DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,188
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I posted this 8 years ago:
The Law and the Christian Pt. 5
VI. Various Usages of nomoV in the Pauline Writings
6.1. The True Purpose of the Law
6.1a. Although the ostensive purpose of the Law was as a means of obtaining life (Lev. 18:5), Paul believed the Law had another purpose, a salvation-historical purpose. Paul knew that God knew the Hebrews could not be declared righteous by observance to the Law even though this was theoretically possible. God had another purpose for giving the Law and it was to bring to the Hebrews the knowledge of sin and their sinfulness. The Law would even serve to increase sin in the world. The Law would prepare for Christ, and once it fulfilled it purpose, it would become salvation-historically obsolete.
6.1b. Rom. 3:19-20; 5:12-13; 7:7-8; Gal. 3:19
Paul explains in Rom. 3:19 that the purpose of all scripture is for Jews to conclude that no one can be declared righteous from the works of the Law. Rather, what the Law accomplishes is to define sin, and to bring its violators to where they know themselves as sinners. diagar vomou epignwsiV amartiaV (for through law is full knowledge of sin -Rom. 3:20) With the Law, sin becomes defined as transgression and it becomes possible and therefore it is possible to have a knowledge of oneself as a sinner. Similarly, in Rom. 5:13, Paul says that where there is no law, there is no sin. Meaning that sin presupposes the Law; in the absence of the Law, there is no sin in the sense of transgression of the Law, although there may be disobedience.
The same idea is expressed in one of the most heated, and debated passages of Romans. In Rom. 7:7-8, Paul says:
What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said You shall not lust. But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart fro law, sin was dead.
alla thn amartian ouk egnwn, ei mh dia nomou Paul here begins to show how sins personified, used the commandment to entrap him. In his viewpoint, sin remains inactive without the Law (cf. Rom. 7:8-9) And says ironically, that with the introduction of the Law, what was intended to bring life brought death. When presented with the Law for the first time, the Hebrews naively assume that they can obey it, However, as stated before, the Law serves to nail a man to his sin, the unexpected result is that man is held in bondage to his sin so that now the Law is passively complicit in producing violations of itself. And this was the Jewish experience with the Law. As soon as he became aware of Gods requirements in the Law, their tendency to sin, defined as transgression of the Law, sprang to life. (cf. Rom. 7:9) For Paul, sin was a power that rules over, and becomes actual in the presence of the Law. Sin requires an external object in order to become actualized and the Law serves this purpose. (cf. Rom. 7:7)
This also appears the inferred meaning in Gal. 3:19a:
Why, then the law? The transgressions because of it was added
ti oun o nomoV; twn parabasewn carin prosteqh He means that the Law was added because the Jews (and indeed all mankind) are sinners. Paul uses a divine passive in this passage, so that it is God who added the Law because of transgressions. Paul does not explain in which sense the Law was added because of transgressions, but he does write: until the seed comes to whom it was promised. (Gal. 3:19b) This implies that one reason why the Law was added was in order to prepare for the coming of Christ, the seed. (cf. Gal. 3:16) Why the existence of transgressions required that the Law be made manifest is not stated. But with little doubt we can say that for Paul, the Law functioned to bring sin to light, so that they would see the need to be declared righteous apart from their own efforts or works of the Law. (cf. Gal.3:22-23; Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7-8)[1] It is also probable that a view held by Paul is that the Law was added to define sin as sin and thereby functioned also to bring the sinner into condemnation and thusly prepare them to receive the righteousness of God.
Many say that without the Law, as far as Gentiles are concerned, there would still be conscious (what Paul referred to as the law written on the heart [Rom. 2:15]), however, conscious does not function in the same manner as the Law because conscious can be defiled and even seared. (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15) Dictums of conscious are thusly liable to being rendered ineffectual, either in part, or wholly. Unlike the conscious, the Law is experienced as existing independently of the one who is subject to it, and not susceptible to perversion. The introduction of the Law has the effect of bringing into existence sin as being defined as violation of divinely -given commandment. It is also possible that Paul means that the Law was added in order to produce transgressions (cf. Rom. 5:2). This would also have the desired effect of preparing the Jew to receive the righteousness of God insofar as the more transgressions a Jew has, the less inclined they would be to deny their need of the righteousness of God.
6.2. Rom. 5:20
Paul says:
that might abound the offense
But that the Law was added in order that transgressions may increase. Not only does the Law supply a knowledge of sin, but it even increases sin by inciting those who to whom the Law was given to sin. In other words, the Law provided the Hebrews with opportunities to transgress that which formerly were not envisioned. And, as he later explains, the Law functions to generate sin because it provides the Hebrews something to rebel against.
6.3. The Salvation-Historical Role of the Law
Positively, the Law was given at a time in the working out of Gods purpose to declare to the Hebrews (and later the Gentiles) righteousness by faith and not by works. Paul explains this role in both Romans and Galatians.
6.3a. Gal. 3:15-22
Paul elaborates by speaking about the Covenant made with Abraham. The Law came four hundred and thirty years after the Covenant, but yet, does not nullify it (cf. Gal. 3:17). Paul uses the Greek word diaqhkhn or dee-ath-ay-kay. And means:
a testamentary disposition, will, a covenant, Heb. 9:16-17; Gal.3:15; in the N.T., a covenant of God with men, Gal. 3:17; 4:24; Heb. 9:4; Mt. 26:28, et. Al.; the writings of the old covenant[2]
The idea being conveyed here is one of a last will and testament. When a person makes a will, it is unbreakable and no one can change or nullify it. And in fact, Paul is comparing the Covenant God made with Abraham with a last will and testament in that they both cannot be nullified, are unchangeable, and is unbreakable and Paul also refers to the promise and promises given to Abraham. In Genesis, Abraham is promised land, and progeny, and that all nations would be blessed in him. Paul again refers to Abraham and probably uses as a comparison, the promise of land against salvation .The promise of the reception of land becomes the promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal. 3:14) and being declared righteous by faith (Gal.3:22) both of which Paul identifies as promises to Abraham. So that in the Gentile view, it is probable that the promise of land, has become the promise of salvation, because salvation comes as a result of being declared righteous and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (cf. Rom. 8:11)
At any rate, however you view it, Pauls point is that the promise of eternal life was unconditional, and was so in the time of Abraham. It does not, therefore, become conditional when the Law is given some four hundred and thirty years later. As Paul puts it, the inheritance is not from Law ek nomoV, but from promise ex apaggeliaV. He presents Law and promise as two mutually exclusive means of receiving the inheritance. The Law only has a function in the realization of the promise.[3]
6.3b. Rom. 10:4
Here is another of the hotly debated verses in the Pauline studies.[4] teloV gar nomou CristoV (Christ is the end of the law). It should be noted that some scholars translate teloV as goal while others translate it as end. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines teloV as: full performance, perfect discharge.[5] And that the ultimate meaning is that in ninety-nine percent of all contexts where it is used, whatever is being addressed, has been already attained, discharged, fulfilled, come to an end. Gerhard Delling advocates cessation saying:
For the believer, the Law is set aside as a way of salvation by the Christ event - CristoV means especially the crucifixion and resurrection, Rom. 7:4; 10:4[6]
One of the dominate views in Christianity, especially among Lutheran circles is that Christ is the end of the Law in the sense that it has been abolished for the believer. In other words, the Mosaic Law is not binding upon the believer since Christ is the end of the law. This belief must be guarded closely as it can lead down the path towards antinominianism (lawlessness).
Another view similar in nature is the view that the Law has come to an end as a way of salvation. Righteousness in the O.T. era was via the Law, however, now because of the Christ event, a right standing before God is no longer based on the Law. This idea has merit, however, it does not take into account the Apostolic Councils ruling in Acts 15, and the fact that some of the Law still applies to Jewish believers.
And there are numerous others such as: Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law.[7] The Exclusivity of the Law is set aside.[8] Christ is the Goal of the Law.[9] Christ is Both the End and Goal of the Law.[10] Then there is the view that this passage of Romans is one among 3 chapters of Romans that are addressed specifically to a Jewish audience possibly in Rome.[11]
According to Strongs Concordance, teloV is used some forty-one times in the New Testament. Of these, it is rendered as end in thirty-five of these. Robert Badenas claim that teloVmust be translated teleologically in Rom 10:4 is debatable,[12]for-whatever one makes of the term outside the NT-in the Pauline corpus and the rest of the NT the semantic range of the word is used more commonly with a temporal rather than a teleological meaning. Curiously even Badenas' own summary of Pauline usage could be interpreted to support such a conclusion:[13] (1) twice the word means "fully" or "completely" (2 Cor 1:13; 1 Thess 2:16); (2) three times it denotes "the eschatological end" (1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 15:24); (3) twice "final destiny" (2 Cor. 11:15; Phil 3:19); and (4) five times it is teleological (Rom 6:21-22; 10:4; 2 Cor 3:13; 1 Tim. 1:5). It should be observed that the first three categories above match the semantic range of "end" more than they do "goal." It cannot be denied that the range of teloVis dynamic, and thus it does not always refer to a temporal end. But Badenas' claim that the translation "goal" is lexically required in Rom 10:4 is at least debatable even from his own presentation of the evidence.
Therefore, based on the context of Romans 10, it is best to adopt the view that what Paul is trying to communicate is that in what the Law tried to do, establish a right standing before God, has come to an end. Based on context, it is also possible that Paul was referring to Jewish believers because in verse 3 he says:
For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
The logical relationship between verse 3 and 4 is the primary support for this view. The assertion the Christ is the end of the law is not merely an abstract theological proposition which Paul inserted. Instead, support comes from the Greek word gar. In this instance, gar is used as conjunction connecting the previous train of thought with the next. The main argument here is that the Jews have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. It should be understood that the Jews are ignorant of the divine activity of God by which He declares all those who trust in Him to be righteous. There are two participles in verse 3 that are casual: agnoounteV and zhtounteV. They explain why the Jews did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God. and also, it explains the because. Because they were ignorant of Gods righteousness, and because they went about trying to establish their own righteousness.
A parallel verse, Rom. 9:32, informs the reader that Israel failed to attain righteousness via the Law because they sought to attain it as from works instead from faith. Since erga in Paul, refers to works in the general sense, it cannot be restricted to only part of the Law, and since Paul does not mention other matters like circumcision, the dietary laws, etc., it is fair to say that Paul is saying that the Jews thought they could attain righteousness by doing what is prescribed by the Law.
In summary, it seems that the main problem with interpreting Rom. 10:4 is that scholars and laymen are trying to support their whole understanding of the Law and the gospel on the basis of this text. Whether Christ is the goal or the end the debates will never cease. But the particular problem Paul is encountering is a tendency to misuse the Law in an effort to establish ones righteousness. And that being the case, it is true that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness.
