Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:28:46.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10–14)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

James D. G. Dunn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The two most recent studies of Paul and the law both show a large measure of agreement in criticizing Paul's treatment of the law as inconsistent and self-contradictory. E. P. Sanders argues that Paul's ‘break’ with the law gave rise to different questions and problems, and that his ‘diverse answers, when set alongside one another, do not form a logical whole’.1 So, in particular, Paul's ‘treatment of the law in chapter 2 (of Romans) cannot be harmonized with any of the diverse things which Paul says about the law elsewhere’; in Romans 2 ‘Paul goes beyond inconsistency or variety of argument and explanation to true self-contradiction’.2 More thoroughgoing is H. Räisänen, who can see only one way to handle what Paul says: ‘contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul's theology of the law’.3 Again and again he finds himself driven to the conclusion that Paul contradicts himself. So, for example, with Rom 13. 8–10: ‘Paul seems here simply to have forgotten what he wrote in ch. 7 or in 10. 4’; ‘(Romans) 2.14–15,26–27 stand in flat contradiction to the main thesis of the section’; Paul puts forward ‘artificial and conflicting theories about the law’.4 The artificiality and tension is evident not least in Gal 3. 10–12, where Räisänen finds the argument of 3. 10 to be at odds with the argument of 3. 11–12.5

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 523 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[1] Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 3–4.Google Scholar

[2] Sanders, , law 123, 147.Google Scholar

[3] Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 10–11 (his emphasis).Google Scholar

[4] Räisänen, , Paul 65, 103, 154.Google Scholar

[5] Räisänen, , Paul 94–6, 109.Google Scholar

[6] Mol, H., Identity and the Sacred (Oxford: Blackwell, 1976) 233.Google Scholar

[7] Douglas, M., Purity and Danger (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966) 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also earlier 62–5.

[8] Mol, , Identity 57–8.Google Scholar

[9] Douglas, , Purity 124.Google Scholar

[10] Douglas, , Purity 124.Google Scholar

[11] See further my ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2. 11–18)’, JSNT 18 (1983) 7–11.Google Scholar

[12] Full details in Stern, M. ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1 1974, Vol. 2 1980)Google Scholar – circumcision: Timagenes, Horace, Persius, Petronius, Martial, Tacitus, Juvenal, Suetonius (## 81, 129, 190, 194–5, 240–1, 281, 301, 320); food laws: Erotianus, Epictetus, Plutarch, Tacitus, Juvenal, Sextus Empiricus (## 196, 253, 258, 281, 298, 334).

[13] Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians (Yale, 1983) 97.Google Scholar

[14] Sanders, , Law 102Google Scholar; Räisänen, , Paul 171–2.Google Scholar

[15] In the ancient world, of course, respect for their ancestral customs (τά πάτρια) was a widespread feature of social and national groups; see LSJ πάτρως; MacMullen, R., Paganism in the Roman Empire (Yale, 1981) 2–3.Google Scholar

[16] ‘What marks ancient Israel as distinctive perennially is its preoccupation with defining itself. In one way or another Israel sought means of declaring itself distinct from its neighbours.… The persistent stress on differentiation, yielding a preoccupation with self-definition … The Torah literature … raised high those walls of separation…’ ‘These laws formed a protective boundary, keeping in those who were in, keeping out those who were not’ (Neusner, J., Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah [University of Chicago, 1981 ] 69–75).Google Scholar Hence the Pharisees' stress on ritual purity, to which Neusner has drawn particular attention (From Politics to Piety [Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973] 80, 83–90Google Scholar; also Judaism 49–52) and the intensifying of ritual norms at Qum-ran (e.g. 1QS 3. 8–12; 5. 8; CD 10.14–11.18; see further Riches, J., Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism [London: Darton, 1980] 122–8).Google Scholar

[17] See e.g. Räisänen, , Paul 187Google Scholar (also below n. 54), with other references in n. 121. The dispute as to whether Paul in these passages is attacking Judaism or Jewish Christians is important, but not entirely to the point here, since it is the Jewish attitude of the Jewish Christians which he confronts.

