works required by the law” is surely an important admission. Restricting the phrase to Jewish badges must come from the context, not the phrase itself. See again Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 358 n. 97.
[16] Paul explicitly refers to the broad scope of the law in other places in Galatians to include the whole law, not just the so-called ceremonial aspects of the law. See for example the phrase holon to nomon (the whole law) in Gal 5:3. So also Moises Silva, who contends that law-works cannot be divorced from ceremonial elements, but neither can they be restricted to them. See Silva, “Faith Versus Work of Law,” 224. C. E. B. Cranfield points out that this view suffers from a faulty hermeneutical approach. He argues that the terms ergon and nomos along with the genitival construction are all very common in the New Testament, so that it is proper to take the phrase in “its natural general sense” unless other compelling reasons exist. He claims that Paul would not use ergōn nouou in Dunn’s special restricted sense without a clear explanation or indication. This explanation never comes. In fact, while Paul may focus on the so-called boundary markers in some places in Galatians, this restriction does not fit the rest of the book. He is not persuaded by Dunn’s assertion that the readers were already familiar with the special restricted sense, or it was already “self-evident to them.” Dunn, “Works of the Law,” 527. See Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’,” 92.
[17] Seyoon Kim observes that Dunn’s hypothesis fails to address the problem with the law in Rom 8:3. The problem stems from the “weakness” (astheneō) of the Law “through the flesh” (dia tēs sarkēs), not through a misunderstanding of the law. Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 70. A. Andrew Das also points out that Rom 2:15 poses a particular dilemma for Dunn because the to ergon tou nomou applies to Gentiles. Furthermore, Paul appears to explicate the Jewish plight in terms of failure to obey the law. Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, 189-91.
Category: Biblical Theology, Books, Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Pauline Theology, Writing |
Comments
Tags: Paul and the Law