6.4. The Law and its Relation to the Believer as a Moral Standard in Paul
In Pauls view, it is clear that no one can be declared righteous by obedience to the Law, but this raises the question of whether, even it cannot be, whether the Law remains a moral standard for Jewish believers and should it become such a standard for Gentile believers. This is a most controversial topic, and one that should not be taken lightly. In the Second-Temple Jewish thought, a condition remaining of the covenant was obedience to the Law. Evidence has already been produced earlier that according to Rabbinic teachings, obedience to the Law was believed. There is also evidence that Jews, Pharisaic and otherwise, saw the Law as an expression of the will of God, obeyed out of a love for God, even though obedience to the Law was also a condition of participation in eschatological salvation. The question is, whether or not Paul saw obedience to the Law as an expression of love for God. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of Pauls letters, we cannot get a clear presentation of his views.
6.4a. Pauls rejection of the Law
It is clear that Paul explicitly rejects at least certain parts of the Law, in particular, circumcision, the dietary laws, and the Jewish Festival calendar.
6.4.1a. Circumcision
In Gal. 5:2-4, Paul says:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Paul says here that if a man allows himself to be circumcised, Christ will be of no use to him; ritual circumcision as described in the book of Genesis, and as described in Lev. 12:2-3; Ex. 12:44-48 is what Paul is referring to here. According to Paul, this is the first step towards obedience to the whole Law, performed for the purpose of being declared righteous thereby,[14] or just for the simple reason that the Law says one has to. For Paul, once this step is taken, one cannot appropriate by faith the righteousness that comes by faith which originates in God as a gift, which is how Christ becomes of use to him. The two are mutually exclusive options. And they cannot be combined as Pauls adversaries, the Judaizers, advocated. As Paul says, you who are striving to be declared righteous by the law, end up alienating yourselves from Christ, you have fallen from grace. One could argue that Gentiles could submit themselves to circumcision as a way of showing love for God, but Paul emphatically rejects this notion citing that obedience to one commandment commits one to obedience to the other commandments as a condition of being declared righteous. Certainly, what Paul says applies foremost to Gentiles, who are not circumcised, were not given the laws regarding ritual circumcision, but also applies to the Jews as well for the Jews cannot be declared righteous from works of the Law any more than Gentiles can. Paul rebukes saying: In Christ, circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing (cf. Gal.5:6), which implies that there is no longer any need for circumcision, and if so, it should not be practiced among the Gentiles and, presumably also by the Jews. (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19)
6.4.1b. Dietary Laws and the Jewish Festival Calendar
Paul rejects the validity of the Jewish festival calendar, remarkably, because for him, all days, months, and years are alike. (cf. Rom. 14:5-6) Likewise, he views the Jewish dietary laws as no longer binding. And if it isnt clear, it certainly is in Col. 2:16-17:
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are shadows of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
When Paul says these things are shadows, Paul means that their validity has ceased because they have been replaced salvation-historically by a greater reality (cf. Gal. 4:10-11; Heb. 8:5; 10, In Platonism, "shadow" is set in contrast to "form" eikon in order to distinguish the material world from the world of forms and (see Rep. 7.514A-517A; Crat. 439A). In Platonic thought the material world exists insofar as matter participates in the immaterial forms; the former are ontologically inferior to the latter and derivative in their being, so that they could be described as "shadows." In Jewish writings in Greek, a similar, but more generalized use of "shadow" occurs, but now set in contrast to the term "body" soma (Philo, De conf. ling. 190; De migr. Abr. 12; Josephus, War 2.28). The "body" is superior to the "shadow" insofar it is the true reality or the original, as opposed to being the less real, mere appearance or copy. Paul contrasts the "shadow," consisting of the dietary laws and Jewish festival calendar, with the "body of Christ," by which he means the true reality consisting of Christ (genitive of apposition or content). The shadows are said to be of "the things that are to come," which, as synonymous with "the body of Christ," refers to fulfillment of eschatological salvation through the work of Christ. In Paul's theology, the dietary laws and Jewish festival calendar have been rendered obsolete, being merely anticipations of the greater reality of Christ.[15]
6.5. Statements that Appear to Indicate Paul rejects the Law as a Moral Standard
It is also clear that if Paul holds to the validity of the Law as a moral standard, he must hold to a reduced type of Law.
6.5a. Rom. 6:14-15
In Rom. 6:14, Paul says:
for ye are not under law, but under grace
gar este upo nomon alla upo carin Being under the law, and being under grace are mutually opposites. Cranfield argues that by not being under the Law Paul is referring to not being under Gods disfavor or condemnation.[16]
He explains further:
The fact that upo nomon is contrasted with upo carin suggests the likelihood that Paul is here thinking not of the Law generally, but of the Law as condemning sinners.
A parallel to Pauls affirmation is found in Rom. 8:1: There is therefore no condemnation for those in Jesus Christ. Cranfield is certainly correct that, for Paul, to be under grace is not to be under the condemnation of the Law, but Paul is hinting at more than just this. The full meaning of Rom. 6:14 becomes clear when interpreted in light of the following verse. Here, Paul asks a rhetorical question: can believers sin because they are not under the law but under grace? Here, it is suggested that Paul is expecting his readers to understand the previous statement (vs. 14) to mean that believers are not under the Law any more as a moral standard; otherwise his opponents wouldnt have any ground to criticize him as it would naturally lead down the path to antinomianism. Pauls simple response is not to say that believers cannot sin because they are not under the law, but that sin is no longer possible, since believers are now slaves to obedience. (6:16)
6.5b. Rom. 7:1-6
In Rom 7:1-6, Paul says that believers have died to the Law, and now serve God in the new way of the Spirit. These two ways of serving God are mutually exclusive in Paul's understanding. He begins by saying that he is speaking to those who know the Law, by which he seems to mean that he speaks to those who know about the life under the Law as stipulated in the Torah ginwskousi gar nomou lalw.[17] This would include Jews obviously, but also gentiles who "know the Law" in the sense of being acquainted with the basic tenets of Judaism. Paul intends to use this knowledge as a means to explicate the situation of the believer, both Jew and gentile. He says that a Jew (or anyone who desires to be obedient to God) has a lifetime obligation to obey the Law: "The Law has authority over a man as long as he is alive" (7:1b). He then compares the situation of the man under the Law to that of a married woman in relation to her legal obligations to her husband. He says that a woman is released from her status as married upon the death of her husband. She can now remarry without being liable to the accusation of being an adulteress (7:2-3).[18]
The principle that Paul seeks to establish with this illustration is that death brings release from legal obligation. Paul then applies this principle to believers: "So that, my brothers, you died to the Law" wste adeljoi mou, kai umeiV eqanatwqhte tw nomw(7:4). (In the illustration in 7:2-3, it is the woman's husband who dies not the woman herself; Paul expects his readers to make the necessary interpretive adjustments to make the analogy work.) The dative "to the Law" tw nomw is a dative of respect, designed to clarify Paul's use of figurative language: believers "die" with respect to the Law. His point is that the believing Jews no longer have an obligation to obey the Law; similarly, gentile believers have no obligation to put themselves under the Law. The adverbial phrase "through the body of Christ" dia tou swmatoV tou Cristou specifies that it was through Christ's body as crucified that believers have died to the Law. (In Rom 6, Paul uses the metaphor of "dying to sin" (6:2) and "dying with Christ (6:3-10) to describe the believer's situation, but there is no indication from the context that dying to the Law should be interpreted in light of these other "dyings.")
The purpose for which a believer dies to the Law is provided in Rom 7:4b: "In order that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead" eiV to genesqai umaV eterw, tw ek nekrwn egerqenti. The one who was raised from the dead is, of course, Christ; thus Paul sets being under the Law in opposition to belonging to Christ. Moreover, Paul explains that the reason that a believer has died to the Law is in order to bear fruit to God ina karpojorhswmen tw qew. (The purpose clause is probably dependent on "you died.") The phrase "to God" tw qew is a dative of advantage: to bear fruit for the benefit or advantage of God. Before their conversion, according to Paul, believers were "in the flesh"; in such a state, the Law only served to produce disobedience by inciting "the passions of sins in the members of our bodies" (7:5). The phrase "passions of sins" is probably a genitive of quality, meaning sinful passions; the use of the plural "sins" implies that concrete acts of disobedience are in view, not sin as a principle of disobedience.
Being in the flesh and the implications of this led to bearing fruit unto death, insofar as death is the penalty of sin. The believer's situation, however, is to be released from the Law, having died to what held him nuni de kathrghqhmen apo tou nomou, apoqanontoV en w kateicomeqa (7:6). To be released from the Law is a synonym for having died to the Law that once held the believer (7:4). The Law holds a person, in the sense of keeping him captive, insofar as it functions to make sin known and thereby bring condemnation; in addition, the Law even increases sin. Again, Paul asserts that Jews no longer have an obligation to obey the Law and gentiles are not required to submit themselves to the Law in order to "serve God" (7:6).
Rather, the believer has been released from the Law "with the result that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the letter" wste douleuein hmaV en kainothti pneumatoV, kai ou palaiothti grammatoV (7:6). The genitives "new way of the Spirit" and "old way of the letter" are probably genitives of apposition or content, signifying that the "new way" consists of the Spirit and the "old way" consists of the letter, by which Paul means the Law. The believer is not released from serving God, but only from serving God in a particular way: "the old way of the letter." To serve God in the old way of the letter is to serve God by submitting oneself to the Law (see Rom 2:29; 2 Cor 3:6), which Paul considers to be doomed to failure: for Paul to be under the Law is inseparable from being in the flesh. The new way of serving God is by means of the Spirit. It is clear that, for Paul, Law and Spirit are incompatible ways of serving God.
6.5c. Gal. 2:17-19
Paul's Judaizing opponents apparently accused Paul of making Christ "the servant of sin," insofar as Paul taught that gentiles who become Christians do not have to obey the Law.[19] (For example, Paul vociferously rejected the demand that the Galatian believers be circumcised.) This accusation stands behind Paul's rhetorical question: "But if, seeking to be declared righteous in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, then also [does this mean that] Christ is a servant of sin?"
ei de zhtounteV dikaiwqhnai en Cristw, eureqhuen kai autoi amartwloi, apa CristoV amartiaV diakrnoV (2:17). His Judaizing opponents would have defined as sin any violation of the Law. This then explains Paul's statement, "We ourselves are found to be sinners." That is to say, Paul proclaimed to his gentile audiences that being declared righteous came apart from the works of the Law ("to be declared righteous in Christ"), so that, in seeking to be declared righteous apart from obedience to the Law, gentiles would be found to be sinners, for they would be Law-breakers, insofar as they had not submit to the Law in its totality, including becoming circumcised. Thus, Paul's gospel allows believers to be "sinners," as defined by the Law, and his opponents cleverly expressed this fact as [Paul's] Christ being a servant or promoter of sin. (The first person plural seems to refer to Paul, his supporters and his gentile converts.) As expected, Paul rejects the charge that he has made Christ into a servant of sin, but his reason for rejecting the accusation may have come as a shock to his Jewish opponents: "For if what I have destroyed these things I build up again, then I establish myself as a transgressor" ei gar a katelusa tauta palin oikodomw parabathn emauton sunisthmi (2:18).
