Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 3:10

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 3:10
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:18:08 -0600

Dear Mark,

Strangely, folks who are so concerned with the meaning of every verse do not
seem to wrestle with v. 15 (NASB): Brethren, I speak in terms of human
relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been
ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. If that is so, then
it follows that Paul is not going to argue that Torah has been set aside or
that conditions have been added to it--for Jews, as for proselytes. (They
are quick to see that this means the Abrahamic covenant is not set aside,
but fail to see the logic goes both ways: since the Mosaic is in play before
Paul writes, it is not set aside either.


HH: You make an interesting argument, but Paul's reasoning is only to affirm the lasting nature of the Abrahamic promises. He is not arguing to affirm the lasting nature of the Mosaic covenant. In fact, he stresses the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant:

Gal. 3:19 ¶ What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.

HH: Its purpose was to extend until the Seed came to whom the promises of the Abrahamic covenant were directed. This is where the law as the child-guiding slave comes in. The NIV has:

Gal. 3:24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
Gal. 3:25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

The HCSB puts it slightly more literally:

Gal 3:24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith,
Gal 3:25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, . . . .

HH: We are no longer under the law's supervision, Jew or Gentile:

Gal 3:26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.


Paul must work with both of these
covenants, although Christian theologians have not.) Put in play with 5:3,
that everyone who is circumcised "is obliged to observe the whole Torah," it
follows that Paul, who is circumcised and a Christ-believers, is obliged to
observe the whole Torah. Otherwise, his non-Jewish addressees should be
expected not to be persuaded by this argument, but to reply: "But Paul, we
will be just like you, circumcised, but because believers in Christ, we are
not obliged to observe Torah at all."


HH: I have to agree with Tim here about Paul's not being under the law. Paul's words in 5:3 concern Gentiles who undergo circumcision as an expression of religion. That obligation comes from the law, so someone voluntarily subscribing to that obligation as a means of justification (Gal 5:4) must be subscribing to the law of which it is only one fragment. So the motive for doing so is important. I was circumcised as a Gentile, but evidently because circumcision was seen as healthy or customary.

HH: I think you have to look at Gal 3:15 in terms of the word KUROW, which implies in the passive "confirmed," "ratified," or "put into effect." This is a covenant that is currently in force. One is not at liberty to disregard it or alter it unilaterally. Paul points to the Abrahamic covenant as still in force. But the Mosaic covenant is not still in force. God found fault with it because of human inability to keep it (Heb 8:8-9), so He replaced it with something better that took deity to bring. You could say that the old covenant: is obsolete rather than "in force":

Heb. 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

HH: The old covenant was nullified by human violation of it. The replacement of it with a new covenant by God for that reason means that Gal 3:15 is not really applicable to the Mosaic covenant. It is not being rejected or added to while it is in force. It has been replaced by something better. The Law in its covenantal aspect was not destroyed but fulfilled. What Paul describes as the curse of the law seems like what the writer of Hebrews, quoting Jeremiah, cites as the law's fault. People can't keep it and so come under its curse.

HH: The writer of Hebrews also talks about a change of the law, and in this case he means a replacement of the old covenant with the new covenant.

Heb. 7:12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

Heb. 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Heb. 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Heb. 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Heb. 10:1 ¶ The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

HH: If the law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves, why should part of the body of Christ go back to the shadow as a standard for living when the reality has come in Christ and the indwelling Spirit?

HH: If Christian Jews were supposed to take on the yoke of the law, I believe the Book of Hebrews could have been written very differently. Yes, Acts 21 shows that Jewish Christians could live by the law, but they had grown up under the law and followed it as an expression of their faith in God. They lived in a transitional period and do not seem to have understood well some of the truths Paul proclaimed. Even Peter had difficulty putting into practice the new revelation (Gal 2:11-21). I believe Heb 8:13 speaks of the disappearance of the old covenant in a visible way when the temple was destroyed


Also,
I would like to comment on your reply to Tim along with your query here. I
don't think Paul has in mind the issues of curse for Jews here, but is
trying to make it clear that the implications of Torah arise for proselytes
just as they do for Jews, for everyone, just as the curse of being hung
after killed applied to everyone, so to Jesus. Of course Jews accept the
curse of the Law, that is a part of what it means to be in the covenant
community of Israel. It is, strangely, a part of the relationship privileges
versus the other nations, who are not in this special relationship; what Jew
would not want to be in this relationship, and hence, under these
conditions?


HH: Paul indicates that the Christian Jew would not want to be under this curse. I agree with Tim that Gal 3:13 does look to the Jew in particular because it is they who were under the law, as you say, Mark. The Gentiles are not portrayed by Paul as being under the law, so they would not need to be redeemed from it as the Jews would.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page