[18] Sanders, , Law 105, 147Google Scholar (though elsewhere he treats the phrase in a less restrictive way – pp. 46, 158–9); Räisänen, , Paul 188–9.Google Scholar Cf. also Wilckens, U., ‘Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetz-verständnis’,.NTS 28 (1982) 154–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[19] ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL 65 (1983) 95–122.Google Scholar See also Kertelge, K., ‘Gesetz und Freiheit im Galaterbrief’, NTS 30 (1984) 382–94, especially 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[20] Lohmeyer, E., Problems paulinischer Theologie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, n.d.) 33–74 (here 67)Google Scholar; Tyson, J. B.,‘“Works of Law” in Galatians’, JBL 92 (1973) 423–31 (here 424–5).Google Scholar

[21] Above n. 18. Note also Sanders' attempt to clarify his earlier formulation in Law 165–6 n. 38.Google Scholar

[22] So correctly Räisänen, , Paul 259.Google Scholar

[23] Cf. Kertelge, K., ‘Zur Deutung des Rechtfertigungsbegriffs im Galaterbrief’, BZ 12 (1968) 215.Google Scholar

[24] See also Gal 4. 4 – Jesus was ‘born under the law’, that is, a Jew; 4. 21 – (some of) the Galatians wish to be ‘under the law’, that is, in effect, to become Jews. I am not persuaded by Gaston, L., ‘Paul and the Torah’, Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Davies, A. T. (New York: Paulist, 1979) 48–71Google Scholar, who argues that Paul uses the phrase ‘under the law’ ‘to designate the gentile situation’ (62–4).

[25] Bultmann, R., TDNT 3. 648–9Google Scholar; also New Testament Theology (London: SCM, Vol. 1 1952) 242–3Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans (London: SCM, 1980) 102Google Scholar; Bultmann's position is defended by Hübner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 2 1980), especially 102.Google Scholar

[26] Cf. particularly, Sanders, , Law 33, 155–7.Google Scholar

[27] See further Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Jesus – Flesh and Spirit: an Exposition of Romans 1. 3–4’, JTS 24 (1973) 44–9.Google Scholar

[28] Cranfield, C. E. B., Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Vol. 2 1979) 515.Google Scholar

[29] Howard, G., ‘Christ the End of the Law: the Meaning of Romans 10.4’, JBL 88 (1969) 331–7 (here 336)Google Scholar; similarly Gaston 66; Sanders, , Law 38.Google Scholar

[30] A useful parallel is provided from 20th century Christianity. In classical Pentecostalism it would generally be agreed that speaking in tongues and the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit-baptism are not the most important elements of their faith. But in fact most apologetic writing and most discussion of Pentecostalism has given considerable prominence to these two Pentecostal teachings. The reason is also the reason for the prominence of circumcision and food laws in Gal 2: in both cases we are dealing with the distinctive features of the group – what marks them off from other even closely related groups. For anyone wishing to identify himself with classical Pentecostalism in the first half of the 20th century, the make or break issue was speaking in tongues.

[31] My criticisms in ‘The New Perspective’ focused principally on Sanders (particularly 120–1).

[32] Räisänen, , Paul 62–73, 101–8.Google Scholar

[33] It should be noted that I say ‘a large part of his critique’; in this essay I do not attempt to deal with other aspects of the law's function in Paul's thought (particularly Rom 5. 20; 7. 7–11).

[34] See particularly Räisänen's, discussion (Paul 23–8).Google Scholar

[35] Räisänen's critique at this point is directed against the equally inadequate view that ‘γράμμα means Jewish legalism rather than the Torah’, but he has missed the social function of the Torah as a whole (Paul 44–6).Google Scholar

[36] Sanders' discussion misses the point and thus undermines his own critique (Law 123–32Google Scholar). Similarly Räisänen (Paul 98–101Google Scholar); Paul attacks typical Jewish presumption that having the law, being within the law is what gives assurance of justification (as Räisänen recognizes later – 170); it is that attitude which Paul indicts in Rom 2. 17–24, not ‘every individual Jew without exception’ (Paul 100).Google Scholar