Paul's argument is that he (and other Jews who support him and his gentiles converts) cannot be accused of being sinners insofar as they violate the Law because the Law no longer has validity and therefore cannot be violated. This is what he has destroyed. In other words, Paul's counters the charges against him by affirming that the Law is now obsolete. (It must be noted that Paul [and Peter] had violated Jewish dietary laws by eating with gentiles in Antioch.) His opponents' charge could only be true on the assumption that a believer is under the Law as a moral standard; thus only if he rebuilds what he has destroyed, i.e., the Law, could he then be proven to be a Law-breaker. Instead, Paul says that he has "died to the Law, in order that he might live for God" (2:19).
(By his use of the first person "I," Paul doubtless means to be speaking paradigmatically also; the same is true of his use of "I" in Gal 2:18) To die to the Law is to no longer be under the Law as a moral standard; this is the condition of "living for God," which is the new way of serving God (see Rom 7:1-6). Paul also says that this dying to the Law occurs "through the Law" dia nomw, by which he means because of the Law. In other words, he attributes a salvation-historical role to the Law as leading to Christ and its own obsolescence (see 3:19-25).[20]
6.5d. Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-7
Paul describes the Law as having a temporary function in God's plan of salvation; the Law was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham (see 3:17). During this period of time the Law functioned metaphorically as a paidagwgoV (guardian or disciplinarian) to bring "us" to Christ, in order that "we" may be declared righteous by faith, and adds that now that faith has come, "we" are no longer under the paidagwgoV, the Law (3:24-25). The Law did not have the purpose of being the means of obtaining salvation. Paul likens being under the Law to being in custody, until the possibility of being declared righteous by faith becomes possible (3:23). The role of a paidagwgoV was typically filled by a slave who was assigned to accompany a child to and from school and ensure that he was safe from harm and well-mannered (see Plato, Lysis, 208 C-D); they had a reputation for harshness.[21]
Thus, to compare the Law to a paidagwgoV would carry with it certain negative connotations. In his use of the metaphor of the paidagwgoV, Paul seems to make two points. First, for him to be under the Law is to exist under the authority and guardianship of the Law; possibly he has the external restrictiveness of the Law in view. Even though elsewhere in his writings Paul explains that the Law has the negative result of inciting sin, in Gal 3:19 the Law has a more positive role of imposing discipline on those under it, just as a paidagwgoV imposes discipline on his young charge. Paul explains that the ultimate purpose of being under the discipline of the Law is "in order that we might be declared righteous by faith" (3:24). This implies that the Law as paidagwgoV serves to lead a Jew to the realization of his inherent inability to obtain righteousness by doing the Law. Second, Paul uses the metaphor of the paidagwgoV to communicate that the state of existence characterized as being under the Law was intended to be temporary and preparatory for faith in Christ.[22] By the phrase "until the coming faith was revealed" eiV thn uellousan pistin apokalujqhnai means until faith in Christ became possible historically (see the parallel construction in Rom 8:18). Paul's analogy implies that, with the possibility of faith in Christ, the paidagwgoV function performed by the Law is complete, and its validity has ceased: the person who is no longer a minor is longer under the authority of hispaidagwgoV.[23]
In Gal 4:1-7, Paul explains that to be under the Law is to be like a minor, who with respect to his freedom is no better than a slave, even though he is an heir.[24] Paul's point is that anyone who submits to the Law is living without freedom and so is slave-like. He describes the Jewish experience of being under the Law as being enslaved to "the elements of the cosmos" upo ta stoiceia tou kosmou (4:3). What he means by the phrase "the elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 is the Law viewed as a salvation-historically elemental and preliminary teaching. (The term ta stoiceia tou kosmou occurs in Gal 4:9; Col 2:8, 20; 2 Pet 3:10-12.)[25]
To be "under the elements of the cosmos" (4:3) is synonymous with being "under the Law" (4:5).[26] In Paul's interpretation, the Law was intended to lead to Christ and be superseded once "the fullness of time" had come (4:4). Paul says that for Jew to be under the Law was to be in a state of bondage, a lack of freedom, which is undesirable. This state was necessary but still intended to be temporary. This is why he chose the metaphor of a minor under the authority of "guardians and managers until the date set by the father" in order to describe the Jewish experience under the Law (4:2). In his view, the Galatians do not recognize that salvation-historically the Law has been superseded: "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (4:6). To have the Spirit of Christ in one's heart makes the Law unnecessary and obsolete.
6.5e. Gal. 4:21-31
Using an allegorical interpretation of the figures of Hagar and Sarah (see Gal 4:24a: "These things have an allegorical meaning" atina estin allhgoromrna, Paul contrasts two covenants; the implication is that one is superior to and has superseded the other. His aim is to convince the Galatian believers not to submit to the Law as a condition of being declared righteous. To this end, he compares the Mosaic covenant to the slave woman Hagar, whose son was born "according to the flesh" kata sarka, by which he means in ordinary fashion, and another covenant (implicitly, the "new covenant" [see 2 Cor 3:6]) to Sarah, the free woman, whose son is born "through promise" dia thV epaggeliaV. Hagar is also identified with Mount Sinai corresponding to Jerusalem, representing (unbelieving) Jews, who, by implication, are in slavery to the Law, since their "mother" was a slave. (It was on Mount Sinai that Moses received the Law.) To this Jerusalem is contrasted "the Jerusalem above" representing believers, those who are free from the Law, symbolized by Sarah.
Paul uses the eschatological notion of the heavenly Jerusalem to be revealed at the end in a novel way to express the difference between (unbelieving) Jews and believers; the implicit superiority of "the Jerusalem above" is exploited by Paul to express the superiority of the (new) covenant represented by Sarah (On the idea of a heavenly and/or new Jerusalem, see 1 En 90:28-29; 2 Bar 4:1-7; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 10:26-27; 13.36; see also T. Dan 5:12; Sib. Or. 5.420-33; 5Q15 [5QNew Jerusalem]; Heb 12:22; 13:14; Rev 3:12; 21:2; 21:9-22:5). Paul writes, "And she is our mother" (4:25), by which he means that Sarah (symbolizing the Jerusalem above) represents the new covenant of which believers are metaphorically "sons," just as Isaac was literally the son of Sarah. It is clear from this allegorical contrast between the two women and their sons that Paul believes that the status of believers to be one of freedom from the Law, since Sarah is the free woman and Isaac is the son of a free woman. Paul then cites Isa 54:1, an eschatological passage, but interprets the barren woman of the prophecy as referring to Sarah (as opposed to Israel in exile, the intended meaning) and then allegorically to believers, who are sons of promise.
His point is that Sarah, once barren, is now the "mother" of many children, representing believers, including gentiles. The implication is that Sarah eschatologically has become the mother of believers "now that faith has come" (Gal 3:23). In Gal 4:28-31, Paul then focuses on the two sons born of the two women, Hagar and Sarah. He is referring to the fact that Issac was born miraculously as the result of God's promise to Abraham that he would have a heir through Sarah, whereas Ishmael was not born miraculously.
Paul no doubt is comparing believers who are indwelt by the Spirit to Jews who are defined as such by means of their physical birth and literal circumcision ("flesh"). In other words, Ishmael represents Judaism, which is now rejected, just as Ishmael was sent away (Gen 21:10). It is clear that, for Paul, to be under the Law is incompatible with being indwelt by the Spirit.[27]
6.5f. Gal. 5:1, 13, 18
Paul says that the situation of the believer is that of freedom (from the Law) meaning that the Law is not the moral standard according to which a believers lives. He writes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free" th eleuqeria oun h CristoV hmaV hleuqerwse (5:1)[28] and "For you were called to freedom" UmeiV gar ep eleqeria eklhte (5:13). Paul also says to the Galatians that if they are led by the Spirit, they are not under the Law ouk este upo nomon, so that he is contrasting Spirit and Law as two mutually exclusive modes of being. Not to be under the Law is not be obliged to obey the Law, not even part of the Law.
6.5g. 1 Cor. 9:20-21; 10:23-24
Paul explains that, although he is not under the Law, he lives as if he were under the Law in order to win Jews to Christ. By not being under the Law, Paul no doubt means that he is no longer obligated to obey the Law, that the Law no longer serves as a moral standard. In addition, the Corinthians are probably quoting back to Paul a dictum that they heard from Paul or at least derived from Paul's teaching: "All things are lawful for me." Paul does not dispute the truth of this principle, only the Corinthians' misapplication of it, as a license for sin.
6.6. Statements Suggesting the Abiding Validity of at least Parts of the Law.
There are numerous statements in Paul's writings that seem to affirm that the Law or at least a reduced Law serves as an eternal moral standard to which all human beings, including believers, are subject. It is suggestive that Paul cites the Law in order to deal with the question of whether the apostles should be supported financially, implying that it has authority in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 9:9 = Deut 25:4; see also 1 Cor 14:34 = "as the nomoV says").[29] The interpreter must be able to make sense of this collection of passages in light of Paul's apparent rejection of the Law as a moral standard for Jewish and gentile believers.
6.6a. Rom. 2:14-15
As already indicated, Paul says that gentiles have the Law written on their hearts by which they will be judged. Although they do not have the Mosaic Law, Paul says that gentiles still "do by nature the things of the Law" (phusei ta tou nomou poiosin), by which Paul means that gentile moral theory and practice naturally inevitably conforms, in part, at least, to the Mosaic Law. (This innate Law is probably identical to the law of reciprocity.) At any rate, the implication is that the law written on the heart is a universal moral standard for human beings. Paul must be thinking, however, about a reduced Law, since it is obvious that not all the commandments are written on the hearts of Gentiles.
6.6b. Rom. 3:31
Paul anticipates an objection against his position in Rom 3:31, namely that his stress on being declared righteous from faith and not from works implies that he has destroyed the Law: Have we therefore destroyed the Law through faith. The two verbs we destroy katargoumen and we establish histanomen are intended as opposites. When he refers to the Law, Paul probably means the Law understood as the expression of the will of God for human beings, as the context suggests (see 3:20 works of the Law). Pauls response to the accusation that his view on being declared righteous destroys the Law is to say that he denies the validity of the Law as a moral standard (see 8:2-4). Rather, his view upholds the Law as a moral standard. Paul, however, does not elaborate on this statement at this time.
6.6c. Rom. 7:12, 14
In the context of the statement of his inability to keep the Law Paul says that the Law is "holy" hagioV and the commandment is "holy, righteous and good" hagia, dikaia, agatha (7:12) and that the Law is spiritual pneumatikos (7:14), by which he may mean compatible with the Spirit. To refer to the Jewish Law by such felicitous terms as these may be taken to imply that Law is a universal moral standard. In general, Paul's lament about not being to keep the Law in Rom 7 implies that he sees the Law as applicable to all human beings, including believers (see 7:7).
