Wisscnschaftlichc U nrcrsuchungcn

zum Ncucn Testament 29

H eikki Raisanen

Paul and the Law

Amone who ha~ studlld I'Jul knows

that prohJbly the IIIO>t C<l111f>kx prol>lcrn he develops 1s hts \'lcwotthc law
2nd tr. pnrpos~ The be JUt)' oflt::ils~
ncn'> work is thJt he rccugniz<-< and
rc.sprrn rh is complcxit)' without himsd f
becommg too dense tu undcr5tantl.
R(aisincnJiinds thu l'aul's udie2hzc.t,
ncg;livc ailicism of the law is Jl"Culiar
to him. unplnUdcd m the Nf ~nd wuhoutpreccdentinjcwtshthought W1th
careful, puiem cxminauon oi \"..llous
contexts. R(Siuncn JlcJds his readers to
see rhar PJUI hls an oscillJnng, C\'Cil
inconsistent \'ICW ol the hw
This book IS wdl-wrm.:n in clear,
readable Enghsh.lt IS an impomnr
book. rccornrncndcd 10 Jll} scr~ous
srudem ofPml. Its 'lrcngth i~ in R(la~
nen J's willingn<'SS to abJndon preconceptions of whJt l'lul's view on the bw
should be Jccorthng to some conistcnt
plan and in allowmg P:tulto >pc.lk fnr
himself

MARY ANN Gfl"l' 111 Tht C.ttl111ir

Bib/i(fl/ Qrwruly, 1111!5, Nu 47

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament
Begrundet vonJoachimJeremias und Otto Michel
Herausgegeben von
Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius

29

Paul and the Law

by

Heikki Raisanen
2nd Edition, revised and enlarged

J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tiibingen

CIP-Kurztitelaufoahme der Deutschen Bibliothek

Riiisiinen, Heikki:
Paul and the Law / by Heikki Riiisiinen. - (2. ed.) -Tiibingen: Mohr, 1987.
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament; 29)
ISBN 3-16-145198-8
ISSN 0512-1604
NE:GT

1st Edition 1983

1987 by J. c. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P. o. Box 2040, D-7400 Tiibingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to
reproductions, translations, microfllms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
Printed by Gulde-Druck GmbH in Tiibingen; bound by Heinrich Koch KG in Tiibingen.
Printed in Germany.

For Leena

Preface
Whatever faults the present work may have (and I know it has many), I
wish to state in advance that one predictable objection to it is wrong: it is not
based on a preconceived notion of what Paul's thought on the law may have
been like. On the contrary, I long held a rather standard Lutheran view of the
matter. In 1974, the reading of Hans-Joachim Schoeps's Paulus unexpectedly
opened up a quite new angle of vision to me, exposing a whole set of problems
I had been happily unaware of. The reader will see that I more often than not
disagree with Schoeps's solutions, but the problems inherent in Paul's dealing
with the law which his discussion of the topic pointed up have not given me
rest ever since, the less so as most Christian replies to Schoeps are clearly
beside the point. I soon came to discover that there are even more problems. I
cannot, of course, preclude the possibility that some working hypotheses
which developed relatively early during my research may have harpened too
quickly in my mind and prevented me from giving due weight to eventual
contrary evidence; that must be left for others to decide. But the solution was
not there in advance.
Another major reading experience during my struggling with Paul was E.P.
Sanders's magisterial Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders argues cogently
and with great expertise for a view of Palestinian Judaism rather different
from that still prevalent in much New Testament scholarship. I had been
groping in the same direction for quite some time without knowing too wed
just where I was or what the goal might be; the publication of Sanders's
illuminating work was like a gift from heaven for my own quest.
Since then I have had the privilege of a fruitful correspondence with Professor Sanders in person. He read a draft of what is now chs. I-V in the
present work, and I am very grateful for his critical comments and encouragement. Professor Sanders also made available to me his paper on Paul and the
Law, presented to the SNTS meeting in Toronto in 1980, as well as the manuscript of the book Paul, the Law and the Jewish People which grew out of
that paper. I regret that it was too late for me to take that latter manuscript
into account as fully as I would have Wished, although I have often referred
to it in the footnotes. Above all, I was not able to give full consideration to
Sanders's very suggestive account of the movement of Paul's thought, when
Paul tried again and again new answers to the burning problem of the purpose
of the law.
I am also indebted to others who have read one version or other of the

Preface

VI

manuscript and commented on it; my thanks go in particular to Thomas F.

Best, Lars Aejmelaeus, Jarmo Kiilunen and Steve Motyer who also took the
trouble to correct my English.
The research for this book has been carried out in three different places, It
is my pleasant duty to thank the Finnish Academy and the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation for grants which enabled me to spend the year 1978
in Cambridge and a period of a year and a half in 1980-1982 in Tiibingen.
Some inconvenience arose from the fact that I used in Cambridge some German works also in English translations which were not available in Helsinki or
in Tiibingen later on. This has resulted in some technical inconsistencies
which I hope the reader will forgive me; for instance it happens that I cite a
work now according to the original (occasionally in my own translation),
now according to the extant English translation.
As for the notes, the mere name of an author refers to a Biblical commentary. In all other cases a catchword from the title of the work in question is
used along with the author's name; if the choice is not obvious, the catch
word is mentioned in the bibliography. I have not been able to take account
of works which appeared or became available after Apri11982.
Last but not least, I wish to express my sincere thanks to my generous
Tiibingen host Professor Martin Hengel who also volunteered to include this
study in the WUNT, though personally not too happy with some of its
conclusions. My thanks are also due to the co-editor Professor Otfried Hofius,
to the publisher and, once more, to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
which contributed a substantial printing grant.
Helsinki, June 1982

H.R.

Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Preface to the second edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 1
I

The oscillating concept of law o' 16

1. General observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '............ 16
2. Gentiles under the law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 '
3. Reduction of the Torah to the moral law? ............... '23
4. Analogies? . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
a. Christian sources ................................ 28
b. Jewish sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

II 1s the law still in force? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

1. The abolition of the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2. Is the"law of faith' the Torah? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3. The 'end of the law' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4. Why was the law abolished? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5. The fulfllment of the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6. Paul's practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7. The 'law of Christ'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
9. Analogies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
III

Can the law be fulfilled? . . . ......................... 94

1. Fulfilling the whole law is impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2. All are under sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3. Non-Christians fulttlling the law .... : ................ 101
4. Non-Christians cannot do good at all .................. 109
5. Christians fulfll the law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7. Analogies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
a. Christian sources. . . . . . . . . . ? 119
b. ' Jewish sources ................................. 120
c. Deuteronomy .............. ; ................ 124

Contents

V11l

IV.

The origin and purpose of the law . ..................... 128

1. The origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
2. Analogies regarding the origin of the law? .............. 133
a. Jewish sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
b. Christian sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3. The negative purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4. A positive purpose? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5. Analogies regarding the purpose of the law? ........... : . 154
a. Christian sources. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154
b. Jewish sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
c. The Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 158

V.

The antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ ....... 162
1. The antithesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 162
2. The meaning of the antithesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
:3. The notion of the law as the Jewish gateway to salvation .... 177
4. Law and salvation in the rest of the New Testament ........ 191

VI

Conclusions.................................. .. 199

VIi. Paul's view of the law compared with other early Christian
conceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 203
1. The Deuteropauline letters ...............' ......... 203
2. Other letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
3. The Gospels, Acts, Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
4. Later writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 227
VIII

The origins of Paul's conception of the law . ............... 229

1. Paul's experience under the law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2. Application of a current Jewish idea? ................. 236
3. Taking up an Old Testament prophecy? ............... 240
4. Taking up Jesus traditions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
5. Meditation on Deut 21.23? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
6. Adoptfug a pattern set by the 'Hellenists'? .............. 251
7. The significance of the missionary experience and the
conflict with the 'Judaizers' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Some concluding reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............
Index of passages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
Index of authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264
270
298
314

Abbreviations
The abbreviations used are those recommended in S. Schwertner, International
glossary of abbreviations for theology and related subjects (Berlin-New York 1974). In
addition, the following abbreviations occur:
AFG

K-W. Troger (ed.), Altes Testament - Friihjudentum - Gnosis. Neue

Studien zu "Gnosis und Bibel". Berlin 1980.

EWNT

Exegetisches Worterbuchzum Neuen Testament (ed. H. Balz-G. Schneider)

FzB

Forschung zur Bibel

GCHP

God's Christ and His People. In honour of N.A. Dahl, 1977.

GTA

Gottinger Theologische Arbeiten

JCHT

Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie. Festschrift Hans Conzelmann,

Tiibingen 1975.

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

KuE

Kontinuitat und Einheit. Festschrift F. Mussner, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1981.

LCL

The Loeb Classical Library

NHC

The Nag Hammadi Codices

NHL

The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. J.M. Robinson), Leiden 1977.

NTK

Neues Testament und Kirche. Festschrift R. Schnackenburg, Freiburg 1974.

OTK

Okumenischer Taschenkommentar

PFES

Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society

PLT

S. Pedersen (ed.), Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. The Pauline

Literature and Theology. Skandinavische Beitrage. Aarhus-Cottingen 1980.

PNTC

Pelican New Testament Commentaries

PSt

Pauline Studies (ed. D.A. Hagner - M.L Harris). Essays presented to F.F.
Bruce. Grand Rapids 1980.

RD

K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate. Minneapolis 1977.

RelAnt

Religions in Antiquity. Essays in memory of E.R. Goodenough. SHR 14.

Leiden 1968.

RF

Rechtfertigung. Festschrift E. Kiisemann. Tiibingen 1976.

RSRev

Religious Studies Review

SBL Diss

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBL MS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SNTU

Studien zum Neuen Testament und zu seiner Umwelt

StudBibl

Studia Biblica 1978 Ill. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors.

Abbreviations
Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3-7 April 1978.
JSNT Supplement Series 3. Sheffield 1980.

SUTS

Suomalainen Uuden Testamentin Selitys

VIKJ

Veroffentlichungen aus dem Institut Kirche und Judentum bei der kirchlichen
Hochschule, Berlin.

Preface to the second edition

I am pleased that the first edition of this book has caught the attention of
colleagues and has thus contributed to the ongoing vivid debate about Paul's
thought on the law. After having pondered the response, I do not feel that a
revision is called for. Therefore, apart from correcting mistakes, I have made
only a few minor changes in the text of the book. In this new preface, I wish
to clarify some issues raised by my critics and also indicate some new emphases resulting from my own further wrestling with Paul'!

The problem of a synthesis

Everybody agrees that Paul was not a 'systematic' thinker. If, however,
one goes further and claims that he was not a consistent thinker either, one
will hit a nerve -not just in a devout religious congregation but in professedly
critical exegetical scholarship. Not unexpectedly; some reactions to the present book testify to this situation.
The response also - again, not unexpectedly - brings to light the vast diversity of the exegetical guild. 2 Practically every judgment on the book can
be confronted with an opposite one from a different review. While one reader
1 My thanks are due to Dr. Jarmo Kiilunen for a helpful critique of the first draft of
this preface and to Ms. Virginia Johnson for improving my English.
2 As far as I know, the book has elicited two review articles and one extended treatment (of some aspects in it) in a book on Paul: A.J.M. Wedderburn, 'Paul and the Law',
SJTh 38, 1985, 613-622. - J. Thuren~Paulus och~mflh~ in:. S. Higal et al.~ed.),
Judendom och kristendom under de forsta arhundradena, Oslo 1986, 165-92. S.Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (WUNT 2. Reihe 4, Tiibingen :l1984), 345-58.
Following reviews and shorter notes are known to me at present: J.-N. Aietti, Bib.
66, 1985, 428f. - Id., RSR 73, 1985, 288f. - G. Bouwman, TTh 24, 1984,415. F.F. Bruce, HeyJ 27,1986, 77f. - A. von Dobbeler, NT 26, 1984, 374-76. - P. Fiedler, ALW 27, 1985, 349. - M.A.Getty, CBQ 47,1985,561-63. - R.B. Hays, JAAR
53,1985,513-15. - L. Houlden, Theol. 87,1984, 384f. - H.Hiibner, ThLZ 110,
1985, 894-96. - K.-J. Illman, TAik 89, 1984, 218-20 (in Swedish). - X. Jacques,
NRTh 116, 1984, 759f. - L.E. Keck,RSRev 11,1986, 291f. - H. Moxnes,NTT 87,
1986,47-49. - P.-G. Miiller, BiKi 4/1984. - A. S. Muiioz, ATG 47, 1984, 386f. J. Oroz, Augustinus 30, 1985, No. 119-120. - J. Roloff, BZ 30,1986,137-40. R. Trevijano, Salm. 33, 1986, 127-29. - S. Vollenweider,KBRS 21/1984. - F. Vouga,
ETR 60, 1985, 139f. - N. Waiter, SNTU 11, 1986,245-49. - R.O.Zorn, VR 44,
1985, 36f. In this preface, a mere author's name refers to the reviews enumerated in
this footnote.

Xli

Preface to the second edition

fmds its approach 'very unsatisfying',3 another thinks that it 'presents as persuasive a picture as we are likely to get',4 and so on. 5 Nevertheless, a closer
look reveals something like a pattern. There is at least a general agreement
that Paul's view of the law is a very complex and intricate matter which confronts the interpreter with a great many puzzles. 6 Therefore the occasional
allegation that the problems I see in Paul's theology are just problems in my
own mind 7 is extremely unfair. Even if everything else in this book turned
out to be in error, it would still demonstrate that a vast host of interpreters
has felt, and feels, that there are problems - logical and other - in Paul's
theology of the law. Few if any of what I have called contradictions in Paul's
view were discovered by me for the first time (although it was sometimes only
afterwards that I found out about my predecessors). What makes my book
different, I believe, is the cumulative effect, along with my refusal to accept
apologetic 'dialectical' explanations.
Thus it seems that a reasonable consensus can be reached about critical
details and points which seem to amount at least to 'apparent' contradictions
in Paul. Differences come to light when one tries to synthetize the individual
observations, which also entails deciding whether various tensions are apparent
or real. On this level, very diverse syntheses stand in opposition to each other.
Scholars quite often suggest that all previous syntheses are unconvincing and then bravely offer a brand new one. 8 It is here, in the craving after coher3 J.D.G.Dunn, 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)'
NTS 31, 1985, 523; cf. E.J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul
(WUNT 2. Reihe 16: Tiibingen 1985), 270 f. n. 215: 'totally unconvincing'.
4 1. Neusner in a statement quoted on the back cover of the Fortress Press edition of
this book (Philadelphia 1986); cf. Wedderburn 621; Illman 220.
5 The wholesale indictments come from 'conservative evangelical' circles (Kim, Schnabel,
Zorn). The most unequivocally positive reviews include those by Wedderburn, Fiedler,
Getty, Houlden, Illman, and Moxnes.
6 Cf. Walter 246: ' ... es ist klar, d~ kein Paulusexeget die hier aufgezeigten Risse und
Widerspriiche ungestraft iibergehen kann'. P. Stuhlmacher, 'Paul's Understanding of
the Law in the Letter to the Romans', SEA 50,1985,102: 'It is ... very difficult for
us to systematize the Pauline statements concerning the law ... '
7 Kim Origin 346 (even though he realizes himself that Paul's 'doctrine of the law' is a
'most intricate problem' which is 'far from being transparent', p. 281).
8 Recently K.R. Snodgrass, 'JQstification by Grace - to the Doers', NTS 32, 1986,
72-93, proposes a new reading of Romans 2. He senses himself that his interpretation
is 'somewhat adventurous in view of what is usually said on Romans 2'. 'However, the
inadequacy of other explanations of Romans 2 and the contradictions within Paul
that result from those explanations are unacceptable.' (86, my emphasis.) Note that
those 'other' explanations means all previous ones. Even Snodgrass does not imagine
he has solved all the problems, but 'tensions are loosened at several points'. I cannot
discuss Snodgrass' proposal here. But I think his article demonstrates very clearly
how great a price a scholar with a keen analytic eye must pay for the avoidance of
contradictions in Paul. My colleague in Turku/Abo, 1. Thuren, actually develops in
his lengthy discussion of my book an original systematic synthesis of his own.

Preface to the second edition

Xl11

ence, that religious convictions - often called 'theology' - naturally come

into play, whether they are acknowledged or not. Leslie Houlden makes the
point well in his review:
Historical criticism of the Bible finds it hard to win its way. Many who have
accepted it in principle have been reluctant to admit that any part of the Scripture
might be either irrelevant to us or inconsistent with other parts. And some who have
admitted inconsistency between one part and another (e.g. Paul and Acts) work hard
to affirm consistency within a particular writer. And even those who admit development in Paul, for example, from one letter to another, often fight shy of seeing inconsistency between one part and another of the same letter, To admit such inconsistency comes close to admitting mental confusion in the apostle, :the attribution to
him of a less than first class intellect. Is it donnish conceit to want the scriptural
writers to be plainly of the dons' club, or a relic of older doctrines of inspiration?
(384, my emphasis).

While both suggestions have their merits, I would guess that the latter one
is more to the point. As it has become increasingly difficult to regard Paul's
ideas as literally 'inspired' or 'revealed', Christian sholars often stick to the
second-best alternative of having in him at least a nearly-inspired, first-class
thinker. This figure may, however, be a product of wishful thinking - or of
partisan hermeneutics.
Hans Hubner's recent treatment of Romans 9 and 11 is a case in point.
Having first stated that, as regards Israel, these chapters stand in an unresolvable, logical contradiction to each other, HUbner hastens to add that this is
not due to any carelessness of thought. 'First class thinkers may let such
dilemmas stand as they are not able to solve ... '9 So whatever Paul says
must be the result of first class thinking. If he is consistent, well and good.
If he is not, even better. This confirms K.-J. ruman's astute observation (220):
it is not just Paul who argues 'backwards'. The same seems true of Pauline
scholarship: 'starting from the dogma that Paul is a penetrating and consistent
thinker, one has tried to show how he is.'
It is indeed in the name of theology - 'Quo vadis, theologia?' - that HUbner (896) calls me to task for playing off 'analysis against synthesis'. He is
himself the author of an important book on Paul and the law, and it is fair to
say that each of us recognizes the work of the other as a genuine alternative
to one's own position. Hubner grants that many of my observations seem
correct; 'very many' of my individual judgments are in fact shared by him. He
feels, however, that my overall approach dissolves Paul's theology into 'meaningless fragments of thought', as an effort at a synthesis is lacking. He can
only make this last assertion, however, by totally ignoring my reconstruction
in the final chapter. Obviously, an historical-psychological account of the
9 H. Hiibner, Gottes Ich und Israel. Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Romer 9-11
(FRLANT 136: Gottingen 1984), 122. Hiibner applies here to Paul what F. Schupp
has said of Augustine.

XlV

Preface to the second edition

growth of Paul's thought does not satisfy his need for a synthesis (even though
Hubner himself speculates that the reaction of James to Galatians may have
caused Paul to change his mind lO ). But this is precisely the question: on what
kind of level can a plausible synthesis be given - on a theoretical theological
level or, say, on the level of practical strategy? It is a question of just how
complicated a theological synthesis can still make some sense. Hubner himself has to resort, e.g., to a very complicated interpretation of Gal 3.19f.
which 'has been repeatedly criticized'.H Moreover, he refuses, wisely enough,
even to attempt to bring Galatians and Romans into one synthesis regarding
the law, thus recognizing that there are limits to plausible systematization.
(I will comment on his development theory below.) It is therefore fully justified when Stephen Westerholm includes my work along with that of Hubner,
. John Drane and E.P. Sanders in the same group of recent studies which do
not allow for logical consistency in Paul's thought.!2
As for my lack of a conceptual synthesis of my own, I have seen enough
artificial syntheses to be convinced that I am not able to add still another one.
But it was important to me to sketch an historical-psychological overall view
(in however provisory a way) precisely to prevent the analysis from resulting
in a pile of meaningless fragments.

The problem of understanding

I agree, of course, that one should not too hastily jump to the conclusion
that Paul is inconsistent.!3 The question is simply: when is such a conclusion
no longer too hasty? More to the point, why should Paul be granted special
treatment, different from that given to everybody else?14 Ought we to have
more patience with apparent inconsistencies in his writings than with those
possibly found in, say, Philo, Augustine, or Marx? When at one time I was
studying the idea of divine hardening in the Bible and in the Koran, it struck
me what different standards people could use in assessing their own tradition
10 H. Hiibner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus (FRLANT 119: Giittingen 1980 2),53-58.
11 Schnabel, Law 272 n. 220, with references.
12 S. Westerholm, 'On Fulfilling the Whole Law (Gal 5:14)" SEA 51-52, 1986-87,
228f., 237.
13 Cf. Dunn, 'Works' 523; Aletti, Bib. 428f.; Roloff 140.
14 Cf. Stuhlmacher, 'Understanding' 87f.: 'Moreover, the apostle ... also has a right not
to be hastily evaluated by the criteria of the so-called "comparative history of religions" and the rational claims of that European liberality which stems from the Enlightenment. If we do otherwise, we pass by all too easily that which distinguishes
Paul from the Pharisaism of his time and that which he himself, precisely as a result
of his own perspective, gives us cause to consider theologically.' Does this mean that
Paul's special significance is doomed to fade as soon as we measure him with the same
rational standards as other mortals? Incidentally, critical remarks on Paul's consistency did not start with the Enlightenment. Cf. below p. 3-4 on Porphyry.

Preface to the second edition

xv

and an alien one. It sometimes seemed that what is called a contradiction in

an alien tradition is called a paradox in one's own tradition. As I pointed out
(below, p. 15), I am most of all concerned with fair comparison.
Quite properly, the demand is raised that scholars of Paul should try to
understand him as profoundly as possible. This includes the demand to understand him sympathetically. 15 This is all right, as long as we do not make him
the only hero of the drama. Paul's letters are part of an ongoing process of
history in which conflict and struggle loom large. In this drama, every actor
must in principle have the same right to sympathetic understanding. In prac
tice, there are problems; we have only the arguments from the one party.
Nevertheless, scholarship must be prepared to understand the silent side as
fully and seriously as Paul. An interpreter of Paul must also reflect on how
opponents and non-believers might have responded to his arguments.16
Otherwise our exegesis becomes naive or even propagandistic. 17 Fair compa- .
rison, or fairness to the others, is one of the reasons why one should not try
excessively hard to synthetize Paul's thought into a consistent whole.
Understanding, then, is the goal. But the ideal, as I see it, is not to understand just one text or one author. Rather, the ideal is to understand the process of which all the relevant texts and authors, as well as their opponents
and co-actors, are a part.
I make no secret of the fact that, as a scholar, I prefer a history-ofreligions
perspective to a pronouncedly theological one. As the reader of my 'concluding
thoughts' sees, however, this does not prevent me from indicating in the end
what sort of theological paths might still be open to those who take fair comparison seriously. Obviously, then, I do have more than a merely historical

15 Walter, in an review which I much appreciate, detects in my work the danger of 'explaining' at the cost of 'understanding' (247). Therefore, I am glad to find that Getty
(561) has received a somewhat different impression: 'The beauty of Riiisanen's work
is that he recognizes and respects this complexity without himself becoming too dense
to understand.'
16 Secondarily, in view of hermeneutical wirkungsgeschichtlich considerations, one may
also reflect on how a modern reader who does not share Paul's point of view in advance
may respond. Both aspects are prominent in O. Kuss' discussion of Romans 9-11 in
the third volume of Der R6merbrief (Regensburg 1978). I am happy to be able to
refer to this candid work in which the author finds himself at a far greater mental
distance from Paul than in his earlier production. Can one find a more eloquent testimony to the fact that one does not have to start with a 'negative' preunderstanding
in order to arrive at a critical attitude to aspects of Paul's theology in the end?
17 Of course, one should not idealize the other party either. I hinted at the likelihood of
rationalizations on the part of the Rabbis (below, p. 233 n. 23; cf. further the critical
hints with regard to Hillel, p. 33, and Philo, p. 36); yet there may be a grain of truth
in Kim's (348f. n. 15) demand that I should have taken that line further. Nor were
Jewish traditions 'unanimous or consistent on the origins of sin'; cf. Wedderburn 617
with n. 9. See, however, the final paragraph below, p. 15.

XVI

Preface to the second edition

interest in Paul. 18 But I fully agree with Francis Watson when, at the close of
his own study, he asks whether Paul can
still be seen the bearer of a message with profound universal significance? Facing
this question will mean that the permanent, normative value of Paul's theology will
not simply be assumed, as is often the case at present. It must instead be discussed and with genuine arguments, not with mere rhetorical appeals to the authority of the
canon, the Reformers, or of an a priori Christology. Should Paul's thought still be a
major source of inspiration for contemporary theological discussion? Or should it be
rejected as a cul-de-sac, and should one seek inspiration elsewhere?19

Development and movement

As mentioned, Hubner joins those who cannot bring all of Paul's theology
of the law into internal harmony. Paul's thought developed markedly between
Galatians and Romans, he insists. To be sure, Hubner tries in the end to play
down the difference between the two letters as interpreted by him (see below,
p. lO n. 66), as if nothing had in fact changed in what really matters to Paul.
But, as a thoughtful lay reader observes, such a statement comes 'as a surprise, if not quite as a bolt from the blue' after Hubner's 'lengthy argument
that Paul had changed his mind'. 20
Despite some obvious shortcomings (cf. below, p. 7-10), the development
theory seems to enjoy growing popularity. Nikolaus Walter, in his sensible
review, expresses surprise at my rejecting it so categorically as I, too, emphasize the significance of Paul's experience in the Galatian conflict (248). I do
indeed presuppose development in Paul's thought. But I 1) posit much of it
18 H. Weder mentions me along with E. P. Sanders and J. Jervell (!) as instances of a
recent trend, 'Paulus blo1l. noch historisch wahrzunehmen'; 'Gesetz und Siinde', NTS
31,1985,357,372 n. 1. For better or for worse, I do have critical interest in Paul's
Wirkungsgeschichte as well. Contrary to Weder, Houlden (385) finds the perspective
represented by the present book 'yet another sharpening of focus as we attempt to
grasp Paul in his own setting. In so far as it helps to deflect us from seeing him in our
(or Luther's) terms, it is wholly salutary. We are then in a better position to see exactly
where his genius lay, and to identify more honestly such echoes as we may hear.'
19 F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. A Sociological Approach (SNTS MS,
Cambridge 1986), 180f. (his emphasis). In these remarks Watson thinks of Paul as
interpreted by him: 'a Paul who devotes his energies to the creation and maintaining
of sectarian groups hostile to all non-members, and especially to the Jewish community from which in fact they derived.' But even if one does not share this novel
view of Paul's conscious intentions, Watson's comments remain relevant in view of
other problems found in Paul's writings.
20 J. Hall, 'Paul, the Lawyer, on Law', The Journal of Law and Religion 3,1985,43. Hall
makes several shrewd comments on Hiibner's book (40-46), including the postulated
three intentions in Gal. 3.19 (45). Cf. E.P. Sanders' (to my mind, correct) impression:
'Hiibner ... thinks that Paul changed his mind about the law almost entirely ... ' Paul,
the Law, and the Jewish People (philadelphia 1983), 96. Likewise Westel:'c~~. 'On
Fulfilling' 229.

Preface to the second edition

XVl1

in the tunnel period before the extant letters and 2) fmd neither Galatians nor
Romans internally consistent. No doubt Paul developed new ideas between
Galatians and Romans. But when he did that he did not at the same time re- .
ject all his previous ideas even when they contradicted the new ones. Nowhere
is this clearer than in Romans 9-11. In his new book Hubner analyzes these .
chapters in a very shrewd manner (again the agreement on the analytical level
between the two of us is striking). He fmds in Romans 9 and Romans 11,
respectively, two solutions to the problem of Israel's destiny which are incapable of conceptual harmonization (cf. above).21 On the other hand, many
features in Romans 9, above all the shocking identification of Israel with
Ishmael, come quite close to Galatians 4. 22 Therefore, a development from
Galatians to Romans explains nothing, as far as the problems of Romans
9-11 are concerned. If development of thought is posited as the solution to
those problems, then the obvious conclusion would be that there was crucial
development, not between Galatians and Romans, but between the dictation
of Romans 9 and Romans 11, if not between Romans 11.1 0 and 11.11.
Nevertheless, the development model should be given more thought than I
gave it. Perhaps movement would be a better term, though.23 At some
points, at least, one can follow a movement in the treatment of an issue from
Galatians through Romans - a development that goes on within Romans!
E.P. Sanders has given a persuasive account of Paul's view of the purpose of
the law along such lines:
The complexities of Paul's positions on the law, then, are partly to be explained
as reflecting a development of thought which has a momentum toward more and
more negative statements. Paul attempts to reverse the momentum in Romans 7,
but other problems arise. 24

I would assess the movement of thought in Romans 9-11 as another

process during which Paul wrestles with a problem, suggesting in subsequent
passages different solutions. (see below). What remains constant is the problem.
The solutions can vary! 25
In this perspective, it comes as no surprise that one can detect different
layers of the thought process in one and the same letter. Having worked recentlyon the 'Hellenists' around Stephen, I have come to embrace the possibility
21 HUbner, Gottes [ch 122.
22 Israel's non-election as implied in Rom 9.6ff. amounts to a 'genauso diffamierende
Ungeheuerlichkeit' as the allegory about Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4.21-31: HUbner,
Gottes [ch 20.
23 I did refer to a 'process of thought', though (below, p. 20lf.) Cf. Getty 563.
24 Sanders, Law 85. According to Sanders' persuative interpretation, the negative developmentfmdsits climax in Romans 6 where sin seems no longer to be an instrument
of God, subject to God's control (73). This leads to a recoil in Romans 7 in which
Paul, however, goes to another extreme (80).
25 For still another 'movement' cf. below p. 113 n. 101.

XVlll

Preface to the second edition

that some of Paul's more 'positive' statements on the law (e.g. those in Romans 2 or Romans 13) can be traced back to the congregation in Antioch and,
ultimately, to the 'Hellenists'. Some of the tensions would then be differences
between Paul's Antiochianheritage and his more recent ideas. In the polemical
situation of Galatians, Paul puts forward his most negative statements on the
law; in Romans when he looks back, among other things, to the Galatian
conflict, many of the more balanced Antiochene ideas reappear. 26
I have elaborated this hypothesis to some extent in my new book The
Torah and Christ. 27 It now seems to me that in the present book I overemphasized to some extent the spontaneity of the rise of the law-free Gentile
mission (cf. below, p. 255). It may, after all, not have been just a case of
'action preceding theology'; rather, the 'Hellenists~ may have had a theological rationale for their action as well:. a spiritualized view.of the Torah, preformed in the Diaspora. They would have preferred, for theological reasons, a
'circumcision of the heart' to a circumcision in the 'flesh' (Rom 2,29; cf. Phil
3,3). They did not, however, present their giving up of certain commandments
as a destructive critique of the law, but rather as a reinterpretation ef its true
meaning. If this is a correct reconstruction, there was in the beginning a de
facto reduction of the law actually kept (at least in the context of the mission
to Gentiles); simultaneously, the reinterpretation tended to obscure the
radicalness of the step taken (although not in the eyes of outsiders as the persecution of the Hellenists shows).
From this perspective, the tricky question of how conscious Paul was of
his actual reduction of the Torah (below, p. 24f.) should be reformulated.
I have argued in The Torah and Christ that Paul persecuted the Hellenists precisely because they had given up the demand of circumcision and some other
'ritual' stipulations (above all, the kosher laws) in their work among non-Jews.
Paul's conversion meant that he adopted their vision. He then had to make
some conscious .decisions about the law. He had to decide that Gentiles need
not be circumcised and that kosher laws need not always be kept. I think,
however (on the basis of an inference from his extant letters with their
striking mixture of positive and negative statements on the law), that he did
not regard this step as involving a negative critique of the law as a whole. He
26 Cf. the perceptive review of Hiibner's book by J.M. Barclay inJThS 37,1986,183-87.
He notes that Romans 'looks less like a deliberate retractation of earlier views than an
attempt to clear up unresolved tensions in his thought (and, even then, without total
success). This would still represent significant development, but it would require
more careful definition.' (186)
27 'The "Hellenists" - a Bridge Between Jesus and Paul?', in: H. Riiisiinen, The Torah
and Christ. Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early
Christianity (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 45: Helsinki 1986),
242-306. This book is available from the publisher: Neitsytpolku 1 b, SF -00140
Helsinki.

Preface to the second edition

XIX

had not consciously 'rejected the law'. What he is not or does not want to be
wholly conscious of in his letters is the actual amount of tension between his
(partly) radical practice and (partly) conservative talk about the law. If there
was initially an implicit distinction between 'moral' and 'ritual' parts of the
law, the distinction tends to get blurred in Romans, when most of Paul's
sharp criticisms of the law are aimed at its 'moral' part (whereas in Galatians
the battle is still mostly conducted in the 'ritual' field). I thus assume a development from a fairly clearly reflected distinction at the beginning towards a
blurring of that distinction later on. The point that Paul's looseness of speech
is essential for his theology remains unaffected. That very looseness is necessary to conceal the basic theological dilemma inherent in Paul's (and not just
his) position (see below).28
I concede to Seyoon Kim that I should have indicated more clearly how
Paul's explicit references to his call or conversion experience fit the notion
that his critical view of the law developed later. 29 I have tried to fill that gap
in a long article on 'Paul's Call Experience and His Later View of the Law',
included in The Torah and Christ. 30 A more succinct version is forthcoming
in New Testament Studies. 31 Both Galatians I and Philippians 3 indicate that
the conflict over the law first concerned its 'ritual' part, i.e. circumcision and
food laws. Some details which indicate the line of my argument are given below in a footnote that I have, by way of exception, thoroughly rewritten
(p. 176, n. 75).

Exegesis and reconstruction

Some of those who insist that I should have tried harder to probe into
the synthesis which supposedly underlies Paul's statements seem to think that

28 I think these considerations largely answer the questions raised by Westerholm, 'On
Fulfilling'. He stresses that Paul creates a deliberate paradox in stating that the
Christians 'fulIill' the law although they do not 'do' it (237). But he admits that Paul
uses ambiguous language: using 1t'Ar/pcijv he can claim that the conduct of the Christians
(alone) 'fully satisfies the "real" purport of the law in its entirety while allowing the
ambiguity of the term to blunt the force of the objection that certain individual
requirements ... had not been done': 'the verb 1tAT/pOOV has the advantage of positive
connotations but not the liability of excessive specificity' (235, my italics). The last
sentence could easily - contrary to Westerholm's intentions - be understood in a
sli~htlj' ironical sense. ID fag, it confirms my point: The ambiguity and lack of specificity is necessary for Paul, as he 'is bent on scoring a theological point' (Westerholm
233f. n. 16).
29 Kim, Origin 346, 349 raises a pertinent question but immediately loses himself in
extravagant polemics.
30 The Torah and Christ 55-92. This essay includes a detailed interaction with Kim.
31 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law; NTS 33, 1987,
issue no. 3.

xx

Preface to the second edition

simply giving more space and time to 'sustained exegesis' would inevitably
have led to the discovery of a 'consistent thread' in Paul's thought.3 2 I grant
that more sustained analyses of key passages might have been helpful in safeguarding my position,33 although that did not seem to me to be the most
appropriate way to make a contribution. 34 More detailed analyses would have
added considerably to the length of the book without necessarily' adding
much that is new. I have recently undertaken a lengthy sustained treatment of
Romans 9-11.35 What emerged was not theoretical consistency, but rather a
Paul wrestling with a problem to which he tries, as it were, different solutions.
That a passage-by-passage analysis does not necessarily lead to the conclusion desired by my critics is confirmed by Francis Watson's recent book. He
proceeds by exegeting each letter and each relevant passage in turn. He does
discover a Paul whose arguments in individual passages are 'reasonably consistent internally'. However, 'it is virtually impossible to relate them satisfactorily to one another~36 Romans 9-11 is a case in point: ' ... the clear and
coherent argument of Rom. 11 is completely at variance with the equally
clear and coherent argument of Rom. 9, not to mention the rest of Romans. '37
Watson consequently sees 'the cohesiveness of Paul's statements about the
law not primarily at the theoretical level but at the level of practical strategy'.38
32 Kim, Origin 346f.; cf. Aletti, Bib. 1985, 428f.; RSR 1985,289. When Dunn, 'Works'
54lf. n. 54 lil@wise blames nie for an 'atomistic exegesis' of Gal 3.13 'which ignores
the connection between vv. 13 and 14' (referring to pp. 59-61 and 249-51 in the
present book), he ignores the fact that I do treat the said verses together in an
earlier connection (see below, p. 19f.). Aletti, for his part, attributes to me the view
that there is a contradiction between the Pauline ideas of judgment according to
works and justification by faith (suggesting that a more patient contextual analysis
would lead one to see that there is none). As a matter of fact, I have not assumed
such a contradiction at all (see below, p. 184).
33 Perhaps it is fair to point out that other critics have failed to imd that sort of fault in
the book which is said to represent 'a penetrating and sustained scrutiny' (Wedderburn 621) or a 'careful, patient examination of various contexts' (Getty 561); cf.
Hays 515; Oroz.
34 Initially, I did experiment with lengthy drafts on Romans 7 and Gal 2.14-21, e.g.,
opting then, for better or for worse, for a different strategy.
35 'Romer 9-11. Analyse eines geistigen Ringens', forthcoming 1987 in Aufstieg und
Niedergang der r6mischen Welt 11 25,4. Cf. also H.Riiislinen, 'Paul, God and Israel.
Romans 9-11 in Recent Research', forthcoming 1988 in The Socitzl World of Forma- '
tive Christianity and Judaigm. See further my sustained interpretation of another
passage in Romans: 'Zum Verstlindnis von Rom 3.1-8', SNTU 10, 1985, 93-108 =
The Torah and Christ 185-205.

36 Watson, Paul 170.

37 Watson, Paul 170.
38 Watson, Paul 22. However, Watson tends to convert Paul into a coolly calculating
tactician, e.g., as he traces the contradiction between Romans 9 and Romans 11
simply to different strategies to reach the same goal (l72f.). Hall's picture of Paul as

Preface to the second edition

XXI

Watson has carried out precisely the sort of project that one of my most
perceptive critics would have liked me to do. I am thinking of Richard Hays,
who found my fInal chapter the most interesting one 39 and was led to criticize my method of presentation:
Riiisanen has adopted a method which requires him to discuss exegetical problems
piecemeal, apart from any clear construal of the pastoral/historical situation to
which the various letters with their incommensurate utterances about the Law are
addressed. Conspicuously absent is any serious engagement with J. C. Beker's view
that the letters must be interpreted with a view to interplay between contingency
(the situation) and coherence (Paul's gospel). Riiisanen would probably agree with
this in principle, but in practice his approach precludes it: he tends to treat Paul's
statements about the Law as dogmatic propositions and to demonstrate their incompatibility at that level. Riskier but more illuminating would have been a sustained
constructive exegetical exposition of this material in light of the proposed psychological-historical reconstruction of the final chapter.

Yes, I agree - most of all about the risk! As Hays correctly notes, I offered
the fmal chapter 'very tentatively, with explicit cautions that the exegesis in
the earlier part of the study should not be thought to depend on the validity
of the conjectural reconstruction.' I still stand behind that view. When
writing the book I had no such reconstruction at hand that would have
seemed convincing enough to me to be made the basis of the whole presentation. The hypothesis that Paul's view of the law developed essentially in the .
course of his conflict with more conservative Christians, long ago suggested
by William Wrede, is the one alternative that remained after a process of elimination. It was not my aim to construct a new hypothesis about the origin
of Paul's view. That would have required a full analysis of the Apostolic
Council and of the Antiochian incident40 - especially the latter being an
urgent desideratum but clearly a project distinct from mine. I simply wished
to scrutinize hypotheses already in existence in the light of my analytic
fmdings. I found that Wrede's explanation (which he had indicated very
briefly) stood the test best. All I could do was to try to add some flesh unto
its bones. A fuller account would have been a new task. Nevertheless, I found
it necessary to draw up the sketch, however fragmentary, to indicate that
there is a level on which Paul's s'tatements cease to be meaningless fragments
a 'shrewd advocate' who used every strategy to win ('Paul' 38 etc.) also unwilfully
borders on cynicism. My interpretation fares better on this score, I think, as I see Paul
also wrestling with personal problems throughout. But Hall's interesting discussion
from a juridical and rhetorical perspective amounts to still another demonstration of
the implausibility of forcing Paul's statements into a theoretical synthesis.
39 Cf. also von Dobbeler 375.
40 Stuhlmacher, 'Understanding' 94 n. 14 agrees on the importance of the Antiochian
incident for Paul and his thinking. See my discussion with lames Dunn concerning
some aspects of Paul's account of this incident: 'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with
ludaism', NTS 31, 1985, 543-553 = The Torah and Christ 168-184.

XXIi

Preface to the second edition

(Hubner) and fall into an intelligible pattern. It is understandable that some

critics fmd the sketch 'in the absence of a direct possibility of verification in
the texts fairly speculative'.41 It is all the more gratifying to discover that
quite a few readers find the reconstruction nevertheless to be on the right
lines. 42 My recent article on the 'Hellenists' (see above, n. 27) may help to
clarify my view of the earlier part of Paul's Christian career a bit. Furthermore, I hope that my still more recent work on Romans 9-11 (see above,
n. 35) goes some way towards showing how psychological-historical considerations can, in my view, be brought to bear on sustained exegesis.
I can see the point in Hays' assertion that, in the bulk of the book, I tend
to treat Paul's statements 'as dogmatic propositions and to demonstrate their
incompatibility at that level.' He exaggerates quite a bit, though, for clearly I
do take the differences between different letters into account. 43 If I discuss
these differences ill a 'piecemeal' way (Hays), it is because I do not regard
them as the key to the kind of problems I am examining. But the importance
of the respective immediate contexts is crucial for my interpretation of individual statements.44 I would rather avoid so loaded a term as 'dogmatic' in this
connection and call my approach, say, 'systematic' or 'topical'. Still, I felt
myself that this approach is, in the fmal analysis, insufficient (below, p. 14).
But I also pointed out the rationale behind it: to this day, most people use
Paul's statements in just that way, as 'dogmatic propositions'! On the whole,
students of Paul are no exception. It is Paul's Wirkungsgfschichte that calls
for that sort of analysis, too - along with other approaches. Even Hays
41 Roloff 139; cf. Kim, Origin 346f. who even accuses me of 'free, subjective Romanschreibung'. However, Roloff 140 seriously distorts my argument in attributing to
me the (indeed speculative!) thesis 'd~ die Gesetzes- und Beschneidungsfrage urspriinglich auf dem Apostelkonzil keine (!) Rolle gespielt habe (2570.' Then what
does Roloff understand under 'the liberal policy of the Antiochian congregation'
which (as I wrote, p. 257) 'was accepted' in the meeting?
42 Wedderburn 620; Moxnes 48f.; Sanders, Law 51 n.16; cf. also Getty 562; Walter
247. Walter has difficulties in relating my psychological explanation of Paul's 'liberation experience' (below, p. 236) to the historical one (below, p. 256-63). The psychological conjectUre (which Wedderburn 619 finds 'plausible') was proposed as an
explanation of 'Paul's conversion to Christ along with which went the acceptanCe of
a more or less lax attitude to the Torah observance' (p. 236, the emphasis original),
whereas the conflict with the Judaizers is supposed to account for the later development of Paul's view in a more radical direction. So I do not see the problem.
43 On the outlook of different ktters see below, p. 68, 116f. (1 Corinthians); 67, 97
n. 22, 153, 188 (Romans); 79, 115f., 128-13:' (Galatians); 9 with n. 61, 189f.
(the relationship between Galatians and Romans); 115 n. 108, 117 n. 111, 254 (1
Thessalonians).
44 Thus D. Zeller, Der Brief an die Romer (RNT: Regensburg 1985), 154 can make
the following observation: ' ... die Nuancen in der Wertung des Gesetzes (sind) bei
Paulus durch bestimmte Argumentationszusammenhlinge gegeben '" Die Methode,
diese Kontexte zu differenzieren, wurde von U. Wilckens (modulziert durch D.
Zeller) und H. Rliislinen vorangetrieben.'

Preface to the second edition

XXlll

comments that my work should be 'required reading for anyone inclined

towards easy harmonization of Paul's thought.' If people do use Paul's statements as dogmatic propositions even on a sophisticated level (witness the
role assigned in the Jewish-Christian dialogue to a statement like Romans
11.25!) and if they really cannot be used in that way, is it not about time
that someone tells them?
The divided response to my book confirms that it is precisely the conclusions reached at the 'propositional' level that amount to a watershed. If a
systematic analysis were of no intrinsic interest, why are my conclusions so
strongly resisted in some circles? A letter-by-Ietter analysis easily becomes an
apologetic means to avoid asking inconvenient questions.

Paul's theological problems

As for the distinction between contingency and coherence,45 I would
rather agree with E. P. Sanders that Paul 'held a limited number of basic convictions' .46 It is not too clear to me what exactly Beker means by the coherent centre he detects in Paul's writings. But I take it to mean at least that
in his gospel Paul has a solution which he applies to different problems in
different contingent situations in contingent ways. My view is partially different: Paul's gospel itself also implies a grave problem. At the very core of his '
thought, Paul has 'conflicting convictions'_47 To make this clear, a systematic
(Rays: 'dogmatic') approach is required - to fmd out where the 'coherence'
is to be found and where it is not.

45 J.C. Beker,Paul the Apostle (Philadelpia 1984 2 ).

46 Sanders, Law 147. Critics often detect a difference between Sanders' position and
mine: while Sanders acknowledges that Paul was, in the last analysis, coherent, I tend
to render him 'completely incoherent' (thus Watson, Paul 18). This, I think, is an
oversimplification. Of course I, too, am of the opinion that some things never changed
in Paul's mind - for example the idea that God wanted to save all humans through
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. below, p. 23). Sanders correctly notes
that we seem to disagree 'only about terminology'. He would call Paul a 'coherent'
thinker, 'if each divergent statement comes from an identifiable central conviction'
(148). If I hesitate to adopt this terminology, it is only because I then have difficulty
in fmding anybody who might qualify as an 'incoherent' thinker, in which case the
statement that Paul is 'coherent' does not mean very much. It should also be noted
that Sanders makes it easier for himself to paint a coherent Paul by relegating Romans 2
to insignificance as a Jewish homily the ideas of which Paul does not really share and
which can be treated in an appendix (cf. below, p. 107 n. 74). I tried to take seriously
this chapter, too, as part of Paul's argument - with the result that I could not help
seeing more inconsistency. I would now try to interpret Romans 2 in terms of Paul's
Antiochene and 'Hellenist' legacy (The Torah and Christ 289f., 293).
47 Sanders, Law 198.

XXIV

Preface to the second edition

No wonder Paul was not able to solve his problem, for, given his and his
contemporaries' views of divine revelation, it was hardly soluble. I described
the problems thus: 'we find Paul struggling with the problerp that a divine
institution has been abolished through what God has done in Christ.' (Below
p. 264f.). Wedderburn agrees that 'that will not work', and Peter Fiedler adds
that to this day Paul's dilemma has not been worked through in our exegesis
and theology .48
When writing the sentence in question I had the Torah in mind. But one
should also reflect on Israel's election and God's covenant with the patriarchs
and the people. Paul's theology implies that God's salvific acts of old are invalid or insufficient - which causes Paul to try insisting on continuity as well.
His de facto break with the Biblical covenant has been persuasively articulated
by E. P. Sanders49 whose crucial argument I have repeatedly taken up in recent
articles. 50 Paul asserts that no Jew can be saved as a Jew; even a Jew must
convert and become 'a new creation'. Faith in Jesus involves quite a new step
for a Jew: he has to accept that Jesus was the Messiah and that the final era
has begun. He has to enter the new community, socially distinct from the
synagogue. He has to undergo the new initiation rite of baptism and to be
incorporated in the body of Christ. He has to give up Torah observance whenever it interferes with intercourse with Gentile Christians (Gal 2).
When Paul insists on the newness of the new aeon, he precludes true continuity with the old. On the other hand, when he tries to establish continuity,
he thwarts his exclusive Christ-centred soteriology. That the place allotted to
Abraham as a prototype of a believer actually undermines Paul's 'system' was,
not surprisingly, seen long ago by liberals like Jillicher. 51 It was only after I
had fmished the present book that the contradiction dawned on me in connection with a lecture on 1 Clement. 52 Clement tells his readers that God has
justified men through faith from all eternity. Clement has been blamed by
modern theologians for letting God's action in Christ recede into the background. Indeed, the place of Christ in Clement's soteriology remains vague.
As justification by faith was always the rule, what is Christ really needed for?
But this problem emerged at the very moment when Paul introduced
Abraham as the prototype of the man justified by faith. If salvific faith was
. accessible to Abraham - or to David, as may be inferred from Romans
48 Cf. also Houlden's (385) description of Paul's 'massive dilemma'.
49 Sanders, Law 172, 176-78.
50 'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with JUdaism', NTS 31, 1985, 549f. = The Torah
and Christ 181-84 (adding the point that is was not Paul who introduced the dilemma
into Christian thought); 'Zum Verstandnis von Rom 3,1-8' (see above n. 35) 106f.
= The Torah and Christ 201 f.
51 A. Jillicher, 'Der Brief an die Romer', SNT 2,255.
52 H. Riiisanen, '"Werkgerechtigkeit" - eine "friihkatholische" Lehre? Oberlegungen
zum 1. Klemensbrief'. StTh 37,1983,79-99 = The Torah and Christ 307-33.

Preface to the second edition

xxv

4.6-8 - why was the sending of Christ a necessity at all? One can hardly have
both the soteriological continuity and the eschatological novelty at the same
time. 53 Paul's attempt to usurp the all-important figure of Abraham adds to
his insoluble problems.
In this book I may have overly stressed psychological factors (cf. below,
p. llf., 71). Therefore I now wish to call attention even more emphatically
than I did (yet see p. 202, 262) to the fact that at the heart of Paul's theology
lies a theological problem that can hardly be solved in terms of traditional
Christian theology with its revelational claims. Paul's problems with the law
are not the product of a muddled mind. They are the inevitable consequence
of his bold willingness to wrestle with the basic issues. Other New Testament
writers mostly passed in silence over them. For instance, Matthew offers 'fulfilment' of the law as a 'magic key' without making the practical implications
clear (cf. below, p. 29f., 88 n. 226).

Paul and other NT writers

It is fair to emphasize this last aspect even more than I did in the first
edition. I took some pains to compare Paul and his problems with the contributions of other early Christian writers (Ch. VII). I think this comparative
chapter was necessary to gain a proper perspective and it is somewhat
disappointing that few reviewers have cared to comment on it. 54 A still
closer look at these other writers might, however, have brought to light more
problems than I saw and thus greater justice might have been done to Paul.

53 Of course, 'normal' Jewish thought had to face analogous problems about God's
constancy: the Torah had to be dated back - in one form or another - to the time
of Abraham or even to Paradise.
54 Wedderburn, however, notes (619) that 'it is one of the strengths of the work as a
whole that throughout it carefully compares Paul's view with those of his near-contemporaries, be they Christians or non-Christian Jews'. Von Dobbeler (376), on the
other hand, finds the quest of 'analogies' to be 'unverfiinglich und methodisch unklar
(bezeichnenderweise wird nach Analogien, nicht nach Traditionen gefragt)'. 'So wird
z.B. die friihjiidische Tendenz zur Reduzierung der Torahgebote auf das doppelte
Liebesgebot oder die Beschriinkung auf die ethischen Gebote in einigen Kreisen nicht
emsthaft als gemeinsames traditionsgut paulinischen und friihjiidischen Denkens in
Rechnung gestellt.' (My italics.) I confess that I see no methodological problem here.
The tracing of analogies or traditions respectively are two different questions (both
relevant), that is all. That Paul builds on originally Jewish traditions when reducing
the law to the love command or to ethical commands is simply too obvious to demand
further study in this connection; I was interested in the similar or dissimilar use of
such traditions. In The Torah and Christ 254f., 288-95 I discuss the question of
whether Paul received these sorts of ideas directly from Jewish tradition or rather
through the mediation of the Jewish Christian 'Hellenists'.

XXVI

Preface to the second edition

Thus S. G. Wilson now argues that Luke's view of the law is inconsistent. 55
Some dissertations under preparation in Helsinki are about to introduce
further differentiations. Kari Syreeni argues that Matthew had divergent
basic convictions which he tried to reconcile by means of sweeping 'assimilations' (the notion of 'fulfllment' suggests that whatever Jesus teaches fulfils
the law, which remains a valid authority).56 Markku Kotila demonstrates
divergent attitudes toward Moses and his law in the Fourth Gospel (the law
functions as a witness to Jesus on one hand, while there is hard polemics
against Moses in l.17f., 6.32, 10.8 on the other), tracing them back to different layers in the Johannine tradition. 57 Insofar as Paul moves in still
more severe contradictions than others (below, p. 228), it is mainly because
he devotes more attention to the problems. He is trying to 'square the circle'.58
Hard pressed between the claims of sacred tradition and the vision triggered
by new experiences (which had already initiated the formation process of a
new tradition) he tried to do justice to both. But the situation that forced
him to try that was not created by him. It was not Paul who introduced an
exclusive soteriology, based on Christology, into the new movement.

On the Jewish religion

I join the ranks of those who reject the traditional Christian understanding
of the Jewish religion as anthropocentric legalism. One critic regards this decision as 'a product of sheer hybris', for I am (in his opinion) claiming that I
know 'the Judaism of Paul's day better than Paul himself. 59 But the question
is not one of Paul's knowledge. 60 The question is whether Paul, writing in a
55 S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50: Cambridge 1983). A.J. M. Wedderburn,
in his review of Wilson's book, calls attention to the similarity between Wilson's
approach and mine: SJTh 38,1985,261.
56 K. SyreeJll. TheMakinz of the Sermon on the MiJunL A Procedural Analysis of
Matthew's Redactoral Activity. Part I: Methodology&Compositional Analysis (AASF
Diss. Hum. 44: Helsinki 1987). See esp. p. 185-226.
57 M. Kotila, Umstrittener Zeuge. Studien zur Stellung des Gesetzes in der johanneischen Theologiegeschichte (forthcoming). My paragraphs on John (below, p. 195f.,
217f.) would have to be rewritten in the light of Kotila's findings. That John's conception is 'the clearest within the New Testament' (below, p. 218) holds true as far
as the Evangelist is concerned. In 1.17f., 6.32f., 10.8, however, we meet, according
to Kotila's persuasive analysis, a later editor who was sharply critical of Moses and
his law. The 'scribal apology' in 7.21-23 (below, p. 90) comes from the tradition of
the Evangelist.
58 An expression used by N. Waiter in his discussion of the problems of Romans 9-11:
'Zur Interpretation von Romer 9-11',ZThK 81, 1984, 177.
59 Kim,Origin 347f.
60 I have never attributed to Paul 'schlichte Unkenntnis des jiidischen Glaubens', as
Weder, 'Gesetz' 359, 372 n. 7 alleges. Nor is it fair to assert that my whole book is
essentially based on 'the traditional hypothesis of a misunderstanding' (thus Miiller).
That Paul misunderstood the nature of (Palestinian) Judaism is not part of my thesis.

Preface to the second edition

XXVll

conflict setting, does justice to the form of piety he has given up.61 If he did,
he might well be a unique person in the religious history of mankind. The
concept of cognitive dissonance is pertinent here. 62 Of course I never intended
to suggest that Paul deliberately distorted Judaism. 63
Kim also complains that I display an 'overconfidence' which is 'not well advised' in Sanders' work on Judaism. 64 But the allegation that Sanders' work
is based mostly on late documeIlts is simply not true.65 Nor do Jacob Neusner's
somewhat harsh criticisms of Sanders' enterprise render it invalid. These criticisms are mainly concerned with Sanders' ambitious claim to have brought to
light 'the pattern' of Rabbinic religion. 66 For my position as outlined in Ch.
V, it is unimportant whether 'covenantal nomism' be the crucial pattern of
all ancient Judaism or not; what is important is that this view of man's place
in God's world is there. It is surely wiser to call it the 'common denominator'
between different forms of Judaism, as Sanders does in a recent book.67 In a
recent article, Neusner himself summarizes the nature of Jewish piety in the
first century with precisely the expression 'covenantal nomism', borrowed
from Sanders, which he describes as follows:

61 That Paul may do justice to the way some (or even many) Jews may have practised
their religion (cf. Walter 249: 'was im pharisiiischen (und verwandten) Judentum faktisch weithin gelebt wU'rde') is, in the final analysis, irrelevant; see below p. 167f. with
n. 40, 181f. with n. 102. Cf. The Torah and Christ 82f.
62 Cf. Hays 513. See also G. Theissen's interesting discussion of'Dissonanzbewiiltigung'
in 2 Corinthians 3: Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie (FRLANT 131:
Gottingen 1983),156-61.
63 Thus Kim, Origin 351, who asks me the meaningless question: 'What point would
Paul have thought to score against the Jewish or Jewish Christian opponents by 'distorting' Judaism ... ?' (italicized in the original). I regret that Roloff, likewise, attributes to me the view that Paul's statements on the law were 'subjektiv unwahrhaftig'
(137).
64 Kim, Origin 347f. n. 14.
65 Half of Sanders' discussion of the Jewish material in Paul and Palestinian Judaism
(London 1977) is devoted to the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
Cf. Rliisiinen, The Torah and Christ 83. Kim 348f. rmds my 'trust concerning the
rabbis' testimonies about themselves' in sources much later than Paul 'strange', as I
am prepared to be 'sceptical about Paul's testimonies'. But 'covenantal nomism' is
not a phenomenon limited to late sources. Even if it were totally absent in the
Mishna and Talmud, that would do no harm to my case, for it is found in early sources
like the Old Testament, Ben Sira, the Qumran scrolls, Jubilees, and Pseudo-Philo
(cf. below, p. 166f., 179f.). Its persistence in Jewish liturgy is a further point of extreme importance.
66 Kim 348f. n. 15 appeals to Neusner. It is pointed out below, p. 168 with n. 41, that
Neusner finds the thesis of 'covenantal nomism' to be 'wholly sound'. On the controversy between Neusner and Sanders about the religion of the rabbis, see now also
Sanders' preface in the German translation of his great work: Paulus und das paliistinische Judentum (Gottingen 1985), XI-XII.
67 Jesus and Judaism (London 1985), 336.

XXV111

Preface to the second edition

To state matters simply, the life of Israel in the first century found structure and
meaning in the covenant between God and Israel as contained in the Torah revealed
by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. The piety of Israel, defined by the Torah, in concrete ways served to carry out the requirements of the covenant. This holy life under
the Torah has been properly called 'covenantal nomism', a phrase introduced by E.P.
Sanders to state in two words the complete and encompassing holy way of life and
world view of Israel in its land in the first century. Life under the Torah was so lived
as to fuliill Israel's covenant with God, so one must state as the gist of Israel's piety
in the first century (and not then alone).68

It is more than enough for me, if I can build on what Neusner and Sanders
agree on.
If Paul suggested that Judaism is a religion of works and Christianity one
of grace, the contrast seems unfair. To be sure, scholars like Sanders and
Watson deny that Paul intended such a contrast at all. What he did intend, they
say, was to contrast two ways of life with each other: one based on God's
ancient covenant with Israel, the other on the plan he realized in Christ. 69
If this were correct, there would be no reason to speak of a distortion of
Judaism. Instead, Paul could be criticized for not communicating his message
very clearly. For it is very difficult to avoid the strong impression that Paul
often speaks as if God's grace were limited to law-free Christianity.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Romans 4 with its talk of ep-ya, IJwiMr;, 0
ep-yatdlJvor; and OtpeLAl1lJa. Perhaps one should distinguish here more clearly
than I - and others - have done between then 'target' of Paul's argument (he
argues 'against privileged status') and the way he actually conducts his argument (alluding to a 'by works' soteriology on the part of the Jews and Judaizers). The latter aspect is too prominent to be totally excluded. In this regard
my discussion (below, p. 17lf.) is somewhat one-sidedly oriented to the
'target' of Paul's argument (but see the qualification on p. 176)' and should
be modified. 70

68 Major Trends in Formative Judaism III (Brown Judaic Studies 99: Providence 1985),
3lf.
69 Sanders, Paul 46f.; Watson, Paul 178f. and elsewhere. Watson strongly stresses the
primarily sociological nature of the contrast.
70 This much I grant Hiibner (895). On the whole, Chapter V was by far the most difficult one in the whole book to write. It is not the basis of the other chapters, either.
In fact, it is of less significance for my understanding of Paul's 'theological difficulties' with the law than are chapters I-IV. These chapters deal with problems immanent in Paul's view. Chapter V tries to isolate a different kind of problem: a problematic presupposition in Paul's argument. Should I have erred regarding this problem, my
overall argument would have to take only a slightly different shape: in that case Paul
replaced, in his conversion, his normal Jewish 'by works' soteriology with a different
view of salvation. This 'change of systems' then led him to think through the nature
and purpose of the law. But he could not go through this process of thought without
getting caught in inconsistencies, contradictions and problematic assertions (above all
regarding the connection between law and sin). Thus what von Dobbeler (376) suggests

Preface to the second edition

XXIX

For a more detailed discussion of this part of my work, which includes a

debate with Seyoon Kirn, I refer to The Torah and Christ, p. 77-85.

On some recent studies

A number of recent studies stress the continuity between Paul and the Old
Testament even regarding his view of the law. These include the following:
C. T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law (SBL Diss. 55: Chico 1981). - J.D. G.
Dunn, 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65,1983,95-122. - J.D.G.
Dunn, 'Works' (see above, n. 3). - R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law;
Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNT Suppl. Series 10: Sheffield 1985).
- E.J. Schnabel,Lawand Wisdom (see above,n. 3). -P.Stuhlmacher, 'Paul's
Understanding' (see above, n. 6). Apart from Stuhlrnacher, all these authors
put forward some version of the old thesis that what Paul rejects is not the
Torah itself but some Jewish misunderstanding of it. In my view, the objections put forward (below, pp. 42-50) to Cranfield's view apply in these cases
as well.
Several authors adopt the thesis of Friedrich and others that VOIlDC; 1TiuTW<;
(Rom 3.27) means the Torah as seen from the viewpoint offaith.71 There is
nothing in these new discussions that would make me hesitate in my refutation
of that interpretation (see below, p. 50-52).72
Rhyne argues that, in the light of Paul's usage of p:r} 'YVOtTO, Rom 3.31
points to chapter 4. 'We establish the Law' is interpreted in Rom 4 to mean
that 'the law in its role as witness to righteousness by faith is established in
the apostolic preaching of justification by faith',73 Even if this were the
case 74, my point that Paul's answer does not meet the question asked in
Rom 3.31 a (below, p. 70) remains unaffected. Even though I have taken 3.31
to refer to 3.21 b, rather than to Ch. 4, my interpretation of the meaning of

71
72

73
74

amounts to a discussible alternative (although I will insist on mine): 'Nicht die Kennzeichnung des Gesetzes als Heilsweg ist eine paulinische Verzerrung, sondern erst seine
enge Verbindung zwischen Gesetz und Siinde.'
Rhyne, Faith 67-71; Schnabel, Law 285-290; Stuhlmacher, 'Understanding' 97f.,
99f.
Schnabel insinuates that I used (in my NTS 1979 article) Cranfield's interpretation of
~K~ in Rom 3.27 without mentioning that he interprets v6poc; 1T1nrC"A in
terms of the OTlaw (286 n. 291) and that I have (below, p. 50f. n. 34) misunderstood
Wilckens 'who does not claim that v6J.to;' does not mean "rule" or "order" in classical
Greek' (289 n. 311). Both allegations are false. I did point out that Cranfield follows
Friedrich in his interpretation of v6J.to;' 1T1nrC"A: NTS 26, 1979-80, 103 n. 19, cf.
l11f. (= The Torah and Christ 99 n. 1, 1l0f.). And Wilckens, Romer 2, 122 does
make the claim denied by Schnabel: this is even clearer in Wilckens' page 89 to which
I should also have referred. Cf. The Torah and Christ 121 with n. 3.
Rhyne,Faith 117f.
Hays (514) also regards it as a mistake to 'drive a major wedge between Rom 3:31
and 4:1'.

xxx

Preface to the second edition

3.31 agrees almost word for word with that of Rhyne (below, p. 70). Rhyne
shows no awareness of the fact that 'the question of the continuity between
Judaism and Christianity' and the question of what sort of continuity Paul
may assert there to be are two distinct issues.75
Despite his disagreement with my overall thesis, James Dunn comes fairly
close to me in his interpretation of the central phrase 'the works of the law'.
Having stressed (in the eyes of many, overstressed!) the significance of the
problem of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church as the background of
Paul's statements on 'justification by faith' (below, p. 176f.), I am a little
surprised at the criticism that I have 'still failed to grasp the full significance
of the social function of the law'.7 6 This surprise is not diminished by the
fact that the same criticism is aimed at Sanders, who has presented a powerful
argument (before Dunn who could already avail himself of it) precisely for
the social function of the law. 77 The real difference between Dunn and me
(and Sanders) is not the assessment of the social function of the law but the
question of whether or not Paul criticized the law as such and as a whole or
just the law as viewed from a limited perspective. As Dunn opts for the latter
course 78 , my criticisms ofCranfield'sposition(below,p. 42-50) apply to him
as well.7 9 His test case, the 'narrow and specific' understanding of the death
of Christ according to Gal 3.13-14, does not carry conviction either. 80
I dealt with Dunn's earlier article in a paper on 'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's
Break with Judaism',81 concluding that his emphasis on continuity corresponds to the picture that Paul (at least, in certain contexts) liked to paint of
himself (bona fide, to be sure); we should not, however, overlook his (partial)
de facto discontinuity with Judaism. What mattered most to an average Jew
in Paul's environment was surely not what was said or thought of various
aspects of the Torah, but the practical question whether or not it was observed. Paul thus combines practical (partial) discontinuity with ideological
(partial) continuity; our interpretations should do justice to this complexity.
Badenas argues that TA.OC; means 'goal' in Romans 10.4. The price he has
to pay is high: for instance, there is no contrast at all betwee~ Rom 10.5 and
10.6 (on the contrary, even 'Moses' speaks of righteousness by faith);82 Gal

75 That is, he takes Paul's 'conservative' assertion at face value. Cf. Rhyne, Faith 1,5,
121.
76 Dunn, 'Works' 534.
77 Cf. Sanders, Law 102 etc.
78 See, e.g., 'Works' 531f.
79 Cf. Wedderburn 618 n. 11.
80 The curse removed by Christ's death was, accordiIlg to Dunn, 'the curse which had
previously prevented that blessing (sc. of the Jewish covenant, HR) from reaching
the Gentiles, the curse of a wrong understanding of the law'. Art.cit. 536.
81 NTS 31,1985,543-553 = The Torah and Christ 168-84.
82 Badenas, Christ 123-25.

Preface to the second edition

XXXI

3.12 does not elucidate the use of Lev 18.5 in Rom 10 at all ;83 TAOC; means
'goal' even in 2 Cor 3.13. 84
Stuhlmacher claims that 'what continues to count in Christ is the Decalogue and the corresponding deeds of love which are based on it. 85 It is a
gift of God which shows to those who try to obey it that they are guilty. The
Christians perceive the Decalogue anew; for them it becomes the 'Law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus' (Rom 8.2).86 Stuhlmacher asks me to express
my own opinion of the Decalogue 'more clearly and correctly'.87 I think it is
sufficient to put together my scattered references to the place of the Decalogue in Paul's thought to refute Stuhlmacher's thesis. According to 2 Cor 3.7
(cf 3.3), the killing letter which is characterized by vanishing glory is carved
in 'stone'. This is difficult to interpret in a way other than that the Decalogue
shares the destiny of the old covenant which is doomed to fade (below, p.
25, 45). In his concrete exhortation, Paul does not appeal to the Decalogue
(or to any other code) in his argument against fornication (1 Cor 6.1 2ft) or
even in that against idolatry (1 Cor lO.23ft) (below, p. 48f.). He does not
refer the Christian to the Decalogue but encourages him to examine what
God's will is (Romans 12.1 f., Phil l.1 0): thus, Christian ethics is not based
on the Decalogue (below, p. 49, 77).88 In fact, 'the reduction of the law to
the love command also annihilates the meaning of the Decalogue as such'
(below, p. 83). Stuhlmacher simply fuses the Decalogue with the love command. Romans 13.9, however, explicitly reduces the Decalogue to the one
commandment of neighbourly love. Stuhlmacher's case would be more persuasive ifhe claimed that what counts in Christis just the love command. Then,
however, he would find himself in difficulty in his all-important effort to
establish continuity between the old covenant and Paul. It is not enough for
him that the Decalogue becomes the 'Law of the Spirit' (Rom 8.2) for Christians. This 'Law of the Spirit' also corresponds, 'from the perspective of Biblical theology', to the category of the eschatological 'Zion Torah', formulated
by H. Gese.89 But this category is a massive tour de force (cf. below,p. 239f.),
as I have shown in detail in The Torah and Christ. 90 'Biblical theology' must
seek more realistic avenues.
December 1986
H.R.
83 Op.cit. 119.
84 Op.cit. 75. Badenas' philological survey is valuable, but he realizes himself that it is
inconclusive, the final decision depending on the context (80).
85 Stuhlmacher, 'Paul's Understanding' 101.
86 Art.cit. 103.
87 Art.cit. 104.
88 Cf. the quotation from P. Bliiser, below p. 49 n. 28.
89 Stuhlmacher, 'Paul's Understanding' 99f. n. 18.
90 Appendix, p. 337 -65. Interestingly enough, my doubts about the 'Zion Torah' (as
expressed in the present book) are shared by Schnabel, Law 288 with n. 307, although
his overall view is diametrically opposed to mine.

Introduction
'One can hardly understand his theology ,if one does not grasp his theology
of the Torah', says G. Eichholz with respect to Paul.! This is probably true.
And yet experience has shown that it is just that cardinal point that is particularly difficult to interpret, being indeed 'the most intricate doctrinal issue
in his theology,.2 Therefore, 'uncertainty remains concerning Paul's position
vis-a-vis the Law, forcing interpreters to return to the question again and again
in the hope that their new studies may shed some small light upon the texts
by which their colleagues may see the problem in new perspective'. 3 It is with
this purpose that the present study, too, has been written. Not that the perspective suggested is really new; it is rather an old one, which has been unduly
neglected in recent times. And if the light offered be indeed small, I hope that
it might still turn out to be -light.
Not seldom is it suggested that all the problems of the early Christians
concerning the Torah were solved by Paul's clear, cogent and penetrating
thinking. No one had before him reflected on the problems of the law with
such clarity;4 Paul's solution was indeed so convincing that there was at the
end of the century no longer any need to return to the question of the law's
role in salvation.5 'Paul's penetrating theological analysis' of the relationship
between faith in Christ and the law of Moses 'had a decisive impact ,on the
whole subsequent history of the church, and thereby on subsequent world
history.'6 Paul exposed with utter clarity the self-centred nature of Israel's
attitude. 7 In Romans, he has treated the theme 'Law' dialectically with virtuosi~ and systematic power. 8 Paul is seen as 'the patron of Christian philosophy' and 'the prince of thinkers,10; or as 'the truly perceptive intellectual,
1 Theologie 178.
2 Schoeps, Paul 168.

3 McEleney, 'Conversion' 319 f.

4 Lohse, Grundrisr 161; cf. id.,Israel 22f.
5 Lohse, Grundrisr 145; cl. Conzelmann, Geschichte 5; Fischer, Tendenz 85: 'Paul's
theological significance' lies in the fact 'that he has overcome the law theologically'.
6 Dahl, Studies 19.
7 Goppelt, Christentum 312; cf. Verweijs, Gesetz 373.
8 Hiibner, Gesetz 58; cf. Trocme, 'Paul' 350.
9 Schweitzer,Mystik 366 (ET 377).
10 Moule, 'Interpreting Paul' 89 (speaking of the 'simple coherence' of Paul's 'basic
convictions').

Introduction

among the apostles and the NT writers' who 'really had a passion for clear
theoretical thought,H. He 'will always remain the thinker and theologian
par excellence of Christianity,12. He is even said to belong with 'the giants of
the philosophy of religion' .13 This catena of eulogies has been gathered from
theologians representing quite different schools of thought. 14
Not surprisingly, then, Paul carries to this d'ay in Christian 'churches 'the
undisputed classic's authority' .15 Christian theology, it is said, will have to
take his theology of the law as its starting-point and criterion. 16 But, in
addition to that, Paul's' theology is also seen as a model to be followed in
debates between Christianity and Judaism and, by implication at least,
between Christianity and any other religion. 1 7 The letter to the Romans
points out the solution to the problem of Christianity and Judaism, which is
fundamental for the church of all times: 'Christianity is the abolishing fulfIlment of Judaism' .. .1 8 Jewish protests to Paul's exegesis are quickly dismissed, although the arbitrariness of that exegesis, by critical standards, is
readily admitted.1 9 Paul seems to have made his point in a very convincing
way indeed.
All remarks on the logic of Paul's theology, in particular his theology of
the law, have not, however, been of a panegyric nature. In antiquity, Porphyry commented that Paul displays the ignorant person's habit of constantly
contradicting himself and that he is feverish in mind 20 and weak in his
11 Stendahl,Paul 52, cf. 71; cf. also Kuss,Paulus 277.
12 Cerfaux, Christian 353 f.
13 Gerhardsson, 'I Kor 13' 185. For Dahl, too, Paul belongs 'among the philosophers'
and warrants 'a place in the history of Western thought' (op.cit. 2). Of late Paul has
also come tobe seen as a skilled rhetorician in the best Greek tradition; cf. Betz,
'Composition' and Ga14tians.
14 That modern scholarship 'still is under the spell of the myth of Paul the non-thinker'
(Betz, Galatiam xiv) I simply fan to see, at least as the European scene is concerned.
15 Gerhardsson,loc.cit.
16 Smend-Luz, Gesetz 144. Schulz, Mitte, defends vigorously the extreme thesis that
Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith is the normative 'canon within the canon'.
17 The implication is clearly spelled out by Schniewind, Erneuerung 61: ' ... our comparison of religions acquires its norms IJugely from the way the New Testament fights
the double battle against nomism on one hand and the antinomistic gnosis on the
other ... ' In this battle Paul proceeds 'by taking up the questions of the opponent, the
Pharisee or the Gnostic, and answering to them witIi the testimony to Christ ... '
18 GoppeIt, op.cit. 315. Cf. Althaus, Wahrheit 16, esp. p. 136.
19 Kiisemann states on Romans 10.5 ff.: 'In the eyes of the historical critic the violation
of the literal sense of Scripture in the introduction to vv. 6 ff. is scarcely to be outdone.' Yet he can claim not only that this is 'valid on Paul's hermeneutical presuppositions', but also that 'no objection can be brought against this exegesis on Jewish
grounds'. Romans 285.
20 An interesting parallel to this from a totally different perspective is supplied by the
imaginative comment of the novelist Baring-Gould, Study 323 f.: when 'Paul's Hellenic

Introduction

reasoning. 21 Of course, Porphyry was biased; nevertheless his critique did

appeal to a Harnack,22 and one wonders whether the Neo-Platonic philosopher would not, at this point, have won the approval of many Jewish Christians of Paul's day. A modem philosopher, too, may fmd Paul's theology
'utterly confused,.23
It is, however, unnecessary to turn to critics of Christianity to fmd out
that something is amiss in Paul's theology of the law. It is symptomatic that
the followers of the apostle have hardly ever been able to agree on what he
really wanted to say. It may be understandable that Marcion reached quite
different conclusions from those of his orthodox opponents,24 or even that
the way Paul's teaching is interpreted in Ephesians is quite unlike that of the
Pastorals. 25 But what is one to make of the fact that still in our time, with all
the historical-critical apparatus available, learned scholars like, for example,
Cranfield and Kasemann can propose diametrically opposed views of Paul's
intentions? Where Cranfield says that gospel and law are, for Paul, essentially
one,26 Kasemann maintains that they are quite non-dialectically mutually
exclusive .antitheses. 27 Moreover, each interpreter suggests that if you reject
his way of seeing it, you are dangerously misusing Paul's theology!28 It is in
fact striking that more than one interpreter can state that Paul's theology of
the law is just a lot of nonsense, unless of course you opt for his particular

21
22
23
24
25

26
27
28

converts saw him floundering in dispute, they looked on with wonder .and compassion as they did when he was in the throes of malarial fever', for 'his arguments were
to the Greeks so marvellous and incomprehensible that they were disposed to regard
them also with the superstitious respect that they paid to epilepsy'!
In Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus Ill, 30.34; See text and commentary in Harnack,
Kritik 58-61, 64-67; cf. also Nestle, 'Haupteinwande' 66-69. To be sure, the identification of Macarius's source with Porphyry is not undisputed.
Harnack, op.cit. 133 f. comments: 'He reproduces the portrait of Paul ... partly more
correctly than modern Protestant German critics who portray the Apostle one-sidedly according to some main passages in Galatians.'
Hedenius, Helvetesliiran 133 f.; cf. von Hartmann, Christentum 176.
Cf. Wiles,Apostle 50.
Cf. lindemann, Au/hebung 171 ff. Lindemann (174) states: 'Evidently even immediatelyafter Paul one was no longer able to grasp and to appropriate Paul's theologically differentiated teaching on the law ... ' Whether this is not a euphemism remains to
be seen in the course of this study.
'Paul' 68; id., Romans 862.
Romans 282.
Cranfield suggests that behind more 'negative' interpretations of Paul's view of the
law there is 'muddled thiitking' (,Paul' 43), the effects of which 'will permeate the
whole range of our thinking and doing' (44). According to Kasemann, on the other
hand, certain 'positive' interpretations turn the gospel to a means of fulfilling the law
and show that some statements of Paul are dangerously open to misunderstanding
(op.cit. 218).