[37] ‘New Perspective’ 118–9.Google Scholar

[38] See among recent discussions, Hübner, H., ‘Gal. 3.10 und die Herkunft des Paulus’, KuD 19 (1973) 215–31Google Scholar; also Gesetz 19–20Google Scholar; Oepke, A./Rohde, J., Galater (THNT; Berlin: Evangelische, 1973) 105Google Scholar; Mussner, H., Galaterbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 3 1977) 225–6Google Scholar; Becker, J., Galater (NTD Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1976) 36–7Google Scholar; Smend, R. & Luz, U., Gesetz (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981) 94–5Google Scholar; Hill, D., ‘Gal. 3.10–14: Freedom and Acceptance’, ExpT 93 (1981–1982) 197Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., Gal-atians (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1982) 157–60Google Scholar; Räisänen, , Paul 94.Google Scholar Earlier references in Eckert, J., Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galater-brief (Regensburg: Pustet, 1971) 77 n. 3.Google Scholar

[39] See above n. 17.

[40] See above p. 529. Mussner rightly notes recent research's recognition ‘wie sehr man gerade im Frühjudentum Bund und Gesetz zusammengedacht hat’ Galaterbrief 229 n. 85Google Scholar, referring to Jau-bert and Limbeck; add now particularly Sanders).

[41] Cf. Schlier, H., Galater (KEK: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 13 1965) 132Google Scholar; Betz, H., Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 145Google Scholar; and Sanders' highly individual argument (Law 20–25).Google Scholar

[42] See n. 5 above.

[43] See also Betz's review of the options usually canvassed for v. 10 (Galatians 145–6Google Scholar). Betz's own reconstruction of Paul's reasoning (the law was given in order to be broken and to generate sin) is hardly obvious from the text (even allowing for 3. 19). It would hardly cut much ice with his readers, and on this point Paul could hardly simply assume that his readers shared his presuppositions (cf. Betz's own observation on p. 141). Moreover, as Hübner points out, such a theology attributes a very perverse motive on the part of God in giving the law (Gesetz 27)Google Scholar; it is hard to think that Paul would be unaware of such a corollary or would willingly embrace it.

[44] As Sanders has argued, it is precisely the concern to ‘remain within’ the framework of the covenant which is at the heart of ‘covenantal nomism’.

[45] Sanders' failure to appreciate the full force of the phrase σοι έξ ἔργων νόμου is mirrored in the weak summary he gives: ‘in 3.10 Paul means that those who accept the law are cursed’ (Law 22Google Scholar, my emphasis).

[46] Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar recognizes the narrowness of Paul's focus in his talk of ‘works of the law’, and Paul's concern that the law divides Jew from Gentile (especially 53, 62), but he weakens his exposition by arguing that ‘being under the law’ could be said of Gentiles as well as Jews (60–1); in contrast see p. 529 above.

[47] The usual understanding of Hab 2. 4 MT – ‘… will live by his faithfulness’. It is not necessary to the discussion here to resolve the question of whether Paul intended the έκ πίστεως to go with δ δίκαιος or ζήσεται. See e.g. the discussion by Cavallin, H. C. C., ‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith’, St.Th. 32 (1978) 33–43.Google Scholar

[48] That έν νόμ茉 (v. 11) is equivalent to έξ 茉ργων νόμου (v. 10) is plain (Bruce, , Galatians 161Google Scholar), as also the parallel between 3. 11 and 2. 16 confirms.

[49] See above p. 529. Lev 18. 5 ‘contains one of the fundamental doctrines of the Old Testament and of Judaism’ (Betz, , Galatians 148Google Scholar). By ό νόμος in v. 12 Paul means the law understood in this way, as Lev 18. 5 indicates. The term should not be enlarged to mean ‘the law’ on any and every understanding of the law. The whole argument here clearly relates to a quite specific under-Standing of the law. In fact the same contrast can be posed subsequently by Paul as between ‘the law of faith’ and ‘the law of works’ (Rom 3. 27; cf. 9. 31–32), precisely because νόμος here is shorthand for 茉ρ γα νόμον (see also above n. 48).

[50] In the context of 3. 1–9 πίστις must refer primarily to faith exercised by man, rather than God's faithfulness (against Howard, , Paul 63–4Google Scholar), though a secondary allusion to the latter cannot be entirely ruled out in view of the LXX of Hab 2. 4. That Paul refers Hab 2. 4 to Christ (Hays, R. B., The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBL Dissertation 56; Chico: Scholars, 1983] 150–7Google Scholar) is still less likely: 3. 10–12 is an exposition of the contrast between ot οί έκ πίστεως (v. 9) and ὄσοι έξ 茉ργων νόμον (v.10).

