Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 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 <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The purpose of the law in salvation-history
  • Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:19:47 -0700 (PDT)


Dieter,

Good to hear from you after so much time. Thanks for
responding.

> I agree with Mark Nanos that there is a need for
> rhetorical criticism with regard to theological
> assertions in Paul's letters.

So do I! In fact, I have argued agressively for
rhetorical sensitivity to Paul's arguments in the
past. But in addition to rhetorical criticism, there
is a need for "psychological" criticism -- NOT because
we want to place Paul on the psychiatrist's couch,
only because we want to respect him as a human being
who had a monumental task ahead of him and no doubt
had to revise his thought when pressed to account for
"what God was up to" in the scheme of things.
>
> Ever since Betz's commentary on Galatians we have
> become aquainted with accepting Paul's character
> vilifications in Galatians as good hellenistic
> rhetoric, i.e. not meaning much except exaggeration.
> It is simply how a diatribe preacher would go about
> his business.

I agree there is much of this going on in Gal. 3:10-14
and yes, also 3:19-25, the text under discussion. That
doesn't change the fact that Paul has a "real view"
which surfaces through some of this rhetoric. He asks,
"Why then the law?" (3:19), and I think he is asking
himself as much as he is answering his Galatian
addressees.
>
> What does all this have to do with Paul and the law?
> Maybe we should be a little more relaxed with regard
> to Paul's theological assertions, identify obvious

> exaggerations and take them for what they are. In
> any case, I don't think that it is a coincidence
> that the most problematic theological statements of
> Paul are found in Gal.

Actually, with regards to the issue of the law's
purpose, the most problematic ones are Gal. 3:19-22
and Rom. 11:32. Let me go a bit further, because I'm
beginning to think that Gal. 3:23-25 "covers up" a bit
for Gal. 3:19-22, much in the same way Rom. 7:7-25
does.


Admittedly, the view that Gal. 3:19-25 = Rom. 11:32 is
somewhat undermined by Paul's metaphor of the
"pedagogue" in the second half of the argument (Gal.
3:23-25). Philip Esler is worth quoting at some
length:

"The pedagogue was usually a household slave appointed
to look after a boy...[having] two main roles. The
first was to protect the boy, for example from the
attentions of suitors or sadistic schoolteachers, and
to protect him from getting into mischief...This
inevitably meant imposing restrictions on the boy, and
pedagogues were often described as killjoys as a
result...Their second role was to train and educate
the boy in social etiquette and cultural mores."
(Galatians, p. 201)

So pedagogues were viewed ambivalently, on the one
hand "bitterly resented because of the beatings they
handed out", on the other hand appreciated for the
"bonds of respect and friendship" occasionally
cultivated between the boy and his mentor. (ibid)
Esler concludes that "the application of this data to
Galatians rules out of court the notion that the law
had the purpose of producing or provoking
transgressions, for such ideas are completely
incompatible with the function of the pedagogue" --
whichever of the two ways we understand the metaphor.
(ibid)

Esler's argument is persuasive, but it's still not
enough to erase what is said in Gal. 3:19-22 and Rom.
11:32. There is no getting around the fact that in
these texts, Paul connects sin to God's will, and,
moreover, that His purpose in doing so was to "confine
all things under sin" (Gal. 3:22) (or to "imprison all
people under disobedience" (Rom. 11:32)), "so that the
promise of faith may be given" (Gal. 3:22) (or "so
that he may be merciful to all" (Rom. 11:32)). On the
other hand, Esler is surely correct that Paul attempts
to distance God from perversity by insisting that
angels gave the law on God's behalf, rather than God
doing so directly (Gal. 3:19b-20).

So, taking Esler's points about angels in Gal.
3:19b-20 and pedagogues in Gal. 3:24-25, we would
revise Sanders' scheme as follows:

1. Gal. 3:19-22 (echoed in Rom. 11:32)

-- God gave the law (but through angelic mediators,
not in the direct way he gave his promise to Abraham)
in order to consign humanity to sin, so that he may
subsequently save on the basis of faith.

2. Gal. 3:23-25

-- God gave the law in order to guard and restrict
humanity, which led to failure and the need for
salvation on the basis of faith.

3. Rom. 7:7-13 (echoed in Rom. 3:20, 4:15, 5:20)

-- (As stated before)

4. Rom. 7:14-25

-- (As stated before)


I'm certainly not arguing that Paul was schizophrenic
or an incoherently befuddled theologian (contra
Raisanen), only pointing out that the issue of the
law's purpose in the history of Israel and the world
troubled him acutely -- and that the texts of Gal.
3:19-22, 3:23-25, Rom. 7:7-13, 7:14-25 evince subtle
shifts in thought, from negative to progressively
positive assessments of the relationship between God,
the law, and sin. In no way, however, do I wish to
downplay the importance of rhetorical analyses in
these texts; they have their place too.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page