Introduction

interpretation (different from most).29

We thus face a curious dilemma. On one hand, the clarity, profundity and
cogency of Paul's theological thinking is universally praised. On the other
hand, it does not seem possible to reach any unanimity whatsoever as to what
his message really was.
As for Cranfield and Kasemann, both of them seem to play down some
obvious tensions in Paul's thought. 30 Cranfield does this by way of manifest harmonizing, explaining away Paul's negative comments on the law.
Kasemann's approach is more sophisticated. He presents a sort of redactioncritical thesis: Paul's conservative statements are Jewish-Christian traditional
fragments, tacitly reinterpreted by the apostle; it is only the radical thoughts
that should be taken seriously as Paul's own theology. The one-sidedness of
each method is evident. Half of the material just cannot be explained away,
neither the positive nor the negative statements.
There remains a refuge in the secure realm of dialectic and paradox. 31
We are constantly reminded of the delight the Semitic mind supposedly took
in paradoxes. 32 One may wonder, why Paul's Jewish-Christian opponents
were so unable to follow his Semitic paradoxes about the law; the suspicion
creeps in that they might have felt Paul to be too much of a Greek for their
liking! Anyway, it should be noted that Christian scholars hardly ever speak
of dialectic and the like, when they interpret contradictions in, say, the Dead
Sea Scrolls or in the Koran. 33 The talk of dialectic thus has an apologetic
ring. Moreover, the notion of dialectic is so vague that it seems pointless to
try to argue against it. 34 So I will rather try to establish an alternative perspective which makes more sense to me at least.
Excluding patent harmonization and the dialectical approach, a few alternative ways of dealing with the tensions in Paul's statements about the law
remain.

29 See the views of Conzelmann and O'Neill (below, p.5 f.). Bring, Christus 54 contends that Rom 10.5 is 'completely senseless'. if Paul really speaks in that verse of
false self-made righteousness (as other interpreters universally believe!); similarly,
Gal 3.10 is nonsense, if the apostle there speaks of works of the law (as everybody
except Bring thinks). On Bring's own interpretation see below, p. 55 n.57.
30 See below, p. 42 ff., 66.
31 Cf. Michels, Paul 1 and passim; Mussner, Traktat 223, 237 n. 41 (but cf. 231); Kim,
Origin 281 ff. (leaning on Stuhlrnacher, Gerechtigkeit 94 ff.); cf. also Stuhlmacher,
Evangelium I, 97. For a critical comment see Gronemeyer, Frage 9f.
32 One of the more perceptive scholars to do this is Caird,Age 137 f. (with special reference to the problem of hardening, Rom 9.18, 10.21; yet in that case, too, the question is: is there not a real contradiction in Paul's views of divine hardening?).
33 Cf. Raisanen,Hardening, esp. 7-9, 13 f., 73,97 f.
34 Cf. Michels, op.cit. 33: Paul's writing was 'full of paradoxes', for 'the truths which
Paul conveyed were too big for human comprehension. To express these truths, he

Introduction

1. The first alternative to be mentioned might be regarded as a sophisticat

ed version of the dialectical approach. Interestingly enough, one of the harsh
est recent judgments on Paul's teaching on the law comes from one of the most
ardent admirers of Paul the theologian. According to Hans Conzelmann it is
clear that one does not understand Paul, if one stops at the heilsgeschichtlich
c6nceptions. 35 Taken literally (on the 'objectified' level), Paul's teaching on
the law leads to absurd conc1usions. 36 Conzelmanil, however, elevates himself
above the offence by denying in good existentialist fashion that these ideas
of Paul should be 'objectified'. They cannot be taken at face value. 37 Paul's
doctrine of the law is nothing but a theological interpretative device which
shows where man stands without the gospel. Conzelmann would have us
swallow even the follOWing: 'The arguments are complicated, but it must be
asked whether their complexity is not appropriate. The gospel is not complicated,but my position is; it is therefore difficult to understand it in terms of
thought.'38 Here a theological virtue is made out of historical necessity.
Obviously, what is complicated is not so much 'my' position in the light of
Paul's gospel, but rather Paul's position in a very particular social and historical situation. 39 If there really are such self-contradictions and other
problematic points at the very core of Paul's thinking as Conzelmann suggests
(not without reason), then ought not this to lead to a reassessment of the role
of Paul's theology in Christian thought, not least as regards Christianity's
had to speak in contraries.'Patil thus 'showed that God did not weigh things according to human standards'!
35 Grundriss 248. Unfortunately, the ET (Outline 225 ff.) does not manage to make
Conzelmann's intentions clear.
36 Ibid. 251.
37 Cf. the comment on the difference between the views of history in Gal 3-4 and Rom
5 respectively: 'Paulus kann sich diese Unausgeglichenheit leisten, weil es ihm nicht
auf die Vorstellung als solche ankommt.' Ibid. 248. Similarly HUbner, Gesetz 74,
commenting on the relation of Romans 5 to Rom 2.14. Cf. also Noack, 'Evangeliet'
141-144; Schmithals, Anthropologie 29 f. Interpretations resembling that of Conzelmann to a certain degree (without the particular existentialist ring) were put for
ward by Ioest, Gesetz 165 ff., 176 ff., and Wendland, 'Gesetz' 47 ff. Ioest admits
that, understood as a complex of intellectual statements, Paul's doctrine of justification would be 'a chaos of contradictory assertions without unity' (180), and Wendland speaks of contradictions in Paul's teaching on the law which cannot be surpassed
in their sharpness (49). Both interpreters struggle to fmd a theological way out of
such difficulties.
38 Ibid. 251. For some critical comments see. Ttircke, Potential 88.
39 Conzelmann's presentation reveals with rare clarity the two basic weaknesses of the
existentialist position: the refusal to distinguish between the exegetical and the theological tasks in the process of interpretation, and the reluctance to take into account
any psychological or sociological considerations. Cf. the remarks on Conzelmann's
revealing misuse of the fIrst person pronoun by von der Osten-Sacken, 'Notwendigkeit' 249.

Introduction

relation to other religious traditions?40

2. A few interpreters solve the tensions in Paul's letters violently by attributing large parts of Galatians and especially of Romans to later interpolators. After the days of the Dutch conjectural criticism in the last century 41
this approach was almost forgotten ,42 even though a single pericope (notably
2 Cor 6.14-7.1) is not seldom ascribed to an editor, not to speak of occasional short glosses (like Rom 7 .2Sb). Recently, however, the interpolation
approach has been revived by I.C. O'Neill.
O'Neill starts from the conviction that Paul must have been a logical
thinker .43 'Paul uses arguments, and expects them to hold.,44 By contrast, the
;letter to the Romans as it stands is 'so obscure, so complicated, so disjointed,
that it is hard to see how Paul could have exerted such an influence on his
contemporaries' if the letter were a product of his.45 Again, 'if Paul was "a
coherent, argumentative, pertinent writer" (Locke), Galatians as it now stands
cannot have been written by Paul, for, as Bruno Bauer demonstrated, Galatians is full of obscurities, contradictions, improbable remarks, and non
sequiturs .. .'. 46 The conclusion: 'If the choice lies between supposing that
Paul was confused and contradictory and supposing that his text has been
commented upon and enlarged, I have no hesitation in choosing the
second.'47
It might be wiser to have some hesitation, though. It is not at all clear that
Paul's influerlce on his contemporaries should have been due, above all, to the
logic of his letters, rather than, say, to the spell of his person or to the massive effort of his missionary activity. And what exactly was Paul's influence on
his contemporaries? Did he not have greater success after his death, when his
thoughts were made palatable to the masses through, e.g., the Pastorals?
Consistency of thought is a dubious criterion of authenticity, and particularly
so in the case of a writer as impulsive as Paul.
But even if we must reject O'Neill's extreme conclusions, his contribution

40 Contrast the somewhat cavalier dismissal of H.J. Schoeps's approach by Conzelmann,

Outline 180 f.
41 See esp. van Manen, Unechtheit 52, 66 ff., 76, 202 on inconsistent statements about
the law in Romans, the composition of which van Manen attributes to various successive redactors.
42 With the exception of Loisy in his latest works (e.g. Origins 255) and Pallis. Pallis
found Romans as it stands to be 'one of the hardest (works) to follow in Greek
literature' (Ro11'lllnIJ 9). To be sure, he did not ascribe the 'fairly simple' original form
of the letter to Paul either.
43 Romans 150.

44 Ibid. 63.
45 Ibid. 16.
46 Galatillns 8, O'Neill's confidence in Bruno Bauer's analysis remains perplexing to me.

'47 Ibid. 86.

Introduction

is helpful in that he has not-shrunk from pointing out difficulties and contradictions in Romans and Galatians without hesitation, thus providing a healthy
antidote to much uncritical praise of Paul's thought.
3. By far the most attractive device to do away with the difficulties caused
by the tensions in Paul's thought are theories of development. On this view,
Paul's doctrine of the law went through a development from the earlier
letters (including Galatians) to Romans, which represents his mature view.
After the early attempts of Sieffert and others,48 development theories have
been put forward by Dodd,49 Buck and Taylor,50 and, most recently, by
Drane, Hubner, and LUdemann.
48 Sieffert, 'Entwicklungslinie' found in Romans 'eine umfassendere und vertiefte, aber
zugleich auch gemilderte' development of the doctrine of the freedom from the law

(343), although he did not consider the difference to be very great. The Corinthian
letters are supposed to be closer to Galatians than to Romans; Sieffert refers to 2
Cor 3.6 ff., 1 Cor 15.56 and 1 Cor 7.19 (!), the latter part of which goes unmentioned (350). Sieffert has to claim that Gal 5.14 represents a different view of the law
than does Rom 13.8-10 (350 ff.) - a problematic interpretation shared now by
HUbner. See below, p. 27 n. 72.
49. According to Dodd, Paul underwent in connection with the crisis reflected in 2 Cor
a 'second conversion' whereby he was liberated, among other things, from 'his pride
(Studies 80-82). 'The traces of fanaticism and intolerance disappear, almost if not
quite completely, along with all that anxious insistence on his own dignity. The new
temper shows itself in the way in which the controversies of Romans and Colossians
are conducted, in a generous recognition of the natural virtues of mankind ... ' (81;
as regards Romans, the reference is to 2.14 f. and 13.1-7). In Rom 2.14-15 we have
'evidence of the new valuation of "the world" which went along with Paul's revision
of eschatology' (115). Paul's attitude to the law, too, became milder (123); passages
like Rom 7.12:14, Rom 8.3, and 2 Cor 3.14-18 indicate 'a less intransigent attitude
in Paul's controversy with the legalists'. The 'new temper' is most clearly palpable in
Philippians.
Dodd's scheme is open to serious criticisms. First, passages like Rom 1.18-32,
2.17-24 speak neither for the disappearance of intolerance nor for a new valuation
of the 'world'. Secondly, Phil 3.2 hardly indicates a milder attitude in legal controversies. And thirdly, as Drane, Paul, has shown, it is in. 1 Cor, a letter written before
'the second conversion', that Paul's attitude to the law is most positive (not to speak
of 1 Thess where problems of the law are ignored). On Dodd see further Lowe,
'Examination', 138-140.
50 Buck and Taylor start from the development in Paul's eschatology, combining with
this an analogous development in other segments of his thought. Their analysis is oversubtle. 2 Cor 3, e.g., is said to reflect Paul's 'recently developed eschatological possession of two natures', being 'nothing less than this doctrine in reveIlie'. 'For whereas
in the eschatological doctrine it is the flesh that is destined to pass away, leaving only
the living spirit, in the legal doctrine ... it is the spirit which has departed from the
law, leaving only the letters carved on stone.' (Saint Paul 64). This ingenious interpretation presses the alleged parallelism between 'Christ gave up the form of God'
(Phi! 2) and 'Paul has given up his own righteousness' (Phil 3, p. 75 f.) in an extreme
way. Cf. the review article by Furnish ('Development').

Introduction

Drane constructs a line of dialectical development from the 'libertine'

Galatians through the 'legalist' I Corinthians to the 'mature synthesis' of
Romans. 51 To be able to do this, he has to accept the South Galatian hypothesis and an early date for Galatians. 52 Several reasons, however, speak in
favour of the North Galatian hypothesis. 53 An early date for Galatians is
especially juzzling in view of the striking similarities between this letter and
Romans,S whereas no such relationship exists, e.g., between Galatians and
I Thessalonians. There seems, in fact, to be no place at all for 1 Thess in the
picture given by Drane.
If the South Galatian hypothesis is abandoned and Galatians is dated after
the Apostolic Council, little basis is left for development theories, for which
the order Galatians - 1 Corinthians (2 Cor) is of central importance. The
order of Galatians and 1 Corinthians continues to be an open questiQn;
grounds can be given also for the view that Galatians is the later one of the
two.55
A severe difficulty for development theories is posed by the short time
space between Galatians and Romans. This applies in particular to Hubner's
view, according to which Paul went through a remarkable theological development between the writing of these two letters.56 In Galatians Paul, according
to Hubner, maintains that the law has been abolished; in Romans, however,
Christ is only seen as the end of the Jewish misunderstanding of the law and
not of the law itself. 5 7 But the notion of a dramatic theological devel9pment
within a very short period of time in the thinking of one already engaged in
missionary work for some twenty years is strange enough.58 In addition, there

51 Drane, Paul.
52 Even on the South Galatian hypothesis, however, the possibility remains that Gal
may be later than 1 Cor. So, following Ughtfoot, Robinson, Redating 55-57.
53 See KUmmel,Introduction 296 ff.; Vie1hauer, Geschichte 104-108.
54 Cf. Borse,Standort 120-143.
.
55 Cr. Suhl, Paulus 343; Borse, op.cit. 58 ff.; Liidemann, Paulus 114 ff.; Schade, Christologie 178 ff., 190; Wilpkens, 'Entwicklung' 154.
56 Hubner, Gesetz 47. Without discussing the chronological question Hubner assumes
that Gal did not come into existence 'shortly before Romans' (56), even though it
must date from the period after the council (21 ff.). Yet the points of contact assembled by Borse (above, n. 54) show that the two letters must belong roughly to the
same period. Borse assumes an interval of some three months; Suhl, op.cit. 343 f.
about half a year. But even a year or two seems a short period of time for the alleged
development to take place. Cf. LUdemann, op.cit. 116 n. 139. Jervell, 'Der unbekannte Paulus' 45-47 proposes a theory not unlike that of HUbner.; see now also
Wilckens, 'Entwicklung'. In the second edition of his book HUbner(Gesetz 131 f.)
by and large agrees with the view of Drane, failing to note that Drane dates Galatians
in the early career of Paul.
57 Htibner, op.cit. 129.
58 Correctly Lowe, art.cit. 132 f. The situation would be even stranger, if Paul had

Introduction

are already obvious tensions in Paul's thought on the law in Galatians,59 and
even more in Romans. Neither letter is internally consistent.60 If this last
point is correct, it constitutes a decisive objection to development theories.
To suggest that both Galatians and Romans are beset with internal tensions
and contradictions is to anticipate my own conclusions. It is a claim that has
to be substantiated in the course of the present study through analyses of the
texts. I thus offer my own reading of Paul as an alternative to theories of
development. To anticipate again, I think that the different outlook of different letters is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that Paul found himself
in different situations. In face of differenfchallenges this impulsive and flexible thinker often shifted his ground. In Galatians Paul makes a fierce attack;
in Romans he has to be on the defensive. 61
.
This is not at all to deny that Paul's thought underwent a development
during his missionary activity. On the contrary, to anticipate once more, I am
sure it did. But I do not detect any straightforward development from any
one extant letter to another. Had we some writings of Paul from, say, the
thirties, the situation might be different. Whatever major development there

spent some twenty years in meditation on the gospel before starting his mission, as
Drane, op.cit. 180 n. 10, thinks!
59 Drane notes himself that already in Gal Paul's attitude to the law is 'strangely equivocal' (cp. 3.19 to 3.13, see below, p. 59); op.cit. 6.
60 In order to be able to maintain consistency in Gal, HUbner has to deny that Gal 5.14 .
refers to the Torah (see below, p. 27);. similarly, he has to claim that Rom 5.20a
refers to something different from Gal 3.19b (op.cit. 73 f.), to remove a major discrepancy from Romans. Buck and Taylor, op.cit. 16, likewise claim that 'the letters
are internally consistent'.
61 Cf. Grafe, Lehre 27-32; Stendahl, Paul 48 (development theories are unnecessary,
because Paul's writings are 'real, pastoral letters directed to specific situations'); Luz,
Rev. ,Htibnet 123. Even in Romans, Paul is hardly trying consciously 'to produce a
"neutral" theology, taking account of the valid claims of both sides while avoiding
the pitfalls that hll had encountered in writing both Gal. and 1 Cor.'; so Drane, op.cit.
109 (cf. 124). In Romans Paul is sl'eaking pro domo, in an apologetic way. For the
ongoing intensive debate concerning the purpose of Romans see Kettunen, Ab/assungszweck; Drane, 'Why'; and the articles in Donfried, Debate. The different purposes suggested need not be mutually exclusive; cf. the prudent evaluation in Williams, 'Righteousness' 245 ff. At any rate, an apologetic accent not least concerning
Paul's view of the law is undeniable.
As a random example of a person's change of attitude when faced with a new
kind of audience one may note Justin Martyr's 'sharp difference of attitude concerning philosophy' in his Dialogue and Apology respectively. 'Justin's theory of the
Spermatikos Logos and his view of the great philosophers as Christians prior to
Christ ... are nowhere in evidence in the Dialogue ... On the contrary, Justin in the
Dialogue concedes nothing to philosophy!' Stylianopoulos, Just;n 17. He concludes
(195 n. 170) that Justin's true feelings about Greek philosophy appear in tne Dialogue.

10

Introduction

was in Paul's theology of the law, must, in my view, have taken place by the
time of the writing of Galatians. 62
There remains the possibility that 1 Thessalonians comes from the early
forties, thus representing a different phase in Paul's thinking than the other
letters. This is the thesis of Knox and Ludemann. 63 It is impossible, in the
framework of this study, to penetrate into the complicated problems of
Pauline chronology.64 Should Knox and Ludemann turn out to be right, 65
then we could indeed construe a line of development from 1 Thess to the
<;>ther letters. As 1 Thess, however, does not deal with the question oflaw at
all, the chronological problem is not of major importance to the present
study. Whatever the place of 1 Thess, Gal, the Corinthian letters and Rom
belong closely together, not least chronologically.
Even though I must disagree with the development theories of Drane and
Hubner, both scholars have undeniably put their finger on crucial points.
They have found in Paul's thought various tensions which cry for a solution. 66
4. Even if the (quite different) solutions proposed fail to carry conviction,
scholars like Conzelmann, O'Neill, or Hubner have sharpened our eyes to see
the problem posed by Paul's differing statements concerning the law. What,
then, would make a suitable approach to the problem? I can see one way

62 So also J. Weiss, Urchristentum 151 (ET I, 206): 'It cannot be too much insisted
upon that the real development of Paul both as a Christian and a theologian was
completed in this period which is so obscure to us ... ' Cf. Feine, Evangelium 186.
63 Knox, Chapters 85; Liidemann, Paulus; cf. also Schade, op.cit. 190 and elsewhere.
64 See the recent studies by Suhl, Jewett, and Liidemann. For a brief comparison and
evaluation cf. Wedderburn, 'Chronologies'.
65 Liidemaml's case is made rather attractive through his analysis of the .differences. in
the eschatologica1 outlook of 1 Thess and 1 Cor respectively (op.cit. 213 ff.). On the
other hand, one hesitates in view of the many unusual interpretations (including the
dating of the edict of Claudius in A.D. 41 and the placing of the Antiochian incident,
Gal 2.11 ff., before the Apostolic Council, Gal 2.1 ff; as regards the latter I fail to be
persuaded by the author's version of H.D. Betz' rhetorical interpretation of the letter)
which this reconstruction seems to require.
66 Somewhat surprisingly, both scholars in the end play down their own findings. Having at first (over-)emphasized the difference between Gal and Rom, Hiibner ends up
by relativizing it (Gesetz 52 f., 58) - as if it made no real difference whether Christ
did away with the law of Moses or only with its perverted interpretations. Drane
(op.cit. 180 n. 10), again, finally speaks of 'a development of emphasis', telling us
that 'when a theology worked out in the study (Le., that of Galatians?!) is put to the
test of practical performance, alterations to its expression, if not its essence, are
almost inevitable'. What an understatement of Drane's actual findings and what a
disappointing end to a stimulating study! Later on (,Diversity'15) Drane can speak of
'the different nuances' of Paul's thought, in reconciling which 'there is no problem
at all'. All this harmonizing would seem to be contradicted by Drane's own contention that the development could only take place in one direction (from Gal to 1 and
2 Cor, never vice versa).

Introduction

11

only: contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features

of Paul's theology of the law. They are not simply of an accidental or peripheral nature. The contradictions are undoubtedly histOrically and psychologically conditioned. Whether or not we, with the aid of the extant material, are able to trace the case history of Paul with any degree of probability
(arid we may not), the possibility that Paul's difficulties with the law are in
principle explicable through psychological, sociological and historical factors,
should not be thrust aside lightly. Emphasizing this entails a return to certain
insights characteristic of the liberal theology at the turn of the century (not,
of course, an uncritical acceptance of the whole of it as such). It seems that a
certain open-mindedness characteristic of that current of thought was largely
lost in the upsurge of dialectical theology. Up to that time it was 0ien to
anyone to be critical of the apostle's thoughts if thought necessary;6 since
then, criticisms appear only sporadically, or else they, too,are turned into praise
(Conzelmann). Over against Conzelmann 68 and others, I fmd the following
remarks by Wrede illuminating: Paul's reasoning has a very 'elastic' character.
'It is no great feat to unearth contradictions, even among his leading thoughts
.. .'69 'Tortured attempts to reconcile these opposites are in all such cases
mischievous. It is also dangerous, however, to hold that Paul could not have
meant a thing, because it leads to impossible consequences. The consequences
may be "impossible", but did Paul perceive them? We may perhaps find
instruction in the very fact that he did not.'70
This tradition of calling a spade a spade has survived here and there mostly
in Anglo-Saxon literature on the subject. Early on in this century, Percy
Gardner stated that 'Paul is seldom free from inconsistency'. 71 'Paul was one
of the last of mankind to be wholly self-consistent .. .'72 His statements 'are

67 There is no reason to turn to irony when speaking of this feature of liberal theology
as Grasser, Schweitzer 159 does. Cf. M. Barth's wholesale indictment of critical
68
69

70
71
72

assessments of Paul: 'Sachkritik of the Bible is not one of the responsibilities of biblical scholarship, but is professional presumption.' 'St. Paul' 32.
See above, p. 5.
Paulus 48 (ET 77), with reference to, e.g., the relationship of Rom 2.14-16 to Rom
5.13. Cf. Weiss. Urchristentum 427 (Paul had, as regards the law, two contradictory
lines of thought, both equally true and irrefutable to him, comprehensible as deposits
oftwo different epochs of his life).
Op.cit. 49 (ET 77 f.).
Gardner,Experience 160, cf. 179.
Op.cit. 44. Gardner also remarks that 'on no subject are his inconsistencies so marked'
as with respect to the law; op.cit. 46. Cf. Lowe, 'Examination': 'It is the easiest thing
in the world to find verbal contradictions in Paul, and this means neither that he was
unprincipled nor that he kept changing his mind. What did change with astonishing
rapidity was his mood.' (140) Further factors were the 'change of external circumstances' and 'the perpetual tension within him between his Jewish heritage and his
Christian experience, a tension never entirely resolved' (141). 'One of the grand

12

Introduction

usually so steeped in emotion that they cannot easily be analysed in a dry

light,.73 Later on, James Parkes commented: 'Difficult as it is to penetrate
into the contradictions of Pauline thought, it is better to do so than to
attempt to make a logical and consistent whole of his teaching, if logic and
consistency really lack.' 74 Consequently, scholars like Gardner and Parkes see
Paul's real significance not in the field of theological thinking, but in his
'mysticism and his practical teaching,.75
To return to Wrede's opinion, it is indeed the thesis of the present work as
well that the very tensions and 'impossibilities' of Paul's thought do, if not
dialectically diluted, give us 'instruction', or at least indications, of what was
going on in Paul's mind. Rather than gloss over contradictions, one should
take them very seriously as pointers to Paul's personal theological problems,
even if that means that his reasoning appears to take on a surprisingly subjective colouring.
So far we have been speaking of the question of the consistency or otherwise of Paul's thought on the law. A related and yet separate question is,
how convincing Paul is in his main assertions. Of course, if the argument is
inconsistent, the result cannot be wholly convincing in intellectual terms.
Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the main points a preacher makes
may be felt to be compelling, even if the arguments he uses to prove them are
not. Thus, it is often said that certain central statements of Paul remain true,
even though we cannot accept the way he 'proves' them from Scripture. On
the other hand, even an internally consistent presentation fails to carry conviction, if it is built on false premises.

things about Paul is that whenever he is one-sided, the corrective is always to be

found in his own writings and as often as not on the same page.' Instead of producing
a unified system of 'Paulinism', the apostle, fortunately, 'left the whole wonderful
muddle unarranged and alive, and we are the richer for it'. Cf. further M. Grant,
Paul 4 (Paul 'commits flagrant self-contradictions'; see also 34,137).
73 Gardner, op.cit. 47. Cf. Deissmann, Paul 104 f.; Stacey, View 16 f.; Gaechter, Petrus
217. The Danish historian of religion GrrPnbech (Paulus 6 ff. and passim) found Paul's
thinking extremely SUbjective. 'Paul is the most subjective and, therefore, the most
dogmatic preacher in the world; what he has experienced that is the truth ... ' (6).
'One has to be Paul to understand the Pauline gospel ... '(259).
74 Parkes, Jesus 140.
75 Parkes, op.cit. 128. F.C. Grant, 'Prolegomenon' xxxiii: Paul was not a theologian
but 'a mystic' and 'a propagandist'; id., Romans 17: Paul was 'a man of intensely
practical religious interests' rather than a 'theolpgian' or a 'thinker'. Cf. Stacey,
op.cit. 241: 'He had a much greater mission, a mission for which he was ideally suited
as he was not suited for the systematization of thought that is so often expected of
him.' Andrews, Teaching 4: 'Perhaps he is not so much. the deep thinker, the intellectual, as the fiery propagandist of his faith'; cf. id., 'Paul' 166. Teaching 24: 'That
Paul has been pictured as the theologian par excellence is ... a gross injustice to Paul
as well as to the theologians.'

Introduction

13

We noted at the beginning that Paul is mostly thought to have made his
point convincingly. Even his opponents, it is apparently thought, ought to
have been persuaded by him. Over against these sentiments stand, of course,
the opinions of Jewish scholars through the ages, including those who take a
positive attitude to Paul the man. Thus, C.G. Montefiore states, from the
view-point of a liberal Jew, that 'Paul's confused and often inconsistent
reasoning ... is inclined to bore us' .76 S. Sandmel (who does not consider
Paul's theology of the law to be inconsistent) states in the course of a wholly
benevolent evaluation that Paul has 'an undisciplined mind' and that he is 'we
may say, a lyric poet', lacking philosophical acumen?7
But once again, it is quite unnecessary to turn to outsiders to hear some
very critical voices. Thus, Paul Wernle stated that 'there was no single word in
his theory (sc. of the law) that carried conviction with it'. It is 'an ingenious
conjuring with ideas and nothing more', 'a very lame theory'. 78 lames Parkes,
for his part, far from attributing supreme dialectical skill to the author of
Romans, writes as follows: 'The letter to the Romans comes as near being a
theological treatise as anything which Paul wrote - and causes one to give
thanks that he wrote no other, for the abiding genius of Paul lies in his mysticism and his practical teaching, not in systematic theology. His purpose is to
establish the central position of the Cross and Atonement in relation to both .
Jewish and Gentile experience. The result is both artificial and unsatisfactory.'79
Hardly anyone within the Christian tradition, however, ever criticized
Paul's reasoning - arguments and premises alike - as sharply as did Alfred
Loisy. Commenting on Galatians, Loisy notes that Paul there repeats time
and again his main principle in different variations. 80 Paul's logic,however,is
'capricious,81 and his arguments consist of 'the most arbitrary interpretations
and of fantasies' so that it is dubious whether we should speak of 'arguments'
at all. 82 Galatians is the pleading of an enthusiast and a visionary, who is corn
pletely incapable of criticizing the flight of his thoughts. 83 Paul's assertion of
the sin-engendering nature and purpose of the law (Gal 3.22-25) is incomplete and false, being indeed of 'infantile absurdity'. Paul 'invents the philosophy and psychology suitable to the needs of his thesis,.84 Rom 6-8 displays
a 'sincere and profound faith' and a 'high ideal of morality', but also a 'fan76 Judoism 138 f.
77 Genius 7.
78 Anfonge 216 (ET 299 f.).
79 Jesus 128; cf. Gardner, op.cit.
abovep. 1 n. 8.
80 Goloies 41.
81 Op.cit. 140 (on Gal 2.18).
82 Op.cit. 41.
83 Op.cit. 36 f.
84 Op.cit. 159.

13~

f. Contrast the praise of Romans by HUbner,

14

Introduction

tastic argument, a massive and magical conception of sin, of the redemption

and of the Spirit, a system constructed in the air, which is too often celebrated for a psychological value of which it is in reality almost com~letely
void,.85 It would have been easy for any Jewish teacher to refute Paul. 6
Thus it seems that Paul's talk of the law is liable to widely differing, even
diametrically opposite, interpretations and evaluations. This being so, the
main task of the present study will be to test Paul's reasoning in this matter.
Attention is paid both to the internal consistency (or otherwise) of the reasoniilg and to the validity of its premises. Particular notice will be taken of
difficulties Paul seems to run into. 87 Tensions will not be resolved by way of
theological dialectic or theories of interpolation or development. They will
rather be seen as indications of a personal conflict which requires a historical
and psychological explanation (whether or not we will be able to provide
anything like it). The difficulties are analyzed in chapters I-V which constitute the main part of the study. Historical and psychological hypotheses
which could explain the difficulties to some degree are discussed in chapter
VIII. The analysis in chs. I-V does not, however, depend on the plausibility
of the solution developed in ch. VIII. It is in the nature of the matter that
any theory purporting to show how Paul got into the difficulties in which we
find him to be must needs be conjectural.
I am fully aware of a certain anachronistic touch in such an analysis of
Paul's theology from the point of view of common sense logic. This kind of
examination is bound to be 'somewhat microscopic'. 88 One may feel that it is
unduly pedantic to subject the thoughts of an ancient Jew, which proceeded
freely from one image and association to another, to such a rigid scrutiny. I
am the first to admit that this approach does not do full justice to Paul at all.
Nevertheless, I find it justified (and indeed necessary) as one approach among
others. It is a method that opens up one perspective, a perspective that is
neither the only one nor even the most important one. I feel that this approach
85 'Epttres' 232. On p. 233 Loisy speaks of Paul's 'arbitrary and obscure gnosis'.
86 Galates 148 (on Gal 3.12). Lagrange, Galates 70 replied that it was not Paul's purpose
to address a Jewish teacher, but rather Christians. This commonplace hardly removes
the prOblem; while speaking to Christians, Paul undoubtedly believed that his reasoning ought to have made sense to Jews as well. To be sure, Moore, Judaism III 151,
suggested that Paul 'can hardly have expected the argument (sc. that Judaism is not a
way of salvation at all) to have effect with Jews'. 'He was, iiI fact, not writing to convince Jews but to keep his Gentile converts from being convinced by Jewish propagandists .... This cannot be correct, for the unbelief of Jews was so incomprehensible
to Paul that he had to trace it back to divine hardening (Rom 9) or veiling of the
Scripture (2' Cor 3), or to a ruse of the devil (2 Cor 4.4).
87 A preliminary survey of these appeared in my congress paper 'Difficulties'. A not
quite dissimilar approach is taken in the same volume by Hickling, 'Centre' 199203; cf. also Wedderburn, 'Adam' 424.
88 J. Weiss, op.cit. 427.

Introduction

15

is badly needed as a corrective. It acquires its justification not least from the
fact that, for better or for worse, Paul has become a theological authority.
His statements, including those about the law, are in actual fact used as
normative. His reasoning is appealed to even as a model for the position a
Christian theologian should take in discussions between religions. Whether or
not Paul can justly be called a theologian,89 posterity has seen him as one and
venerated him as such. If, therefore, an analysis of Paul's reasoning does less
than justice to the apostle himself, it may at least render a service by placing
Paulinism in perspective.
However, in order to anchor the analysis of Paul's thought as firmly as
possible in his own time, special effort will be made to compare Paul's
views to relevant Jewish and early Christian conceptions. I wish to explore
which of the theological difficulties to be found are peculiar to Paul alone,
and which he perhaps shares with other Christians or even Jews. It is of
cou~e the former class that will be of greatest interest to us. In this connection, too, many of the alleged parallels between the thought of Paul and that
of his contemporaries will be discussed. Possible analogies to individual
difficulties will be treated in the course of chapters I-V. In chapter VII, Paul's
overall view of the law will be compared to other Qverall views within Early
Christianity, with special respect to questions of internal coherence and
validity of premises. This, I hope, will bring Paul's particular position into
sharper focus.
Should Paul turn out to be a less consistent theologian than many have
imagined, this need not a priori diminish his grandeur as a teacher in his own
time and milieu. 'Whatever the faults ofthe Rabbis were, consistency was not
one of them', says S. Schechter ,90 a writer hardly to be suspected of an antiRabbinic bias. If rigid standards are applied to the thought of Philo, it is
possible to speak of its 'unscholarly nature' .91 What matters most is a fair
comparison. 92 To repeat, I do not think that Paul's stature is much affected
by my analysis. 93 What is affected,. if it is on the right track, is modem
Paulinism - the theological cult of the apostle who may indeed have been at
his best in areas other than speculative theology.
89 Drane, 'Diversity' is inclined to deny this.
90 Aspects 46, cf. 170.
91 Heinemann, Bildung 519 ff. Braun, Wie man ... 5, cf. 119, speaks of 'gross selfcontradictions' in Philo; this may be all right, if only one is prepared to apply similar
yardsticks to Paul.
92 It should be added that defective argumentation is not at all a phenomenon foreign
to modern writers. Cf. Brandt's chapter on 'Defective Rhetoric' (Rhetoric 202 ff.)
which begins as follows: 'Anyone who seriously considers modern argumentation
rhetoric, in any genre whatsoever, must be astonished at its deficiencies. There are
perhaps a dozen bad arguments ... for everyone that might be regarded as reasonably
persuasive.' (202).
93 Cf. the roughly analogous remarks of Andrews, Teaching 78.

1. The oscillating concept of law

1. General observations
Paul never defines the content of the term VOfJ.oc;. He presupposes that the
readers will know what he is talking about. On the face of it, the matter
seems clear enough. Apart from a few cases, to be considered later on,1 where
Paul uses the word in a patently metaphorical sense, nomos seems to be
identical with the OT torah, the Jewish 'law'. 2 In Hebrew, the word torah
came to be used with different overlapping meanings, as can be seen from the
saying, 'The Torah consists of the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings,.3
This flexible usage, which as such constitutes no problem, is shared by Paul.
He often connects the nomos with Moses (Rom 5.13 f., Gal 3.17, 1 Cor 9.8,
2 Cor 3.7 ff.), distinguishing it from the prophets (Rom 3.21). In Gal 4.21
the reference is to Genesis. At times, again, Paul cites prophets and psalms as
words of the nomos (1 Cor 14.21, Rom 3.10-18). Thus the word nomos
refers to the whole of Israel's sacred tradition,4 with special emphasis on its
Mosaic centre. Whether the unwritten Torah, the oral tradition of the fathers,
is included in this usage, is not clear; at least, Paul never distinguishes between
the written and the unwritten Torah.
Several times the fact is emphasized that nomos is the decisive separating
factor between Jews and Gentiles. Possession of the nomos puts the Jews into
a special class (Rom 2, 1 Cor 9.20 f., Gal 2.1 5).
In summary, nomos in Paul refers to the authoritative tradition of Israel,
anchored in the revelation on Sinai, which separates the Jews from the rest of
mankind. 5 The different occurrences can be compared to concentric circles:
the radii can be different, but the Sinaitic centre remains the same. Paul never
makes distinctions within the law - at least, no explicit distinctions.
To be sure, the notion was once popular that the meaning of nomos
1 Rom 3.27,7.20-25,8.2, Gal 6.2. See below, II 2 and II 7.
2 The discussion concerning the rendering of torah with nomos in the LXX need not be
taken up here. Contrary to Dodd, Bible 25 ff. and Schoeps, Paul 29 it would seem
that nomos, too, had a variety of shades of meaning, not being limited to 'law' in a
legal sense. Cf. Werblowsky, 'Tora' 160 f.; Pasinya,Notion.

3 Tanh. Jethro 10; Gutbrod, VOI'O~ 1047. On 'Torah' in Judaism see, e.g., Urbach,
Sages 286 ff.
4 The word thus partly overlaps with 11 'Ypa'PY! (cf., e.g., Gal 4.21 and 4.30).
5 Cf. Blaser, Gesetz 34-38; van Diilmen, Theologie 130-134; Linton, 'Paulus' 177 f.,
and others. Differently Schlier, Grundziige 79: Paul speaks of !legalism in general'.

General observations

17

depends on whether Paul uses it with or without the articie. 6 The extreme
view was that b VOf.1,OC; denotes a different concept of law altogether than
anarthrous VOf.1,OC;. 7 Usually, however, one was content to infer from the
absence of the article a special qualifying nuance: nomos still refers to the
Mosaic law, but in the absence of the article it is viewed from a' particular
angle, emphasizing its 'legalistic' character. 8 But even in this milder form it is
impossible to uphold the distinction. Paul can use nomos with and without
the article even in the same verse, where no difference in meaning can
be detected? Since the investigations of E. Grafe, and, in particular, of
P. Blaser lO , this distinction has justly been laid to rest. l1 Blaser showed con
vincingly that the use or omission of the article depends on 'a purely formal
linguistic law' .1 2
One thus cannot find distinctions in Paul's use of nomos on linguistic
grounds. But what about Paul's actual way of using the word? Even if he does
not make any explicit distinctions, could he not have some implicit distinction in mind? Does not the way he talks about the 'law' reveal that nomos
6 The distinction is often traced back to Origen (so, e.g., Lietzmann on Rom 2.14).
This view is refuted by Blaser, op.cit. 22 f.
7 Volkmar, Romerbrief 78 f. His conclusion is strange: anarthrous nomos refers either
to 'a law' or to the Mosaic law; 0 vd~/.O~ refers to 'the ethical obligation'. It was easy
for Grafe, Lehre, 3 ff., to refute this by referring to Gal 3.13, 3.19, 1 Cor 9.8 f.,
Rom 2.18; in all these places b vd~~ is clearly the law of Moses. See further Blaser.
op.cit. 2-4. Sanday-Headlam, too, in their commentary on Romans, occasionally
interpret an anarthrous nomos as 'any system of law' (110, on 4.13), but such a
distinction is not carried out systematically (it is mentioned neither in 2.14 nor in
ch. 5). In Rom 10.4 the anarthrous nomos is said to denote 'law as a principle', not
the Mosaic Law, but this is claimed because of 'the whole drift of the argument',
not because of the lack of article (op.cit. 284).
8 Lightfoot, Galatians !l8; Holsten, Evangelium desPaulus 158 f., 161,179 f.; Gifford,
Romans 41-48; Slaten, 'Use' 213-219; Stevens, Theology 160-162; Burton, Galatians 454 and passim. Cf. also Bandas,Master-Idea 92 f.
9 Thus Slaten, art.cit. 215, has to maintain that EV VOIlIt' Rom 2.23a has a different
nuance ('the legalistic nature of Jewish religion') than TOU VOlloV Rom 7.23b (the legal
code as such). And how could one distinguish between old vOlloV and b VOllo~ i!Ae'Yev
in Rom 7.7?
10 Blaser, op.cit. 1-23.
11 See, however, Stamm, Galatians 482 and passim; Riedl,Heil 210 f. Riedl claims that
in Rom 2 (other passages are not discussed by him) Paul uses the article when emphasizing the divine ethical norm contained in the law - an unintelligible specification in view of the anarthrous use of nomos in 2.12-13, 2.25, 2.27. Stamm goes even
further. He assumes two concepts of law, distinguishing between which is said to be
very important for the interpretation of the theology of Galatians. b VOIlO~ is the
Mosaic law, mere nomos refers to all kinds of legalism. Nomos, then, in 3.18 would
have a different meaning than 'the law' in 3.17 and 3.19! Similarly, 3.11 would speak
of legalism in general, whereas in 3.12 b vOllo~ is the Mosaic law!
12 Op.cit. 12.

18

I. The oscillating concept of law

does, after all, refer to different things in different passages? Scholars have
indeed felt that it is rather difficult to let Paul's use of nomos always apply
to the Mosaic Torah alone, and several distinctions have been proposed. A
century ago, one interpreter set forth a very complicated defInition of Paul's
concept of nomos, the summary (!) of which comprised eight lines; the
three main forms of nomos are the natural Sittengesetz, the mosaic Law, and
the law of Christ. 13 Modem scholars have suggested distinctions between
ritual and moral law,14 haggadah and halakah,15 God's will and Mosaic
command,16 the law as God's good requirement and the law as Unheilsfaktor,17
the law and its legalistic misinterpretation,18 the covenantal Torah and the
law as seen by the Gentiles outside of the Sinai covenant,19 etc. It is not
always clear whether the interpreters think that Paul was conscious of some
such distinction in his own thought. At any rate, the fact remains that Paul
never alludes to any such thing. It would at least have been extremely difficult
for his readers to fInd out what he was talking about, had he intended such
distinctions. They would seem to be attempts of Paul's interpreters to create
order in his theology of the law.
The following analysis starts from the observation that Paul at least argues
as if the nomos were an undivided whole, fIrmly connected with Moses and
Sinai. If, nevertheless, he makes statements about the nomos which are diffIcult to apply to the Mosaic law, we will have to ask whether Paul is conscious of this diffIculty and, if not, why does the concept of nomos oscillate?

2. Gentiles under the law?

If nomos denotes the Mosaic law of Sinai, it by defInition concerns the
Jews, but not the Gentiles. 20 No wonder, then, that Paul often makes a clear

13 Fleischhauer, 'Lehre' 39; his summary can be summarized in the words 'die aIlumfassende, feste Norm des sittlich-religiosen Handelns, wie sie in Form einer Forderung
an den Menschen herantritt'.
14 See :below, I 3.
15 J.A. Sanders, 'Torah and Paul' 133 underlines 'the binary nature of Torah', proposing
a distinction between mythos and ethos, story and laws, haggadah and halakah (138).
Paul, in his view, emphasized Torah as the story of God's works and 'de-emphasized
those specific stipulations which seemed to present stumbling-blocks to carrying out
the mandate' (138).
16 Buitmann, Theology 268; Vielhauer, 'Paulus' 55; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit 92 f.,
96; cf. R.E. Howard, Newness 55 f.
17 Kertelge, 'Rechtfertigung' 205 f. (Does not Rom 7, however, describe how God's
good requirement becomes an Unheilsfaktor, so that it is difficult to hold the two
aspects apart?).
18 See below, II 1.
19 Gaston, 'Paul' 62 ff. This is surely the most artificial distinction of all.
20 Paul nowhere reveals an interest in the Noachian commandments, designed to make

Gentile, under the law?

19

distinction between the Jews 'under the law' and the Gentiles who are without
the law (dvolJ.Ot, d.v6~w.;) (Rom 2.12 ff., 1 Cor 9.20 f.; 1 Cor 7.17 ff.; Gal
2.14 f.). In such connections, nomos certainly cannot refer to anything but
the Mosaic Torah. 21 In particular, the problems dealt with in Galatians are
problems closely con.nected with the Torah: are the Galatian Gentile Christians to circumcise themselves and to take upon themselves the yoke of the
Jewish law as a whole? In Gal 2.11-21 Paul makes clear that to comply with
the Jewish food regulations is to cling to the 'works oflaw'. Paul, for his part,
has 'tom down' (KaTAVaa, 2.18) the law even in (or: precisely in!) this respect; he is, cin other words, 'through the law dead to the law'. Surely there
could be no uncertainty whatsoever among the Galatian readers of the letter
that it was the Jewish Torah with its food regulations that Paul was speaking
of. It is just as clear that the same Torah is spoken of in 3.10-14, a passage
in which Paul cites Deuteronomy to show the obligation of all who are 'of
works of the law' . And in 3.17 the nomos is dated 430 years from Abraham.
Bearing this in mind, some statements of Paul in Gal 3 come as a surprise.
He says in 3.13-14: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, in order
that Abraham's bleSSing might in Christ come upon the Gentiles,in order that
we would receive the promised Spirit. At the first glance it seems natural to
think that 'we' in v. 13 refers to Paul and other Jewish Christians - it is only
they that had been under the Torah before becoming Christians.22 Several
reasons, however, speak against this explanation.23 In v. 14b the 'we' must in
any case refer also to the Galatian Gentile Christians;24 the mention of the
Spirit ties with v. 2_5. 25 Now it would be strange, if the pronoun tacitly
changed its reference in v. 14. There is no indication of any contrast between
.the 'us' of v. 13 and the 'Gentiles' of v. 14;26 unlike 2.14ff. PaUl does not
deal with the difference between Jews and Gentiles at all in this passage.

the pipus Gentile fulfll a minimum of the Torah; cf. Bruce, 'Paul' 270; against
Edwards, Chrl,t 242.
21 Despite Gaston, art.cit. 63; according to him 1 Cor 9.20-22 'must be interpreted in
terms of four groups', of which 'those wider the law' are the Gentiles!
22 So the commentaries of Lightfoot, Lietzmann, Burton, Duncan, Sieffert, Lagrange,
aetz; Feine, Evangelium 200; Maurer, Ge,etzeBlehre 23; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstandnis'
55; Bligh, Galatiim, 264 f. Bligh also realizes that the context does not favour this
explanation. He f"mds a way out with the ingenious hypothesis that ch. 3 was originally the continuation of Paul's speech in Antioch, which begins in 2.14 (cf. 235 f.).
23 See, above all, Schlier and Hiibner's critique of Hahn (Ge,etz 134 f.); further Bousset, Ridderbos, Qepke, Loisy, Guthrie, Stamm, Bonnard, Mussner, 'Becker; Holsten,
Evangelium de, Paulu, 162 f.; J. Waiter, Gehalt 81 ff.; L~. Ge,ehiehtsverrtandni,
152; Kiein,Rekon'truktion 206 f.; Howard,Oi,i, 59; Byrne,SonB 153 (with n. 69).
24 So also those mentioned in n. 22 (except for Bligh).
25 L~, op.cit. 152 n. 70.
26 Against Lietzmann, Duncan.

20

1. The oscillating concept of law

And how could the redemption of the Jews from the curse of the law bring
the blessing to the Gentiles?2 7 The context does not speak of the removal of
the wall between the two races?8 Paul is explicating the liberty of the Galatians, which is connected with the crucifixion. V. 13 ties with the opening
verse (v. 1) ofthe passage.
Strange as it may appear, the conclusion is hard to avoid that even the
Gentiles were, in Paul's mind when dictating this passage, under the curse of
the law. This is in tension with Paul's assumption in 1 Cor 9.21 or Rom
2.12, or even Gal 2.14. Still, our conclusion is reinforced by the next passages
in Gal.
The alteration of the pronouns in 3.23 ff. shows that in that passage, too,
the first person plural includes the Galatians. In v. 23-25 Paul speaks of
'us' being under the law, which is pictured as prison guard and tutor. From
the point of view of the subject-matter one would again think that he has
the Jewish Christians in mind. 29 In v. 26, however, which is firmly connected
with rap with the previous verses,3D Paul addresses the Galatians directly in
second person. Having said, 'We are no longer under the tutor', he goes on:
'For you are all children of God.' This time, too, the tacit assumption is that
even Gentiles had been tutored by the law 31 - notwithstanding the difficulty
of spelling out in concrete terms the contents of such an. assumption. How
could namely the Galatians' pre-Christian past under the control of heathen
idols (called 'elements of the world' in 4.3, 8 f.) in any way be conc.eived as a
preparatory stage which was all right until the coming of Christ?
The same phenomenon occurs a third time in 4.5-6. 32 God sent his Son

27 Cf. Schlier, who concludes: 'Die Heiden miissen doch wohl selbst von diesem Fluche

28
29

30

31
32

losgekauft sein, urn den Segen empfangen zu konnen.' Differently Duncan: Jews
were not able to mediate the blessing, until they were themselves redeemed from the
curse; cf. Lagrange. D.W.B. Robinson, 'Distinction' 34 likewise states that the gospel
came to the Gentiles 'by the mouth of liberated Jews' (in some tension to this he
notes p. 39 that 'the Gentiles' standing is made'to appear almost independent of that
of the Jews'). The task of a mediator is not, however, touched upon in the text.
As even Robinson, art.cit. 39 admits, the sequence of thought of Eph 2.14-18 is
lacking in this context; against Lightfoot.
Sieffert, Lagrange (despite the fact that'YQp 'makes of v. 26 the proof of the preceding verse'), Duncan ('primarily'), Betz; Byrne, op.cit. 164 f., 172 f. Robinson,
art.cit. 35 assumes 'some unexpressed step in thought' - but why is the same step
always left unexpressed throughout the chapter? Gaston, 'Paw' 63 claims that Paw
is speaking of Gentiles alone!
Lagrange.
Most commentators think that Gentile Christians, too, are in view in v. 23-25;
e.g. Bonnard, Schlier, Ridderbos, Mussner; van Diilmen, Theologie 46. More cautiously Oepke, Gyllenberg.
Bandstra, Elements 59 f. assumes that 4.3 and 4.5 (as well as 3.13) refer to Jewish
Christians only, for the word 'heir' in 4.1-2. too, in his view, signifies Jewish Chris-

Gentiles under the law?

21

to redeem those under the law, in order that we would receive the status of
children. Because you are children, we 33 have received the Spirit.
Still another case is 5.1. Christ has set us free; be therefore steadfast and
do not allow yourselves to be bound a~ain to the yoke of slavery.34
This accumulation of parallel cases 5 proves that we are not just faced with
occasional careless phrasing. 36 Rather, we have to conclude that when Paul
spoke of redemption from the curse of the law or of liberation from the
power of the law, he did not always imply that the situation of the Gentiles
was any different from that of the Jews.
Apparently without noticing it, Paul is thus tacitly operating with a double
concept of 'law'. The context suggests that he is talking about the Sinaitic
Torah, four hundred years later than Abraham, all the time. And yet the
'curse of the law' must, in view of the verses adduced, have a wider reference.
One cannot avoid noticing 'a strange oscillation of the concept of law in
Paul' 3 7 - an oscillation between the notion of a historical and particularist
Torah and that of a general universal force. In view of Gal 3.23 ff. nomos
cannot be understood simply as a 'historically limited phenomenon'. It is,
rather, a 'qualifying concept'; imo vOJ,l.ov EtppOVpOuJ,l.'lJa denotes 'the judgment passed from the view-point of Christ's coming on the pre-Christian
existence of Jews and Gentiles'. 38 This 'qualifying' concept of law. besides
being difficult in itself (see above), flatly contradicts the ideas set forth in
3.15-20, for in this passage the whole emphasis is placed on the fact that the

33
34
35

36

37
38

tians. In view of 3.29 (you are heirs), a verse referred to by Bandstra himself, I do
not understand this argument. In 4.5 -6 even Sieffert interprets the pronoun as including Gentile Christians.
Reading flP.WV with p46 ~ AB CD etc.
Robinson, art.cit. 34, sees even here an indication that the freedom of the believing
Jew had consequences for the Gentiles.
To the verses cited Rom 7.4-6 can be added; rightly Howard, Crisis 59 f. There Paul
proceeds by saying: you have died to the law; you belong now to another person
(Christ), in order that we would bear fruit to God; for when we were in the flesh ...
(in the rest of the passage the flrst person pronoun is used). Interestingly enough, the
alteration of pronouns here takes place in reverse order in comparison with the
passages in Gal - another proof that Paul does not have any 'mediating' role of 'us' in
mind in Gal. It is, of course, difflcult to know for sure, who the 'you' of Romans are,
but surely they cannot be Jewish Christians only.
One might try to harmonize Paul's thoughts by saying that he thinks in 3.13 etc. of
the Galatians as potential 'persons under the law', who have been set free from this
yoke in advance by Christ, i.e., they have been liberated from the necessity to take
the yoke of the law upon them. Yet v. 13b is clearly formulated from the point of
view of those 'under the law', and 5.1 states: do not be again subjected to the yoke
of slavery!
Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis 153.
Op.cit. 155.

22

I. The oscillating concept of law

law arrived late on the scene. The chronological and the universal argument
exclude each other.
Thus, while Paul is seemingly talking of the Mosaic law of Sinai, and even
bases part of his argument on dating it in the time of Moses, the law nevertheless tacitly assumes much wider dimenSions. Paul is simultaneously thinking of something that concerns all men, not just the Jews. The situation of
Jew and Gentile melt together. The same thing in reverse order happens in
4.1-11. In this passage, the situation of the polytheist Galatians in their
thraldom under quasi-gods before their conversion fuses together with the
condition of the Jews under the law. We were enslaved under the elements of
the world, says Paul (v. 3), thus including himself in the plight of his readers.
Verse 4 then states that those under the law were redeemed and 'we' became
children. The Galatians had been slaves of the unreal gods (v. 8). Having
become Christians, they now wish to turn again to those 'weak and beggarly
elements', wanting again to be slaves to them (v. 9). The attempt to be subjugated to the Jewish law, represented in this connection by 'calendar piety,39
(v. 10), is identical with a return to the previous thraldorn (cf. 5.1, where the
words 'again' and 'slavery' also occur).
If Paul previously assumed that somehow or other the Gentiles had been
under the law, he now reversely sUfests that the Jews are bound by the
elements of the world. OTOLxia4 most probably means cosmic astral
powers41. The fact that Paul uses the word nowhere else as well as the fact
that he can introduce it here without a word of explanation indicate that he
got it from the Galatian scene (in Col 2 the term certainly goes back to the
Colossian 'philosophy'). Paul intends to associate the Galatians' turning to
the Torah with their pre-Christian pagan existence (which may have been
characterized by subjugation to astral 'elements' of the world). Thus the
Torah comes to look like a 'universally enslaving power,.42
It would be logical to conclude that Paul included the Torah in the 'elements' of the world.43 It is doubtful, however, whether Paul would have pro39 Cf. Vielhauer, 'Gesetzesdienst' 552.
40 On the history of Interpretation see Bandstra, Elementl 5 -30; for the use of the term
outside the NT ibid. 31-46.
41 Dibelius, Geisterwelt 79-85; Lietzmann, Schlier, Bonnard, Oepke, Guthrie, Betz;
Lohse, Kolosserbrief 146-149; Reicke, 'Law' 261 f.; Howard, Crisis 67, etc. The
meaning 'what is characteristic of this world', proposed by Delling, 'OTo,xewv'
685 and Vieihauer, art.clt. 553 is too abstract. The argument that no clear evidence
for OTO'Xeia meaning astral powers is available from the period prior to the second
or even the fourth century can, in view of the fragmentary nature of the extant
evidence, hardly be conclusive.
42 Vielhauer, art.clt. 553.
43 Thus Reicke, art.clt. 259 and passim; Delling, art.cit. 684; Drane, Paul 38. While
logical in one respect, this thesis would bring Paul into conflict with other statements

Reduction of the Torah to the moral law?

23

ceeded to this conclusion, however logical. In 3.19-20 he had suggested that

the law had been given by the angels, therefore not by God himself; and yet
in the very next verses he could argue that the law had a divine purpose. 44 It
is quite common that Paul does not follow a line of argument to its logical
conclusion. Moreover, if the logic of Gal 4.1 ff. were pressed, it would follow
that the 'unreal gods' (which the elements are, according to verses 8-9) were
destined by the one true God to have the positive role of 1T{rpo1ToL. and
OiKOVOJ,LOL who watch over the minor heir until the time set by the father
(v. 2). Something similar must be assumed, to be sure, if 3.23 ff. were to be
taken literally (the heathen cult had been the Galatians' tutor until Christ!),
but such cannot possibly be Paul's real view of heathen cults. Paul's point in
Gal 4 is probably only the polemical one of suggesting that man's plight
under the law is identical with his plight under the elements.
This point may seem plausible as long as it is kept in the abstract. If,
however, one tries to give it a concrete form, one runs into the difficulty of
having to accept the idols as 'tutors'. This state of affairs suggests that Paul did
not always think through the logic of his arguments. Perhaps I may put it
this way: the solution is for Paul clearer than the problem. The Christ event
stands out as a liberating event of supreme importance, an event with universal implications, bringing freedom and peace to everyone willing to accept
the message. At this point Paul is perfectly coherent. But when it comes to
the description of what men were liberated [rom, the picture becomes more
or less confused.45 Thus we may see here already some evidence for E.P.
Sanders's thesis (argued by him on other grounds) that Paul's 'description of
the human plight varies, remaining constant only in the assertion of its
universality' .46

3. Reduction of the Torah to the moral law ?

Some interpreters assume that Paul made a conscious distinction between
what might be called the cultic or ritual or ceremonial side of the Torah and
its moral content.47 Paul held that the cultic law was abolished in Christ,
of his, notably 3.15-20. The law can hardly be an episode in Jewish history, and
simultaneously express that 'worauf die Existenz dieser Welt beruht und was auch
das Sein des Menschen ausmacht' (thus the formulation of Delling, art.cit. 685).
44 On this, see below, IV 1.
45 Beker, Paul 49 n. correctly observes that 'the status of the Gentiles before Christ'
remains unclear in Gal 3 -4. 'The accent falls on the Christocentric confession of Gal.
3.26-29, which for Gentiles is the only reality that matters ... '
46 Paul 474.
47 It may be legitimate to use this somewhat anachronistic terminology for the sake of
convenience. In terms of Jewish categories, one could speak of those 'commandments
which govern relations between man and God' on one hand and those which 'govern

24

I. The o,cillating concept o[ law

whereas the moral law remained in force. 48 On this view, the meaning of Gal
3.19 would be that what was given on Sinai by the angels was just the cultic
law,49 or parts of it, namely, the commandment of circumcision and the food
regulations, which are in focus in GalS 0 - unless, withHiibner, one attributes
the distinction to the Paul of Romans only.
In view of Rom 14.14,20, where Paul states'that 'nothing is unclean in
itself and that 'everything is clean', Hiibner, too, is inclined to assume that
Paul had consciously 'reflected on the difference between the ritual and the
moral aspects of the law and consciously rejected the ritual part.51 It would
thus, be accidental that he never comes to speak of this distinction in his
letters.
Despite Paul's sweeping assertions in Rom 14 (which are paralleled by
1 Cor 6.12, 10.23) several observations speak against such a distinction. For
one thing, Rom 14 is not directly concerned with the Torah (nor are the
passages in 1 Cor).52 As will be shown below,53 Paul did ignore the ritual
Torah in his actual practice (when not pushed to act otherwise in a Jewish
environment for strategic reasons); it is not clear, however, that this laxity
witnesses to a reflected stance vis-a-vis the ritual law (as it is not clear either
that Jesus' indubitable laxity in ritual matters stemmed from a reflected
critical attitude to the cultic Torah54 ).
In Rom 9.4, the cult (AaTpeia) is listed among the advantages given to
Israel by God, and in the same breath with the 'promises' at that. 55 The
'glory' (66~a) in the same verse undoubtedly includes, at least, the presence of

relations between man and man' on the oth\lr (E.P. Sanders, op.cit. ~44), But this
distinction does not quite match the evidence in Paul either; in the former class belongs also the prohibition of idolatry which is not, of course, rejected by Paul. It
would be best to speak of such 'ritual' laws as 'created a social distinction between
Jews and other races'; in practice this means circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws.
See E. P. Sanders, Law 102. Unfortunately, the word 'ritual' may carry undesired
negative overtones (cf. Neusner,Idea 1 f.); I wish to use it in a neutral sense.
48 C. Haufe, Recht[ertigungalehre 20 ff.; id., 'Stellung'; Ridderbos, Paulu, 199. Holsten,
Zum Evangelium 400 ff .. assumed a self-explanatory distinction between the ethical
and ritual stipulations. On this view, Paul would have excluded the ritual law from
the Mosaic law altogether, possibly ascribing it to the 1I'aTp'lCIll 1I'a.pat50ae,~. Holsten
later revoked this interpretation. His observation that Paul's polemic against the law,
at the central places in Romans at least, is not directed to the ritual law , but rather
to 'the law as God's absolute revelation' (401), was correct.
49 Thus Haufe, 'Stellung' (who thinks that the cultic law was fabricated by the angels);
Bligh, Galatilln, 292, 296 f.
50 Thus Lirnbeck, (Jhnmacht 93 f. and n. 28.
51 Ge,etz 77-80; cf. also Luz, 'Gesetz' 108 f.
52 See below, p.48.
53 See below, 11 6.
54 See Braun,Radikali,mu, 11, 7-14.

Reduction of the Torah to the moral law?

25

God's Shekinah in the cult.56 Moreover, several of Paul's sharpest negative

comments about the law have quite clearly the moral law in view. The indu~
bitably moral injunction 'do not covet' led man into the power of sin (Rom
7.7 -11, cf. Rom 7.5). The killing letter was found ca~ved in stone tablets
(2 Cor 3.6 f.) - a clear reference to the Decalogue; this is so despite the fact
that according to Rom 13.9 the love command summarizes first of all the
ethical precepts of the second tablet of the Deca1ogue! The law that brings
about wrath (Rom 4.l5) cannot be just - or even primarily - the ritual law;
the same is true of the nomos apart from which righteousness has now
become manifest (Rom 3.21). Had Paul really taught his converts that the
'ritual' law and that alone had been replaced57 , his task would indeed have
been very much easier for instance when he set out to dictate Ga1atians. It
would have been enough to refer to this definitive decision.58 Paul's silence
then appears symptomatic rather than accidental.
Thus, Paul can hardly have made any conscious distinction between the
cultic and moral aspects of the Torah. Another thing is that in actual fact it
is the cultic side of the law that stands in the forefront of Paul's discussion
in Gal. 59 He there deals mainly with circumcision, food laws and calendar.
It is actually quite commonly conceded that Paul does make an unreflecting
or unconscious distinction (one speaks of an unconsciously-working principle
of criticism) between ritual and moral law.60 This state of things tends,
however, to bring internal tension into modern interpretations of Paul: it is
emphasized that he did not make the distinction and simultaneously also that
he did. 61 Our survey starts from the observation that Paul at least does not
make an explicit distinction. Should he nevertheless make the distinction
implicitly, this would bring him into an implicit contradiction with his own
notions. We will try to find out whether this is so.
Let us consider Rom 2.12-16. It is essential to realize that Paul is in
55 'Deutlicher konnte er nicht aussprechen, class ihm die Thora eine durchaus einheitliche Grt)sse ist.' Werner, Ein/luss 83. This is so whether or Bot Paul is using a traditional Henenistic Jewish list in Rom 9.4 f. as is assumed by Byme, 'Sons' 83 f.
56 Michel.
57 Thus Ridderbos, op.cit. 199, cf. 83.
58 Correctly already Pfieiderer, Paulinismus 89; Stevens, Theology 166; Glock, Gesetzesfrage 142.
59 Cf. Bousset, Galater 50: in combating the law in Galatians, Paul has almost exclusively the ceremonial law in view. This is, according to Bousset, 'der ursprtingliche
Sinn der Lehre des Paulus von der Rechtfertigung "nicht aus Gesetzes-Werken" '.
Bousset, op.cit. 59, correctly notes that Paul does not, however make a 'grundsatzlich'
distinction between ceremonial and moral law. He is fonowed by Guttmann, Judentum 1247 f.
60 Bultmann, Theology 261; cf. Conzelmann, Outline 223; Schrage, Einzelgebote 231;
Grafe,Lehre 25.
61 Haufe,.Rechtfertigungrlehre 27 f., is correct in pointing this out.

26

I. The olcillating concept of law

principle talking of the Torah throughout this passage. 62 Possession or nonpossession of the Torah divides mankind into two groups (v. 12). Still in
v. 14a it is clearly the Torah that is spoken of: Gentiles, who do not possess
the Torah, fulftl its requirements by nature. To assert that nomos changes its
meaning after this - that Paul has a general moral law in mind in v. 14b63 is to spoil Paul's thought altogether. 64 The flow of thought requires that
nomos carries the same ~eaning from beginning to end: the very law the
Gentiles lack they actually 'are' for themselves, because they do what is
required by this law.65 Thus, it is possible to fulftl the Torah without actually
possessing it.
The difficulty with this idea is, of course, that there were no Gentiles who
fulOOed all commandments of the Torah, or even most of it. What Gentiles
could fulfil was the ethical commandments.66 Paul speaks of the 'law' in
general, without hinting at any differentiation within it; still, in actual fact
he seems to reduce it to a moral imperative.67 This conclusion is reinforced
when we turn to Gal 5.14 and Rom 13.8-10.
In Gal 5.14 Paul states that 'the whole law (0 'YOp 7Tal; VOl-tol;) is fulftlled
(7T1T~:r1PWTa') in one word', namely in the command to love one's neighbour.
This statement could be taken to mean that the Torah participates in the love
command in all its individual commandments.68 But then it is strange that

62 Against Riedl, Reil 198. He thinks that nomoI means in Rom 2-3 'die gottliche
Sittennorm, die sich fUr die Juden in ihrem mosaischen Gesetz und fUr die Heiden
im sogenannten Naturgesetz kundgibt', for 'nur mit diesem weitgespannten Oberbegriff wird man allen neunzehn Stellen in Rom 2 sachlich gerecht (und ebenso den
elf Stellen des dritten Kapitels)'. This interpretation makes nonsense of Paul's starting
point (Rom 2.12) as well as of the ensuing statement that the Gentiles do not possess
nomoI (2.14).
63 Cf. Grafe, op.cit. 3; Bornkamm, Ende 101; Canibier. 'J ugement' 203.
64 Correctly Gutbrod, '1I0~Ot' 1062.
65 Correctly already Stevens,op.cit.164;Bliiser, op.cit. 20 f.; van Diilmen, Theologie 77:
'Diese den Heiden erkennbare Norm beurteilt Paulus so ausschliesslich vom mosaischen Gesetz her, dass man nicht von einem eigenen Gesetz der Heiden sprechen kann.'
66 There is no reason to take this to mean just occasional fulfilment of a few individual
commandments, or the like; such watering down of the verse is disproved by 2.27.
See the discussion below, III 3.
67 The statement by Kiisemann, Romanf 64, that 'the apostle does not restrict the
Torah to the moral law ... and thereby dilute it' is correct, but oniy in so iar as we are
talking about Paul's conlcioul reasoning. That is, he did not wilh to reduce the Torah
to the moral law; what is implicit in his reasoning is another matter.
68 van Diilmen, op.cit. 60; cf. Ortkemper, Leben 179. HUbner, 'Das ganze Gesetz' 241
n. 13 is justified in pointing out a self-contradiction in van Diilme~'s exegesis: on one
hand she interprets the fulfllment of the law as keeping 'the whole law', on the
other hand as keeping just the one commandment of loving one's neighbour. Thus,
the following stateml\nt of van Diilmen, op.cit. 227, is extremely vague: 'Die EinzelgebQte sind weder vollig beiseite ge1assen, noch auch im einzelnen in ihrer urspriingli-

Reduction olthe Torah to the moral law?

27

Paul prohibits obedience to certain essential commandments of the Torah

like circumcision and food regulations instead of viewing them, too, as interpretations of the love command.69
To be sure, in the parallel passage Rom 13.8-10 Paul seems to give just
such an interpretation of th" centrality of the love command: command"
ments like the prohibitions of adultery, murder, theft and coveting as well as
'any other commandment' (v. 9) are said to be 'summarized' (dvC1J(l{JaAawin"aL)
in the love command. But the striking thing here is precisely that Paul can in
such a self-evident fashion ignore all 'ritual' commandments and indeed the
whole question in which sense they may be said to be 'fulfilled' in the love
command. Instead of making distinctions Paul seems simply to ignore the
ritual part of the Torah as a non-entity.
It is, then, more natural to read GalS.14 and Rom 13.8_1070 as speaking
of a radical reduction of the law to the love command. 71 Where this one commandment is fulfilled, the Torah as a whole is fulfilled. 72

chen Stellung geblieben, sondern sie sind in der Liebe in eins gefasst.'
69 HUbner, art.cit. 241.
70 Some interpreters construe Rom 13.8 as a statement about 'the other law', connecting TOIJ lrEpolJ with IJO",OIJ rather than with d-ya1l'wlJ; thus Gutbrod, art.cit. 1063,
1069 (who thinks of the 'law of Christ' without arguing the case, however); Marxsen, 'lTEPO~ IJOIJ.O~' 237; Merk, Handeln 165; Ulonska, Paulus 199 n. 146. According
to Marxsen, the 'other law' refers to the law of Moses (as distinguished from the civil
law of Rome, Rom 13.1-7). Thus in the end his interpretation leads to the same
conclusion as the usual one. It is more natural, however, to connect rOIJ lrEpolJ
with the participle d-ya1l'wlJ, especially as no nomos (from which the 'other law'
"could be distinguished) has been referred to in the preceding sentences (Cranfield).
Marxsen (233) refers to the fact that the only unspecified objects of d-ya1l'alJ elsewhere in Paul are dAAriAov~ (1 Thess 4.9, Rom 13.8) and rOIJ 1I'Ai1(1l01J (Gal 5.14,
Rom 13.9); but this is a far too scanty sample to draw any conclusions. Note that
Paul in Rom '2.1 speaks of rcpWEW 'l'd1J lrepolJ, while the unspecified object elsewhere
(Rom 14.13) is dAAriAov~! Elsewhere in Paul d-ya1l'alJ is always used with an object.
Cf. Ortkemper, Leben 128 n. 17; Michel, Rom 409 n. 5.
71 Thus, e.g., Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 30; Mussner; Furnish, Love Command 97. An implausible version of this interpretation is proposed by Feuillet, 'Loi' 797: when
dlJCJKE!paMwiiraL (Rom 13.10) is interpreted in the light of Eph 1.10 and Barn 5.1,
and 1I'Arjpwj.I.a in the light of Col 2.9, 1.19, Eph 1.23, the sense turns out to be that
love is 'the totality of the precepts of the law', which is more than the sum of its
p~ts. 'Si la charite synthethise tous les commandments, c'est en les depassant.'
72 Hubner, art.cit. 243-248 and Gesetz 37-39 denies that Gal 5.14 refers to the Torah
(as Rom 13.8-10 does). Instead, b 11'~ IJOIJ.O~ is identical with the 'law' of Christ
(Gal 6.2): 'Bear each other's burdens'. This interpretation, intended to remove an
internal tension from Galatians (the discrepancy between 5.3 and 5.14) is not con-,
vincing, as it tries to drive a wedge-between Gal 5.14 and Rom 13.8-10. HUbner
(Gesetz 76) emphasizes the fact that the expression 'the whole law' is not repeated in
"Rom 13. But in enumerating commandments, which are comprised in the love command in Rom 13.9, Paul significantly adds: 'and if there is any other commandment'

28

l. The oscillating concept of law

It is only by tacitly reducing the Torah to a moral law that Paul can think
of the Christians (as well as of some non-Christian Gentiles, Rom 2.14 f.) as
fulfilling the Torah. This state of affairs is also revealed in Rom 8.4. If the
'just requirement of the law' is fulfilled in the life of Christians, nomos
cannot really mean the Torah in its totality.
I fInd this very lack of explicitness signifIcant. Paul conveys, after all, the
impression of operating with one concept of law only, and I would assume
that he is not conscious of his actual oscillation. Gardner seems to be right
when he writes: 'The word "law" ... he uses in many confused senses: sometimes of the Jewish ceremonial law, sometimes of the law of nature, sometimes of the voice of conscience; but he does not realise this looseness of
speech.' 73
But precisely such a 'looseness of speech' makes it more possible for Paul
to impress his Christian readers on the emotional level. It is one thing to
assert that we Christians (and we alone) fulfIl the requirement of 'the law';
it would be another thing (the connotations would be worlds apart) to note
that Christians fulm just the most important parts of the law (say, points a
to h) while not fulfilling the rest (points i to z)! It is only by keeping his
speech loose that Paul is able to assert that he 'upholds the law' (Rom 3.31).74

4. Analogies?
Are any analogies found to this looseness of speech, in particular to the
implicit reduction of the law to its moral content, in early Christian or Jewish
sources? We at fIrst turn to the Christian sources.

a) Christian sources
It is not quite easy to compare the Gospels with Paul in terms of consis-

tency. The Gospels, with the partial exception of the Fourth Gospel, do not
set forth anything like connected arguments concerning theological themes.
Statements about the attitude of a given Evangelist to the law are often
second-hand inferences of the way he uses traditional materials. Where tensions occur, it is often difficult to determine whether this is a result of the
gathering of differing traditions or whether the fInal editor's mind really is
diVided on a given point. The discussion must, therefore, remain inconclusive.

et 'm ETepa eVTo?l:rj). This shows quite clearly that he has the idea of totality in
mind in Romans as well; correctly Ortkemper, op.cit. 130 n. 31. Cf. E.P. Sanders,
Law 96f.
73 Gardner, Experience 162 (emphasis added). Cf. M. Grant, Paul 49: it seems that Paul
was 'shifting his ground to suit his argument'. E.P. Sanders, op.cit. 103: 'We cannot
determine to what degree he was conscious of his own reduction of the law.' (See the
whole discussion on pp. 96-105; note also the conclusion that Paul had unconsciously found 'a canon within the canon' p. 162.)
74 For a discussion of Rom 3.31 see below, II 5.
(Kat

Analogiel?

29

In Mark, the term vOJ.l.Qf; does not occur at all. Mark does, however, speak
of commandments (EVTOAai 7.8 f., 10.5, 10.19, 12.28-31), and in this connection a difficulty at least remotely reminiscent of that found in Paul can be
noticed. In Mk 10.18 f. Jesus' points out that in order to inherit etemallife
it is necessary to keep the commandments (71C; EVTOMc;); the ensuing list of
'the commandments' includes moral comttlandments of the Decalogue only.
Unfortunately, it is not quite clear how 12.28 ff. ought to be understood.
The two commandments of love are singled out as the 'first' and 'second'
commandment; in particular, love of God is said to be 'more' than 'holocausts and sacrifices' (v. 33). Are sacrifices rejected in this passage?75 Ifso,
Mark seems clear in his distinction between ritual and moral law (the former
is rejected, the latter not). Yet 12.33 could also be understood as a distinction of value within an approved framework;76 but then again - not least in
view of 15.38 - this just mildly critical view of the cultic law could represent
a traditional point of view and not quite that of Mark himself.
The greatest difficulty lies in the discussion of men's vs. God's commandments in ch. 7. There the tradition of the elders is condemned as implying a
rejection of God's commandment (7.8 f.). And yet, in v. 15, interpreted in
vv. 18-19 in a radical way, an essential part of God's commandments
(mediated through the same Moses as the fourth commandment, cf. 7.10) is
done away with. There is no problem in this, if we could ascribe to Mark
ignorance of the fact that Jewish food laws were included in the Torah itself
and were not just an invention of the tradition,77 but can we really assume
this? If yes, the problem is moved to another level; if not, then this gospel
suggests that Jesus is 'the real fulfiller of the Israelitic-Jewish tradition' (ch.
12f8 and simultaneously lets him tacitly abrogate central parts of it. It is not
made clear what is meant by (God's) EvToAai.
Matthew offers the programmatic statement that Jesus did not come to
annul (KaTaAVaat) the law,but to fulft1 (1TA17Pwaat) it (Mt 5.17).5.18, a verse
stemming from Matthew's tradition, states rigorously that not a single iota
will disappear from the law. Whatever tensions may be caused by the nature
of his traditions.(individual commandments of the law are at least modified in
Mt 5.2l-A8), Matthew clearly refrains from viewing the old law as annulled
(Jesus is its final interpreter, to be sure). In view ofthis, a crucial question is,
what is the attitude of the Matthaean Jesus to the ceremonial law? Ifhe rejects
it, then the talk of 'not annulling' cannot be taken at face value (however
1TA17PWaat is interpreted) and Matthew is using a double concept of law, much
as Paul is. Unfortunately, the situation is far from clear, and the answers of
75 Thus Pesch,Mk ad loc., following Berger, GeletzerauIlegung 197.
76 Cf. Nineham,Mk 327; Taylor.
77 See below, n 9.
78 H-W. Kuhn, 'Problem' 304.