[51] A christological interpretation of 3. 12 (Lev 18. 5 was fulfilled through Christ) ignores the contrast clearly intended here and reads too much into the text (Barth, K., CD II/2 245Google Scholar; Bring, R., Galatians [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961] 128–42Google Scholar; Cranfield, , Romans, 522 n. 2).Google Scholar

[52] Against Schlier, , Galater 132–5.Google Scholar As U. Luz and others have noted, it is not the doing, but the not doing which falls under the law's curse (Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus [München: Kaiser, 1968] 149).Google Scholar

[53] Cf. Wilcox, M., ‘“Upon the Tree” – Deut. 21.22–23 in the New Testament’, JBL 96 (1977) 87.Google Scholar

[54] ‘The summary in 3.14 shows where the emphasis of the argument in 3.1–13 falls’ (Sanders, , Law 22).Google Scholar The weakness of Räisänen's atomistic exegesis is illustrated by the weakness of his treatment of 3. 13 which ignores the connection between w. 13 and 14 (Paul 59–61, 249–51Google Scholar). This despite the fact that he later notes: ‘It is striking how often the polemics against the law as the way to salvation are found in a context where the question of the inclusion of the Gentiles is the most important problem (Gal. 2–3, Rom. 3–4, Rom. 9–10)’ (Paul 176Google Scholar; similarly 187).

[55] Commentators are divided on whether ήμ脓ς should be referred only to Jewish Christians (e.g. Betz, , Galatians 148Google Scholar) or to Gentiles as well (e.g. Byrne, B., ‘Sons of God’- ‘Seed of Abraham’ [AnBib 83; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979’ 153).Google Scholar Paul could of course mean that the Gentiles were under the law's curse quite apart from the curse on Jewish restrictiveness, since Gentiles also fall short of all that the law requires in their own way (cf. Rom 1. 18–31). But such a thought is not to the forefront of Paul's mind here (though cf. Gal 4. 8–10). Nevertheless, the baleful effect of Jewish misunderstanding of the law on the Gentiles could be included without too much inexactness in the single thought of both Jew and Gentile requiring deliverance from the curse of the law falsely seen to exclude Gentile qua Gentile. To speak of an ‘oscillating concept of the law’ at this point (Räisänen, , Paul 19–20Google Scholar) is therefore unwarranted.

[56] See 4QpNah 1.7–8; 11 QTempleScroll 64.6–13, and the careful discussion of Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature and the New Testament’, CBQ 40 (1978) 493–513Google Scholar, reprinted in To Advance the Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 125–46Google Scholar, especially 129–35, 138–9, with references to earlier literature.

[57] Cf. Schwartz, D. R., ‘Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion’, JBL 102 (1983) 260–3.Google Scholar There is no ‘discrepancy’ between 4. 4–5 and 3. 13 as Betz asserts (Galatians 144 n. 57Google Scholar); both are directed primarily to the soteriological effect of Christ's death (see Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making [London: SCM, 1980] 41–2).Google Scholar Cf. further Hays, , Faith chap. III.Google Scholar

[58] So e.g. the most recent study by Weder, H., Das Kreuz Jesu bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck, 1981) 187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[59] Cf. particularly Sanders, , Law 25–6Google Scholar; Räisänen, , Paul 249–51Google Scholar (but see also above n. 54).

[60] Contrast the artificiality of Räisänen's reconstruction of Paul's reasoning: Paul's ‘point of departure is the conviction that the law must not be fulfilled outside of the Christian community, for otherwise Christ would have died in vain’ (Paul 118).Google Scholar

[61] I refer particularly to Stendahl's, K. justly famous essay, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56 (1963) 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in his Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (London: SCM, 1977) 78–96Google Scholar; cf. also Dahl, N. A., ‘The Doctrine of Justification: its Social Function and Implications’, Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977) 95–120Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., ‘Paul and the People of Israel’, NTS 24 (1977–1978) 4–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in his Jewish and Pauline Studies (London: SPCK, 1984) 123–52Google Scholar (here particularly 128); also his review of Betz's commentary, reprinted in the same collection 172–88; Gaston (as n. 24); and, of course, Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977).Google Scholar