6.6d. Rom 8:2-4
Paul says that the causal principle (lit. "law") of the Spirit of life (i.e., consisting of the Spirit that leads to life, a genitive of direction or purpose) has liberated one from the causal principle of sin and death (i.e., characterized by sin and leading to death). The Law could not produce life, because it was "weakened" by the flesh, meaning that the sinful nature prevented one from keeping the Law. Instead, Paul explains that God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful humanity "for sin" peri hamartiaV, by which he means because of sin or in order to be the solution for human sin. God condemned sin in the flesh, that is, Christ's human nature, in the sense that God provided his son as a substitutional sacrifice for sinners. The purpose of this redemption act is "in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, those who live not according to the flesh but the Spirit." This could be taken to mean that the one who lives according to the Spirit does what the Law requires, that is, becomes righteous by obeying the Lawthe righteousness consisting of (obedience to) the Law's stipulations. This could be taken to imply that the Law remains binding on the believer as a moral standard.
6.6e. Rom. 13:8-9; Gal. 5:13-14; 5:6b
In two different passages, Paul says that a believer is obligated to love agapan and that love agape fulfills the Law. It would follow from this equation of love and fulfilling the Law that a believer has an obligation to obey the Law: love and Law are convertible.[30] In other words there is one commandment expressive of all other commandments to which a believer is subject.[31]
In Rom 13:8-9, Paul instructs his readers not to owe anything to anyone, except the ongoing obligation to love one another ei hm to agapan allhlouV. (By "one another" allhlouV Paul no doubt means all human beings, rather than fellow believers.) Paul then affirms, "For he who loves the other has fulfilled the Law" o gar agapwn tou eteron nomon peplhrwke. (There has been some dispute concerning whether "other" is used substantively ("the other") and thus as the object of the verb "to love" or whether it is used as an adjective modifying "law." If the latter, then Paul is not referring to the Jewish Law, but another law [perhaps "the law of Christ" in Gal 6:2]. It seems more probable that the former option is the correct one, for Paul quotes from the Jewish Law in the very next verse; the implication is that these specific commandments are part of the Law that is fulfilled by the one who loves "the other.") The definite article before "other" has generalizing effect. Paul then quotes from four of the ten commandments"Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not covet" (13:9)and then affirms that these and "and any other commandment" are summed up by one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). To love one's neighbor is defined in part as not doing evil towards one's neighbor agaph tw plhsion kakon ouk ergazetai (13:10a). Summing up his position, Paul says, "Love is the fulfillment of the Law" plhrwma oun nomou h agaph (13:10b). Insofar as, for Paul, love is convertible with fulfilling the Law and love is an obligation of believers, it could be argued that that believers are obliged to keep the Law. Now Paul may be thinking of a reduced Law, since he only quoted from the so-called moral law; nevertheless he would still be committed to the view that the believer is obliged to keep this reduced Law as a moral standard. (Paul exhorts his churches to love in Rom 12.9; Eph 5.2, 25; Phil 2.1-2; see also Col 1:4, 8; 1 Thess 1:3.)
Paul makes essentially the same point in Gal 5:13-14, and so could be interpreted to be saying that the believer is under the obligation to obey the one commandment that includes all other commandments. Paul warns the Galatians believers that they should not use their freedom from the Law as an opportunity to indulge their "flesh" sarx. Rather, they should use their freedom to "become one another's servants in love" dia thV agaphV douleuete allhloiV (5:13). The phrase "become one another's servants in love" is the functional equivalent of the obligation "to love one another" in Rom 13:8. The adverbial phrase "in love" specifies the means by which one becomes a servant of another: through love or putting the other's interest first. As in Rom 13:8-9, Paul explains, "The whole Law is fulfilled in one word: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Lev 19:18). By his statement that the whole law ho pas nomoV Paul must assume a reductionistic view of the Law, for otherwise, if all the commandments are expressions of this one commandment then it would follow that they should be obeyed. So implicit in Paul's statement that the whole Law is fulfilled in the one commandment is the abrogation of any commandment that is not expressive of love. It should also be noted that "to do the whole Law" olon ton nomou poihsai (5:3) cannot be equivalent in meaning to "the whole Law is fulfilled" paV nomoV en eni logw plhroutai (5:14) Otherwise Paul would be found in blatant contradiction in the same chapter!
6.6f. 1 Cor. 7:19
Paul says that neither circumcision not uncircumcision matters; what does matter is "keeping the commandments of God" thrhsiV entolwn qeou. In most other contexts, Paul uses the term "commandment" entole to refer to the individual prescriptions and proscriptions found in the Law (see Rom 7:8-13; 13:9; Eph 2:15; 6:2); probably his use of the term in 1 Cor 7:19 has the same meaning. From a Jewish perspective, however, Paul's statement is nonsensical, because circumcision is one of the commandments. Thus, one could interpret Paul's statement to mean that what is required of believers is obedience to a reduced Law, which does not include the commandment of circumcision, but does include other commandments from the Law.
6.6g. Eph. 6:1-3
Paul instructs children to obey their parents and then quotes the Torah to support his view (Deut 5:16); this could be taken to imply that Paul believes that at least this commandment is binding and that the promises attached to its fulfillment is still valid.
Most content from TDNT, Vol V, pp. 1050-1155
[1] According to Hubner, Paul means in Gal. 3:19 that the Law was added in order to increase sin, so that the phrase is interpreted as a final and not a causal clause. (H. Hubner, Law in Pauls Thought, [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984], p.24-36) The Law was not added because there were transgressions, but in order to produce transgressions. In fact, Hubner argues that Paul believes it was the angels who gave the Law in order that Jews would transgress its commandments. According to Hubner, Paul later adopted a less radical view of the Law, so that the Law is now no longer understood as provoking sin, but merely as the means of knowing and recognizing sin (69-83). Under criticism by the Jerusalem church, he came to the more balanced view that the Law was on the side of God and was for that reason holy, just, and good (cf. Rom. 7:12) and had an important role to play in salvation history, It is probable better to say that Paul does not change his view of the Law but rather stresses the negative aspects of the Law in Galatians precisely because the Gentile believers in the Galatian churches were very close to submitting themselves to the Law as a condition of eschatological salvation. Besides, Paul does say similar things in Rom. 4:15; 5:20; 11:32 to what he says in Gal. 3:19, and Hubners attempts to deny this similarity is unconvincing.
[2] The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, diaqhkhn, p. 91-92
[3] C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification, Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996, p. 89-96
[4] For the history of interpretation see R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law; Rom. 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 7-37; J. A. Nestingen, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 as an Historical-Exegetical-Theological Problem )Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1984)
[5] Ibid, p. 405
[6] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromily, Translator, Erdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Reprinted 2006, Vol. VIII, teloV in the New Testament, 2, d, teloV, p. 56
[7] C. Haufe, Die Stellung des Paulus zum Gesetz, TLZ, 91, (1966), p.171-78
[8] M. A. Getty, An Apocalyptic Perspective on Rom. 10:4, HBT 4-5, 1982-83, 97, 100; Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Rom. 9-11, CBQ 50, 1988, 466-67; F. Refoule, Romains X, 4. Encore Une Fois, RevBib 91, 1984, 339; J.D.G. Dunn, (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988, 2:598; F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS 56, Cambridge University Press, 1986, 165; van Dulmen, DieTheologie des Gesetzes, 127
[9] D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, Grand Rapids: Erdmans Publishing, 1980, 84-85; C.T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, SBLDS 55, Chico: Scholars, 1981, 103-104; L. Gaston, For all the Believers : The Inclusion of the Gentiles as the Ultimate goal of the Torah in Romans, Paul and Torah, Vancouver University of British Columbia Press, 1987, 130; just to name a few.
[10] M.A. Seifrid, Pauls Approach to the Old Testament in Romans 10:6-8, Trinity Journals, 6, 1985, 7-8; E. J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Revelation of Law, Wisdom and Ethics, WUNT, 2, 16; Tubingen: Mohr 1985, 91, F.J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, London, Lutterworth, 1961, 266; A. J. Bandstra, The Law and Elements of the World,: An Exegetical Study in the Aspects of Pauls Teaching, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, Mi., 1964, 105-106; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, TNTC, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1963, 203
[11] As you continue reading, it is instantly obvious that chapters 9, 10, and 11, have nothing to do with chapters 1-8 or 12-16. Chapters 9-11 are completely unique in their theme, which is the Jewish people John Hagee, Jerusalem Countdown, p. 145-152; Donald G. Barnhouse introduces the notion of a parenthesis. Citing that various passages may be a parenthesis where some content is added that was known earlier, to further emphasize the current context, I/e/: Eph. 1:19-2:1. Donald G. Barnhouse, Romans, Vol. III,
[12] See his word study in Christ the End 38-80. Against Badenas, see Dunn, Romans 2.589.
[13] Badenas, Christ the End, 78-79. We omit the use ofteloVin Rom 13:7 since it refers to the paying oftaxes.
[14] H. Hubner, Law in Pauls Thought, p. 36-40
[15] E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971, 114-117, P. Porkorny, Colossians, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 1991, 142-145
[16] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC n.s.; 2 Vols.; Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1975, 1979, 1, 320
[17] B. Youngs interpretation of Rom 7:1-7 is very unconvincing (Paul the Jewish Theologian [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997] chap. 6).
[18] F. Stanley Jones, "Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus (GTA 34; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 118-22.
[19] Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 30-70.
[20] Betz, Galatians, 122.
[21] Bertram, TDNT 5.596-625.
[22] On this topic, see R. N. Longenecker, "The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3.19-4.7," JETS 25 (1982); L. Belleville, "Under the Law: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11," JSNT 26 (1986) 53-78; D. J. Lull, "The Law Was Our Pedagogue: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25," JBL 105 (1986) 481-98; N. H. Young, "Paidagôgos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," NovT 29 (1987) 150-76; A. T. Hanson, "The Origin of Pauls Use of Paidagôgos for the Law," JSNT 34 (1988) 71-76.
[23] See Betz, Galatians, 175-80; E. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921) 198-201.
[24] See G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956); A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) 57-67; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 66-71; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 293-304.
[25] According to Bandstra, Paul means the same thing by the terms "elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 and "elements" in 4:8 (The Law and the Elements of the World, 57-67). He identifies them as "those elements that are operative within the whole sphere of human activity which is temporary and passing away, beggarly and incompetent in bringing salvation, weak and both open to an defenseless before sin" (55). These operative elements are Law and flesh, the fundamental forces operative in the world.
[26] See Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 215-16; 510-18; R. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1990) 164-66; R. Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 181, 188-92; A. Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 151-65.
[27] Contrary to F. Stanley Jones, who interprets freedom to mean freedom from corruptibility, corresponding to the Jerusalem that is above ("Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus, 82-96).
[28] See F. Stanley Jones, "Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus, 96-102.
[29] On this topic, see Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 93-114; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 62-73; Westerholm, Israels Law and the Churchs Faith, 198-218.
[30] See S. Westerholm, Israels Law and the Churchs Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 201-205; J. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Pauls Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988)125-42; B. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abrahams God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 83-88; C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996) 103-4.
[31] It is important to note that Pauls summarizing of the Law as one commandment (Lev 19:18) is not original to him. R. Hillel, a Pharisee, like Paul, was supposed to have taught that the Torah can be summed up in the injunction: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" (Sabb 31a in BT). Paul, however, took this summarizing approach to understanding the Law to an extreme to which that no Pharisee could assent.
I'm outta here.