30

I. The oscillating concept of law

different scholars to the question are different; we will have to return to that
question in the next chapter. 79 9.13 and 12.7 do not necessarily indicate that
sacrifices are rejected in principle (although they certainly are subordinated
to higher commandments). 24.20 hints at rigorous observance of the Sabbath
in the community behind Matthew - but at which point in its history?
15.11, 17 would seem to show that food regulations were done away with by
Jesus, but in the editorial comment v. 20 Matthew may indicate that the
whole discussion has been concerned with the Pharisaic tradition about the
washing of hands. At no point, then, does Matthew clearly state that the
ceremonial law has been annulled. If his congregation did indeed observe the
ceremonial Torah, 5.17 is not problematic; if, however, it did not (which is,
of course, plausible if a large part of the congregation was Gentile) then we
have here a tension comparable to that found in Paul.
It would seem that Luke does not reduce the Torah to the moral law. On
the contrary, the law is for Luke 'the mark of distinction between Jews and
non-Jews'. Its heart is circumcision, which is never spiritualized or reinterpreted. 80 Moreover, Luke does not even distinguish between the 'customs'
(the tradition) and the law;81 both are binding for the Jewish Christians. The
Jewish Christians, including Paul, continue to observe the ritual law, which
remains in force for those to whom it was designed; as for Gentiles, they are
obliged to observe the minimum of ritual law set down in the Apostolic
Decree. Stephen's harsh words about the Temple (Acts 7.48-50) are not
developed to a critique of the sacrificiaIlaw; on the contrary, the accusations
against Stephen speaking against the law are explicitly designated as false
(6.13). In Luke, then, the concept oflaw is clear. and does not oscillate.
Unlike Paul and others, the Fourth Evangelist does not say that the love
commandment is the fulffiment of the law. It is offered as a new commandment given by Jesus. The idea of fulffiment is present in John only as far as
the prophecying function of the law is concerned. Jesus transcends the law;
it is not suggested that its commandments are fulfilled among Christians.
John is thus free from the difficulties of Paul.
In Hebrews the law is viewed exclusively as cultic law. As such it is disparaged, retaining its value only insofar as it in a shadowy way points to
Christ. The cultic law is scorned from a rational point of view: it is impossible
that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins (Heb 10.4). The moral
side of the Torah is hardly touched upon. 82 The author deals with the law
from a limited angle, but the coherence of his thought is irreproachable.
79 See below, 11 9.

80 J ervell, Luke 13 7.
81 Jervell, op.cit. 136, 140.
82 It is not correct to say that the law is implicitly reduced to social law; thus Schulz,
op.cit. 262. He refers to 2.2 f. and 12.25, inferring that the moral law has 'unein-

Analogies?

31

If the author of Colossians (whom I take to be someone other than Paul)

is talking about the law in 2.8 -1 5, which is not clear 83 , then the notion of
law oscillates in a way reminiscent of the authentic Paul. The concern of the
author_ is with the ascetic stipulations typical of the syncretistic philosophy
holding sway in Colossae (2.8, 20, 22). The addressees, uncircumcised
Gentiles, had been made living by God, in that he, among other things,
wiped off the 'document written. by hands, which stood against us' through
the death of Christ. Thus, the Gentiles had to be freed from that 'document'.
If the law is meant, then we have here an exact analogy to Paul's argument in
Gal 3 and 4. 84 Law takes on the general meaning 'legalism'.
In 1 Tim 1.4-10 the concept of 'law' oscillates as in Paul. The opponents
of the writer call themselves lIop.ol)wauKaAoL (v. 7), and they are concerned
with 'myths and genealogies' (v. 4). They are thus pictured as (phoney)
experts in Jewish law. Unlike those people who do not understand what they
are talking about (v. 7), we know, the writer says, that the law (0 1I0P.OI;) is
good, if it is used properly (1I0piP.WI;, v. 8). The sequel shows that the writer
no longer has the Torah in mind, but rather a general moral law, or the law of
the state,85 for the law does not exist for the just man but, only for the
impious (a vice list follows, v. 9 ff.). Nomos is well on its way toward a broad
'moralistic'sense.
The letter of lames, too, is reminiscent of Paul, as regards the use of
nomos. In view of verses like 4.11-12 'nomos clearly means the "old" law'.
Typically enough, however, the cultic stipulations the author 'simply passes
over ... in silence'; 'when he speaks of nomos, even what he calls the "whole
law", he simply ignores their existence' .86 The ethical content of the OT law
melts together with the new Christian ethical admonitions into one 'law',

83
84

85
86

geschrankte Heilsbedeutung gerade auch fiir das neue Gottesvolk'. Yet the Mosaic
law functions in these verses, to which 10.28 can be added, only as a part within
a conclusion a minore ad maius: if transgression of that law already incurred a
severe punishment, how much more reason there is to take seriously that 'so great
salvation proclaimed in the beginning by the Lord' (2.3)! Luz, 'Gesetz' 114 vigorously
denies the law any role in the life of Christians according to Hebrews.
See below, VIII.
Interestingly enough, even the pronouns alterate much as they do in Gal 3. You were
made living, and God thus forgave us our trespasses (vI: you, K L P 6 323 326 al),
wiping off the writing that was against us, the writer says. If the writer is writing
from a Jewish Christian perspective (but-is he? anyway, as 'Paul' he ought to!), then,
exactly as in Gal 3-4, the plight of the Gentiles under angelic powers and that of the
Jews under the law melt together. Yet this similarity turns out to be accidental, if
E.P. Sanders is right in the suggestion that Col 2.13 is a conflation of Rom 6.11 and
Rom 8.32 ('Dependence' 40 f.).
Cf. Dibelius; Houlden,Past 53, 58.
Seitz, 'James' 485.

32

I. The oscillating concept of law

the 'perfect law of liberty' (I .25). This assimilation is best revealed in 2.8-13,
where, within the same thought, 'the royal law' (v. 8) and in particular 'the
law of liberty', through which the readers are to be judged, suggests the new
Christian norm whereas the "whole law" is seen as consisting characteristically
of the Decalogue. At this point, then, at least, Paul and James come close
together.
Later writers were able to avoid our problem altogether by explicitly
making the very distinction within the law which Paul is so reluctant to spell
out. Thus, the letter of Barnabas explicitly abandoned the ritual law, consciously reducing the law to its mora! content, and Ptolemy, in his letter to
Flora, worked out a clear-cut tripartite division within the Old Testament
law. It is interesting, however, to conclude our survey by mentioning a
thinker who was almost, but not quite, explicit in his distinction between
moral and ceremonial law. For Justin, the moral law constitutes no problem.
His problem is the ritual part of the law, and it is only this that is called
nomos in his writings.87 The ritual law was only given as temporal legislation
for the Jews. 88 Yet, 'It is true that Justin does not explicitly isolate and
designate a "ceremonial" Law, nor does he distinguish an "ethical"Law'; 'nevertheless, his concept of the division of the Law into various parts seems
actually to determine his treatment of the Law' and 'constitutes one of the
most decisive aspects of his understanding of the Law,.89 Justin does not
build his argument about the law on an oscillating use of the concept; he is
reminiscent of Paul to a certain extent in not being explicit in his distinctions.
Stylianopoulos' explanation of this lack of explicitness is interesting: 'Perhaps
... Justin's high regard for the authority of Scripture unconsciously prevented
him from working out a bolder and more sharply deftned breakdown of the
unity of Scripture in the manner of Ptolemy. We ftnd a similar case in Irenaeus
and Tertullian both of whom are aware of a certain stratification and differentiation in Scripture, but do not proceed to an objective analysis of it .. .'
Not so Ptolemy, having 'few scruples about the authority of Scripture as a
whole'. It is the Gnostic exegete who 'provides a kind of scientifically critical
account of the diversity of the Mosaic Law, parts of which he rejects as
unworthy of God and others as being the work of men,.90 That Paul, too,
had unconscious scruples about the authority of Scripture as a whole, which
prevented him from making distinctions which the logic of his position would
actually have required, seems a not unlikely conjecture.

87 Stylianopoulos,Justin 50 f., 59.

88 Cf. Dial. 21.1, 22.1 etc.; see the list of passages in Stylianopoulos, op.cit. 142.
89 Stylianopoulos, op.cit. 51 n. 19,53; these statements tacitly correct the statement on
p. 51 that Justin is 'the first Christian writer explicitly to distinguish different parts
within the Law and the OT' (emphasis added).

90 Op.cit. 74 f.

Analogies?

33

Thus, Paul's problem reappears in the Deutero-Paulines as well as in the

letter of James, possibly also in Mark and Matthew. Unclarity about the
concept of the law is common to larger segments of early Christian thought.
Up serVIce to the unity of God's word in Scripture is coupled with an actual
rejection of parts of it - a rejection which is never directly admitted.

b) Jewish sources
In the Babylonian Talmud (Shab 31a) it is told that Hillel once summarized
the law in the golden rule (in a negative form): 'What is hateful to you, do
not do to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary thereof; go and learn it.' 91 This famous dictum is hardly a real parallel
to Gal 5.14, Rom 13.8-10.92 The rest of the Torah is not branded as unnecessary; it is made to serve the love command as a commentary of it. This
would seem to correspond to the notion, mentioned above 9 3, that 'the Torah
participates in the love command in all its individual commandments'. The
headache of Hillel would be to provide the proof that this is so; Paul's particular difficulty he does not share. We have here, furthermore, a typical ad
hoc-statement, from which it would be utterly unwise to squeeze a general
doctrine; the dictum is offered as proof of Hillel's celebrated gentleness, as an
answer to the irreverent question of a Gentile (which must be answered
briefly, if it is to be answered at all; and the moment of surprise contained in
the answer is just what is appropriate in such a context).94 Thus, we have an
example of paraenetic and even missionary concentration of the Torah in a
particular situation on its ethical content - concentration, not reduction. It
is of course inconceivable that a Hillel would have rejected, or recommended
to anybody a rejection, of the actual observance of the Torah in practice
for the sake of the goldeIl; rule. 95 There is no watering down of the concept
91 The authenticity of the anecdote is denied by Neusner, Traditions I, 324.339 f. The
story certainly reflects 'the Hillelite viewpoint, but we have no idea whatever which
Hillelites' (324). Cf. n. 95.
92 Jeremias, 'Paulus' 89 f. thinks that Paul got the idea of summarizing the law in the
love command from the school of Hillel, who in turn got this daring novelty from the
Stoics (90).
93 Cf. above, p. 26.
94 Nissen, Gott 390 is correct in stating that Hillel's statement is more a captatio benevolentiae than a serious reply; cf. 396: 'Hillel wlire nicht Hillel, wenn er m'it diesem
Satz dem Heiden mehr als eine Brlicke hiitte bauen wollen, urn ihn liber sie zur Tora
selbst zu bringen. This particular dictum belongs together with Hillel's answer to
two other Gentiles: one wanted to become a proselyte because of his vanity, the
other did not want to accept the oral law; Hillel turned neither away but introduced
each pedagogically to start with learning the Torah. Nothing more is implied in the
'summing up' of the law in the Golden Rule, which is thus not intended as a 'summary' at all.
95 It is surely even less likely that later Hillelites using Hillel 'as a paragon of virtue'
(Neusner, op.cit. 339) would have done so.

34

I. The oscillating concept of law

of the Torah here. But of course the fact of a concentration on the moral
aspect commands attention; in this (partial) respect Paul comes close to
Hillel.
Concentration on moral commandments and values in the law is all the
more conspicuous in Hellenistic Jewish sources, notably in the Testaments of
the Patriarchs, the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides and the
Sibylline Oracles. Klaus Berger has argued that there were among Hellenist
Jews antinornian groups, who had actually reduced the Torah to a worship of
the one true God plus certain s()cial commands and virtues;96 in their concept
of law the ritual Torah played no part. Gal 5 and Rom 13 show that Paul
stands wholly within that tradition. 97 If this were so, then Paul simply inherited his looseness of speech and his implicit reduction of the .law from
Hellenistic Judaism.
It is right that moral and 'social' commandments are vigorously emphasized
in the said texts, which are either almost silent about ritual law (Test. Patr.)
or give allegorical interpretations of it (Aristeas, Philo). And yet it is patently
wrong to speak of antinomian or anticeremonial traits in the piety of the
people behind these writings. As for the Testaments, it is sufficient to refer to
the critique of Berger's thesis by Hlibner. 98 See, in particular, Test. Levi
9.7, 16.1; food laws are interpreted symbolically in Test. Asher 2.9-10,
4.5. 99
That an emphasis on social values in the law does not exclude observation
of the ritual stipulations and an appreciation of the cult, is perfectly clear
from the Letter of Aristeas and the writings of Philo. Both writers contend
that all precepts of the Torah serve its basic ethical intentions. The 'apology
of the law' in the Letter of Aristeas (129-171) is summed up in the state
ments that the law prohibits injuring anybody (cf. Romans 13) and that
everything has been laid down rrpar; DIJ(.awaVv1W - so, too, the food regulations (167-169). The writer emphasizes the symbolical meaning that supposedly underlies every single stipulation, but does not conclude that, once
the deeper meaning has been perceived, the external observance can be
dropped. Observation of the ritual commandments is, on the contrary, important, not least because these commandments separate the Jews from perni-

96 Gesetzesauslegung I, 38-55 and passim. The thesis is sharply dismissed by Nissen,

op.cit. 229 n. 589.
97 Berger, op.cit. 51.
98 HUbner, 'Mark 7.1-23', 326-329.
99 Should Eissfeldt, Einleitung 858 f., 861 and others be right in the assumption that
the Testaments are products of the Qumran community, this provenance would be
enough to refute Berger's theory; one could hardly connect the idea of a relaxation
of the Torah .with Qumran. Yet this hypothesis is today rightly rejected; cf. Charlesworth,Pseudepigrapha 212.

Analogies?

35

cious company (esp. 139).100 With the aid of allegorical method the writer
manages to argue that all parts of the law, including the food laws, really
serve to the attainment of justice. The method is, of course, as arbitrary as
could be, but the resulting conception is coherent. There is no reduction of
the law in content.
Philo is reminiscent of Rom 13.8-10 in that the Decalogue has the pride
of place in his ethical thought as is clear from the fact that he feels no need to
allegorize the Ten Commandments (see Decal.). With other parts of the Torah
it is different. it is only by lavish allegorizing that Philo is able to squeeze a
meaning from ritual stipulations. Yet he shrinks from the conclusion that the
external rites could be left unobserved. His well-known critique of some
Alexandrian 'allegorizers,101 shows indisputably, where he draws the boundary line - as well as the fact that he himself is extremely close to stepping
over the line (Migr. Abr. 89 ff.). Philo does not find any fault with the symbolic interpretation of the Torah by the allegorizers; this he fully shares with
them. Yet when they draw practical conclusions and give up scrupulous
observance of the law, Philo turns against them. The only reason, however, he
is able to adduce to refute them, is a social (!) consideration: the allegorizers
fail to appreciate the fact that they live within a community, overlooking all
that the mass of men regard (!) and endangering their good repute (90).
Circumcision, e.g., has a concealed symbolic meaning, 'but let us not on this
account repeal the law laid down for circumcising'. Why not? Because keeping the external things helps to gain a clearer conception of the symbols and, besides, 'we shall not incur the censure of the many and the charges they
are sure to bring against us' (93)!
It is clear that in itself the ritual law is devoid of value for Philo. Ritual
precepts can only be valued when interpreted symbolically. Yet there is an
emotional bond between the exegete and practical observance of the Torah,
which Philo cannot bring himself to break -largely because of social pressure,
as the passage referred to reveals. 102 But in the end Philo makes it clear in no
uncertain terms that the ritual side cannot be excluded from the law.103 There
100 Cf. Tcherikover, 'Ideology' 79. Tcherikover makes a case for the assumption that the
letter was intended for fellow Jews. The Torah alone could open the cultural world
for Jews, and therefore the Jews ought to keep the practical prescriptions of the
Torah with the utmost care and punctiliousness. Contrast Berger's talk of the reduction of the law in Aristeas 168; op.c~t. 46.
101 See on these Wolfson,Philo I, 66-7f.
102 Berger, op.cit. 173 states that for Philo and others 'war die Abschaffung der Ritualund Reinheitsgesetze nur verhindert durch die Anwendung der allegorischen Methode, diemit der innewohnenden Inkonsequenz zur Erhaltung. des Bestehenden
beitrug'. This statement reverses the order of cause and consequence.
103 It is wrong to interpret the passage Spec. leg. 111,208-209 as a parallel to Mk 7.15,
as Berger, op.cit. 465--467 does. Philo there develops the idea that 'Everything ... ,

36

I. The oscillating concept of law

is no reduction here either. In actual practice Philo shows a steadfast loyalty

to his tradition; as regards apostates he even gives expression to an overzealous sentiment (a hidden need to defend himself, one may psychologize).1 04
Thus both 'Aristeas' and Philo represent the notion that every single precept of the law in some way reflects an overriding ethical concern. The letter
of Aristeas calls this concern [j'KawaVVT/; Philo tries to subsume the whole
Mosaic legislation under headings provided by the Decalogue. And yet the
discussion with the allegorizers shows how close Philo comes to the critical
line which was overstepped by the Christians when they gave up observing the
ritual law. The allegorizers, whoever they were, were predecessors of Paul
in this regard. One would wish to know more about them! But what little we
know through Philo at least does not suggest that they shared the oscillation
of the concept of law with Paul: they were qUite consciously dropping major
parts of the law.I5
One of Berger's witnesses is the didactic poem of Pseudo-Phocylides.I6
At the end of the moral exhortations which make up the writing it is stated
(v. 228): a-yveiT/ t/lvxilc; ov aWJ1.arO<; elm Ka1'}apJ1.oi.I 07 'Purifications are
for 108 the purity of the soul, not of the body.' Berger takes this line as a
parallel to Mark 7.15. 109

104

105

106
107

108
1.09

that the unclean person touches must be unclean', for 'the unjust and impious man
is in the truest sense unclean'. Characteristically, Philo does not say that everything
is clean fora clean person; he contents himself with the statement that 'all the
doings of the good are laudable'. See for criticisms also HUbner, art.cit. 338; followed by van der Horst, 'Pseudo-Phocylides' 201.
In Spec. leg. 1,54-57, 316, Philo strongly supports the execution of apostates, even
without a court process, in the style of Phinehas (for the problems involved see
Heinemann, Bildung 223-225; Colson, Philo VII, 616-18). Cf. Philo's attitude to
death penalties in Spec. leg. 11,242-257. It should be noted, however, that apostasy
does not in this connection mean the neglect of Sabbath or food laws (the trespass
of the allegorizers), but participation in a pagan cult. This is where Philo drew the final
boundary line.
Should Vermes, 'Decalogue' be right in his contention that the Minim, whose claims
caused the Decalogue to be dropped from daily Jewish public prayer at about the end
of the fIrst century, were Hellenistic Jews rather than Christians (cf. yBer 3c [1.5]
and parallel passages) then they, too, are to be mentioned in this connection. These
'heretics' are said to have claimed that the Decalogue alone was given to Moses on
Sinai.
Similarly Kasting, Anj{inge 26 speaks (on the basis of Ps.-Phocylides and the Alexandrian allegorizers) of 'unhesitating negligence and critique' of the Mosaic law.
Bernays, Abhandlungen 247 n. 1 considered the verse, in view of its loose connection
with the context, a gloss. This theory, held 'unnecessary' by van der Horst, Sentences 258, would make a difference only if the supposed gloss was made by a
Christian and not by a Jew.
Reading a-yvein (dative) with van der Horst, op.cit. 200.
Berger, op.cit. 467.

Analogies?

37

Although some suspicion regarding the origin of the poem may remain, 110
it is safe enough to start from the assumption that it is a Jewish pseudepigraph,111 all the more so as the writer seems to draw on a tradition used by
Josephus and Philo as well.1 12 AB for the Torah, the poem is extremely
selective. The material found in it is almost exclusively of a moral nature almost but not quite. One or two ritual precepts are included, but they are
susceptible of a (secondary) moral or aesthetic explanation, or have some
point of contact with Graeco-Roman ideas. 113 This is the case with v. 147148, an adaptation of Ex 22.31 (30) (cf. Lev 22.8, Ezek 44.31; a milder
version in Lev 17.15). Interestingly enough, a 'humanistic' or 'aesthetic'
motivation is given to the ritual precept: only beasts eat beasts.1 14 These
verses, as well as v. 139, converge with Graeco-Roman ideas. The command
(v. 84-85) to leave the mother bird upon the nest when one. takes her young
is interpreted morally as a token of gentleness. 115 On the whole, 'it looks as
if the author did his utmost to conceal his Jewishness' .116
What, then, is his attitude to the ritual law? The question is not easy to
answer. It is connected with another unsolved problem: whom was the
author writing to? One possible answer is that he is consciously making.an
effort to win the attention of Gentiles; this is why he leaves out all that is
specifically Jewish, moving roughly within the framework of the Noachian
commandments. 1l7 The surprising thing is, however, that not a word is said
against idolatry, the Gentile sin par excellence in the eyes of any Jew. Another.
solution, too, has been offered: PseudoPhocylides is writing for fellow Jews
and can therefore take a lot of things for granted. 118 It is extremely difficult
110 Dalbert, Theologie 9-11 leaves Pseudo-Phocylides out of his study of Hellenistic
Jewish theology; cf. Hiibner, art.cit. 338 n. 4.
111 Thus in a fundamental study that has not lost its relevance with time Bernays, op.
cit. 192 ff.; recently van der Horst, Sentences; id., 'Pseudo-Phocylides' 188.
112 See Crouch, Ortgin 84 ff.
113 Bernays, op.cit. 227.
114 See Bernays, op.cit. 239-241.
115 Bernays, op.cit. 235. This precept is also found in the summaries of the Jewish law
offered by Philo (Hyp., in Eusebius, Praep: evang. VIII, 7, 9) and Josephus (Ap. II,
213); behind these authors a common tradition must have existed. See Crouch, op.
cit. 86; van der Horst, 'Pseudo-Phocylides' 194. Rabbinic tradition (cf. DeutR 6.2)
'viewed this commandment ... as the least weighty of all commandments and coupled it with the weightiest of commandments, that one should honor father and
mother'; Crouch, op.cit. 86.
116 van der Horst, Sentences 70. Verse 31 which warns of the eating of blood and sacrificing to idols is inauthentic both on internal and external (only one inferior manuscript contains it) grounds; see van der Horst, op.cit. 135. The interpolation is probably due to a Christian reader and its source is Acts 15. Flusser, 'Christenheit' 61
n. 3 considers the verse a Hellenistic Jewish interpolation.
117 Bernays, op.cit. 251 f.; Guttmann,Judentum I, 112; Crouch, op.cit. 98.
118 Cf. Hengel,ludentum 129 f., 307; see the discussion in van der Horst, op.cit. 71 f.,

38

I. The osdllating concept of law

to choose between these options. 1l9 As far as our problem is concerned,

however, either of them could explain why so little is made of the ritual law .
Either the author was silent about it because he wanted, before a pagan audience, to demonstrate the grandeur ofthe Jewish ethics while avoiding mention
of what was the offence from the readers' point of view; or, he just did not
have to mention the ceremonial Torah to his Jewish readers, whose sense of
identity he perhaps tried to strengthen by pointing out that what was valued
by the Gentile environment was already found in their own Torah. Either
way, the prominence of general moral teaching in the poem could be accounted for without the hypothesis that the author had abandoned the ritual law.
Even apart from these considerations, v. 228 is in itself a rather tenuous
basis for far-reaching conclusions; 'the text and meaning of this verse are
rather uncertain' .120 Should the reading TOU aWt.LaTO~ be original instead of
OU, we would have a clear reference to purifications of the body that are not
abandoned. But even reading ou , does not the verse take the existence of
cleansing rites for granted? It would seem to be intended to point out the real
meaning of the external rites, a meaning that is spiritual and internalized. On
this reading, the line is in perfect harmony with Philo and with the letter of
Aristeas, where a spiritual interpretation is given to food laws and sacrifices
(170) and attention is called to the state of mind of one making a sacrifice.
Compare Aristeas 234: 'Honouring God is done not with gifts or sacrifices,
but with purity of soul .. .'121 Just as this statement does not mean that
Pseudo-Aristeas rejects gifts and sacrifices, one cannot safely conclude that
rites of purity are rejected by Pseudo-Phocylides. There is no solid support
for Berger's thesis in Pseudo-Phocylides. There is, to be sure, a heavy concentration on the moral side of the law, which is helpful for understanding
Paul, but no demonstrable reduction of it to a moral law .
Berger further appeals to the Jewish portions in the Sibylline oracles.
Following Friedliinder122 he claims that III Sib means by 'law' only 'pure
worship of God, philanthropy and noble manners,.123 His most important
proof is III 246. This verse is the conclusion of a panegyric description of 'the
race of the most righteous men' (219), in particular of the Jews' OLKaLOaVV11
and dperri (234). In v. 246 these social virtues are summed up in the words
1TXTlPojjvTe~ t.L'yaXoW ~eou <.pQ,nv evvot.L0v Vt.LVOV, which Berger takes to mean:

119

120
121
122
123

76. This solution is connected with an Qverall view of Hellenistic Jewish literature as
directed to the Jews themselves; cf. also Hengel, 'Anonymitat' 306.
After a careful weighing of the alternatives van der Horst, op.cit. 70 ff. prefers to
leave the question open.
van der Horst, op.cit. 258.
van der Horst, op.cit. 259.
Friedllinder, Geschichte 48 f.
Berger, op.cit. 41.

Analogies?

39

the law is completely fulfilled, when righteousness has been reached in

this way. This is a highly doubtful interpretation of the line. What purpose
would it have served to dwell on the particularist aspects of the Jewish way in
this piece of eloquent missionary propaganda? The particularism has been
consciously concealed in the poem, for the 'Sibyl' tries to find points, of contact in the Gentiles' own thought. It is the author's aim to convert his readers
to observe the Noachlan commandments, not the whole Torah; the perfect
and final conversion of the nations is expected to take place in the Reign of
God only.124 When dealing with this kind of literature, conclusions from
silence can be very misleading.
There are, in fact, several indications in the poem of the continuing
relevance of ritual precepts for the writer. In v. 272 the 'customs' (ra {{hila),
with which the neighbours in the Dispersion take offence, are referred to in a
quite positive fashion. Self.evidently, this does not mean the social virtues,
but things like the Sabbath. The attitude to the Temple is positive throughout,
as is clear from numerous verses (266, 281,575, 686, 688, 717, 733-34).
The animal sacrifices in the Temple are spoken of in an affirmative fashion in
575-79. 592 mentions daily ablutions in the same breath with moral virtues
(cf. 591-595 as a whole). The ritual aspect of the law is, to be sure, held to a
minimum in the poem, but no antinomian attitude can be detected. 125 We
move in the same world with the writings dealt with above.
Nevertheless, a broadening of the notion of the law comparable to that
found in Paul is visible in III 600: Gentiles have (through homosexuality)
'transgressed the holy law of the immortal God'. But we hear nothing of
Gentilesfulfilling that law, except in the eschatological Reign of God. 126
Thus, III Sib, like the other writings discussed, comes close to Paul in its
concentration on the moral law and, at the same time, is clearly different
from Paul in that the ritual Torah is not discarded either.
According to some interpreters, IV Sib (unlike III Sib) rejects the Temple,
the sacrificial cult and the ceremonial law altogether. 127 This is inferred from
IV 8.27-30. Yet in these verses only temples with images are criticized, that
is, pagan shrines. At the first glance IV 29-30 goes further, criticizing all
animal sacrifices (which will cease in the eschatological future). But in view of
124 Cf. Nikiprowetzky, Sibylle 170 ff.
125 Nikiprowetzky, op.cit. 78 n. l.
126 Cf. v. 719, 757-759. One would like to know, which law they will then fulfil, the
whole old Torah or the moral law? If it is the latter, then one has to concede that
the concept oscillates here much as it does in Paul. But the temple of Jerusalem will
remain the centre of universal cult (v. 772 ff.) so that most probably the nations are
thought to convert to the actual Torah.
127 Friedlander, op.cit. 52 f.; similarly Simon, Stephen 87 f. Friedlander's view is connected with his improbable thesis of the Essime character of the Sibyllines; on this,
see Nikiprowetzky, op.cit. 229 ff.; Noack, 'Essenes'.

40

l. The oscillating concept of law

the context, the most natural interpretation seems to be that even these
verses are directed against pagan temples only.128 The fourth book of Sibyl
was written about 80 AD. At this time nobody had any reason to attack the
Jerusalem Temple, which had lain in ruins for a decade! And elsewhere in
the same book (130-136) the eruption of Vesuvius is explained as a punishment for the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. One could hardly wish
for a clearer proof of the affirmative attitude of the author to the latter .129
We have thus found concentration on the moral side of the Torah, but not
its reduction to that side only, in Hellenistic Jewish literature. But what
about the Jewish missionary practice in the Dispersion? This practice aimed
more at winning over 'God-fearing' sympathisers than full proselytes, a
procedure which was rationalised by the theory of the Noachian commandments designed - unlike the Torah -forthe whole ofmankind. 130 In Paulinist jargon,one might detect here an 'unconsciously-working principle of
criticism,131, emphasizing the moral side of the law at the cost of the ritual
side; the Jews were only more explicit in their reflection on these matters.
It is sometimes claimed that Hellenistic Jews did not necessarilJ require
even circumcision from proselytes. To be sure, IV Sib 165 cannot bear the
burden of proof.l3:! McEleney, however, adduces evidence for the thesis that
the requirement of circumcision was not always strictly observed, if special
circumstances made it appear undesirable.!33 He concludes: 'Jews of the
Hellenistic world s~em much more ready to accept someone who refused
circumcision as a convert to Judaism and as a brother Jew, provided that in
all things else he kept the ordinances and customs. Even Palestinian Jews
speak of those opposed to only this precept.'134 It is clear that we cannot
128
129
130
131
132

Schiirer, Geschichte IV, 580; Noack, art.cit. 97 f.

Nikiprowetzky, op.cit. 233 f.
See on these e.g. Guttmann, op.cit. 98-114; Crouch, op.cit. 91 ff.
Cf. above, p. 25.
Berger (who mistakenly gives the reference as 'Ill Sib 164') thinks that this verse presupposes that only a baptismal bath was required of converted Gentiles; similarly
Billerbeck, Kommentar I, 106 n. 1; Schmithals, Riimerbrief 73 f; Scharlemann,
Stephen 114. Yet there is no warrant for the suggestion that the reference is to the
proselyte baptism; we probably have a simple allusion to the language of Isa 1.16
(thus Kurfess, Weissagungen ad loc.; cf. Nikiprowetzky, op.cit. 243-248). Billerbeck
and Berger mistakenly appeal to Schiirer, Geschichte IV, 173. To be sure, Schiirer
uses misleading language, speaking of proselyte baptism (p. 184,580). Yet he makes
clear tha,t he is not thereby thinking of proselytes proper: 'Also selbst da, wo eine
volle Aufnahme in die Gemeinschaft 'Israe1s nicht stattgefunden hat, ist wenigstens
das Wasserbad gefordert worden' (184). Schiirer thinks that the Gentiles of IV Sib
165 are 'God-fearers'.
133 Cf. the story of Izates in Josephus, Ant. XX, 38 ff.; Philo, Quaest. in Ex. 11, 2; Pes
96a; Hull 4 b; Ned 3.11; Yeb 46a. See McEleney, 'Conversion' 328-333, but also the
critique by Nolland, 'Proselytes'.
134 Art.cit. 332. McEleney points out that first-century Judaism was apparently 'much

Analogies?

41

speak of reduction or rejection of the ritual law here. Circumcision is the only
ordinance that can, under special circumstances like a danger of life, be
unobserved, provided everything else is kept! 135
Thus the difference between Palestinian and Dispersion missionary practice is not that the Hellenistic Jews accepted proselytes with mitigated conditions; they did not. The difference is that they welcomed 'God-fearers', who
did not make a full conversion, whereas in Palestine a convert who did not
accept the whole Torah remained a Gentile, hardly or not at all distinguished
from other non-Jews in Jewishjudgment.13 6
Paradoxically, the Hellenistic Jewish practice both diminished and enhanced
the significance of the ritual law . It diminished it in that the Noachian commandments were admitted to be sufficient for Gentiles. But observance of
these commandments did not bring with it membership in Israel. Thus, at
the same time, it became clear that circumcision and ritual law were very
essential - they constituted the difference between a God-fearer and a proselyte. In taking this difference seriously the theology of Jewish mission was
logical, avoiding blurring the contours of the Torah. In reading Hellenistic
Jewish propaganda literature one must take its concrete setting into account.
The Gimtile addressees were, of course, not expected to make a conversion
in a private vacuum. They were expected to join the gathering in the Synagogue. And in a synago~e they would see what the Jewish way of life in
its totality looked like.! Characteristically enough, many God-fearers were
not content with the moral law alone, but strove to observe the Sabbath and
the food regulations as well, and often the next generation would proceed to
take the decisive step and become full proselytes (see esp. Juvenal, Sat. 14,
96-106).13 8
In comparison with this literature, Paul looks both similar and dissimilar
to it. But where Hellenistic Jews clung to the whole Torah with a new accentuation, Paul's solution amounted to 'the whole Torah and yet not the whole
Torah'. In our survey we have not found real parallels to Paul's oscillating use
of the concept of law.

135

136

137
138

more open on this question' than is usually thought, (332 f.) but this has nothing to
do with a reduction of the ritua1law, as circumcision alone was involved.
This very reason, the danger of life, underlay the advice of Ananias that Izates should
not be circumcised. For the correct interpretation of this story which is often
wrongly made to serve the thesis of laxity concerning the Torah in Hellenistic Judaism, see Bamberger, Proselytism 49; Kasting, op.cit. 25; Siegert, 'Gottesflirchtige'
129.
K.G. Kuhn, '1I"poa"1I.vTo~' 734; Kuhn-Stegemann, 'Proselyten' 1267; cf. Siegert, art.
cit. 125 f. The existence of 'God-fearers' as a class is doubted by Kraabel, 'Disappearance'.
See Guttmann, op.cit. 96.
See Schtirer, op.cit. Ill, 172-175.

11. Is the law still in force?

1. The abolition of the law
Paul makes several harsh and biting comments about the law, emphasizing
the Christians' freedom from it. There is no unanimity, however, about how
such statements should be interpreted. Does Paul really mean that the Torah
has been superseded, or is he speaking of something else? One of the recent
interpreters who deny emphatically that Paul regarded the law as abolished
is Cranfield. 1 According to him, it is not the law itself that is criticized and
rejected by Paul, but rather the (alleged) Jewish misunderstanding and misuse
of the Torah, which was perverted by Jewish teaching to a legalistic code
requiring meritorious deeds. It is not astonishing that Cranfield's view is
shared by many conservative scholars. But there are also surprisingly close
points of contact between his interpretation and that of much less conservative exegetes, including Bultmann. 2 Recently Hubner has argued that,
whereas Paul in Galatians argues that the law has been superseded, in Romans
he holds that the law is in force; it is only the perverted and misunderstood
law that is done away with. God's Torah has been reinforced as the 'law of
faith' (Rom 3.27) and as the 'law of Spirit' (Rom 8.2).3 It will be convenient
to postpone the discussion of Hubner's view to the next section and begin
with an examination of Cranfield's interpretation.
Cranfield asks us in particular to bear in mind that the 'Greek language of

1 'Paul', esp. 53 ff.; id., Romans 851 ff. Cf. Moule, 'Obligation'; Ellis, Use 27; Siegwalt,
Loi 199 ff.; Bring, 'Paul' 25ff.; Dequeker,'Dialog' 14; Stegemann, 'Jude' 134 f.;
Thyen, 'Exegese' 151; vonder Osten-8acken (see below, 11 2). A somewhat similar
view was already set forth by A. Zahn, Gesetz, esp. 15 ff.
2 Bultmann, Theology 341 states ambiguously that Christ is the end of the law insofar
as the law 'claimed to be the way to salvation or was understood by man as the
means of establishing "his own righteousness" '. The fIrst part of the sentence attributes the fault to the law itself, the latter part to man alone. Schlier, Grundziige
92 ff., would seem to side with the latter alternative. Kasemann is more explicit:
he speaks of a perversion of the law's original intention (Romans 198; cf. 89) through
men in that the law came to be understood as a demand for achievement. He adds,
however, that the law was eventually 'irreparably' perverted (216),giving thus a reason why the divine law, the intention of which was to bring grace, was nevertheless
radically done away with by Paul. One wonders a little, though, at the demonic
power thus ascribed to man's interpretation of the law!
3 Hubner, Gesetz 118-129.

The abolition of the law

43

Paul's day possesse d no word-group corresponding to our "legalism", "legalist"

and "legalistic" '. We should, therefore, always 'be ready to reckon with the
possibility that Pauline statements, which at first sight seem to disparage
the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminol-.
ogy,.4 It turns out that this is, for Cranfield, always the case, when Paul
appears to be critical of the law.
In Gal 3.15-20 Paul makes five points which are hard to reconcile with
Cranfield's view. 1) The law arrived late on the scene: on Sinai, 430 years
after the promise. 2) The law had a negative purpose: it was given 'for
transgressions.' 3) It was to be a temporary arrangement, valid (but really
valid!) until the 'seed' comes. 4) It was given by angels. 5) It was received (or
given, see below) by a mediator, and this somehow or other shows its distance
from God who is one.
Cranfield's attempt to get rid of these difficulties is an eloquent bit of
special pleading. In the mention of the angels he sees only 'a certain superiority of the promise ... over the law', and in the statement about the mediator 'a certain depreciatory flavour,.5 The statement that the law was
added has a purely chronological content without any critical theological
note. 6 As for the negative purpose of the law, that was not its only purpose.
Finally, commenting on the dxp~~-clause which refers to the temporary
nature of the law, Cranfield, appealing to Calvin, states that there is 'a tendency in this passage to regard the law somewhat narrowly'. This is so because
Paul was disputing with false teachers and refuting their 'excessive exaltation
of the law'. Nomos means here the 'bare law' (nuda lex, Calvin), understood
'in a narrow sense'. It 'is not the law in the fullness and wholeness of its true
character, but the law as seen apart from Christ' .7
One wonders whether Paul's vocabulary really lacked words to express
clearly such a meaning if he intended it. Of course he had no technical term
corresponding to Calvin's nuda lex or our 'legalism' at his disposal; yet a Paul
might have been able to form a few sentences through which to indicate that
he wished to make such an important distinction between the law and its
false interpretation.
Be that as it may, the weakness of Cranfield's view becomes evident as
soon as one tries to give it a concrete form. Where did the 'bare law' actually

4 Romans 853; cf. 'Paul' 55.

5 'Paul' 61 f.; Romans 858. Still further in diluting Paul's message goes the systematic
theologian Bring, Christus 82 f.He interprets the mention of the angels in the light of
Acts 7.53 as appreciative and constructs a special interpretation of v. 20 (see below,
p. 130 n. 16).
6 'Paul' 61; Romans 857 f.
7 'Paul' 62 f.;Romans 859.

44

11. 18 the law still in force?

come from? As Paul says in v. 19 that the nomos was given by angels, and as
the word can hardly tacitly change its meaning in the middle of the sentence,
Cranfield's explanation must imply that the 'law as seen apart from Christ'
was given by the angels. Did the angels, then, add the possibility (or necessity?)
of a legalistic perversion to the law given at Sinai 430 years after the promise?
What could that mean? And if we somehow manage to imagine that this is
what happened at Sinai, according to Gal 3.19, then when was 'the law in the
fullness of its true character' given? Furthermore, why were temporary limits
set to the 'bare law', and by whom? Was the 'bare law', after all, intended by
God for a certain period - even though legalism is emphatically said to be a
perversion caused by men? One sees that Calvin's and Cranfield's interpretation has no chance of survival except in the abstract. The same is true of any
interpretation that lets Paul only reject a misunderstanding but not the
Torah: Gal 3.15-20 constitutes an insuperable difficulty for all such attempts.
The perversion is a deed of men, not of angels; but Gal 3.19 explains the
inferior character of the nomos by hinting at its angelic origin. Whatever Paul
may have meant elsewhere, in this particular passage he certainly makes a
case against the Torah itself. 8 The law is seen as a temporary addition to
God's real plan.
In 3.24, the law is compared to a 1TaLOarWroc;-no flatteringimage. 9 V. 25
states that after the faith has come we are no longer under the 1TmO arwroc;.
4.5 says that Christ redeemed those under the law, in order that they would
receive sonship; according to 3.26 'sonship' is the new situation where the
1TaLOarWrOc; is no longer needed. For sonship to be available, men had to be
redeemed from under the nomos. That this cannot mean 'bare law' should be
clear from the statement that Christ himself became 'under the law'. Would
Paul have said that Christ was subjected to the 'bare law', the 'law as seen
apart from Christ'? Cranfield ignores all these statements in his article.
The allegory in Gal 4.21-31 is also to be mentioned here. While the application that Hagar is equivalent to the 'present Jerusalem' may be compatible
with the idea that Jewish misunderstanding alone is under attack, her identification with 'mount Sinai' (v. 24 f.) is not. It is the Mosaic law itself that
enslaves those under it.
In 2 Cor 3 Paul speaks of the law as 'letter' which 'kills', as opposed to the
life-giving Spirit. This, according to Cranfield, again means the legalism of the
Jews 10 or - as Cranfield notes on the same phrase in Rom 7.6 - the letter of

8 This has to be said also against Vielhauer, 'Gesetzesdienst' 553, according to whom
Paul does not speak of the law 'as such' in Gal, but only as a 'principle of achievement'; in a similar vein Harrington,People 50.
9 On the image see Oepke and Betz.
10 'Paul' 57;Romans 854.

The abolition of the law

45

the law 'bereft of the Spirit'.l1 Rom 7.6b cannot oppose the law itself to the
Spirit, 'for only a few verses later (7.14) Paul says that the law is "spiritual" .12
In 2 Cor 3 the interpretation that rpa/J/Jameans Jewish legalism rather
than the Torah is impossible, however. Paul speaks of the activity of Moses
(not Pharisaic teachers) and makes a deprecatory reference to the tablets of
stone - the very core of God's law in as original a form as possible. Here is
the killing letter to be found!13 V. 7 reinforces the point: the ministry of
Moses was a ministry of death, being in the service of that which was 'carved
in letters on stones'. The association of this reference to the Decalogue with
the talk of the 'letter' in the previous verse is unmistakable. There is no
allusion at all to a later misinterpretation or misuse of the stone tablets. That
this evaluation of the law stands indeed in an irreconcilable contradiction to
Rom 7.14 ('we know that the law is spiritual') is another matter and must
not obscure the clear message of 2 Cor 3.6-7, amply confirmed by the con
text there.1 4 When interpreting the participle 'fading away' (n) KaraprOV/JVOV
v. 11, to reappear in v. 13) Cranfield does his utmost to remove any thought
of the passing away of the law or of the old covenant: the reference is merely
to 'the ministry of Moses at the giving of the law' .15 But how could one thus
isolate the ministry of Moses from the larger context of the old covenant?
How could the 'ministry' of Moses per se be called 'the ministry of condemnation' (v. 9)? Paul is indeed speaking of the ministry of Moses - but not as
an isolated event, but as a symbol of the old covenant.1 6 It is just as clear
that the ingenious piece of exegesis in v. 13 does not merely speak of the face
of Moses; this, too, is offered as a symbol of the old system of the law, which
was 'fading away' .17
Both in Gal 3 and in 2 Cor 3 Paul speaks quite clearly of the inferior,

11 'Paul' 56.
12 'Paul' 56. Once 'more Cranfield's interpretation comes close to that of scholars of a
quite different school of thought. 'Yp~/.La is understood as a reference to Jewish misinterpretation of the law also by Bultmann and Barrett, ad loc., and by Klisemann,
Versuche I, 222; Schrage, Einzeigebote 76 f.; Dugandzic, 'Ja' 113. Correctly Kremer,
'Buchstabe' 225 f.
13 The 'killing' probably refers to the condemning function of the law; 'the ministry of
condemnation' v. 9 is identical with the 'ministry of death' v. 7.
14 In the framework of a development theory (see above, p.7) Sieffert, 'Entwicklungslinie' 348 noted that Paul speaks in 2 Cor 3 in a way 'definitely different' from
that in Romans.
15 'Paur 58; Romans 855.
16 The word KaTap'YOO/.LVOV in v. 11 is correctly interpreted by Barrett: the reference is
to 'the law as a transient phenomenon belonging to a past age'. Cr. Fung, 'Justification' 260 n. 37: 'Since ministry is based on covenant, the two stand or fall together.'
17 It is improbable that Paul would think that Moses covered his face just 'from reverential motives', because the end of the radiance, as well as its beginning, was 'too
sacred for human gaze'; thus Hickling, 'Sequence' 390 f.

46

11. Is the law still in force?

transient and temporary character of the law given at Sinai. There is no hint
whatsoever in these passages of a secondary legalistic misinterpretation.
Instead, one may ask whether the talk of the law as 'letter' in 2 Cor 3 does
not imply the idea of an original 'legalism' inherent in the law. In this case,
'legalism' certainly cannot be interpreted as human self-righteousness; it
would merely denote slavery to precepts and ordinances (cf. Gal 4.25) without taking into account the attitude of the man under law. This understanding
would fit- together with the emphasis on freedom both in Gal 4-5 and 2 Cor
3.17; in the latter case AVi}pia is introduced rather abruptly into the discussion. Freedom, at least in Gal, is not pictured as freedom from selfcentredness, boasting and the like, but from slavery under the law and/or the
elements of the world. These considerations will concern us later on (see
below, p. 233f.).
Rom 7.1-6 is just as clear. The Christians have become dead to the law
through the (mortified) body of Christ (v. 4); they have been 'destroyed'
as regards the law, liberated from its bondage (v. 6). The 'old situation' of the
'letter' has been replaced by the 'new situation of the Spirit' (v. 6). Once
more Cranfield takes nomos 'in a limited sense'. The Christians have been
freed from 'the law's condemnation and also all legalistic misunderstanding
and misuse of the law' .18 This statement is unclear in that it introduces two
limitations of the law which do not easily fit together; the power to condemn
is something inherent in the law, having nothing to do with men's perversion
of it. A 'limitation' of the concept of law which would cover such quite
different aspects would have been unintelligible to Paul's readers, to say the
least. 19 As for the 'misunderstanding' aspect, it is hard to understand why a
method as drastic as the death both of Christ and of the Christians would
have been necessary to get rid of a mere misunderstanding about the law. A
new revelation about its true-meaning would have sufficed. Nothing in 7.1-6
suggests that men's perversion of the law is being spoken of. On the contrary,
Paul is speaking of something that is absolutely binding except in quite
particular circumstances. Paul is strnggling to find a valid reason for -the
Christian's freedom from the -nomos. It ~eems that he has no clear argument
conveniently at hand; on the contrary, he has to take refuge in a rather
tortured allegory, the application of which is lost in internal contradictions. 20
Clearly, much more is at stake than a human misunderstanding of what the
law was about.
18 'Paul' 56.
19 In his commentary on Romans (853) Cranfield in fact mentions only the 'condemnation' aspect at this point; yet he mentions Rom 7.6b again on p. 854, this time in
connection with the misuse theory. Meyer, 'End' 73 likewise maintains that, according to Rom 7.1-6, the law is not annulled, but 'the power of the law to condemn is
broken'.
20 On this, see below, p. 61 f.

The abolition of the law

47

The limitation of the meaning of nomos to the condemning power of the

law in this passage seems arbitrary, too. The allegory does not suggest that
some partial aspect of nomos is being spoken of. The impression is, on the
contrary, of something 'totalitarian'. The nomos is the master of man as long
as he lives; death is needed to change the (total) situation. With death follows
the change of master (or of 'husband', in the language of the allegory). Who
could have taken this to mean that man is no longer bound to one aspect of
the law, whereas the bond connecting him with other sides of it still holds?
To be sure, Paul does think that condemnation and curse are among the
unpleasant features of the law, and it is an essential part of the Christian's
freedom that he has been liberated from them (Gal 3.13, Rom 8.1). But
precisely this is characteristic of his thinking, that he is not content with a
revision of the law, but proclaims freedom from the law as a whole. Or so he
writes in the passages we have dealt with so far. Finally, it should be noted
that Rom 7.6 takes up central elements from both Gal 3 (the notion of
bondage under the prison-guard, KaTLxo/J.1Ja) and from 2 Cor 3 (the contrast
between letter and Spirit), so that it would be highly unnatural to interpret
this verse in a different way altogether. A new emphasis is on the aspect of
'newness': God has done something 'new', and therefore one ought not to
cling to what is old.
The idea of liberation from the law is alluded to briefly in Rom 6.14. The
Christians are 'not under law, but under grace'. This means for Cranfield that
they 'have been freed from its condemnation and curse' and 'from the vain
quest for righteousness by works of the law' . Neither idea is suggested by the
context. There the question is raised whether it is a consequence of the freedom from the nomos that 'we' should sin (v. 15). It is indeed the false inference that to be under the dominion of grace (the opposite of nomos in v. 14)
means to remain in sin that is the starting-point of Paul's discussion in Rom 6
(v. 1). The assumption, then, must be that the Christians are free from the
ordinances of the law. The abstract assertion that they are free from the condemnation that the law proclaims over sinners, while observing its actual
commandments, could hardly have given rise to objections or mocking questions about bad life among the .Christians (v. 1, 15).
We turn to passages which are not treated at all by Cranfield. In Gal 2.18
Paul says explicitly that he has (along with Peter and others) 'torn down' the
law or at least parts of it. The context shows that the reference is (at least
primarily) to the food regulations which Paul as well as Peter had once given
up (but which Peter and Bamabas had, under external pressure, taken seriouslyagain).21 To observe such ordinances is, for Paul, an fp'Yov vO/J.ov (v. 16).

21

It is debated whether Gal

2.15-21 in general and 2.18 in particular is meant as a

48

If. Is the law still in force?

Before the episode in Antioch both Paul and Peter had lived e'!Jvu<.wc; not
loooaikwc; (v. 14). Paul has, by dying to the law, changed a life for the law to
a life for God (v. 19). The attitude taken to the law is thus wholly negative,
and there is in the context nothing to suggest a limited sense for nomos.
Whatever oui vOIlOU in v. 19 may mean, the idea can hardly be that by discovering the true meaning of one aspect in the law, Paul become dead to
another!
The sweeping statements about a Christian's freedom, which to be sure
must not be misused and which can be voluntarily limited for the weaker
brother's sake, but which on principle is quite unlimited, also witness to the
fact that Paul felt free from the Torah. Thus, he can say with respect to foods
that 'nothing is unclean in itself' (Rom 14.14) or that 'everything is clean'
(Rom 14.20). Admittedly, what is spoken of in Rom 14 is not the Torah, but
an ascetic piety which mayor may not have been connected with some sectarian Jewish currents of the time. 22 Nevertheless, a statement so sweeping
in its implications would be very surprising in the mouth of one who considered the Torah as valid as ever. The point is reinforced in 1 Cor 10.23,
where Paul treats the question of meat offered to idols. This time, too, the
question of the law is not in focus; nevertheless, it is clear that the eating of
elow"AO'!Jura, an abomination for any 'normal' pious Jew, was an adiaphoron
for Paul. It is striking that he does not resort to the first commandment. 23
The tie between him and the Torah had been much relaxed indeed.
This is true not only of the ritual side of the Torah. The Corinthian slogan
'all things are lawful' ,cited twice by Paul (10.23 and 6.12), is used in 6.12 in
connection with a moral issue (fornication). The Corinthians seem to have
appealed to this slogan in favour of sexual licence, and Paul does nothing to
refute the principle as such! He knows that fornication is incompatible with
the life in Christ, but he has no code to which he could appeal to persuade

report of Paul's reply to Peter in Antioch, or whether he has at this point moved to
deal with the Galatian situation alone. In the latter case one could not draw from this
verse conclusions about the background of the Antiochian conflict. This is the view
of Ktimmel, 'Individualgeschichte' 161 f. It is clear that Paul has not just Peter in
view in 2.15 ff.; that is, he is also thinking of the situation in Galatia. But the point
is that he still has the Antiochian episode, too, before his eyes. It is precisely because
he sees an analogy between the two situations that he takes up the old conflict in the
new situation. Cf. Burton, Schlier, Oepke, Ridderbos, Mussner (135, 178); Ridderbos is falsely listed by Ktimmel as representing the narrower view.
22 Cf. Lietzmann. Some interpreters think that the talk of selecting 'days' (v. 5) may
reflect the process of the Sabbath giving way to Sunday (Dodd); yet fasting days or
some other special days may be meant (Lietzmann). Michel thinks nevertheless that
'Paul is consciously opposing Israel's understanding of the law', allocating the contrast of clean and unclean to the old aeon (Rom 432).
23 Cf. E.P. Sanders, Law 95.

The abolition of the law

49

the Corinthians about this, so that all he can do is to show how the slogan is
correctly interpreted: 24 Everything is lawful, to be sure, but everything is
not 'useful'.
One may ask, where the Corinthians got their slogan from. It is not impossible that it represents an element of Paul's own teaching in Corinth, from
which the Corinthians had later made inferences not intended by Paul. 25 If
this is so, if Paul had indeed said to the Corinthiansthat everything was lawful, such a statement must originally have belonged to the context of an
evaluation of the Jewish law;26 otherwise its libertinism is simply unintelligible. But even if the slogan does not go back to Paul.himself, it is striking that
Paul does not feel called to refute it. The slogan represents a sentiment shared
by him! All he can do is to argue for a different application of the libertinist
principle.
It would seem, then, that in his actual teaching Paul ignored the Torah the ritual and moral side alike. That much of his ethics actually confQrmed
to the standards laid down in the Torah is another matter. Paul is not. at all
without concrete standards, he is no moral anarchist. In the actual contents
of his ethics he is clearly a Jew.27 But he does not derive his moral exhortations formally from the Torah - despite occasional references to the Bible. 28
This is also clear from such passages as Rom 12.1-2, Phil 1.10 and Phil
4.8. The two first-mentioned passages admonish the Christians to examine
(OOK.IIl~'J)) what God's will is, what is 'good and well-pleasing and perfect'.
There is no code to tell this in all concrete situations ;29 cf. also Rom 14.22 f. 30
Phil 4.8 again summarizes the ideals of a Christian life in terms of popular
moral philosophy (no doubt mediated through the Hellenistic Synagogue).31
24 Cf. Burton, Gal 453.
25 Cf. Liitgert, Freiheitfpredigt 37 f.; Lietzmann (as a question); Drane, Paul 67 f.
('presumably'); HoItz, 'Frage' 387.
26 Holtz, ibid.
27 Sailders, op.cit. 94-96.
28 See Bliiser, Gesetz 229, and below. Bliiser (229 f.) notes: 'And how often would Paul
have had an opportunity to refer to the commandments of the Decalogue! That he
does not do so iildicates that even the Decalogue as such does not lay obligations
upon the Christian.'
29 In Rom 2.18 Paul says that the Jew 'examines' what is important (lio/u~re,~ Tli
IiWJpipoIJTa, cf. Phil 1.1O!) as well, but he adds: 'being instructed through the law'
(KD.T1/xov"eIJo~ E" TOU IJol'OV). Inst~d of the law, the Christian's lio",,,citew is guided
by the 'renewal of his mind' (Rom 12.2), his growing in E1rl-yIJWa,~ and a1a"r/a,~
(Phil 1.9). The lack of 'law' language in these contexts would seem symptomatic. Cf.
Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 89; Therrien,Discernement 179.
30 Rom 14 provides a concrete example of what lio"",citew could be in practice. The use
of the word in 14.22 shows that Paul recognizes the possibility of divergent opinions
in some matters at least as a consequence of the lio"",citew. Cf. Therrien, op.cit.
148-154.
31 Schrage, Einzelgebote 170 f. would take Xcrylrea"e in Phil 4.8 in a critical sense:

50

IL If the law ftillin force?

In summary, Paul's writings abound in statements which justify the claim

that a radical critique of the Torah is the 'unmistakable characteristic' of his
theology.32 That this is not the whole story we will see shortly. For the
moment the point is that this radical line of thought cannot be explained
away. Paul did assert that the Torah had been superseded in Christ.
It will be noted that the classical statement about Christ as the telos of
the law has not even been mentioned so far. This is because the interpretation
of that very verse is particularly disputed. But no matter whether Paul in that
particular place is speaking of the end or of the goal of the law, the existence
of the notion of Christ as the 'end' or termination of the law must be regarded as an established fact. Before turning to an exegesis of Rom 10.4,
-however, we will discuss a recent attempt to show that in Romans, at least,
Paul does not reject the law.

2. Is the 'law of faith' the Torah?

Peter von der Osten-Sacken and Hans Hubner have, independently of each
other, argued on the basis of Rom 3.27 and 8.2 that Paul did not, after all,
regard the Torah as abolished. Hubner makes, it will be remembered, a distinction between Galatians and Romans in this regard. 33 According to these
scholars, the expressions 'law of faith' (Rom 3.27) and 'the law of the Spirit
of life' (Rom 8.2) are not metaphorical ways of speaking of the new order of'
things or the like, as most interpreters have thought, but refer to the Torah. 34
When the Torah is, in faith in Christ, rightly interpreted, it is seen to be a 'law
of faith' and a 'law of Spirit'. These are proper designations of the Torah

Christians have to contemplate what men regard as good and right, but they have to
measure this by the' critical standards provided by apostolic teaching and example
(cf. v. 9). But it is surely artificial to take v. 9 as a limitation or corrective of the virtue list of v. 8 (as if the Philippians were to ponder all customary virtues but to realize only those of them that they have learnt from the apostle or seen come true in
him - a method which would in fact render the pondering superfluous). It is more
natural to take the verses together: the Philippians should keep in mind the virtues in
question and put them into practice, for it is along the same lines they have been
taught by the apostle in word and deed; cf. Gnilka ad loco I cannot fmd evidence for
the use of kcryLrel1&', in the Sense of 'ponder critically' in Paul.
32 Kiisemann, ROl11JlnB on 7.1-6.
33 See above, p. 8.
34 Wilckens, Romer 1189, 122 claims that there is in classical or Hellenistic Greek no evidence for 11&",0<; meaning 'rule' or 'order'. This is wrong. To mention only cases
where 11&",0<; is used with a genitive: 11&",0<; or IJI)/lO' 'lrok~ designates the kind of
conduct usually show!! in a war: Josephus,Bel'. 11,90; VI, 239.346.353;Ant. I, 315;
XV, 157; Polybios 11, 58, 10 etc. Sometimes 'lroke/lOv 110"'''' means simply 'in a war',
e.g. Appianus, Bafil. I, 2. To walk 110"'''' 'lrO",mj<; means 'in a procession' (Polyaenus,
Strategem. V, 5, 2); 110"'''' optkla<; again 'in a friendly way' (id. VII, 11,6). A man and
a woman can have intercourse KaT' lpWTO<; 1I0/lOII (Antonius Diogenes in Photios,

Is the 'law of faith' the Torah?

51

'insofar as one responds to it in faith'. 35 The 'law of faith' designates 'the right
attitude to God's will ... as it fmds its expression in the Torah'. 36
-There is a growing tendency among scholars to take nomo~ in the passages
in question 'literally' as a reference to the Torah,37 even if Osten-Sacken and
HUbner have gone farther than others in their concluSions. I have discussed
this interpretation in detail elsewhere 38 and believe that a short resume will
suffice here.
The main fault with the 'literal' interpretation is that it fails to take the
linguistic structure of the verses in question seriously. Both in 3.27 and 8.2
the nomos has a very active role. 3.27 states that boasting was excluded (once
and for all, aorist ~~"AlutJ1/)39 through the VOJlOl; 1TluTWr;. The nomos is
thus the instrument, by which boasting (namely, the boasting of the Jew of
his distinction with respect to the Gentile) was excluded. This is hardly a way
to describe the role of the Torah in the Christ event.40 von der Osten-Sacken
and HUbner have recourse to circumlocutions that do not correspond to the
syntax of the text. They interpret it as a statement of what has happened to
the Torah through faith (the true understanding of the Torah in faith has
Bibl. 109a 25 f.). /) II0j.lO<; rr'j<; laTopla<; (Josephus. Bell. I, 11) or rij<; 'Ypacp1j<; (Bell.
V, 20) refers to the rules of historiography, o! dAA1I'Y0pla<; 11&1'0' (Philo, Somn. I,
102) to those of allegorical exegesis. o! aWlppoaVII1I<; 1101'0' are the rules of modesty
(Philo, Spec. leg. IV: 96) and o! 1101'0' rr'j<; OlKOIIO;'Kij<; dpe.,ij<; thje rules of good
economy (Spec. leg. 11, 187). Perhaps the most striking case of all-oeeurs in Josephus,
Ant. I, 230. Abraham :there tells Isaac that he is to leave this life IIdl'Y' "vala<;,
'through the rites of sacrifice', rather than by the common road (TOil KOI.llbll TpinrOU).
1161'0<; is here almost equivalent to -,pinro<;. The list is by no means exhaustive .. See
now Riiisiinen, 'Sprachliches'.
When Wilckens adds in a footnote (Romer 11 122 n. 491) that 'vor allem aber
fehlen Belege fUr die Vorstellung verschiedener, gar einander entgegengesetzter
"Ordnungen" bzw. "Normen", diejeweils als 1101'0<; c.gen. bezeichnet wiirden', he is
obviously requiring too much. Such an argument would hit Wilckens's own interpretation as well (where are the precedents for juxtaposing two 1101'0' with genitive referring to two aspects of the same law?!). Nevertheless, in the last mentioned examplefrom the Antiquities Josephus could have used II0j.lO<; (in the sense of 'way') twice.
35 von der Osten-Sacken,Romer 8, 245.
36 HUbner, Gesetz 119 f.; cf. id., 'Proprium' 465 f.
37 For 3.27 Friedrich, 'Gesetz'i Cranfield; for 8.2 Fuchs, Freiheit 85; for both verses
Lohse, '1101'0<; '; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstiindnis 38, 41, 47 -49;. Wilckens; more references
in Riiisiinen, 'Gesetz'. Cf. now also Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 112, 160; Byrne, Sons
92 n. 47; Gaston, 'Paul' 65; Meyer, 'Erid' 73; also Berger, 'Abraham' 64 f ..
38 Riiisanen, 'Gesetz'.
39 Cf.. Sanday-Headlam: 'an instance of the "summarizing" force of the aorist; ''is shut
out once for all", "by one decisive act". St. Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its continued result.'Wilckens's suggestion that the unmentioned predicate of v. 27 might be supplied from v. 28 (6'KawiiTa,) rather than from
v. 27 (~teKAela"1I) is implauSible.
40 Wilckens's interpretation that the 'Torah of faith' is the Torah insofar as it is 'related
to faith' fac!'S the same difficulty.
0

52

If. Is the law still in force?

given the law its proper place).41 Paul, however, speaks of what has happened
to boasting through the 'law' of faith. Nomos mustbe metaphorical; the new
'order of faith' is being referred to. It is hard to avoid seeing a polemical
nuance in the choice of words: the 'law of works' (3.27), that is the order of
the Torah, has been replaced by another 'law', which is actually the opposite
of the old one. 42
In 8.2 the sentence runs: the nomos of the Spirit of life in Christ has
liberated thee from the nomos of sin and death. The first nomos is thus the
subject of man's liberation. Paul is not saying that the man who understands
the law in the right way will experience the Torah as the law of Spirit.43 The
subject of the event in question is the nomos, not the understanding man! 44
Paul is speaking ofthe 'order' ofthe Spirit. There is no reason to abandon the
until recently almost universally accepted view that in these two passages Paul
is playing with words and using nomos - this time consciously, to be sure! in different senses. That he is conscious of what he is doing is clear from the
fact that the word nomos is each time furnished with a qualifying genitive.
As for 8.2, this word-play starts in 7.21-25, a passage where nomos is used in
three or four different senses!45 In both cases the choice of the word nomos
seems to be polemical; the positive nomos stands in contrast to the 'law of
works' (3.28) or to the 'law of sin and death' (8.2). It is these negative expressions alone that denote the Torah or at least the state of affairs closely
associated with the reign of the Torah46 , and not the positive ones! Rom
3.27 f. and 8.2 support the conclusion that Paul often speaks of the actual
abolition of the Torah.

41 von der Osten-8acken, op.cit. 245; HUbner, op.cit. 119.

42 Cf. Kasemann, op.cit. 103, 215; Gyllenberg, Rechtfertigung 20.
43 Against HUbner, op.cit. 125 f. Wilckens, too, distorts the syntax of the sentence
when hewrites: 'Thus the sentence 8.2 describes(!) the annulment of all condemnation that took place in Christ (v. 1) as a turn in the law itself (his italics) from its
condemning function to the function that annuls this condemnation.' von der OstenSacken, 'Befreiung' 350 emphasizes that we have 'to cling without compromise to
Paul's wording', but does not do so in his own paraphrase 'of Rom 8.2: 'Durch den
Geist Gottes ... wird: das Gesetz ... aus einem Medium der Stinde und des Todes zur
Weisung der Gerechtigkeit und des Lebens.' (355). The syntactical position of vO/Jo~
also warns against equating the law of the Spirit with 'the new morality' or with an
'inner law' (thus Michels,Paul 31,49).
44 This mistake is especially clear in Fuchs, op.cit. 85, 87. In his short reply to me
Hubner (Gesetz 136 f.) evades the real issue by positing 'a .fundamental theological
dissent' between us. For me, the issue at stake is a strictly syntactical one.
45 See Raisanen, art.cit. 113 f. In this passage nomos is always used with a genitive
except in v. 23a where it has the attributive HTPO~ and in v. 21 where the unusual
meaning 'rule' is made plain in a clause which explicates the nature of the nomos
(v. 21bc).
46 In 3.28 the meaning may be 'the order of justification by works' rather than simply

The 'end of the law'

53

3. The 'end of the law'

The meaning of TA.Oe; in Rom 10.4 is, now as before, disputed. Is Christ
the 'end' of the law (in the sense of terrnination)47, or is he its 'goal,?48
According to a popular interpretation Paul had both aspects simultaneously
in his rnind.49 Given Paul's loose use of VOf.lOC; (Ch. I), it is hard to exclude
categorically a comparable looseness in the use of another term. 50
The decision is made difficult by the fact that there are indications in the
context pointing in both directions. The 'goal' interpretation ties with 9.3033, esp. v. 31: 'IapallA. 6e 6t.WK.wV VOf.lOV 6U<atoaVvllC; eie; VOf.lOV obK. <{J~aaev.
One would have expected Paul to write that Israel was striving at 'the
righteousness of the law', but did not attain 'righteousness'. Instead, the text
as we have it 51 reads: Israel, striving at the 'law of righteousness', did not
'arrive at the law'. In view of these striking reversals of the genitive relationship it is difficult not to think of the realisation or otherwise of the true

'the Torah that requires works', but this distinction is academic. The expression in
8.2 takes up the phrase 'the nomos of sin' from 7.23c. In 7.23c the reference is not
to the Torah, but to the 'rule' (nomos) described in v. 21. But the rule of not being
able to do what one wants to do applies to man under the Torah. In 8.2 these two
1101'0 seem to melt together (this time unconsciously, it would seem), for in 8.3
which is meant as a logical sequel to v. 2 b 1I01'O~ clearly denotes the Torah.
47 E.g. Lipsius, Lietzmann, Lagrange, Michel, Murray, Best, Kiisemann, Jervell, Nikolainen; Luz, Geschichtsllerstiindnis 139 ff.; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit 93; Jiingel,
Paulus 52 f.; Delling, 'TEAO~ 57; Zeller, Juden 193; van der Minde, Schrift 107 n. 2;
Dugandzic, 'Ja' 65-71. - Paul is sometimes wrongly quoted as saying that 'Christ is
the end of the law for every believer' with the implication that the law is still in force
for the non-believers; cf. Nygren; Longenecker, Paul 152 f. What Paul actually says,
however, is that Christ is the 'Tf!AO~ of the law to the effect that the possibility of
righteousness is open to every believer.
48 E.g. Cranfield, 'Paul' 40; Romans 516-520; Blaser, Gesetz 177; Bring, Christus
49; Ellis, Use 119; M. Barth, 'Stellung' 516f.; Baules, Evangile 231; Fliickiger, 'Christus'; Demann, 'Moses' 256; Howard, 'Christ'; von der Osten-Sacken, op.cit. 255f.;
J.A. Sanders, 'Torah' 382f.; Fuller, Gospel 84f.; Worgul, 'Romans 9-11' 101; W.S.
Campbell, 'Christ'; Meyer 'End'.
49 Fleischhauer, 'Gesetzeslehre' 64; Wiles, 'Conception' 144; Ladd, 'Paul' 58; Furnish,
Theology 161; Drane, Paul 133; Bandstra, Elements 101 ff; Feuillet, 'Loi' 794 (who
thinks that this is the most common interpretation); cf. Byrne, 'Sons' 172 f. n. 136;
Harrington, People 62. This interpretation actually comes close to the option 'goal'.
50 Differing from the first edition, I grant this point to Wedderburn, SJTh 38, 1985,
615.
51 It is possible, of course, that Paul was careless in dictating this passage, or that the
secretary failed to catch the intended meaning (cf. Lietzmann); yet it would be precarious to divert from the extant wording. The two surprising expressions cohere and
support each other. The attempts to take nomos in a metaphorical sense (like 3.27 or
7.21), meaning 'norm', 'position' and the like (Grafe, Lehre 10; Sanday-Headlam;
Murray) are unconvincing.

54

11. Is the law still in force?

purpose of the Torah. There is no critique of the law here. Instead, Israel is
blamed for not 'arriving' where it, on the basis of the law, ought to have
arrived. 52 Israel did not strive after righteousness in faith (v. 32), since it
failed to believe in Christ (v. 33).53 Had Israel understood what the law really
was about, it would have realized that the law points to Christ and drives men
to believe in him. It would be a fair summary of this passage to say that
Christ is the goal of the law. The same point is made later on in 11.7: except
for the elect remnant, Israel 'failed to obtain what it sought'. Paul presupposes that the salvation in Christ is what Israel has been seeking and what it
ought to have obtained because a/the attention paid by it to the law.
The TAOC; statement Rom 10.4 does not, however, follow immediately
after 933. There is a break after that verse; in 10.1 a new passage is clearly
opened with the address 'brethren,.54 In this passage, which constitutes the
immediate context of v. 4, Paul uses polemical language about the law. 55
There is a polemical contrast between the 'righteousness from the law' about
which Moses has written (v. 5) and 'the righteousness from faith' which
speaks of Christ (v. 6). In view of this, bearing in mind that v. 5 is connected
with an explanatory 'Yap to the previous verse, the nomos in v. 4 must be
associated with the righteousness from the law disqualified in v. 5. It must
then belong together with the 'own' righteousness which the Jews try to
establish (v. 3). With regard to such a law Christ can only be its end!
Supporters of the 'goal' interpretation must deny that a contrast is intended
betweenv. 5 and v. 6,56 which has resulted in some quite eccentric exposi52 It is not said that this was because the law had been perverted to 'a summons to
achievement' (thusKiisemann, Romans 277).

53 Cf. van Dtihnen, Theologie 177 f. For the exegesis ofv. 32-33 see below, p. 174 f.
54 Fltickiger, art.cit. 154 detects in 6LWKeW the image of a race and concludes that only
'goal' is compatible with this. In the new passage beginning with d6e"l"pol in 10.1
Paul does not, however, use pictorial language at all. Fltickiger (154 f.) claims that
supporters of the 'end' interpretation are bound to break the logical connection of
v. 4 with the preceding context even though 'YcIp denotes a connection backwards.
But this is not true; it is only that this connection does not reach as far back as 9.3033. The 'YcIp, on the 'end' interpretation, connects v. 4 with vv. 1-3.
55 Cf. Michel, Jervell, H.W. Schmidt, Nikolainen; Delling, art. cit. 57.
56 Fltickiger, art.cit. 155 claims that a contrast would require jlEv-M instead of mere
6e; cf. Fuller, Gospel 67; but in 9.30-31, too, jlev is lacking and 6e alone indicates
the contrast between the Gentiles and Israel. On the other hand, 'YOp-6e need not
indicate a contrast (cf. 10.10) so that the syntax remains inconclusive. Fltickiger also
comments. that it is not Paul's habit to look for contradictions in Scripture and to
cite the OT in order to show that it is invalid; cf. Fuller, op.cit. 70. But this is not
what Paul is doing on the 'contrast' interpretation either; rather, he wants to show
positively that 'righteousness from faith' is found in the OT already. Against the contrast are also. Blaser, op.cit. 175 ff.; Howard, art.cit. 335 f. Note, however, that even
Cianfield, Romans 520, considers it plain that a contrast is intended; for his peculiar
interpretation of it see the following note.

The 'end of the law'

55

tions of v. 5.57 All such attempts are made futile through Gal 3.10-12. In
this passage Paul cites Lev 18.5, the same verse as in Rom 10.5, to make precisely the same point: 'law' and 'faith' are principles that are opposed to each
other. 'The law is not from faith, but he who does them wi1llive by them'
(Gal 3.12).58
An argument used to support the 'goal' interpretation has been that the
prediction of the 'righteousness from faith' in Rom 10.6-8 is actually taken
from the law itself (Deut 30). Such a hermeneutical procedure is only possible, it is argued, on the assumption that Christ is the fulfIlment of the Torah;
verses 5 ff. thus speak for the interpretation of TeAo~ as 'fulfIlment' rather
than 'end,.59 Yet one should bear in mind that e.g. the author of Hebrews,
too, builds his whole argument on the Old Testament. In this sense the Old
Testament is valid for him, and Christ is its goal. And yet the author views the
old covenant as superseded, being even more explicit than Paul in this respect. 60 And even the anti-Jewish letter of Bamabas regards the Old Testament as a supreme authority.61 The use of the law as a gold-mine of prooftexts and arguments does not, therefore, prove that the person using it cannot
also regard it as superseded in some fundamental sense.
The argument, again, that had Paul thought that the law had come to an
end, he ought to have insisted that the Jews and Jewish Christians give up

57 Bring, Christus 54 understands 'the righteousness from the law' in 10.5 as the righteousness, 'von der das Gesetz in seine m tiefsten Sinne spricht'; 0 1TOL.,j(1a~ dV"PW1TO~
is the man who does not look for righteousness of works, but pursues it 'on the path
of faith'. 'Doing' means believing! In 'Paul', 49 f., Bring develops his system further:
Deut 30.11 f., quoted by Paul in Rom 10.6-8, speaks (in the original context) of
the commandment (EVTOi\.,j) of the law. Even though Paul leaves this unmentioned,
Bring infers that the commandment of the law which deals with righteousness 'has
now become incarnate in Christ'; thus, 'one could say that Christ is the commandment, in its fulfilled and revealed form'. 'Christ is himself the law of God and the
command of God'; 'he is the commandment (EVToi\.,j) which brought righteousness
to one who kept it (0 1Tot.,j(1a~)'!
For Cranfield, 'Paul' 49, the dV"PW1TO~ of v. 5 is Christ! Christ fulfilled the law
'by doing perfectly that which is required and has thereby earned eternal life not just
for Himself but also for all those who will believe in him'. a. id., Romans 521 f. The
contrast between v. 5 and v. 6 is thus one between the righteous status of Christ and
that of men (and thus no real contrast). Cf. also Bandstra, op.cit. 104.
58 To be sure, Bring, Christus 55-62 would interpret 'doing' as believing here a"s well;
but see the use of 1Totiv in Gal 5.3 - the clearest possible commentary on 3.10.
59 von der Osten.sacken, op.cit. 255; Cranfield,Romans 519;Williams, 'Righteousness'
284. Williams paraphrases Rom 10.4: 'with respect to the attaining of righteousness
Christ is the end of the Law' (but in no other sense); cf. Longenecker, op.cit. 144 f.
But l~ 6tKCltoaVvrw denotes the consequence of the Ti\O~ VO~V statement as a
whole; linguistically it can hardly be interpreted as a qualification of VOl-'ov.
60 See below, p. 208.
61 See below, p. 220 f.

