Café Apocalypsis

Posted By Jason Meyer on June 8, 2009

This post 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 final post on Galatians 3:10 engages the wider debate over whether or not Paul assumed that the Law required perfect obedience.  This post will also touch upon the chronological problem concerning the Law.

Did Paul imply that the Law requires perfect obedience?  Pauline scholars are divided on how to answer that question.  The debate emerges specifically over Galatians 3:10: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them’ (ESV).  What is Paul’s assessment of why reliance upon works of the Law invariably leads to the curse of the Law?

Thomas R. Schreiner advances the thesis that works of the law cannot save because the law requires perfect obedience, which no human can achieve.[1] Others like E. P. Sanders severely question this inference because the sacrificial provisions prove that the law did not require perfect obedience.  Sanders states that the law cannot save in Paul’s final analysis simply because it is not Christ.[2] Does the Law require perfect obedience or not?

Two considerations point in the direction of perfect obedience.  First, one can turn Sanders’ argument on its head: the sacrificial provisions prove that the law did require perfect obedience.  The reasoning behind this inference is simple.  The fact that every transgression of the law demanded atonement shows that perfect obedience is the expectation upon which the law operates.[3] Paul’s quotation of Deuteronomy 27:26 reinforces this assertion because of the emphatic “all” (pas).  One must abide by “all” the things written in the book of the law.  A similar emphasis emerges in Galatians 5:3 with the adjective “whole” (holos).  One who receives circumcision must obey the “whole” law.

The second point introduces the reader to the chronological problem with the law.  Paul addresses readers standing in the age of fulfillment, which means the period in which the law covenant has been abolished.  This setting necessitates that one view the law covenant from two different angles: before and after the time of fulfillment.  The law covenant has provisions for atonement only when viewed from the first angle, not the second.  In other words, the gracious provisions for atonement are valid before the time of fulfillment, but not after its point of termination.[4] Notice Paul’s claim that the law was added after the promise and came to an end with the coming of the Messiah (”the seed”) in Gal 3:19.

The reader may justifiably raise a note of protest at this point.  One may observe that Paul does not explicitly claim that the gracious provisions of the sacrificial system have come to an end.  It is an argument from silence.  Therefore, how can the present writer expect the reader to adopt this questionable hermeneutical perspective?  Is this special pleading?

One can readily agree that Paul does not make the case explicit in 3:10, but Paul does explicitly state that the law covenant has come to an end in Galatians  (Gal 3:19, 25) as well as his other writings (Rom 6:14; 2 Cor 3:11).  Thus, one could claim that it is a staple operating principle within Paul’s overall system of thought.  Some have even argued that the Judaism of Paul’s day shared this perspective concerning the end of the atoning features of the law and its sacrificial system.

A. Andrew Das is one of the few scholars to tackle this question.  He claims that the gracious framework of Judaism has completely collapsed in Paul’s theology.  Paul does not grant any salvific capacity to the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s election, or the sacrificial system.[5] Das points to positions taken in 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; 2 Enoch; Testament of Abraham (i.e., post-70 CE literature), which “independently bear witness to what happens when the framework collapses and the balance shifts toward a judgment according to works.”[6]

Stephen Westerholm questions this interpretation because Paul differed from Jewish Christians in Galatians, who also believed that the death of Christ replaced the OT sacrifices.  He says it is “self-evident” then that Paul did not “discount the efficacy of the act to which they attributed atonement” [i.e., the death of Christ].[7]

How can the reader adjudicate between these two positions?  Paul provides enough evidence to piece together a coherent picture.  First, Paul constantly claims that the law covenant has come to an end (3:19, 24-25; 4:1-7).  Second, from this analysis Paul explicitly raises some startling implications for those who wish to revert back to it.  Westerholm’s approach to this question does not come to grips with these implications.  Specifically, Westerholm erred because he did not factor Paul’s “all or nothing” logic into the equation.

Paul’s perspective is clear from Galatians 2:21: trying to gain righteousness from the law actually sets aside the grace of God and makes the death of Christ (i.e., the “act to which they attributed atonement”) unnecessary!  This same perspective and terminology emerge again in Galatians 5:2-4.[8] Attempting to be justified by law equals “falling from grace” and “being severed from Christ.”  Paul draws a clear dividing line: Christ/grace or law.  While Paul does not deny that the death of Christ is sufficient for atonement, it is “self-evident” that Paul rejects their claim to belong to Christ because of their reliance upon the law for justification.  Turning to the law at this point in redemptive history translates into turning away from Christ.  Paul argues that they must turn away from the law so that they can turn back to Christ and his grace (i.e., escape the state of being “fallen from grace” and “severed from Christ”).[9]

These indictments only make sense if the gracious elements of the law covenant are no longer in force.  If the law covenant has come to an end, then the sacrificial part of the covenant is also no longer in force.  Consequentially, one reverts to a law stripped of all its atoning provisions.[10] The promise of life now can only come from its works alone because the law principle now stands alone.

Paul also assumes this perspective when he analyzes what his opponents are pursuing.  Paul uses the law principle (i.e., live by doing) to describe their pursuit.  Varying expressions also presuppose a works-based approach to life.  See the phrases “justified by law” (Gal 3:11; 5:4), “inheritance based on law” (Gal 3:18), and “righteousness based on law” (Gal 3:21).

I admit that these are debated questions and I do not presume to offer anything like the final say on these matters.  This medium of blogging is a valuable tool for further discussion.  Hopefully these blog posts have carried the conversation out of some of the confusing fog by clarifying the competing options and their chief arguments.  I offer these reflections in the hope of carrying the conversation forward for further dialogue.

[2] E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 442-47; 474-511; idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 17-91.

[3] So also A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 32-36.

[4] So also William J. Dumbrell, “Paul and Salvation History in Romans 9:30-10:4,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 303.

[5] Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, 8, 214.

[6] Ibid., 214 n. 76.

[7] Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 382 n. 88.

[8] Galatians 5:1-4 states that submission to circumcision imposes an impossible burden: the obligation to obey the whole law.  The phrase “seeking to be justified by law” is a shorthand way of summarizing this obligation to obey the whole law in order to attain life or salvation.  Confirmation for this interpretation comes from Paul’s analysis of their spiritual state in verse 4.  If one seeks to be justified by the law, then one “falls from grace” and is “severed from Christ.”

[9] Galatians 4:1-9 can say that reverting to the law at this stage in redemptive history is tantamount to returning to paganism.  God has put an end to the old order so those who seek Him there find themselves engaged in pagan religion, that is, a religion devoid of grace.  The Law now belongs to the elements of the (old) world, which hold both Jews and Gentiles in bondage.

[10] See also Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 44.

Categories: Biblical Theology, Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Pauline Theology
Tags: Pauline Theology; Paul and the Law