God Bless
Till all are one.
The Law and the Christian Pt. 5
VI. Various Usages of nomoV in the Pauline Writings
6.1. The True Purpose of the Law
6.1a. Although the ostensive purpose of the Law was as a means of obtaining life (Lev. 18:5), Paul believed the Law had another purpose, a salvation-historical purpose. Paul knew that God knew the Hebrews could not be declared righteous by observance to the Law even though this was theoretically possible. God had another purpose for giving the Law and it was to bring to the Hebrews the knowledge of sin and their sinfulness. The Law would even serve to increase sin in the world. The Law would prepare for Christ, and once it fulfilled it purpose, it would become salvation-historically obsolete.
6.1b. Rom. 3:19-20; 5:12-13; 7:7-8; Gal. 3:19
Paul explains in Rom. 3:19 that the purpose of all scripture is for Jews to conclude that no one can be declared righteous from the works of the Law. Rather, what the Law accomplishes is to define sin, and to bring its violators to where they know themselves as sinners. diagar vomou epignwsiV amartiaV (for through law is full knowledge of sin -Rom. 3:20) With the Law, sin becomes defined as transgression and it becomes possible and therefore it is possible to have a knowledge of oneself as a sinner. Similarly, in Rom. 5:13, Paul says that where there is no law, there is no sin. Meaning that sin presupposes the Law; in the absence of the Law, there is no sin in the sense of transgression of the Law, although there may be disobedience.
The same idea is expressed in one of the most heated, and debated passages of Romans. In Rom. 7:7-8, Paul says:
What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said You shall not lust. But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart fro law, sin was dead.
alla thn amartian ouk egnwn, ei mh dia nomou Paul here begins to show how sins personified, used the commandment to entrap him. In his viewpoint, sin remains inactive without the Law (cf. Rom. 7:8-9) And says ironically, that with the introduction of the Law, what was intended to bring life brought death. When presented with the Law for the first time, the Hebrews naively assume that they can obey it, However, as stated before, the Law serves to nail a man to his sin, the unexpected result is that man is held in bondage to his sin so that now the Law is passively complicit in producing violations of itself. And this was the Jewish experience with the Law. As soon as he became aware of Gods requirements in the Law, their tendency to sin, defined as transgression of the Law, sprang to life. (cf. Rom. 7:9) For Paul, sin was a power that rules over, and becomes actual in the presence of the Law. Sin requires an external object in order to become actualized and the Law serves this purpose. (cf. Rom. 7:7)
This also appears the inferred meaning in Gal. 3:19a:
Why, then the law? The transgressions because of it was added
ti oun o nomoV; twn parabasewn carin prosteqh He means that the Law was added because the Jews (and indeed all mankind) are sinners. Paul uses a divine passive in this passage, so that it is God who added the Law because of transgressions. Paul does not explain in which sense the Law was added because of transgressions, but he does write: until the seed comes to whom it was promised. (Gal. 3:19b) This implies that one reason why the Law was added was in order to prepare for the coming of Christ, the seed. (cf. Gal. 3:16) Why the existence of transgressions required that the Law be made manifest is not stated. But with little doubt we can say that for Paul, the Law functioned to bring sin to light, so that they would see the need to be declared righteous apart from their own efforts or works of the Law. (cf. Gal.3:22-23; Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7-8)[1] It is also probable that a view held by Paul is that the Law was added to define sin as sin and thereby functioned also to bring the sinner into condemnation and thusly prepare them to receive the righteousness of God.
Many say that without the Law, as far as Gentiles are concerned, there would still be conscious (what Paul referred to as the law written on the heart [Rom. 2:15]), however, conscious does not function in the same manner as the Law because conscious can be defiled and even seared. (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15) Dictums of conscious are thusly liable to being rendered ineffectual, either in part, or wholly. Unlike the conscious, the Law is experienced as existing independently of the one who is subject to it, and not susceptible to perversion. The introduction of the Law has the effect of bringing into existence sin as being defined as violation of divinely -given commandment. It is also possible that Paul means that the Law was added in order to produce transgressions (cf. Rom. 5:2). This would also have the desired effect of preparing the Jew to receive the righteousness of God insofar as the more transgressions a Jew has, the less inclined they would be to deny their need of the righteousness of God.
6.2. Rom. 5:20
Paul says:
that might abound the offense
But that the Law was added in order that transgressions may increase. Not only does the Law supply a knowledge of sin, but it even increases sin by inciting those who to whom the Law was given to sin. In other words, the Law provided the Hebrews with opportunities to transgress that which formerly were not envisioned. And, as he later explains, the Law functions to generate sin because it provides the Hebrews something to rebel against.
6.3. The Salvation-Historical Role of the Law
Positively, the Law was given at a time in the working out of Gods purpose to declare to the Hebrews (and later the Gentiles) righteousness by faith and not by works. Paul explains this role in both Romans and Galatians.
6.3a. Gal. 3:15-22
Paul elaborates by speaking about the Covenant made with Abraham. The Law came four hundred and thirty years after the Covenant, but yet, does not nullify it (cf. Gal. 3:17). Paul uses the Greek word diaqhkhn or dee-ath-ay-kay. And means:
a testamentary disposition, will, a covenant, Heb. 9:16-17; Gal.3:15; in the N.T., a covenant of God with men, Gal. 3:17; 4:24; Heb. 9:4; Mt. 26:28, et. Al.; the writings of the old covenant[2]
The idea being conveyed here is one of a last will and testament. When a person makes a will, it is unbreakable and no one can change or nullify it. And in fact, Paul is comparing the Covenant God made with Abraham with a last will and testament in that they both cannot be nullified, are unchangeable, and is unbreakable and Paul also refers to the promise and promises given to Abraham. In Genesis, Abraham is promised land, and progeny, and that all nations would be blessed in him. Paul again refers to Abraham and probably uses as a comparison, the promise of land against salvation .The promise of the reception of land becomes the promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal. 3:14) and being declared righteous by faith (Gal.3:22) both of which Paul identifies as promises to Abraham. So that in the Gentile view, it is probable that the promise of land, has become the promise of salvation, because salvation comes as a result of being declared righteous and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (cf. Rom. 8:11)
At any rate, however you view it, Pauls point is that the promise of eternal life was unconditional, and was so in the time of Abraham. It does not, therefore, become conditional when the Law is given some four hundred and thirty years later. As Paul puts it, the inheritance is not from Law ek nomoV, but from promise ex apaggeliaV. He presents Law and promise as two mutually exclusive means of receiving the inheritance. The Law only has a function in the realization of the promise.[3]
6.3b. Rom. 10:4
Here is another of the hotly debated verses in the Pauline studies.[4] teloV gar nomou CristoV (Christ is the end of the law). It should be noted that some scholars translate teloV as goal while others translate it as end. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines teloV as: full performance, perfect discharge.[5] And that the ultimate meaning is that in ninety-nine percent of all contexts where it is used, whatever is being addressed, has been already attained, discharged, fulfilled, come to an end. Gerhard Delling advocates cessation saying:
For the believer, the Law is set aside as a way of salvation by the Christ event - CristoV means especially the crucifixion and resurrection, Rom. 7:4; 10:4[6]
One of the dominate views in Christianity, especially among Lutheran circles is that Christ is the end of the Law in the sense that it has been abolished for the believer. In other words, the Mosaic Law is not binding upon the believer since Christ is the end of the law. This belief must be guarded closely as it can lead down the path towards antinominianism (lawlessness).
Another view similar in nature is the view that the Law has come to an end as a way of salvation. Righteousness in the O.T. era was via the Law, however, now because of the Christ event, a right standing before God is no longer based on the Law. This idea has merit, however, it does not take into account the Apostolic Councils ruling in Acts 15, and the fact that some of the Law still applies to Jewish believers.
And there are numerous others such as: Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law.[7] The Exclusivity of the Law is set aside.[8] Christ is the Goal of the Law.[9] Christ is Both the End and Goal of the Law.[10] Then there is the view that this passage of Romans is one among 3 chapters of Romans that are addressed specifically to a Jewish audience possibly in Rome.[11]
According to Strongs Concordance, teloV is used some forty-one times in the New Testament. Of these, it is rendered as end in thirty-five of these. Robert Badenas claim that teloVmust be translated teleologically in Rom 10:4 is debatable,[12]for-whatever one makes of the term outside the NT-in the Pauline corpus and the rest of the NT the semantic range of the word is used more commonly with a temporal rather than a teleological meaning. Curiously even Badenas' own summary of Pauline usage could be interpreted to support such a conclusion:[13] (1) twice the word means "fully" or "completely" (2 Cor 1:13; 1 Thess 2:16); (2) three times it denotes "the eschatological end" (1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 15:24); (3) twice "final destiny" (2 Cor. 11:15; Phil 3:19); and (4) five times it is teleological (Rom 6:21-22; 10:4; 2 Cor 3:13; 1 Tim. 1:5). It should be observed that the first three categories above match the semantic range of "end" more than they do "goal." It cannot be denied that the range of teloVis dynamic, and thus it does not always refer to a temporal end. But Badenas' claim that the translation "goal" is lexically required in Rom 10:4 is at least debatable even from his own presentation of the evidence.
Therefore, based on the context of Romans 10, it is best to adopt the view that what Paul is trying to communicate is that in what the Law tried to do, establish a right standing before God, has come to an end. Based on context, it is also possible that Paul was referring to Jewish believers because in verse 3 he says:
For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
The logical relationship between verse 3 and 4 is the primary support for this view. The assertion the Christ is the end of the law is not merely an abstract theological proposition which Paul inserted. Instead, support comes from the Greek word gar. In this instance, gar is used as conjunction connecting the previous train of thought with the next. The main argument here is that the Jews have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. It should be understood that the Jews are ignorant of the divine activity of God by which He declares all those who trust in Him to be righteous. There are two participles in verse 3 that are casual: agnoounteV and zhtounteV. They explain why the Jews did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God. and also, it explains the because. Because they were ignorant of Gods righteousness, and because they went about trying to establish their own righteousness.
A parallel verse, Rom. 9:32, informs the reader that Israel failed to attain righteousness via the Law because they sought to attain it as from works instead from faith. Since erga in Paul, refers to works in the general sense, it cannot be restricted to only part of the Law, and since Paul does not mention other matters like circumcision, the dietary laws, etc., it is fair to say that Paul is saying that the Jews thought they could attain righteousness by doing what is prescribed by the Law.
In summary, it seems that the main problem with interpreting Rom. 10:4 is that scholars and laymen are trying to support their whole understanding of the Law and the gospel on the basis of this text. Whether Christ is the goal or the end the debates will never cease. But the particular problem Paul is encountering is a tendency to misuse the Law in an effort to establish ones righteousness. And that being the case, it is true that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness.