56

If. Is the law still in force?

the law in the ftrst place, is inconclusive. 62 Paul, along with others, did 'tear
down' the law (Gal 2.18), and he at least insists that Jewish Christians should
not put any crucial emphasis on their observance (or non-observance!) of the
law.
Finally, it should be noted that 2 Cor 3.13 supports strongly the meaning
'end'. Of course, Paul is there not speaking explicitly about the law, but
about the fading glory of Moses' face. Yet this glory is closely associated with
the 'letter' and the 'ministry of death'. The glory on Moses' face when receiving the tablets stands for the vanishing grandeur of all that, and its telos
deftnitely means its end. 63
In summary, I believe that Paul could have written that Christ is the goal
of the law. Some such statement would have been quite appropriate after
9.30-33; such a formula would also neatly summarize Paul's concern in Rom
3.21 or Gal 4.21. It is important to him that Christ and the righteousness
through faith can be found already in Scripture. Yet Rom 10.4, in view of the
immediate context of this verse, does not ftt into this line of thought. In this
verse Paul is concerned about the contrast between law and faith. In his
theology differing lines of thought can be found even in adjacent passages (or
in one and the same passage).

4. Why was the law abolished?

How and why was the law abolished? Paul suggests several answers to
this question.
1. He points out that the law was given just for a limited period of time.
Gal 3.19 makes it clear that the law was to be in force 'till the offspring
should come to whom the promise had been made', i.e. until the coming of
Christ. The provisional character of the law is underlined even more by the
other statements about it in the same verse (to be discussed later on64 ),
namely, its purely negative purpose of bringing about transgressions and its
merely angelic origin. The God-willed temporallirnitation of the law is also
assumed in verses 23-25. 'We' were confined under the law 'before faith

62 Against Fliickiger, art.cit. 156. He adds that Gentiles had never been under the law,
so that to speak of an 'end' of the law for them would have had no meaning. But,
apart from the fact that Paul's language at times suggests that even Gentiles had not
been free from the law (see above, ch. I), the 'end of the law' does have great significance precisely for Gentiles in Paul's thought: it makes their inclusion in the people
of God possible.
63 TlAO~ is even here interpreted as 'goal' by Bring, Christus 48; id., 'Paul' 34 f.; Bandstra, op.cit. 82; Hering; but even Cranfield, 'Paul' 59 n. 3 admits that this 'is really
not feasible'. Curiously, Siegwalt (Loi 117) who accepts the meaning 'termination'
for TlAO~ in Rom 10.4 would take the word in the sense of 'goal' in 2 Cor 3.13.
64 See below, p.128 ff., 140 ff.

Why was the law abolished?

57

came' (v. 23). The law was our custodian 'until Christ came' (ei<; xpwrov)65
(v. 24); 'now that faith has come we are no longer under a custodian' (v. 25).
A similar point is made in 2 Cor 3. The old Mosaic order, symbolized by
the tablets of stone, on which the letter of the law was carved, as well as by
the ministry of Moses, is characterized as something 'fading away' (v. 11),
as opposed to the new covenant, which is 'permanent'. The old order is likewise designated as 'fading away' in v. 13, where Paul sets forth 'one of the
most unusual exegetical arguments ever contrived,66, when he suggests that
the reason for Moses' putting a veil over his face (Ex 34.33, 35) was his will
to prevent the Israelites from seeing that the splendour on his face faded
away. The splendour on Moses' face here stands for the relatively small glory
of the Mosaic order. The logical conclusion from Paul's ingenious exposition
would no doubt be that Moses deceived his peofle, leading them to ascribe
to the law an eternal and glorious character. 6 This conclusion was not,
however, intended by Paul, as v. 14 shows: 68 the Jews' stubborn clinging
to the law is a consequence of hardening (explained in 4.4 as diabolic blinding69 ) rather than of any act of Moses. The point of the passage is that right
from the beginning the Sinaitic order finds itself in a process of 'fading away',
making room for something better.
2. Secondly, PaUl suggests in Gal 2.19 that the abolition of the law was,
somehow or other, due to the law itself. 'I through the law died to the law,
that I might live to God.' The precise meaning of oui VOf.J.OV is far from clear;
Paul gives no clue as to the meaning of this 'abbreviation,70. Three explanations have been suggested. The first one, according to which Paul is hintin~
at his alleged bitter experiences under the law 71 can be safely dismissed. 7
Others point out that the law itself, for Paul, pointed to Christ, whether in
pronouncing the death sentence over the sinner 73 or in confining everybody
65 The phrase is to be taken in a temporal sense as is acknowledged by almost all modern
interpreters.

66 Buck-Taylor, Saint-Paul 63. Cf. Strachan, ad loco Hooker, 'Use' 296-305 offers some

67
68
69
70
71
72

73

interesting comments on Paul's logical troubles in the passage in question. The

strained character of Paul's exegetical argument makes the theory attractive that heois
reinterpreting a midrash of his opponents (Schulz, 'Decke' 26 ff.; Georgi, Gegner
265 ff.); yet one wonders why Paul should have resorted to so indirect a comment.
Against the assumption of a midrash e.g. Collange, Enigmes 68.
Buck-Taylor, op.cit. 63; Vos, Untersuchungen 139.
Cf. Blaser, Gesetz 209.
It is therefore questionable whether God is thought of by Paul as the subject of the
hardening in 3.14; thus Windisch ad loco In the light of Rom 9 this is, of course,
possible.
Cf. Betz ad loco
Duncan; R.E. Howard,Newness 83.
Cf. below, VIllI.
Lietzmann.

58

11. Is the law still in force?

under sin 74. Still others speculate that it was the law that caused Christ to die
(3.13) and, as a \consequence, his followers to be crucified 'with Christ'
(2.19b).75 It is difflcult,however, to find in Paul the idea that the law caused
the death of Christ; that the death of Christ caused the curse pronounced by
the law to be removed is surely something different. Perhaps the general
and somewhat vague idea that, by pointing to Christ as the redeemer, the law
pointed beyond itself and thus paved the way for the Christian's liberation
from it, is a sufficient explanation. 76 Whatever may have been the precise
intention of Paul, the emphasis in his statement lies certainly on the idea that
his freedom from the law (his 'tearing' it down, v. 18!) was not an arbitrary
decision of his. It was something necessitated by the law itself. 77
It may be admissible to detect a similar point in Rom 7.1 ff. The expression rwwOIwvaw rap VOjl.OV XaXw no doubt refers to the Jewish law. 78
To 'know' the law probably has the overtones of having some understanding
of its true meaning: Paul says that he is speaking to those 'who understand
what the law is all about'. 79 Those who can get the real meaning of the law
can realize that the law itself points to the abolition of the bond that ties
man to it (according to Rom 7.1 ff. this much can be inferred from a principle inherent in the legal practice; see below, p. 61).
Another important point is that the Christian's freedom from the law is
equivalent to death. Paul has died to the law. This idea seems to be a specifically Pauline variation of the common Christian notion that, in baptism, the
Christian shares in the destiny of Christ and, being crucified with him, dies to
sin. This idea is taken up and developed by Paul in Rom 6.2-11. As we will
see in a later chapter, sin and law are closely connected in their functions in
the mind of Paul; it is perhaps no wonder then that he comes to speak of a
death to the law as well in the life of a Christian. In Rom 6 Paul suggests that
death makes it possible for a bond such as that tying man to sin to be broken
(Rom 6.7). In Rom 7 he goes further, arguing that it is death alone that can
break such a bond as unites man with the law. The same idea may be implicit
in Gal 2.19 as well. To be sure, Paul is here thinking of the death ofthe Christian to the law, whereas in Rom 7.4 the most important thing is the death of
Christ; by sharing in this, however, Christians are dead to the law (7.4,6).

74 Betz.
75 Oepke, Schlier; Blliser, op.cit. 225 f.; van Diilmen, Theologie 26; Tannehill, Dying
58 f.; Buftmann, Exegetica 397; Weder, Kreuz 176 f.; Thiising, Per Chn'stum 87.
76 Cf. Gyllenberg, who assumes intentional ambiguity behind the abbreviation.
77 The importance of this for Paul is emphasized by Linton, 'Paulus' 183 f.; cf. Dahl,
Studies 175.

78 Thus most modern commentators, e.g. Lietzmann, Leenhardt, Michel, Kuss, Cranfield, Barrett; Schmithals, Romerbrief 87. Differently Kasemann.

79 Thus Miche1; cf. also Cranfield.

Why was the law abolished?

59

This importance ascribed to death as a condition of freedom from the law

would seem to stand in some tension at least with the idea that the law was
designed to hold its sway for a limited period of time only. The argument
from death presupposes that the law reigns further in the world; it is only
when certain legal requirements are met that certain persons can escape from
under its sway.
3. We have already anticipated Paul's third answer. It is not only the
Christian that has to 'die'. It is in fact the death of Christ that has liberated
and, obviously, was needed to liberate men from under the law. This is stated
as a thesis in Gal 3.13 (cf. 4.4 f.) and the point is developed with the aid of
an analogy from marriage law in Rom 7.1-6.
In Gal 3.13 Paul uses dramatic language. Christ redeemed us from the
curse pronounced by the law by becoming 'a curse', i.e. accursed, for us. This
is clear from the manner of his execution for Scripture (Deut 21.23) says,
'Cursed be evef6 one who hangs on a tree'. In agreement with other interpreters of his time 8 Paul applies this statement to crucifixion.
By taking upon himself the curse deservedly impending on us, Christ has
redeemed us from this curse. This much is clear, granting the premise. It is
not clear, however, that the thesis about the abolition of the law follows logically from the notion of a vicarious curse. If the requirement of the law is
met, why should it follow that the law is to be rejected after that? There is
hardly any reason to doubt that Paul's Jewish Christian opponents shared the
notion of Christ's death inrep 1If.1WV; yet they did not draw the conclusion
that the law had come to an end. Paul's statement in 3.13 would seem to be a
specific application of this general Christian soteriology: the death on behalf
of us is interpreted as bearing the curse on behalf of us~81
Paul at any rate concludes that, because of the death of Christ, the law is
for the Christian a thing of the past. It cannot require anything of him any
more. This is clear from the context of Gal 3.13 where those 'under curse'
(v. 10) are identical with those who 'rely on works of the law'. The same
conclusion is drawn, e.g., in Gal 5.1: 'For freedom Christ has set us free'.
The idea of 3.13 stands, however, in tension with 3.19. If the law was just a
temporary arrangement from the outset (3.19), is it not strange that an act as
dramatic as the death of Christ was needed to liberate men from it?82 It is
804 Q pNah 3-4 I 6-8;Temple Scroll 64, 6-13; Justin, Dial. 32.1, 89.2,90.1,94.5.
Cf. H-W. Kuhn, 'Jesus' 33 f.
81 Cf. Mussner.
82 Cf. Drane, Paul 6; sharply von Hartmann, Christentum 222: 'Das zur Aufhebung
bestimmte Gesetz istganz ausser stande, den gottlichen Entschliessungen einen Zwang
aW;zuerlegen und die Ausserungen del gottlichen Barmherzigkeit an formelle Bedinguilgen zu knUpfen, bloss urn dem Gesetze formell genug zu tun.' The contradiction
would be quite intolerable, had Paul only had the curse of a misunderstood law (legalism) in mind (thus Burton ad loc.).

60

11. Is the law still in force?

often said that since men had transgressed the law, the death of Christ was
rendered necessary because of God's justice and holiness. 'The law is a holy
divine order, an expression of God's will, and God the Righteous One does
not simply disregard his holy order. The order had to be satisfied .. .'83 The
notion of a law with such impositions even on God stands in an irreconcilable
contrast with Gal 3.19-25 or with 2 Cor 3. If that is what Paul meant then it
is he, not his Jewish contemporaries, who makes God 'serve the law' or makes
the law an absolute entity between God and man (a sin commonly ascribed
to non-Christian Jews by Christian interpreters 84 ).
It i~ doubtful, however, whether Paul really had in mind a Law that must
be satisfied at all costs. The origin of Gal 3.13 probably lies in reflections of
an apologetic nature concerning the manner of Jesus' death which was bo~nd
to present a grave difficulty to any law-abiding Jew like the Pharisee Paul.
How could one who died as 'cursed' (by God, as the original text; shortened
by Paul in his quotation, says!) be God's chosen Christ? Whether or not the
idea of Christ's vicarious death as a whole arose from reflections on the problem posed by the crucifixion,8S need not be decided here. For Paul, the idea
of Christ's vicarious death on behalf of us was already a fixed part of the
gospel (cf. Rom 3.24 ff., 5.6 ff., 8.3, 8.32; 2 Cor 5.21; Gal 2.20, etc.). But
the particular interpretation of this idea in Gal 3.13 would seem to owe its
origin to Paul's reflections on the cross. If so, Paul was concerned with the
scandal of the manner ofJesus' death rather than with the nature of the law.
In any case the emphasis would seem to lie in the other passages on God's
free initiative (cf. esp. 2 Cor 5.18-21). God's action was needed because of
the plight of mankind86 rather than dictated by the nature of the law. Thus
Rom 3.24 f. portrays the offering of Christ as God's response to the fact that
'all had sinned' (v. 23). In Rom 8.3 God's work is seen as an improvement on
the efforts of the law: what the law was unable to do, God himself brought
about - the idea can here hardly be that the law was unable to satisfy itself!
I cannot find in the other passages the idea of a law which had to be satisfied. If that is correct, then it is precarious to read such an idea into Gal3.!3
where it is not required by the context either.
83 Thus Blaser, op.cit. 218; cf. Bring. Oepke goes as far as to state that God himself
must 'tragically let the law rage further until it is satisfied'. In this way 'God creates
for himself the possibility (!) of getting rid of the law notwithstanding his holiness'!
Would this not be casuistry at its worst?
84 See below, p. 164.
85 Cf. e.g. Dinkler, Signum 37; Schrage, 'Vershindnis' 51 ff.; Williams, Death.
86 That even this idea is a secondary conclusion resulting from the interpretation of the
Christ-event as redemptive is another matter. What Christ's death red,eemed men from
need not always be identical, and the meaning may not have been for others so sweeping as it appears in Paul. Yet we will see that even for Paul the idea of a hopeless
plight of mankind is a secondary theoretical abstraction rather than a primary con.
viction; see below, pp. 107 ff.

Why was the law abolished?

61

The idea of Christ bearing vicariously the curse pronounced over mankind
by the law was, then, the solution of one particular problem (the manner of
Christ's death) and of nothing else. 87
It is, for example, rather absurd to ask to whom the 'ransom' was paid. 88
Speculations about a law so mighty that God has only one way to satisfy
its requirement may constitute a logical consequence of Paul's statement
within a certain framework of thought, but it can hardly be a consequence
intended by Paul himself. If this is so, the contradiction between the first
and last answer to the question of our heading is somewhat mitigated.
In Rom 7.1-6 Paul develops the notion of the death of Christ as the
rationale for the Christians' freedom from the law. The argument used is
curious.89 Paul starts from the idea that a law is binding for a human being as
long as he or she lives. 90 One would expect the conclusion to be: when a
man dies, he is free from the law; Paul actually states this much in v. 4a. 91
Verses 2:--3, however, introduce a picture that confuses more than clarifies
the issue. Logically, a picture would be needed in which the one who dies
corresponds to the Christian who, according to Paul, has 'died' (with Christ)
to the law. In Paul's analogy, however, it is not the wife who dies, but the
first husband, and he must correspond to the law. Christ is then introduced
as the new hUSBand, as Tei; ETP4J in 4b (referring to dv~pi Tep4J in 3b)
shows. 92 The analogy is simply confusing: it suits neither the opening state-

87 Byrne's assertion ('Sons' 154 f.) that according to Gal 2.19, Rom 7.1-6 and Rom
6.4-7 we, too, 'have paid the penalty, hanging upon the cross with Christ ... ,and
this is why we are now free from the curse of the Law' is hazardous in the extreme;
according to him, 'we are able to die and so allow the Law to satisfy the claim it has
upon us'.
88 Bliiser, op.cit. 218 thinks it was paid to the law.
89 On Rom 7.1"':'6 see Gale, Analogy 189-198.
90 Against Hommel, '7. Kapitel' 93, who thinks of the law as the subject of !;ti in v. 1.
Besides being a very unnatural usage this would spoil the correspondence between
6.7 ff. and 7.1 if.
91 The argument corresponds formally to the Rabbinic rule 'as soon as a man has died
he is free from the Torah and from the commandments' (Shab 30a); cf. Schoeps,
Paul 171 and Billerbeck III 232 for further evidence. It seems, however, that Paul
does not take advantage of this Rabbinic principle. If Paul had proceeded from 7.1
right aWaY to the conclusion in v. 4, then the thesis might be plausible that he was
simply drawing his own personal conclusions from general Rabbinic premises. The
fact, however, that he resorts to the example set forth in v. 2-3 shows that he is
looking for analogies in the law and does not have a clear-cut 'ready-made' argument
at his disposal. Anyway, no Rabbi would have accepted the assertion of a metaphorical death as a sufficient condition for the rule mentioned to be in force.
92 The talk of 'bearing fruit' in verses 4 b-5 is an agricultural metaphor which has nothing to do with the manjage picture (against Dodd, ad loc.; Hommel, art.cit. 91, 94);
correctly Gale, op.cit., 196-198~

II. Is the law still in force?

62

ment (v. 1) nor the conclusion (v. 4).93 It is no valid argument against this
common sense observation that 'it would at least be strange if Paul had
proved the idea of the Christians' freedom from the law, which was so important to him, with such a false picture'. 94 The fact remains that Paul did resort
to just such a 'false picture', or to a halting comparison. 95 This appears to be
symptomatic. Apparently, Paul had no convenient and persuasive arguments
at hand, by which he could have without pains demonstrated that freedom
from the law is the obvious consequence of Christ's death and the Christian's
death with him. He also had to resort to an equally halting analogy (of a will,
which would logically have required the death of God!) in Gal 3.15 ff. 96 Paul
was at pains to fmd some argument at least for his radical conGlusion!

5. The fulfilment of the law

We have thus far found in Paul clear statements to the effect that the law
has indeed be~n superseded in Christ. Yet is would be one-sided to conclude
that Paul is a 'consistent antinomist'97 who rejects the law altogether 98 . To
be able to hold fast to such a picture one has to ignore or to explain away
Pauline statements which have quite a different ring. 99 Such statements

93 Correctly Lietzmann, Dodd, T.W. Manson ad loco Kiimmel, Romer 7, 38 denies the
weakness of the analogy by appealing to the associative character of oriental logic; cf.
further Lagrange, Kiisemann and Cranfield ad loco Klisemann, Romans 187 states that
'the only point of comparison is that death dissolves obligations valid throughout
life'. This is wrong, for the idea of the wife married (reVT/TaL, 'YEVO'.If~V1J) to the new
husband (dv6pl eTeP4J twice in v. 3) reappears in the application in v. 4 (el~ TO
'Yevea"aL j)j.Lii~ ETeP4J). As fat as the main thrust of Paul~s thought is concerned, it is
of course true that 'belonging to Christ does not presuppose the end of obligation to
the law; it establishes it' (Klisemann), but in Rom 7.1--4 Paul nevertheless attempts
to argue the other way round, looking for arguments for his position in the law itself
(as he "does also in Gal 3.15 ff., 4.21 ff., Rom 10.5 ff.)
Cranfield, followed by Wilckens, underlines that it is .not a question of a parable
at all; wUTe (instead of oi1TW~) is not a word of comparison. But the Ill in v. 6
shows anyway that Paul does think of an analogy between the example set forth in
vv. 2-3 and the situation of the Christians.
Gifford, Sanday=Headlam and Derrett, Law 461 ff. try to rescue Paul's argument
by developing complicated constructions which (they think) allow for the comparison to be carried out consistently. It is difficult to fmd more eloquent proof fOf the
failure of Paul's picture.
94 Kiimmel; op.cit. 40 f.
95 The weakness of the comparison did not escape the eye of Chrysostomus (Homil.
in Rom. XII, 2;PG 60, 497); cf. Wiles,Apostle 18.
96 See below, p. 129;cf. Gale, op.cit. 41-46.
97 Pfleiderer,Paulinismus 308.

98 Cf. Wernle, Anfijnge 210 ff.; Bousset, Gal 59; Grafe, Lehre 20 ff.; Glock, Gesetzesfrage 146 ff.; Kiihl, 'Stellung' 137 ff.; Prat, Theology 232; J. Knox, Ethic 103;
Marshall, Ozallenge 228, 230; Schubert, 'Oekumene' 15; Gronemeyer, Frage, passim.

The fulfilment of the law

63

include Gal 5.14, 1 Cor 7.19, Rom 3.31,8.4, and 13.8-10. Cranfie1d's overall
thesis, which we had to reject, is not, after all, completely pulled out of thin
air. Along with the radical statements Paul offers a series of 'conservative'
ones, and on these the thesis that, for Paul, 'gospel and law are essentially
one,100 might be based. M. Barth has gone even farther, calling Paul 'an
enthusiastic (!) teacher and advocate of the law' .101 How are the 'conservative' statements to be understood?
In Gal 5.13 Paul turns from the discussion of the law to a warning about
the misuse of Christian freedom. Instead of 'biting and devouring' each other,
the Galatian Christians ought to serve each other in love. In view of the hard
polemic against the law in the previous sections it is surprising to find Paul
now emphasizing the necessity of love by way of a reference to that very
law. 102 He is now speaking of love rather than of law. He is not defining the
essence of the law with the aid of the concept of love. Rather, he is telling
his readers what love is all about, and he does this by taking for granted that
love can be defmed, as it were, in terms of the law. He could have made his
appeal for mutual love without any reference whatsoever to the law. But
obviously it is a great 'plus' if something can be said to be in accordance with
the law. To be sure, a critical note is not lacking here, either. It is emphasized
that the whole law is fulftlled in one single commandment; there is a polemical correspondence between Gal 5.3 and 5.14. 103 Whoever accepts the
Torah, must fulftl it in itstotality; as for Christians , the same law in its totality
is fulfilled in the love command. 104 Similarly, the somewhat enigmatic verse

99 Thus Sandmel, who denies contradictions in Paul's theology of the law (Genius
25,57) and attributes to the apostle a 'virtual abrogation' of the law (32, 40 ff., 60),
simply ignores Rom 8.4, 13.8-10, Gal 5.14. Sandmel also claims, contrary to the
evidence, that Paul 'wanted Jews on their becoming Christians to leave their Jewish
ways behind them' (112). Paul only attacks 'Jewish ways' when they are being
imposed on Gentiles.
100 'Paul' 68; Romans 862.
101 'Stellung' 517.
102 Cf. J. Walter, Gehalt 192 ff.; Hiibner, 'Das ganze Gesetz' 240; Betz. Sieffert, 'Entwicklungsiinie' 351 plays down the reference: 'es ist da nur die Riicksicht auf das
gehassige Partheitreiben unter jenen Leuten, welches den Apostel veranlasst, im
Vorbeigehen hier noch dem Gesetz eine gewisse positive Beziehung zum Christenleben zu geben'; but precisely the fact that Paul can do so, and even in passing, is
most revealing. The law comes self-evidently to his mind in such a connection.
103 The critical aspect is underlined by Eckert, Verkiindigung 134 f.; in fact the 'other
gospel' which takes the law literally is 'durch die Gesetzesinterpretation des Paulus
noch einmal zuriickgewiesen'; cf. Walter, op.cit. 193; Kiihl, art.cit. 138; Becker ad
loco
104 Betz, Galatians 275 ascribes to Paul a careful intentional distinction between the
'doing' and the 'fulfilling' of the Torah; 'the "doing" of the Jewish Torah is not
required of Christians, but the "fulfilling" is'. 1TOLeiv is indeed used in Gal 3.10, 12,

64

II. Is the law still in force?

23b both affirms and devalues the law: the law is affirmed in that it would be
a bad thing if the Christians' behaviour were such that the law could indeed
object to it; it is devalued in that a purely negative role of an (irrelevant)
accusator is assigned to it. But it is interesting that Paul can still appeal to the
law when he is advocating something else. And it is probably very satisfying
to him that the 'one' word which is sufficient is found in the law itself (Lev
19.18).
It is hard to avoid the impression that there remains a 'kernel law' which
still makes a claim on the Christians, despite all the categorical denials in
chs.3-4.
When we turn to Rom 13.8-1 0, where the law is similarly summed up
in the love command, we find no polemic aBainst the law. It is not necessary
to regard this passage as a mere excursus. 1 5 It can be seen as a summary
which corresponds to the opening statement of the larger section in 12.
1_2. 106 But such a connection does not exclude possible associations with
the sequel. The passage in question seems indeed also to prepare the discussion in 14.1-15.13. Note the verbal similarities: one has to walk Karu. a:yd:rrrw
(14.15); we, the strong, are obliged (O!pLAOIJ.V) to Qear the burdens of the
weak (15.1, cf. Gal 6.2); one has to please one's neighbour (0 7TA1]awv)
15.2.107 The love command, set forth in 13.8-10, serves as a basis on which
Paul can build in the sequel when he tries to clear up the quarrels within the
community. It is love that is in focus in 13.8-10, rather than law. This time,
at least, the reference to the law is used simply as an argument to emphasize
the significance of 10ve. 108 Thus, the law is viewed favourably in a curiously

5.3, whereas 1r~T/POVV occurs in Gal 5.14, Rom 13.8 and 8.4 (and 1rA?jpw~a in Rom
13.10). But while, from the linguistic point of view, Paul could have used 1rAT/POVV in
Gal 5.3 (cf. the reading of 436 pc syh Epiphanius), he could not have used 1rOLe[v in
Gal 5.14 anyway, for there the idea of 'summarizing' is also present, leaving the
option free between 1rAT/POOV and, say, aVaKe'l'aAaLOVV (thus the reading of 365 pc).
In Gal 3.10, 12 the use of 1rOLe[v is dictated by the OT quotations, and the usage in
5.3 may well be a reflection of this passage. Furthermore, Rom 2 renders an intentional terminological distinction dubious. The 'doing' ascribed to the Gentiles in
2.14 f. can hardly refer to 'individual laws' that 'have to be done' (thus Betz about
Gal 3.10, 12, 5.3). The Gentiles Paul had in mind could not 'do' the law (or its
lp"(ov) in any other sense than the Christians 'fulfilled' it, i.e. by living according to
its central principle(s). The meaning 'to fulfil through concrete acts' is attested for
1rAT/POvve.g. in III Sib 246 (see above p. 38), 1 Macc 2.55 (1rAT/POVV TOV AO,,(OV),
Po13.3 (1rAT/POVV eVToA?jv); more evidence in Bauer, Worterbuch s.v. 3.
105 Cf. Michel.
106 Klisemann.
107 Cf. Schmithals, R6merbrief 185.
108 von der Osten-Sacken, op.cit. 258, constructs a rather fantastic christological theory
on the basis of Rom 13.8 ff.; 15.1 ff.; Gal 2.20; Rom 8.37: Jesus Christ has fulfilled
the law precisely as b d"(a1r?jaa~ ~e/1j~a~; analogously, the law of Christ Gal 6.2 is the

The fulfilment of the law

65

self-evident way. Far from feeling any need to justify the law in this connection, Paul can use the law as a supporting argument for something else, and
this time surely without any polemical overtones. 109
It has been noticed that Paul seems here simply to have forgotten what he
wrote in ch. 7 orin 1004. 110 Is this an occasionallaee into a Jewish mode of
thought which Paul had on principle overcome?1 1 Or is the lack of any
polemic against the law to be accounted for on the hypothesis that Paul
makes parenetical use of a piece of Jewish -Christiantradition which he himself
does not understand literally?112 These theories are rendered implausible
by Rom 8.4.
Soon after the statement that the Christians have died to law and lfift
behind them the old situation of the 'letter' (Rom 7.1-6), Paul says that
God sent Christ 'in order that the just requirement (li/.KaiwJ1a)113 of the law
might be fulf11led 114 among us' (8.4). PaUl thus 'describes the Christian
law that is fulfilled by him who loved me (259); like HUbner (cf. above, p.27)
von der Osten-Sacken identifies the nomos of Gal 5.14 with this law. There is not the
remotest indication of anything like this in Rom 13 - Paul does not even speak
of 0 ci-ya1fTioa~ but of 0 a-yarrwv.
109 The nature of love as rrXT/pwj.la vO/JOv is paraphrased in v. lOa: love does not harm the
neighbour. J. Walter, op.cit: 193, observes correctly that, according to this passage,
'man damit, dass man liebt, dem Gesetz genugtue'.
110 Lietzmann. He finds this typical of Paul's 'unschematic' way of speaking, for Paul is
not really speaking of the Torah.
111 Cf. Marshall, op.cit. 231; Simon, Israel 98; Knox, Ethic 103; Feine, Evangelium
73; also Gronemeyer, Frage 135 n. 1 (as an alternative interpretation; his main hypothesis is that rrXT/pwj.la means the end of the law and not its fulfilment in Rom
13.10!). Klausner, Jesus 557 speaks of Paul's unconscious 'Verwurzelung im
pharisaischen Judentum' (which he views, of course, favourably).
112 Kasemann. Cf. also Betz, Gal 275.
113 '6LKa{Wj.la TOU VOj.lOV means the legal claim as in 1.32, and correspondingly rrXllPouv
means the keeping of a norm': Kiisemann, Romans 217 f.; cf. Kuss; Schrenk, IllKll
225 (for the Greek usage see ibid. 223 f.); van de Sandt, 'Research'. This seems a
more natural reading than that proposed by Keck, 'Law' 51-53; he takes 6LKalwj.la
TOU vO/JOv to mean 'the right intent of the law - life', which the Spirit accomplishes
in us (53). It is right that 'the passive rrXllpw~ii must be taken seriously' (52). I think
the passive emphasizl,ls that the Christian fulf"tlment of the law takes place charismatically, as 'fruit of the Spirit' (GalS); it is something accomplished by the Spirit,
not by man himself. EV llj.liv means 'among us'; cf. van de Sandt, 'Explanation' 377.
6LKalwj.la is given a curious interpretation by Benoit,Exegese 30 f., who understands
it as 'verdict'; 8.4 speaks of 'le verdict', which is 'realise'(= rrXllpw~ii!) dansles chretiens dans toute la plenitude'. See against this Lyonnet, 'Nouveau Testament' 583 f.
Lyonnet himself thinks (585) that Paul uses the singular IlLKalwj.Ia because all the
precepts of the law melt for him into a single one, that of love; cf. van de Sandt,
'Research' 268 f. Yet a closer counterpart to the expression is found in Rom 1.32, in
the light of which the meaning must be 'that which the law lays down as right';
cf. Sanday-Headlam.
114 The content of rrXllPouv should not be diluted. Gerhardsson, 'Ethos' 57 f. interprets

66

11. Is the law still in force?

fulfilment of the law as a fruit of the saving act, which goes even beyond
13.8_10115 and reminds us of the Jewish-Christian view in Matt 5.17 ff. 116
Kiisemann goes O"n to remark that it would be very strange if Paul were really
speaking of a legal claim (which is what /)U(aiwp.a means) of the law on the
Christians after what he has said in 7.1-6. 'But if he is taking over an existing
formulation, he can ap~r it to the doing of the will of God of which he
speaks also in 13.8 ff.'l That is: Paul is citing a tradition, in which nomos
really denotes the law, but he is tacitly twisting its meaning, so that tor him
nomos means God's will independently of the law. The procedure appears
'dangerous', because Paul's interpreters have believed that he spoke indeed of
the law.
Kasemann thus shares the methodology of Cranfield: to maintain that
Paul's theology of the law is consistent it must be assumed that nomos
means something other than the law in the 'difficult' passages. It is just that
his premises are opposite to those of Cranfield's. But Paul's favourable statements about the law cannot be explained away so easily.11S
In his 'redaction-critical' interpretation Kasemann is correct in that Paul
follows a fixed tradition at least in Gal 5.14 and Rom 13.8-10. On the.
other hand, it is not altogether clear that the fulf11ment clause in 8.4 is received from tradition.1 l9 The notion of Christians fulfilling the law may be traditional, but the formulation is not. There is no break in the flow of thought.
The norm of the law is fulfilled among 'us'; 'we' are then defined as those
who walk according to the Spirit not flesh. This statement, again, builds a
bridge to the following discussion of existence according to the flesh or
according to the Spirit - a passage with a characteristically Pauline emphasis.
Thus, even if Paul were using tradition in the fulf11ment clause - an assertion
that can hardly be proved - that tradition serves his argument beautifully;
there can be no talk of an unassimilated fragment.
it in the light of Gal 5.22 f. as saying that 'the Spirit can never do anything that is
bad in God's eyes' or that 'the law - rightly understood - can never have anything
to object to what the Spirit effects'; cf. already Grafe, op.cit. 23; Nygren, ad loco
This is too negative. See below, p. 113 ff.
115 '12.S-10' (both in the original and in the translation) is a mistake (it is also corrected
in the next quotation). I have also added 'even' to Bromiley's translation to preserve
a nuance of the original.
116 IGisemann,Romans 217.

117 Op.cit. 21S.

11S Klisemann is rightly criticized by Wilckens,Romer 11, 129 n. 526.
1190sten-Sacken, op.cit. 145 thihks that the traditional fragment is limited to the
clause 0 "EO~ TOV eallToii IIWV 1felL!Jia~ plus the conjunction fva. Paulsen, Uberlieferung 43 f., 63 regards similarly 'the teleological expansion of the sending formula
with tva' as pre-Pauline, but Paul makes use of an existing 'functional scheme' in
order to explicate his own theology (64). Keck, art.cit. 44 regards the purpose clause
as Paul's own, though he may have followed a traditional pattern.

The fulfilment of the law

67

Rom 8.4 brings to an end the argument about the nature of the law which
started in 7.7 with the question, 'is the law perhaps sin?' Apart from the playfu1 metaphorical language in 7.21-25,8.2, the nature of which is indicated
through genitives or other clear indications,120 nomos denotes the Torah
throughout the section. It has quite clearly this meaning in 8.3, that is, in
the beginning of the very sentence that ends with the statement about the fu1filment of the [jtKaiwJla TOU VOJlov. Paul cannot have intended nomos to
change its meaning abruptly in such a connection. Moreover, when contrasting the IPPOV1lJla of the flesh with the IPPov1)Jla of the Spirit in the sequel,
Paul says about the former: the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, for
it is not obedient to God's nomos (8.7). Here, too, nomos must mean the
law.1 21 The next verse then states that those in flesh cannot please God.
Obedience to God's law, then, is shown to be identical with pleasing God,
which again is possible only to those living in the Spirit. Taken together,
verses 8.4 and 8.7 verl: much suggest that the law 'remains the norm of the
Christian's existence'. 22 Christians fulftl what the law justly requires from
them; it is desirable and necessary to live up to the standard set up by the
law.
It is true, of course, that the Christians did not fulftl the precepts of the
Torah. The concept of nomos thus tacitly changes its meaning in 8.4,
meaning the law as interpreted by Pau1 the Christian. But the point is that
Paul's language does not reveal that shift. 123 8.4 is intended as the climax of
his 'apology of the law' (or rather 'apology of his theology of the law'!). The
idea suggested in the mind of readers is that what was impossible to do under
the dominion of the Torah is now done by the Christians who walk according
to the Spirit. Pau1 suggests that his teaching stands in unbroken continuity
with the Torah.
A statement like Rom 8.4 cannot possibly be regarded as an occasional slip
of thought. It is the concluding statement of an argument concerning precisely the nature of the law. In other words, it was important for Pau1 to stress
his 'conservatism', at least before the Roman audience.
A surprising statement from 1 Cor must be mentioned here, too. There is
an interesting parallelism between Gal 5.6, 6.15 and 1 Cor 7.19. In all these
instances, it is stated in the opening clause that neither circumcision nor

120 See above, p. 52 with n. 45.

121 To be sure, Kiisemann understands even this nomos as 'God's will' as distinct from
the law (219).
122 von der Osten-8acken, op.cit. 244. He even asserts that, for Paul, 'the salvation consists now as before in the fulftlment of the law' (232). Cf. Hoheisel, Judentum
198: 'FUr die Gliiubigen gewinnen die Gesetzeswerke erneut heilsentscheidende
Bedeutung.'
123 Cr. above, p.28.

68

II. Is the law still in force?

uncircumcision matter anything. That which matters is according to Gal 5.6

'faith active in love' and, correspondingly, according to Gal 6.15, 'the new
creation'. The new existence in faith has annulled the old distinction between
Jew and non-Jew. In I Cor 7.19, however, the latter part of the comparison
is characteristically different: circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but only the keeping of God's commandments. The observation that
this statement sounds very much Jewish and very little specifically Christian l24 is &uite correct. It should not be harmonized with the Galatians
statements;1 5 it differs markedly from them in content. 126 It is no accident
that t.bis 'conservative' version is found just in I Corinthians. As Drane has
shown,127 the general outlook ofthis letter is almost 'legalistic' as compared
with Galatians. Paul's problems in Corinth were caused by pneumatics rather
than legalists, and in 1 Cor he takes a more affirmative attitude to the law as a
whole. It is hard to reconcile this totally favourable reference to the 'commandments', whose relevance is simply taken for granted, with the devaluation of the VTOAlI (however 'holy', 'just', or 'good') in Rom 7.7 ff., where
it is only able to cause death, or even with the reduction of the many commandments to the one command oflove in Rom 13.9. The tension should be
allowed to stand. 128
Paul also, at least occasionally (and just in his Corinthian correspondence)
appeals to the Torah to prove individual assertions. Thus, in discussing the
problem of fmancial support of the missionaries through the congregations,
he appeals to 'the law of Moses' (1 Cor 9.9). This gives Paul the opportunity
to underline that he is not speaking KaTa avt}pw7rOV (v. 8). Indeed, what the
'law says', what is 'written in the law of Moses', is - self-evidently - the
word of God ('is God concerned about oxen?', v. 9). The law, reinterpreted
to be sure, can thus be used not only as a collection of Christological prooftexts, but also as a norm for behaviour.129 Another instance is - if authentic130 - the appeal to the law in 1 Cor 14.34 in order to silence the women
in the congregation. 131 So far from being content with merely repeating the
124 Gyllenberg.
125 Thus van Diilmen, Theologie 230 n. 97; Furnish, Theology 201;id.,Love Command
97.
126 Correctly Drane, 'Tradition' 170 f.; id., Paul 65.
127 'Tradition' 170 ff.;PauI62 ff.
128 The consonance of the conservative formulation with the general outlook of 1 Cor
dissuades one from simply ascribing 1 Cor 7.19b to a tradition cited by Paul, although
it does less than justice to his own thought (thus Gayer, Stellung 173 ff.). Symptomatically, Gayer would likewise (with Kiisemann, see above p.66) devalue Rom
13.8 ff. and Gal 5.13 f. as mere pieces of tradition (op.cit. 175 n. 205).
129 Cf. also the citation from Ex 16.18 in 2 Cor 8.15, used to encourage the Corinthians
to participate in the collection; and that from Deut 32.35 in Rom 12.19.
130 See the commentaries.
131 In 1 Cor 14.21 a quotation from 'the law' (actually !sa 28.11 f.) is adduced to expli-

The fulfilment of the law

69

love command, Paul appeals to the law (whatever passage he may have in
mind l32 ) to support a particular demand. The continued relevance of the law
is thus taken for granted, even if the number of these cases is rather
limited.13 3
Thus we find two conflicting lines of thought in Paul's theology of the
law. Paul asserts both the abolition of the law and also its permanently normative character. Throughout he refrains from making any distinctions within
the law. Subsequent theologians from Justin to Cranfield and Kasemann
have proposed a legion of different distinctions to resolve the tension in
Paul's thought. It would, however, have been a sheer impossibility for the
original readers of the letters to notice such distinctions, and it is inconceivable that Paul should never have given the remotest hint of them, had he had
some such distinction in mind.
Paul asserts his 'orthodoxy' with respect to the law in Rom 3.31. He had
established in the previous passage that the system based on the Torah had
been superseded: 'God's law has been manifested apart from the law' (3.21).
The order (nomos) of faith had replaced the system of works (3.27-28).
The question 'do we therefore cancel the law by faith?' (3.31a) is, in the light
of these statements, quite understandable. Paul, however, replies emphatically
(using the #-I:it -YEVOLTO formula): not at all! On the contrary, we establiSh the li1w
(vop.ov lordvo/lev). The law is not invalidated by my teaching, says Paul. 134
The statement is vague enough, and it is scarcely possible to make out the
precise sense with any certainty .135 Some scholars interpret v. 31 in the light
of 3.19-20: the law is established, in that it is allowed to stop everybody's
mouth. l36 This is not impossible, but there is no positive indication in this
direction in the immediate context. Others think that the reference is only to
the argument about Abraham in 4.1 ff.: 137 Paul says that he will establish
the position of the law in a proper way in what follows. Yet in ch. 4 there is
no statement to the effect that the law itself asserts that justification is by

cate the real value of glossolalia.

132 Commentators think ofGen 3.16;e.g. B1aser, GeBetz 36; Uetzmann.
133 Klausner, JeBus 557 exaggerates not a little when he states that" Paul, 'despite the
annulment of the Torah laws', appeals to verses of the Torah 'almost on every impor- "
tant religious issue'; contrast Bliiser, Gefletz 229. It is correct, however, that when
Paul does so (not almost always but now and then), this is 'an internal contradiction'
(557). Paul was blamed for this inconsistency already by Porphyry (above, p. 3 n. 21).
134 The common opinion that the pair of words ICaTap-YEiv /lrrrlwOl. corresponds to
" Rabbinic terminology used of legal interpretation (battel/qayyem) (e.g. Michel,
Kasemann, Cranfield) is rendered dubious by Hiibner, GeBetz 121 f.
135 For the options see Hiibner, op.cit. 122 f.
136 Nygren; Jervell, Gud 78; Bornkamm, GeBchichte 111; cf. also Dugandzic, 'Ja' 175.
137 Lipsius, Jiilicher, Sanday-Headlam, Lagrange; Friedrich, 'G,esetz' 416; Osten-Sacken,
op.cit. 247 ff.; Williams, 'Righteousness' 280.

70

11. Is the law still in force?

faith (unlike e.g. Gal 4.21). On the contrary, nomos is used in 4.13, 15 with
exclusively negative overtones. Besides, the phrase Tt oV-v EpoVJlV in 4.1
suggests a new passage so that 3.31 must belong with what precedes it.138
Perhaps the most natural solution is to take v;-31 as a reference to the predictive function of the law as indicated in 3.21 b: the rinteousness through
faith had been 'witnessed by the law and the prophets'. 39 We 'establish its
permanent significance by demonstrating thllt the law itself preaches the
faith'J40 Paul's message corresponds to the deeper intentions of the law, as
is clear from Gal 4.21 ff. or Rom 10.5 [f}41 also the phrase Ta AOrta TOU
{}OU in 3.2 may refer to the predictive function of the law. 142 It is difficult,
however, to exclude categorically still another interpretation, namely, that
Paul is thinking of the fulfilment of the law in the life of Christians (cf. 8.4,
13.8-10).143 The verse could well be understood as an answer to accusations
reflected in 3.8 or 6.1, 15. There is no hint at these accusations in the immediate context, however. Perhaps the two last-mentioned interpretations do
not exclude each other. Paul had accusations to face both on the ethical and
on the 'dogmatic' front.
In actual fact Paul's answer does not meet the question. Paul had, as
passages like Gal 2.15-21 show, actually torn down (KaTAVaa v. 18) important parts of the law and he held that Christians were free from the law.
Indeed, with respect to Gal 2.18, written by Paul 'a few months before',
Gifford found it 'inconceivable that St. Paul, after this, should say "we estab-

138 Schlier; Zeller,Juden 99.

139 Cf. Lietzmann, Miche1, H.W. Schmidt, Dodd; also Hiibner, op.cit. 123 f. (with the
misleading addition that the law does not want to be the law of works, but the law of
faith, see above p. 50 f.). Hiibner also constructs a quite artificial associative connection
between different sentences with ~uT1lllt (it occurs also in Rom 10.3), asserting that
this verb is especially appropriate to give expression to God's activity (as e.g. in Gen
6.18 LXX); Rom 10.3 describes 'Gottes Aktivitat usurpierendes Verhalten'! On
tUT1lllt see below, n. 146.
140 Lietzmann.
141 Luz, Geschichtsverstiindnis 171 f. objects that 'wieso nach 3, 27 ff. die Frage aufkame, ob denn das Alte Testament beseitigt werde, ware unverstandlich', particularly
so after 3.10-18. But the point is just that Paul's answer does not really match the
question. Hearing the question in 3.31a the reader must think of the Torah; but Paul
actually evades the critical question by gliding tacitly into another concept of nomos.
Moxnes, Theology 225 f. is correct in pointing out that Paul speaks in v. 31b
of the Torah in a different sense from that in 31a (the law as interpreted in the light
of faith in Christ). But I do not think that Paul is consciously trying to interpret and
correct the traditional concept of nomos presupposed in v. 31a (cf. 227 f.); he has a
vague and flexible concept of nomos, and this very flexibility suits his argument (see
above, p. 28).
142 Cf. Doeve, 'Notes', esp. 121 f.
143 Thus Best; cf. Nikolainen, Schlier; van Diilmen, Theologie 88.

The fulfilment of the law

71

lish the law" '.144 And Dodd states in view of the preceding context: The
natural conclusion from all this is that "by this faith we cancel the law". Paul
hesitates to draw the conclusion. It would have made things clearer if he had
boldly done so, for in the sense which "Law" has borne in most of this discussion it is confusing and misleading to say that we uphold the law.'145
It would seem that the very lack of 'boldness' which Paul at times reveals
is typical of him and his situation. Paul is thoroughly radical in his missionary practice and in many of his theological conclusions. Yet, on the other
hand, he has a need to pass for a loyal Jew, faithful to the Torah. This can
hardly be just missionary strategy, although it would, of course, have been
convenient for Paul to keep up some relations with the stricter Jewish Christians, too. It is difficult not to detect a deeply felt personal urge as well, a
'nostalgic' longing for a harmony with his own past. Or perhaps this is too
mild a way of putting it. Paul may be actually engaged in an attack rather
than in defense, so that the message is: it is I, not you, that bring the real
meaning of the law to bear. 146 Whatever the reasons, the puzzling brevity of
Paul's statement serves to conceal, to some extent at least, the radical nature
of his actual position.
Paul's language, though, could only have deceived those who were already
convinced. Any 'normal' Jew would have disagreed with his assertion in 3.31,
and that for good reasons. Ifwe are not to resort to a semantic trick, abandoning circumcision and food laws can only be deemed as an annulment of the
Torah. Of course, Paul had not abandoned everything that the law stood for.
Christian expositors of Paul sometimes seem to assume that as long as some
aspect of the law remains important to Paul, he cannot be charged with
annulling it. But, for a Jew, to be selective about the Torah meant to disobey
it, indeed to reject it. 200 years before Paul's time the pious had preferred a
martyr's death to eating pork and thus 'tearing down the paternal law' (raj)

144 Romans 46; Gifford concluded that the anarthrous nomos must mean something else
than the Jewish law.

145 Dodd lessens the weight of his observation by suggesting that Paul knew what he was
doing. He knew that nomos meant Torah and that the Torah had, besides the meaning 'the code of commands', also the wider meaning of 'the total revelation of God in
the OT'; the confusion arose, as 'his Greek readers ... could not be expected to bear
in mind that "Law" meant Torah, and that Torah had a wider sense'. It seems to me
that the source of confusion lies deeper in Paul's own mind.
146 It is intriguing to note that in the few cases in which i unlva, is used in connection
with the law or the like with a man as subject in the LXX, it is a question of return
ing the law to its proper place: Josiah carried out his reform wa uT11un TOUt; AD-yovt;
TOU vOILOV (4 Regn 23.24,2 Chr 35.19), and Mattathias was to be followed by 1fIlt; (,
tT/AWV TY VOIL"" KaL iUTWV rr,v 6,a,h\KT/V (1 Macc 2.27). The oft-cited statement
in 4 Macc 5.25 (Michel, Wilckens etc.) is less illuminating, for in this verse Ka{}eunlva,
Tiw VOJLOV refers to the legislation as God's act.

72

11. Is the law still in force?

1f(iTPWV vop.ov KaTaAvum, 4 Macc 5.33). Because the law is divine, transgres-

sion of it in 'smal1' cases (as eating pork would appear to an outsider) is just
as serious as a 'great' transgression, 'for in both cases one confronts the law
with equal wantonness' (4 Macc 5.16-21). In Pau1's time, too, the desire
to remove the separating fence that the Torah set up between Israel and the
nations was the principal motive for apostasy (see Josephus, Ant. IV, 145147).1 47 That kind of attitude is opposed in a Tannaitic midrash: 'Whoever
says, I will take upon me the whole Torah except for this one word, of him it
is true: "For he has despised the word of the Lord." , (Sifre Num 112 to
15.31). Cranfield admits that, 'for Paul, the literal fulfilment of the ceremonial ordinances is no longer obligatory', but goes on: 'But the ritual regulations remain valid as witness to Christ, and they are established as we allow
them to point us to Him .. .'148 But clearly that is just another way of saying
that the regulations are invalid and not being established!
Pau1's suggestion that his teaching 'establishes' the law is thus both internally inconsistent and externally problematic. It stands in tension with the
'abolition' statements. The premises of the conservative assertion, on the
other hand, could not be acceptable from the Jewish point of view.
For Paul, the law rightly interpreted was full of testimonies to the
Christian way. One only had to be able to interpret it in the Spirit, unlike the
Jews, on whose eyes a veil lies when Scripture is read (2 Cor 3.15). As everyone except for the extreme conservatives admits, Paul's actual reinterpretations of the Old Testament are rather ingenious; no one will today seriously
suggest that we should follow Paul in his exegesis.
In Gal 4.21 ff. he maintains that Hagar means the mount Sinai and the old
covenant, of which slavery is characteristic.1 49 In Rom 10.5 ff. he forces
Deuteronomy to bear witness to the righteousness of faith and against the
testimony of Moses 150 in a way that the systematic theologian Bring (who
concludes that we must have misunderstood Pau1's message) can only regard
147 See below, p. i33. One of the rare Christian scholars to admit that Paul was an 'apostate' who had 'renounced' Judaism is F.C. Grant, 'Prolegomenon' xvii, xix. Cf.
J. Maier, 'Faktoren' 250: Paul 'represents something like a rebellion against Judaism';
Riddle,'Jewishness' 244: 'Always regarding himself as a faithful and loyal Jew, his
definitions of values were so different from those of his contemporaries that, notwithstanding his own position within Judaism, he was, from any point of view other
than his own, at best a poor Jew and at worst a renegade.' The opposite is maintained
by M. Barth: 'St. Paul - a Good Jew'.
148 'Paul' 67.
149 The judgment of Nietsche, who called Paul's use of the Hagar story an 'unheard-of
philological farce in regard to the Old Testament', is quoted by Schoeps, Paul 235,
and by Betz.
150 Cf. Vielhauer, 'Paulus' 50: 'One has to establish without apologetical ameliorations
that the apostle consciously perverts the sense of a scriptural word into its opposite';
Bornkamm, Geschichte 109 f. with n. 83.

Paul's practice

73

as completely absurd. 151 Speaking of Abraham as a prototype of those 'who

are men of faith' in Gal 3 Paul in the course of his polemic against those
insisting on circumcision simply fails to mention that Abraham, too, was
circumcised. In Rom 4 he at last mentions this fact, having found - in addition to the chronological argument in Rom 4.10 - the ingenious explanation
that the patriarch got circumcision as a sign, a 'seal of the righteousness by
faith'. Paul found in the sacred texts what he was looking for, and often interpreted them against their original intention. In this Paul is, of course, no
exception in his time, even though one could debate whether Paul is arbitrary
in the same way as the rabbis, Philo, and the Church Fathers are,152 or
whether his lack of disciplined method displays unique arbitrariness. 153
Occasional attempts to defend Paul's use of the OT against Jewish critics 154
are, however, fu tile.

6. Paul's practice
The opinions of scholars about Paul's practical attitude to the Torah in his
dilily life differ widely. At one end of the scale there is the view that Paul
ignored the Torah and even demanded that Jewish Christians give up its
observance.t 55 At the other end is the notion that Paul lived as a practising
Jew and forbade Jewish Christians to abandon it!156 Both views are disproved by Gal 2.11 ff. This passage makes it clear that, far from forbidding
anybody to ignore the food laws at least, Paul disapproved of the Jewish
Christians' return to observance of them, after they had given them up. 157
On the other hand, the passage does not suggest that Paul required Jewish
Christians to ignore the (ritual) Torah; the point is that if they do, it is dishonest to return to the old practice and even to compel Gentiles to 'judaize'.
But even if Paul did not compel anybody to this or that way of life, the

151 Christus 54; cf. above,p. 4 n. 29. It is interesting to note in passing what a conservative
scholar like Ellis (Use 71) has to say on Paul's interpretation of the singular f11replla
in Gal 3.16: if Paul really infers a single person from the grammatical singular, his
argument is 'baseless caprice' and 'outrabbis the rabbis'. The usual view of Paul's
handling of f11replla (rejected by Ellis 71-73) 'puts the apostle in the' r6leof a charlatan fooling his audience with a bit of chicanery'.
152 Thus Sandmel, Genius 25 f. On Philo cf. Heinemann,Bildung 522.
153 Thus Vielhauer, art.cit. 51. F.C. Grant, art.cit. xxxiii coniments that 'Paul was a very
poor exegete of the Hebrew scriptures'.
154 Kasemann, op.cit. 285; see above, p. 2.
155 Sandmel, op.cit. 112.
156 Schweitzer, MyUik 193, building on the theory of a 'status quo' -idea in Paul's
thought.
157 Schweitzer, op.cit. 199 has to assume that Paul came with his demand of table fellowship into conflict with his own theory of status quo, which made his hopeless battle
even more difficult.

74

1l. Is the law still in force?

question of his personal attitude and practice remains. It is widely held that,
even though the Torah may have been an adiaphoron for Paul, he nevertheless remained loyal to it in his own practiceJ58 The strongest support for
this view is supplied by Acts. Now the evidence of Acts is undoubtedly of
different value in different cases. The mention of Paul's vow (Acts 18.18)
would seem to the Luke's 'pious addition'J59 The account of Paul's compliance with James' strategy Acts 21.24 ff. appears to be based on reliable
tradition; here, however, we surely have an adiaphoron, and Paul's attitude
corresponds to the principle stated in 1 Cor 9.20. 160 This case thus tells
us nothing of Paul's daily practice.
There remains the mention of the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16.3).161
In this case the interpreter must opt between sacrificing either the reliability
of Luke's sources or Paul's theological consistency. If Paul had indeed circumcised Timothy, he had in advance undermined his argument with respect to
the Galatian controversy; Gal 5.11 might be taken as a reference to that
occurrence. 162 To give credence to Acts on this point entails finding in Paul's
practice a flexibility, which - however much Paul may have justified it theologically - in the eyes of a detached 0 bserver borders on dishonesty.163 And
yet this state of affairs cannot be used as a historical argument against Luke's
account. 164 We have in any case other evidence for the enormous flexibility
Paul allowed himself while taking offence when others tried to apply the
same method. A case in point is his attitude to Peter's behaviour in the Antiochian affair. It is a correct observation that in Antioch Peter actually followed
the 'all things to all men' canon, which Paul advocates in 1 Cor 9;165 the

158 Thus Davies, Paul 70, 73 f.; Parkes, Jesus 118-120; Schoeps, Paul 199; Wrede,
Paulus 45; Jervell, 'Paul' 303; idem, 'Paulus' 37. Cf. also Harnack,Acts 236.
159 See Haenchen.
160 Haenchen; Schmithals, Paulus 93 ff. Strobel, 'Aposteldekret' 94 ff. speaks of Paul's
'unheard-of change of position' expressed in Acts 21 as compared with Gal; at the
end of his mission Paul puts the unity of the church above the norm of the truth of
the Gospel (94). The flexibility shown by Paul in Acts 21 is, however, aheady present
in 1 Cor 9 - a writing roughly contemporaneous with Galatians.
161 Others read from Gal 2.3 that Paul had even the Gentile Christian Titus circumcised;
e.g. J. Weiss, 1 Kor 244; D.W.B. Robinson, 'Circumcision'; Stoike, Law 204 ff.;
Gunther, Opponents 82. Had Paul done this, then the letter to the Galatians would
have been a futile and indeed absurd enterprise.
162 Cf. Burton, Oepke, Schlier on Gal 5.11.
163 Parkes, loc.cit., actually speaks of dishonesty on Paul's part; Schweitzer of an
'incredibly yielding' apostle. Haenchim comments; 'Der Gedanke, dass man die Beschneidung an sich vollziehen lasst, urn Schwierigkeiten der Mission zu vermeiden
(Gal 5.11 wird er von fern gestreift), ware fUr ihn Liige und Blasphemie Gottes in
einem gewesen.' That may be wishful thinking, however.
164 Cf. Gardner, Experience 45; Wrede, Paulus 45.
165 Cf. on this Chadwick, 'All Things'.

Paul's practice

75

Corinthian non-eaters found themselves in a situation very similar to that of

Peter in Antioch. 166 Being all things to all men Paul might have been able to
do surprising things which defy our logic as they defied the logic of his contemporaries. If Paul did not circumcise Timothy it is very difficult to account
for the rise of such a tradition in the first place. 167 Thus I am inclined to
accept Luke's information on this point. But the circumcision of Timothy, a
decision facilitated by the fact that he was the son of a Jewish mother, does
not prove the thesis of Paul's overall loyalty to the Torah in his practice. It
was a question of missionary strategy rather than conviction. 168 Luke is
surely correct in his suggestion that the act took place in order to avoid
trouble with Jews.
Turning to Pau1's letters, the advice J.l.TJ EmU7root'}w given to the Jewish
Christian in 1 Cor 7.18 has been cited as an indication that, in Paul's view,
every Jewish Christian was to remain a practising Jew with respect to the
ceremonial law.1 69 Yet it is surely an illegitimate generalization to take J.l.TJ
EmU7root'}w to mean 'do not cease to observe the Torah'. The advice is given
in connection with Paul's reply to the Corinthian pneumatics (in particular,
with respect to their view of man and woman);7repLrOJ.l.rI and dKpo{3vUrLa
express only 'the irrelevance of any particular earthly position in which a
Christian might find himself .170
Numerous indications in the letters prove in fact that Paul, when among
Gentiles, did not scrupulously observe the Torah. Paul's famous principle to
be roic; iwOJ.l.OLC; wc; civoJ.l.OC: (1 Cor 9.21) already implies this. l71 A variation
of the same principle occurs in 1 Cor 10.33: mlvra 7rciaLV dpeuKw. Among the
Galatians Paul had lived 'like you' (Gal 4.12).172 Gal 2.11 ff. shows that even

166 Thus Drape, Paul 67-69; Richardson, 'Inconsistency'; cf. Gaechter, Petrus 246 f.
M. Smith, 'Persecution' 263, 268, returns the accusation of hypocrisy (made by Paul
about Peter) to Paul himself with respe"ct to 1 Cor. 9.19 ff.
167 Cf. Schmithals, op.cit. 95.
168 Other possible motives are with good ground rejected by Haenchen (who, to be sure,
discounts the tactical motive as well). J. Weiss (loc.cit.) who believes that Paul had
even Titus circumcised, states that these were individual cases and rejects the thesis of
Paul's loyalty to the Torah. Cf. also M. Smith, 'Persecution' 267.
169 Jervell (see n. 158).
170 Bartchy,Mallon Chresai 164; cf. 137 ff. on the meaning of 1 Cor 7.18 in the context.
171 Correctly e.g. Hering ad loc;" Riddle, 'Jewishness' 241. Paul states in unmistakable
terms that he changes his behaviour according to his environment: for Jews he is
something other than for those without the law. To what else could this possibly
refer than to Paul's attitude to the 'ritual' Torah? It cannot refer to his ethical conduct, nor can Paul's temporary SUbjection to the law mean the law as a 'way to salvation'.1 Cor 9.20 f. is absolutely incompatible with the theory of an observant Paul.
172 That this verse really refers to Paul's freedom from the Law is shown by Merk,
'Beginn' 86-90, refuting the views of Oepke, A. Schulz, and in particular Giittgemanns,Apostel 170 ff. See also Betz.

76

11. Is the law still in force?

under pressure Paul in a mixed community refused to comply with the food
laws, when this would have threatened the position and freedom of the Gentiles. In Gal 2.18 the reference to the once and for all rejection of the (ritual)
law is offered precisely as a motivation for (liberal) practice; v. 17a is probably intended to state that the new 'life~tyle of (peter and) Paul has put them
into the fosition of 'Gentile sinners' (cf. v. 15) from the point of view of the
TorahY In Rom 14 and 1 Cor 10 the question is not directly one of the
law;174 nevertheless, Paul could hardly have made such sweeping statements
about the cleanness of everything or about eating any kind of meat available,
had he in his personal life been keen on observing the kosher laws. 175 In the
light of Gal 4.10 one can only doubt that Paul observed the Sabbath in
Galatia.176 Last. but not least, the sarcastic comment 'in 0 bscene language' 177
on circumcision in Gal 5.12 (cf. Phil 3.2) reveals in a flash to what degree
Paul had become alienated from a piety centred around the Torah. To use
four-letter-words about a sacred tradition, as Paul does in Phil 3.8 178, shows
173 Thus Tannehill, Dying 56. Pancaro, Law 30-44 shows that the word d!J.ap'TWhO~
was used especially to denote behaviour not corresponding to the. norm laid down
by the law. Whereas d!J.ap'TWhO~ takes up the same word in v. 15, d!J.ap'Tia in 17b
has a different meaning. Paul admits that he has become a 'sinner' in a relative
(Torah-<lriented) sense (v. 17a), but denies that this makes Christ a servant of 'sin'
in a pregnant sense. This means that those who, according to the norms laid down
in the law, are 'sinners' nevertheless do not necessarily live in sin. That is, the law
does not provide reliable criteria of sin.
Implausible is the interpretation of v. 17a as an imaginary statement, made as a
reply to an allegation comparable to that stated in Rom 6.1 (Lietzmann). See against
the hypothetical explanation Tannehill, op.cit. 55; Lambrecht, 'Line of Thought'
490 (what Paul rejects is the conclusion, not the premise).
Many interpreters would take d!J.ap'TWhOl in v. 17a in an absolute sense (different
from that in v. 15): within the new order based on faith and grace it has become clear
that we have no merits, but are just poor sinners (cf. Rom 5.8). Cf. Schlier,Oepke;
Lambrecht, art.cit. 490 f. Whereas 'we' are sinners because of 'post-conversional
acts' according to the interpretation adopted above, we are, on this view, sinners
because of 'pre-conversional acts' (see for the terminology Lambrecht, art.cit. 485).
The difficulty with the latter view is that it does not explain why the Jewish Christians were 'found' (evpe"f/!J.ev) 'sinners' in Jewish eyes after becoming believers in
Christ (cf. Tannehill, op.cit. 56). Still another explanation is proposed by Bultmann
(Exegetica 395 ff.) who equates 'being found sinners' with 'being under the law'
(397). This is very strained. Bultmann overlooks the connection of v. 17 with v. 15
where Gentiles are singled out as sinners; the word Kai in v. 17a serves to juxtapose
Paul and Peter to Gentiles. Cf. Feld, 'Christus' 125 n. 2. Feld's attempt to interpret
v. 17 as 'a timid objection by Peter' (art.cit. 125) is, however, quite arbitrary; cf.
Mussner, Gal 187 n. 90.
174 See above, p. 48 with n. 22.
175 Cf. above, p. 48 f.
176 Thus Noack, .'Evangeliet' 137.
177 Betz, Gal 270 n. 164.
178 Giittgemanns, Studia 95.

The 'law of Christ ,

77

that one has really become an outsider with respect to that tradition.
Of course, Paul did not transgress the Torah ostensibly when he was
among Jews, nor did his way of life contradict the moral commandments of
the Torah. As regards morality, Paul was defmite~y not an antinomian. 179
His ethics converged with that of the law, even though Rom 12.1-2 shows
that when Paul gives an independent account of the basis of Christian ethics,
he does it without any reference to the law - the Decalogue included; he is
content with speaking of a transformation of the mind and 'rational' (!)
testin, ~6o"lJJd~w) to find out what is God's will in each case (cf. Phil
1.10). 8 Rather than being an outspoken antinomian, Paul, in his practice,
was selective about the law. He regarded it as an adiaphoron, and he treated it
as such,too. In Jewish eyes such an attitude amounted, of course, to a rejection of the law. 181 The evidence is defmitely against the view that Paul
scrupulously observed the whole Torah throughout his life.

7. The 'law o/Christ'

Several scholilrs think that freedom from the Mosaic law implies that
Paul replaced it with another law, viz. the new law of Christ, the Torah of the
Messiah. The expression, of course, occurs in Gal 6.2; 1 Cor 9.20-21 is
another cornerstone of this interpretation.
It is held by some that this law of Christ is identical with the Mosaic law,
as far as its content is concerned. The law has not been changed; what has
179 A comparison with truly antinomian movements like that of Sabbatai Zwi (Schoeps,
op.cit. 173) is therefore beside the point. Davies, 'Schweitzer', developing this comparison, is rather meagre re Jaw. See below, part Ill. For the same reason, Gager's
attempt to apply sociological rules of thumb to Paul's teaching on the Jaw (Kingdom
35 f., using K. Burridge's scheme 'old rules - no rules - new rules') is not very illuminating(although the book as a whole is important). The 'no rules' is not at all attested in Paul; things were different with some members of the community in Corinth.
180 The talk of 'AUY'' f1 'Aarpelo. implies perhaps a critical attitude to the sacrificial cult
(Rom 9.4 notwithstanding) and thus to an important side of the Torah; cf. Kiisemann.
181 Rordorf, Sonntag L37 correctly points out that the Jewish fear that Paul might
seduce Jews to abandon the Jaw was not so ill-founded. Even if Paul was outwardly
a Jew and did not unnecessarily shock his kinsmen by vioJating the Jaw, 'so liess er sie
wahrscheinlich doch frliber oder spater flihlen, dass er sie, sobald sie einmal Christen
geworden waren, als "schwache Briider" ansah, wenn sie daM immer noch an ihren
iiberlieferten Gebrliuchen festhielten (Rom. 14-15; 1 Kor 8, 7 ff.). Das wird nicht
ohne Folgen geblieben sein. Viele Judenchristen werden seinem Beispiel gefolgt sein
und sich vollkommen den Heidenchristen assimiliert haben, besonders, weM sie in
einer heidenchristlichen Gemeinde in der Minderheit waren ... Wenn er auch nicht
direkt einen Einfluss auf sie ausiibte, ... so ging doch sein heimliches Werben dahin,
sie zu "Starken" zu machen, wenigstens soweit sie in seinen Gemeinden lebten.'
Cf. Richardson, 'Inconsistency' 354, 361 (the accusations made against Paul in Acts
21 are probably not untrue); E.P. Sanders, Law 177f. For the opposite view cf.
Gaston, 'Paul' 55.

78

II. Is the law still in force?

changed with the Christ event is man's possibili7 of fulfilling the law (in
Spirit). This is the view of Andrea van Dtilmen. 18 She argues, however, in a
totally aprioristic way: otherwise Paul would undermine the continuity of
salvation history, which he could not possibly do. 183 Recently, a somewhat
similar view has been put forward by some interpreters who identify the 'law
of faith' (Rom 3.27) and the 'law of Spirit' (Rom 8.2) with the Torah: the
'law of Christ' of Gal 6.2, too, is the renewed Torah. 184 If the arguments
advanced earlier to refute this interpretation of Rom 3.27 and 8.2 are sound,
we can safely dismiss this corollary of it. 185
Another interpretation is that what is substituted for the Mosaic law as the
'law of Christ' is a code of authoritative 'words of the Lord', verba Christi.
The main representative of this view is C.H. Dodd.1 86
Dodd starts from the fact that in 1 Corinthians Paul a few times explicitly
refers to commands of the Lord. One such command, the precept that the
prociaimer is to live by the gospel, occurs shortly before the key passage
1 Cor 9.20-21, where Paul says that he is vvo/Jo<; XPWTOV. In 7.10, again,
Paul notes that the Lord himself 'commands' that a woman shall not be separated from her husband (cf. also the reference to the lack of a command of the
Lord with respect to the virgins, 7.25). These statements supply for Dodd the
.key of interpretation for 1 Cor 9.20 f. and Gal 6.2. The law of Christ, to
which Paul is bound, is 'a code of precepts' derived from the tradition of the
sayings of the Lord. Even where Paul's letters contain (possible) reminiscences
of the gospel tradition, but Paul fails to say that he is citing precepts of the
Lord (as in Rom 14), we have, according to Dodd, evidence for the law of
Christ as defined by him.
This theory is beset with serious difficulties. In the first place, the argument about words of the Lord which are not marked as such, cuts both ways.
Could not the very fact that for instance the love command in Rom 13.8-10
(or Gal 5.14) is not cited as a saying of the Lord. be significant?187 It is
disputed whether the phrase 'I know and am convinced in Lord Jesus' which

182 Theologie 67 f.; cf. Hoheisel,ludentum 199; Roloff, Testament 163.

183 Cf. op.cit. 220 f.
184 Lohse, 'vdllO~' 283 f.; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstiindnis' 49 n. 63;Wilckens, 'Entwicklung'
175. It should be noted that Friedrich, who was the fIrst to argue at length that
vd!lo~ 71'laTew~ Rom 3.27 means the Torah, refuted such an understanding of Gal 6.2
and 1 Cor 9.20 f.: 'Gesetz' 405-409.
185 See above, 11 2.
186 Dodd, 'Ennomos'; see further Davies, Paul 142 ff.; Gerhardsson, Memory 310, 319;
Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit 96 n. 1; Feuill'et, 'Loi de Dieu' 46 ff. Davies, op.cit.
143 f. offers the curious suggestion that Paul participated in the development that led
to the formation of Q.
187 Romans 12-13 abounds in reminiscences of the Gospel tradition which are not
marked as such.

The 'law of Christ'

79

in Rom 14.14 introduces the statement that nothing is unclean in itself,

reminiscent of Mk 7.15, is intended by Paul as a quotation formula. 188 If
it were, then it would be strange that Paul did not have recourse to this most
effective means of refuting his opponents anywhere when arguing about the
law. What better weapon could he have had, say, in the Galatian conflict than
a word from the Lord himself to settle the issue? In Galatians, as it stands,
the idea of a vop.or; TaU XPWTOV is introduced almost as an afterthought when
Paul is no longer discussing the problem of the Torah at all. It would be
curious indeed that he has been silent of a new authoritative law in his
extended treatment of the old Torah in ch. 3_4. 189 In ch. 3 Paul is at pains
to produce an explanation for the replacement of the Mosaic Torah, and he
has to take recourse to the unfortunate comparison with a will ,190 as well as
to the unique suggestion that the law was only the work of angels. How very
much easier Paul's task would have been, if he could have appeal~d to the
code of Christ's precepts which has superseded the old code! Now we only
hear of the law giving way to 'faith' (3.25) after having fulfilled its historical
task. Add to this that after the very strong emphasis on the fruit of the
Spirit which is expected almost automatically, as it were, of the Christian in
ch. 5191 , the notion of a law-code of Christ would come as a bolt from the
blue. In the total outlook of 1 Corinthians such a code would make better
sense.
If the law of Christ refers to Christ's words, to what command does the
statement 'bear each other's burdens' (Gal 6.2) refer? To this question Dodd
can give no plausible answer; the suggestion that the reference is either to the
Pharisees binding hea~ burdens (Mt 23.4) or to the church order (Mt 18.
15-20), is artificial. 19 It is more natural to take the bearing of burdens as a
reference to the previous verse, in which Paul exhorts his readers to admonish
transgressing brethren EV 7rveup.an 7rpaVTT/TOr; .193 It is a question of 'spirit',

188 See below, VIII 4.

189 Analogously, Betz ad loco argues that 'if the concept of the "law of Christ" were
fundamental to Paul's theology, Paul would have introduced it at the beginning of
the letter and the concept would play a prominent role in his letters'. O'Neill, Galatians 70 finds it improbable that Paul actually could have spoken to the Galatians of
a law of Christ; his solution, as might be expected, is to attribute 5.13-6.10 to an
interpolator.
190 See below, p. 129.
191 See below, p. 114 f.
192 Dodd, art.cit. 108 f. A curious interpretation is put forward by Strelan, 'Burdenbearing'. He would take Ta /3dpT/ Gal 6.2 in a financial sense; Paul would be alluding
to the saying Mt 10.10 par (276). The arguments used are weak, in particular the
assertion that the context of the verse abounds in commercial terminology (270 f.).
In this word list are found, i.a., 1I"apd1l"TWILQ., aVa1l"AT/pOVV, lioKl./oldrew, lp'Yov, AtfyO~
and /((lIPO~!
193 By 'burdens' are meant the sins alluded to in v. 1: Burton, Schlier, Mussner. van

80

If. Is the law still in force?

of an attitude - of showing that love which is the fulfilment of the (Mosaic)

law according to 5.14. Nomos is being used in a loose sense, almost metaphorically, much as it is used in Rom 3.27 or 8.2.1 94 To fulftlthe nomos of Christ
is simply to live the way a life in Christ is to be lived. 195
If it is difficult to identify the particular command of the Lord to which
Paul, on Dodd's interpretation, refers in Gal 6.2, it becomes even more difficult when we turn to 1 Cor 14.37. Paul there concludes a long treatment of
spiritual gifts by stating that what he writes to the Corinthians is commandment of the Lord (a 'Yprupw VP.LV ... "vpiov eunv eVToM). Apart from the fact
that it would be difficult to find any extant word of Christ which would fit
the context, the reference does not seem to be to any single statement at all;
rather, everything Paul has written in this connection is characterized as
"vpiov eVToMJ96 If this is so, it is hard to reconcile with the notion of a
dominical code. Dodd has recourse to the assumption that eVToXi] is a copyist's addition. The original reading, preserved in D F G Origen, was "vpiov
eaTlv, meaning: 'All that I here write to you is dominical' ,i.e., Paul's teaching
'has upon it the stamp of Christ' .197 But this looks suspiciously like an
expedient required by the overall theory. The paraphrase of Hering is plausible: 'The orders given by the Apostle should be considered as orders from
the Lord - not as referring to "logia" handed down, but because the Lord has
guided him by His spirit.' Paul thus refers to his own apostolic authority. 198

Stempvoort, 'Gal. 6.2' 362 f. would interpret ni /3a.P1J in the light of 6.3 as 'arrogance'
(cf. 1 Thess 2.7,2 Cor 10.10).
194 Thus Oepke, Mussner; Schlink, 'Gesetz' 327; Bammel, 'v6ILo~' 128: the expression is
'coined in an almost playful manner'; it is 'used only with regard to the legalism of
the Galatians' (126). Nevertheless, Paul may be exploiting an existing formula which
he reinterprets. Hengel, 'Jesus' 191 f. conjectures that Paul got the expression from the
group around Stephen; cf. Stuhlmacher, Vers6hnung 82, 154f.; Stoike, Law 239ff.
thinks that Paul borrowed it from his opponents; cf. Betz. The latter alternative is
more plausible. Stuhlmacher further speculates that the nomos of Christ, called by
him 'the Torah of Christ', is the 'eschatologically transformed' Torah established by
Jesus through his obedient expiatory death which fulfilled the Mosaic law and freed
it from the power of sin which had usurped it; all this constitutes a fulfilment of Jer
31 (op.cit.158f.). None of this can be read out of the use of the phrase in Gal 6.2
(much less of the IvvolLo~ XPUTToV in 1 Cor 9.21). On Stuhlmacher's construction of
a 'Zion Torah' in general see below, p. 239f.
195 Cr. Blaser, Gesetz 234-242; Luz, 'Gesetz' 107 f.
196 See, e.g., Sjtiberg, 'Bud' 169 n. 3.
197 Dodd, art.cit. 105 n. 1. EVTOA1l is regarded as an addition also by J. Weiss (who regards it as pedantic but nevertheless correct) and Barrett; Robertson-Plummer con~
sider this possible. Even if the shorter reading were correct, it would not support
Dodd's interpretation of the law of Christ; it would, at any rate, be striking that
Paul's teaching can have 'upon it the stamp of Christ' when no words of Christ are
available!
198 Cf. Sjtiberg, art.cit. 171.

