Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - The purpose of the law in salvation-history

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: The purpose of the law in salvation-history
  • Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:21:44 -0700 (PDT)


List:

E.P. Sanders has offered an interesting analysis of
Paul's evolution in thought over the role of the law
in salvation history. In "Paul, the Law, and the
Jewish People" (ch 2) he focuses on the texts of Gal.
3:19-24, Rom. 7:7-13, and Rom. 7:14-25, basically
arguing that the progressive shifts in thought (from a
negative to more positive view of the purpose of the
law) results from Paul's inner tortured dilemma -- a
conflict between twin sets of convictions, traditional
("Jewish") and newfound ("Christian"). He knew that
God gave the law and that everything happened in
accordance with divine will. But he also knew (now)
that the law was no longer the basis for salvation.
True, the law remained in force as a barometer for
measuring reward/punishment at the judgment (thus Rom.
2:5-16); also, it continued to provide a moral
framework within the messianic covenant community --
even if Jewish "works" were optional for Gentiles
(thus Rom. 3:21-31). But the Torah, as a whole, no
longer served as the common denominator which
justified; faith was now that common denominator. So
whatever was the purpose of the Torah? Just what was
Yahweh up to before the advent of the messianic age?
"For Paul," says Sanders, "this must have been a
theological problem of the first order of magnitude."

I agree that the question of the law's purpose must
have been a conundrum for Paul (and probably for other
apostles, like Peter and James). Indignant questions
would have pressed: "Whatever was God up to with the
Jewish people? Is the whole history of
covenant-salvation a sham?" The seeds for
supersessionist theology were already being planted,
and Paul knew it. He was deeply troubled by it.
Indeed, Sanders suggests that the tortured anguish
running through Rom. 7 (especially verses 14-25) has
far more to do with the question of theodicity and
God's consistency (as in Rom. 9-11) than any supposed
existential analysis of humanity's "plight under the
law". The question was how to reconcile God's giving
of Torah (which for centuries had provided the basis
for salvation) with His sending of the messiah (in
whom now faith provided that basis). Paul wasn't left
with a lot of wiggle-room.

1. Gal. 3:19-24: Sanders argues, at some length, that
Paul's way out of the dilemma was -- at first -- to
assign the law a negative role in salvation-history.
God gave the law in order to imprison humanity under
sin, SO THAT he might subsequently save on the basis
of faith. That's Gal. 3:19-24, which is later echoed
in Rom. 11:32. Some scholars have tried to tone down
the perverse implications here by suggesting that Paul
was not really implying the law was given in order to
"provoke transgression" (James Dunn, for instance).
But their arguments, to me, are unconvincing. The
implications are clear: "God has imprisoned all under
disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." (Rom.
11:32) Paul, like any good Jew, thought in terms of
God's will and consequence. "But," as Sanders
continues, "that answer didn't sit comfortably with
Paul. Could God really have given the law for such a
reason?" Underneath it all, Paul knew (like any good
Jew!) that the law was naturally given for the purpose
of eliciting obedience, not disobedience; to give
"life" rather than "death". By the time he wrote
Romans, he had retracted from the implications of Gal.
3:19-24, even while echoing that old logic in brief
contexts like Rom. 11:32. Which brings us to Rom. 7,
where Paul (according to Sanders) attempts to "save"
the situation and dig himself out of his own hole.

2. Rom. 7:7-13: Sanders notes that in this text, the
culprit of sin/transgression is no longer God, but the
power sin itself. Here God does not give the law to
condemn SO THAT he may subsequently save on another
basis. Here God is not responsible for sin at all.
God's intentions were in fact holy: The law was given
"for life" (7:10); sin foiled this intent and produced
"death". In Rom. 7:7-13, sin grasps the law away from
God and foils the deity's intent. Sin produces
disobedience through the law, contrary to God's will
(against Gal. 3:19-24/Rom. 11:32).

3. Rom. 7:14-25: In this text Paul goes a step further
(says Sanders), severing not only the connection
between God and sin, but all connections between the
law and sin. Here sin does not "grasp the law away
from God", as in 7:7-13. Here the law is not remotely
tainted by sin's influence. Rather, sin bypasses the
law entirely, directly invading human flesh,
"reproducing sin" within an individual. Obedience is
thereby rendered impossible, and any attempts to obey
the law (without help from the messiah, anyway) brings
about futility and "existential" despair. Needless to
say, the argument of 7:14-25 contradicts Paul's own
experience as practicing Pharisee (Philip. 3:6).

So Sanders suggests that Rom. 7 reflects Paul more as
struggling with twin and opposing sets of convictions
regarding the law's purpose in salvation history, than
his real view of a non-believer's plight under the
law. I have my own ideas about Rom. 7 (which,
actually, are not much at odds with Sanders'), but I
would like to hear what other list-members have to say
about Sanders' theory. I appreciate his portrait of a
very human Paul who was struggling with serious
theological issues -- and who had answers which were
in need of revision from time to time.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page