6.4. The Law and its Relation to the Believer as a Moral Standard in Paul
In Pauls view, it is clear that no one can be declared righteous by obedience to the Law, but this raises the question of whether, even it cannot be, whether the Law remains a moral standard for Jewish believers and should it become such a standard for Gentile believers. This is a most controversial topic, and one that should not be taken lightly. In the Second-Temple Jewish thought, a condition remaining of the covenant was obedience to the Law. Evidence has already been produced earlier that according to Rabbinic teachings, obedience to the Law was believed. There is also evidence that Jews, Pharisaic and otherwise, saw the Law as an expression of the will of God, obeyed out of a love for God, even though obedience to the Law was also a condition of participation in eschatological salvation. The question is, whether or not Paul saw obedience to the Law as an expression of love for God. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of Pauls letters, we cannot get a clear presentation of his views.
6.4a. Pauls rejection of the Law
It is clear that Paul explicitly rejects at least certain parts of the Law, in particular, circumcision, the dietary laws, and the Jewish Festival calendar.
6.4.1a. Circumcision
In Gal. 5:2-4, Paul says:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Paul says here that if a man allows himself to be circumcised, Christ will be of no use to him; ritual circumcision as described in the book of Genesis, and as described in Lev. 12:2-3; Ex. 12:44-48 is what Paul is referring to here. According to Paul, this is the first step towards obedience to the whole Law, performed for the purpose of being declared righteous thereby,[14] or just for the simple reason that the Law says one has to. For Paul, once this step is taken, one cannot appropriate by faith the righteousness that comes by faith which originates in God as a gift, which is how Christ becomes of use to him. The two are mutually exclusive options. And they cannot be combined as Pauls adversaries, the Judaizers, advocated. As Paul says, you who are striving to be declared righteous by the law, end up alienating yourselves from Christ, you have fallen from grace. One could argue that Gentiles could submit themselves to circumcision as a way of showing love for God, but Paul emphatically rejects this notion citing that obedience to one commandment commits one to obedience to the other commandments as a condition of being declared righteous. Certainly, what Paul says applies foremost to Gentiles, who are not circumcised, were not given the laws regarding ritual circumcision, but also applies to the Jews as well for the Jews cannot be declared righteous from works of the Law any more than Gentiles can. Paul rebukes saying: In Christ, circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing (cf. Gal.5:6), which implies that there is no longer any need for circumcision, and if so, it should not be practiced among the Gentiles and, presumably also by the Jews. (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19)
6.4.1b. Dietary Laws and the Jewish Festival Calendar
Paul rejects the validity of the Jewish festival calendar, remarkably, because for him, all days, months, and years are alike. (cf. Rom. 14:5-6) Likewise, he views the Jewish dietary laws as no longer binding. And if it isnt clear, it certainly is in Col. 2:16-17:
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are shadows of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
When Paul says these things are shadows, Paul means that their validity has ceased because they have been replaced salvation-historically by a greater reality (cf. Gal. 4:10-11; Heb. 8:5; 10, In Platonism, "shadow" is set in contrast to "form" eikon in order to distinguish the material world from the world of forms and (see Rep. 7.514A-517A; Crat. 439A). In Platonic thought the material world exists insofar as matter participates in the immaterial forms; the former are ontologically inferior to the latter and derivative in their being, so that they could be described as "shadows." In Jewish writings in Greek, a similar, but more generalized use of "shadow" occurs, but now set in contrast to the term "body" soma (Philo, De conf. ling. 190; De migr. Abr. 12; Josephus, War 2.28). The "body" is superior to the "shadow" insofar it is the true reality or the original, as opposed to being the less real, mere appearance or copy. Paul contrasts the "shadow," consisting of the dietary laws and Jewish festival calendar, with the "body of Christ," by which he means the true reality consisting of Christ (genitive of apposition or content). The shadows are said to be of "the things that are to come," which, as synonymous with "the body of Christ," refers to fulfillment of eschatological salvation through the work of Christ. In Paul's theology, the dietary laws and Jewish festival calendar have been rendered obsolete, being merely anticipations of the greater reality of Christ.[15]
6.5. Statements that Appear to Indicate Paul rejects the Law as a Moral Standard
It is also clear that if Paul holds to the validity of the Law as a moral standard, he must hold to a reduced type of Law.
6.5a. Rom. 6:14-15
In Rom. 6:14, Paul says:
for ye are not under law, but under grace
gar este upo nomon alla upo carin Being under the law, and being under grace are mutually opposites. Cranfield argues that by not being under the Law Paul is referring to not being under Gods disfavor or condemnation.[16]
He explains further:
The fact that upo nomon is contrasted with upo carin suggests the likelihood that Paul is here thinking not of the Law generally, but of the Law as condemning sinners.
A parallel to Pauls affirmation is found in Rom. 8:1: There is therefore no condemnation for those in Jesus Christ. Cranfield is certainly correct that, for Paul, to be under grace is not to be under the condemnation of the Law, but Paul is hinting at more than just this. The full meaning of Rom. 6:14 becomes clear when interpreted in light of the following verse. Here, Paul asks a rhetorical question: can believers sin because they are not under the law but under grace? Here, it is suggested that Paul is expecting his readers to understand the previous statement (vs. 14) to mean that believers are not under the Law any more as a moral standard; otherwise his opponents wouldnt have any ground to criticize him as it would naturally lead down the path to antinomianism. Pauls simple response is not to say that believers cannot sin because they are not under the law, but that sin is no longer possible, since believers are now slaves to obedience. (6:16)
6.5b. Rom. 7:1-6
In Rom 7:1-6, Paul says that believers have died to the Law, and now serve God in the new way of the Spirit. These two ways of serving God are mutually exclusive in Paul's understanding. He begins by saying that he is speaking to those who know the Law, by which he seems to mean that he speaks to those who know about the life under the Law as stipulated in the Torah ginwskousi gar nomou lalw.[17] This would include Jews obviously, but also gentiles who "know the Law" in the sense of being acquainted with the basic tenets of Judaism. Paul intends to use this knowledge as a means to explicate the situation of the believer, both Jew and gentile. He says that a Jew (or anyone who desires to be obedient to God) has a lifetime obligation to obey the Law: "The Law has authority over a man as long as he is alive" (7:1b). He then compares the situation of the man under the Law to that of a married woman in relation to her legal obligations to her husband. He says that a woman is released from her status as married upon the death of her husband. She can now remarry without being liable to the accusation of being an adulteress (7:2-3).[18]
The principle that Paul seeks to establish with this illustration is that death brings release from legal obligation. Paul then applies this principle to believers: "So that, my brothers, you died to the Law" wste adeljoi mou, kai umeiV eqanatwqhte tw nomw(7:4). (In the illustration in 7:2-3, it is the woman's husband who dies not the woman herself; Paul expects his readers to make the necessary interpretive adjustments to make the analogy work.) The dative "to the Law" tw nomw is a dative of respect, designed to clarify Paul's use of figurative language: believers "die" with respect to the Law. His point is that the believing Jews no longer have an obligation to obey the Law; similarly, gentile believers have no obligation to put themselves under the Law. The adverbial phrase "through the body of Christ" dia tou swmatoV tou Cristou specifies that it was through Christ's body as crucified that believers have died to the Law. (In Rom 6, Paul uses the metaphor of "dying to sin" (6:2) and "dying with Christ (6:3-10) to describe the believer's situation, but there is no indication from the context that dying to the Law should be interpreted in light of these other "dyings.")
The purpose for which a believer dies to the Law is provided in Rom 7:4b: "In order that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead" eiV to genesqai umaV eterw, tw ek nekrwn egerqenti. The one who was raised from the dead is, of course, Christ; thus Paul sets being under the Law in opposition to belonging to Christ. Moreover, Paul explains that the reason that a believer has died to the Law is in order to bear fruit to God ina karpojorhswmen tw qew. (The purpose clause is probably dependent on "you died.") The phrase "to God" tw qew is a dative of advantage: to bear fruit for the benefit or advantage of God. Before their conversion, according to Paul, believers were "in the flesh"; in such a state, the Law only served to produce disobedience by inciting "the passions of sins in the members of our bodies" (7:5). The phrase "passions of sins" is probably a genitive of quality, meaning sinful passions; the use of the plural "sins" implies that concrete acts of disobedience are in view, not sin as a principle of disobedience.
Being in the flesh and the implications of this led to bearing fruit unto death, insofar as death is the penalty of sin. The believer's situation, however, is to be released from the Law, having died to what held him nuni de kathrghqhmen apo tou nomou, apoqanontoV en w kateicomeqa (7:6). To be released from the Law is a synonym for having died to the Law that once held the believer (7:4). The Law holds a person, in the sense of keeping him captive, insofar as it functions to make sin known and thereby bring condemnation; in addition, the Law even increases sin. Again, Paul asserts that Jews no longer have an obligation to obey the Law and gentiles are not required to submit themselves to the Law in order to "serve God" (7:6).
Rather, the believer has been released from the Law "with the result that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the letter" wste douleuein hmaV en kainothti pneumatoV, kai ou palaiothti grammatoV (7:6). The genitives "new way of the Spirit" and "old way of the letter" are probably genitives of apposition or content, signifying that the "new way" consists of the Spirit and the "old way" consists of the letter, by which Paul means the Law. The believer is not released from serving God, but only from serving God in a particular way: "the old way of the letter." To serve God in the old way of the letter is to serve God by submitting oneself to the Law (see Rom 2:29; 2 Cor 3:6), which Paul considers to be doomed to failure: for Paul to be under the Law is inseparable from being in the flesh. The new way of serving God is by means of the Spirit. It is clear that, for Paul, Law and Spirit are incompatible ways of serving God.
6.5c. Gal. 2:17-19
Paul's Judaizing opponents apparently accused Paul of making Christ "the servant of sin," insofar as Paul taught that gentiles who become Christians do not have to obey the Law.[19] (For example, Paul vociferously rejected the demand that the Galatian believers be circumcised.) This accusation stands behind Paul's rhetorical question: "But if, seeking to be declared righteous in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, then also [does this mean that] Christ is a servant of sin?"
ei de zhtounteV dikaiwqhnai en Cristw, eureqhuen kai autoi amartwloi, apa CristoV amartiaV diakrnoV (2:17). His Judaizing opponents would have defined as sin any violation of the Law. This then explains Paul's statement, "We ourselves are found to be sinners." That is to say, Paul proclaimed to his gentile audiences that being declared righteous came apart from the works of the Law ("to be declared righteous in Christ"), so that, in seeking to be declared righteous apart from obedience to the Law, gentiles would be found to be sinners, for they would be Law-breakers, insofar as they had not submit to the Law in its totality, including becoming circumcised. Thus, Paul's gospel allows believers to be "sinners," as defined by the Law, and his opponents cleverly expressed this fact as [Paul's] Christ being a servant or promoter of sin. (The first person plural seems to refer to Paul, his supporters and his gentile converts.) As expected, Paul rejects the charge that he has made Christ into a servant of sin, but his reason for rejecting the accusation may have come as a shock to his Jewish opponents: "For if what I have destroyed these things I build up again, then I establish myself as a transgressor" ei gar a katelusa tauta palin oikodomw parabathn emauton sunisthmi (2:18).