The 'law o/Christ'

81

If this is a correct interpretation - if Paul occasionally uses 'the Lord's commandment' in such a loose sense, this can be seen as a further piece of evidence
for the thesis that the 'law' of Christ is not literally a law either.
In the second crucial passage 1 Cor 9.20-21 dvo~ first quite clearly
means Gentiles as opposed to the Jews (v. 21a). But then the word tacitly
takes on another meaning. It occurs to Paul, says Dodd, 'that the expression
nomos might very well be gravely misunderstood by readers to whom the
equivalence of nomos and Torah was by no means familiar. He must guard
his statement carefully against such misunderstanding ... he is not dvolJ,oc;
in the sense of leading an unregulated and irresponsible life.'199 Paul, therefore, adds ~eov to anomos: he is not independent of what is God's will.
On the contrary, he is vvolJ,OC; xpWToV. The expressions are coined ad hoc.
From the juxtaposition of dvolJ,OI; ~eov and VVOIJ,OI; XPWToV nothing more
can be inferred than that Paul is bound by God's will which, again, has something to do with Christ. It is quite plausible to understand this to mean that
Paul is in all his doings dependent on Christ and obedient to him 200 ; there
is nothing to suggest a concrete code of precepts.
This interpretation is reinforced by 1 Cor. 7.19. 201 In this verse Paul
states that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, but the keeping
of God's commandments alone (evTOXaL ~eoV). If Paul had such a notion
of the law of Christ as Dodd suggests, one wonders why he did not speak of
the commandments of Lord Jesus in this connection. Anyway, 'he has mentioned a commandment of the Lord shortly before (7.1 0), and will mention
the lack of one in another matter shortly (7.25). In the light of this, the
expression VVOIJ.OC; XptGToV (instead of, say, VVOIJ,OC; ~eoV) in 9.21 appears
accidental. Had the rhythm of the sentence not demanded a change of the
genitive noun, he might as well have mentioned God rather than Christ. It
would have made no difference.
In 9.14 and 7.10, where Paul appeals to the commandments of the Lord
Jesus, it is a question of individual problems, not of the general principles of
Christian existence. We have to do with what might be called beginnings of
church order. 202 Questions of divorce and finance are concrete matters with

199 Dodd, art.cit. 97.

200 J. Weiss, Kiimmel, Conzelmann, Grosheide.
201 Cf. above, p.68.
202 Cf. Weiss, Urchristentum 118, 431; Bultmann, Theology 188; Schiirmann, 'Gesetz'
283. This distinction is disputed by Schrage, Einzelgebote 245 f. He emphasizes that
sayings of the Lord were always authoritative for Paul; Paul seems, however, to have
had a rather limited collection of them at his disposal (242). This is possible. Note
that Schrage, too, (100 n. 116) disagrees with Dodd's understanding of the 'law of
Christ'; that sayings of the Lord did have indisputable authority for Paul is another
matter!

82

11. Is the law still in force?

a legal dimension in a way that the command to love one's neighbour which Paul does not cite as dominical - is not.
The conclusion is that the talk of the 'law of Christ' refers simply to the
way of life characteristic of the church of Christ. To be sure, Paul did not
shrink from giving clear commands to instruct his congregations, as is clear
from both the Corinthian and the Thessalonian correspondence. 203 These
instructions are not, however, based on a code of dominical words. It might
have made Paul's task in explicating the function of the law easier, if he were
to argue from a new Torah of the Messiah which has superseded the old one;
if such an argument was known to him, we must conclude that he chose to
ignore it.

8. Conclusion
Paul's practical attitude to the Torah is characterized by unmistakable
laxity, even though he displays amazing adjustability in trying to avoid obstacles to his mission. His theoretical answer to the question whether or not the
law is still in force, contains a strong tension. The law, 'letter' by nature, is
a thing of the past. Christians are no longer under it; they have died to it.
Christ is the end, that is the termination, ofthe law.
And yet Paul can exhort his readers to Christian love by emphasizing that
love is the fulfIlment of that very law. He can also motivate various moral or
otherwise practical instructions by appealing to words of the law. Now as
before the law is justified in putting a claim on man, even on the Christian.
The special thing with the Christians is that they alone fulfIl that just requirement. Paul underlines that, far from annulling the law, he actually establishes
it. He is thus quite reluctant to admit how far he has actually gone in his
rejection of the law.
Paul thus wants to have his cake and eat it. Depending on the situation,
he asserts, as it were, now the KaTaAVaat now the 1rA1/pWaat of Mt 5.17.
It is not advisable to concentrate on just one or the other of these contradictory lines of thought; as is done by many scholars. The tension cannot be
resolved by way of development theories, either, for it is still there in
Romans. Various distinctions within the law with the intention of telling in
what ,sense the law is in force and in what sense not are modem expedients,
203 See below, p.115 ff. Paul's statement that he has given the Thessalonians orders 6ui
Toii KVplov 'I71O"oii (1 Thess 4.2) can hardly be taken to mean that his instructions
were based on verba Christi. The phrase is difficult to explain; a 'mystical' meaning
'through the activity of Christ in whom we are' (Best, with reference to Thtising, Per
Christum 165 ff.) makes sense, particularly in the light of Rom 15.30, where Paul
asks the readers to help him in his prayers 6ui Toii KVplov 'I71O"oii XpUJ"Toii Kat 6ui
rijl; d'Ydlf711; Toii m>eujUlTO(. Thtising,op.cit.l71 compares 2 Cor 5.20 and Rom 15.18:
the exalted Lord himself speaks through Paul. Also Wilckens, 'Jesustiberlieferung'
315 stresses that Paul has the exalted Lord rather than the historical Jesus in view.

Analogies?

83

attempts to be over-precise where no precision is possible. They cannot be

consistently carried through either. This is also true of the popu1ar explanation that the law is annu1led as a way to salvation while remaining in force
~s the expression of God's moral will. 204 This explanation runs counter to'
2 Cor 3.6 f., where the Decalogue is in no uncertain terms branded as killing
'letter' in a negative sense and the temporary character of the glory of the
Mosaic legislation is stressed. The reduction of the law to the love command
also annihilates the meaning of the Decalogue as such. And what actual content cou1d the law as a valid ethical norm have, if the Christians are in each
case called to judge or to examine (5OKt.p.ci~tv)what God's willis? While surely
doing justice to some passages in Paul, the distinction in question is no more
successful than others as an overall statement ofPau1's view.
Furthermore, this idea is hard to reconcile with the other, often proposed
by the same scholars 205 , that the law was never intended to be a way of
salvation at all! If it was not a way of salvation, then how can it come to an
end in that capacity?206 With more justification one cou1d say that Pau1
regards the law as being abolished as norm or standard (both as a way to salvation and as an expression of God's will) while remaining in force as prediction,
promise and 'paraclesis' (Rom 15.4), that is, as 'YPClJIlT1 ,207 but even this
distinction cannot be carried through consistently, for, as we have seen, as
often as not Paul does view the law as a valid norm.
I suggest that Paul's theology of the law can only be understood if the tensions and self-contradictions in it are taken seriously. The tensions are to be
acknowledged; they should be accepted as clues to Pau1's internal problems.
We will return to these considerations later on.

9. Analogies?
It is hardly surprising that the closest equivalent to the Pauline tension
between an abolished and yet valid law shou1d occur in Ephesians. The author
states very clearly that 'the law of the commandments in precepts' (0 VDJ1,oc;
TWV VTOAWV V MYJ1,aaw) has been destroyed by the death of Christ, so that
the separating wall between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down (2.14 f.). 208

204 Thus, among others, Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 53; Buitmann, Theology 268 f.; Conzelmann, Outline 224; Percy, Probleme 356 f.; Wilckens, Rechtfertigung 109; Schrage,
Einzelgebote 232; Hoheisel, Judentum 182; cf. Mussner, Traktat 235. Correctly
Blaser, Gesetz 229.
205 E.g. by Bultrnann, op.cit .. 263,267, and Maurer, op.cit. 88.
206 This discrepancy is correctly pointed out by Blaser, op.cit. 206.
207 Cf. D'Ange1o,Moses 194.
208 Possibly the words 'I'OV vOIIDV TWV EIJ'I'OAWV EV liay/J.aoLIJ are the author's comment
on his sourGe which may have spoken of the separating wall only; thus Fischer,
Tendenz 132 f.; Lindemann,Aufhebung 171.

84

II. 18 the law still in force?

Yet in the Haustafel at the end of the writing (6.2 f.) children are exhorted
to honour their parents with the motivation that this command of the
Decalogue is 'the first commandment (evToM!) with a promise'. The validity of the Mosaic VTOAai is thus simply taken for granted. This is a typically 'Pauline' self-contradiction. And yet, like Paul, the author does not
systematically consider the Decalogue or the Torah as the basis of his ethics;
like Paul, he advises his readers to 'examine' (lio"lJ.l.ci~oVT<;) what is pleasing to
the Lord (5.10).
The author of Hebrews is quite emphatic about the abrogation of the old
(cultic) law. like Paul, he still appreciates the law with respect to its predictive function; this can, without further ado, be coupled with a negation of
its other aspects. But the author, unlike Paul, never cites the law as an ethical
norm. His conception is thus clearer and more consistent than Paul's.209
The Gospels are difficult to evaluate from this point of view, since so
many important questions about the law are not treated explicitly. Thus
Mark does not tell us, whether the law was, in his view, abrogated by Christ.
In the gospel an implicit distinction seems to be made between ritual stipulations and God's ethical will.21O Like Paul, Mark never points out that
this actually means breaking God's written law in two. God's will as expressed
in the Decalogue (10.17 ff.), the two commandments of love (12.28 ff.) or
in the demand of inward purity (7.15 ff.) are valid further on, even though
the OT commandments are occasionally intensified by Jesus (10.2 ff., cf.
10.21). By contrast, it remains unclear what the evangelist's attitude to the
ceremonial law is. It is not clear whether he rejects animal sacrifices in 12.33;
at any rate, these are located on a lower level than the 'greatest' commandments.
Various ordinances concerning purity are, in any case, clearly repudiated
by Mark (ch. 7). He comments in a derogatory way on ablutions (7.3 f.),
lets Jesus clearly show that they are unnecessary (7.6-13) and finally declare
that nothing that enters man from without can defIle him (7.15). Mark's
understanding of the saying - whatever its original purport - is clear from
7.18-20: Jesus declared all foods clean.
As regards the actual contents of the OT law, Mark 7.15 ff. runs counter
to certain sections of that law, notably the food regulations of Lev 11.211
Understandably, inteTreters often conclude that, for Mark, the Torah is
abrogated by Jesus. 21 Conspicuously, however, Mark never frames either his
209 Hebrews also regards the law as a shadowy typos of the new covenant; the relatively
favourable evaluation of the law is shared by Colossians (2.17).

210 Cf. Werner, Einf/uss 80; Schulz,Mitte 216.

211 This is denied by Hanks, Jesus 144 f. who claims (arbitrarily) that Mark thinks of
'foods involved in idol-worship'.

212 Thus Hasler, Gesetz 26; HUbner, Tradition 223, cf. 226; Hummel, Auseinanderset-

Analogie8?

85

editorial comments on Jewish customs or Jesus' critical remarks as a critique

of the Torah. 213 In 7.5 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees merely on the
score of neglecting the post-Biblical tradition of the elders. The evangelist
never suggests, in the course of ch. 7, that anything other than just this tradition is put under fire. 214 His readers, who seem to have had rather vague
notio"ns of Judaism, must have gained this impression from the book.215 To
what extent Mark himself was aware of the actual conflict between ch. 7 and
Leviticus is difficult to assess. 216 Apparently he did not reflect on the contents of the Torah; somehow he seems to presuppose that God's old revelation must have been based on the same principle of 'inwardness' as Jesus'

zung 53 f.; Luz, 'Gesetz' 117. Schulz, BotBchaft 86 f. thinks that the purity laws of

both the OT itself and of the later tradition are, from Mark's point of view, absurd.
213 Mark's traditions contain elements which suggest some amount of indifference to the
law; e.g. his touching the leper (1.41) or, indirectly, his dining with sinners and publicans. Mark, however, reveals no consciousness of a tension with the law.
214 On the 'thematic unity' of 7.1-23 in the editor's mind see Lambrecht, 'Jesus' 25.
- The conflict stories in chs. 2-3 likewise stress the antagonism between Jesus, the
teacher Ka:r' etoualav (1.22, 27) and the scribes who had replaced God's will with
their own precepts; cf. 2.6, 2.16, 2.24, 3.1, 3.6. Not even the story 2.23 ff. gives the
impression that the Torah is being transgressed (contra Hasler, Ge8etz 18 f.). The
Pharisees define what they consider unlawful (2.24), but Jesus is able to show that
the authority of Scripture is on his side (2.25 f.). 2.27 draws the conclusion as to the
intention of the law and 2.28 shows who is the authorized interpreter. The force
of 2.21 f. is not clear. In themselves the words suggest a rejection of Jewish customs;
yet in v. 20 the custom of fasting (declined as regards the time of Jesus) is affirmed as
regards the time of the church. Mark is no systematic thinker; often he is content to
juxtapose different materials. Probably 2.21 f. also suggested to him the freedom
from Pharisaic ordinances. On the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees/Scribes in
Mark see further 3.22 ff., 8.11 f., 8.15, 11.27 f., 12.9, 12, 12.38 ff., and the Passion
Narrative.
215 Readers who needed an explanation of the custom of washing hands were surely
not able to distinguish between Torah and halakah.
216 HUbner, op.cit. 225 puts cautiously forward the question, whether Mark realized that
what was abrogated in 7.15 was actually contained in the OT itself. This question
presupposes that the Evangelist was a Gentile Christian - a view that has gained
considerable ground in recent years. Indeed, 7.3-4 looks like 'derision of the nonJew' (Schweizer; cf. Niederwimmer, 'Johannes Markus' 184). The editor looks at
Judaism from. without also in 7.13b and 7.19. But then he could also have been a
Hellenistic Jew, alienated from Judaism to a similar degree as Paul was; indeed 7.19
parallels the sarcasm of Gal 5.12 or Phil 3.2. In any case Mark must have been a
Christian, most probably a teacher of a congregation, for quite some time before he
undertook to compose the gospel. It is. difficult to imagine that such a. person could
have been quite ignorant of the conflicts over the Torah, notably the food laws,
between Paul and the 'Judaizers' some twenty years earlier. Could he have been
totally ignorant of the 'Apostolic Decree' which is, of course, also hit by 7.19? So
the most likely solution is simply that Mark failed to reflect on the Torah; critique
of the Torah and critique of traditions of the elders simply fuse together.

86

II. Is the law still in force?

proclamation of God's will.217 For in other sections in his gospel Mark places
great emphasis on the continuity between genuine Jewish faith and the teaching of Jesus.
One such passage is 12.28-34. Answering a Jewish scribe's question about
the 'greatest' commandment Jesus isolates a 'first' and a 'second' commandment. Significantly, the scribe concurs and even complements Jesus' answer
with a 'critical' remark: loving God and one's neighbour is much more important than all the sacrifiGes. Mark then makes the point that the remark is
'intelligent'; the man is not far away from the reign of God. It is important
for Mark that he can show 'that a representative of the present Jewish tradition, indeed a representative of the main opponents in the Gospel of Mark,
bears witness that Jesus stands on the fundament of the rightly understood
Biblical-Jewish tradition' and represent Jesus as the real fulfIller of that
tradition. 218 The pericope in question impressively closes a series of debates
between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, implying that the tradition is on
Jesus' side.
In all this, Mark shares to some extent the anomaly of Rom 3.31. On the
one hand he suggests that Jesus brings the intentions of the old religion to
completion; on the other hand he ignores the material conflict between some
sayings of Jesus and the actual contents of the Torah. The diffewnce is that in
Mark we have a clash between two implicit suggestions, whereas in Paultwo
explicit claims stand in mutual contradiction.
Matthew differs from Paul in that he programmatically denies the abrogation of the Torah through Christ (5.17). He is clearly. somewhat more conservative than Mark in his handling of the relevant texts. 219 Some traditions
preserved by Matthew emphasize the absolute validity and immutability of
the law in the present age (5.18) or even the binding nature of the Pharisaic
traditions (23.2 f.).
On the other hand, Matthew views the law in the light of a consciously
critical principle: the law is to be interpreted in the light of its kernel, the
dual commandment of love, on which 'all the law and the prophets hang'
217 Thus Werner, op.cit. 81.
218 H-W. Kuhn, 'Problem' 304, followed by Pesch. Cf. also Nineham.
219 ' ... where Matthew can rework his sources so that passages critical of the law are
mitigated and domesticated he does so'. 'If possible, he preserves or restores the
authority of the Torah'. HUbner, Tradition 196,197. Apart from ch. 15, discussed
below, cf. Matthew's edition of his traditions in 11.13 and 22.40. Where the Q-5aying
(Lk 16.16) spoke of the law and the prophets being there 'until John', Matthew's
wording (11.13) rules out any idea of the termination of the validity of the law;
cf. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis 59 f. On 22.40 see Manson, Sayings 227; id., Teaching
304 n. 2.
It is certainly wrong to speak of Matthew as a 'radical antinomian', as Walker,
Heilsgeschichte 135 does.

Analogies?

87

(22.40). God wants mercy rather thansacrifices(9.13, 12.7); the law and the
prophets can be summarized in the Golden Rule (7.12). Through the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (5 .21-48)220 certain commandments of
the Torah are radicalized and internalized. 221 At least the prohibition of
oath and the rebuttal of the ius'talionis, however, run counter to statements
of the OT Torah itself. 222 Whether Matthew understood these antitheses in
this way is another matter. As the new commandments amount to radicalizations which make the law more difficult to keep, Matthew can well have
understood them as a new interpretation of the old law rather than as its
modification. 223 Matthew's intention is evident in 5.17, a probably wholly
editorial verse 224 : Jesus did not come to abrogate (Kara"Avaat) the law (and
the prophets), but to fulfil (rr"ATlPwaat) them. The programmatic saying is
strangely ambiguous in content. 225 .The general idea would seem to be:
220 For a bibliography see Strecker, 'Antithesen' 36 n. 1.
221 The first and second antithesis are undisputedly only internalized and radicalized
interpretations of the old law; the same is probably true of the sixth one. Cf. Meier,
Law 135 ff..; Broer, Freiheit 85-91. The third antithesis (the statement on divorce)
is difficult to assess; the meaning depends on the interpretation of the notorious
1Tapel<Tt:k-clause. This antithesis is understood as a revocation of the old commandment by Meier, op;cit. 140 ff.; differently Sigal, Halakhah 104 ff.; Dietzfelbinger,
'Antithesen' 9 and apparently Hubner,op.cit.61 ff.; cf. also Broer, op.cit. 95-101.
222 Cf. Meier, op.cit. 150 ff.; but see Broer, op.cit. 91-94. Sigal, op.cit. 93 f. thinks that
Matt 5.34 refers to personal vows and oaths but not to the judicial oath (Ex 22.10).
223 Cf. Davies, Setting 99-102 who also points out that in his redaction of Mk 1.27
Matthew omits the Markan expression 616axr, Kawr, (Mt 7.28, the end of the Sermon
on the Mount!); Luz, 'Gesetz' 82; Przybylski, Righteousness 81 (he, however, proposes that Matthew portrays Jesus as 'making a fence around the Torah' in 5.2148, which is quite unlikely; Matthew displays no such concern for the old law, see
below n. 232); cf. Burchard, 'Versuch' 422-424.
By contrast, others emphasize that the antitheses in question represent decisive
modifications of the OT commandments; cf. Strecker, Weg 147; Hummel, op.cit.
71 ff.; Hubner, op.cit. 84 f.; Montefiore, Gospels II 488, 513; Meier, op.cit. 157 ff.;
Sand, Gesetz 53. This may be true as regards the actual content of the commandments. It is a different question, however, whether Matthew admitted or perceived
this, Cf. Barth, op.cit. 148; Strecker, 'Antithesen' 55,69 n. 104.
The issue is, to be sure, further complicated through the possibility that the antithetical form of the antitheses is .d.ue to Matthew himself; thus Suggs, 'Antitheses';
Broer, op.cit. 102 ff. Yet Matthew need not have understood under that which had
been 'said to the men of old' the Torah itself (thus Broer); he may well have had the
s<;ribal interpretive tradition in mind (thus Burchard, art.cit. 423 f.; Suggs, art.cit.
441). And after all a case can be made for the possibility that Matthew got the antithetical formula from his tradition; thus e.g. Strecker, art.cit. 45.
224 Thus Strecker, Weg 144; Hummel, op.cit. 66_ Others try to isolate a traditional
kernel; thus, e.g., Hubner, op.cit. 33 f.; Meier, op.cit. 82 ff. (who assumes an extremely hypothetical original form OUK 1\ A~ov Ka TaAiiaal ,TOV VOIlOV dAAa 1Toleiv); cf.
also Luz, 'Erfiillung' 403 f.
225 What is fulfilled by Jesus, and how? The use of KaTaAiiaal suggests the command-

88

II. Is the law still in force?

Jesus has realized the true intentions of the 'law and the pro~hets', but it
seems impossible to pinpoint the precise meaning of 1TA17PWaat. 2 6
The main difficulty is posed by the phrase OVK i/M'ov KaTaAVaat. Is Matthew, too, caught in the dilemma of Rom 3.31? The answer to this question
depends on how one sees the attitude of Matthew to the ritual law. Unfortunately it is not clear whether or not Matthew thought the ritual law to have
been abrogated by Jesus. 227
Matt 9.13 and 12.7 show at least that sacrifices are subordinated to higher
values. Ch. 12 does not suggest a strict observance of the Sabbath, but 24.20
does. 228 What relevance circumcision may have had in Matthew's cOp1munity we do not learn. 229
The crucial passage is in ch. 15 (Matthew's reinterpretation of Mk 7).
Verses 11 and 17 suggest an abrogation of food laws. On the other hand,
however, Matthew omits the Markan generalization 'he declared all foods

ments of the law, whereas 1r7l.T)poiiv makes one think of the theme of fulfIlment of
prophecies, dominant t1uoughout the gospel. For the problems connected with
1r7l.T)pWaaL see Trilling,Israel147 ff.; Meier, op.cit. 73 ff.; Luz, art.cit. 413 ff.
226 Trilling shows that each antithesis 'fulfils' the old commandment in a different sense
and concludes: 'Mit dem Begriff des 1r;>"T)p~aadst dem Evangelisten tatsachlich ein
ZauberschlUssel an die Hand gegeben, der alIen Problemen urn das Gesetz die TUre fUr
ein konservatives und zugleich fortschrittliches Verstandnis offnet.' Op.cit. 188;
cf. also Luz, art.cit. 416. It .thus seems that the evangelist can only hold all his traditions (plus the view expressed in the editorial comments) together by resorting to a
sufficiently vague key concept that is able to suggest a wide variety of associations.
One is reminded of Paul's handling of the term nomos; cf. ch. I.
227 He did according to Strecker, Weg 30 ff., 135; Schulz, Mitte 180 f.; Broer, Freiheit
114-122; cf. Simonsen, 'Auffassung' 53-58. He did not according to Barth, op.cit.
83 ff.; Hummel, op.cit. 48; Davies, Setting 104; Fenton,Mt 251 f.; Luz, art.cit. 425;
id., 'Gesetz' 83 f.
228 Barth, op.cit. 85 and HUbner, op.cit. 127 regard Mt.24.20 as an insertion by Matthew
himself. As the verse is hard to harmonize with ch. 12, it is difficult to understand
it as a Matthaean addition, however. Barth, op.cit. 86 wants to understand the decline of a flight on a sabbath as a practical expedient with regard to the hostile Jews;
yet he himself notes that a flight on a sabbath was at the time of Matthew no longer
regarded as sin. It is much more natural to view the remark asa piece of tradition;
thus, e.g., Schweizer, ad loc.; Strecker, Weg 32.
229 Circumcision is conspicuously ignored in the mission commandment 28.16-20;
cf. Meier, op.cit. 28 f.; Luz, 'Erfiillung' 428 ff. Yet the early history of Christianity
shows that even Jewish Christians (Peter!) could accept Gentiles into the congregation without circumcision without thereby on principle taking a' critical attitude to
the ceremonial law. It may be that circumcision was no problem in Matthew's community: the Jewish members were circumcised anyway, and the rite was not imposed
on Gentiles. Cf. the reflections of Luz, art.cit. 430; id., 'Gesetz' 80, 86; he asks
whether the community of Matthew had only recently opted for a mission among
Gentiles, so that the consequences for the understanding of the law had not yet been
thought through. Similarly S. Brown, 'Community' 217 f.

Analogies?

89

clean' (Mk 7.19).230 Moreover, he concludes the section with the editorial
comment that eating with unwashed hands does not make a person unclean
(v, 20). This suggests that, in Matthew's mind, the topic of the discussion is
the 'tradition of the elders' (v. 2) alone. This conclusion is reinforced by the
Matthaean insertion of verses 12-14 which point out that just the Pharisees
(with their traditions) were hurt by what Jesus said; even more importantly,
Jesus remarks that the custom criticized is to be uprooted, because it isa
'plantation' not planted by God. Such features render the assumption of a
critique of the ceremonial parts of the Torah on Matthew's part unlikely. The
conclusion is, then, that (as was the case with the antitheses of 5.21 ff.)
Matthew understands his 'radical' traditions in a milder sense. 231 On the
other hand, the traditions of Matthew also include extremely conservative
sayings like 5.18 f. or 23.2 f.; of these, too, the evangelist must have taken a
moderate view. 232
If something like the above reflections correctly represents Matthew's
stance, then his point of view is reasonably clear; certainly much clearer than
Paul's. However, the fact that careful scholars can produce widely differing
interpretations of Matthew's view 233 commends caution at this point. If
Matthew's statements are read on just one synchronic level and the interpret:
er refrains from an extensive reading between the lines, then Matthew's
book certainly displays a rather strong tension and a good deal of vagueness
with regard to the law. 234 His redactional operations (5.1 7!) do not help to
230 Matthew also replaces Mark's generalizing oil6ev with the expression oil TO EtUEPX6/LEVOV.

231 HUbner, op.cit. 179 f. interprets, instead, Matthew's treatment of the section on the
basis of the Rabbinic distinction between primary and secondary uncleanness;
Matthew"s Jesus abrogates the notion of secondary uncleanness, stating that foods
which have become unclean through cultically unclean hands (but not being prohibited in Lev 11) are actually clean. I find it difficult to discover such a subtlety
'in Matthew's text.
232 Mt 5.18 must be read in the larger Matthaean context; cf. HUbner, op.cit. 34, 197.
See, however, Simonsen, art.cit. 51-53, 65: Matthew wishes indeed to emphasize
that in the present aeon the law remains valid; the tension that thus results should
not be explained away from Matthew's view of the law. Meier, op.cit. 29 f., 43 f.,
and passim proposes an artificial solution of the tension between the conservative
and the moderate statements: the sayings about the validity of the law are meant to
apply to the period before Jesus' death and resurrection alone, in analogy with the
particularist mission directions in 10.5 f. A comparison. of 11.25 ff. with 28.16 ff.
shows that Matthew makes no distinction between the teaching of the earthly Jesus
and that of the risen Jesus; cf. Bornkamm, 'Risen' 208; HUbner, op.cit. 198 f. Meier
has indeed to resort to the explanation that the vanishing of heaven and earth in 5.18
means 'the apocalyptic event of the death-resurrection of Jesus' (op.cit. 65)! It is
patently wrong to conclude that the scribal tradition still has authority for Matthew
(23.2 f., 23.23); thus Hummel, op.cit. 47; correctly Simonsen, art.cit. 47 f.
233 Simonsen's instructive study makes this abundantly clear.
234 Cf. the conclusion of Simonsen, art.cit. 67.

90

II. Is the law still in force?

remove the tension between his conservative (5.18!) and radical (15.1U)
traditions. It remains unclear, in what sense Christ 'fulfils' the law and how it
can be claimed that it is not 'annulled'. This unclarity Matthew shares with
Paul.
John, too, is a man of the fulfilment line. Christ is the fulfilment of the
Scriptures pointing to him. This fulfilment, however, means that the law has
been emptied from meaning; it has completed its task. John offers no statements about the law's continuing validity. The final revelation consists of the
words of Jesus. Characteristically, the love commandment is not given as a
summary of the old law, but as a new commandment of Jesus. John thus connects continuity with the law and freedom from it in an impressive way.
There may be some tension, however, between John's apologetic reasoning in 7.21-23 to prove that Jesus' transgressing the Sabbath was not against
the intention of the law 235 and the blunt statement in 5.18 that Jesus
'abolished' the Sabbath - if that is what A.vv means. 236 It is emphasized
in ch. 5 that Jesus sets himself over the Sabbath on the ground that he is
continuing his Father's work of creation; such a sovereign act is hardly in
need of a scribal apology like that set forth in 7.21-23. But the point of the
latter section is in fact to show that the Jews' arguments against Jesus are
weak. 237
John is free to take a relatively .positive attitude to the law, since he stresses
exclusively its predictive function. 238 Like John the Baptist, the law, too,
witnesses to Jesus. This is its only purpose after the revelation of Jesus has
taken place. 239 Some of John's OT testimonies well match those of Paul in
arbitrariness (see e.g. 8.17).240
John does not speak of Jesus as thefulfllment of the law (but merely as the
fulfilment of the Scriptures).241 From the point of view of the Christians,
the law is definitely a thing of the past. We hear nothing about the permanence of the law in the vein of Mt 5.18, Lk 16.17. Only the words of Jesus
have an imperishable value, first of all the new commandment of (fraternal)
love. The love command is not set in the framework of the law, as it is in

235 The law itself requires men to break the Sabbath ordinances in certain cases (circumcision on the eighth day), and a qal-wa-homer conclusion shows that to heal the
whole man must be more important than the Sabbath.
236 Thus Schnackenburg;Pancaro, Law 160; Ljungman, Gesetz 71.
237 Cf. Becker.
238 Pancaro, op.cit. 525.
239 Cf. Pancaro, op.cit. 525 f.
240 The argument. in Jn 8.l} is artificial to such a degree that Bultmann ad loco and
Theology 28 regards it as a parody of the Jewish appeal to the law. Yet John must
have understood the argument as juridically valid, given the perspective of faith;
cf. Pancaro, op.cit. 277.
241 Pancaro, op.cit. 543.

Analogies?

91

Mark, Matthew and Paul; it is not set forth as the greatest commandment in
the law or even as its fulftlment. 242
If my reading of Luke (following Jervell) is correct, Luke does not think
of an abrogation of the law at all; it continues to be valid for Jewish Christians, whereas Gentile Christians are to observe only the minimum law laid
down in the Apostolic Decree. Luke's work is indeed almost free from the
problems we are concerned with at present. 'The life of the primitive church
at Jerusalem as depicted in the early chapters of Acts is determined by universal adherence to the law .. .'243 Likewise, the charges against Stephen
(Acts 6.14) are said to be false. Paul is described as a pious, Torah-abiding
Pharisee (Acts 16.3, 21.20 ff.). In the Gospel, Luke 'avoids any criticism of
the law or parts of it by Jesus,244 , getting therefore here and there into some
tension with his sources. 245 Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke gives 'no summary of the law in the one central commandment of love' in his version of
Jesus' discussion with the lawyer (Lk 10.25 ff.)246 The discussion is on
inheriting eternal life, not on the greatest commandment, and the right
answer is given by the lawyer rather than by Jesus, which further underlines
the-continuity between the old religion and Jesus' message. Likewise, in the
discussions over the Sabbath there is 'no conflict with the law'. Luke 'is concerned to show that Jesus acted in complete accordance with the law, and
that the Jewish leaders were not able to raise any objections' (see Lk 13.17a,
14.6).247 Treating divorce, Luke 'avoids the obvious renunciation of Moses'
in Mark's pericope. 248 Mk 10.2 ff. is omitted, and the critical saying Lk
16.18 is embedded into a context which emphasizes the permanence of the
law (16.17!).249
The critical section Mk 7 is lacking in Luke. As this is part of Luke's
'great omission', we cannot be sure whether he knew the story; Lk 11.37 ff.
242 Cf. Pancaro, op.cit. 444 f.; Luz, 'Gesetz' 124.
243 Jervell, Luke 138.
244 Jervell, op.cit. 138.
245 Parts of the OT law are actually revoked in 6.27 ff. (ius talionis) and 16.18 (prohibition of divorce). The OT passages in question are not .quoted, however, and the juxtaposition of 16.18 with 16.17 makes one think that Luke did not admit the contradiction between the OT commandment and the new injunction. See Hubner, Tradition
207; cf. also Montefiore, Gospels 11 508. Lk 10.8 also stands in tension with Luke's
tendency in Acts; it is therefore natural to ascribe this verse to Luke's source (Q?)
rather than to the Evangelist himself. Cf. Rliislinen, 'Jesus' 83, 95 n. 52.
246 Jervell, op.cit. 139.
247 Op.cit. 140.
248 Op.cit. 139.
249 In the light of 16.17 one cannot but give 16.16 a non-radical meaning on the editorial
level. Accofding to Jervell, op.cit. 150 n. 35 it means, for Luke, 'that only since John
is the kingdom preached'. Cf. Hubner, Tradition 207. Differently e.g. Caird: the old
order is over. Caird must, however, take v. 17 as 'an ironical attack on the pedantic
conservatism of the Scribes' (so also Manson, ,Sayings 135) which cannot be correct.

92

11. Ig the law gtill in force?

may suggest that he did. 250 Elsewhere, at least, Luke asserts that the 'customs from the fathers' are in harmony with the law (Acts 6.14, 21.21,28.17;
cf. 10.14 ff., 11.3, 8). From this point of view, the disagreement between
Jesus and his Pharisaic host over washing oneself (Lk 11.38 ff.) seems somewhat inconsistent 251 ; anyway, the fmal comment of the section mvm Se
lSe, 1TOtija(JJ. KaL K.eiva p:Ti 1TapetVat (Lk 11.4 2c Q) betrays no criticism of the
traditions of the elders. The statement that 'everything will be clean for you',
if you use what is 'inside' the cup for almsgiving (Lk 11.41), sounds rather
liberal, but Luke's own interpretation of it is difficult to determine. 252
While the Lukan Jesus' solidarity with the law is hardly in dispute, many
scholars find an abrogation of the law in the new 'history-of-salvation' situation described in Acts. In Luke's view, it is thought, the law was replaced by
the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15.21 ff.)2S3 One can indeed refer to Peter's
vision (Acts 10.11-16) which finds its climax in the statement that Peter is
not to regard as unclean what God has cleansed (v. 15). But does this mean
that foods, too, have been cleansed, and not just Gentile people? Luke's
own interpretation is clear from Acts 10.28, 15.9: it is a question of cleansin
a man, the Gentile Cornelius (who stands for other believing Gentiles, too). 25
That all foods are not clean is clear enough from the Decree itself! 255
The notion of the law as an epoch is nevertheless correct - with one important modification. The law is replaced by the Ap05tolic Decree as regards
Gentile Christians. For Jewish Christians (who may not have been obsolete in
Luke's day256) the law remains fully in force. Even after the apostolic council both Paul (Acts 16.3, 25.8, 28.17) and all other Jewish Christians (21.
17-26) meticulously observe the law. As for the freedom of the Gentile
Christians, Luke is at pains to show that the decision was made because of
God's clear guidance (Acts 15.7-14) and in accordance with the words of
the prophets (Acts 15.15-17).,Godhimselfhad shown that it is not necessary for Gentile Christians to observe more than the minimum law (the
Decree).257 Luke thus does not at all share Paul's problems.
Turning to Jewish texts of the time we can fmd little that could be regarded as in any sense analogous to Paul's problems - for the simple reason that
250 Cf. Hubner, op.cit. 182 ff.; Jervell, op.cit. 139.
251 Cf. Hubner, op.cit. 188.
252 Jervell, op.cit: 140 ascribes the talk of almsgiving to Luke's redaction, but this is
uncertain; on the discussion see e.g. Hubner, op.cit. 187.
253 Conzelmann,Mitte 148.

254 Cf. Haenchen; Jervell, op.cit. 149 n. 24; differently Hubner, op.cit. 189 ff.: food
laws are abrogated in Acts 10-11.
255 Correctly Haenchen. It is another matter that the original point of the story of
Peter's vision may have been that all foods are declared clean; cf. Conzelmann, Apg
61. We are concemed with Luke'g view on the matter.
256 Cf. Jervell, 'Minority'.
257 Jeivell contends that in Acts 15 'Luke labors to prove that the salvation of the

Analogies?

93

it is very hard to find anything resembling an abrogation of the law in Jewish

sources. Secularized renegades are of no interest in this connection. There
was, pace Berger, probably no antinomian stream in Hellenistic Judaism. 258
Unfortunately, we are not sufficiently informed of the Alexandrian allegorizers mildly rebuked by Philo (Migr. Abr. 89-93), who ascribed (like Philo)
symbolic meaning to the ritual precepts, and (unlike Philo) had therefore
given up their practical observance. In view of the mildness of Philo's criticism of them it is impossible to see in themmilitantJewishprecursors of Paul
who demanded the abrogation of the law?59 it is probably more to the point
to see in them rather harmless (from the Jewish community's point of view)
contemplative individualists. 260
As for Philo, it may be noted in this connection that he is inconsistent
in ascribing to the literal sense of the laws some profound wisdom also in
his allegorical writings. 261 This is especially marked in his polemic against
mocking outsiders in Con! Ling. 2 ff. In such a connection Philo can approvingly refer to an apologetic interpretation of the literal sense (14), although
he in general often uses objections to the literal sense to justify his allegorization. Evidently he does not want to concede anything to decided opponents of the Bible. 262
Had Philo carried through consistently his allegorical theory, he ought to
have given up the literal sense of the passages interpreted allegorically altogether. He displays a 'both - and' -attitude, especially when the question of
the authority of the Bible is explicitly involved. Not least from the psychological point of view, the situation Philo found himself in recalls that of Paul.
But there is altogether very little light on this particular problem to be gained
from Jewish sources. Paul's problem is that of a radical Jewish-Christian in
search of a balance between his past and present experience.
As regards other NT writers, Paul would seem to share the vagueness of
his 'fulfIlment' assertions with Matthew and perhaps with Mark. The tension
between explicit radical statements and explicit conservative ones is, interestingly enough, found outside of Paul's letters only in the Deuteropauline Ephesians.
Gentiles occurs in complete accordance with the law' (Luke 143); 'it is not lawful
to impose upon Gentiles more than Moses himself demanded' (144). Acts 15.21 does
not, however, give the impression that Moses is invoked as a witness of the validity
of the decree. The decree is not understood as an OT precept but as an expression
of consideration for Jews or Jewish Chrigtians who are present everywhere; correctly
Luz, 'Gesetz' 155 n. 206.
258 See above, I 4 b.
259 Cf. Friedliinder, Bewegungen 285, 353 f. Wolfson, Philo I 68 points out that all
Philo felt he needed to 'make them turn aside from the error of their way' was to
point out the implications of their attitude.
260 Wolfson, op.cit. 69.
261 Heinemann,Bildung 514 f., cf. 468.
262 Heinemann, op.cit. 573 n. 2.

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

1. Fulfilling the whole law is impossible
In Gal 3.6 ff. Paul sets forth the contrast between 'those of faith' and
'those of works of the"law' (v. 7,9; v. 10). Those who are 'of faith' are blessed along with Abraham (v. 9). Not so 'those who are of works of the law'
(v. 10):1 they are all under a curse. This is proved from Deut 27.26 (LXX):
it is written that everybody who does not cling to all (precepts) written in the
book of the law to fulfill them is accursed. The majority of interpreters
assume that Paul is thinking here of the impossibility of fulftlling the Torah,
although he does not say this in so many words. 2 All those who stick to the
law are accursed, because they all transgress it. No doubt this interpretation
is correc!,3
To be sure, it is held by others that the idea of unfulfillability is absent
from Paul's argument. The fault with the law is not that it cannot be fulftlled,
but rather that it drives man to do things. 4 The function of v. 10 is, according
to this view, only to show 'that what is important in the sphere of the law is
doing'S; the stress is placed on the word 1TOt17aat. 6 'The conclusive proof that
the law does not bring righteousness is found in verses 11 and 12.'7
This interpretation is on the right track - as far as verses 11-12 are concerned. As an exposition ofv. 10, however, it is untenable. 8 Had Paul wished
1 V. 10 shows that v. 9 is meant as exclusive; the 'YQp of v. 10 indicates that v. 9 implies

that the people of 'works' do not get the blessing. a. Mussner.

.
2 Thus, e.g., Lipsius, Sieffert, Bousset, Lietzmann, Loisy, Oepke, Becker, Neil; Zehnpfund, 'Gesetz' 398 f.; Schlatter, Glaube 332; Grundmann, 'Gesetz' 57; Buber, Zwei
Glaubensweisen 53 f.; Berger, 'Abraham' 51; van Diilmen, Theologie 32; HUbner,
Gesetz 19 f.; Luz, Geschichtsverstiindnis 149; id., 'Gesetz' 94 f.; Schoeps, Paul 176 f.;
Wilckens, Rechtfertigung 92; Stendahl, Paul 80; Vos, Untersuchungen 89; Hoheisel,
Judentum 187; Byrne, 'Sons' 151 and n. 56.
3 The curse probably is the curse with which the law threatens its transgressor; as everybody is a transgressor, all men of 'works' are under it (and not merely exposed to it);
see on this Mussner., .
4 Thus, e.g., Schlier; Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 22; Kertelge, Rechtfertigung 209; van der
Minde, Schrift 131.
5 Maurer, ibid.
6 Schlier.
7 Maurer, ibid.
8 Cf. Luz, op.cit. 149 n. 56: in itself, v. 10 is quite clear; it is only in the light ofv. 12
that anybody can come to an interpretation like that of Schlier.

Fulfilling the whole law is impossible

95

merely to emphasize the falsity of the principle of 'doing', the best method
would have been to omit v. 10 altogether; the idea would then have been
clear enough from verses 11-12. To read this idea into v. 10, however; one
actually ought to cancel the negative particle oi}/d Gal 5.3 confirms the unfulfillabllity interpretation.9 Paul there stresses that one who is circumcised is
obliged to fulfil (1fOL7juat, as in 3.10) the whole law.lO Obviously this should
be enough to discourage the Galatians from being circumcised and searching
for justification in the law (v. 4). The implication thus is that it can be taken
for granted that nobody is able to fulf:tl the Torah in its totality. Taken together, 3.10 and 5.3 seem to reveal 'an enormously rigorous attitude',n from
the Jewish point of view even an 'overstrained definition' of the obedience to
the law required of man 12 ; total obedience alone is sufficient, but total
obedience is impossible.
Rom 1.18-3.20 confirms the view that Paul hints at the idea that everybody is a transgressor in Gal 3.10.13 It is Paul's explicit concern in this pas9 Correctly Schoeps, op.cit. 177.
10 Gal 5.3 definitely refutes Bring's peculiar interpretation of 3.10 (Christus 44, 56 ff.).
For Bring, Gal 3.10 as usually interpreted is an absurdity. He thinks that,1I'OI.EW TOV
v6i.ov is identical with fulfilling the law in Christ (Christus 44); 1I'OIE;;V th~s refers to
something quite distinct from the lp,,(a. Cf. also Lull, Spirit 124 ff. 5.3,.with 1I'OIEW,
would be incomprehensible on this view.
11 HUbner, 'Das ganze Gesetz' 244.
12 Moore, Judaism Ill, 150. Yet from the fact that a Jew did not see the law in this light
one should not jump to the conclusion that Paul could not either; thus Howard, Crisis
53.
13 Cf. Mussner; Luz, 'Gesetz' 95. E.P. Sanders, Paul 483 emphasizes that what is wrong
with the law is that 'it does not rest on faith', which is the purport of v. 11-12.
In Law 20ff. , he develops an interesting argument against the unfulfillability interpretation. Paul uses in Gal 3.10-13 those proof-texts he can f"md in the LXX to support the view that Gentiles are justified by faith. Having seized on the Abraham passages
where 'blessing' is mentioned he is concerned to find a text where nomos is connected
with 'curse'; the only such passage in the LXX is Deut 27.26! Paul simply has to quote
that verse, and Sanders proposes 'that the thrust of Gal. 3.10 is borne by the words
nomos and 'cursed', not by the word 'all', which happens to a~ear' (21). 3.10-13
as a whole is 'subsidiary to 3.8' (22). I would agree with Sanders' methodological
principle that Paul's own words are more important than the wordings of his quotations; they are 'the clue to what he took the proof-texts to mean' (22). Nevertheless,
Deut 27.26 would be a surprisingly poorly chosen proof-text had Paul only wished to
.show that 'those who accept the law are cursed' (Sanders, op.cit. 22); the text would
seem to say precisely the opposite. Of course Paul is quite capable of turning verses of
the OT into their opposites. Yet it would seem that Sanders does not take Gal 5.3
seriously enough when he reduces it to 'a kin4 of threat' with the aid of which Paul
can discourage the Galatians from being circumcised: 'if you start it must all be kept'
(op.cit. 27). I would put the decisive emphasis on Rom 1.18,-3.20. In this passage Paul
surely argues that no one has lived according to the law and that no flesh can therefore
be justified by works of the law (Rom 3.20). I would apply to Gal 3.10 Sanders' own
insight into the operating of Paul's thought: in this verse Paul does assume that the law

96

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

sage to demonstrate that aI/have sinned (3.20) and that all are under sin (3.9).
Gal 6.13, too, is to be mentioned in this connection. In this verse Paul states
that his Judaizing opponents do not even themselves fulfil the law. One
should not search for subtle indications of the opponents' doctrine in this
verse. 14 It is quite simply a piece of polemic along the lines later set forth in
Rom 2.17 ff. Paul wants 'here, as so often, to caricature the opponent in his
typically Jewish incapability of fulfilling the law, instead of giving an objective description,.15
The interpretation we rejected for Gal 3.1 0 is, however, quite appropriate
as an interpretation of the next two verses. Formally, verse 11 is introduced
as if it were proof for v. 10.16 From the point of view of its content it looks
more like a new argument, parallel to v. 10. Verse 10 suggests an empirical
fact; verse 11 refers to a fundamental principle which is valid independently
of such facts. The two arguments stand in tension. 17 Two different explanations of the curse of the law are juxtaposed to each other. This leads to the
problem that the failure to keep the law makes one guilty (cf. Rom 2.1 ff.)
while being simultaneously from the view-point of righteousness in Christ a
necessary failure.1 8 We will see in the course of the discussion that it is the
idea of verse 11 that is of more fundamental importance in Paul's thought. 19
But whatever the reasons for the existence of the two differing arguments
side by side,20 for the moment it is important to underline that Paul offers
the 'empirical' argument that those under the law do not actually keep it
totally.
cannot be fulfilled, but he came to this view 'backwards'; see below" p. 108 f.

14

It is futile to speculate, on the basis of this verse, about opponents who were allegedly'

lax about parts of the law, while insisting on circumcision; thus, e.g. Liitgert, Gesetz
101 f.; Munck, Paulus 82, 84; M. Smith, 'Persecution' 264; Schmithals, Gnostics 33;
Suhl, Paulus 16, 25 (suggesting political view-points); Kertelge, op.cit. 197-200;
M. Barth, 'St. Paul' 19 f.; cf. Gunther, Opponents 83. Correctly Betz.
15 Eckert, Verkiindigung 34 f., cf. 41 f.; similarly Mussner. Somewhat differently
Howard, op.cit. 15 f.
16 Thus Bousset.
17 Luz, Geschichtsverstiindnis 150: 'Nachdem er vorher also vom faktischen Nichthalten
des Gesetzes gesprochen hat, tritt nun gleichsam ein neues Argument neben das ente,
obschon es jenes faktisch aufhebt: Weil niimlich ein anderes Rechtfertigungsprinzip
... in der Gegenwart wirksam ist, ist Rechtfertigung aus dem Gesetz ausgeschlossen.' .
18 Luz, op.cit. 151.
19 Luz arrives at the conclusion that verse 11 f. 'markiert wohl gleichsam den Standort,
von dem aus das empirische Urteil V. 10 gefallt werden kann.' Somewhat similarly
Tyson, 'Works' 428.
20 I cannot find in the passage any indications that Paul was consciously trying to resolve a contradiction between two Scriptural verses; thus (with differences in details)
Schoeps, Paul 177 f.; Dahl, Studies 161 ff.; Drane, Paul 30; HUbner, Gesetz 43. The
idea that Paul apparently wants to convey is that the verses quoted support each
other. Cf. Betz, Gal 138 n. 8.

All are under fin

97

2. All are under sin

In Rom 1.18-3.20 Paul argues that nobody can be justified by 'works of
law' q.20). The reason is that all, Jews as well as Gentiles, are 'under sin' .
(3.9). 1 Every mouth has thus been stopped by the law (3.19) - even that of
the Jew boasting about the Torah. The section as a whole should indeed be
understood as addressed to the Jews, even though iUs found in the letter to
the Roman Christians. 22
When Paul states in 3.9 that all, Jew and Greek alike, are under sin, he says
that he has set forth this charge before (Trpor/TLaacip.~a). He must, then,
think that this has taken place in the section 1.18-2.29. Finally, in 3.10-20
Paul clinches with words of Scripture the argument which he has already
demonstrated with empirical proof.
Paul proceeds by beginning with the charge against the Gentile world
(1.18-32).23 He then goes on to demonstrate the sinfulness of the Jews
21 It will be seen that I agree with E.P. Sanders, Paul 474 f. as against Bultmann, Theology 227 in the thesis that Rom 1-3 does not make out the fundament of Paul's
soteriology; Paul actually started with the solution and moved backwards to define
the problem. But in Rom 1-3 Paul certainly argues as if 1.18-3.20 were such a
basis. This is not, of course, denied by Sanders either, who emphasizes the secondary
nature of Paul's argument in Rom 1-3. It is therefore no valid argument against his
position simply to point out that in Rom 1-5 'the human need for redemption
precedes the divine initiative in Christ' as Beker does (Paul 242). See further below,
n. 80. Cerfaux, Christian 141 and Klein, Rekonstruktion 146 (the section is 'propaedeutic') concur, among others, with Bultmann.
22 It is often assumed that Rom 1.18 ff. reflects Paul's missionary proclamation; cf.
Bussmann, Themen 109 ff.; Dodd, Michel. It is beyond the scope of the present work
to enter into a discussion of this. I would suspect that at best certain themes used by
Paul in such connections appear in ch. 1. The tone and content of ch. 2 is hardly
suitable for a sermon preached to Jews and it is irrelevant in missionary preaching to
Gentiles. But probably ch. 2 reflects trains of thought habitual with Paul by the time
of writing Romans. Jeremias, Abba 271 is surely justified in calling the section a
dialogus cum Iudaeis; cf. Synofzik, Auggagen 88. It is a fascinating hypothesis that Paul
is in the letter to the Romans, as it were, preparing the apology he wishes to deliver
in Jerusalem (although this cannot be the only reason for writing Romans); cf. Bornkamm, Geschichte 120 ff.; Jervell, 'Letter' and above, p. 9 n. 61.
By contrast, it seems wrong-headed to assume that 2.17 ff. is addressed to the
Jewish Christians in Rome (in view of their former iife), and 1.18 ff. correspondingly
to the Gentile Christians; thus Ulonska,Paulus 157,163 f.; cf. Viard, Romains 53 ff.
23 Some scholars question this general opinion ahd claim that Paul is in 1.18-2.8 speaking of man in general; attention is called to the term d"iJpw1foc: (1.18), the word 6w
which suggests an inference from the preceding section in 2.1, and to an allusion to
the Golden Calf - a sin of the Jews, to be sure - in 1.23 f. (Ps 106.20). See Jervell,
Imago 316-319; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstiindnis' 31; Schmithals, Romerbrief 13 f.;
Berger, Exegese 25 f. According to Dabelstein,Beurteilung 68 ff., 1.18-32 speaks of
the 'impious' and 2.1-16 of the 'righteous' without regard to an ethnic division. It
is doubtful, however, whether Ps 106.20 is cited with the intention of bringing the

98

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

(2.1-29). The sinfulness of the Gentiles is depicted with colours supplied by

traditional Jewish polemics. That the Jew is no better off is first asserted in
general ('you do the same things' 2.1-3) and later on described in some detail
(2.17-24).
The actual character of Paul's empirical argument is, however, rather surprising. One might have expected him to proceed, say,along the follOwing
lines:
'Even if one claims to be blameless according to the Law (as Paul himself did),
one is in fact guilty, because sin has such a grip on men and women that it is impossible for them to worship God and obey his commands from pure motives. .. : We
should probably all agree that it is well-nigh impossible to analyse one's own motives
accurately. Is love ever genuinely altruistic? Can anyone avoid for very long thoughts
about one's own well-being, happiness, security, reputation? Certainly the emphasis
on reward in the Jewish religious system made it difficult to love God. for his own
sake.'24

I would certainly agree that our motives are always impure. But I cannot
admit that this is what Paul is saying in the passage at hand! We instinctively
tend to think that he must have said something like that, in other words, we
interpret him in the light of later Christian insight. But the point is that Paul
does not at all develop his argument by showing that even the best fall short
here and there, 25 even less that at least the motives are impure when the
deeds are good. On the contrary, Paul first brands the Gentile world wholesale as a massa perdition is - they are lumped together as idolaters and homosexuals,of which the vice list in v. 29-31 is characteristic. Turning to the
Jews, he brings forward a number of very harsh charges, which are intended
to demonstrate that the Jew, too, is a 'transgressor of the law'. 2.1-3 insinuates that the Jew is guilty of all those glaring pagan sins listed just before. 26
In verses 21-24 Paul is quite explicit: the Jew is charged with stealing, adultery and sacrilege so that he dishonours God by his transgression of the law
and gives the Gentiles reason for mocking God. There is absolutely no talk of
motives and the like; gross sins are put under fire.
Calf into the reader's mind; after all, Paul omits the crucial words j.loaxov l(1"OVTO~
X6PTOV, no doubt because it was too specific for his argumentation (Kasemann,
Romans 45). Rom 3.9 presupposes that Paul has made a charge against the Greek as
well as ag\linst the Jew earlier in the letter, and this can only refer to ch. 1. J ervell
and Hahn have to take 2.14-16 as such a charge; see on that below, p. 105 f.
24 Hooker,Pieces 37. To be sure, she adds that 'Paul is surely being unfair to JUdaism'.
25 It is Justin, not Paul, who tried to go that way: 'And no one ever did all exactly (not
even you will dare deny this), but some have kept the commands more, and some
less, than others.' Dial. 95.1.
26 Paul must here have the vice list of 1.28-31 in mind (rather than idolatry and homosexuality). It is quite arbitrary to suggest that the Jew does the 'same' as the Gentile
by establishing his own righteousness and boasting. Thus Bornkamm, Studien 96;
correctly Kuss, 'Nomos' 217.

Ali are under sin

99

Logically Paul's argument proves no more than that circumcision is of no

avail to a Jew who is guilty of serious transgressions of the law, and that a
true Jew is one who behaves like one (whether circumcised or not). The
syllogism suggested in -v. 9 (Jews and Greeks are all under sin) would only
follow, if the description given of Jews and Gentiles were empirically and
globally true - that is, on the impossible condition that Gentiles and Jews
were, without exception, guilty of the vices described. It looks almost as if
Paul were half conscious of the limited nature of his argument: in 3.3 he
starts his next argument from the fact that some (nvc;") have been unfaithful.
And this is exactly what the preceding argument should have led to! But to
jump from this to the assertion that 'every human being is a liar' (3.4),
let alone to the final consequence in 3.9, is a blatant non sequitur. 27 The
picture is rounded off by the in itself trivial observation that Paul's concluding argument, the appeal to Scripture (3.1 0-18), badly twists the original
meaning of the Biblical sayings. Paul makes use of a catena of citations 28
which originally described the nature of the impious (as opposed to the
pious). That this should demonstrate that all are 'under sin' is another petitio
principii. 29
27 Cf. Dodd, Romans 44.
28 Paul probably used an existing catena (cf. the shorter version in Justin, Dial. 27.3);
see van der Minde, Schrift 54-58; Keck, 'Function'. Keck (152 f.) argues that the
catena 'is not an appendage but the theological starting-point for Paul's reflection';
Paul had it in mind 'when he began his exposition of the human situation'. A comparison with CD 5.13-17 (art.cit. 148 f.) suggests an original apocalyptic collection, an
'indictment against sinners' proving that the holy remnant was living in the last times,
when corruption had reached its climax. Hanson's interpretation (Studies 13 ff.)
that the catena speaks of the vindication of the Messiah is far-fetched.
29 Rom 3.9 might suggest that sin is viewed as something more than doing sinful acts,
i.e. as a demonic power; thus e.g. Dibelius, Geisterwelt 122 f.; van Diilmen, Theologie
158-168; Hiibner, Gesetz 63; Schottroff, 'Schreckenherrschaft' 497 ff.; cf. Rom
5 -7. But throughout the section in question the condition of men is seen as 'a matter
of their own deliberate and informed choice and action'. The citations in 3.10-18
'show, not that man is under demonic power, but that men do wicked and sinful
things': Kaye, Thought Structure 40.
It should be noted, too, that in 3.23 the idea of 'being under sin' (3.9) is taken up
and expressed through the verb 1!j.lapTOII; thus the standard distinction between
lij.iapTia ('sin as power') and lij.iapTCl.IIEW (,sinful acts'), made e.g. by Schottroff, art.
cit. 498, appears doubtful.
Synofzik, Aussagen 89 also admits that in Rom 1.18-3.19 Paul 'operates with a
concept of sin that consists in transgressing the law known to man'; the concept is
thus based on the traditional Jewish understanding of sin. For Synofzik's understanding of Rom 3.20 see below, p. 106 n. 73. Kaye argues carefully that throughout
Romans, including chapters 5 - 7, 'the same basic concept of sin makes sense, namely
the sense of sinful action, or the guilt consequent upon such action' (137). He rejects,
with good reason, the idea that sin is thought of as a power. The 'more personal
and dynamic looking expressions regarding "sin" , in ch. 5 'are due to the influence

100

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

The exegetical literature abounds in attempts to justify Paul's allegations.

We can here leave aside the description of the Gentiles and concentrate our
attention on the desolate picture of the Jews in Rom 2. To support Paul's
accusations reference has been made to Yohanan ben Zakkai's lament of
moral depravation. 30 But the problem remains: it is not Paul's point that
some Jews sometimes do such things; he pretends to be speaking of things
that are characteristic of 'Judaism as a whole and of every individual Jew
without exception in view of the coming judgment'. Yet it would be, in
historical terms, 'very bold indeed to claim that Paul gives ... an accurate, just
and complete picture of contemporary Judaism, and no one will say that the
gross sins of the heathens ... were simply typical of the Jew of that time'. 31
In fact, Paul himself gives in Rom 10.2 a quite different characterization of
the Jews who have genuine zeal for God's cause.
Since Paul's description leaves, from the historical point of view, much to
be desired, interpreters prefer to emphasize the prophetic or even 'apocalyp.
tic' truth of his diagnosis. Paul draws no caricature, but rather a 'prophetic
apocalrlse' which has 'the totality of all actions of the Jew and of all Jews in
view'! The apocalyptic way of seeing presents 'what may be empirically an
exception (!) as representative of the ,community'. 33 'In the disobedience of
the individual the impossibility of the whole attitude and teaching comes to
light,.34 Paul tries 'to peer through the concrete surface at the roots and at
the bottom from where the murky things he is speaking of rise up ... again and
again. The gross offences of individuals show what all are capable of. 35
If this is so, then what should one infer from, say, 1 Cor 5.1 about the
'attitude and teaching' of the Christians? Paul has double standards when
evaluating Jewish and Christian transgressions respectively. 36
No wonder, then, that some interpreters have found it necessary to play
of the style, the literarl-' context' (44). Note that 'trespass' and 'sin' occur as parallels
in 5.20. The same is true of chapter 7 (46) and even of chapter 6, where the language
is 'metaphorical, rather than realistic', as is shown i.e. by a 'certain untidiness about
the parallels' in 6.16-20: 'In verses 16 and 17 sin is contrasted with obedience, in
verses 18 and 20 with righteousness, and only in verse 22 with God.' Op.cit. 54.
30 Billerbeck, Kommentar III 105-107 with reference to T. Sot 14.1 ff.
31 Kuss; cf. Wilckens.
32 Schlier, 'Juden' 272; followed by Eichholz, Theologie 98.
33 Kasemann, Romans 69 (who admits that 'in general the life of Pharisees was strict
and not infrequently even attracted Gentiles').
34 Michel. Schlatter, Gerechtigkeit 107 emphasizes that Paul has communities, rather
than individuals, in view. 'Nicht das erwagt er, wie weit sich einzelne gegen die sie
verderbende Macht ihrer Gemeinschaft (!) schtitzen konnen, sondern wie weit das
Vermogen der Gemeinschaft reiche.' If this be so, then the logical conclusion is that
the community needs faith in Christ, but the pious individual does not.
35 Kuss. Cf. id.,Paulu8 389,399 f.
36 Correctly W.L. Knox, Jerusalem 123 n. 57: 'The weakness of his position lay in the
fact that it did not allow for similar failures among Christians.'

Non-Christians fulfilling the law

101

down the vehemence of Paul's charges against the Jews. Barrett admits frankly that 'Paul's argument is lost if he is compelled to rely on comparatively
unusual events, and it is simply not true that the average Jewish missionary
acted in this way' (as described in Rom 2.21-24). He tries to find a way out
of the problem by taking the charges in a figurative sense, but the result is
ingenious rather than persuasive. 37 This applies to other similar attempts as
well. 38
Sandrnel notes that Paul's account is 'grotesque and vicious' .39 'A Jewish
reader must .,. conclude ... that Paul lacks for those who disagree with him
that love which he described in'l Cor. 13.'40 A Christian reader should agree!
Far from being a 'sober and absolutely realistic judgment of the "world" ',41
Paul's argument is here simply a piece of propagandist denigration. 42 It is
somewhat embarrassing to note that it is given pride of place in Paul's argument in Rom 1_3. 43

3. Non-Christians fUlfilling the law

Verses 2.14-15 and 2.26-27 constitute a special difficulty for Paul's
main thesis in the section Rom 1.18-3.20, namely that all are under sin and
37 Paul's. point,according to Barrett, is simply that the Jewish nation is inwardly guilty.
'When theft, adultery, and sacrilege are strictly and radically understood, there is no
man who is not guilty of all three.' Barrett refers to the antitheses of Mt 5.21-48 and
to some prophetical texts: the 'theft' means that Israel has usurped the glory that
belongs to God (Mal 3.8 f.); 'Israel as the bride of God can hardly escape the charge
of adultery' (Hos 1-3, Jer 3.8); the sacrilege consists in that the Jew raises himself to
a judge of his neighbour (2.1), thus appropriating the glory due to God! In a similar
vein already Kirk, Romans 44.
38 Goppelt, Christologie 137 ff.: it is with reference to Jesus' radical interpretation of
the law that Paul says: you steal and commit adultery, 'denn du umgehst das Gesetz
... selbst in vielfaltiger Weise' (142 f.); Goppelt's allegorical interpretation of the
sacrilege (145 f.) is particularly incredible. Cf. also Cranfield; Roloff, Testament
158,165.
39 Sandmel, Genius 29. Cf. M. Grant,Paui 145.
40 Sandmel, op.cit. 30; cf. Montefiore, ludaism 203 f.
41 Mussner, Gal 193.
42 One of the very few Christian exegetes to admit this is von der Osten-Sacken, 'Verstandnis' .564; cf. Luz, 'Gesetz' 97 f. and for the denigration of Gentiles in 1.18-32
Kasting, An{iinge 30 n. 19. Osten-Sacken, art.cit. 565 observes that Rom 1-2 entails
'eine erschreckende Ahnlichkeit mit den Prozessen im wortlichen Sinne, die ablaufen,
wenn politische Regimes einander ablosen und liber die Vorganger Gericht halten'.
Wrede, Paulus 23 commented that Paul might well have had recourse to violent
action- against his opponents even as a Christian, had he had the necessary power;
Osten-Sacken, 'Paulus' 60 f. agrees. Even sharper von Hartmann, Christentum 171 n.
43 My understanding of Rom 1.18-2.29 (first outlined in 'Difficulties' 308 f.) is shared
by E.P. Sanders, Law 124f. He states that 'Paul's case for universal sinfulness, as
it is stated in Rom. 1.18-2.29, is not convincing: it is internally inconsistent and it
rests on gross exaggeration ... '.

102

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

that there is no one doing what is good. In these verses he indicates that there
are, after all, Gentiles who fulfil the law. No such concession is made to the
Jews in this connection. It is certainly symptomatic that these favourable
mentions of Gentiles occur just in a passage devoted to polemic against the
Jews, and not for instance in the course of the hard attack against Gentiles
in 1.18-32.
There is no need here to enter into a discussion of the tradition history
behind 2.14 f.44 Pau1's overall intention in ch. 2 is to expose the Jew as a
transgressor of the law of which he is so proud. From 2.9 onwards Paul
makes a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile. The distinction is based
on the possession or otherwise of the Torah. Yet neither group has privileges
before the righteous God - that is, the Jew is no better off (cf. 3.9a). Those
who have sinned dvoJ.l.wC; will perish dvoJ.l.wc;; those who have sinned ev
VOJ.l.4J will be judged <Std VOJ.l.ov(v. 12). For hearers of the law, i.e. the Jews
per se, are not righteous, but the 'doers' of the law will be 'rightwised' (ol
7rOtT/Tai vOJ.l.ov otKatw1'tilaOVTat, v. 13).
Verse 14 is intended to shed light on this last statement: OTav rape1'tvT/ Tei

J.l.rI VOJ.l.OV 'XOVTa l{Juaet Ta TOO VOJ.l.OV 1TOWVatV, OVTOt v6p.ov J.l.rI XOVTec; eavrotc;
eiatV VOJ.l.oc;. 'When Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature what the
law requires, they - although they do not have the law - are a law for themselves.' V. 15 specifies this by speaking of the 'work' (prov) of the law 45
which is written in the hearts of the Gentiles,46 and of their conscience and
of thoughts which either accuse or defend them on the day of judgment.
At this point Paul inserts the harsh polemic against the Jew (v. 17-24).
Then he takes up afresh the case of the good Gentile in order to stress the
condemnation of the Jew even more effectively. 'Therefore, if one who is
uncircumcised keeps the righteous requirements of the law (Mv oVv 11
dKp0(3varia Ta otKatWJ.l.aTa TOV VOJ.l.OV I{JvAdaan), is not his uncircumcision
counted to him as circumcision? Thus the one who is by nature uncircum44 See Bornkamm, Studien 101 ff.
45 One should not infer from this phrase that, by using it, Paul denies that the law is
'written' in the hearts of men; cf. Bornkamm, op.cit. 106 as against Nygren and
Michel.
46 To conclude with the Reformers that lp'Yov TOU vOlloV in 2.15 corresponds to the
negatively qualified 'works of the law', denoting 'that Jewish and human attitude to
the nomos, by which according to Rom 3.20 no flesh will be rightwised' (Lackmann,
Geheimnis 215 f.), is inadmissible systematization. 2.15 hints, on the contrary, at
the possibility that the pagans in question may stand at the judgment; 2.27, ignored
by Lackmann, is a decidedly favourable reference to the Gentiles. Highly artificial
also is the interpretation of Reicke, 'Syneidesis' 160: the 'work of the law' denotes
the negative task of the law in awakening consciousness of guilt in man (Rom 3.20,
7.7) as preparation for righteousness of faith. It is natural to take v. 15a as parallel
to 14b, and surely the Gentiles cannot 'themselves' awaken the sense of guilt in themselves! Nor can the 'work of the law' refer to faith (thus Fliickiger, art.cit. 35).

Non-Christians fulfilling the law

103

cised (fI K !pvawr; dKpo(3vaTia) but fulfIls the law (TOV vop.ov TAOuaa) will
condemn you who are a transgressor of the law (v. 26-27). For a true Jew is
the one who is a Jew inwardly, and true circumcision takes place in the
Spirit, not in the letter (v. 28-29).47
2.14-15, 26-27 stand in flat contradiction to the main thesis of the section. Understandably there is no lack of attempts to reconcile these obstinate
statements with Paul's main concern; many theories have been developed to
deny that they speak of Gentiles really fulfilling the requirements of the law.
None of these is, plausible, however.
1. Some interpreters emphasize the 'casual' nature of the occurrences
referred to in these verses: Paul is saying no more than that some precepts of
the law are occasionally fulfilled by some Gentiles. 48 But while the wording of v. 14 may remain open to such an interpretation, it clearly fails to do
justice to v. 26-27. The expression TOV vop.ov TAOUaa (v. 27) refers unequivocally to the totality of the law. 49 As for verses 14-15, the phrase ~VT/ Ta
P.fI vop.ovexovTa is analogous to ~VT/ Ta P.fI OLWKOVTa oLKawavVT/v (9.30);
Paul has an unspecified number of Gentiles in mind - whether many or few
he does not in dicate. 50 Moreover, there is in the expression Ta TOU vop.ov
nothing to suggest a limitation of the number of the precepts fulfilled. As a
comparison with corresponding nominalizations shows, it means in general
'that which belongs to the scope of the law'; the quantity of the commandments fulfllled is not limited. 51
In addition, the 'casual' interpretation does not match the polemical function of the verses. Gentiles fulfilling just a few requirements of the law could
hardly condemn the Jew (as v. 27 states), for undoubtedly he has fulfilled a
few things as well!52 And as regards the thesis of the section, even a couple
of righteous Gentiles would be fatal to it. Yet no stress on the (allegedly)
exceptional character of the Gentiles' fulfilling the law is visible in the text.
2. Another suggestion is that Paul is Teaking only hypothetically of a
case which cannot occur in reality at all. 5 It is hard to see, however, what

47 For the traditions behind 2.28 f. see Schweizer, 'Jude' 115 f., 120 ff.
48 Nygren; cf. Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 38 f.
49 Of course Paul does not mean that all Gentiles do 'the things of the law'; thus Walker,
'Heiden' 304. Walker's conclusion (305) borders on the absurd: since law and sin
belong together in Paul's theology, Tll. Toii

IJO/lOV 1fO!EW

must mean sinning!

50 Cf. Feine, Evangelium 115.

51 Feine, op.cit. 116. Feine carries through a comparison with Ta Tij~ uapKo~ and
Ta Toii 1fIJEv/laTo<; Rom 8.5, Ta T* EtpTiIJl1~ Rom 14.19, Ta Toii cl.IJ~pW1fOV 1 Cor 2.11,
Ta Toii 1fIJEVjlaTO~ ~Eoii 1 Cor 2.14, Ta Toii KVpiov and Ta Toii KOU/lOV 1 Cor 7.32-34.
52 Correctly Fliickiger, 'Werke' 27 -29.
53 Grafe, Lehre 25 f. (Paul puts himself hypothetically in the position of his opponents!); van DUlmen, Theologie 77, 82; Vos, Untersuchungen 110; R.E. Howard,
Newness 92; cf. also Lietzmann.

104

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

point there would have been in taking up such a fictitilms matter at all.
Above all, such an imaginary Gentile would be of no use for Paul's polemic
against the Jew. How could a non-existent Gentile 'condemn' him?54
3. A few scholars think that the verses are to be understood in the light of
Rom 8.4. That is, Paul is speaking of Gentile Christians. 55 This view is often
supported by the argument that Paul alludes in v. 15 to Jer 38.33 LXX - to
the prediction of the new covenant which belongs to the Christians.56
But from 2.9 onwards Paul systematically juxtaposes Jew and Greek
(explicitly twice in v. 9-10). In this context it is very difficult to take f!tJV17
in any other sense than 'non-Jew' in general. 57 Furthermore, it is inconceivable that Paul could say that Gentile Christians fulfil the law by nature,
<,Ovaet,58 for the Christians' fulfilment of the law is the fruit of the Spirit
(Rom 8.4, cf. Gal 5.22 f.). And how could he say that Gentile Christians are
without the law in the sense that it is unknown to them?59 But supposing
he could, then what does it mean that Gentile Christians are a (the) law for
themselves?60 One would have supposed them to be f!vvO/lOt XPWTOV (cf.

54 Kasemann, Perspektiven 242 objects that an uncircumcised pagan cannot fulfil the

55

56
57
58

59
60

whole Torah, and therefore he must be a fiction. But Paul's concept of the 'law' is
extremely flexible (see ch. I); in fact he has only the moral content of the Torah in
view here. If this objection were decisive, Paul would not be able to argue elsewhere
that the Christians fulfil the law either.
T. Zahn; Feine, op.cit. 122-126; Mundle, 'Auslegung'; K. Barth, Dogmatik I, 2,
332; Soucek, 'Exegese' 101 ff.; M. Barth, 'Stellung' 521 n. 62; Konig, 'Gentiles';
Cranfield, Viard. For 2.26-27 also Bultmann, Theology 261 n.; for 2.27 Schlier. For
a history of this interpretation see Riedl, Heil 222 (Riedl himself is critical of it);
for criticisms also Kuss, 'Heiden' 78 f.
See, e.g., Mundle, art.cit. 251; Soucek, art.cit. 102 f.; K. Barth, loc.cit.; M. Barth,
art.cH. 521 n. 62; Viard, Romains 79.
Correctly Bornkamm, op.cit. 109.
Correctly Kuhr, 'Romer 214 f.' 255 ff. This difficulty is conceded and extensively
reflected upon by Soucek, art.cit. 106 ff. He ends up by (following Fltickiger, 'Werke'
32 f.) taking .pvaedn the sense of 'artgemass', so that it is in Rom 2.14 'Bezeichnung
der vom Geiste Gottes gepragten "Art" des Glaubenden' (109). Cf. also Feine, op.cit.
117. It is, however, very.difficult to understand why Paul should hit on an expression
that was so highly open to misunderstanding, when he could simply have written
1rvev/laTt (cf. 2.29, on which see below, n. 64). The definition 'artgemliss'is far too
abstract; Paul elsewhere never refers to the new existence in Christ with .pvaL<;. Cranfield connects .pvaeL with what precedes, making Paul speak of Gentile Christians who
'by nature do not have the law' (cf. Ti K .pvaew<; aKpo/3vUTla 2.27; .pvaeL 'Iovliai"/X.
Gal 2.15; TEKva .pvaeL oP'Yf/<; Eph 2.3); so also Konig, art.cit. 58. This would indeed
resolve the just mentioned difficulty. Even Cranfield's interpretation, however, fails
to do justice to the phrase eavro[<; elaLV VO/lo<;; see n. 60.
Cf. Lackmann, art.cit. 214 f.; Kuhr, art.cit. 252; Bornkamm, op.cit. 109.
Cranfield takes refuge to circumlocutions like 'they now know it (the law)" or
'(they) have the desire to obey it'. This is, however, something other than eavTo[<;
El aw VOjlO<;.

