A Short Summary of Approaches to the Logic of Gal 3:10
Posted By Jason Meyer on June 5, 2009
This post is the second (click here for the first post) in a series of posts based from my forthcoming book: Jason Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: B & H Academic, 20o9).
If my previous post on the meaning of “works of the Law” offered a valid perspective on the phrase, then Galatians 3:10 should read “for as many as are ‘of the works commanded by the law’ are under a curse.” This reading now leads to the key question: “why does a curse come to those who are of the works of the law?”
This post thus serves as a short summary of approaches to the logic of Galatians 3:10.
The traditional answer detects an implied proposition that helps illuminate Paul’s logic: (1) Deuteronomy 27:26 testifies that the curse comes upon “those who do not abide by all things written in the book of the law,” (2) Paul assumes the implied argument that “no one can abide by all things written in the book of the law,” therefore (3) “as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse.”[1] The problem with the law is an anthropological one. Adamic humanity in the grip of sin could never obey the whole law.
E. P. Sanders rejects this view because it relies upon the impossibility of perfect obedience as an implied premise, which Sanders dismisses as indefensible.[2] Alan Segal further points out that Deuteronomy seems to suggest the possibility of observing the law.[3] Christopher Stanley argues that this view misses Paul’s main point. Paul attempts to show that the law cannot provide justification or life even if one could obey the whole law.[4]
Scholars who reject the implied premise adopt many different explanations for Paul’s logic. James D. G. Dunn has proposed that Israel rests under the curse of the Law because they misunderstood the Law and held on to the aspects of the law that led to their mistaken nationalistic pride, which in turn caused their refusal to grant full membership to the Gentiles into the people of God.
Other scholars contend that Paul finds fault with “works of the law” because of a shift in redemptive-history, not because of any deficiency implied by either “works” or “law.” The problem is chronological, not anthropological. The law represents a soteriological principle that belongs to the old age that has been replaced by the new law of Christ and the presence of the Spirit.[5] Christ’s work on the cross redeems from the curse of exile and results in the promised restoration.
The next post will wrestle with how to assess the various answers given to the question of Paul’s logic in Gal. 3:10.
[1] See for example Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, 146. Daniel P. Fuller argues for a different rendering as follows: “Anyone wishing to earn his salvation through his works is trying to bribe God, an offense that deserves a curse.” See Fuller, Gospel & Law, 87-88. Moises Silva rightly observes the curious fact that Fuller rejects the traditional implied premise and then adds two implied propositions in its place: (1) works salvation is bribery, and (2) people who bribe are under a curse. Moises Silva, “Is the Law Against the Promises? the Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 159 n. 12.
[2] E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 21-23.
[3] Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 119.
[4] Christopher D. Stanley, “Under a Curse: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3:10-14,” New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 482. Stanley argues that the implied premise is not necessary. Paul points out the looming threat of the curse for those who rely upon the works of the law. See also Joseph P. Brasswell, “The Blessing of Abraham Versus ‘the Curse of the Law’: Another Look at Galatians 3:10-13,” Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 73-91, especially 75-77. For similar conclusions see Wolfgang Reinbold, “Gal 3,6-14 und das Problem der Erfüllbarkeit des Gesetzes bei Paulus,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 91 (2000): 91-106; Michael Cranford, “The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3,” Novum Testamentum (1994): 242-58.
[5] “[M]aintaining allegiance to the old covenant and its particular stipulations once the new age has arrived not only denies the saving efficacy of Christ’s work, but also may lead to a false boasting in one’s heritage as a by-product” (italics original). Scott J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3 and 4,” in Exile: Old Testament and Jewish Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997),342. Scott Hafemann and James M. Scott emphasize the theme of exile/restoration, while Harmut Gese and Peter Stuhlmacher advocate a shift from a Sinai Torah to a Zion Torah. See Scott J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile”; James M. Scott, “‘For as Many as Are of the Works of the Law Are Under a Curse’ (Galatians 3:10),” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 187-221; idem, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 645-65; Hartmut Gese, “The Law,” in Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 60-92; Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Law as a Topic of Biblical Theology,” in Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 110-33. The law anticipated that this replacement would occur in the messianic age. Therefore, the two ages and their respective laws share a significant amount of continuity, which sets the view apart from the more traditional Lutheran antithesis.
Comments