Paul's argument is that he (and other Jews who support him and his gentiles converts) cannot be accused of being sinners insofar as they violate the Law because the Law no longer has validity and therefore cannot be violated. This is what he has destroyed. In other words, Paul's counters the charges against him by affirming that the Law is now obsolete. (It must be noted that Paul [and Peter] had violated Jewish dietary laws by eating with gentiles in Antioch.) His opponents' charge could only be true on the assumption that a believer is under the Law as a moral standard; thus only if he rebuilds what he has destroyed, i.e., the Law, could he then be proven to be a Law-breaker. Instead, Paul says that he has "died to the Law, in order that he might live for God" (2:19).
(By his use of the first person "I," Paul doubtless means to be speaking paradigmatically also; the same is true of his use of "I" in Gal 2:18) To die to the Law is to no longer be under the Law as a moral standard; this is the condition of "living for God," which is the new way of serving God (see Rom 7:1-6). Paul also says that this dying to the Law occurs "through the Law" dia nomw, by which he means because of the Law. In other words, he attributes a salvation-historical role to the Law as leading to Christ and its own obsolescence (see 3:19-25).[20]
6.5d. Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-7
Paul describes the Law as having a temporary function in God's plan of salvation; the Law was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham (see 3:17). During this period of time the Law functioned metaphorically as a paidagwgoV (guardian or disciplinarian) to bring "us" to Christ, in order that "we" may be declared righteous by faith, and adds that now that faith has come, "we" are no longer under the paidagwgoV, the Law (3:24-25). The Law did not have the purpose of being the means of obtaining salvation. Paul likens being under the Law to being in custody, until the possibility of being declared righteous by faith becomes possible (3:23). The role of a paidagwgoV was typically filled by a slave who was assigned to accompany a child to and from school and ensure that he was safe from harm and well-mannered (see Plato, Lysis, 208 C-D); they had a reputation for harshness.[21]
Thus, to compare the Law to a paidagwgoV would carry with it certain negative connotations. In his use of the metaphor of the paidagwgoV, Paul seems to make two points. First, for him to be under the Law is to exist under the authority and guardianship of the Law; possibly he has the external restrictiveness of the Law in view. Even though elsewhere in his writings Paul explains that the Law has the negative result of inciting sin, in Gal 3:19 the Law has a more positive role of imposing discipline on those under it, just as a paidagwgoV imposes discipline on his young charge. Paul explains that the ultimate purpose of being under the discipline of the Law is "in order that we might be declared righteous by faith" (3:24). This implies that the Law as paidagwgoV serves to lead a Jew to the realization of his inherent inability to obtain righteousness by doing the Law. Second, Paul uses the metaphor of the paidagwgoV to communicate that the state of existence characterized as being under the Law was intended to be temporary and preparatory for faith in Christ.[22] By the phrase "until the coming faith was revealed" eiV thn uellousan pistin apokalujqhnai means until faith in Christ became possible historically (see the parallel construction in Rom 8:18). Paul's analogy implies that, with the possibility of faith in Christ, the paidagwgoV function performed by the Law is complete, and its validity has ceased: the person who is no longer a minor is longer under the authority of hispaidagwgoV.[23]
In Gal 4:1-7, Paul explains that to be under the Law is to be like a minor, who with respect to his freedom is no better than a slave, even though he is an heir.[24] Paul's point is that anyone who submits to the Law is living without freedom and so is slave-like. He describes the Jewish experience of being under the Law as being enslaved to "the elements of the cosmos" upo ta stoiceia tou kosmou (4:3). What he means by the phrase "the elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 is the Law viewed as a salvation-historically elemental and preliminary teaching. (The term ta stoiceia tou kosmou occurs in Gal 4:9; Col 2:8, 20; 2 Pet 3:10-12.)[25]
To be "under the elements of the cosmos" (4:3) is synonymous with being "under the Law" (4:5).[26] In Paul's interpretation, the Law was intended to lead to Christ and be superseded once "the fullness of time" had come (4:4). Paul says that for Jew to be under the Law was to be in a state of bondage, a lack of freedom, which is undesirable. This state was necessary but still intended to be temporary. This is why he chose the metaphor of a minor under the authority of "guardians and managers until the date set by the father" in order to describe the Jewish experience under the Law (4:2). In his view, the Galatians do not recognize that salvation-historically the Law has been superseded: "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (4:6). To have the Spirit of Christ in one's heart makes the Law unnecessary and obsolete.
6.5e. Gal. 4:21-31
Using an allegorical interpretation of the figures of Hagar and Sarah (see Gal 4:24a: "These things have an allegorical meaning" atina estin allhgoromrna, Paul contrasts two covenants; the implication is that one is superior to and has superseded the other. His aim is to convince the Galatian believers not to submit to the Law as a condition of being declared righteous. To this end, he compares the Mosaic covenant to the slave woman Hagar, whose son was born "according to the flesh" kata sarka, by which he means in ordinary fashion, and another covenant (implicitly, the "new covenant" [see 2 Cor 3:6]) to Sarah, the free woman, whose son is born "through promise" dia thV epaggeliaV. Hagar is also identified with Mount Sinai corresponding to Jerusalem, representing (unbelieving) Jews, who, by implication, are in slavery to the Law, since their "mother" was a slave. (It was on Mount Sinai that Moses received the Law.) To this Jerusalem is contrasted "the Jerusalem above" representing believers, those who are free from the Law, symbolized by Sarah.
Paul uses the eschatological notion of the heavenly Jerusalem to be revealed at the end in a novel way to express the difference between (unbelieving) Jews and believers; the implicit superiority of "the Jerusalem above" is exploited by Paul to express the superiority of the (new) covenant represented by Sarah (On the idea of a heavenly and/or new Jerusalem, see 1 En 90:28-29; 2 Bar 4:1-7; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 10:26-27; 13.36; see also T. Dan 5:12; Sib. Or. 5.420-33; 5Q15 [5QNew Jerusalem]; Heb 12:22; 13:14; Rev 3:12; 21:2; 21:9-22:5). Paul writes, "And she is our mother" (4:25), by which he means that Sarah (symbolizing the Jerusalem above) represents the new covenant of which believers are metaphorically "sons," just as Isaac was literally the son of Sarah. It is clear from this allegorical contrast between the two women and their sons that Paul believes that the status of believers to be one of freedom from the Law, since Sarah is the free woman and Isaac is the son of a free woman. Paul then cites Isa 54:1, an eschatological passage, but interprets the barren woman of the prophecy as referring to Sarah (as opposed to Israel in exile, the intended meaning) and then allegorically to believers, who are sons of promise.
His point is that Sarah, once barren, is now the "mother" of many children, representing believers, including gentiles. The implication is that Sarah eschatologically has become the mother of believers "now that faith has come" (Gal 3:23). In Gal 4:28-31, Paul then focuses on the two sons born of the two women, Hagar and Sarah. He is referring to the fact that Issac was born miraculously as the result of God's promise to Abraham that he would have a heir through Sarah, whereas Ishmael was not born miraculously.
Paul no doubt is comparing believers who are indwelt by the Spirit to Jews who are defined as such by means of their physical birth and literal circumcision ("flesh"). In other words, Ishmael represents Judaism, which is now rejected, just as Ishmael was sent away (Gen 21:10). It is clear that, for Paul, to be under the Law is incompatible with being indwelt by the Spirit.[27]
6.5f. Gal. 5:1, 13, 18
Paul says that the situation of the believer is that of freedom (from the Law) meaning that the Law is not the moral standard according to which a believers lives. He writes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free" th eleuqeria oun h CristoV hmaV hleuqerwse (5:1)[28] and "For you were called to freedom" UmeiV gar ep eleqeria eklhte (5:13). Paul also says to the Galatians that if they are led by the Spirit, they are not under the Law ouk este upo nomon, so that he is contrasting Spirit and Law as two mutually exclusive modes of being. Not to be under the Law is not be obliged to obey the Law, not even part of the Law.
6.5g. 1 Cor. 9:20-21; 10:23-24
Paul explains that, although he is not under the Law, he lives as if he were under the Law in order to win Jews to Christ. By not being under the Law, Paul no doubt means that he is no longer obligated to obey the Law, that the Law no longer serves as a moral standard. In addition, the Corinthians are probably quoting back to Paul a dictum that they heard from Paul or at least derived from Paul's teaching: "All things are lawful for me." Paul does not dispute the truth of this principle, only the Corinthians' misapplication of it, as a license for sin.
6.6. Statements Suggesting the Abiding Validity of at least Parts of the Law.
There are numerous statements in Paul's writings that seem to affirm that the Law or at least a reduced Law serves as an eternal moral standard to which all human beings, including believers, are subject. It is suggestive that Paul cites the Law in order to deal with the question of whether the apostles should be supported financially, implying that it has authority in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 9:9 = Deut 25:4; see also 1 Cor 14:34 = "as the nomoV says").[29] The interpreter must be able to make sense of this collection of passages in light of Paul's apparent rejection of the Law as a moral standard for Jewish and gentile believers.
6.6a. Rom. 2:14-15
As already indicated, Paul says that gentiles have the Law written on their hearts by which they will be judged. Although they do not have the Mosaic Law, Paul says that gentiles still "do by nature the things of the Law" (phusei ta tou nomou poiosin), by which Paul means that gentile moral theory and practice naturally inevitably conforms, in part, at least, to the Mosaic Law. (This innate Law is probably identical to the law of reciprocity.) At any rate, the implication is that the law written on the heart is a universal moral standard for human beings. Paul must be thinking, however, about a reduced Law, since it is obvious that not all the commandments are written on the hearts of Gentiles.
6.6b. Rom. 3:31
Paul anticipates an objection against his position in Rom 3:31, namely that his stress on being declared righteous from faith and not from works implies that he has destroyed the Law: Have we therefore destroyed the Law through faith. The two verbs we destroy katargoumen and we establish histanomen are intended as opposites. When he refers to the Law, Paul probably means the Law understood as the expression of the will of God for human beings, as the context suggests (see 3:20 works of the Law). Pauls response to the accusation that his view on being declared righteous destroys the Law is to say that he denies the validity of the Law as a moral standard (see 8:2-4). Rather, his view upholds the Law as a moral standard. Paul, however, does not elaborate on this statement at this time.
6.6c. Rom. 7:12, 14
In the context of the statement of his inability to keep the Law Paul says that the Law is "holy" hagioV and the commandment is "holy, righteous and good" hagia, dikaia, agatha (7:12) and that the Law is spiritual pneumatikos (7:14), by which he may mean compatible with the Spirit. To refer to the Jewish Law by such felicitous terms as these may be taken to imply that Law is a universal moral standard. In general, Paul's lament about not being to keep the Law in Rom 7 implies that he sees the Law as applicable to all human beings, including believers (see 7:7).