Non-Christians fulfilling the law

105

1 Cor 9.21) or something like that. Surely Rom 2.14 f. speaks of something
else than 8.4 (which verse, incidentally, does not have specifically Gentile
Christians in view).61
Moreover, it is unlikely that v. 15 is intended as an allusion to Jer 38 (31),
even though the wording may owe something to that passage.62 There is no
talk at all of a new covenant in this connection, in contrast to 2 Cor 3.6 ff.
(even though a reference to Jeremiah is dubious even there 63 ); whenPaul
speaks of the new covenant, he does not fail to stress the role of the Spirit in
it (2 Cor 3.6).64
4. Some scholars think of a special theological qualification of the l!JvT/,
be it the Christians (Jewish and Gentile) as God's eschatological people,65 or
Jews and Gentiles from a 'typological' p.oint of view 66 , or the 'eschatological'
Jew,67 or Jews and Gentiles actually already under the influence of Christ
and the Spirit. 68 The simple, clearly ethnic distinction between Jew and
Greek in v. 9-10 would seem sufficient to preclude such speculations, and
the word riKpo{3varia certainly excludes any Jewish element.
We thus have to accept that Paul is really speaking of Gentiles who fulfil
the law outside the Christian community. It is also wrong to play down these
statements by claiming that their point is that the Gentiles, too, can be justly
judged ~ince they are not actually without a knowledge of God's will
either).6 Surely this idea need not be excluded from v. 14-16 as a second61 Sourek, art.cit. 104, also refers to the verb

ACY)'l~EU"a.L in 2.26, which is said to be

'fast ein tecbnischer Tenninus der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre'. But if Paul
were speaking of the justification of the Gentile Christians in 2.26, he would actually
claim that fulfilment of the law, or producing the fruit of the Spirit, is counted by
God as righteousness - instead of faith!
62 Correctly Kuhr, art.cit. 259 f.; Kuss; Bornkamm, op.cit. 107; Koster, JOULe:; 268 n.
231; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstandnis' 32 f. does assume a direct allusion to Jer 38 (31)
but does not share the Gentile Christian theory.
63 See below, VIII 3.
64 In 2.29, however, Paul seems at last to have the Christian in mind! as is indicated by
the reference to the Spirit - not just Gentile Christians (thus Kasemann) but Christians at large (cf. Phil 3.3 'for we (including Paul!) are the true circumciSIon, we that
worship God in the Spirit'). To be sure, the train of thought would be clearer and the
contrast more effective, if this verse, too, were intended as a reference to mere Gentiles (thus Nygren; E.P. Sanders, Law 127 who takes1fVEvlla in the sense of 'heart').
That Paul can 'glide' in his reasoning from Gentiles to Christians is another indication
that Gentiles have no 'self value' in the argument; their importance lies only in the
possibility of charging the Jew.
65 Fltickiger, art.cit. 24 f.
66 H.W. Schmidt.
67 Kasemann, op.cit. 74.
68 Blaser, op.cit. 195 f.
69 Thus Bornkamm, op.cit. 98 f., 110; Kuhr, art.cit. 254; Jiingel, Paulus 26-28; Kiimmel, Bild 185; Walker, art.cit. 304,308; Kasemann; Synofzik, Vergeltungsaussagen

106

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

ary theme (there is a reference to the judgment in v. 15 f., although it is not

said that the Gentiles will not stand it). But in v. 26-27 there is no reference
whatsoever to a judgment over the Gentiles; these are mentioned in an
altogether favourable tone.
It is important to observe that the Gentiles are merely a means to an end
for Paul's argument in ch. 2. 70 There is no interest in them as Gentiles. Paul
is only interested in proving the Jew guilty. For this purpose, and for it alone,
law-fulfilling Gentiles appear rather abruptly, and disappear again. They are
used as convenient weapons to hit the Jew with. Hereby Paul, surely without
noticing it, creates a contradiction with both 1.18-32 and 3.9. When Paulis
not reflecting on the situation of the Gentiles, it is quite natural for him to
think that they can fulfil the law. (When he turns to reflection, the picture is
quite different, as 1.18-32, but also 3.9 shows.)
If Gentiles can fulfil the law, then logically that ought to be possible for
the Jews as well, although Paul (reflecting on the Jews) does not say so in this
passage. In another connection (Phil 3.6) he says, however, that he himself
was 'blameless' (dIJ.EIJ.1TT()(;) 'according to the righteousness of the law'. 71
Even in retrospect Paul omits to suggest that he might have transgressed the
law in his Pharisaic life; quite on the contrary. From the new Christian point
of view that life according to the law is, of course, given a negative qualification as righteousness 'of the law', but the actual fulfilment is not called into
question. The conclusion suggests itself: when Paul is not reflecting on the
situation of the Jews from a certain theological angle he does not presuppose
that it is impossible to fUlfil the law. 72
The theological thesis in Rom 1.18-3.20 is that all are under sin and that,
therefore, no one can fulfil the law. 73 Inadvertently, however, Paul admits

70
71
72

73

81 L; Keck, art.cit. 153. According to van Diilmen, Theologie 78, the point of w.
14-16 is that 'Heiden und Juden versagen in gleicher Weise'! Correctly Vos, op.cit.
109 f. with n. 11.
Cf. Pohlenz, 'Paulus' 75; Beker, Paul 80.
There is no irony in Phil3.5 f.; correctly Gnilka, ad.loc.
Correctly Drane, Paul 29: 'As a Pharisee, it was quite likely that he could have imagined a situation in which he was capable of keeping the law ... ' Drane continues
(152 n. 36): 'In more optimistic moments even as a Christian, Paul could say -as
much: cf. Philippians 3.4 ff.' I would only substitute some such expression as that
given above in the text for 'more optimistic moments'.
Synofzik, Aussagen 88 claims that the message of Rom 3.20 is that the works of law
man has accomplished cannot make him righteous before God (being an expression
of man's basic sin, the desire to 'be something' before God). He denies the connection
of v. 20 with what precedes and interprets the verse in the light of (a Bultmannian
interpretation of) 3.21-30 - despite the .sLOT! (v. 20a) that clearly shows that v. 20
is the consequence of the preceding section (this difficulty is seen but not removed
by Synofzik, op.cit. 89). On the Bultmannian understanding of the basis of Paul's
critique of the 'works of the law' see below, V 2.

Non-Chrilltianll fulfilling the law

107

even within that very section that, on another level of his consciousness at
least, he does not share this idea. Paul's mind is divided.
The implications of these inadvertent admissions are highly significant. As
for Rom 2, O'Neill's comment is to the point: the whole assumption of Rom
2 'is that Jews and Gentiles can keep the Law, and can act in a manner to
deserve God's praise by obeying the commandments'. On the basis of2.1-16
'the best way to help Gentiles to be righteous would be to preach to them the
Law.'74 Paul Feine made the point even sharper: 'If Paul made the statement
2.14-16 about unconverted Gentiles (Feine denied this), then he was wrong
with his preaching about the crucified Son of God. Humanity did not need
him. For it had indeed in its moral disposition, in its natural equipment a
possession it only had to cultivate in order to fulftl God's will. It was able to
do 4pl'JUEL, by nature, that which according to the teaching of the Apostle only
becomes possible for the Christian through the power of God's Spirit ... ,75
Feine declares, understandably enough, that such thoughts seem to be for
Paul as foreign as possible. That is for him the decisive reason for taking
refuge in the 'Gentile Christian' interpretation of the verses we have been
dealing with.76 But as this interpretation is not feasible, as we indeed have to
take the 'Gentile' interpretation at full value, the conclusion is inevitable that
there is a formidable tension in Paul's thought at this point.
We have detected a double weakness in Paul's argument in Rom 1.183.20. The empirical argument does not correspond to empirical facts, but
amounts to denigration pure and simple. On the other hand, Paul inadvertently admits that some people are not under sin in the sense he has argued;
this destroys his theological conclusion. These observations indicate that
there is something strained and artificial in Paul's theory that nobody can
fulfil (or has fulfilled) the law. I do not mean artificial from our point of
view; it is easy enough for us, with all the introspective Christian irtsights
from Augustine onwards at our disposal,77 to agree that no man comes close
74 RomanI 48. Cf. already van Manen, Unechtheit 52; W.L. Knox, Jerusalem 351 n.
10. O'Neill draws'the rash conclusion that Rom 2 is not by Paul "(cf. van Manen).
See further Bremer, Underlltanding 198; Pregeant, 'Grace' 76. E.P. Sanders, Law
123-135 argues that the section is a Synagogue sermon, altered by Paul 'in only
insubstantial ways' (123). He notes that 'the treatment of the law in chapter 2 cannot be harmonized with any of the diverse things which Paul says about the law
elsewhere' (122). Because what is said about the law in this chapter 'cannot be fitted
into a category otherwise known from Paul's letters' (132), Sanders resorted to
dealing with Romans 2 in an appendix. I fear that this procedure results in a picture
of Paul's treatment of the law, which, for all the trenchant analyses presented by
Sanders, still. looks a bit too coherent.
75 Op.cit. 123. Cf. also Konig, art.cit. 54,58 t
76 Feine later revoked this interpretation without presenting new arguments: Theologie
190.
77 That Paul lacked the 'introspective conscience' which was only introduced into Chris-

108

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

to moral perfection. But the theory is artificial in terms of Paul's own heartfelt convictions. As Dodd puts it, 'For the purpose of his general argument he
takes the extreme view that no one ... does or can obey the law; but in concrete cases he allows that in some measure at least the good pagan (and of
course the good Jew, as he implies in ii. 28) can do the right thing.'78 The
explanation must be that ~aul is pushed to develop his argument into a preordained direction. It can only be the firmness of a preconceived conviction
that has prevented Paul from seeing the weakness of his reasoning. He simply
had to come to the conclusion that the law cannot be fulmled.
The reason for this compulsion is clearly enough stated in Gal 2.21: the
law must not be a viable way to God, for in that case the death of Christ was
not necessary. Christ would have died in vain! The argument that no one can
fulfil the law is a device to serve the assertion that the death of Christ was a
salvific act that was absolutely necessary for all mankind (including the
Jews).79 Paul argued, as E.P. Sanders has emphasized, 'backwards'. He tried,
as it were, to define man's disease by analyzing the medicine which he knew
to be wholesome and indispensable. 'Paul actually came to the view that all
men are under the lordship of sin as a reflex of his soteriology: Christ came
to provide a new lordship for those who participate in his death and resurrection.'80

tian thought by Augustine, was pointed out by Stendahl, Paul 78 ff.

78 Romans 37. I would delete the words 'in some measure at least'. Cf. also Stendahl,
op.cit.81.
79 Thus already Wernle, Anfiinge 164 f.; cf. Kuss, 'Nomos' 217. Wernle wrote: 'Well
Jesus allein der Erloser ... ist, darum muss die Menschheit ausser Christus so ganz
verdorben und verloren sein, dass ihr jeder andere Rettungsweg abgeschnitten ist ...
Nicht eine vorausgehende Erkenntnis der Grosse der Siinde und der Ohnmacht des
Menschen ist die Wurzel dieser Theorie, sondern der Glaube an Christus hat die pessimistischen Postulate als Voraussetzungen erfordert ... Paulus entwarf ein Gemalde
d~r Geschichte der Menschheit so trostlos grausam und dll;nkel, wie noch nie ein
frommer Mensch es ausgedacht hatte, damit wir urn so herzlicher ftir das wunderbare
Licht danken konnten ... Diese Uebertreibung des Wahren im Dienst der Apologetik
ist urn so verhlingnisvoller geworden als die Kirche nun mit diesem Pessimismus
gute'''Geschiifte'' zu machen begann.'
80 Sanders, Paul 499. The point that in Paul's reasoning the solution preceded the problem is not at all an 'absurdity', as Caird asserts in his review of Sanders. Caird refers
to the fact that Paul is (in Rom 1.18-32) probably following the line of thought set
forth in Sap 13-14 (whether or not he knew the book, I would add); Paul then
shows that the Jews participate in the sin of the pagans - which is no novel allegation,
as it had been pronounced aheady by John the Baptist. The point for me is, however,
that Paul does not succeed in showing the sinfulness of the Jews in any empirically
or logically convincing way. Whatever John the Baptist may have thought, Paul
(when thinking spontaneously and not aprioristically as here) did not assume that the
Jews were a massa perditionis from the moral point of view. On the contrary, they
were aiming at righteousness (Rom 9.31) and displaying zeal for God (Rom 10.2).

Non-Christians cannot do good at all

109

If this is so, Rom 1.18-3.20 helps us to solve the problem that was seen to
consist in the juxtaposition of two independent arguments concerning the
curse of the law in Gal 3.10-12. 81 It is the latter argument (verses 11-12)
that expresses the core of Paul's soteriological theory. That law and faith
exclude each other as opposed principles is his aprioristic starting-point, in
analogy to the statement in Gal 2.21. Just as in Rom 1.18-3.20, Paul tries to
support the preconceived theological thesis with an 'empirical' argument
which is not really suited to support it. In the light of Rom 2.14-16, 26-27
and Phil 3.6 we may surmise that the 'rigorous' presupposition that the law
must be fulfilled 100 per cent (Gal 3.1 0) is artificial in the same sense as the
contention that nobody fulfils the law in Rom 1.18-3.20. No 'normal' Jew
would have subscribed to such an 'overstrained definition,82 of the claim of
the law; there are indications that at bottom Paul agreed with them. When he
was not arguing a soteriolowcal thesis, Paul apparently did not subscribe to
his rigorous definition. And precisely because in his 'normal' state he did not
think that a 100 per cent fulfilment of the law was necessary for one to speak
of fulfilment at all, it was natural for him to think that pagan and Jew were
indeed able to fulfil it. It is the theological theory that has occasioned a
radicalization of the law's claim in retrospect. 83

4. Non-Christians cannot do good at all

It is hardly necessary to argue once more that the famous passage Rom
7.14-25 is not intended by Paul as a description of the Christian. 84 It can by
now be taken for granted that he is speaking of man's existence under the
law; whether the description contains any autobiographical elements or not
need not be considered here (see VIII 1). The'!' of the passage does not do
good (v. 19); he does the evil he hates and did not want to do (v. 15,19).

81 See above. p. 96.

82 Moore,ludaism III 150; cf. above, p.95.
83 Kuss, art.cit. 217, discussing Rom 2, points out that Paul radicalizes the claim of the
law 'nachtraglich', the reason being that 'indem Paulus seinen Standpunkt bei Jesus
Christus einnimmt, ohne den es Rettung, Hell fUr ihn schlechthin nicht mehr geben
kann, ist er gezwungen, die Nutziosigkeit des Gesetzesweges zu behaupten'.
84 See above all Ktimmel, Romer 7. For the 'Christian' interpretation see Nygren,
Cranfield; Dunn, 'Rom. 7, 14-25'; D.H. Campbel1, 'Identity'; Wenham, 'Life'. To
uphold this interpretation Dunn (263) has to assert that even in Rom 8.4-11 'Paul
does not contrast believer with unbeliever; rather ,he confronts the believer with both
..ides of the paradox, both sides of his nature as believer'. For a critique see Gundry,
'Frustration' 236-238, 243 n. 32. In this article Gundry presents a powerful argument from a conservative perspective against the 'Christian' interpretation of Rom
7.14-25. His own explanation, however (Paul speaks of his pre-conversion sexual
difficulties), fails to carry conviction. Feuillet, 'Loi de Dieu' 35 ff. thinks that the
passage speaks of all men, including the Christians (in view of the 'law of Christ'!).

110

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

Taken literally, these repeated statements convey a completely wretched

picture of the 'ego'. He is not able to do any good at all. He is completely
incapable of realizing .his good intentions. It is not said that something is
always amiss even in the best actions; the idea is that of a total failure. 85
Interpreters mostly wonder at the allegedly too favourable picture of the unredeemed man's will and 'mind' in this passage. 86 Yet it would seem that
its peculiarity consists in that it paints a more negative picture of that man's
actions than might be expected. The general tone reminds one of the polemic
caricatures in Rom 1.18-32, 2.17-24 with the difference that the charges
in chs. 1-2 are very concrete, whereas the description in ch. 7 is abstract; in
addition, nothing is said about the non-Christians' will to good in chs. 1-2.
It goes without saying that the favourable flashes in Rom 2.14-15,26-27
stand in an irreconcilable tension with ch. 7.
The intention of Rom 7 is comparable to that of Rom 1-3 or Gal 3: it is
a sustained argument about the significance of the law. The question of the
nature of the law is raised in 7.7. The conclusion is that the law is 'good'
(v. 16), but without power to help man (8.3). The section starts as an
'apology for the law', but in his attempt to show that the law, far from being
'sin', is actually 'good' - the man under law has to concede this (v. 16) Paul glides back to a criticism of the law. The description of man's moral
conflict in v. 14-25 thus serves two purposes with respect to the law: it is
intended to show both the goodness of the law and its weakness. Man under
law cannot resist the might of the indwelling sin (v. 17).
In 7.14-25 Paul is taking up the notion, well-known in Greek tradition, of
a moral conflict in man: man does what is wrong, even though he knows what
is right. 87 This experiential wisdom is to some extent paralleled by the confessions of sin found at Qumran,88 and Rabbinic speculations about the
power of the evil inclination over man come rather close to it, too. 89 As Paul
had taken up Jewish Wisdom traditions in his polemic against Gentiles in
1.18-32, he now draws on Hellenistic traditions which serve his apology for
the law.
Paul is reflecting on the significance of the law for the man under it. That
he presupposes in such a connection that no one can fulfil the law, should

85 Cf. Bultmann, Exegetica 199; Gundry, art.cit. 238.

86 Cf. Kiimmel, op.cit. 135 f.; Kasemann, Romans 207. For Cranfield (Romans) and
Feuillet (art.cit.) the difference between this passage and Rom 1.18-32,6.17 -20, is
an indication that Paul is not describing the existence of umedeemed man in it.

87 See Hommel, '7. Kapitel', who traces the tradition back to Euripides' criticism of the
pedagogical optimism of Socrates.

88 Cf. H. Braun, 'Romer 7, 7-25'.

89 Cf. Schoeps, Paul 185 f. (but the assertion that 'Paul's doctrine of sin was not unusual
but indeed typical of his time', op.cit. 187, goes defmitely too far).

Non-Christians cannot do good at all

111

come as.no surprise after our previous discussion in this chapter. Once more
Paul takes an empirically observable phenomenon and jumps from it to a
radical theological conclusion (actually a non sequitur). In Rom 1-2 the
observation was that 'many people live in grave sins', the conclusion: 'all are
under sin'. In Rom 7 Paul infers from the well-known discrepancy between
intentions and actions that no one (under the law) does any good at all. So
the law is incapable of helping man to a life according to God's will, q.e.d. 90
The above interpretation presupposes that Rom 7.14-25 speaks indeed of
a moral conflict and man's moral impotence. This is denied by a number of
scholars, notably Bultmann and his followers, who propose a 'transsubjective'
interpretation. 'Good', 'evil' and 'doing' are taken in a very special sense. Man
wills 'life', but 'effects' something else, namely 'death' - not so much by his
inability to fulfil the law, but above all because he attempts to fulfil the law
and thus to establish his ovyn righteousness. 91 Moreover, the passage is taken
to reflect the effects of man's 'desire' (bru'}v/J-ia), which was mentioned in
7.7-8, and this 1Tu'}v/J-ia is interpreted primarily as a 'nonllstic' desire 92 man's will to fulfil the law which leads to his elevating himself and boasting.
I cannot but concur with Paul Althaus in the judgment that this interpretation is 'completely artificial'. It 'has to reinterpret all essential concepts
of Rom 7 in a blunt contradiction to the context and to Paul's usage elsewhere. This holds true of "good" and "evil", the meaning of which cannot be
different from that in 2.9, and of tJAeW ... It is likewise an act of violence to
understand 1ToLeLvand rrpciauew in 15b like l<.aTepyciteatJaL as "bringing in",
as one should on the contrary interpret KaTep'YciteatJaL, which can in itself
have different meanings in Paul (cf. 2.9 with 7.13), at this place in accordance
with ... rroLeLv and rrpaaaeLv in the sense of "doing" as in 2.9. The same is true
of the concept 1TLtJv/J-ia ... In the text of Rom 7.7 ff. it is unequivocally a
question of the desire which leads to transgression of the law.'93 I have dealt
90 I fIrst suggested this interpretation of Rom 7 in 'DiffIculties' 310f. For a convincing
analysis of the passage along not dissimilar lines see now E.P. Sanders, Law 73-81,
124. He correctly points out that 'the human plight, without Christ, is so hopeless
in this section that one wonders what happened to the doctrine that the creation was
good' (75). Sanders suggests that part of the passion of Rom 7 'is generated by the
depth of Paul's dilemma' (80), his desire to exonerate God who gave a law which is
on the side of sin, death and the flesh.
91 Bultmann, Exegetica 198 ff.; id. Theology 247 f. Cf., e.g., Bornkamm, Ende 62 f.;
Braun, art.cit. 3; Kasemann, op.cit. 200 [.,203 f.; Sand, Fleisch 191; Furnish, Theology 141 f.; Schlier ad loc.; Schmithals,Anthropologie 47 ff.; Jewett, Terms 147.
92 The term comes from Bornkamm, op.cit. 55.
93 Althaus, Paulus 47-49. In his reply Bultmann, Glauben 11 45, oQly reiterates his
view; while pointing out some weaknesses in Althaus' overall position, he does nothing to weaken the force of Althaus' objections to his exegesis. For criticisms of the
Bult,mannian interpretation see further Gutbrod, Anthropologie 45 f.; Kuss,Rdmerbrief 1470; Schrage, Einzelgebote 195 f.; also Niederwirnmer,Freiheit 129 n.130

112

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

with Bultmann's and his followers' understanding of 1ft{JvlJ,la elsewhere 94

and think that I may simply refer the reader to that discussion instead of
repeating it here. 95 Besides its general artificiality (caused by the need to harmonize a difficult passage with the interpreter's overall view of sin in Paul's
theology - sin understood as hybris and pious boasting), it is a deficiency of
the Bultmannian interpretation that it makes a lesson in anthropology out of
a passage explicitly intended by Paul as a discussion about the law. 96
It is interesting to see both Bultmann and especially Kiisemann attack the
natural 'moral conflict' interpretation of Rom 7.14-25 because of its theological implications. 97 Kiisemann will have nothing to do with a Paul so
understood. 'If he were simply bewailing our lack of will-power, he would
have to be resisted in the name of mankind, even though the lamentable
aspect cannot be overlooked.' In such a hopeless theology 'not even the level
of Qumran is reached'. 'The ethical conflict as such ... does not demonstrate
the "sold under sin," as precisely Qumran is able to show ... It does not show
us what sin is as resistance to the right of the Creator. This is reflected on a
lower level only to the extent that a person is never finished with himself. If
the apostle were to rest content with this truism of experience he would be
working with inadequate means and would be presenting a weak theology,
or, more accurately, no theology at all, but a psychology oriented to the
ethical problem.'98
So what? If the transsubjective interpretation is artificial, we are left with
the quite correct observation that 7.14-25 does not prove the thesis 'I am
sold under sin' it was designed to prove - just as Rom 1.18-32,2.17-24
fails to demonstrate that 'all are under sin'. However, before harsh value judgments are passed on Paul's theology (or 'psychology') along the lines suggested by Kiisemann it should be remembered that the passage is not really

94

95
96
97
98

despite his general sympathy with Bultmlll1n's position. Even Kiisemann, op.cit.
202 refutes Bultmann's interpretation of ICIlrEP'Ydrol'at; it is not clear to me how he
nevertheless manages to concur with Bultmann's overall view.
Riiislinen, 'Gebrauch'; the article is devoted to a critique of the views of Bultmann,
Bornkamm, Kiisemlll1n, Mauser (Gottesbild 155 ff.), and Lyonnet ('Tu ne ... pas').
The 'nomistic' interpretation of ~fft{JVI'la. in Rom 7.7 f. now. also appears in HUbner,
~1f!{JVI'la. 70 f.
Outside of Rom 7, ~fft{JVI'la. (when used in a negative sense) always carries moral
overtones in Paul's writings: Rom 1.24,6.12, 13.14, Gal 5.16, 5.24,1 Thess 4.5. In
Rom 7.7-8 ifft{JVI'la. is paralleled by rd. ffa{J1\l'ara rwv d.l'aprtwv in 7.5.
ef. Rliisiinen, art.cit. 87.
Bultmann,Exegetica 201 called it a 'cheap insight'.
Romans 201 f. (emphasis added). Kiisemann is quite correct in his observation that
Rom 7 (on the 'moral conflict' interpretation) with its 'global statements' conceals
the 'differentiated reality' and above all contradicts Rom 2.12 ff. 26 f. (p. 201).
But this is no reason to have recourse to an unnatUral interpretation of ch. 7.

Christans fulfil the law

113

meant to be an anthropologicallecture. 99 It is concerned with the law, and it

is hardly safe to base any other Pauline 'doctrines' on it. Again, the pattern
appears to be that the thesis is clear in advance, and Paul snatches up more
or less suitable arguments to support it wherever he meets them.
The treatment of the law ends up with the statement that the Christians
are able to fulfil what it requires (8.4). Then Christian and non-Christian
existence are once more contrasted in 8.5-11. The picture of the non-Christian is even darker than in the previous passage. There is nothing that would
correspond to his 'delight in the. law of God as far as his inward man is concerned' (7.22); there is no 'mind' (voV<;) as an antipode to the flesh in Rom 8
as there is in ch. 7. Thus the comparison in ch. 8 is absolutely black-andwhite. The 'fleshly' non-Christians display a fleshly mind (TO 'Ppovru.1a Ti/<;
aap"ck v. 6, Ta Ti/<; aap"o<; 'PpovOVaLVV. 5), which is enmity to God (v. 7)
and neither will nor can be subjected to God's law (v. 7).100 Therefore, men
living 'in the flesh' are unable to please God (v. 8). The passage reminds one
of Rom 1.18-32 and 2.i 7-24, but the introduCtion of the concept of aap~
adds a new tone. One is inclined to speak of a demonization of non-Christian
existence .101

5. Christians fulfil the law

Paul assumes within the framework of his theological theory first that the
law cannot be fulfilled apart from the union with Christ and, secondly, that
the Christians fulfil what is required by the law (Gal 5.14 ff., Rom 13.8-10,
Rom 8.4, cf. Rom 2.29).1 02 Throughout this discussion the law is under99 Correctly Ktimmel, op.cit. 135, 137; Stendahl, Paul 92 f.; as against e.g. Althaus,
Dunn, and Schrnithals.
100 This phrase makes the assumption quite unlikely that Paul is thinktng primarily of
the self-righteous who misuse the law; thus Schweizer, aQp~ 133 n. 274.
101 Stacey, View 162-164 put forward a tempting thesis, apparently ignored in subsequent scholarship: as regards aQp~ in Paul's theology, Rom s.represents the end result
of a theological development, an extreme statement that is not suited to be the point
of departure when one sets forth Paul's conception of the 'flesh'. This view runs parallel to our observations about the artificiality of some of Paul's most 'radical' statements about unredeemed man. Stacey does not assume that we could trace a development in the notion of aQp~, say, from Gal to Rom; rather, both letters show signs of
various phases of that development. I disagree, however, with Stacey's explanation
of t.he rationale of the development, which he would find in Paul's 'intensity of
feeling' (165), 'desperation' (163), 'the anguish of his unique personal Struggle with
sin' (173). Stacey has to assume that Rom 7 is a description of Paul the Christian
(178 f.). His basic observation, however, is sound: there is a development in the use
of aQp~ which leads to exaggerated statements about the flesh as quasi personified in
GalS and Rom 8 (165).
1021 Cor 13, too, should be read as an account of what the Spirit effects (or, in the special case of the Corinthians, should effect) in the Christian community. It is wrong to

114

/II. Can the law be fulfilled?

stood in the sense of the moral content of the Torah; we need not be concerned with the oscillation of the concept in this connection, for the nonfulfilment of the Torah by the Jews is 'demonstrated' by Paul in purely moral
terms, too. The trouble with this argument is, however, that its first part
could only be supported with denigration and caricature, as we have seen.
Not only that; the second part that the Christians really - albeit charismatically, with the aid of the Spirit - fulfIl the law is equally problematic. 103
It is essential for Paul's argument that he can confront Jewish transgression
of the law with Christian fulfIlment of it. Man under law is incapable of
coping with the law (Rom 7.14-25, 8.5-8); not so the Christians (8.4,
8.9-11). Rom 6.14a states with joyous assurance that sin will not reign over
Christians who have died to it (6.7);104 v. 14b tells that this is so because
they are not under law, but under grace, thus implying that those under the
law are slaves of sin. Gal 5.18 likewise suggests that 'works of the flesh' as
described in v. 19-21 are the product of an existence under the law. 105 In
freedom from the law the fruit of the Spirit is grown (v. 22-23); the purport
assert that 'the description of a'Ya1TlI in these verses goes far beyond a description of
human existence', so that the passage 'describes what man is not' (J.T. Sanders,
Ethics 53, following K. Barth). Sanders presses Paul's words, reading too many
modern introspective insights into the phrases 'does not seek its own' (v. Sa) and 'all'
(v. 7). V. Sa is paralleled in 1 Cor 10.24 within the framework of very concrete exhortation; in 1 Cor 10.33 Paul'states without the slightest hesitation that he for one does
not seek his own advantage! Phi! 2.20 f. says the same thing about Timothy. As for
v. 7, Paul applies the 1T(lVTa urE'YL to himself and Barnabas in 1 Cor 9.12. 1 Cor 13 is
thus simply intended as a description of what the normal Christian should be and
usually is. In a more prosaic and exhortatory form Paul says as much in Phil 4.8
(J. Weiss on 1 Cor 13). All in all, Paul is following traditional models (cf. Test. Patr.)
in 1 Cor 13 (see Conzelmann, ad loc.). Interestingly enough, Conzelmann can judge
that the passage stands out as Christian only because of the context!
103 It is quite wrong to weaken the content of Rom 8.4 the way Cranfield, 'Paul' 66
does: the establishment of the law 'is as yet imperfect (for even those who have received the Spirit fall very short of full obedience)';ct-. id., Romans ad loc.: Christians
fulfil the law 'in the sense that they have a real faith in God', 'in the sense that their
lives are definitely turned in the direction of obedience'. Cf. also Nygren. This is simply an attempt to make Paul's extravagant statement tolerable to the sensitivities of
a modern Christian. Best observes that 'Paul does not say that "we are now able to
fulfil the actual commandments of the Law" , and thinks that the point is that the
requirement of the law 'has been met because sin has been condemned' (that is, in
the death of Christ). Cf. also Dugandzic, 'la' 174 f.; Beker, Paul 107 ,186,243. This
interpretation fails because of the EV T,/J.;;v. Correctly e.g. Lietzmann; Ladd, 'Paul'
66; Bruce, 'Paul' 275.
104 otl KVPU,VUL is a real future, expressing 'dogmatic assurance' (Lietzmann); cf. Kuss;
Mauerhofer, Kampf 94.
105 Cf. Loisy, Galates 190; Cerfaux, Christian 461 f.One may note here that when
Schmithals, Gnostics 46 ff. argues that Paul's opponents were libertinist Gnostics
rather than Judaizers and that Paul is attacking their way of life in Gal 5.13 ff., he
ignores verses 5.18 and 23. These verses do in fact indicate a conflict with 'Judaizers'.

Christians fulfil the law

115

of v. 23b is probably to suggest that the law has nothing to object to a life
producing fruit of the Spirit. This remark thus gives in a slightly ironic form
expression to the thought which is then positively stated in Rom 8.4.16 It
is the Christians and they alone who really fulfil what the law requires.
Gal 5.16 implies that it is possible for a Christian to walk in the Spirit so
that he does not 'fulfil the desire of the flesh'. This is indeed the normal
situation of the Christian.17 Galatians conveys an extremely 'optimistic'
picture of the spiritual life of the Christian community. It almost seems that
the 'Christians live on a new level of existence, and so their actions will automatically follow from this new kind of existence,.108 And yet Paul, in the
same letter, has to hint at internal strifes among the Galatian Christians in

106 Cr. Lietzmann; van Diilmen, Theologie 63.

107 Gal 5:17 refers, however, to the threat posed even for the Christian by the tempting
power of the flesh. It is difficult to make out the precise meaning of the sentence.
The point can hardly be that man is but the battle-field of two opposed forces, an
empty vessel as it were, to be filled either by the flesh or by the Spirit (thus, e.g.,
van Diilmen, op.cit. 61 f.). The context is one of exhortation - walk in the Spirit
(v. 16)! It seems best to take v. 17bc as a parenthesis and iVa in 17d in a final sense:
the flesh desires against the Spirit, trying to effect that you will not carry out what
you intend; cf. Althaus, Paulus 116 f. The flesh thus tries to destroy the work of the
Spirit. The Christian, however, is called to resist this desire of the flesh. He can do it,
too. Cf. Oepke: 'Far from declaring this situation somehow normal, the apostle wants
rather to urge his readers to overcome it through a complete devotion to the Spirit ... '
Mauerhofer, Kampf 195: 'The battle of faith is a reality, but victory or defeat are put
into the hands of the believers!' 5.16b denotes a fact rather than an irreal wish: if the
Galatians let themselves be guided by the Spirit, they will not 'fulfil the desire of the
flesh'.
108 Drane, Paul 53. Similarly, Betz, 'Spirit' 159 speaks of Paul's 'almost naive confidence
in the Spirit' in Gal. Schneidermayer, 'Galatians' 138 refers to the theoretical side of
the dilemma: ' ... somehow miraculously it would seem that we will know without
question what constitutes right action once we achieve the Spirit. To say the least,
Paul outlines a complicated miracle!' That Paul did not in fact believe in this miracle
- that he thus must have had special reasons for his extravagant 'confidence' in
Galatians - is borne out by 1 Thess (and 1-2 Cor). 1 Thess shows that in a situation
where no Judaizing danger was to be feared, Paul did not rely on the guidance of the
Spirit alone. He expects of his converts a decent life according to normal Jewish
standards, with a'Ya1l"1l and ""Aa.OEA",la as the overarching moral concepts (1 Thess
1.3, 2.8, 3.6, 3.12,4.9-10, 5.8, 5.13).4.1 f. shows that Paul did not shrink from
giving clear precepts about how one has to (od!) walk in order to please God and
attain sanctification (3.13). Concretely, one has to avoid fornication, impurity,
greed, and exploitation. Whoever rejects these ethical requirements, rejects God, the
giver of the Spirit (4.8). Far from representing an ama et quod vis fac -ethics, Paul
gives concrete orders (even more so in 1 Corinthians; cf. Drane, op.cit. 61 ff.).
In 1 Cor 4.17 Paul refers to the ethical instruction (his 'ways') he gives 'everywhere,
in every congregation' .. Schrage, Einzelgebote is correct in stressing that concrete
precepts are by no means foreign to Paul's ethic, as against Bliiser, Gesetz 234 ff.

116

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

drastic language ('bite' and 'devour' in 5.15!); in 6.1 he clearly indicates that
transgressions are possible or indeed to be expected in the community. 109
It is above all the story of the Corinthian congregation that makes Paul's
optimistic assertions appear in a dubious light. In 1 Cor 5.1-5 Paul has to
hint at a gross sexual transgression 'such as is not found even among pagans (!)'.
Far from being led by the Spirit to grieve about such mischief, the Corinthian pneumatics are 'puffed up' for it (v. 2). Already in his previous (lost)
letter Paul had had to advise the congregation to exclude such members as
were fornicators, greedy, exploiters or idolaters, mockers or drunkards (5.913)! Some Corinthians had found union with prostitutes compatible with the
life in Christ (6.12-20), and Paul has to argue the case at length when pointing out that this is not so. 6.1-11 reveals that the Corinthian Christians had
internal strifes which were taken to the court. 'You wrong and rob, and even
brethren!' (v. 8) Add to this the 'schisms'in the celebration of the Lord's meal,
when 'one is starving and the other is drunk'. Still in 2 Cor 12.20-21 Paul
expresses his fear that he may find among the Corinthians precisely those
vices that he had in Gal listed as 'works of the flesh': epLC:, tii'Aoc:, {}vlJ,ol,
fpL{}LaL ...

1 Cor 3.3 shows that Paul had discerned this theological problem, without
being able to solve it, however. He says that, as there is tii'Aoc: and epLC: among
the Corinthians, then they must in fact be aapK.U<.ol.Paul has not been able
to speak to them as 1rllvlJ,aTLK.oic: (v. 1)!110 This co.ncession to reality flatly
contradicts the black-and-white distinction between those in the flesh and
those in the Spirit made in Rom 8.5 ff. Embarrassingly enough, it is precisely
the excessive reliance on the guidance of the Spirit that had misled the enthusiastic Corinthians in their behaviour. But despite his branding the Corinthians as fleshly, Paul a little later states that God's Spirit dwells in them
(3.16). When confronted with concrete real-life problems, his distinction
between life in the flesh and life in the Spirit gets blurred. He has to admit,
reluctantly to be sure, that what he calls in another context works of the
flesh can also be produced in the Christian community. They are an anomaly
109 Perhaps one should not attach too much importance to Gal 5.15, for Paul probably
attributes the 'biting' and 'devouring' to the intrusion of the nomistic heresy. But it
is improbable that the latter should be made responsible for the case envisaged in
6.1.
1101. Weiss, ad loc., speaks of the juxtaposition of the ideal and reality, typical of primitive Christianity as a whole. Bultmann, 2 Kor 240 (on 12.20) notes that the vice list
shows that 'the Corinthians are no pneumatics (in the Pauline sense), cf. 1 Cor
3.1-3'; precisely that is the problem! It may be that Paul is inl Cor 3.1 taking up
the Corinthians' own proud terminology (they looked on themselves as 'pneumatics'
on the basis of their charismatic experiences) and that he 'quite deliberately re-clef'mes
the concept ... in terms of day-to.<Jay conduct' (Thiselton, 'Eschatology' 523). This,
however, does not remove the problem; the contradiction between this passage and
Rom 8 remains.

Christians fulfil the law

117

to be sure, but they are there neverthelessJ11 The caricatures of Paul's

moral teaching reflected in Rom 3.8, 6.1, 6.15 may well have been fed on
some knowledge of what went on in a place like Corinth.112
We have seen that Paul once more ignores empirical facts in the course of
his polemic against the law-abiding Jews. In Romans he implicitly draws up a
contrast between the Jews who transgress the law and the Christians who
fulfil it (and this in a letter written from Corinth!). In Gal 5 this contrast is
made explicitly. In his attack against the Judaizing tendencies in Galatia
Paul tries to show that bad life is not at all a consequence of the law-free
gospel. Quite on the contrary: works of the flesh come into being under the
law, whereas life in Christ produces fruit of the Spirit. But when Paul tries to
demonstrate the superiority of the gospel over the law in this way, his argument goes hopelessly astray. He compares Christian life at its best (if not an
ideal picture of it) with Jewish life at its worst (if not a pure caricature). 113
Paul thus uses different standards for Christians and Jews respectively.
It might be possible to abstract some such synthesis of Paul's view of
Christian life as follows: The Christian walks according to the Spirit. Nevertheless, the flesh which fights with the Spirit (Gal 5.17) is a constant threat
111 Admittedly, the moral condition of the Corinthian congregation is an exception
among Paul's congregations. About the Thessalonians Paul, on the whole, gives a
rather favourable testimony (cf. 1 Thess 1.7 f.) Some interpreters find that he is
aware of a few (not very serious) moral defects in the life of the congregation; for
this reason he wrote 1 Thess 4.3 -12 (Best, Friedrich). Differently Wernle, Christ 28
(referring to 3.13 and 5.23): 'for the short period of time still left before the parousia
they can and should live without sin'. Wernle (29 f.) admits the occurrence of disorder in the congregation, but states: 'As their faith still has its shortcomings (3.10),
thus some things are in ethical regard, too, imperfect in the congregation; yet through
mutual admonition and support everything will turn out well.' Cf. Windisch, Taufe
107 ff.; Schade, Christologie 136. Windisch (116 ff.) further observes that the Philippian congregation remained for almost ten years an almost ideal community.
112 This ancient polemic is still perpetuated by Klausner, Jesus 547; cf. M. Grant, Paul
101. Klausner speaks of 'die Ausbreitung der Unmoral imjungen Christentum infolge
der Entwertung der Thoragesetze und des Eindringens grosser heidnischer Massen'.
He makes the methodological mistake of reading Paul's paraenetical exhortations as
literal descriptions of the condition of the congregation addressed; thus he infers
from Rom 13.10-14 and Eph 4.24-32 that drunkenness and stealing were common
among the Christians. Nevertheless, 1 Cor 5-6 and 2 Cor 12.20 f. are serious indicators of what could happen in a congregation which, by and large, lacked the moral
basis provided by Iudaism. Wernle, op.cit. 35 ff. infers that no ethicall'Ercivota preceded the conversion of the pagan Corinthians, who were probably simply overwhelmed by Paul's enthusiasm (36).
113 Cf. Iiilicher, Romer 274: 'Die Gegenfrage, ob denn Christus und das Evangelium die
volle Gerechtigkeit gebracht haben, liisst sein Glaube gar nicht zu, da -nimmt er naiv
und ktihn das Ideal fiir die Wirklichkeit, wahrend er dem Iuden Gleiches versagt.'
Cf. Loisy. Galates 190; Ruether, Faith 104, 241 f.; W.L. Knox, Jerusalem 117 n.

25,142,347.

118

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

even to the Christian. A Christian who yields to the flesh and ceases to walk
in the Spirit, no longer bears fruit of the Spirit; the just requirement of the
law is no more fulfllled in him. This is the situation of the Corinthians. The
Spirit still dwells in them, but if they do not change the direction of their
life, they risk finally falling back to the fleshly existence. But even this
'systematization' (which Paul did not carry out in so many words) would
destroy the basis of Paul's polemic against the Jews. He would be left with
the assertion: you do not fulfll the law; we do fulfll it, except when we do
not!
That Paul was subjectively sincere in all this there is not the least reason to
doubt. He was not conscious of any personal sin in his own life.1 14 His ideal
picture of the Christian existence was based on his own genuine experience.
He was living in the new aeon, participating proleptically in resurrection life.
Conversion and baptism had signified a new creation for him. 1I5 He had also
observed real transformation of life in other Christians around him.1 16 The
notion of the shortness of time, the eschatological fervour, made it seem a
real possibility that the congregations might be able to live a sinless life for
the short time still left before the parousia. 1I7 Granting all this, one can
nevertheless hardly overlook .the 'doctrinaire' character of Paul's conviction.
'Paul does not want to see the problem of sin in Christian life; therefore it
does not exist.'1I8

6. Summary
Paul's theological theory pushes him in his thinking about the law into a
direction in which he would apparently not go spontaneously. His point of
departure is the conviction that the law must not be fulfllled outside of the
Christian community, for otherwise Christ would have died in vain. Among
Christians, on the other hand, the law must be fulfilled; otherwise Christ
would be as weak as the law was (Rom 8.3). That the law is neither fulfllled
by Jews nor Gentiles Paul 'proves' by way of denigrating generalizations.
Another device is to radicalize the claim of the law ad absurdum: only 100
per cent fulfilment of the law will hold (Gal 3.1 0).
Paul's spontaneous view is revealed in Rom 2.14 f., 2.26 f., Phil 3.4-6.
God's will in the law can be fulfllled even by non.christian Gentiles. When
Paul speaks of the fulfllment of the law by Christians, he does not presuppose
114 See Stendahl, Paul 90 f.; Althaus, Paulus 71 f. The one sin Paul shows awareness of
is a thing of the past: his persecution of God's ekklesia (1 Cor 15.9).
115 Wernle, op.cit. 5-25,103 f. Recently, Mauerhofer has stressed that 'posse non peccare'
is a real possibility for Paul; see Kampf 104 f., 207 etc.
116 Cf. Windisch, op.cit.147, 153.
117 Wernle, op.cit. 42 ff., 50, 56, 60, 72.
118 Wernle, op.cit. 104.

Analogies?

119

any radicalized standards (unlike the Sermon on the Mount).119 The Christian fulfilment of the law corresponds to such normal Hellenistic moral ideals
as were filtered through the Diaspora Synagogue (phil 4.8). But even these
were in fact not always reached in the Christian congregations.

7. Analogies?
a) Christian sources
During the first Christian generations Paul is the only writer to imply that
it is impossible to fulfil the law and to use this as an argument about the law.
In the gospels it is taken for granted that the commandments can be kept. In
Mk 10.17-20 Jesus refers the man who asks how he can inherit eternal life
to the commandments of the Decalogue. When the man sa~s that he has
observed 'all these' from his youth, Jesus does not object. 1 0 Instead, he
adds one more commandment. Mk 12.28-34 also presupposes that the commandments can be fulfilled. The particular ethical claims put by Jesus on his
followers (see 8.34-10.45) also presuppose fulfillability. They are supposed
to be able to follow the sharpest requirements of an ascetic ethic and 'it is
not thought that the infusion of a new divine principle would be a necessary
precondition for this';rnetanoia will be enough.1 21
Nothing suggests unfulfillability of the commandments, which are simply
radicalized by Jesus' interpretation of them, in Matthew. Luke portrays both
the Christians and their pious Jewish predecessors like the parents of the
Baptist as wholly fulfilling the law. Zacharias and Elisabeth were 'righteous
before God', 'walking blameless in all precepts and commandments (EVTOAai<;
Kat 8tKatwfJaaw) of the Lord' (Lk 1.6), and the piety of the Christian community in Jerusalem is painted in the same colours. 122
In the Pastorals, the law is intended for the ungodly only; the pious do
not even need it (1 Tim 1.7-10). There is no talk of unfulfillability.123
Of other New Testament writers lames can be singled out in this connection.
Jas 2.10 f., joining Jewish discussions (cf. below), offers a thought that, on
the face of it, looks parallel to Gal 3.10: if one transgresses one commandment, he is guilty of transgressing the whole law. The intention of James is,
however, purely paraenetic. l24 He will prevent his readers from transgressing
119 Against Grundmann, 'Gesetz' 57.
120 Cf. Werner, Einfluss 95; Schulz, Botschaft 93. It is simply impossible to squeeze from
Mk 10.19 the message that if the man honestly tries to keep the commandments, 'he
will be brought to recognize his bankruptcy'; thus Cranfield,Mk ad loco

121 Werner, op.cit. 125.

122 To be sure, Peter's statement in Acts 15.10 f. brings some internal tension into this
picture; see below, p. 215 f.
123 Cf. Holtzmann, Theologie 11, 296.
124 Walker, 'Aus Werken' 161 ff. exaggerates not a little when speaking of the 'nomistic
radicalism' or 'sharp nomism' of 2.10 f.

120

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

the 'one' commandment that seemed to be in danger among them - they are
not to rank the rich man before the poor in the congregation. James develops
no argument concerning the law from the obvious fact that we all 'transgress
in Ip.any ways' (3.2). The lesson is simply the practical one that one should
not too eagerly attempt to become a teacher.
The letter of Bamabas occasionally notes 'the impracticability of the OT
requirements': as the Sabbath is to be celebrated with a pure heart, it cannot
be rightly celebrated in the old aeon (15.6 f.). But the conclusion is entirely
different from Paul's: where Paul infers that a new order' of salvation is necessary, 'Barnabas' is content with predicting 'the practicability in the new
aeon'.I25
Paul is thus unique in his (seeming) rigorism about the unfulfIllability of
the law. As regards the polemic against the'Jews' actual transgression of the
law he is not alone, however. That the Jewish opponents of the writer do not
fulfIl the law is asserted both by Luke in the speech of Stephen (Acts 7.5153) and by John (7.19).126 And Justin 'never loses the opportunity of pointing up the sinfulness and evil inclination of the Jews' .127 In this, as we shall
see, the Christian polemic against Jews was no different from standard Jewish
polemic against pagans. Within the NT, however, it is Paul alone who builds
an argument about the insufficiency of the law on this allegation. Justin can
be regarded as a partial parallel at least: it is against the vividly painted background of the Jews' total wickedness 'that the Apologist constantly rehearses
the purpose of the letislation of the Law as enacted because of the hardness of
heart of the Jews'.12

b) Jewish sources
Any Jew would have agreed with the statement that a perfect obedience to
the law is impossible. Everybody else, however, would have disagreed with
Paul's implication that a hundred per cent fulfIlment of the law was a necessity. 'Paul's definition of righteousness as perfect conformity to the law of
God would never have been conceded by a Jewish opponent, to whom it
would have been equivalent to admitting that God had mocked man by offering to him salvation on terms they both knew to be impossible '" ,129 'There
is no hint in Rabbinic literature of a view such as that of Paul in Gal 3.10 ... ,

125 See Windisch,Bam 394.

126 This is the natural reading of Jn 7.19.Pancaro, Law 137 suggests a particularly Johannine interpretation: doing the law is identical with the recognition of Jesus; 'the Jews
do not keep the law, because they fail to grasp its true meaning and purpose'.
127 Stylianopoulos,Justin 143 f., with reference to Dial. 12.2,20.4,27.4,55.3 etc.
128 Ibid.
129 Moore,Judaism 1,495.

Analogies?

121

that one must achieve legal perfection ... Human perfection was not considered realistically achievable by the Rabbis, nor was it required.' 130
There are Rabbinic statements to the effect that to leave one command:
ment unfulfilled is tantamount to transgressing the whole law.1 31 'Anyone
who lends on interest transgresses every prohibition in the Torah and finds no
one to plead in his favour.' (ExR 31.14) Such statements, however, are made
with a clearly paraenetic intention; they encourage people to keep all commandments. 132 Often the 'thesis' of the value of anyone commandment is
developed in the opposite direction, with an equally paraenetic intention:
to fulfIl one commandment is tantamount to fulfIlling the whole law. The
statement just quoted from Exodus Rabbah has indeed the sequel: 'An
Israelite who lends money to his neighbour without taking interest is regarded
as if he had fulfilled all the commandments ... ' (a similar sequence is also
found in 31.13). Such statements have nothing to do with soteriology.133
Still, there are traces of a wrestling with the problem of fulfillability even
in rabbinic Judaism (cf. Sanh 81a, Makk 24a); 'only there was no intention of
a reductio ad absurdum of the law by the law, rather "the works of the law"
as a basis for the conduct of life as a whole was regarded as the will of
God.'134
The legal rigorism of the Qumran community is well-known. The radically
interpreted Torah had to be observed scrupulously. The Rule of Community
stipulates excommunication for trans~reSSing one single word of the Torah
(1 QS 8.8, 8.16 ff.; cf. 1 QS l.13 f.).1 5 The clearly ecclesiological nature of
this rigorous procedure should not be overlooked, though.136
On the other hand, the hymnic confessions of sin reveal a profound sense
of human sinfulness and insufficiency. But 'the frequent statements to the
effect that man is worthless and incapable of doing good are always said in
the context of comparing man and God,.137 It is remarkable that 'these
profound views of human sinfulness do not touch soteriology' .138 Nor do
they touch, of course, the status of the Torah in any way. Thus the theology
of Qumran does not constitute a real parallel to Paul's assumption in Gal
130 E.P. Sanders, Paul 137. Cf. Sanders's remarks in Law 24.
131 This rabbinic speculation is reflected in the letter of James; see above, p. 119 f.
132 a. DibeliuS,Jak on 2.10.
133 See tlte discussion in Sanders, Paul 134-138.
134 Schoeps, Paul 177; cf. already Uiwy, 'Lehre' (1903), 420 ff.
135 Cf. Hubner, Tradition 109.
136 Cf. E.P. Sanders, Paul 286: 'It is noteworthy that of the list of offences for whicha
permanent expulsion is prescribed, all but one - blasphemy - are offences against
the community.'
137 E.P. Sanders, op.cit. 289.
1380p.Cit. 283. The same is true of the statement 'all sons of men are unrighteous
(ll.6!/(0!), and all their works are unrighteous' in 3 Ezra 4.37. It is offered as a general
experiential wisdom in the context of a eulogy of God's ciA,.j"el.a (see v. 34--40).

122

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

3.10. It would seem that the 'profound and pessimistic view of human ability,139j in Qumran was reached empirically, in part at least through introspection,140 whereas the sinfulness of man is, for Paul, part of his tortuous
theory. Both Qumran and Paul dwell on other people's (the outsiders') sinfulness, but Paul leaves it at that. It is the people of Qumran alone who
confess their own sinfulness before God! It is a correct observation that
Luther's insight, reached via introspection, of man's radical corruption is
more reminiscent of Qumran than of Paul! 141
A special problem is posed by IV Ezra. It is often thought that this work
shares Paul's pessimism about the possibility of fulfilling the law. 142 There
are indeed statements about a universal sinfulness in the book. 'We are all
full of ungodliness' (4.38). (As in Qumran, but unlike Paul, the writer here
includes himself among the 'ungodly'.) There is 'none of the earth-born who
has not dealt wickedly' (8.35); the seer asks that God have compassion on
those without good works (8.31-36). Those who sin perish - but the law
abides in its glory (9.36 f.).
It is important to observe the literary structure of the book, however. As
Brandenburger and Harnisch have shown, the theology of the writer is not
found in the mouth of 'Ezra', but rather in the statements of the angel who
corrects Ezra's views time and again. 143 Thus the angel passes a more favou-

139 E.P. Sanders, op.cit. 284.

140 Garnet, Salvation 36 ff. traces in the hymns probably to be attributed to the founder
of the community 'an increasing awareness of his own sin, leading to a realization of
universal sinfulness and the fact that God alone can bring man's justification' (36);
this view 'was forged on the anvil of the crises of his pilgrimage' (37).
141 Luz, (Ieschichtsver8tiindnis162 n. 102. Cf. also the humble confession of one's own
siJlfulness inPs.-Philo, LAB 49.5, 62.9.Ps.-Philo goes further than Paul in the direction
of introspection in clearly emphasizing that '1' intention mauvaise est .d9a condamnable' (Perrot, 'Introduction' 45); see LAB 12.7, 25.9-l3, and Perrot, 'Commentaire'
154.
142 See, e.g., Davies, Paul 11, l3; Dodd, Studies 118 f.; Buber, Zwei Glaubensweisen
148 ff.; cf. also Schottroff, 'Schreckensherrschaft' 506 f.; Luz, 'Gesetz' 56 f., 100.
Recently, Maier, 'Faktoren' 250 has suggested that the dialogues in the fust part of
IV Ezra might be earlier than AD 70 'und etwa der Zeit und dem Milieu angehoren,
in dem der Apostel Paulus seine religiosen Grundanschauungen erhalten hat, also in
der syrisch-kleinasiatischen Diaspora'. Here the danger of a circular argument is
imminent; we may explain Paul by IV Ezra and vice versa.
143 Mundle, 'Problem' 236; Brandenburger, Adarn 30 f.; Harnisch, Verhiingnis 60 ff.;
E.P. Sanders, Paul 410 ff. The opposite view is.held by Thompson, Theodicy: 'the
author has the angelic figure both as a spokesman for a point of view which he con~
siders to be unrealistic and as a mediating figure to absorb some of the sharpness of
Ezra's complaints against God' (355~; cf. 217: 'Uriel represents an orthodoxy which
is too optimistic about Israel and quite unrealistic about human nature.' But which
ancient writer would have put an angel in such a role?! One can concur with Thompson, however, that 'Ezra' hardly represents anyone concrete party (Harnisch) or

Analogies?

123'

rable judgment on Ezra than the seer himself does, referring to his rectitude
and chastity (6.32, cf. 7.77,8.48 f.). When Ezra asks the lamenting question:
who has not sinned or transgressed God's covenant, the angel answers by
expressing his joy 'over the few that shall be saved' (7.60). Those who perish
have transgressed wilfully; they are without excuse (7.72).1 44 But the blessed
ones who will be saved have actually fulfilled the law. They 'painfully served
the Most High, and were in jeopardy every hour, that they might observe the
Law of the lawgiver perfectly' (7.89); 'they have striven much and painfully
to overcome the innate evil thought that it might not lead them astray from
life unto death' (7.92).
It is beyond question for the author that God's will can be fulfilled. 145
He attacks and refutes the thesis that sin is unavoidable. 146 There are some
that will be saved. In its pessimism IV Ezra diverges clearly from mainstream
Judaism: it is held that fulftlment of the law is difficult, painful, and rare. It
is not clear whether one has to fulftl the law absolutely or 'almost perfectly,147 1'0 be saved. At any rate, the pessimism of the book has little to do
with that ascribed to Paul. The message of IV Ezra is unseparably tied with
the destruction of Jerusalem. The catastrophe of A.D 70 has triggered off the
reflections of the author and led his thought in the direction of radicalized
nomism. 'Ezra' can fmd no other explanation for the fate of the holy city
than that the elected people must be full of sin in the eyes of God. In retrospect he concludes that 'normal' observance of the law (in which Israel is
certainly not worse than 'Babylon'!) has not been enough. Paul lived in a
different situation. But there is a parallel feature between him and IV Ezra in
that each writer - in a different way - proceeds 'backwards' in his theology
and ends up proclaiming (all but) universal sinfulness.
IV Ezra remained an individual exception among Jewish literature. In 2
Baruch the legalism has been toned down,148 and it is possible that already
the concluding chapters of IV Ezra itself are designed to mitigate the rigorism
displayed in the bulk of the book.149
While there are no real parallels to Paul's contention that the law cannot
be fulfilled (outside the dominion of Christ), he is certainly not alone in his

'Seinsverstiindnis' (Brandenburger). 'We see, rather, various propositions being put

to the angel and confumed or denied.' Sanders, op.cit. 412.
144 See Harnisch, op.cit. 146-165.
145 Harnisch, op.cit. 152.
146 Harnisch, op.cit. 161 (with respect to 1.71 f.); cf. Mundie, art.cit. 243-249.
147 Cf. Sanders' formulation: 'perfect (or nearly perfect) obedience', op.cit. 416.
148 Cf. Sanders, op.cit. 427; idem, 'Covenant' 20 f.
149 Thus Sanders, Paul 416 ff., as against Breech, 'Fragments' and Harnisch. Should
Breech and Harnisch be right, then IV Ezra could come even less in question as a
parallel to Paul.

124

Ill. Can tbe law be fulfilled?

denigration of the opponent in Rom 1-2. This is rather an almost universal

characteristic of religious polemic. It is well-known that Paul follows in Rom
1 closely "the traditional attacks of Jewish literature against p'agan cult (esp.
Sap 13_15).150 Instances of a wholesale demonization of the other side
can be collected, e.g., from the Testaments of the Patriarchs (Test. Levi
14.4 ff., 16.1-2) and from Qumran (CD 4.12 ff.) , but also from Philo.
Goodenough's judgment on Philo's criticisms of idolatry could apply mutatis
mutandis to Paul in Rom 1 as well: 'To accuse Philo of deliberate misrepresentation of paganism is perhaps unfair, but the only alternative is tO'ascribe
to him such Jewish loyalty as blinded his eyes and mind to what must have
been plain facts before him.'151 A fairer judgment on the pagans is found,
e.g., in IV Ezra 3.36 - a statement reminiscent of Rom 2.14 f.: 'Individual
men of note indeed thou mayst fmd to have kept thy precepts; but nations
thou shalt not find!' The idealization of one's own 'side' is, of course, implied
in such denigration. To Paul's beautiful picture of the Christians fulfilling the
law and producing the fruit of the Spirit one may compare III Sib 218-247
(esp. 234-247) - a passage describing the 61.Ka1.oaVIl'T/ and apeni of the Jews
- or the assertion of Philo that a proselyte immediately becomes temperate,
continent etc. in Virt. 180 ff. 152

c) Deuteronomy
In a much quoted essay Martin Noth undertook to show that there is a
profound theological similarity between Paul's statement in Gal 3.10 and
Deuteronomy (from which the citation Gal 3.10 is taken - Deut 27.26). 153
Starting from the obvious question, 'whether Paul has not wrongly appealed
to the passages he ~uotes from Deuteronomy in support of his judgment on
the law in,general', 54 Noth reaches the conclusion that this is not so. Paul's
assertion is justified from the point of view of Deut itself:
'On the basis of this law there is only one possibility for man of having
his own independent activity: that is transgression, defection, followed by
curse and judgment. And so, indeed, "iIl1 those who rely on the works of the
law are under a curse".'155
'
Paul, however, suggests that fulfJ.J.ling the law is impossible, whereas the
idea in Deut, as interpreted by Noth, is that Israel has collectively transgressed the covenant law and this is why the curse contained in it has become
150 For references see Synofzik,Aussagen 91 f.
1~1 Introduction 84 f.
152 See Borgen, 'Observations' 98. Philo, Virt. 182 closely parallels the virtue list in Gal
5.22 f.
153 Studien 155-171 (ET Laws 118-131). Noth is followed, among others, by Eichholz,
Theologie 247; Vos, UntersuchunKen 89 n. 12; Edwards, Christ 206-209, 227 f.
154 Op.cit. 156 (ET 119).
155 Op.cit. 171 (ET 131).

Analogies?

125

a reality which in the day of the author had already appeared, whereas the
blessing is for him already something unreal. 156 To say this is to say no more
than that transgressing the law brings about curse.
Noth concedes that the OT apparently opens out from the law the
perspectives, '''blessing and curse", i.e. either blessing or curse, according as
the individual or the group fulfils or does not fulfil the requirements of the
law'.157 Noth refers to the clear statements Deut 11.26-28, 30.19 which
after this simply disappear from the discussion. 158 He calls, however, attention to 'the external inequality' in Deut 28.1-68. There, the effects of the
curse are depicted in much fuller detail than those of the blessing, which
shows 'that the emphaSis ... lies quite one-sidedly upon the section of curses';
the same is true of the parallel passages in the law of Hammurabi and in
oriental treaties.i59 The lawgiver is interested in transgressors rather than in
those who observe the law.
Noth goes on to emphasize that it is natural that a law has to be obeyed.
'Whoever keeps the law does no more than his duty and can make no claim
to a reward.' The blessing contained in Deut 28 'was already present before
the law, for it rests on a previously given divine promise' .160 This is certainly
true, but it does not follow from it that in Deut 28 the blessing would be 'a
purely formal counterpart to the curse' .161
Noth in fact blends together two quite distinct questions: 1) could the law
be, according to Deut, a real source of blessing for Israel? 2) is the blessing
seen in Deut as a reward which man could justly claim for having fulfilled the
law? Noth seems to assume that an affirmative answer to the latter question is
a necessary presupposition for answering the first question positively. As the
blessing is not a reward, no blessing is possible. But this is a non sequitur.
In the light of the profane parallels it is striking how much Deut, after all,
speaks of the blessing. It promises much more than a normal law does for its
fulfiller (whether or not as 'reward' in the sense of merit). Noth himself mentions five verses, iF! which the fulfilling of an individual provision is, as he puts
it, 'occasionally ... motivated by the divine blessing which is being kept in
view' .162 Noth is inclined to regard such motivations as an actual (occasional)
inconsistency within Deut. He has, however, overlooked some twenty places
where the blessing connected with fulfilment of the law is spoken of, even

156 Op.cit. 168 (ET 128 f.).

157 Op.cit. 156 (ET 119).
158 Noth only mentions them in the concluding passage stating that it is just a question
of a 'formal association of the words of blessing and curse' (171, ET 131).
159 Op.cit. 157 ff. (quotation from p. 160; ET, 122).
160 Op.cit. 165 (ET 126).
161 Ibid.
162 Op.cit. 166 n. 27 (ET 126 n. 28); Deut 14.29, 15.10, 15.18, 23.21, 24.19.

126

Ill. Can the law be fulfilled?

though the word berakah is not used! 163 It is therefore wrong to claim that
blessing appears as a purely formal counterpart to curse. It appears that blessing through promise and blessing through fulf:tlling the law by no means
exclude each other in De ut ; the law is seen as a divine promise. 164
Besides emphasizing that the curse must have appeared to the author(s) of
Deut in the seventh century an actual reality, Noth claims that, according to
2 Kings 22, no one at the time Deut was found doubted that the curse was in
operation. The message of Hulda the prophetess 'does not consider the possibility that the curse might be changed into blessing by any future fulf:tlment
of the law'. 'There is no human possibility of changing the position.' 165
Surely not, but what about a divine posSibili~ - repentance and grace?
The prophecy of Hulda is no doubt ex even tu 1 6 - as is the section about
the curse in Deut 28.25-69!167 Noth thinks that the Deuteronomic history
excludes the possibility of repentance. 168 This thesis can hardly be upheld.
Both Deut and the Deuteronomic history are to be seen as works of paraenesis l69 , and in this framework the talk of curse and blessing can easily be integrated. Lev 26, too - a chapter to which Noth appeals in this very connection
- assumes that the punishments by Yahweh are time and again also meant as
correction of the people (v. 21,23,27).
One more observation. Noth describes the position of Deut in words
reminiscent of Gal 3.10: 'Transgression of the law - even though it be only
one particular - implies a forsaking of covenant-loyalty, and consequently
covenant-breaking and defection, and for all defections the curse attached to
the law comes into operation, executed by Yahweh himself.'170 How significant the transgression of 'only one particular' was, is explained by Noth in a
note: 'The trespass of an individual against a provision of the law must be
visited with his expulsion from the community (cf. Deut. 13.6, etc.).' 171
But Deut 13.6 is an example unfortunately chosen. The 'one' provision of
Deut 13 is enticement to apostasy - it is a question of transgressing the first

163 Cf. Deut 5.33, 6.3, 6.18, 6.24 f., 7.9, 7.12 f., 8.1, 10.13, 11.8 f., 11.13-15,11.21,
11.22 ff., 12.1, 12.28, 15.4 f., 16.20, 19.8 f., 22.7, 28.9.7.13 explicitly mentions
'blessing' .

164 Koch, Review 831 f. Cf. von Rad, Theology I, 230; Clements,People 58 ff.; Lohfink,
Siegeslied 158 ff.
165 Noth, op.cit. 169 (ET 129).
166 Dietrich,Prophetie 13 f., 55 ff.
167 von Rad, op.cit. 221 with n. 77.
168 Cf. Noth, op.cit. 109.
169 On Deuteronomy as paraenesis see von Rad, op.cit. 225 f., 231; on the Deuteronomic
history as a preaching of repentance von Rad, op.cit. I 346; Wolff, ~Kerygma'; Kellermann,Messias 81 ff.
170 Noth, op.cit. 167 f. (ET 128).
171 Op.cit. 167 n. 35 (ET 128 n. 36).

Analogies?

127

commandment by following foreign gods! The requirement 'remove the evil

from thy midst' (13.4 etc.) appears indeed almost always in the connection
of gross transgressions;l72 'the integrity of the community' is at stake. 173
Not all transgressions of the law are vi site d with expulsion. 174 And last but
not least we should note that Paul himself applies the same excommunication
formula in a Christian congregation in I Cor 5 .l3! 175
Noth has thus failed to show that Paul is justified in appealing to Deut
27;26.1 76 According to Deut and the Deuteronomists, the curse had indeed
befallen the people that had forsaken Yahweh and sacrificed to other gods.
Transgression of the law had brought the curse with it, but the blessing, too,
remained a real possibility. 177

172 17.7 apostasy, 17.12 rejection of a priestly judicial decision, designed as impudence
(the priest has a divine authority., cf. von Rad, Deut ad loc.); 18.20 a prophet's speaking in the name of other gods, or falsely speaking in the name of Yahweh; 19.13 murder, 19.19 false witness, 22.21':"24 fornication and adultery, 21.21 obstinacy leading
to licentiousness and drunkenness; 24.7 stealing and maltreatment of a slave.

173 Rose,Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch 38 f.; see 33 ff. on the formula in question.

174 For instance, there is no talk of capital punishment in chs. 14 and 16.
175 Lohfink, op.cit. 158 points out that blessing and curse in the covenantal pattern do
not mean the legalism condemned by Paul and refers to the fact that 'auch bei Paulus
kann der Christ, der aus dem Glauben lebte, durch Nichtbeachtung des Gotteswillens
das Gericht iiber sich zusammenziehen und sich aus dem Raum der Gnade ausschliessen' .
176 Reventlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz 143 observes that 'der dogmatische Zweck ist fiir Noth
offensichtlich der Mittelpunkt und eigentliche Anlass seiner AusfUhrungen'.
177 Noth, op.cit. 171 (ET 131) is correct in stating that Deut does not contain the view
'that there were positive and negative performances of the law, and that these attitudes could be reckoned up against one another as from a neutral centre point and
add up to a store of good or evil works.' This, however, is a different question altogether! For the ideological background of the emphasis ~n the material 'blessing' in
Deut see von Rad, Theology I 299 (Yahweh victoriously takes the place of Baal as
the bestower of every blessing of the arable land).

Iv. The origin and purpose o/the law

1. The origin
Paul states in Gal 3.19 that the law was given 'through angels'. Does this
assertion amount to a denial of its divine origin? Albert Schweitzer indeed
proposed the thesis that Paul systematically presupposed that the law was
given by evil spiritual powers, the rulers of the old aeon. Obedience to the
law was, therefore, obedience to these evil rulers. 1
Whatever Paul may have thought when dictating Galatians - we will return
to that question - his other letters render Schweitzer's view impossible. Outside Galatians Paul always ref~rs to the law as given by God. The law is called
God's law in Rom 7.22 2 and 8.7.3 'Law' and 'God' belong together in Rom
2.17; that this is not merely a Jewish view foreign to Paul is clear from 2.23:
the Jews' transgressions of the law cause God's name to be dishonoured. In
1 Cor 9.8 f. what 'the law says' or what is written 'in the law of Moses' is
tantamount to God's concern. In Rom 9.4 the IJolJ,Oi)euia is mentioned
favourably among the advantages given to Israel (even before the 'promises'!),
and it is perfectly possible that 'the words of God' (3.2) refers (also?) to the
law and not (merely?) to the promises.4 And even the statement that the
Christians constitute the true 'circumcision' (Phil 3.3, cf. Rom 2.28 f., 4.11)
implies a high appreciation and indeed the divine origin of that rite. In view
of all this it is clear that the high qualities attributed to the law in Rom 7.12,
14 are connected with its divine origin. The law is 'holy' and 'spiritual', the
commandment 'holy', 'good' and 'just' precisely because it stems from God. 5
In the light of Paul's other statements the assertions about the law in Gal
3.15-20 seem strange. 6 Emphasizing the absolute priority of the promise
over the law, Paul states that the law 'came' only 430 years after the promise
1 Schweitzer,Mystik 71 ff.
2 Also in Rom 7.25b, the authenticity of which is disputed.
3 Schweitzer never refers to Rom.8.7 at all.
4 Cf. above, p. 70.
5 Schweitzer regards these statements as part of Paul's tactics: approaching an unknown
congregation with an apologetic purpose, Paul tries to write about the qualities of the
law as tactfully and favourably as possible. He manages indeed to talk in the manner
of the 'worst Judaizers' - without actually speaking of the origin of the law at all!
Op.cit. 198,209.
6 This, however, is no reason to remove the passage as a later addition: thus O'Neill,
Galatianll 51 f. For Steck, Galaterbrie[75, this passage was one of the (many) reasons
to declare Galatians as a whole inauthentic.

The origin

129

given to Abraham. It is curious that he chooses to use the participle 'Y,yovwr;

when speaking of the law: he gives the impression that the law had come on
the scene independently, on its own initiative, unlike the covenant-will based
on promise which was 'confirmed by God' (v. 17). The expression 'sounds
almost contemptuous'. 7 Interestingly enough, a correspondingly 'active'
expression turns up again in Rom 5.20 (the law 'came between', rrapewifAt'Jev,
cf. Gal 2.4). Gal 3.17 serves to create a distance between God and the law.
An impression of distance is likewise produced by the statement that the
law was 'added' (rrpoaeTt'Jf/). 8 The preceding context suggests an invalid
addition not willed by the testator; ovoeir; in v. 15 makes one think of someone other than the testator himself - of an outsider. 9 The illustration uset!
seems to be an anomaly in terms of normal juridical practice; it is already
affected by the application. When setting forth his 'human' analogy, Paul is
already thinking of the angels as giving 'extra stipulations'; note the connection between 1TI.otaTaaaeTat (v. 15) and otaTa'Yeir; (v. 19).1 0
The illustration fits neither Greek nor Roman legal practice. Bammel
argues for a connection with the Jewish mattanah institute, within which there
is no emphasis on the death of a testator, nor can such a will be changed. 11
This theory requires that oVoeir; in v. 15 refers to the testator himself.12:
Yet Paul's thought is in vv. 15-17 guided by the fact that the law was added
(this is explicitly stated in v. 19) which contradicts the principles of mattanah. 13 Thus the observation that the comparison limps 14 remains valid.

70epke.
8 rrpOaeT~T/ cannot here mean merely 'was given' (thus Gyllenberg). The prefix rrpoamust be given full weight (cf. Bauer, Worterbuch s.v.; van Dillmen, Theologie 43 n.
90); it is comparable to rrlin 1rI.&aTooaeTaL (v. 15). The whole reasoning from v.15
on aims at proving that additions are invalid.
9 Lietzmann, Oepke.
10 Cf. Lietzmann. Note further the correspondence between oV6el~ a~eTd (v. 15)
and 0 v6J.lo~ OUK dKVpoi; J. Walter, Gehalt 87.
11 Bammel, 'Diatheke'.
12 Thus Bammel, art.cit. 316, followed by Schlier and Mussner; cf. Byrne, 'Sons' 158 n.
85. If that were Paul's intention, he would in fact be saying that God has indeed
made additions to his will (rrpoaTE~T/ and &aTa'Yel~ in v. 19!) but these are legally
invalid and cannot, therefore, affect the promise! Linguistically, too, it -is natural to
take oVf;el~ in the sense of 'no one else' as in Phil 2.20 and elsewhere (Oepke). Moreover, in v. 20 Paul unmistakably drives a wedge between God and the law by suggesting that the law could not have been given by him who is 'One' (see below). Not
surprisingly Bammel has to deny this. He assumes in v. 20 a reference to the 'one'
seed in v. 16b and takes the meaning of v. 20 to be that 'der VoJ.lO~ ist nicht auf
Christus beziiglich' (art.cit. 317 n. 2).
13 Moreover, one may ask whether Paul would have expected the Galatians to understand niceties of Jewish legal practice (cf. Betz).
14 Lietzmann. That Paul moves rather loosely from one related picture to another, with-

130

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

Formally, the question who is the logical subject in the clause 8taTa'Ykl
&' a'Y'YAWV (v. 19) is left open. As Paul uses 8tdlrather than U1I'O, it might be

possible after all to think of God. 15 Yet both the preceding context (discussed above) and the succeeding verse 20 discourage this interpretation.
V. 20 is regarded as a crux interpretum, but mainly because interpreters are
not willing to swallow Paul's message.t 6 In itself, the message is clear enough.
God, being One, needs no mediator between himself and mankind. Amediator was needed, because God was not involved. A mediator was necessary, because both parties involved consisted of many persons; unlike God, neither
party was 'one' .17 The idea sounds certainly strange ;18 it may be rendered a
bit more intelligible through the recent suggestion that /J.wiTr/c; refers to the
angelic mediator of the heavenly party rather than to Moses.t 9 In any case,
out connecting them in a logical way, becomes clear in v. 18: the question is now no
longer whether the v6llo~ is a legitimate part of God's 'will' and thus of the heritage;
instead, PilUI asks whether or not the heritage is gained on the basis of the nomos.
That the answer to this latter question must be 'No' is in fact Paul's theological starting-point; v. 15-17 are a secondary 'empirical' illustration of an aprioristic theological thesis (as are Gal 3.10 and Rom 1.18-2.29, see above, III 1-2) and it comes as
no surprise that the logic of such an illustration is not watertight.
15 The passive form does not decide the question (against Mussner, Gal 247 n. 17);
not every Semitic passive implies a reference to God! Josephus,Ant. XV, 136 formulates carefully: the laws came c5,'d'Y'YAWV rrapa Toii ~eoii.
16 Thus Bring, Christus 86 explains that Evd~ (v. 20) refers (unlike the following el~ in
v. 20b!) to the recipients of the law rather than to God. A mediator would not have
been needed, had Israel alone been the recipient of the law; the law was, however,
given both to Israel and to the Gentiles (!). Bring totally overlooks the emphatic
contrast between v. 20a and 20b. No wonder he also regards the reference to the
angels as favourable to the law (see above, p. 43 n. 5). For criticisms see also Mussner, Gal 250 n. 30.
Artificial also is the explanation of Mauser, 'Galater ill. 20' 269 f.: while v. 20b
refers to God's unchanging will to save man, v. 20a underlines that Moses is a 'mediator of cleavage' (a particularist note).
Guthrie thinks Paul is speaking of 'a contract which depended on the good faith
of both parts concerned' in v. 20a; similarly Blaser, Gesetz 55.
Percy, Probleme 358 (referring to Bauer, s.v.lleuiTT/~, and Lagrange): the meaning
is that 'das Gesetz nicht ein unbedingter Ausdruck des Willens Gottes in bezug auf
das Heil der Menschen sei, indem es die tatsachliche Beschaffenheit der Menschen
beriicksichtigt'. Callan, 'Midrash' 567 suggests that 'Moses is divided between the
interests of Israel and those of God'. None of these interpretations can explain the
relationship between v. 20a and v. 20b naturally.
17 Correctly, i.a., Uetzmann, Schlier, Mussner; Dibelius, Geisterwelt 25 f.; Hiibner,
Gesetz 28. I fail to understand the objection of Betz that 'it is not at all necessary to
identify this plurality (of which the mediator is the representative, HR) as the angels
in 3.19d, or as the people in the Sinai tradition'; that 'anything that stands in contrast
to the oneness of God is inferior' remains far too abstract.
18 Cf. Loisy, Gal 156; Neil: a 'curious afterthought'.
19 Vanhoye, 'Mediateur': the lleulTT/~ of v. 19-20 refers to the mediator of the angelic

The origin

131

Paul appears for the moment to regard the an~els as the originators of the
law, thus denying its immediately divine origin. 2
Schweitzer and others wish to establish a connection between these angelic
law-givers and the 'elements of the world' mentioned in 4.3, 9. 21 Paul, however, never points up such a connection. It is actually the law itself (rather
than its givers) that functions in the role of Errirporrot and oixovoJl.Ot (4.2), to
which the 'elements of the world' are compared in 4.3 - much as it functions
in the analogous role of rrarha'Yw'Y6f; or jailer in 3.23 f.22 Clearly the expression 'under the elements of the world' corresponds to 'under the law' in 4.4 f.
The CJTotxeia-voJl.OC; is also firmly under God's control - its rule is at the outset limited to last only until the rrpot'JeuJl.ia rori rrarp6f; - which could hardly
be true of inimical angels.
Recently Hubner has argued, without mentioning the urOtxeia in this
connection, that the angels of Gal 3.19 f. were, for Paul, 'demonic beingS' with
evil intentions. 23 It has to be borne in mind, however, that Paul is 'simply
adapting a common interpretation of the Sinai events' (cf. Acts 7.38 and Heb
2.2, where angels - undoubtedly good ones - are said to have participated
in the giving of the law). 'Had Paul intended to use a common view in so
radically a different way, he would certainly have been compelled to make his
point more clearly.'24
Moreover, there are in the context of Gal 3.19~20 itself strong indications
that Paul could not ascribe a demonic origin to the law. As Hubner concedes,
party; that Moses was the mediator of Israel is presupposed but not mentioned. It.was
a common Jewish notion that anangelspoketo Moses on Sinai (Acts 7.38; in Jubilees
he is called 'the angel of presence', whereas Philo, Somn. 1,142 and Test. Dan 6.2
actually call him a jleulTT/<:; Vanhoye, art.cit. 410). But even if the'jleuL1-rJ<:be Moses
(cf. Philo, Vit.Mos. 11,166; Ass. Mos. 1.14,3.12) the suggestion is far-fetched that
EIJ xe,pl jleulTOU may refer 'to beyad Moshe (MT! the LXX reads E7rl TWIJ XE'PWIJ) in
Ex 34.29; thus Callan, art.cit. 561 f. Nothing in Gal 3.19 f. suggests that Paul had the
episode with the Golden Calf in particular in mind when dictating this passage.
20 Thus Loisy, op.cit. 157; Klein, Rekonstruktion 209 f.; Drane, Paul 34; HUbner,
Gesetz 27 f.; Hickling, 'Centre' 201, etc. For some evidence for'the Jewish view that
mediation as such is inferior to direct dealing see Callan, art.cit. 555-559.
21 E.g. Schweitzer, op.cit. 71 f.; Loisy, op.cit. 164; Reicke, 'Law' 261 ff.; Percy, op.cit.
164 ff.; Caird, l7incipalities 47-49; Gronemeyer, Frage 66; Limbeck, Ohnmacht
94 f. n. 29. Cf. also Gunther, Opponents 59, 172 f. Against the identification.Dibetius, op.cit. 28 n. 2, 85 n. 1,187; Leivestad, Christ 104 f.
22 It is therefore wrong to appeal to the personal metaphor OlKOIJOjlO' and E7riTp07rm iD
v. 2 to support the personal character of the UTo'XEia in v. 3; thus, e.g., Percy, op.cit.
165 f. Gal 4.2 is a comparison intended to castlight on the rtlle of the law; not a
description of the UTO'XEia.. One might just as well claim on the basis of 3.23 f.,
4.2 f. that Paul regards the law as personal. That the UTo,xeia. are in fact of a personal
nature only becomes clear from v. 8 f.
23 Op.cit. 28 f.
24 Westerholm, Review 196.

132

IV, The origin and purpose of the law

'even in Gal., what the law commands is thought of as the holy will of God',
'transgressions of the law are thought of as sin', and 'the curse of God is over
those who transgress it'. The criticism is valid that 'the dialectic involved
when such a law is held to come from demons is almost unbearable' .25
There are even more featu'resthat point to the direction that Paul did
not, at bottom, intend to exclude God altogether from the act o flaw-giving. 26
The temporal limit set to the law at the outset ('until the promised seed
comes') clearly indicates God's plans in regard with the law, including a preordained subordination to the 'promise,.27 Furthermore, it is difficult not to
see in the next passive form M~in v. 21b a reference to God as the lawgiver, for in this verse Paul speculates about the (unreal) possibility that a
law capable of 'making alive' was 'given'; if the giving of the law had nothing
to do with God, such a possibility was certainly excluded from the outset.
Now Paul is at pains to produce an explanation why the law has been abolished. If it was just an invention of the angels, no further arguments would
have been needed! These considerations also apply to the question raised by
Paul in v. 21a: was the law then against God's promises? If the law was an
addition on the angels' part to a 'will' to which nothing can be added, one
would expect an affirmative answer. Instead, Paul answers with an emphatic
'No'. Finally, in v. 22 he shows how the law is to be integrated into God's
overarching plan. The giving of the law is connected with the 'including' of
everything 'under sin' by 'Scripture'. Thus the law, at the deepest level, serves
in all its negativity God's good purposes.
All this does not mean that the natural literal understanding of 3.19.....:20,
according to which the law was given by the angels alone, should be rejected.
On the contrary, we are apparently once more faced. with an internal contradiction in Paul. Once more we find him in the course of a polemical discussion
suggesting something radical about the law; and this time, too, there is something 'unnatural' - from Paul's own point of view - in the radical suggestion.
We have seen that Paul could seize on various traditions and reinterpret them
for his own use (see above on Rom 1.18-3.20 and Rom 7.14-25).28 In Gal
3.19 f. he has taken up the Jewish tradition about the presence of angels on

25 Westerholm, loc.cit. (with reference to Hiibner, op.cit. 33',40).

26 This is reflected in Oepke's cautious conclusion: 'Bei der Gesetzgebung schalteten
die Engel relativ selbstandig; nicht ohne Gott, aber auch nicht in seinem Auftrage,
eher unter seiner einstweiligen Duldung.'
27 HUbner, op.cit. 29 sees this difficulty, admitting that the temporal clause refers
'undoubtedly' to God'll intention. He tries to evade the problem by assuming a
'cumulation of perspectives' in the text: we have to reckon with 'different intentions'
that are mentioned 'abruptly side by side'. On Hiibner's very complicated view of
these different intentions see below, p. 153 f.
28 See above, III 2,4.

Analogies regarding the origin of the law?

133

Sinai. 29 The radical application seems to be an ad hoc-adaptation of that

tradition. In the light of the context and the fact that Paul never returns to
this suggestion of the origin of the law it looks as if he were simply toying
with an idea which, however, seemed rather too daring even to him - at least
later on. 30 But while the 'radicalizations' in Rom 1-3 and 7 seem scholastic
and theoretical, the statement in Gal 3.19 f. would seem to be steeped in
emotion. Paul dictates his letter in anger. He has 'overreacted,.31 One can
agree with Cranfield's statement that 'it would be extremely unwise to take
what Paul says in Galatians as one's starting-point in trying to understand
Paul's teaching on the law'. 32 But it is no wiser to explain the Galatians
statements away (as Cranfield does). We are left with the intriguing question,
How is this sic et non at all possible? How is it possible that Paul came to
express such starkly negative statements about the law, however heated the
battle with the Iudaizers? Is it precisely in Gal 3 that we meet Paul's deepest
feelings about the law - feelings he mostly succeeds in repressing? I am
inclined to conjecture that this is so. The verses in question seem to express a
latent resentment towards the law of which Paul was normally not conscious.
Be that as it may, the strong impression remains that Paul's mind was divided
with regard to the law.

2. Analogies regarding the origin a/the law?

a) Jewish sources
It is clear at the outset that close parallels to Paul's problems with the origin of the law are not to expected within the pale of Iudaism. 33 The belief

29 Deut 33.2 LXX; Josephus, Ant. XV, 136; Jub 1.29; Test. Dan 6.2; Philo, Somn.
I, 141 ff.; Acts 7.38,53; Heb 2.2; Apoc. Mos. 1; PesiqR 21; for more Rabbinic texts
see Billerbeck III 554-556. For a discussion of these texts see Callan, art.cit. 550554.
30 Leivestad, op.cit. 105 correctly points out: 'If the idea that the angels were responsible for the law had played an important part in Paul's thought, his anti-judaistic
polemic would have assumed a very different form. As it is, Gal. 3.19 only offers an
argument by the way; it is a casual idea which tends to accentuate the depreciation of
the law, but no further theological consequences are drawn from it.'
31 Drane, 'Tradition' 169; cf. idem, Paul 31. Similarly Schoeps, Paul 183.
32 Cranfield, 'Paul' 62; id., Romans 858. By contrast, Sandmel, Genius 55 and elsewhere regards Gal 3.19 f. as the fundamental pillar of Paul's theology of the law.
33 Excepting renegades, of course. A singular account of the views of a (typical?)
Jewish renegade about the law is given by Josephus, Ant. IV, 145-147, in a speech
of the sinner Zambrias. Zambrias ascribes the whole legislation to Moses, who is
viewed as an impostor; Moses has duped the simple-minded Hebrews. His orders are
those of a tyrant in that he has robbed them of the possibility of free decision. A
Jew of whom Zambrias is the typical example wished to make his own decisions and
follow the ideas of the majority of men rather than to live in seclusion in a minority
position. For a discussion of the passage see van Unnik, 'Account' 254 ff. It goes

134

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

in the divine origin remains unshakable. Occasionally, however, it has been

thought that some traces can be detected of the idea that parts of the law
were secondary additions to the divine legislation from Sinai. Even this would
not be a very close parallel to Paul, since Paul attributes in Gal 3.19 f. the
very Sinaitic law in its totality to the angels, not just some part of it. Nevertheless, Paul's view could be a bit more understandable as a radicalization of
already existing Jewish criticisms of the law. But are there really traces of
such criticisms?
The or does not come into question. The assertion that Paul's reasoning
in Gal 3.19 f. is 'a rejection of Pharisaism based on the development of tradition within the or itself 34 is simply false. It is equally incorrect to regard a
passage in the Damascus document (CD 3.14 f.) as a reflection of a tradition
(later found in Christian writings) according to which the cult laws were
given because of the Jews' hardness of heart. 35 Nor can Philo's (alleged)

without saying that such a 'fully-fledged, frontal attack on the Mosaic Law' (van
Unnik, art.cit. 258) is quite different from Paul's position. Void of any divine purpose or content, the Torah is here seen merely as 'an instrument of Moses' tyranny'.
'Here the voice is heard from a man 'that says that the law is not from Heaven'
(Sanh 10.1) (van Unnik, ibid.). For a discussion of apostates and their views and
motives in Philo see Wolfson, Philo I, 73-76.
Cf. also Ps.-Philo, LAB 25.13, where there is a reference to people who wanted to
'scrutinize the book of the Law to find out whether God had really written what it
contained, or whether Moses had imposed his own teaching on it'; and 16.1 (Korah
objects to the 'intolerable law' of the garments).
34 Thus Gese, Theologie 83. He asserts: 'Already the Deuteronomic tradition distinguished the revelation of the Decalogue as an immediate revelation from the revelation of the "details" of tire law, indirectly mediated through Moses (Deut 5; cf. Ex
20.18-21); this corresponds to the angelic mediation to Moses in Gal 3.19 f. (cf.
Acts 7.53, Heb 2.2) , .. 'But even those precepts that were given 'indirectly' came to
Moses directly from God (Deut 5.31) and were just as obliging as the Decalogue
(Deut 5.32 f.); there is no indication of any kind of inferiority. The 'angelic mediation' in Gal 3 is something quite different, the function of the angels being quite
different from that in Acts 7.53, Heb 2.2; no distinction is made within the law.
According to R.M. Grant, Letter 52 f. Paul may have thought that Deuteronomy
(6evTepo<; vopo<;l) contained a 'second' law between Deut 5.22 and Deut 32 - that
is, an 'addition' given to multiply transgressions (Rom 5.20)! 'In the earlier additiOns
in Deuteronomy we read of sacrifices, food laws and festivals; but all of these had
been superseded and abrogated.' These only? Paul speaks of the law without distinctions.
35 Thus Berger, Gesetzesauslegung I 16, 19; id., 'Hartherzigkeit' 46. The text says only
that God revealed to the remnant 'the hidden things in which all Israel had gone
astray', including 'His holy Sabbaths and His glorious feasts'. There is not the least
criticism of the Sabbath law. The Sabbaths are 'holy' and the feasts 'glorious', and
these commandments of God are in the context set side by side with 'the testimonies
of God's righteousness', 'the ways of his truth' and 'the desires of His will which a
man must do in order to live' (translation of Vermes, with some modifications).

Anlaogies regarding the origin of the law?

135

appreciation of the law of nature as the primary principle be considered a

parallel to Paul's radical suggestions about the Mosaic law. 36
One passage remains to be considered. The geographical work of Strabo
includes a description of Moses and his followers (XVI, 2, 34-45). In this
excursus it is told that Moses was .an Egyptian priest who opposed idols and
pleaded for a sublime (Stoic) pantheism. Along with several wise men he left
Egypt and founded in Jerusalem the cult centre of a new religion. After
Moses, however, the Jewish religion fell into decay. In Strabo's words, 'superstitious men were appointed to priesthood, and then tyrannical peQple; and
from superstition arose abstinence from foods, from which it is their custom
to abstain even to-day, and circumcisions and excisions and other observances
of the kind' (37). Then follows an account of the 'bands of robbers' (the
Hasmonean rulers are meant). Circumcision, food laws and the like are thus
ascribed to post-Mosaic superstitious priests.
It has been customary to think that Strabo copied this passage from Posidonius. 37 This seems doubtful, however;38 it would be strange had the
(according to Josephus) anti-Jewish philosopher given so favourable an
account of the original religion of the Jews. 39 More important for our topic
is to find out whether Strabo's account goes back to some Hellenistic Jewish
source (whether or not mediated by Posidonius), as some scholars have

'All Israel' had gone astray for not celebrating the sabbaths and feasts correctly, i.e.
because of their wrong calendar (cf. CD 6.18 f., Jub 6.34). Cf. Klinzing, Umdeutung
15-17.
36 Sandmel, Genius 47 ff. sees a common feature in Philo and Paul in that 'to neither
of them was the law of Moses the primary principle'. He does not overlook the differences either (53 ff.) and he correctly abstains from setting up Philo as Paul's 'background'. Curiously enough, Sandmel ascribes the thought expressed in Gal 3.19 f.
to the pre-Christian Paul.
The notion of the primacy of the law of nature over the Mosaic law in Philo's
thought is vigorously refuted by Nikiprowetzky, Commentaire 117 ff.; it is cautiously
reaffirmed by Myre, 'Loi' 173-181. Philo makes a threefold distinction as regards
the sources of various parts of the Mosaic law. Some laws (notably but not only the
ten commandments which are seen as general principles which summarize the particular laws) were delivered directly by God. Others were uttered by God as answers to
questions. Finally, many laws were 'spoken by Moses in his own person, when possessed by God and carried away out of himself (Vit. Mos. 11,188). In these cases
Moses functions as the interpreter (Ep"'Tj"ev~) of God's sacred utterances (Decal.
175). It should be emphasized, however, that even the laws of this category are
perfectly in accordance with the divine will, as they were delivered under the guidance
of God's Spirit. Cf. Myre, 'Caract~ristiques' 37-58; Fallon, 'Law' 47-51.
37 Norden, 'Jahve' 292 ff.; Reinhardt, Poseidonios 6 ff. Jacoby, Fragmente 11 A, A 87,
F 70 places the text among the fragments from Posidonius.
38 Aly, Strabon 191-210; for a convenient summary see Gager, Moses 44-47. See also
Lebram, 'Idealstaat' 234 ff.
39 See especially Aly, op.cit. 198.f. etc.

136

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

assumed. 40 Nock asked the question, 'May it be that the excursus reproduces
the creation of a Jew familiar with the ideas of Posidonius, a Jew whose
Hellenization was not, like Philo's, controlled by an overpowering loyalty
to Scripture? Such a Jew might have resented legalism on the one hand and
Hasmonaean militancy on the other.'41 Others have tried to construct a
closer picture of this Jew by combining the information from Strabo with the
ideas of the Hellenistic aristocracy in Jerusalem (I Mace 1.11) and the reference of Philo (Migr. Abr. 89 ff.) to the Alexandrian allegorizers. 42 The boldest conclusion is that of R.M. Grant: In Gal 3.15-20 'Paul seems to be using
a historical theory not unlike that apparently found among Hellenistic Jewish allegorists. These theorists ... believed that after Moses' time the law was
corrupted; circumcision and dietary laws were added.'43
Support for the existence of a Jewish source for Strabo's account might
be seen in the surprisingly favourable picture given of Moses and his followers,
'not a few intelligent men,.44 All extant pagan accounts of the Exodus
(except for that of Celsus) tell that the Jews were driven away from Egypt,
whereas in this one an intellectual elite goes away voluntarily. Yet this feature
can hardly be regarded as sufficient evidence for the theory of a Jewish
source. 45
There are indeed strong reasons against the theory. The description of the
Exodus is totally different from the biblical account. Furthermore, which
Jew would have re!arded Moses as an Egyptian priest (Mwm7~ ne; TWV
Ai'YIJ1TTiwv ie"ewv)? 6 It is striking, moreover, that the narrator jumps from

40 Schiirer, Geschichte III 156; Nock, 'Posidonius' 8; Hengel, Judentum 469-472;

550 f. (he combines both hypotheses: Strabo used Posidonius who had used a Jewish
source); Gager, op.cit. 47; Lebram, art.clt. 243 f.
41 Art.cit. 8; Nock's position oscillates, however (in the preceding passage he considers
it quite possible that Posidonius himself is the author).

42 Gager; he also appeals (with Nock) to Artapanos' ascription of the Egyptian idolatry
to the initiative of Moses. In a vaguer form cf. Bickermann, Gott 131; Betz, Gal 167.
43 Op.clt. 49. Grant goes on by claiming that Paul merely places the corruption earlier:
'it was Moses himself who made the additions'. This, however, is a distortion of Paul's
idea. It was not Moses who made 'additions', but the angels; furthermore, they did
not add anything to the law, but gave the whole law as an addition to God's promise.
Betz, op.cit. 167 speculates that the 'formulation ... that the Torah "was given in
addition" may come from a pre-Pauline tradition, where it expressed the view that
the introduction of the Torah was due to a later state of depravation in the Jewish
religion' (my italics). But such a formulation goes considerably beyond the view
expressed in the Strabo fragment!
44 Cf. Nock, loc.cit.
45 If ,Strabo (or a pagan informant) had a favourable view of Moses, perhaps on the basis
of his general views about religions, it was consistent to think that those following
the noble founder of the religion shared his ideas.
46 Cf. Norden, art.clt. 294; Stern, Authors 266. rhe method of Artapanos (cf. above,

Analogies regarding the origin of the law?

137

Moses straight to the Hasmons. The next person to be mentioned after Moses
is Alexander Jannaios, and the reader gets the impression that the Hasmonean
rulers were those 'followers' (oi 88wJj~~evOL) under whom the religion was
corrupted 'after some time' (xpOVOtJ<; p.ev nvac;). And it would be very
strange had a Jewish source mentioned along with circumcision and dietary
laws also the EKTop.ai, which means either castration or (more probably) the
circumcision of females - both equally foreign to Judaism. Finally, it is artificial to connect the philosophy of Strabo's fragment with what .little we
knoW about the ideas of the Alexandrian allegorizers. For them the contrast
between the original legislation and later additions would not necessarily have
been 'welcome,.47 The problems of these people with the law had already
been solved by the allegorical method, the use of which implies that the texts
to be so interpreted were God-given. 48
Thus it appears hazardous to build on the theory of a Jewish source
behind Strabo; 'it seems best to look for a pagan philosophical source, whatever that may be,.49 Ferhaps Strabo had no 'sources' at all, but combined his
own knowledge with 'prevailing philosophical ideas on the emergence and
development of religions'. 50
At best, one may speculate that Strabo (or his source) has partly misinterpreted the ideas of some heterodox Jewish informant(s). Even if this
were the case it would not get us anywhere close to Paul, for whom the issue
is not a distinction between Mosaic and post-Mosaic commandments.
Paul thus appears to have no Jewish predecessors as regards the ideas
contained in Gal 3.15-20. The notion of the angels as the originators of the
law is peculiar to him; the tension between this idea and his 'normal' conception of the Torah as God's law is a private and personal problem of his.

b) Christian sources
In Mk 1O.2-=-9 the Marcan Jesus confronts a stipulation of Moses, written
n. 42) is no real parallel; to make an Egyptian of a Jewish leader and to make 'Jews'
of Egyptians are two quite different things (for a Jew).
47 Against Grant, op.cit. 38.
48 Wolfson, Philo I 85 correctly notes that the allegorists shared the belief in the divine
origin and the perfection of the law. See on the allegorizers the remarks above, p.93.
Cf. already Liiwy, 'Lehre' (1903), 328: 'Man kann kiihn behaupten, dass selbstder
eingefleischteste und in der religiosen Praxis sich am freiesten gehabende alexandrinische Allegorist sich dem System Paulus' gegeniiber ebenso schroff ablehnend verhalten haben wfude, wie irgend ein strenger palastinischer Pharisaer. 1st es doch ohne
Zweifel ganzetwas anderes, zu sagen, der Wortsinn der mosaischen Gesetze sei nur
ein Gefiiss fUr geheirne, aber hohe Wahrheiten, oder aber mit Paulus, dass das Gesetz
nur urn der Uebertretungen willen dazwischengekommen sei.'
49 Stern, loc.cit.; Aly, op.cit. 207 underlines the influence of Hecataeus.
50 Stern, loc.cit. The theory of a process of degeneration of religions had been set forth,
before Posidonius, by Theophrast; in the last analysis, the theory can be traced back
to Plato.

138

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

merely for the hardness of heart of the Jews (v. 4 f.), with the divine order
established 'from the beginning of creation' (v. 6 0. Divine and human acts
are being opposed to each other: 'what God has joined together, man shall
not separate' (v. 9). The passage reminds us of Gal 3.15-20 in that Jesus
refers back to what was before Moses - to God's original purpose in the creation. The original order remains the valid one.51 The words are not, however,
directed against Moses, but against the Jews who are viewed at an almost
'Johannine' distance: what did Moses ordain for ;you? Because of your
hardness of heart he wrote for you ... We would seem to be dealing with a Gentile Christian point of view, for which the Torah is no longer a live problem.
In other passages, however, Moses appears in Mark, too, as the spokesman
of God. In Mk 7.8-13 'the commandment of God', 'the word of God' and
'Moses said' are used as interchangeable expressions; the fourth commandment of the Decalogue is quoted as a saying of Moses.
A contrast between God and men also occurs in Mk 7.7 f. The mistake of
the Pharisees consists in their rejection of God's commandment because of
human doctrine, human commandments, traditions of men. In chapter 7,
too, Moses appears, but this time he is appealed to as a witness against the
Pharisees (7.10). The role of Moses, and consequently the role of the law,
remains unclarified in Mark. Mark does not reflect on the relation between
God's will and the Mosaic law.52 We get no clear picture of the origin and
intention of the law.
At most we can say that Mark's Jesus faintly adumbrates the idea that
some particulars in the Mosaic law are human modifications of God's will.
Paul, on the other hand, makes no distinctions within the law. And in any
case, the idea of angels as originators of the law is quite foreign to Mark. 53
Similarly, Stephen's words in Acts 7.48-50 can be construed (on the preLucan level) as criticisms of the Temple and the Temple cult as alien to God's
original law. But if this is so, the trouble with the temple is that it is not
included in the Mosaic legislation - not prescribed by the angel speaking
to Moses on mount Sinai (7.38, 44) who only gave orders about the 'tent of
witness'. There is no contact with Paul's idea here. Moreover, Luke personally
does not seem to be at all critical of the Jerusalem temple 54 (cf. the role of
the temple in Lk 1-2).
51 The logic is reversed,i.a., in Hebrews, where it is the new order of the new covenant
that cancels the old one.
52 Cf. Hiibner, op.cit. 225.
53 Cf. Werner, op.cit. 85.
54 Cf. von Campenhausen, Bibel 51 n. 93. Recently Stanton has persuasively argued
that, in the Lucan perspective, even Acts 7.44-50 is not an attack on the temple. For
Luke the charge against Stephen was false and Stephen's speech must be understood
in this light as well as in the light of Luke's overall attitude to the temple. See Stanton, 'Stephen' 347 ff.

Analogies regarding the origin of the law?

139

There is no devaluation of the law in Heb 2.2. The mention of angels as

law-givers cannot here be interpreted as 'debasing the law,55; it serves to put
the even greater significance of the Gospel into relief. The angels function as
mediators of the law in the good Jewish sense.
In the letter of Bamabas we find the closest counterpart to Gal 3 in early
Christian literature. To be sure, the writer does not reject the law at all. The
law of the OT belongs to the Christians who understand it in the right way.
The Jews have misunderstood the law in interpreting the ritual precepts literally. In particular, 'Barnabas' attributes the literal understanding of circumcision to an evil angel (9.4)! The similarity to Paul is more verbal than real
even in this case. Correspondingly, the apologist Aristides viewed the ritual
law as a service rendered (through ignorance) to angels, not to God (ch. 14 in
the Syriac text).
Interestingly enough, however, even 'Barnabas' is inconsistent in his attribution of the (misunderstanding of parts of) the law to an angel. If circumcision is at first asserted to be a perversion of Go'd's original command, it is
soon after regarded as irrelevant to man's relationship with God (9.6), and
then the circumcision of Abraham and his men is acknowledged as a fact, to
which a prophetic numerical value is ascribed (9.8). But it is clear that 'the
real position of the author' is revealed in 9.4; the other explanations are due
to purely exegetical difficulties. 56 The decisive difference between Paul and
'Barnabas' is that the question oflaw is not an existential one to the latter.
Marcion resembles the Paul of Gal 3.19 f. in that he ascribes the whole law
without distinctions and indeed the whole OT to someone other than the
God of the NT, namely, to the creator god. Nevertheless, Marcion left in his
'expurgated' text of the NT several Pauline statements which one would
expect him to have removed to begin with, above all the statements that the
law is good, holy, just, and even spiritual (Rom 7.12, 14) as well as the 'most
striking concession of all ,57 that 'I serve God's law with my mind' Rom 7.25.
Marcion even retained 1 Cor 9.8 f. where a statement of the law is opposed
to what is merely human (Karu avt'Jpwrrov). He also preserved the summarizing of the law in the love commandment (Gal 5.14, Rom 13.9 f., Lk
10.25 ff.).58 Apparently, 'the creator God has some elements of righteous-

55 Against Simon, Stephen 47; Callan, 'Midrash' 553.

56 Cf. Klevinghaus, Stellung 22 f. In comparison with Paul these discrepancies are not
very conspicuous. In Paul, too, we fmd along with the negative evaluation of circumcision the notion of its irrelevance (Gal 5.6, 6.15,1 Cor 7.19) and the positive assessment of Abraham's circumcision (Rom 4).
57 Harnack,Marcion 108.
58 In Marcion's version of the Lucan pericope it is Jesus himself who cites the law in a
favourable sense; cf. Harnack, op.cit. 110 f. Marcion also preserved,ia., Rom 2.12 f.,
14a, 2.20, 2.25, 7.7 (the law is not sin), 8.4, 1 Cor 9.8 f.

140

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

ness in his character and this is reflected in his book,.59 Moreover, despite his
rejection of the OT Marcion regarded the book as a throughout reliable document and as a unitary whole without any interpolations or falsifications (contrast his treatment of the NT documents!).60
A lucid solution to the problem of the law was proposed by the Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy who, in his letter to Flora, undertakes to make clear
distinctions within the law. The contents of the law indicate that different
parts have a different origin. The better parts go back to the demiurge (none
of the law can be from the perfect God), whereas other parts are human additions by Moses and the elders. All this is very different from Paul's global
assertion in Gal 3.
A comparable approach is found in the Jewish Christian Kerygmata Petrou,
where a number of 'false pericopes' are assumed in the OT law, including
'the sacrifices, the kingship, female prophecy and the like' (Horn 3.52). The
original will of God had been forgotten after the death of Moses due to false
instruction etc.; thus mistakes crept in when the law was written down after
the time of Moses (Horn 1.18, Rec 1.15, Horn 304 7, 2.3 8). This theory, too,
differs from Paul's assertion in Gal 3 - most of the law is ascribed to God.
Thus it appears that nobody took up Paul's suggestion about the origin
of the law in Gal 3.19 f. before the Gnostics who equated these angels with
the demiurges 61 and rejected the notion that the law stemmed from the good
God. Therefore no one else got caught in the particular difficulties of Paul's
sic et non either. The problem of the origin of the law is a problem peculiar
to Paul.

3. The negative purpose

In several places Paul establishes a close connection between the law and
sin. Thus he states in Gal 3.19 that the law was addedTwv 1Tapa{3aaWv
Xapw. The phrase is ambiguous. In any case it can hardly be taken in the good
Jewish sense of 'preventing transgressions' .62 In a comparable statement in
Rom 5.20 Paul says that the law came 'in order that the transgression be
magnified' (fva 1TAOVcloV TO 1Tapa1TTWJ.l.a); according to Rom 3.20 'knowledge of sin' is brought about by the law. Law and sin are also connected in

59 Biackman,Marcion 114.
60 Harnack, op.cit. 67,86.
61 According to Hippolytu8, Cerinthus taught that the law and the prophets were given
by angels; the law-giver was one of those angels who had created the world (Epiph.,
Panarion 28, 1, 3). For more Gnostic evidence see the references in Schlier on Gal

3.19.
62 Against W.L. Knox, Gentiles 108 f.; Bring, 'Paul' 34; Gyllenberg ad loc.; Lull, Spirit
125.

The negative purpose

141

Rom 7.5, 7.7-11, 7.23,6.14,4.15,5.13, and 1 Cor 15.56. But what exactly
is this connection?
Several explanations of Gal 3.19, Rom 3.20 and Rom 5.20 have been proposed. Most commentators seek to find a common explanation for all these
verses, even though some are inclined to distinguish between them. There are
three main alternatives which, to be sure, do not completely exclude each
other and can be combined in various ways.
A. The revelatory or cognitive interpretation: in the light of the law man
learns what is sin. Or, more pointedly: man realizes, in the light of the law,
that he is a sinner. 63
B. The 'definition' interpretation: the law defines sin as 'transgression'.
The intervention of the law makes sin a conscious and wilful activity; it
makes man guil ty .64
C. The causative interpretation: the law brings about sinning. Some interpreters take this to refer to le~alism and hybris (C 1 ).65 Others think of
transgressions as bad deeds (C 2). 6
The clearest clues to help one to choose between these options are found
in Rom 7. Verse 5 clearly suggests the causative alternative 'C{67 Thr~ugh
the law, 'sinful desires' were brought about in the persons 'in flesh' (Ta
naitil/lara TWV a/lapnwv Ta S,a TOU VO/lOU). The plural 'passions' suggests
concrete sinful acts, rather than a legalistic attitude. The references to 'fruitbringing' (cf. 6.21) and 'members' (cf. 6.19) show that Paul here gives a brief
summary of the slavery to sin he had described in ch. 6, as does the verb
SOUAVW in 7.6. In ch. 6, however, sinning is spoken of in unmistakably
moral terms. To be enslaved to sin is to surrender one's 'members' to the
service of impurity and lawlessness. A-nomia is attacked, not zeal for the
nomos! Paul thus insinuates that the law engenders immorality, however blasphemous this allegation may sound in Jewish ears. An explanation is supplied
in the next passage (7.7-13).
According to 7.7 ff. it is only through the command of the law that man
6'3 Duncan on Gal 3.19; Ladd, 'Paul' 64; Cranfield, 'Paul' 45 f.; id., Romans 846 f.;
cf. Bring, art.cit. 25.; Wilckens, Romer 1, 177. Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' 171 empha-'
sizes that the law was given to condemn transgressions.
64 Lietzmann, Oepke (on Gal 3.19); Whiteley, Theology 80 f.; Cranfield, 'Paul' 46;
id., Romans 847; Kiimmel, Romer 7,50 f.; for Rom 5.20 Sanday-Headlam, Dodd,
Barrett, Nikolainen; for Rom 3.20 and Gal 3.19 Luz, Geschichtsverstiindnis 187;
id., 'Gesetz' 100.
65 Cf. Bultmann, Theology 264 f. (both legalism and transgressions); Kasemann, Romans
89 f. (on 3.20); for Rom 5.20 Jiingel, 'Gesetz' 68 n. 88; cf. also Cranfield, 'Paul'
47; id., Romans 847.
66 Sieffert on Gal 3.19; Blaser, Gesetz 136; van Diilmen, Theologie 42; for Gal 3.19
alone Hiibner, 'Das ganze Gesetz' 248; id., Gesetz 27; for Rom 5.20 and 7.8 Dodd ad
loc.; for Rom 7.7 ff. Luz, op.cit. 188.
67 This is played down by Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' 171.

142

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

comes to know sin concretely. Desire is only awakened after the law prohibits it. The prohibition makes the desire active. We have here something like
the psychological theory of the forbidden fruit, to which Augustine referred. 68 Using the law as a base for its actions, sin induced man to break the
commandment against desire (of the Decalogue), working in him 'all kinds of
desire'. The phrase niinav 1rL-&vpiav can hardly be taken as a reference to
man's self-centred attitude or the like;69 like the plural 'passions' in v. 5
it refers to the rich variety of sinful desires. Interpretation 'Cl' is thus excluded. The alternative 'B' cannot come into question either. 70 Paul underlines in v. 8 that sin was 'dead' before law entered the stage. Sin was powerless or latent71 ; only the law made it 'alive' (v. 9). So active an expression
must refer to something other than mere definitions. The same is true of the
mention of sin's 'deceit' in v. 11. Interpretation 'A' need not be totally excluded; the revelatory aspect could be there as a secondary aspect. The main
point, however, is that the law causes (unwillingly, to be sure) men to sin.
According to Rom 7.8 sin thus was powerless and inactive ('dead') before
the introduction of the law. One may ask whether this is compatible with
7.14. In this verse, man under law is characterized as 'sold under sin'. V. 23
similarly envisages him as imprisoned in the 'law of sin'. Ifv. 7.14b states the
consequences of the events described in verses 7-11 ,72 there is no internal
problem in this. Sin's misuse of the law has led to man's being a helpless
victim of sin. Many interpreters, however, think that 7.14 gives the reason
why the process described in verses 7-13 could take place: it is because of
man's carnal (adpKwoc;) nature that the law, being spiritual, was not able to
produce the right effects in him. 73 Should this be the correct interpretation
then Paul is involved in a glaring self-contradiction: on one hand he states
that the intervention of the law is necessary to induce man to sin; on the
other hand man is already 'sold under sin'when he encounters the commandment of the law.
Various features in the text indicate that Paul did in fact intend to state
the reason for the process 7.7-11 in 7.14.1t is clear that verse 13 is intended
to give an explanation for 7-11. Sin, not the law, is the ultimate cause of
68 Correctly Dodd ad loc.; Lietzmann ad loc.; Kiimmel, op.cit. 45.
69 Against Bornkamm, Ende 55; see Raisanen, 'Geb):auch' 90 f.
70 Against Kiimmel, op.cit. 50 f.; Hiibner, Gesetz 68; Schrage, Einzelgebote 65 (they
refer to Rom 5.13); see Brandenburger, Adam 209-211. Brandenburger (211) notes
that 'the sin of men before Moses '(to whom Rom 5.12-14 refers) 'is absolutely
liVing, active and personal- the alLapTla lJeKpd, on the contrary, is not'.
71 Kiisemann,op.cit. 194.
72 Thus Bornkamm, op.cit. 53; Brandenburger, op.cit. 217; Luz, op.cit. 163; Kasemann,
op.cit. 199.
73 Thus Kiimmel, op.cit. 10,58,89 f.; Blaser, op.cit. 118; van Diilmen, op.cit. 112 f.;
Hommel, '7. Kapitel' 102.

The negative purpose

143

man's fall. In itself, v. 14 would be quite appropriate to describe man's plight

under law as a consequence of 7-11; its contents correspond to 7.5. 74
Yet what is the force of 'YQpin v. 14? It is not unnatural to take it as indicating an explanation of what was set forth before?5 This understanding seems
to be reinforced by 8.3. There the reason for the inability of the law to effect
what it ought to have effected is said to have consisted in its 'being weak
through the flesh'. acip~ must here refer to man's fleshly nature, as is clear
from the sequel (God sent his son in the 'likeness' of this same sinful acip~); it
is the encounter with carnal man that rendered the law feeble. That 7.14
describes the necessary conditions for the process described in 7-11 to take
place thus seems a plausible hypothesis. It is thus at least possible that Paul
gives a contradictory account of the relation oflaw to sin.
It is probably the same idea - that the law brings about sin - that is hinted at in 1 Cor 15.56: it is the law that gives sin its power. 76 In 1 Cor 15 this
idea is introduced very abruptly; it has no connection with the main thrust
of the section. 77 The assumption of a gloss, however, makes the verse even
more difficult to understand. 78 Like a flash, 1 Cor 15.56 shows how closely
Paul had come to associate the law with sin and death: at times he just could
not help spelling out this connection, although it was of no relevance for his
present purpose.
In Rom 5.20 the role of the law is described in perplexingly active terms:
the law 'came in between' (cf. the equally active word 'Y'Yovw<;in Gal 3.17).
This characterisation contains a negative nuance. The purpose and consequence of the intervention of the law is expressed with the clause Lva 1TA.ovciun
70 1Tapa1T7Wp.a. It is surprising how many interpreters take this phrase in a

74 Cf. Luz, op.cit. 159 n. 86, 161.

75 To the phrase oloa/J.ev "(Op on (7.14) compare ol6a "(Op c;n 7.18 and ol6a/J.ev"(Op
c;n 8.22. In 7.18 and 8.22 the phrase introduces a statement that explains or specifies
what was said before.
76 Cf. Bauer, Worterbuch, s.v. 6Vva/J.L<; 7.
77 Sandelin, Auseinandersetzung 71 f. would infer from v. 56b that Paul is engaged in a
polemic against nomistic Wisdom traditions of Alexandrian origin. But if Paul had to
face a nomistic front in Corinth, so indirect a comment would be an unintelligibly
mild reply (cf. GaJ!). As Drane, Paul, has shown, Paul himself moves quite a bit in a
nomistic direction in 1 Cor as compared with Gal. 15.56 could be directed against
any Jewish or Jewish Christian position. On the other hand, Paul may in 15.45 quite
possibly take up similar Adam traditions as those found in Philo, but it does not
follow from this that he is attacking sophia traditions in this chapter.
78 V. 56 is considered a gloss by J. Weiss and Lietzmann; cf. also Noack, 'Evangeliet'
133. Weiss is inclined to <lscribe the addition to Paul himself (made later on). But why
should Paul make such insertions? 1 Cor 1.l4, 16 shows that he was not concerned to
check and revise what he had dictated. In Romans Paul several times inserts a comment on the law, which he explains only later on (e.g. 4.15, 7.5; cf. the phrase
6ui. vO/J.Ov in Gal 2.19 which is never explained).

144

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

cognitive sense 79: man comes to know more painfully that he is a sinner.
Such a 'subjective' explanation of the increase of sin is contradicted by the
context. Parallel to the increase of sin Paul speaks of the superabundant increase of grace. The latter cannot possibly refer to an individual's subjective
experience! Both sin and grace are in 5.20 f. metaphorically80 spoken of as
powers which reign over two different realms or aeons. 5.20 refers to an
'objective' increase of sin: an increase of transgressions. 81 Paul does not
have in mind individuals, but the whole world. 82
There is a difference between the roughly parallel statements Rom 5.20
and 7.7-11. According to ch. 7, it is only the law with its commandments
that brings about actual sinning. According to 5.20, however, transgressions
and sin are concrete realities already before the intervention of the law; the
law ju~t increases the number and significance of the transgressions. Once
more, Paul's thoughts about law and sin stand in tension with each other. 83
In Gal 3.19 the context does not provide us with sufficient clues to
make out the meaning of the phrase TWV 1Tapa{3ooewv XOpw. As the talk of
the law being added, however, parallels the idea of its intervention in Rom
5.20, and as the law is spoken of in rather negative terms in both passages even more so in Gal 3 - it seems natural to take Gal 3.19 in the radical
79 Dodd, Michel, Nikolainen; cf. also Hiibner, Gesetz 73 f.
80 See above, p. 99 n. 29.
81 Many interpreters, to be sure, think rather of an increase of legalism and self-righteousness in this connection: thus Kasemann, ad lac.; Brandenburger, op.cit. 252 f.;
Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 112. For Jiingel, art.cit. 68 n. 88 this understanding is even
'self-evident'. Yet it should be noted that the confrontation of this increasing
1rapd1rTWlla and the increasing grace immediately leads Paul to formulate the sugges-

tion (to be emphatically dismissed) that Christians may wish to 'remain in sin' to let
the grace grow great. The 1rapd1rTWlla of 5.20 thus denotes that sin to which the
Christians have died in baptism (6.2 ff.). Its nature is made clear in 6.12 ff.: it
expresses itself as alitKIa (v. 12), aKa"apala and avollla (v. 19); cf. above. It should
be clear that Paul speaks of sin as immorality, not as legalistic zeal.
These observations also refute the aSSumption that Paul's statements about the
close connection between !aw and sin should be traced back to his own experience
(as his persecution of the Christians out of nomistic zeal turne,d out to be opposition
to God, i.e. sin); thus Kim, Origin 280 f.; cf. Luz, 'Gesetz' 100,110; Jeremias,
Schliissel 23 f. Paul never indicates anything like that. In another connection (commenting on Rom 7, op.cit. 53) Kim proposes indeed the quite different suggestion
that Paul's view of the law as 'a spur to sin' has something to do with 'the very
human experience that prohibition tends to awaken desire to do what is forbidden',
of which Paul could not be unaware. But one can hardly have it both ways! This last
mentioned suggestion is the more likely one.
82 Correctly Kiihl, ad loc.; van Diilmen, op.cit. 98 n. 86. Feuillet, 'Loi ancienne' 803
dilutes the meaning of Rom 5.20: far from having willed the transgressions in question, God has merely foreseen and permitted them! H.W. Schmidt quite arbitrarily
interprets 5.20 as a reference to the crucifixion.
83 Cf. Brandenburger, op.cit. 214 f.

The negative purpose

145

causative sense: the law was added to bring about, or to increase, transgressions. 84
On the other hand, the statement 'through the law 1Ti:yvWUt<; apapria<; (is
brought about), in Rom 3.20 seems to have a different point. To be sure, it is
not impossible, in the light of 'YwwuKew rilv aJ,J.apriav in 7.7, to take 1Ti'YvWat<;
aJ,J.apria<; in the sense of practical 'learning', i.e. sinning. 85 The sense would
then be that through the law man learns to sin. Yet the immediate context
(3.9-20a) would seem to point to another direction: the law (here practically
equivalent with 'Scripture') stops every mouth by showing that all (including
the Jews) have sinned. The alternative 'A' is plausible here,86 although 'c'
cannot be excluded. The choice between these two options does not affect
my argument.
A special problem is posed by Rom 5.l3. In v. 12 Paul has stated that sin
and death came into the world as a consequence of Adam's fall. He has also
indicated (however precisely one interprets 'P' c;,) that all men have sinned.
In v. 13 he consequently admits that even before the law sin was in the world.
Yet, when there is no law, 'sin is not counted' (aJ,J.apria tie OUK AAO'YeiTat).
The coming of the law. thus makes a difference; it is only now that sin is
'counted'.
It is clear that AAO'Yeiv is a term which has here to do with heavenly
book-keeping. On the surface, the meaning would seem to be clear: even
though men sinned in the period between Adam and Moses, their deeds were
not registered in the heavenly book - probably because there was no code
which they had formally transgressed. 87 But what can such a statement really
mean? According to 2.l2-16 those who have sinned 'without the law'
(avoJ,J.w<;) will perish without the law (v. 12) in the last judgment (v. 16).
Moreover, the people of the interim period certainly did not avoid death,
the corollary of sin (5.l2; according to 6.23, death is the 'wages' of sin),
as Paul himself says in 5.l4 .88 Whether or not their deeds were written into a
book, the people of that period, according to the OT, were punished extremely severely for their sins (the Flood!).89 Whether these sins were 'counted' or

84 Gal 3.22 also points in this direction. Yet it has to be admitted that the image of
1TatOa'Yw'Y6~ (3.24) suggests rather the notion of preventing transgressions (cr. above
n. 62). The train of thought in Gal 3.19 ff. is not unequivocal.
85 Thus Blaser, op.cit. 138 f.; van Diilrnen, op.cit. 84.
86 Correctly Kiimmel, op.cit. 48; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstandnis' 35 f.
87 Paul states in v. 14 that between Adam and Moses people were not guilty of a transgression similar to that of Adam. This may mean that Adam's case was analogous to
that of those under the law: for him, there was a clear divine commandment to obey
or disobey. Cf. Brandenburger, op.cit. 191 f.
88 The contradiction between verses 13 and 14 is correctly pointed out by Tiircke,
Potential 90 n. 79.
89 Cf. Kuss,Romerbrief233.

146

IV. The origin and purpore of the law

not in some technical sense would seem to be a matter of no consequence

whatsoever. The explanation that the people of the interim period were
punishc;ld immediately, whereas other people are only punished on the day of
judgment 90 is artificial. If the law is given merely an informative function 91,
the use of AAO'YfW becomes very strange. If Paul's statement can be filled
with any concrete sense at all, it would seem to refer to a technical trifle.
Until the law sin had been punished because it was sin; since the law, the very
same punishments are imposed because of 'transgression'. This, of course,
does not fit the case of Adam, which was one of transgression (1ropd(ja(lLf;)92 ,

90 Thus Kiisemann, ad loc.; cf. O'NeiU; Jtingel, art.cit. 54-57. Kiisemann takes the sense
to be that before Moses evil deeds immediately incurred evil consequences as is
described in 1.24 ff. But Paul hardly thought tha~ the pagans condemned in 1.24 ff.
were freed from the eschatological judgment (cf. 2.16)! - A strange interpretation is
put forward by Danker, 'Romans V. 12'. He thinks that the notorious E"o' y in v. 12
refers in anticipation to vOjJ.O~ (v. 13), the sense being: 'And so death passed on to all
men, on the legal basis in terms of which all (including the Gentiles) sinned. This
must be maintained, for until the law (of Moses) sin was in the world, and one must
admit that sin cannot be charged up in the absence ofiaw.' (431) On this reading, the
relative pronoun of v. 12 has as its. implied correlate the vd",o~ of v. 13 which, however, is there used in a different sense (the Mosaic law) than in the 'implicit' case (a
legal basis)! And even apart from this curiosity Paul would have expressed himself
unintelligibly in a matter he was quite capable of putting in clear words (2.12-16).
91 Luz, op.cit. 199 f. interprets v. 13: 'What was lacking was thus merely a law that
could have unmasked death as the punishment for sin.' Cf. Maurer, Geretzeslehre
41 f. Kaye, Thought Structure 105 speculates that perhaps 'the contrast between the
time before the law, and that afterwards, is not absolute, but only relative. The law
would thus have the effect of 'Clarifying the situation of sinners. It would provide a
clear form for the demand of God which was there already on men, and which they
did not heed. This would place such men in the same position as had been argued for
the Gentiles ... ' If the law is given just an interpretive or clarifying role, the 'not
counting' is emptied of all concrete significance.
Brandenburger, op.cit. 201 ff. argues that, having set forth in 4.15 the principle
that without law there is no transgression, Paul now has to show how this claim
harmonizes with the well-known biblical fact that men between Adam and Moses
sinned and died. In the meantime there was no vojJ.O~, so that sin as 71'apa(1aa, .. vo",ov
could not be there. Brandenburger puts the emphasis on v. 14 and renders d~~a
with 'despite that': in the interim period sin was not registered as 'transgression' in
the heavenly books; despite that, sinners were at that time, too, subjected to the
reign of death. - This may indeed be the best interpretation of the verse, although
the reference to 4.15 may be dircular (that verse is in itself ambiguous and becomes
clearer if it is interpreted in the light of 5.13, see below, p. 148!). But in the end it
only makes it all the clearer that the statement rl",apTw. aUK e~~crye;;Ta, is a mere
verbal expedient without any real significance. Paul tries to show that, as regards man
and sin, the coming of the law makes a difference; what he actually shows is that
there is none.
92 Unless the purpose of v. 14 is to put Adam in the category of those who sinned
against a 'legal' commandment, see n. 87.

The negative purpose

147

nor does it harmonize with the synonymous use of 7rapa7rTWJ.l.a and d.J.LapTia
in 5.20.
It remains to be added that verses 5.13 f. contradict Rom 7.8. According
to 7.7 f. sin was 'dead' before the coming of the law. 5.13 f. - more naturally
- assumes that sin was a mighty power ever since Adam. 93
One has to admit that 5.13 is an artificial expedient which disturbs the
argument of chapter 5.94 It is an infelicitous attempt to introduce secondarily the problems of the law into a train of thought with which they originally
had nothing to do and into which they do not logically fit. 95 In different
contexts Paul gives two different and incompatible reasons for the power of
sin in the world: on one hand, this is due to Adam's fall (ch. 5), on the other,
to the law (ch. 7). The former idea is traditional, the latter peculiarly Pauline.
It seems that Paul was not totally unconscious of the tension between these
explanations, since he tries, by way of two incidental remarks, to integrate
the contribution of the law into the argument about Adam as well. In 5.13 he
does this by ascribing to the law the quality to define sin as transgression (a
statement probably prepared by 4.15). In 5.20, again, he attributes to the law
a sin-increasing role. In this case he is not involved in such logical difficulties
as with v. 13. The law does not bring about sin; it just increases it, or accelerates a process already in motion. The trouble is simply how 5.20 harmonizes
with empirical reality. As sin is alive and well long before the introduction of
the law, even the theory of the forbidden fruit is not very relevant here (it
suits 7.7-11 better).
In Rom 4.15 Paul, who is concerned to deny that the law has anything
to do with the promise, states that the law brings about wrath. That is, the
law causes man to be subjected to God's judgment. This claim is apparently
explained in the next statement: 'but where there is no law, there is no transgression either'. It would be possible to understand this in the sense of the
causative alternative 'C', in the light of 7.7: transgressions are only brought
93 Against Kiimmel, op.cit. 50 f. who finds 5.13 and 7.8 identical in content; see
above, p. 142 n. 70. Brandenburger, op.cit. 205-214 shows that the two statements
cannot be harmonized with each other. His assertion that there is not;however, a
genuine contradiction between them (213 f.) is hardly convincing. Cr. Wedderburn,
'Adarn' 424.
94 F.C. Grant, 'Romans' 35; Bultmann, Theology 252: 'completely unintelligible';
even sharper Loisy, Remarques 20. Later on, Loisy (Origins 255) commented on
Rom 5.12-14 that 'in this statement there are some enormous absurdities which
neither philosophers nor historians neetl spend time in discussing'. In this late period
Loisy had accepted the theory (set forth by 1. Turme1) that Paul's letters were full
of interpolations, and he further commented on the passage. Rom 5.12-21: 'If anyone choose to believe that this wholly abstract, scholastic and false conception of the
Law was imagined and professed by a man who had long lived in obedience to the
Law, we shall not pause to argue with him.'
95 Cf. Strecker,Eschaton 249.

148

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

about when there is a law to forbid them and thus to lead man to temptation. 96 Another possibility is to connect 4.15 with 5.13: although there is
sin in the world since Adam's days, 'transgressions' in a technical sense are
not there until there is a law which can be transgressed. I am inclined to
accept this interpretation, but the choice is not important. As I see it, both
'B' and 'C' are represented.in Romans, so that 4.15, whichever way it is interpreted, does not add anything novel to the picture. 97
In sum, Paul seems to understand the relation between the law and sin in
different ways in different passages. He possibly has the cognitive aspect the law reveals man as sinner - in mind in Rom 3.20. In Rom 5.13 (and
possibly in 4.15) the law is seen as a formal standard which qualifies transgressions of it as different from other ways of sinning. The most remarkable,
however, is the causative aspect: the law brings about sin (Rom 7.5, 7-11,
Gal 3.19,1 Cor 15.56) or increases it (Rom 5.20). Paul thus gives a variegated
picture of the 'law of sin'. There is no development, say, from Galatians to
Romans in this matter,98 for all the different aspects are there, side by side,
in Romans.
There are no particular problems connected with the cognitive aspect. This
side of the matter is, however, the one least emphasized by Paul. The 'definition' aspect is full of logical problems to which reference has been made
above. It remains to consider the inherent problems of the characteristically
Pauline view that the law engenders sin (or increases it - the two ideas stand
in tension with each other, as we have seen).
Paul's bold statements about the negative effects of the law have often
been regarded as insights of genius. 99 One may be inclined to question this
in the light of the self-contradictions involved in the notion. Yet the most
aggravating problems arise when one moves from immanent logic to ask questions about Paul's premises.
In Rom 7.7 f. Paul sets forth an empirical claim: the commandments of
the law awaken in man the desire to transgress them. The law thus promotes
sin. That this really should have been the case empirically in the Judaism of
Paul's day few would dare to claim. The standard Jewish reaction to such a
claim is indeed quite justified. 1OO But one should go further and ask: 'Why is
96 Thus Michel; Hahn; art.cit. 41.
97 It might also be possible to take 4.15 in still another sense in the light of 6.14: where
there is no longer a law, there no transgressions come about; when one is not under
law, sin reigns no more over one.
98 Against Hiibner, Gesetz 73 f., and Drane, Paul 34 f. Both have to deny a causative
sense in Rom 5.20. But it is the statement of Gal 3.19 that is ambiguous - its sense
can only be established as causative with the aid of the parallels in Romans!
99 See, e.g., Beck, 'Gesetz' 129; Bandas, Master-Idea 110 {'marvellous insight into
human nature'}.
100 Klausner, Jesus 467 speaks of strange 'Phantasterei'.

The negative purpo8e

149

it only the commandment of the law that incites to transgression?' Why does
not, say, the apostolic paraenesis - or paraclesis, if you like - lead to the
same result?101 Paul, too, imposes clear prohibitions on his readers. In Rom
6.19, e.g., he forbids them to put their members into the service of impurity.
Why does this prohibition not awaken the desire to impurity? Or, when Paul
in Rom 13.13 warns the Roman Christians of revelling and drunkenness, why
does this prohibition not incite them to desire these things, if the prohibition
of the Decalogue 'Thou shalt not desire' does have such an effect?
One sees that Paul simply has different standards for Jews and Christians
respectively. He ascribes to commandments of the law qualities which he
would never ascribe to his own apostolic commandments (and nevertheless,
now and then, resorts to appeal to the commandments of the law in his Christian exhortation, notably in 1 Cor 7.19).
We have seen above that in passages like Rom 1.18-32, 2.17-24, or
7.14-25 Paul takes up some everyday experience and radically generalizes
it to make it serve his particular aim. 102 In view of this one may hazard the
conjecture that the negative view of the effects of the law as set forth in
7.7 -11 and elsewhere is due to an analogous generalization of an everyday
experience which has, in retrospect, been charged with a vigorous theological
emphasis. Paul had observed the general fact that prohibitions sometimes
incite people to transgress them - that the forbidden fruit is sweet. In a
Jewish milieu, such prohibitions were, of course, prohibitions imposed by
the Torah. In his search - whether conscious or unconscious - for grounds
for his not uncritical attitude to the Torah, Paul made a tremendous generalization: the prohibitions of the law always incite to transgressions, and this is
indeed the real purpose of the law as well.
What was observed in connection with the problem of the fulftllability of
the law is reinforced here: first there was the aprioristic theological thesis
(Christ has superseded the law). Afterwards, Paul tried to undergird his thesis
with various arguments. Several arguments take as their point of departure
some empirical observation. The observations are, however, interpreted very
one-sidedly and artificially. Christian interpreters of Paul have been astonishingly blind to the artificial character of Paul's allegations about the sin-engendering nature of the law. The sharp comment of Loisy that Paul 'invents the

101 For the designation parachesis see Schlink, 'Gesetz' 326 f. Following K. Barth,
Schlink (331) comments on the paraclesis: 'Von der Paraklese gilt nicht, was vom
Gesetz im Unterschied zum Evangelium gilt: die Siinde wird dadurch nicht gross
gemacht ... sie richtet und totet nicht ... gilt auch nicht, dass sie ohnmachtig ist, nicht
zustande bringt, was sie fordert'. That is precisely how Paul sees the situation (although
his paraclesis in Corinth may have seemed rather impotent to others!) - and such ~
characteristic clearly reveals Paul's begging of the question.
102 See above, III 2,4.

150

IV. The origin and purpose o/the law

philosophy and psychology that suit the needs of his thesis,103 is not so wide
off the mark. Paul had to show that the effects of the law are negative, and
only negative, and he carried through his thesis with violence. 104
To round off this chapter, mention should be made of the fact that Paul
often portrays man under law as hopelessly entangled in the power of sin.
Sin is his lord (Rom 6.14), under which he is sold (7.14); the 'law of sin and
death' reigns in his members (7.23). If what I have said before is on the right
track, it follows that this picture represents a radicalization in retrospect,
triggered off by Paul's Christological conviction. He does not consistently
hold that man apart from Christ is a helpless victim of sin, and this very
inconsistency betrays the secondary character of the radicalism. It is to be
doubted, whether Paul really thought of sin as a quasi-personal power at all;
the language that may seem to suggest this in Rom 6.12-21 and elsewhere is
well capable of a metaphorical interpretation. 105 Paul had inherited the idea
that sin and death belong intrinsically together (Rom 5.12-14, 17, 21).
Having established a close connection between sin and the law as well, he
quite naturally takes the next step and connects the law with death, too.
The commandment of the law brings death to man (Rom 7.8). Consequently,
'the law of sin' (Rom 723) is also called 'the law of sin and death' (Rom
8.2). The letter of the law 'kills' (2 Cor 3.6). The ministry of Moses was a
ministry of death and of condemnation (2 Cor 3.7, 9).

4. A positive purpose?
Did God have any direct positive intention when giving the law? Was the
law originally designed to give life to the person who fulfilled it, or was it
not? On this question, too, different answers are given by Paul's interpreters.
1. Most interpreters think that the law never had, according to Paul, any
salvific purpose. The purpose of the law was the negative one to bring about
sin.16 This interpretation is often coupled with a particular overall view of
Paul's message: the way of 'works' is in itself false and would never lead to
life, even if man were able to fulfil the law in its totality. In the final analysis,
however, the negative purpose of the law is embedded in God's overarching
salvific plan: in leading man to death the law lets 'God appear as God>l07 and

103 Loisy, Galates 159 (on Gal 3,22-25).

104 Schoeps, Paul 173-175 is correct in stressing that 'the retrospective way of thought
is the real axis of his argument' (175), even though one has to disagree with Schoeps
as to what Paul's axiom was (see below, VIII 2).

105 See above, p. 99 n. 29.

106 Cf. Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 88 (but see below, n. 117); Bultmann, Theology 263,
267; Blaser, Gesetz 134 ff.; Conzelmann, Outline 226 f.; etc.
107 Bultmann, op.cit. 267.

.A positive purpose?

151

thus makes all and sundry totally dependant upon God's grace in Christ. 108
This understanding of the purpose of the law has a good basis in Gal 3.21.
Paul states that the law is not 'against (God's) promises', since it does not at
all vie with them. The promises are a direct expression of God's salvific will.
Abstractly considered, the law could have mediated righteousness, i.e. salvation and life, 'had a law been given that is able to produce life' (v. 21 b). This,
however, would have rendered the promises unnecessary. The case is set forth
as imaginary and unreal. As no life-giving law has in fact been given, righteousness by the law has been excluded at the outset. The same principle is stated
in 3.17-18: the law and the promises exclude each other as means of salvation. That no life-giving law has been given is, according to v. 22, part of
God's good purpose: Scripture has shut everything under sin in order that the
promise would be effective for the believers. It is only indirectly that the law
serves God's purpose. That the law was, according to 3.19, designed to be in
force for only a limited period of time, also shows that it could only have an
indirect purpose in God's plan. 109
2 Cor 3 is also to be mentioned in this connection. There the contrast
between the old and new covenant is described as the contrast between the
'killing' letter and the life-producing (~W01TotiJ Spirit (v. 6). The law thus has
nothing to do with life; quite the contrary.u The ministry of Moses was a
ministry of death (v. 7). In the light of the phrase 'the ministry of condemnation' (v. 9) this probably means that the law 'kills' by proclaiming the death
sentence to every transgressor of it - that is, over everybody.lll
2. Other interpreters, however, have seized on other passages in Paul. Thus
Cullmann writes on the basis of Rom 1-3: 'All divine salvific efforts, his
revelation in the works of creation and his revelation in the law could in prin-

108 The law is seen in an extremely negative light by Auh!n, Christus 67 f. Building on
Gal 3.13 and 1 Cor 15.56 in particular, Aulen emphasizes that the law is one of the
destructive hostile powers, for 'the way of legal righteousness which the Law ...
demands can never lead to salvation and life'. The ambiguity of the law is comparable
to the ambiguity of the devil (!) and of death in the theology of the old church,
where they are hostile powers on one hand and executants of God's judgment on the
other. Such an interpretation requires, however, that Ti IlTCipa roii VOIJ.OV in Gal 3.13
is construed as an epexegetical genitive (the law is the curse; thus also Gulin,Freude
160; Gronemeyer, Frage 6 and passim; Weder,Kreuz 187). It would seem clear from
3.10 that Paul speaks of the curse pronounced by the law. Caird, Principalities 43,
45, 51 also speaks of the law as 'demonic'; Nygren, Romerbrief 205 ff. also reckons
the empirical law among the 'powers of destruction'; so, too, S. Hanson, Unity 61 f.,
71f.
109 This is emphasized by Linton, 'Paulus' 137. By delegating the legislation to the angels
(Gal 3.19), 'God himself has given the law a lower dignity'.
110 It was argued above, p. 45, that 2 Cor 3.6 refers to the Mosaic law itself (the tablets
of stone!) and not to a misunderstanding of it.
111 Cf. Windi:;ch, ad 10c.

152

IV. The origin and purp08e of the law

ciple already have led" men to salvation, had Gentiles and Jews responded to
them with faith. As this was not the case, the decisive salvific act had to take
place in Christ ... ,112 Rom 3.23 f. seems indeed to indicate that the law was
intended as a way to life; it is only because of its practical, empirical ineffectiveness that God decided to provide a new way to salvation. 'First all men
sinned ... then God provided the free gift as an alternative means of salvation.
This would imply that the free gift would not have been needed had men not
sinned in the first place, and consequently that it was at least theoretically
possible to obey the law and thus be justified.'113
A comparable intention can be found in Rom 7.10. It was found, says
Paul, that the commandment which was to be 'unto life' (iI VTO"'A.f/ iI ell; ~w"riv)
for the Ego, effected in fact his death. The law thus had been given 'unto
life', even though, because of the deceit of sin, things did not work out that
way in the practice. The preposition eil; must be given its full final force 114:
the law contained the promise of life 115 ; it was to lead unto life.1 16 It was,
after all, good, holy and spiritual (7.12, 14). It is quite correct to say that
'grace revealed itself originally in the law' .117 The law had a positive task,
which it was, however, unable to carry out. It was weak 'because of the flesh'
(8.3); i.e.,man, being carnal, was not able to obey the spiritual (7.14) law.1 18
There are thus two lines of thought in Paul. According to one, the possi
bility that the law could lead unto life is excluded already in principle.
According to the other, that possibility is shown to be irrelevant merely on
empirical grounds. Either God did not want the law to be a way to salvation,
or the actual law did not suit that purpose and another means had to be provided. Clearly these two lines contradict-each other. 119
Rom 7 stands in contradiction not only to Gal 3, but also to 2 Cor 3.

112 Cullmann, Heil 243. Cf. Wilckens,Rechtfertigung 81-84.

113 E.P. Sanders, 'Question' 105.
114 Against Blaser, op.cit. 196 f.
115 Lietzmann, Michel.
116 Kiihl, cf. Wilckens.
117 Kasemann, Romam 198. It is incorrect, however, to go on by saying that 'this was
perverted when the law was misunderstood as a demand for achievement'; cf. the
critical remarks of Tiircke, Potential 87. I have argued above in ch. 11 against the
notion that Paul had a Jewish misunderstanding of the law in mind. The misunderstanding theory is also represented'by Maurer, op.cit. 53,87 f. - in blunt contradiction to his exposition earlier on p. 26. A somewhat similar oscillation is found in
Nygren on Rom 7.10.
118 Cf. van Diilmen, Theologie 112ff.; 138 ff.
119 This is seen by Joest, Ge8etz 165; cf. already Ritschi, Lehre 11 254; Hoitzmann,
Theologie 11 37. E.P. Sanders, art.cit. 108 also observes two different answers, of
which the 'grundsatzlich' one (Gal 3.21 etc.) 'is truer to the whole thrust of Paul's
thought'.

A positive purpose?

153

According to 2 Cor 3 the law 'kills'; according to Rom 7 it is just too weak to
prevent man's death. One might say that the former passage presents it as poison, the latter merely as an ineffective medicine. Paul, who is on the whole
defensive and apologetic about his attitude to the law in Romans, has in this
letter shifted his ground in comparison with 2 Corinthians. 120
In addition to the internal contradictions, the texts in question are fraught
with problems of theodicy. As regards the line of thought present in Rom
1-3 and 7.1 0 one may ask, why God gave men so weak a law in the first
place. If this line is consistently thought through, Christ will be seen as God's
second attempt to save mankind after his first device turned out to be unsuccessful. This consequence is indeed one of the reasons why some interpreters refuse to find in Rom 7.1 0 the idea that the law was given 'unto life'. 121
Yet this idea cannot be suppressed.t 22
With respect to the second line of thought (that expressed most clearly
in Gal 3.21) the.question is relevant, why God did not want to give a law that
. would have been able to lead man unto life, even though a promise of this
life is expressed in this law (Lev 18.5, cite.d in Gal 3.12 and Rom 10.5). If
the law's only direct purpose was to provoke sin (Gal 3.19), one is entitled to
ask, with Hubner, whether this does not sound rather cynical.123 'God ...
brings men into the ... damnable and immoral situation of sinning only in
order to prove his divinity in his goodness and unsurfassable grace'! 124 This
problem was perceived already by the Church fathers. 25
Hubner attempts to remove the cynicism from the picture painted by Paul
by distinguishing between three different intentions operative at the giving of
the law: the intention of the angels who gave the law, that of God who permitted it, and the immanent intention of the law. 126 This complicated speculation does not carry conviction,127 and serves all the more to show how
120 This is no reason to assume a theological development of Paul between the writing of
the two letters. The contrast between the letter and the Spirit is still there in Rom
7.6. When Paul nevertheless asserts in 7.14 that the law is 1rIlEIIJ.lanKtk by nature, he
gets involved in one more blatant self-<:ontradiction.
121 Cf. Blaser, op.cit. 197 n. 61.
122 Conzelmann, op.cit. 226 points out that Paul's reasoning (on the 'objectified' level)
amounts at this point to 'a senseless theory'. 'What kind of God is it who makes
known his will and cannot carry it out?' On Conzelmann's attempt to gloss over such
difficulties in Paul's thought see above (Introduction), p. 5 f.
123 HUbner, Gesetz 27. Cf. also TUrcke,Potential 87 f.
124 HUbner, ibid.
125 See the comment of Origen on Rom 5.20 below, p. 156.
126 HUbner, op.cit. 27 ff.; id., 'Proprium' 462 f.
127 Abstractly considered, it is certainly possible to distinguish between the intention of
the angels giving the law and God who permitted it. It is however extremely difficult
to make sense of the third intention assumed by HUbner: 'the immanent intention
of the law'; cL Luz's review, p. 122. If this intention was neither that of God (this

154

IV. The origin and purpose of the laW'

hopeless it is to defend Paul against theological criticisms regarding the idea

of God implicit in some of his statements about the law. The logical conclusions from Gal 3.21 (conclusions which Paul certainly did not perceive) are
theologically dubious. The idea that the law was so designed as not to be able
to lead unto life is, as Parkes puts it, 'both offensive and ridiculous to any
Jewish saint and scholar, and it is a pity that we do not more readily admit
that it is equally offensive to all Christian conceptions of God'.1 28
To avoid misunderstanding, let me emphasize that I am not suggesting that
Paul's picture of God is cynical. My point is this: if we draw certain logical
implications from some of Paul's statements about the law, then strange conclusions will result. Paul did not see these conclusions and would, of course,
have rejected them emphatically.
This state of affairs would seem to indicate that in this case, too, Paul got
involved in intellectual difficulties, because he started from an aprioristic
(Christological) conviction. Instead of considering the intention of the law in
its own right he- deduced his statements about it straight from his Christological insights. That is why he ended up by putting forward artificial and
conflicting theories about the law.

5. Analogies regarding the purpose of the law?

a) Christian sources
The author of Hebrews makes it clear in no uncertain terms that the old
law, which has been abrogated (7.12), was 'weak' and 'useless' (7.18), not
being able to make anything perfect (7.19). Correspondingly, the old covenant was growing old and was not blameless (8.13,8.7). Had it been blameless,
then no new covenant would have been needed in the first place (8.7, cf.
Gal 3.21!). The law was merely a shadow of the good things to come (10.1).
It is indeed 'impossible' - in principle - that 'the blood of oxen and deer
could remove sins' (10.4).
The writer is very clear in his rejection of the old law as being weak in
nature. Consistently enough, it is the law itself that is aapKwo<: in this writing
(7.16). There are in the letter only slight traces of the rival view of the empiridifference is important on p. 40 f., whereas the intentions fuse together in Hiibner's
interpretation of Rom 7.10, p. 64) nor that of the angels, then where on earth did it
come from? (Moses does not come-into question!) But even the distinction between
the intention of God and that of the angels breaks down in view of the temporai
clause in 3.19. Hiibner must indeed resort to the explanation that Paul has not expressed himself quite clearly'in that verse (29). As he understands Gal 3.19, 'because
of the tran,sgressions' (v. 19b) refers to the intention of the angels, but the li)(p!<;clause (v. 19c) to that of God; the intention of the angels is hinted at in v. 19b,
although the angels are only mentioned in v. 19d, after the statement about God's
intention! Cf. Westerholm's review (195 f.).
128 Paikes, Jesus 129.

Analogies regarding the purpose o/the law?

155

cal disobedience of the members of the old people of God. 129 On the whole
Hebrews is much more consistent than Paul on this point, underlining the
weakness of the law. Consequently, however, the accusation of an implicit
cynicism in the conception of God can with even better reason be directed to
this address.
What was God's purpose in his giving the law through angels (2.2), with all
the majestic glory described in the Sinai story (12.18 ff.)? Why did God give
a weak, useless and 'fleshly' (!) law, which was bound to induce men to 'dead
works'? Why was the old covenant in itself 'blameful'? The idea that the law
was also a pale shadow of the coming salvation is hardly sufficient to remove
the suspicion of implicit cynicism from the portrait of God in Hebrews. Of
course the author did not mean it that way, any more than Paul did, but that
is what results as soon as the question Tl ovv 0 VOila<; (almost by-passed by
the author) is seriously raised.
In Luke 10.25-28 we meet a positive reversal of Paul's negative idea. Yet
in Peter's speech (Acts 15.1 0 f., cf. also James's statement in v. 19) the law is
said to be a 'yoke' that 'neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear'.
How can God-given 'living words' (Acts 7.38) be such a burden? A related
difficulty is that these words, from which not a single iota will disappear
(Luke 16.17) come to be seen, from the Gentile point of view, as 'a preliminary stage and an early form of God's will,.130 Apparently Luke did not
reflect very much on the purpose or nature of the law. This is, however, a
rather mild tension when compared with the Pauline views.
Other writers avoid Paul's dilemma - mainly because the question is never
raised! Of later writers, Marcion and Ptolemy escape Paul's theological difficulty at the cost of running into another: the attribution of the OT law to an
inferior god. Ptolemy also reckons with human additions.
Justin comes close to Marcion: the law 'belongs to the old dispensation, it
was intended for the Jews, and it was completely abolished by Christ'. 'The
only important difference is that for Justin the Mosaic Law was given by the
same God and Father of all.'131
To be able to maintain this against the Marcionites, Justin had to find a
divine purpose for the ritual law. He is indeed the first Christian writer who
attempts in a systematic way to derme the role and purpose of the law. That
purpose was a strictly historical one. The (ritual) law as a whole was given 'on
the account of the sinfulness of the Jews'; 'particular precepts were also

129 Cf. 3.16 ff., 4.6, and Luz, 'Bund' 330 n. 42. Luz (329) rightly refutes the view of
Michel (Hebr on 8.7) that only men are 'blamed' by the author and not the covenant
itself.
130 Luz, 'Gesetz' 133.
131 Styllanopoulos, Justin 89.

156

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

ordained for particular reasons,.132 Unlike other precepts, that of circumcision had the punitive purpose 'to identify the Jews in order to facilitate their
just punishment by the Romans'! (16.2)133 For other precepts more positive
explanations are found. Thus, the sacrifices 'were instituted in order to restrain the Jews from idolatry', 'the sabbath was commanded so that the Jews
would nurture remembrance of God', as was the abstinence from certain
foods (19.6-20.1).134 Behind Justin's efforts to present the law as a remedial and a beneficent discipline, given 'as a kind of divine "accommodation"
suitable to the evil propensity of the Jews' (19.6, 67.1 0) lies 'defence both of
the perfection of God and the meaningfulness of the Law,.135 'Contends
Justin: if his interpretation of the Law as temporal legislation for the Jews is
not accepted, then unthinkable inferences about God would follow, that is,
either that one is not dealing with the same God in the pre-Law period' or
that God is inconsistent. 136
Justin thus consciously tries to evade the problem of theodicy. While his
explanation is logical as a whole, its individual parts are infelicitous. The
explanation given to circumcision is ridiculous, and 'Ezekiel's complaints
against the breaking of the rule of the sabbath, God's Law, are now cited as
the reason for the giving of the sabbath in the first place!' (ch. 21 )137
To some extent, then, Paul shares his difficulties with the purpose of the
law with subsequent Christian writers; yet the tension between a positive and a
negative intention is peculiar to him alone.
Nowhere in the NT do we find a parallel to Paul's radical association of the
law with sin. The gospel of John lets Jesus say to the 'Jews' confronted with
him that they are slaves of sin, but this assertion (John 8.34) is not connected
with the law. The sin of the Jews is, instead, traced back to the devil (8.44).
Later on, we find the Church Fathers carefully reinterpreting Paul's radical
statements in order to take the sting from them. Thus, Origen considered the
idea that any increase of sin could be attributed to the coming of the Mosaic
law simply impossible; that would be to fall into the heresy of Marcion! 138
Indeed, only Marcion and some Gnostics took up Paul's ideas in this
regard. 139

132 Op.cit. 147.

133 Op.cit. 136.
134 Op.cit. 147 f.
1350p.cit. 159.
136 StyJianopoulos, op.cit. 157.
137 Op.cit. 150.
138 Comm. in Rom. V. 6 (PG 14,1032B); cf. Wiles,Apostle 52.
139 The Testimonium Veritatis of Nag Hammadi states that the law of the god of the
Jews effects Em~v!lia and 1rci~o~ (NHC IX, 30, 2-18; NHL 407), for the injunction
to propagate (Gen 1.28) calls forth sexual lust; 48, 4-8 (NHL 412) refers to the

Analogies regarding the purpose a/the law?

157

b) Jewish sources
For details of Paul's negative ideas about the law verbal points of comparison can be found here and there in Jewish literature. Understandably, the
context and scope of such statements differ greatly from those of the Pauline
statements. Thus one may compare to Paul's assertion that the letter of the
law kills the statement of R. Banna'ah in Sifre Deut: 'If you do the words of
the Torah for their own sake they are life to you ... But if you do not do the
words of Torah for their own sake they kill you.'140 The law may thus bring
about death - but only to one who obeys it for the wrong motives. If Paul
sometimes regards the law as poison, the Rabbis regard it as a medicine which
can be wrongly applied. The law likewise brings death to those who do not
fulfil it141 or to the peoples who did not accept it when it was given. 142
More important is a striking parallelism between what Paul says about the
Torah and what other Jewish teachers said about the evil inclination. The evil
yeser is identified in Rabbinical literature with Satan and the angel of death
(Baba Bathra 16a). As the angel of death the yeser 'accustoms (or entices)
man to sin and kills him' (ExR 30.11). 'The Yezer of man assaults him every
day, endeavouring to kill him ... ' (Sukk 52b). 'The Evil Yezer persuades man
(to sin) in this world, and bears witness against him in the future world'
(Sukk 52b).1 43
IV Ezra also ascribes to the evil inclination (called there cor malignum)

intention of that malicious god to increase and bring about sin. The Pauline idea is
thus reinterpreted and placed into a quite different dualistic-ascetic framework. See
Koschorke, 'Paulus' 181-183. More in a genuinely Pauline vein is a section in the
Gospel of Philip (NHC 11, 73, 27-74, 12; NHL 144) where a quite unusual exposition of the Paradise story is given: the tree. of knowledge, which is identical with the
law, effected death for Adam; cf. Koschorke, art.cit. 194-196.
140 Sifre Deut 306 (on 32.2); cited byE.P. Sanders, Paul 121.
141 This point is made in a rather pessimistic tone in ARN 2: seeing the Golden Calf,
Moses wanted to turn back in order not to have to oblige the people to 'heavy precepts' und thus to 'doom them to death'. Cf. PesiqR 21.16 (107a). Both texts are
cited by Lowy, 'Lehre' (1903), 535. To be sure, in the first instance Rabbinic exegesis is concerned to find a reason for Moses' breaking the tablets; in the second an
explanation had to be found for Jer 20.7 'Thou hast enticed me and I was enticed'.
Because of these circumstances it is only with due caution that we may see in these
(late!) texts parallels to Paul's view that the law introduces a situation where sinning
is a more serious matter than it was before (as, by the way, the Gospel does according
to the Epistle to the Hebrews!); cf. Callan, 'Midrash' 563 f.
142 ExR 5.9; cf. Billerbeck III 238.
143 Citations from Schechter, Aspects 244 f. Caird, Principalities 41 f. has noted that in
its capacity as a 'tempter' (Rom 7.7 f.) the law in Paul duplicates a function elsewhere attributed to Satan. He goes, however, too far in seeing such functions also in
the role of the law as 'the great accuser' (Rom 2.12, 3.19) or as the 'executioner of
the law' (2 Cor 3.6 f.).