6.6d. Rom 8:2-4
Paul says that the causal principle (lit. "law") of the Spirit of life (i.e., consisting of the Spirit that leads to life, a genitive of direction or purpose) has liberated one from the causal principle of sin and death (i.e., characterized by sin and leading to death). The Law could not produce life, because it was "weakened" by the flesh, meaning that the sinful nature prevented one from keeping the Law. Instead, Paul explains that God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful humanity "for sin" peri hamartiaV, by which he means because of sin or in order to be the solution for human sin. God condemned sin in the flesh, that is, Christ's human nature, in the sense that God provided his son as a substitutional sacrifice for sinners. The purpose of this redemption act is "in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, those who live not according to the flesh but the Spirit." This could be taken to mean that the one who lives according to the Spirit does what the Law requires, that is, becomes righteous by obeying the Lawthe righteousness consisting of (obedience to) the Law's stipulations. This could be taken to imply that the Law remains binding on the believer as a moral standard.
6.6e. Rom. 13:8-9; Gal. 5:13-14; 5:6b
In two different passages, Paul says that a believer is obligated to love agapan and that love agape fulfills the Law. It would follow from this equation of love and fulfilling the Law that a believer has an obligation to obey the Law: love and Law are convertible.[30] In other words there is one commandment expressive of all other commandments to which a believer is subject.[31]
In Rom 13:8-9, Paul instructs his readers not to owe anything to anyone, except the ongoing obligation to love one another ei hm to agapan allhlouV. (By "one another" allhlouV Paul no doubt means all human beings, rather than fellow believers.) Paul then affirms, "For he who loves the other has fulfilled the Law" o gar agapwn tou eteron nomon peplhrwke. (There has been some dispute concerning whether "other" is used substantively ("the other") and thus as the object of the verb "to love" or whether it is used as an adjective modifying "law." If the latter, then Paul is not referring to the Jewish Law, but another law [perhaps "the law of Christ" in Gal 6:2]. It seems more probable that the former option is the correct one, for Paul quotes from the Jewish Law in the very next verse; the implication is that these specific commandments are part of the Law that is fulfilled by the one who loves "the other.") The definite article before "other" has generalizing effect. Paul then quotes from four of the ten commandments"Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not covet" (13:9)and then affirms that these and "and any other commandment" are summed up by one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). To love one's neighbor is defined in part as not doing evil towards one's neighbor agaph tw plhsion kakon ouk ergazetai (13:10a). Summing up his position, Paul says, "Love is the fulfillment of the Law" plhrwma oun nomou h agaph (13:10b). Insofar as, for Paul, love is convertible with fulfilling the Law and love is an obligation of believers, it could be argued that that believers are obliged to keep the Law. Now Paul may be thinking of a reduced Law, since he only quoted from the so-called moral law; nevertheless he would still be committed to the view that the believer is obliged to keep this reduced Law as a moral standard. (Paul exhorts his churches to love in Rom 12.9; Eph 5.2, 25; Phil 2.1-2; see also Col 1:4, 8; 1 Thess 1:3.)
Paul makes essentially the same point in Gal 5:13-14, and so could be interpreted to be saying that the believer is under the obligation to obey the one commandment that includes all other commandments. Paul warns the Galatians believers that they should not use their freedom from the Law as an opportunity to indulge their "flesh" sarx. Rather, they should use their freedom to "become one another's servants in love" dia thV agaphV douleuete allhloiV (5:13). The phrase "become one another's servants in love" is the functional equivalent of the obligation "to love one another" in Rom 13:8. The adverbial phrase "in love" specifies the means by which one becomes a servant of another: through love or putting the other's interest first. As in Rom 13:8-9, Paul explains, "The whole Law is fulfilled in one word: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Lev 19:18). By his statement that the whole law ho pas nomoV Paul must assume a reductionistic view of the Law, for otherwise, if all the commandments are expressions of this one commandment then it would follow that they should be obeyed. So implicit in Paul's statement that the whole Law is fulfilled in the one commandment is the abrogation of any commandment that is not expressive of love. It should also be noted that "to do the whole Law" olon ton nomou poihsai (5:3) cannot be equivalent in meaning to "the whole Law is fulfilled" paV nomoV en eni logw plhroutai (5:14) Otherwise Paul would be found in blatant contradiction in the same chapter!
6.6f. 1 Cor. 7:19
Paul says that neither circumcision not uncircumcision matters; what does matter is "keeping the commandments of God" thrhsiV entolwn qeou. In most other contexts, Paul uses the term "commandment" entole to refer to the individual prescriptions and proscriptions found in the Law (see Rom 7:8-13; 13:9; Eph 2:15; 6:2); probably his use of the term in 1 Cor 7:19 has the same meaning. From a Jewish perspective, however, Paul's statement is nonsensical, because circumcision is one of the commandments. Thus, one could interpret Paul's statement to mean that what is required of believers is obedience to a reduced Law, which does not include the commandment of circumcision, but does include other commandments from the Law.
6.6g. Eph. 6:1-3
Paul instructs children to obey their parents and then quotes the Torah to support his view (Deut 5:16); this could be taken to imply that Paul believes that at least this commandment is binding and that the promises attached to its fulfillment is still valid.
Most content from TDNT, Vol V, pp. 1050-1155
[1] According to Hubner, Paul means in Gal. 3:19 that the Law was added in order to increase sin, so that the phrase is interpreted as a final and not a causal clause. (H. Hubner, Law in Pauls Thought, [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984], p.24-36) The Law was not added because there were transgressions, but in order to produce transgressions. In fact, Hubner argues that Paul believes it was the angels who gave the Law in order that Jews would transgress its commandments. According to Hubner, Paul later adopted a less radical view of the Law, so that the Law is now no longer understood as provoking sin, but merely as the means of knowing and recognizing sin (69-83). Under criticism by the Jerusalem church, he came to the more balanced view that the Law was on the side of God and was for that reason holy, just, and good (cf. Rom. 7:12) and had an important role to play in salvation history, It is probable better to say that Paul does not change his view of the Law but rather stresses the negative aspects of the Law in Galatians precisely because the Gentile believers in the Galatian churches were very close to submitting themselves to the Law as a condition of eschatological salvation. Besides, Paul does say similar things in Rom. 4:15; 5:20; 11:32 to what he says in Gal. 3:19, and Hubners attempts to deny this similarity is unconvincing.
[2] The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, diaqhkhn, p. 91-92
[3] C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification, Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996, p. 89-96
[4] For the history of interpretation see R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law; Rom. 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 7-37; J. A. Nestingen, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 as an Historical-Exegetical-Theological Problem )Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1984)
[5] Ibid, p. 405
[6] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromily, Translator, Erdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Reprinted 2006, Vol. VIII, teloV in the New Testament, 2, d, teloV, p. 56
[7] C. Haufe, Die Stellung des Paulus zum Gesetz, TLZ, 91, (1966), p.171-78
[8] M. A. Getty, An Apocalyptic Perspective on Rom. 10:4, HBT 4-5, 1982-83, 97, 100; Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Rom. 9-11, CBQ 50, 1988, 466-67; F. Refoule, Romains X, 4. Encore Une Fois, RevBib 91, 1984, 339; J.D.G. Dunn, (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988, 2:598; F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS 56, Cambridge University Press, 1986, 165; van Dulmen, DieTheologie des Gesetzes, 127
[9] D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, Grand Rapids: Erdmans Publishing, 1980, 84-85; C.T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, SBLDS 55, Chico: Scholars, 1981, 103-104; L. Gaston, For all the Believers : The Inclusion of the Gentiles as the Ultimate goal of the Torah in Romans, Paul and Torah, Vancouver University of British Columbia Press, 1987, 130; just to name a few.
[10] M.A. Seifrid, Pauls Approach to the Old Testament in Romans 10:6-8, Trinity Journals, 6, 1985, 7-8; E. J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Revelation of Law, Wisdom and Ethics, WUNT, 2, 16; Tubingen: Mohr 1985, 91, F.J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, London, Lutterworth, 1961, 266; A. J. Bandstra, The Law and Elements of the World,: An Exegetical Study in the Aspects of Pauls Teaching, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, Mi., 1964, 105-106; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, TNTC, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1963, 203
[11] As you continue reading, it is instantly obvious that chapters 9, 10, and 11, have nothing to do with chapters 1-8 or 12-16. Chapters 9-11 are completely unique in their theme, which is the Jewish people John Hagee, Jerusalem Countdown, p. 145-152; Donald G. Barnhouse introduces the notion of a parenthesis. Citing that various passages may be a parenthesis where some content is added that was known earlier, to further emphasize the current context, I/e/: Eph. 1:19-2:1. Donald G. Barnhouse, Romans, Vol. III,
[12] See his word study in Christ the End 38-80. Against Badenas, see Dunn, Romans 2.589.
[13] Badenas, Christ the End, 78-79. We omit the use ofteloVin Rom 13:7 since it refers to the paying oftaxes.
[14] H. Hubner, Law in Pauls Thought, p. 36-40
[15] E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971, 114-117, P. Porkorny, Colossians, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 1991, 142-145
[16] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC n.s.; 2 Vols.; Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1975, 1979, 1, 320
[17] B. Youngs interpretation of Rom 7:1-7 is very unconvincing (Paul the Jewish Theologian [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997] chap. 6).
[18] F. Stanley Jones, "Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus (GTA 34; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 118-22.
[19] Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz, 30-70.
[20] Betz, Galatians, 122.
[21] Bertram, TDNT 5.596-625.
[22] On this topic, see R. N. Longenecker, "The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3.19-4.7," JETS 25 (1982); L. Belleville, "Under the Law: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11," JSNT 26 (1986) 53-78; D. J. Lull, "The Law Was Our Pedagogue: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25," JBL 105 (1986) 481-98; N. H. Young, "Paidagôgos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," NovT 29 (1987) 150-76; A. T. Hanson, "The Origin of Pauls Use of Paidagôgos for the Law," JSNT 34 (1988) 71-76.
[23] See Betz, Galatians, 175-80; E. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921) 198-201.
[24] See G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956); A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) 57-67; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 66-71; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 293-304.
[25] According to Bandstra, Paul means the same thing by the terms "elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 and "elements" in 4:8 (The Law and the Elements of the World, 57-67). He identifies them as "those elements that are operative within the whole sphere of human activity which is temporary and passing away, beggarly and incompetent in bringing salvation, weak and both open to an defenseless before sin" (55). These operative elements are Law and flesh, the fundamental forces operative in the world.
[26] See Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 215-16; 510-18; R. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1990) 164-66; R. Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 181, 188-92; A. Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 151-65.
[27] Contrary to F. Stanley Jones, who interprets freedom to mean freedom from corruptibility, corresponding to the Jerusalem that is above ("Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus, 82-96).
[28] See F. Stanley Jones, "Freiheit" in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus, 96-102.
[29] On this topic, see Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 93-114; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 62-73; Westerholm, Israels Law and the Churchs Faith, 198-218.
[30] See S. Westerholm, Israels Law and the Churchs Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 201-205; J. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Pauls Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988)125-42; B. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abrahams God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 83-88; C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996) 103-4.
[31] It is important to note that Pauls summarizing of the Law as one commandment (Lev 19:18) is not original to him. R. Hillel, a Pharisee, like Paul, was supposed to have taught that the Torah can be summed up in the injunction: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" (Sabb 31a in BT). Paul, however, took this summarizing approach to understanding the Law to an extreme to which that no Pharisee could assent.
I'm outta here.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