IV. The origin and purpose of the law

158

things which Paul attributes to the law.!44 'For a grain of evil seed was sown
in the heart of Adam from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness has it produced unto this time, and shall yet produce.' (4.30, cf. Rom
5.20). The blessed must fight hard to overcome the evil inclination, lest it
lead them astray from life to death (7.92).
To ascribe the sad effects of the evil inclination to the law instead is a
striking Pauline tour de force.

c) The Old Testament

Can Paul's idea of the sin-engendering and sin-promoting effects of the
law, or the notion of a close connection between the law and sin be paralleled
in the OT?145
To trace Rom 5.20 back to Dan 9.24 is certainly incorrect. 146 A more
likely candidate would seem to be Ezekiel's bold assertion (Ezek 20.25 f.)
that Yahweh had given Israel 'statutes that were not good and ordinances by
which they could not have life', defiling them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that he might horrify them. This
puzzling statement is regarded by many exegetes as a kind of anticipation of
Paul's critical statements. According to Zimmerli, the law here 'becomes a
means through which God himself causes Israel's sin to be magnified. What is
said here concerning a single commandment occurs later in Paul in an even
deeper perspective in the light of Jesus Christ as a statement about the law
as a whole.'147 Peter Stuhlmacher, concerned to discover in the OT traces of
the idea that the Torah revealed on Sinai carries in itself 'signs of historical
provisionality and of such a defici.ency that it is in need of change' 148,
sees in Ezek 20.25 f. a reference to 'the horrifyingly provisional nature' of
the law of Sinai. 149
The assumed analogy is, at best, of a very limited nature. Ezekiel speaks of

144 For the evil inclination in IV Ezra see Harnisch, Verhiingnis 165-175; Thompson,
Theodicy 332-339.

145 It may be of some interest to note that G. Murray, Oresteia 20 ff., thought that Paul
had been anticipated by Aeschylos in his dealing with the problem of blood vengeance: as sin must, according to the law of the vengeance, receive its punishment, the
law thus introduces a whole chain of bloody deeds, which can only be broken by a
wise deity who understands the motives of events. Of course, this problem is beyond
the horizon of Paul, for whom the law is something different. Murray is followed by
WelIs,Jesus 298. But see also Oepke on Gal3.13!
146 Gottlob Klein, Studien 78 asserted that Rom 5.20 is a paraphrase of Dan 9.24.
In that verse, however, there is no talk of the law at all (correctly Schoeps, Paul
174).
147 Zimmerli, Law 82; cf. id., Ezechiel 449; von Rad, Theology 11, 402 n. 19; Blank,
'Warum' 90 f.; de Vaux, Studies 72; Meyer, 'End' 77 n. 23.
148 See below, VIII 3. Quotation: Versohnung 142.
149 Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 143.

Analogies regarding the purpose of the law?

159

one commandment (or a few commandments) that was not good and that
was imposed on Israel as a punishment for continuous transgression of the
law. Paul never suggests anything like this. When he attributes a negative purpose to the law, then this is the original purpose of the whole law. 150
However, the analogy breaks down altogether, if the common interpretation of Ezek 20.25 f. is correct. The verses are usually taken as a reference to
the custom of sacrificing the first-born child in the cult of Moloch,151 a
custom at least occasionally taken up in Israel. To justify such a procedure,
one might conceivably have appealed to some passages in the Torah, above all
to Ex 22.29. 152 Ezekiel would then actually be criticizing a disastrous misinterpretation or misuse of the law. 153 The reference to God would only
imply that he did not prevent this misuse. If so, no connection can be established between this statement and Rom 5.20 etc.
Zimmerli objects to this standard interpretation that the practice of child-

150 Cf. Buber, Zwei Glaubensweisen 88-90.

151 This explanation is questioned by Gese, 'Ezechiel'. He rejects the connection of the
verse with child sacrifices altogether. V. 26 refers, according to hiIp, to the normal
sacrifice of first-born animals. The statutes concerning these constitute a 'second
revelation'. Gese correctly points out some difficulties involved in the current interpretation. He also shows that he 'ebir was not a technical term the use of which was
limited to the cult of Moloch; the verbal connection between Ezek 20.26 and Ex
13.12 (an ordinance concerning the offering of first-born animals within the legitimate cult of Yahweh) is indeed striking. Nevertheless, he 'ebir is also used in 16.21
with clear reference to the sacrifice of children, and if this verse is authentic (Gese
does not tell us) that would seem to decide the issue (cf. on the authenticity below,
n. 156). But even if it were a later addition, Gese's view is not without difficulties.
He says that the 'second revelation corresponds to man's "natural religion" '; the
piety of Israel is thereby defiled by the spirit of Canaanite religion. Man believes that
he can give God something. But if this is what Ezek 20.25 f. is all about, then why
are the sacrifices of the first-born singled out in the first place? (Gese gives two
explanations, which may not be mutually compatible; discussing these would lead us
too far away.) Moreover, even though Gese praises Zimmerli for having avoided the
misinterpretation theory, he himself comes in the end out with something very much
like a misinterpretation or misuse theory. It is at least a bit difficult to reconcile the
deftlement of Israel'S religion through influences from the surrounding world with
Yahweh's active initiative. It is important for Gese's overall view about the 'dynamic'
character of the+.lw and his theory of a 'Zion Torah' (see below p. 239 f.) that Ezek
20.25 f. refers to an actual statute of God and not to a mere misunderstanding; it is
all the more regrettable that his presentation is so vague at this crucial point.
Garscha, Studien 119 f. also denies a connection with the sacrifice of children.
He suggests that the reference is to precepts that could not be observed in certain
circumstances as in the exile. This is hardly convincing.
152 'The first-born of your sons you shall give to me.' Unlike the parallel passages in
Exodus, no mention is made here of a 'redeeming' procedure that would exempt the
sons from their fate.
153 So, e.g., Eichrodt and Wevers, ad loc.; de Vaux, op.cit. 72.

160

IV. The origin and purpose o/the law

sacrifice is actually in keeping with the letter of Ex 22.29 so that strictly

speaking there is no misinterpretation. He notes that Ezekiel is not able to
push the literal interpretation of the Exodus passage lightly aside. Ezek
20.25 f. represents the sentiment of a generation for which the secure possibility of self-righteousness is shaken, a generation that has the courage to find
God's punishment, mysteriously enough, in the commandment itself. 154
It would seem, however, that Zimmerli tries to make the passage yield
too 'profound' a message. In other passages in Ezekiel, the sacrifice of children is mentioned in plain words as a sin of Israel, without anr: indication
that a mysterious statute of God was being carried out (16.20 f.). 55 There is
no sense of a divine mystery in these verses; the tone is one of outright
condemnation. 156
Whatever the intended message of Ezek 20.25 f., the passage does not look
like a theological program. 157 Theoretically, it could have been used to provide a starting point for a reform program which wished to purge the Torah
of additions, as the Jewish Christians of the Pseudoc1ementines were to do
much later.158 As Justin (Dial. 21.1) shows, some Christians seized on these
verses.159 But Ezekiel does not show signs of such a concern. The verses in
question do not seem to carry the weight placed upon them by some inter-

154 Zimmerli ad 10c.

155 Ezek 16.20 f.: 'And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne
to me, and these you sacriciced to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so
small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?' There is a similar accusation in 20.31, but this should probably
be discarded - with Zimmerli, ad loco - as a later addition; it is attributed to Ezekiel
by de Vaux, op.cit. 72.
156 To be sure, 16.20 f. is also regarded as an addition by Zimmerli (and others). But
added by whom? Zimmerli notes, at any rate, that there is no compelling reason to
deny that Ezekiel himself played a part, when verses 16.16-20 were inserted (op.
clt. 363). At the very least the verses show that the radical idea of 20.25 f. (supposing
there was one) was not taken up, not even by those circles who provided in 16.
16~21 a 'first exposition' which still largely retains the intention of the original
proclamation (thus Zimmerli himself!). This observation contradicts Zimmerli's
idea that Ezek 20.25 f. as he understands it betrays the sentiment of a whole generation.
157 It is not used by Ezekiel as a starting-point for the expectation of a better law. Chs.
40-48 which, according to Stuhlmacher (op.cit. 143) go beyond the Sinai Torah, are
not connected with it in any obvious way. Gese, to be sure, points out that no sacrifices of the first-born are mentioned in chs. 44 f. and suggests that this is not so by
chance.
158 See below,p. 226 f.
159 Justin says that the sabbath was imposed on the Jews because of their sins - a singularly ridiculous interpretation in that Ezekiel presents the 'not good' ordinances as a
punishment for Israel's transgressing the sabbath!

Analogies regarding the purpose o/the law?

161

preters. They look strangely isolated. 160 There seems to be no better way of
explaining them than the standard misinterpretation theory. They hardly
constitute a parallel to Paul's radical statements in any sense at all.
With special emphasis on Ezek 20.25, Gerhard von Radsuggests that even
the proclamation of the prophets as a whole can be construed as a kind of
analogy to Paul's critical theology of the law.1 61 'Never again was there in
Israel a more incisive or menacing "preaching ofthe law"than the prophets'.' 162
The analogy is, however, limited to the 'revelatory' function of the prophetic
preaching on one hand and that of the law (Rom 3.20) on the other. 163
This (relatively uncharacteristic!) aspect of Paul's teaching of the law can
indeed be supported by the OT. But in attributing to the law a negative, sinprovoking and sin-engendering function Paul goes his own way, parting company with the prophets. 164

160 Lust, 'Traditie' 134 ff. regards v. 26a.b as a later gloss. One would be tempted to
agree, were it not for the fact that it is even more difficult to make sense of them as
an insertion of a later editor.
161 Theology 11, 395 ff.
162 Op.cit. 402.
163 Cf. HUbner, 'Thema' 269.
164 Lohfmk, Siege,lied 168-172; HUbner, art.cit. 270.

V. The antithesis between works of law

and faith in Christ

1. The antithesis
In a number of key texts in Galatians and Romans Paul suggests that the
law is a rival principle of salvation. To be sure, he never sets out to give a
sustained account of the Jewish religion, and a great many of his comments
on the law are made with regard to Christian 'Judaizers'. Nevertheless, Paul's
comments at least imply the notion of the Torah as the Jewish gateway to
salvation or righteousness, which occupies in the old system the very place
that belongs to Christ in the new order of things. As God's act in Christ is the
only true basis of righteousness, the rival way of the law is, of course, a dead
end.
Thus, Paul states in Gal 5.4 that whoever tries to be justified 'in the law'
(ev VOIl~) is 'destroyed' away from Christ or fallen away from grace. As
regards salvation, one has to choose between Christ and grace on the one
hand and the law on the other. Gal 2.21 also makes it clear that righteousness
can be attained only in Christ: were it available through the law (liw vOIJ.(JV)
then Christ would in fact have died in vain, and God's grace would be null
and void. The state of rivalry between two different orders of salvation is
here portrayed in the clearest possible terms. The Christian is 'under grace'
and not 'under the law' (Rom 6.14).
Paul often sets forth the contrast by opposing 'the works of the law' to
'faith'. This antithesis is stated programmatically in Gal 2.16: ' ... a man is
not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ 1 ; thus we,
too, have believed in Christ in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not
by works of the law, for by works of the law no flesh is justified'. 2 This

1 That Paul actually sets up this contrast is denied by Howard, 'Christ' 331-337;
cf. id., 'On the Faith'; Gaston, 'Paul'. Rightly perceiving that Rabbinic Judaism did
not teach 'merits as gained through works' as the basis of salvation, Howard is concerned to show that Paul did not attribute such a view to them either. He thereby
construes 'II'107'I<; xpI07'oii (Gal 2.16 and elsewhere) as a subjective genitive; thus also
Howard, 'Faith'; id., Criliili 57 f., 95 n. 191 ;M. Barth, 'Stellung' 514; Bremer, Underlitanding 75 ff.; Williams, 'Righteousness' 272-275. It is unnatural, however, to break
the parallel between 'II'lan<; xpIOToii and el<; XPIOTOV 'I1}aoiiv e'll'I07'eUaa/JEV in Gal
2.16. On the expression see now Hultgren, 'Pistis', esp. 253 ff.
2 If 2.16d is meant as a Bible quotation (so.e.g. Betz) as is probable, since the clause

The antithesis

163

strongly suggests that Paul (and other Jewish Christians) have indeed replaced
an old soteriological system by a new one, works of the law by faith in Christ. 3
In Paul's view, Peter and others have actually returned to the old system by
their 'Judaizing' in Antioch.
In Gal 3.2-5 'the preaching of faith' (c/'/<01] rriaTwc:)4 is opposed to the
'works of the law' (v. 2, 5). Paul reminds the Galatians of their gift of the
Spirit and asks the rhetorical question, whether their charismatic experiences
resulted from doing works of the law or from accepting the preaching of
faith. It is the latter alone that can lead to a bestowal of the gift of the Spirit.
The law is incapable of effecting that.
In Gal 3.6 Paul states that Abraham gained righteousness because he had
faith in God. In the next verses he speaks of 'those of faith' as blessed (v. 7-9).
By contrast, those who are 'of works of the law' are cursed (v. 10). Furthermore, 'law' and 'faith' are contrasted sharply in v. 11: it is clear that no one
can be justified by the law, for the simple reason that according to the Bible
the righteous man will have life by faith. 5 Paul thus assumes a priori that
faith and law exclude each other. In the next verse (v. 12) he indeed gives a
categorical 'definition': 'the law is not of faith'. The law has nothing to do
with faith, because it requires that its commandments be 'done' if man wants
to receive 'life'. The law is also the opposite of God's promise (v. 18,21-22).
Similar contrasts reappear in Romans (Rom 3.27-28,4.2-5,4.14,10.5-6);
cf. also the contrast between the righteousness of faith and one's 'own'
righteousness in Phil 3.6,9 (cf. Rom 10.3).
Paul thus makes a sharp distinction between two sets of concepts. On the
one side stand the law and the works (of the law); on the other side Christ,
grace, the Spirit, faith and promise. In fact, Paul's argument for the thesis
would otherwise be tautologous, Paul has added the decisive words ~ Ip'Ywv vo,",ov
to the OT text. The same thing happens in Rom 3.20! Cf. e.g. Vielhauer, 'Paulus'
49; Dahl, Studies 105 f.; Hays, 'Psalm 143' 113. We see how self-evident the contrast
must have seemed to Paul's mind.
3 Cf. the expression rTlToiivTI;~ IiLKaLw~iivaL which suggests an effort to frod righteousness.
4 On the expression see Schlier; Lull, Spirit 55 f.
5 It does not make much difference, whether K 1ricrrew~ is connected with 'righteous'
or 'to live'. The latter alternative is the natural one; see the recent treatment of the
question by Cavallin, 'Righteous'. In any case, K 1riaTeW~ is connected with the
predicate verb in Gal 3.22; when Paul does connect the phrase with the subject (Rom
10.6), he does so in an unambiguous way (11 6e K 1ricrrew~ 6LKaLOaVVTl). If we postulate a being called 'the one righteous py faith' (0 6iKaLO~ EK 1riaTew~) who will 'live',
then what would constitute the opposite? Who does not gain life? A phrase like
o 6lKaLO~ (0) f~ ep"{wv ov rr\aeTaL does not make much sense, fur such a righteous
person does not exist at all for Paul; there can hardly be a question whether he will
gain life or not. Cf. Ellis, Use 118; Hanson, Studies 40 ff. (although Hanson's explanation that 0 6iKaLO~ refers to the Messiah is fanciful).

164

V. Works and faith

that Christ, not the law, is the basis of salvation, consists almost exclusively
of a repetition of this basic contrast in numerous variations. 6

2. The meaning of the antithesis

Interpreting this central antithesis set forth by Paul, Christian exegetes
have (from the late 19th century on) developed a desolate picture of 'late
Judaism,7. It is held that the Jewish religion, against which Paul reacted, was
characterised by a formal, mechanical and anthropocentric piety, an arrogant
counting of one's merits, etc. It is said to be 'Paul's glory to have argued
against a decadent Judaism to ensure the victory of a profound belief in the
power of God,.8 For the Jew of Paul's day, the law was 'an arrogantly and
arbitranly chosen target of human ambition', 'a system of human achievement'Y 'The requirements of the law had become dead ceremonies' so that
'the fulfilment of the commandments does not, in the final analysis, serve the
holiness of God, but is accomplished for the sake of man ... When the pious
man fulfils the commandments, God cannot find any fault with him any
more and must declare him righteous at the last judgment. It is therefore in
man's power to acquire salvation through pious life.'lO Indeed, in the framework of this 'purely formal obedience' and 'hopelessly perverted' religiosity 11
God is made to obey the dead law which, thereby, takes on the character of a
demon!12
To this day, Christian exegetical literature abounds in such comments on
the Judaism of Paul's day. It is, to be sure, commonly acknowledged that the
law originally belonged to the framework of God's covenant with Israel. 13
According to a popular theory, set forth by Martin Noth but going back to
Wellhausen, the law was after the Exile to an ever greater degree detached
from this framework; the law became, it is held, an independent and absolute
entity which stood between God and man blocking man's way to God and
throwing him upon his own deeds. 14 Bultmann's description of the Jewish
6 This was emphatically noted by Loisy, Galates 41, 134 f., 141 f. etc.
7 The term has come to involve a negative valuation and should be replaced by 'early
Judaism' (Friihjudentum).
8 Cerfaux, Christian 391.
9 Moule, 'Obligation' 393,397.
10 Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 11.
11 Niederwimmer, Freiheit 123, cf. 125 n. 125. Cf. R.E. Howard,Newness 56,
12 Niederwimmer, op.cit. 131.
13 For the understanding of the Torah in the OT see, e.g., von Rad, Theology 11, 388 ff.;
Schmid,'Gesetz'; Gross, 'Tora'; Smend, 'Gesetz'; Myers, Grace; Liedke-Petersen,
'Torah'; Illman, 'Tora'.
14 Wellhausen, Geschichte 302 ff., esp. 304; Noth, Studien 99 ff., esp. 126; Wiirthwein,
'Gesetz' 1514 f.; Bornkamm, Geschichte 90.
Some scholars attribute the distortion of religion to the Jews of the Dispersion;

The meaning of the antithesis

165

way (which can be traced back to Bousset and F. Weber)15 has been particularly influential. He understands Jewish Torah piety as an individual expression of the innate human desire to show off (Geltungsbedii.r!nis), which drives
man to accomplish works, whether beneficial or absurd.1 6 The Jew tried to
earn God's acceptance. The attempt to become righteous by obeying the law
is an expression of man's need to boast. The pious man does not need
grace! 17
Jewish scholars have, of course, energetically objected to such caricatures
of the Jewish religion. 18 For decades, their protests went on deaf ears.
Recently, however, there have been many signs of a change in the situation.
It is more and more realized how distorted the standard picture is. Noth's
account of the development of the religion of Israel has not gone unchallenged
in OT study.19 As for post-Biblical Judaism, a devastating critique of its
thus Schoeps, Paul 27-32,213 ff. He speaks of a legalistic 'Septuagintal piety' and
tries to show, following Dodd and Bertram, that the covenant and the law have been
separated from each other by the Septuagint translators in a way that betrays their
legalistic piety. This attempt fails to carry conviction.
With respect to Dodd's contention (Bible 34) that the rendering of torah with
"ollo~ shows that 'the Biblical revelation was conceived as a hard legalistic way'
(accepted by Schoeps, op.cit. 29; cf. also Wallis, 'Torah' 330 f.) see the remarks by
Werblowsky, "fora' 160 f. The meaning of the Greek word "ollo~ was not limited to a
'paragraph law' either; cf. Pasinya,Notion 32-54,139 f., 201-205.
Bertram has treated the question in several articles (see Bibliography). He deals
with two books of the LXX only; on such a basis any generalizations should be suspect. In addition, all his decisive illustrations come from the translation of Proverbs.
It is precarious to draw any conclusions even about the relation of the piety of the
translator(s) of this one book to classical aT thought, as the relation of the Hebrew
book of Proverbs to the mainstream of aT thought is in itself problematic. The theological differences detected by Bertram between the translation and the original are
often very subtle and dubious. For some criticisms see Gerieman, 'Religion' (Schoeps
refers to this article without mentioning that its attitude to Bertram's work is not
uncritical); Wevers, 'Septuaginta-Forschungen' 183; Barr, Semantics' 251 n. 1,252.
15 F. Weber, Theologie, esp. 277 ff.; Bousset-Gressmahn, Religion 119 ff., 378 ff.;
see also Billerbeck, Kommentar IV/I 3 ff. For the history see Moore, 'Writers' 228254; E.P. Sanders, Paul 33-59, 233 ff.; Hoheisel, Judentum 7 ff.
16 Bultmann, Glauben 11 38 f. etc. He puts forward a tasteless and ill-advised comparison of legalistic piety with a child incapable of uSl)ful achievements who therefore
attempts to distinguish itself through silliness or even naughtiness, and with the
'modern mania for records' as an attempt to show off through achievements which
are in themselves absurd (39).
17 Op.cit. 41.
18 On the nature of the Jewish obedience to the Torah see e.g. Schechter, Aspects
18 etc.; Btichier, Studies 1-118; Heinemann, Loi; Werblowsky, 'Tora'; Jackson,
'Legalism'; Ehriich, 'Tora'; Flusser, 'Eriebnis'.
19 Cf. Kraus, Aufsiitze 179 ff., esp. 187; Zirnmerii, Offenbarung 249 ff.; Lohfink,
Siegeslied 151 ff.; Lirnbeck, Ordnung; Hoheisel, op.cit. 48 ff.; Smend, 'Gesetz' 34 ff.
On Ps. 119 see now also Wallis, 'Torah' 325-329.

166

V. Works and faith

theological denigration was presented, on the Christian side, sixty years ago
by G.F. Moore. 20 Moore also laid the foundations for a fair appraisal of
Rabbinic Judaism as a 'revealed religion,.21 For a long time, however, his
mon:umental work had little influence on Christian exegesis. 22 In recent
times, dissatisfaction with the current denigration of Judaism has been voiced
to an ever growin~ degree. 23 With the publication of the pertinent studies by
Meinrad Limbeck 4 and especially by E.P. Sanders 25 the discussion has been
carried a long step forward.
Limbeck has directed his attention to the understanding of the Torah in
the Qumran texts and related (non-Rabbinic) literature including, above all,
I Enoch, Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo and IV Ezra. He emphasizes the understanding of the Torah as the order of creation. 26 The law witnessed to God's benevolent initiative toward man's salvation. 27 Observance of the God-given order
was understood, even in Qumran, 'only as a response, but not as an achievement'.28 'Precisely the effort not to lose God's undeserved benevolence
through negligence and wilfulness in one's own life had brought it about that
also the letter of the law came to have a decisive significance for Israel.,29
But the point was not 'that man could in the end stand before God through
his own power, but that man should prepare himself for that salvation which
20 Moore, 'Writers'.
21 Moore, Judilism. On 'legalism' see ibid. I, 117.
22 To be sure, lip service is often paid to Moore's work. It is frequently referred to, but
it is used as a collection of examples which are actually interpreted in the light of the
very different works of Bousset and Billerbeck. See E.P. Sanders, op.cit. 33 ff.
23 Cf. already Loisy, Galates 133 and passim; Parkes, Jesus; id., Judaism; id., Foundations; Odeberg, Pharisaism 16 ff.; Sjiiberg, Gatt, esp. 154-169,184-190,261-264;
F ..C. Grant, Judaism 19 f., 23 f. etc.: id., 'Prolegomenon' xvii-xix. Recently J. Maier,
'Gesetz' 77-79,175 f. etc.; id., 'Uberlieferungen' 60; Ch. Klein, Theologie; Ruether,
Faith 62; Hruby, 'Gesetz' 49 ff.; Howard, 'Christ' 331 ff.; id., Crisis 75; Maher,
'Yoke'; Liihrmann, Glaube 39 ff.; Nickelsburg, Review of Klein; Mussner, Traktat
37-45; Gaston, 'Paul', esp. 51; Luz, 'Gesetz' 45 ff.; Stemberger, Judentum 126 f.,
138 f., 159 f. Longenecker, Paul 66 ff. pleads for a distinction between 'acting legalism' and 'reacting nomism', thus admitting that some currents in Judaism (notably
the Qumran sect) were non-legalist; somewhat similarly J.A. Sanders, 'Torah and
Christ' 385; cf. also Jaubert, Alliance 128 f., 138.
24 Ordnung; the main results are reproduced in a popularized form in Limbeck, Ohnmacht 16-60. Limbeck's insights are taken up and developed in a context of comparative religion by Hoheisel, Judentum. See also Fiedler, Jesus 51 ff., esp. 60-63,
73-75,86-95; Zenger, 'Weisheit'.
25 Paul. Sanders, op.cit. 233 notes that his understanding of Judaism differs from that
of Longenecker (see note 22) in that he regards the notion of 'acting legalism' as a
Christian fiction altogether.
26 Ordnung 63 ff.; Ohnmacht 16 ff. Cf. J. Maier, art.cit. 70 f.
27 See, e.g., Ordnung 79-84; Ohnmacht 28-34.
28 Ordnung 173 (with n. 218).
29 Ordnung 193.

The meaning of the antithesis

167

God wanted to grant him' .30 Observance of the 'ritual' commandments witnessed to the aspiration to realize communion with God by respecting the
God~ven commandments about circumcision, sabbath and ritual purity.
Far from being tokens of legalism, these requirements expressed only 'the
forms, by the aid of which the individual affirmed his calling by God and
sought to take seriOUsly and to preserve the membership of the community
offered by God,.3! One can speak here of 'the effort, carried to an extreme,
to appropriate consistently a divine offer of grace,.32 The law was not 'an
end in itself. 33
.E.P. Sanders devotes most of his attention to the Tannaitic literature, but
he also studies the Dead Sea Scrolls and several apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings (Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, IV
Ezra).34 He finds in these writings a common soteriological pattern which he
calls 'covenantal nomism'. This can be briefly defined as 'the view that one's
place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the
covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression,.35 The
centrality of the covenant means, in fact, that the law was not understood as.
a means of salvation at all. We will, however, postpone a discussion of this
important point to the next section. Here it is sufficient to take note of Sanders's explicit intention 'to destroy the Weberian view which has proved so
persistent in New Testament scholarship'. 36 That is, he argues that the 'view
that Rabbinic religion was a religion oflegalistic work-righteousness in which
a-man was saved by fulfilling more commandments than he committed transgressions' is 'completely wrong': 'it proceeds from theological presuppositions and is supported by systematically misunderstanding and misconstruing
passages in Rabbinic literature'. 37 On the contrary, Judaism 'kept grace and
works in the right perspective, did not trivialize the commandments of God
and was not especially marked by hypocrisy,.38 One may have to allow for
30 Op.cit. 194.
31 Ohnmacht 44 f. Cf. J. Maier, art.cit. 69 f. etc. on the 'sacramental' function of the
(holistically understood) Torah.
32 Hoheisel, op.cit. 173.
33 Thus the title of a chapter in Limbeck, Ohnmacht 40-52.
34 Tannaitic literature: op.cit. 33-238; The uead Sea Scrolls: op.cit. 239-328; Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: op.cit. 329-428.
35 Op.cit. 75. For a fuller summary see 180 f. and 422.
36 Op.cit. 234.
37 Op.cit. 233.
380p.cit. 427. That Matt 23 represents a polemic caricature of the Pharisees is nowadays generally recognized; see, e.g., Kiimmel, 'Weherufe'. It is less often realized that
the Pharisee in Luke 18 represents a 'characteristic caricature' rather than a characteristic product of the Jewish religion; so Montefiore, Gospels 11 556; correctly
Schottroff, 'Erzlihlung' 448 ff.

168

V. Works and faith

more actual distortions of the religious ideals of Judaism among its adherents
than Sanders does;39 this, however, is irrelevant to his main thesis. As he
rightly points out, 'the frequent Christian charge against Judaism ... is not
that some individual Jews misunderstood, misapplied and abused their religion, but that Judaism necessarily tends towards petty legalism, self-serving
and self-deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and lack of confidence in God'. But, says Sanders, 'the surviving Jewish literature is as free of
these characteristics as any I have ever read,.40
Whereas Sanders has been criticized by other experts in Rabbinics for
imposing the pattern of Paul's religious expression on Tannaitic sources, even
the harshest critic has admitted that the thesis of 'covenantal nomism' is a
'wholly sound' and 'self-evident' proposition and in this regard the work is 'a
complete success,.41 That is: regardless of how other aspects of Sanders'
work will stand the test, with respect to the topics relevant to Paul's treatment of the. law he has made his point.
When, therefore, the Jewish religion of Paul's day is allowed to speak for
itself, the notion of it as perverted anthropocentric legalism turns out to be a
vici~ caricature. The question is, then, whether it is Paul himself or merely
his latter-day interpreters who should be blamed for this distortion of Judaism. Does Paul suggest that behind the Jews' zeal for the law (Rom 10.2)
lurks the arrogant and boastful desire to show off, or is this just a misinterpretation of his intention?
This question can be put in another way: is Paul's critical attitude to the
Torah rooted in anthropology or in Christology? In the former case the
trouble with the law is that in his attempt to fulfil it, man goes astray in the

39 Jewish scholars are indeed more willing than Sanders to admit actual distortions of
the religious ideals; cf. Montefiore,.op.cit. 34 f., 153 ff.; Schechter, op.cit. 169;
Werblowsky, 'Tora' 159.
Interestingly enough, however, both John the Baptist before Paul (Mt 3.7 ff. par)
and Justin Martyr after him (Dial 44.1-2, 25.1,102.6,141.2-3 and, in particular,
140.1-2) regard as a typical fault of the Jews their exaggerated trust on the covenant and the sonship of Abraham - as does Paul himself in Rom 2! It seems that this
kind of distortion of the religious ideal was the more characteristic one. 'If anything,
Judaism erred on the side of over-emphasizing the free grace of God, his infinite
loving-kindness (if this be error!) and in consequence made forgiveness much too
simple and too easy to obtain.' F .C. Grant,Judaism 64.
40 Sanders, op.cit. 427. This point remains unaffected, when Sanders is criticized (in
itself perhaps rightly) for disregarding the difference between religious writings and
lived religion. Thus Murphy.()'Connor, Review 123; Horbury, 'Paul' 116 f.
41 Neusner, 'Judaisms' 177, 180; id., 'Use' 47,50 (where 'complete' is omittedJ:-Gf~--!he
roughly analogous evaluations.in the reviews by Dahl (155, 157), Saldarini (299~
Brooke (248) and King; cf. also Hartman, 'Bundesideologie' 105. As for the criticisms
put forward by Neusner and others, see Sanders's important reply 'Puzzling out',
esp. 70 ff.

The meaning of the antithesis

169

direction of boasting and arrogance. The most prominent advocate of this

interpretation is, of course, Bultmann.42 In the latter case the fault with the
law is that the unbelieving Jews prefer it to Christ, putting the Torah in the
place that God has reserved for Christ. 43
Bultmann emphasizes that the will to obtain salvation by obeying the law
is sin (as an expression of man's boasting). Such a desire to show off is a
characteristic of human nature in general; Jewish legalism stands in Paul's
writing for something universally typical of natural man. Reading Bultmann,
one gets the impression that zeal for the law is really more damaging than
transgression. Bultmann's key texts are Rom 3.27,4.2 ff., 7.7 ff., 10.2-3 and
Phil 3.4 ff.
Strikingly enough, passages from Galatians are absent from this list! No
wonder, for in this letter, where Paul mounts his most vehement attack on
the way of the law there is absolutely no polemic against man's boasting and
the like. Paul does not criticize the Galatians for giving room for boasting, but
simply for turning away from Christ (while contemplating circumcision). 44
The decisive statement appears in 2.21: if salvation comes by law, then Christ
died in vain!45 The issue is: either the law or Christ, not: either boasting or
faith. The theme 'boasting' only occurs in Galatians in 6.4,13,14. The analysis of these verses shows that the (Bultmannian) idea that 'renunciation of
glorying before God belongs inseparably to the self-understanding of one who
believes in Christ' is missing in Galatians. 46 Gal 6.4 'is remarkable because it
condemns neither works nor boasting.'47
It is noteworthy that the statements against the law are situated in a context where the freedom of Paul's non-Jewish converts from the law, especially
its 'ritual' precepts, is at stake (2.14-21; 3.8). In 3.8 Paul even stresses that,
according to Scripture, God justifies the Gentiles by faith.

42 See especially Bultmann, Theology 259 ff. (cf. 281 f., 340 ff.); id., Glauben n, 32 ff.;
id., 'Romam 7'. Cf., however, already Kiihl, 'Stellung' 121, 136, 145 f. Gulin,
Freude 160 states bluntly that, in religious terms, 'the law was sin'. A popularized
version with a psychoanalytical accent is found in Scroggs, Paul.

43 Cf. Mundle, Glaubembegriff 109-111; van DUlrnen, theologie 174 ff., 251 ff.;
Wilckens, Rechtfertigung 94, 99 f., 102,108 f.; Limbeck, Ohnmacht 90; LUhrmann,
Galater 44 f.; Hoheisel,Judentum 195 f., 206; Raisanen, 'Legalism' 66-72. Sanders's
position in his book was slightly ambiguous (cf. Raisanen, art.cit. 72), but in a
subsequent work he has modified it (Law 59 n. 77) and represents now an unambiguously christological view. Against Bultmann's interpretation of 'boasting' also
Luck, 'Jakobusbrief 169 f.
,44 Sanders, Paul 482 ff.; cf. Howard, Crisis 75 f.
45 Gal 2.21 is hardly discussed at all by Bultmann in his Theology.
46 HUbner, Gesetz 91. HUbner, to be sure, thinks that in Galatians Paul does not yet
offer the view he is going to set forth in Romans.
47 Tyson, 'Works' 429.

170

V. Works and faith

Again, there is no indication of the Bultmannian type of criticism of the

law in Rom 2.1-3.20. In this passage the Jews are charged for transgressing
the law rather than for trying to keep it. 48
To make Rom 7.7 ff. to speak for his view, Bultmann has to make two
untenable assumptions. 49 First, he interprets the crucial term emf}vp.La in
7.7 f. in a rather curious way as a perverted desire to fulfil the requirements
of the law, whereas the only natural understandin~ is to take emf}vp.ia here as
elsewhere as the desire to do what is forbidden. 0 Secondly, he denies that
7.15 H. describes an empirically observable moral conflict within man, resorting to an artificial 'transsubjective' interpretation. 51 On a more natural reading, Rom 7 speaks against Bultmann's view.
It is, moreover, notable that in Rom 8.7 f. the enmity of the man in the
'flesh' against God is described in terms that are far from suggesting a Bultmannian understanding of the law: it is an expression of the 'mind of the
flesh' that man refuses to be 'subjected under God's law', thus being unable
to 'please God'. There is thus nothing wrong in trying to please God by obeying his law; quite the contrary.
It is doubtful whether Rom 3.27 speaks of 'boasting' as the general human
attitude outside the dominion of Christ. In this connection, boasting must
surely be connected with the boasting of the possession of the law, mentioned in 2.17, 23.52 In itself, the Jew's boasting of the law is not to blame.
In a parallel statement (Rom 2.17) Paul also speaks of boasting of God, which
is all right (cf. 1 Cor 1.31). It is transgression of the law that is condemned.
But since the Jew, according to Rom 2, actually transgresses the law, he has no
more reason to boast over its possession.
'Boasting' has in Rom 3.27 above all to do with the special status of the
Jews, not with man's innate pride. All men are sinners, including the Jews
(3.20, 22, 23). God has given, in the death of Christ, all men a chance of
being saved apart from the law (3.21-26); thus the way to salvation is open
to Gentiles as well. The aorist form of the predicate verb in 3.27 (e~"Aeiaf}1'/)
is to be noted. 'Boasting' has been excluded by an once-and-for-all act of
God. The exclusion is thus an objective event. But then 'boasting', too, must
refer to something more concrete than man's general attitude - such an
attitude was hardly shut out once and for all through the 'principle' (vop.oc;) of
48 See above, III 2; cf. against Bultmann also Roloff, Testament 157.
49 Note that Bultmann introduces the idea of one's 'own' righteousness into the message
of this section from Rom 10.2 and Phil 3.
50 See Raisanen, 'Gebrauch', and above, p. ill f.
51 See above, p. 111 f.
52 Cf. Wilckens, op.cit. 94; Simchez-Bosch, Gloriarse 137 f., 145 ff. Justin (Dial.1D2.6),
too, connects the charge that the Jews are 'puffed up with pride' with their boasting
of their race, their reliance on being descendants of Abraham, and their transgression
of the law.

The meaning of the antithesis

171

faith.53 The reference must rather be to the special status of the Jews which
caused them to boast over the law. Because of the new situation created by
God there is no point in being proud of the law and clinging to a system that
prevents intercourse with Gentiles (cf. Gal 2.15 f.). The point of Rom 3.2730 is, as v. 29 f. emphatically states, the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of
God. 54 Having stated that a man is justified 'without works of the law',
Paul goes on by asking in 3.29 the rhetorical question: 'Or does God belong
to the Jews alone? Does he not belong to the Gentiles, too? Surely he does ... '
Thus works of the law are something that separates the Jew from the Gentile,
and not(ag~nst Bultmann) something characteristic of man in general.55
In Rom 4.2, /(aVxf/lla refers to an 'objective' ground for boasting (cf. Gal
6.4), rather than to an attitude. Had Abraham really been justified by works,
then he would have had a reason to boast about the law. But as this was not
the case, as already v. 2b indicates,56 there was nothing to boast about;
the point is the same as in 3.27. The Jew is no better off than the Greek.
Paul does not say that, had Abraham tried to be justified by works, then his
attitude would have been that of one who boasts. The argument is that one
could well boast of the law, if one could in fact be justified by it. Since this is
(for Paul, by defmition!) not the case, no boasting!
The verses that would seem to best lend themselves to a Bultmannian
interpretation are Rom 4.4-5. They apparently refer to the attitude of one
who tries to earn salvation by his own merits, expecting to receive his 'reward'
(lJ.Lui}/JC:) according to them. Yet Paul does not say that the real fault with the
one who 'works' would be that he boasts of his accomplishments. He does
not attack the notion of a reward either. The Christian, too, expects a reward,
if only by grace. It is questionable whether one shoUld seek in these verses
more than Paul's usual axiom of the place of the law as a way to salvation in
Judaism: within the framework of the law one is saved according to works
done. Paul's real point in the passage is the surprising chance given by God to
the p.1i Ep'Ya~6p.ev~: no works of the law are required of the Gentile!S7
In the context there are indeed clear hints to the fact that it is the problem

53 See Riiisanen, 'Gesetz' and above, 11 2.

54 Cf. Sanders, op.cit. 489 f.; Schmithals,R6merbriefl5.
55 If human hybris were meant, this would be something common to Jew and Gentile.
56 Sanday-Headlam and Lietzmann interpret v. 2b: Abraham did have something to '
boast of, yet only before men, not before God. With respect to the 'YQp in the next
verse, however, it seems better to take 2b as a rebuttal of 2a: Abraham was not
justified before God by works; thus Barrett, Kiisemann, Jervell.
57 I cannot fmd in the context any hints to the effect that the talk of God's justifying
the ungodly (a.aEf3Ti~) in 4'.5 alludes to Paul's Damascs experience (thus Kim, Origin
287 f.; cf. also Hengel, Geschichtsschreibung 73). The 'ungodly' is here one who is
not able to produce the 'works' in question; it is not suggested that he is a zealous
legalist. On Rom 4.4 see esp. Sanders, Law 35.

172

V. Works and faith

of the relation between Jews and Gentiles that stands behind this whole discussion. Having made the statement about the one who 'works' and the one
who does not, Paul confirms his assertion with a proof from Scripture: the
man to whom God 'counts righteousness without work~' is blessed (v. 6-8,
quoting Ps. 31.1 f.). The next step in the argument is noteworthy. Far from
explicating the allegedly meritorious character of the works or the boasting
of him who works, Paul introduces instead the question whether the blessed
man of his quotations is circumcised or not (v. 9). This is the real issue.
The formulation of the question is surprising. Paul asks whether the blessedness pertains to the circumcised alone 58 or also (1/ Kat!) to the uncircumcised. This is paralleled by v. 11-12: Abraham became 'the father of circumcision' not only to the circumcised but also to those who have faith in their
state of uncircumcision. Paul is not developing an argument against the Jews
here at all; he is, instead, arguing for the inclusion of the Gentiles. The same
emphasis is manifest in 4.16. This verse makes clear what Paul was aiming at
throughout the passage: salvation is by faith and the promise is by grace, in
order that it would benefit all the seed of Abraham and not only the one eK
TOO VOjlOV. Throughout the passage Paul, surprisingly perhaps, presupposes
that the promises do belong to the circumcised; he only wants to show that
they do not pertain to them alone. 59 The new order of things is based on
faith, in order that it would be based on grace - that is, in order that Gentiles, too, could be included in the people of God. Instead of setting forth a
purely dogmatic thesis about justification, Paul is arguing all the time for the
inclusion of the Gentiles. 60 When he in this connection inserts a negative
comment on the law, he does not say: the law brings about boasting! He says:
the law brings about wrath (4.15), for without law there is no transgression,
and transgressing the law incurs the threat of punishment.
Far too much weight has often been placed upon the sentence 'in order
that no flesh may boast before God' (1 Cor 1.29).61 This clause was not
formulated by Paul to express a general soteriological principle to the effect
that 'boasting' is the root of the evil as regards man's relation to God. The
verse has instead a very concrete relationship to the Corinthian schism. What
the rejection of human wisdom in 1.26-31 really is all about becomes

58 The reading rTiv 1reptTo/Lilv /Lovov f! Kal (D), though secondary, correctly stresses the
point.
59 The point is missed by Kilsemann when he states that Paul is speaking of Christians in
general in a careless way. Correctly Jervell. For a recent treatment of the expressions
see Mussner, 'Samen'.
60 Cf. Sanders, Paul 489 f.; id., Law ms 32-36; van Diilmen, op.cit. 174 n. 50;
Schmithals, op.cit. 16.
61 E.g. Bultmann, Kavxao/Lat 649; Klisemann on Rom 3.27; cf. Fung, 'Justification'
249.

The meaning of the antithesis

173

perfectly clear in 3.18-4.7: the Corinthians must not boast of some human
teachers (like Apollos) to the exclusion of others (read: Paul! 3.21-23,
4.6-7).3.21 corresponds to 1.29: let no one boast of men (i.e., of Apollos)!
Clearly the activities of Apollos in Corinth had caused tensions and difficulties which Paul discreetly tries to clear away. He avoids anything that
might be interpreted as a break with Apollos and his supporters; nevertheless,
the talk of building of worthless stuff in ch. 3 is a clear reference to the work
of Apollos.62 Thus, the warning of boasting has a paraenetic or communal
rather than soteriological function; this is also true of Rom 11.17 f. The
warning of boasting is not offered as a theme of missionary preaching, but as
an attempt to solve concrete problems concerning communal life in the
church. 63
Moreover, one has to bear in mind that Paul himself does not boast only
62 On the reflection of the tension between Paul and Apollos in l' Cor 3-4 see Haenchen, Apg 532 f.; R.M. Grant, 'Wisdom' 55; Pearson, Terminology 18; Ollrog,Paulus
215-219; HorsIey, 'Wisdom' 237, cf. 231 f. HorsIey, however, overemphasizes the
role played by sophill in Corinth, making it a soteriological factor. Obviously, Paul's
trouble was caused by the effects of Apollos' preaching in Corinth, quite possibly
contrary to the intentions of Apollos himself (cf. Ollrog, op.cit. 217 f.).
For a rather plausible attempt to explain 1 Cor 1-4 (esp. 2.6-16) on the basis
of Alexandrian thought (akin to that of Philo), represented by Apollos, see Pearson,
op.cit. 27 ff. Apollos was uo.pa<; and imparted UOI{Jla to his hearers, he was also good
at 'words'. He had caused some Corinthians to feel superior to others and boast
(Kavxau"at) of the divine (allegorical?) mysteries revealed to them by Apollos
(pneumatic revelations to pneumatics). Paul's position is weakened in that he lacks
'wisdom of words' (1.17). This is why Paul inserts in 1.18 ff. a discussion of aOI{Jla
(and 6uva~,,<;) vs. IJ.Wpla. He is not here concerned with general soteriological truth;
rather, he has a paraenetical and apologetic aim. It is not some 'wise' Greeks outside
the congregation who are his targets (pace 1.26), it is the 'wise' within the congregation. This is clear from 3.18(et Tt<; 60Ke;; uOI{Jo<; elvatev ulJ.W ev T/fialwvt TOUTIf.') and
3.21 (let no one boast of men). 1 Cor 2 makes up Paul's apology because of his lesser
sophill. At fust (2.1-4) he states that it was not his purpose in the fust place to display wisdom, but rather give an luro6ettt" 1rVeVIJ.aTO", display God's power (there is
tension between this train of thought and Paul's critique of ulllJ.eia in ch. 1; cf. the
talk of the signs of an apostle in 2 Cor 12 and Rom 15). In 2.6 ff. Paul shifts his
ground: he, too, teaches wisdom - but not to anybody! (This argument, again,
stands in tension to the critique of wisdom in ch. 1.) In 3.1 ff. Paul, in the course of
his apology pro domo, moves into attack: he could not speak 'wisdom', because the
Corinthians would not have borne it. In 3.4 ff. he tries to play down Apollos' influence, and still in 4.15 Apollos may be meant when Paul, slightly derogatorily, speaks
of a 1ra!6a'YW'YO". Nevertheless, 16.12 shows that Paul does not oppose Apollos himself. It is just that he fmds himself in a delicate situation: enthusiastic followers of
Apollos have caused disturbance in the congregation, and as far as human capacities
are concerned, Paul feels inferior to his rival. For a somewhat different reconstruction, which does not contradict the conclusion that communal rather than theological problems are here Paul's main concern, see Dahl, Studies 40 ff.
63 Cf. Sanchez-Bosch, op.cit. 133.

174

V. Works and faith

when he is 'forced' to do so (2 Cor 11-12). He also has right and acceptable

objects of boasting (like a congregation, 2 Cor 1.12-14, or even his own way
of life, 2 Cor 1.12, 14!). There is nothing wrong with boasting, when it
happens 'in the Lord' (1 Cor 1.31). All in all, 'boasting' cannot be construed
as the true Pauline antithesis to faith in Christ.
The Jews' establishment of their own righteousness (Rom 10.3) is, in the
light of the context, identical with their rejection of Christ. God has made
Christ the only true way to salvation, but Israel stubbornly insists on an antiquated (or simply wrong?) system, that of the law. There is no talk of relying
on one's own merits, still less of boasting of one's works. The Jews just do
not understand (d'YVDOVVT<;' , v. 2) that a new age has begun, or that in the
light of the Christ-event the old system has shown itself as false. 64
Undoubtedly Rom 9.32a is also to be understood from this point of view.
Paul there explains why Israel has not 'attained at the law' (v. 31),i.e. understood what the law is all about and thus received the blessing promised in it,
although she has been pursuing the 'law of righteousness' .65 Why? Because
she pursued it66 'not on the basis of faith but as on the basis of works'. At
first glance one might be tempted to interpret this pursuit of the law K
rriaTw<;, as an attitude of humble trust toward the old law, expected of Israel
through the ages;67 instead, Israel had, on this interpretation, sought to come
to terms with God's law 'on the basis of their works, their deserving, cherishing the illusion68 that th~ could so fulfil its demands as to put God under an
obligation to themselves' 9 - an 'illusory quest' resulting in 'imprisonment in
one's own self-centredness'.1 Verse 32a is, however, immediately followed
and explained by 32b-33 which shows that the main reason for the Jews'
unbelief is a Christological one: Christ is the 'stumbling-stone,71 over which
they stumble. The theme of 'believing' recurs in the quotation v. 33 (0
rrWTVWV rr' aiJT<iJ DV KaTaWXVV~aTaL). Clearly K rriaTw<;, should be
taken in v. 32 in the normal Christological sense of the expression: here as
elsewhere it denotes faith in Christ. 'The question here is why the Jews stand
outside the Messianic salvation; the question whether and why the Jews in the
64 Cf. van Diilmen, op.cit. 177 f.
65 See above, II 3.
66 The verb is correctly supplied by Cranfield, RO/'7l4ns 508 f.
67 The point is elaborated by Cranfield, op.cit. 510.
68 The Wr; is correctly interpreted by Cranfield as 'underlining the illusory character'
of Israel's quest; similarly Sanday-Headlam, Iletzmann; Blaser, Gesetz 176; Kasemann,Romans 278.
69 Cranfield; cf. Michel; Fuller, Gospel 84.
70 Cranfield; cf. Kasemann, Schlier.
71 Meyer, 'End' 64 offers the startling proposal that the rock placed by God in Zion is
the Torah. Does he also hold (cf. 68) that Rom 10.11 refers to the law, or that the
'Lord'in 10.12-13 is not Christ?

The meaning of the antitheris

175

time llefore Christ have not attained righteousness is not being discussed
here.;n
In v. 32a Pa.ul simply states his basic axiom: 'faith' (in Christ) and 'works'
are contrary principles of salvation. When the OT is read .as a testimony to
Christ, one is setting himself on the path of faith. If, on the other hand, one
rejects the OT testimony to Christ (along with the apostolic preaching about
him), one rejects also the salvation offered in Christ and thus, by definition,
clings to the system of 'works' (of the law). The character of the works or
man's attitude to them is not reflected on. This interpretation of 9.32 and
10.3 is reinforced by the fact that these statements are embedded in a larger
context where Paul is concerned with the Jews' (for him) inexplicable stubbornness in refusing to accept Christ.
The classic statement about Christ as the end of the law in 10.4 is actually
not offered by Paul as a thesis, but as a ground ('Yap) for the implicit assumption that Israel ought to give up her 'own' righteousness. That is, the 'own
righteousness' is implicitly defmed, as it were, as the opposite of faith in
Christ. Note further that the 'speech' of the 'righteousness offaith' in 10.5 ff.
is interpreted by Paul through explicitly Christological explanati<;>ns (the
TOOT' onv-clauses in verses 6-7).
In accordance with this, Paul further emphasizes in 10.4: Christ's putting.
an end to the law as the gateway to salvation means that righteousness is
available to everyone who believes. Paul is here concerned with the relation
between Israel and Gentiles. The problem of Israel was taken up in the beginning of ch. 9, and in 9.24 ff. the Gentile Christians entered the picture (cf. in
particular 9.24 KaAUW TOV oV Aaav IJ.OV Aaav IJ.OV; 9.30 'Gentiles not striving
after righteousness have acquired righteousness'.)One should further note the
talk of 'everyone who believes' in 10.11, of the lack of any distinction between Jew and Greek in 10.12, and the statement that Christ is 'the Lord of
all', in whose name 'all ... will be saved' (10.12-13). Once again, the inclusion
of Gentiles into the people of God is the real point Paul wants to make. 73
According to Bultmann, Paul condemns in Phi!. 3.4 ff. 'his earlier zeal for

72 Bliiser, op.cit. 176; cf. Wilckens; Buber, Zwei Glaubensweisen 50. Cf. the talk of the
'coming of the faith' in Gal 3.23, 25 (,faith' is possible only after the comfug of
Christ!) as well as the use of" 'trlane; in Gal 1.23. Israel's rejection of the law and her
rejection of Christ are therefore not 'two rejections' (thus Fuller, Gospel 84) but one!
Cf. also Zeller,Juden 190 f.
73 The context does not h)dicate that Paul is speaking of 'the tragedy of Israel in the
light of his conversion experience' (thus Kiln, Origin 4). For a contextual analysis of
Rom 9.3.0-10.13 see now E.P. Sanders, lAw 36-42. He concludes that 'their own
righteousness' means 'that righteousness which the Jews alone are privileged to
obtain'; it 'is not characterized as being self-righteousness, but rather as being the
righteousness which is limited to followers of the law' (38).

176

V. Works and faith

the law and his fulftllment of it' .74 But this cannot be the case. Paul does not
condemn his previous blamelessness. He is, on the contrary, rather proud of
it (v. 4a)! Only, he brands it as blamelessness 'according to the law' and as his
'own righteousness, coming from the law', which is nothing in comparison
with the union with Christ. From the new view-point 'in Christ' all previous
values can be branded as 'flesh'. This is analogous to the juxtaposition of the
vanishing glory of Moses and his ministry with the permanent glory of the
ministry of Christ in 2 Cor 3. 75
In summary: for Paul, the Jews err in imagining that they can be saved by
keeping the law rather than by believing in Christ. The root of evil lies in a
Christological failure, not in an anthropological one. It may be too much to
exclude all overtones of the idea of anthropocentric legalism e.g. in Rom 4.4.
Paul may have seen some tendency toward smugness and self-righteousness
in the Jewish way. But if so, this was a by-product, not the underlying error.
It is striking how often the polemics against law as the way to salvation are
found in a context where the question of the inclusion of the Gentiles is the
most important problem (Gal 2-3, Rom 3-4, Rom 9-10). It is above all in
this connection that Paul underscores that faith in Christ is the only 'pre-

74 'Romans' 149.
75 Cf. Sanders, Paul 550f.; id., Law 44f. Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 182f. claims that Paul
came upon his view of the justification of the impious as an immediate consequence
of his call experience: in his zeal for the Torah Paul had opposed God's decision to
effect reconciliation without the Torah. He takes Phil. 3.4-11 as an account of Paul's
call interpreted as an event where an impious one is justified without works of the
law. Now Paul is not describing his call experience in PhiI3.4-11. Rather, he alludes
briefly to its decisive significance and then gives a short description of his Christian
existence which grew out of it. Verse 9 - the statement on Paul's 'own righteousness',
- stands out in its context, both syntactically and terminologically. In it, Paul moves
from 'participationist' to 'juridical' language in interpreting his conversion. Strecker
(Eschaton 237) infers that Paul did not originally interpret his call in the language of
the 'doctrine' of justification. This conclusion is reinforced by Gal 1.10-17, where
'justification' vocabulary is conspicuously lacking. According to Gal 1.16, Paul's
vision resulted in an awareness of the missionary task among Gentiles. This indicates
that the crucial issue on which he changed his mind was the main obstacle to efficient
Gentile mission: circumcision and what went with it. The context (Gal 1.10-14,
2.1-10) also points in the same direction. Paul comes to mention his call precisely
because he has been accused, in Galatia, of wishing to 'please men' in not demanding
the circumcision of Gentile converts (1.10). The gospel he received (1.11f.) was a
'gospel of un circumcision (2.7) which he successfully defended in the Jerusalem meeting
(Gal 2.1-10). Phi13.2-8 complements the picture: one could only become an apostle
to Gentiles if one gave up the Jewish covenantal privileges: pride of one's Jewish origin,
one's zeal for the law, the demand of circumcision (and the kosher laws which went
along with it). For a fuller discussion of Gal1.12ff and Phil 3.4 ff, see H. Rliisiinen,
The Torah and Christ (PFES 45, Helsinki 1986), 63-73; id., 'Paul's Conversion and
the Development of his View of the Law',NTS 33,1987.

The Jewi8h gateway to 8alvation

177

requisite'forman's salvation. Even for the Gentiles, who cannot produce

the works required by the law, the way to salvation has been opened by God:
faith in Christ is enough.
In the light of the above discussion it is easy to decide what Paul means by
'works of the law' (Gal 2.15 f., 3.2-5,3.1 0-12 etc.). The reference is not to
'self-chosen' works accomplished with the purpose of acquiring a reason for
boasting.16 The. 'works of law' are simply the works demanded by the
Torah. 77 They are the works which, if demanded of the Gentiles, would actually exclude them from the union with Christ. 78

3. The notion a/the law as the Jewish gateway to salvation

We have rejected the notion that, for Paul, Jewish Torah-piety was an
expression of human pride, or that he thought of the Jewish religion as dead
formalism. It was not for that reason that Paul attacked the law. He attacked
it, however, as the Jewish gateway to righteousness. Observance of the law
need not necessarily lead to boasting {rather, it leads - according to Paul -

76 Fuller, G08pel 96 f. and 'Paul' 36 pleads for such a meaning referring to 11 Bar 48.38
'and walked every man in his own works'. Yet 2 Bar is speaking of evil works, not of
one's 'own righteousness'; cf. 48.40, IV Ezra 3.8. A curious interpretation of 'works
of the law' is proposed by M. Barth, 'Stellung' 509 f.: 'Solche Werke verrichtenjene
Menschen, welche eine minim ale Anzahl von Vorschriften ... auslesen.'
77 Thus, e.g., Mundle, Glaubembegriff 100; Duncan, Galatiam 65; Liihrmann, Galater
43 f. Specifications are unnecessary, ~o e.g. that of Barrett: 'works done in obedience
to the law and regarded as, in themselves, a means of justification' (Romam 70).
In the thought of Paul, of course, the phrase, in the last analysis, takes on this nuance,
as he postulates that the 'works oflaw' constitute a rival way to righteousness.
78 This is argued in a short but perceptive article by Tyson ('Works'). He summarizes
some of his findings concerning the phrase iip-ya vOJ,LOV in Galatians: '(1) "Works of
law" refers specifically to a life dedicated to nomistic service; it is not to be confused
with human deeds of a possibly meritorious quality. (2) Nomistic service is primarily
associated with circumcision and food laws.' (431) These 'served as signs of exclusivism and separation'. 'In the death (sc. of Jesus), God has opened the door to Gentiles and Jews and consequently must say no to nomistic service as a condition of
existence.' (431) The expression 'nomistic service' is a rendering of 'Dienst des
Gesetzes', the phrase coined by Lohmeyer,Probleme 66 f. The English designation is
better, as it can be understood as meaning 'nomistic service to God'. Lohmeyer, op.
cit. 66, thought of service rendered to the law, which is wrong. - For the focusing on
circumcision and laws of purity in this connection see Mundle, op.cit. 103; Lull,
Spirit 29 f., 55; and alreadyWernle, Chri8t 84.
In Rom 9.11 f., 11.6 Paul uses the formula 'not by works' in a new context,
where it is no longer a question of the law or of justification, but of election__ The
problem is no longer the inclusion of Gentiles, but the hardening of Israel. These statements (where the notion of human boasting plays no part) fall outside the scope of
the present discussion. See Riiislinen, 'Romer 9-11', ANRW 11,25,4 (1987).

178

V. Works and faith

to an occupation with the killing letter, 2 Cor 3.6, Rom 7.6), but the law had
nevertheless a soteriological function (or so Paul implies). Paul ascribes
saving value to the works of the law within the Jewish system (which some
Jewish Christians, as he understood it, attempted to introduce into Christian
congregations). He attributes to the law in the old system a place analogous
to that taken by Christ in the new order of things. One has to choose between
God's grace in Christ and the Torah. Only one of the two can be the true way
to eschatological salvation. To opt for grace means automatically to opt
against the law.
Paul suggests that non-Christian Jews (and wayward Christians) agreed with
him on the goal of religion, which was righteousness, but disagreed on the
means of attaining it: the 'non-believing' Jews tried to achieve righteousness
by works, whereas Paul had realized that it could only be received by grace
through faith. 79
.
Precisely this, however, is the problem: Did the Jews really look for 'righteousness' (in anything like the Pauline sense of the word) in the Torah?
Here the answer must be a clear 'No'. In the words of Werblowsky: ' ... one
thing seems to me fairly sure: It is not "righteousness" that the Jews look for
in the Torah ... One went to the Torah, because one wanted to live his life
as a member of an elect community under God, in thankful acceptance of the
guidance shown by him.'80 Sanders agrees: 'Being righteous is not the goal of
a religious quest; it is the behaviour proper to one Who has accepted the
covenant offered at Sinai and the commandments which followed the acceptance of God's kingship.'81
Actually, the law should not be called (from the Jewish point of view) a
'way of salvation' at all - at least not if by such an expression is meant something comparable to the place taken by Christ in the Christian tradition.
Salvation was understood as God's act. He had elected himself a people and
made a covenant with them. Salvation, i.e. a share in the age to come, was
based 'on God's faithfulness in his covenant. When giving the covenant God
had also given his people the stipulations connected with the covenant - the
Torah, the guidance. The Torah was to be observed by a pious Jew out of
gratitude and obedience to its Giver. In the jargon of NT scholarship one
might say that the law had the status of the 'imperative' which was based on
the 'indicative' of God's prevenient gracious acting. 82 Observance of the law

79 Pace E.P; Sanders, Paul 551; see below, p. 187 f.

80 Werblowsky, 'Tora' 159; cf. Lapide, 'Rabbi' 42 ff.; Flusser, 'Erlebnis' 24 f.
81 Sanders, op.cit. 205.
82 I am using this terminology in the same way as Schulz does (Mitte 188,218 and elsewhere: indicative = 'die Zusage des Heils'). This usage seems to be slightly different
from that of Bultmann who ftrst introduced the terms to the theological discussion
(Exegetica 37 ff.).

The Jewish gateway to salvation

179

was a holistic thing; the point was not a hundred per cent perfection, but the
will to carry the 'yoke of the commandments' and thus to remain within the
framework of the covenant. If one transgressed a commandment, the path of
repentance (teshubah~, totally glossed over by Paul in his polemics, was
always open to him. 3 Repentance is indeed 'the crucial criterion in the
soteriological system of the Tannaim,.84 Salvation could not be gained by
gathering 'merits'; it remained a gift of God. Thus grace and law belong
closely together. 85
This total view of post-Biblical Jewish soteriology is called 'covenantal
nomism' by E.P. Sanders. 86 By obeying the law, man showed his willingness
to stay within the covenant established by God, but he did not 'get in' by
fulfilling the legal requirements. 'Righteousness' is, in Judaism, 'a term which
implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect', whereas it
is a 'transfer term' (to be righteous meaning 'to be saved by Christ') in
Paul. 87 As a pupil of Sanders~uts it, 'being righteous is a necessary but not
sufficient ground for salvation'. 8
There may be an overemphasis on covenantal categories in Sanders' work.
Many Jews paid attention to God's prevenient activity without resorting to
covenant language, e.g. by paying attention to how the divine order of creation is reflected in human affairs (e.g. Jub, 1 Enoch).89 For my present purpose the point is simply that the theme of gratuity with regard to salvation is
conspicuously present in Judaism.
In addition to the Tannaitic texts, Sanders finds the same pattern everywhere in the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls 90 as well
(with one exception, to be mentioned shortly). Quite consistently 'election
and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than
human achievement'.9 1 From the consistency with which covenantal nomism
83 Cf. on this especially Montefiore, Judaism 75 f.
84 Przybylski, Righteousness 51; cf. ibid. 76.
85 See esp. Werblowsky, art.cit.; Hruby, 'Gesetz' 49 ff.
86 For a definition see above, p. 167.
87 Sanders, op.cit.544.
88 Przybylski, op.cit. 51,52. Cf. also Sloyan, Christ 93: for the rabbis of the Tannaitic
period the law 'was not the means of salvation'; Gaston, 'Paul' 51.
89 Cf. Limbeck, Ordnung.
90 For the 'soteriology' of Qumran cf. Garnet, Salvation (esp. 36,56,115 ff.). His conclusion: 'Salvation is a work of God and manifests his power, love and justice.' (115)
Obedience is 'a. sine qua non for salvation', but it 'was deemed to be the product of
a work of God in the human heart' (116 f.). Cf. Garnet, 'Light' 19 but see also the
qualifications introduced on pp. 20 ff. Garnet's attempt (art.cit. 22 f.) to refute
Sanders's evaluation of Judaism on the basis of a peculiar interpretation of Gal
2.15 ff. is not convincing at all. It is fanciful to take Gal 2.18 as a reference to Paul's
'destroying Christianity' which he is now building up again (28 f.).
91 Sanders, ibid. 422.

180

V. Works and faith

is maintained in the extant texts from Ben Sira to late in the second century
AD Sanders concludes that covenantal nomism must have been pervasive in
Palestine before AD 70.92
The one exception is, for Sanders, IV Ezra. In this writing the framework
of the covenant has collapsed and one really has to earn one's salvation by
perfect obedience to the law. 93 IV Ezra can, however, hardly come in question as a representative of the Judaism known by Paul. It is so profoundly
marked by the crisis caused by the fall of Jerusalem that 'it may bl! doubted
if its viewpoint could have been held at all had it not been for the difficult
situation of Israel after the war'. 94 In any case, the pessimism of the dialogues
of IV Ezra was corrected by 2 Baruch, if not already by the author of the
concluding vision of IV Ezra itself. 95 Indeed one may ask whether Sanders
has not overemphasized the significance of perfection for IV Ezra. The radicalized view of the obedience required of man would seem to be a device that
is intended to serve the author's theodicy and that alone: contrary to all
appearance God has remained faithful to his covenant; it is themselves men

92 Op.cit. 426. A writing not mentioned by Sanders which might have rendered added
force to his argument is the work ofPseudo-Philo, dated before 70 AD by the editors
of the most recent critical edition (Perrot, 'Introduction' 42 f.; Bogaert, ibid. 74;
Dietzfelbinger, Pseudo-Philo 95 f. sticks to a date between 73 and 132 AD) and quite
possibly of a Palestinian provenance (Perrot, op.cit. 65; Dietzfelbinger, op.cit. 96).
The writing shows signs of Pharisaic influence (Perrot, op.cit. 32; Dietzfelbinger, op.
cit. 91). According to Perrot (p. 31), the book 'nous livre les idees et les themes
les plus vulgarises du Judalsme courant du ler siecle du notre ere'. Pseudo-Philo is
concerned to tell 'the history of the Covenant'. The term 'covenant' is indeed the
key-word of the book, much more so than 'law' which also occurs often enough
(Perrot, op.cit. 44). In the terminology of Sanders, Pseudo-Philo must be called a
prominent representative of covenantal nomism. His is 'a religion of the heart', resembling in many ways that of Deuteronomy ; there is no trace of a 'formalistic or
legalistic mentality' (Perrot, ibid. 44). Perrot's interpretation is that Pseudo-Philo
does not yet represent the legalism that is later to be found in Rabbinic literature.
'Dans toute l'oeuvre on sent vibrer l'ame d'un auteur-prMicateur qui exhorte et console, avertit sans indulgence le pecheur, mais se confie eperdument dans la misericorde de Dieu (15, 7).' (Perrot, op.cit. 44) He is 'the apostle of an internalized religion' (op.cit. 45). In summary, 'C'etait un homme possede par la religion de l'AIliance, une religion ve\iue interieurement, dans la ligne des Prophetes. Voila qui nlhabilite singulierement les scribes du ler siecle, que aucuns voudraient confiner dans
l'exposition minutieuse des regles halakhiques!' (Op.cit. 64). For covenant and law in
Pseudo-Philo see, e.g., LAB 9.7-8,11.1-3,13.10,21.10,23.2,10; 30.7. For a full
list of the covenant passages see index, s.v. Alliance. (Tome 11, 307).
93 Op.cit. 409 ff.
94 Op.cit. 427.
95 So Sanders, op.cit. 416 ff., wishing to modify the results of Harnisch, Verhiingnis
and Breech, 'Fragments'. Should Sanders, however, be incorrect in his analysis of
N Ezra, the result would then be that there are no exceptions to covenantal nomism
in the extant literature.

The Jewish gateway to salvation

181

have to blame for what has happened. 96 God is reliable and will carry out his
salvific plan in the future.
It thus seems that, as far as Palestinian Judaism is concerned, Paul either
(implicitly, at least) gives an inaccurate picture, or else bases his view on 111sufficient and uncharacteristic evidence. Supposing that (contrary to Acts)
Paul spent his youth in the Dispersion 97 , Montefiore and Schoeps have suggested that he does after all give a correct picture of Judaism as known to
him, Le., the religion of the Dispersion, which these scholars take to have
been by far inferior to Palestinian Judaism.98 For various reasons it is very
difficult to uphold this view. 99 Sanders has briefly analyzed Philo's writings
and Joseph and Asenath from the point of view of covenantal nomism. He
concludes that even in these Alexandrian documents this pattern of religion
dominates.1 o0 Thus even the extant texts from the Jewish Diaspora hardly
support the picture given by Pau1. 101 Of course, we know very little of Jewish piety in Asia minor in Paul's time. The possibility cannot therefore be
ruled out that there could have been elements in Paul's earlier experience
with Judaism which would justify his account of it in terms of his personal
history. In that case, Paul's view would be understandable as a generalization

96
97
98
99

Cf. Limbeck, Ordnung 101.

On the question of Paul's background see below, p. 234.
Montefiore,Judaism 81 f., 92 ff.; Schoeps,PauI27-32, 213 ff.
Thus Montefiore came to posit a close connection between 'Hellenistic' and 'Apocalyptic' Judaism and ended up by citing (beside Paul himselD IV Ezra as a characteristic representative of Diaspora J udaism.
On Schoeps see above, n. 14. Werblowsky, 'Paulus' 139, states bluntly but not
without justification: 'To portray Paul as a typical "Dispersion Jew" is sheer nonsense.' It is, furthermore, to-day hardly necessary any more to point out that it is
impossible to draw a clear-cut cultural boundary-line between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism; cf. Hengel, Judentum.
100 'Covenant'. For the apocrypha in general cf. the summary of Marcus, Law 113:
, ... the scrupulous fulfilment of the requirements of the ceremonial law was not
considered sufficient in itself to form the sum of the religious duties of the people'.
101 Sandelin has argued that the Alexandrian wisdom tradition represented by Philo and
especially by Wisdom of Solomon is of a 'strictly nomistic' nature in that 'it emphasizes that man has to fulfil the commands of the Jewish law in order to be saved';
the law is 'a power to righteousness before God' (,Vishetstradition' 152; cf. Auseinandersetzung 84 f.). His main proof is Sap 9.18 ('through Wisdom they have been
saved'). This verse, however, most probably speaks of being rescued from worldly
dangers (correctly Bussmann, Themen 188), as is often the case when aYrELV is used
in Sap (cf. 16.7,18.5,7). Moreover, 9.13-18 is part of the prayer of Solomon in
which the king asks for wisdom to reign over his people; this is not a soteriological
context. No doubt Sap is a 'nomistic' book, but its nomism is patently of a covenantal kind. This is shown most clearly by chs. 10 ff. In these chapters God's acts
(the acts of 'Wisdom') in the history of I-srael (especially in connection with the
Exodus and subsequent events) are emphatically spoken of; cf. also Hartman, 'BUIldesideologie' 104. Salvation comes from God: see, e.g., 11.23 ff., 12.2, 12.19 ff.

182

v.

Works and faith

of a certain individual experience.1 2 This state of affairs is not, however,

very probable.
But what about the Christian 'Judaizers' of Paul's generation? In the
Lucan account of the Apostolic Council the teaching of '~ome' is summarized
in the words: 'Unless you are circumcised ... you cannot be saved.' (Acts
15.1). Along with this statement, we hear of the demand of some Christian
Pharisees (v. 5): 'They must be circumcised, and they must be ordered to
obey the law of Moses.' Was it in view of these Christians, or of those called
in Gal. 2.4 'false brethren'103, that Paul (correctly) formulated his antithesis
between the law and Christ as rival soteriological entities?
Even supposing that Luke's account of the doctrines set forth some half a
century earlier in Antioch is accurate (which is not self-evident )104, Acts 15.1
is far too brief a summary to give us much information about the real views
of the 'Judaizers'. Did they regard all those Gentile Christians who dJd not
accept circumcision as damned? Or did they just hold that, in order to be
integrated with the people of the covenant, the Gentiles would have to
comply with the covenantal regulations, although they could be saved (in the
eschatologicaljudgment) even outside the pale of the covenant proper? Taken
by itself, Acts 15.5 could be understood in the latter sense.105 The Jews had
no generally accepted doctrine of the fate of righteous Gentiles.16 As long
(note the mention of the 'covenants' and 'promises' in v. 21), 15.1 ff.; in a this-worldly
sense also 16.7 ff. In the first part of the book: 3.9,4.15. In this covenantal context
must statements like 6.18c ('keeping the commandments warrants incorruptibility')
- an injunction, moreover, given in an exhortation for regents, Le. in a purely paraenetic context - or 8.17c (in communion with wisdom there is immortality) be
understood: it is a question of the 'imperative' based on the 'indicative'. 'Solomon'
states indeed: 'But I perceived that I would not possess wisdom, unless God gave her
to me' (8.21). On the covenant theme in Sap see further Ziener,Begriffssprache 7897; Jaubert,Alliance 350 ff., esp. 370 ff.
102 That is, no further generalizations regarding, for instance, Christianity's relation to
Judaism could be based on it. 'Judaism' is in itself a vast complex of religious phenom
ena which have thus far been insufficiently distinguished; cf. Neusner, , "Judaism"
after Moore'. For the present thesis it is enough, if it can be shown that large currents
of 'Judaism' put an emphasis on gratuity rather than merits in man's relation to God.
103 It seems probable that we are allowed to connect these people at least ideologically
with the right wing party in the Council; cf. Betz, Gal 90.
104 Loisy, Galates 26 f. thinks that either Acts 15.1 is not to be taken literally (thus
idem, Actes 568) or, more probably, Luke has exaggerated the Judaizing thesis in
Pauline spirit.
105 Neil ad loco interprets v. 5 in a weaker sense than v. 1: v. 5 indicates a question of
admission 'to full fellowship with Jewish Christians' rather than of salvation). He
makes, however, a distinction between the Pharisees of v. 5 and 'the bigots of v. 1'.
Others take v. 5 as an elaboration of v. 1; thus e.g.Conzelmann ad loco
106 See Moore, Judaism I, 325; M. Guttmann, Judentum 168 ff.; Helfgott, Doctrine
140 f. In later times at least the idea became dominant that Gentiles need not become
Jews to receive a share in the eschatological salvation (see Guttmann). The- main-

The Jewish gateway to salvation

183

as these did not become proselytes, no effort was made to impose the Jewish
law upon them. It is difficult, though not impossible, to assume that Jewish
Christians would have represented a stricter view on this point. But even if
they did, they need not have ascribed saving value to the law; they may
merely have pointed out that one cannot be saved outside of God's covenant:
It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of who Paul's opponents e.g. in Galatia and/or in the Apostolic Council really were.1 7 The
most natural view seems now as before to be that they were Jewish Christians
with a rather normal Jewish identity.108 It is they who represent the continuity between the mother religion and the new community. Indeed they
represented an 'entirely understandable' Jewish Christian position. 109
One has full grounds to assume that the earliest Christians (all of them)
understood themselves to be the people of the covenant. Now the sign of the
covenant was,of old, circumcision. Again, the condition of staying in the
covenant was compliance with the Torah as the covenantal law . If the Christians constituted the true Israel, it must have seemed natural to many to
think that Gentilesjoining God's people would do so in the way ordered by
God - the ecstatic experiences of Peter and others with non-circumcised
Gentiles (Acts 10.44 ff., 11.15 ff., 15.8 f.) notwithstanding. Why should
glossolalia, after all, cancel the word of God as revealed in Scripture? Such
misgivings with regard to the practical course taken by the new community in
its attitude to Gentiles represent serious conservatism and need not imply any
kind of 'merit theology'. What was at stake was probably not so much the
question of the fate of the Gentiles as the responsibility and conscience of the
'Judaizers' themselves. 'What right do we have to let this happen, ignoring the
clear words in God's law?', they must have asked. 'Theirs was an entirely
reasonable position, and its great strength was almost certainly the support
which reading the Bible would give it.'l1O At the very least it is easy to

stream of the Talmud opts for this lenient view. 'Indeed, one might almost be tempted to assert that, aceording to Rabbinic teaching, it was easier for a righteous Gentile
to be saved than for a Jew.' Petuchowski, Heirs 142.
107 For recent surveys see Mussner, Gal 11-29 ; Gunther, Opponents; Betz, Gal 5-9.
108 Cf. Betz, op.cit. 7; Liidemann, 'AntipauIinismus'; Lull, Spirit 10 f., 30 ff. On the
tMsis of Munck, Paulus 79-126, adopted by M. Barth, 'St. Paul' 19 f., that the
Judaizing movement was a purely Gentile Christian development see the reviews by
Davies Bultmann and Smith; cf. further Mussner, op.cit. 17.
Mu;sner, 'Wiedergutmachung'makes much of the observation that Paul's opponents were fellow Christians rather than non-Christian Jews, trying to make this point
fertile for a Jewish-Christian dialogue. This, however, does not remove any problems
connected with the battle in Galatians, for the opponents seem to have attacked Paul
precisely because of their Jewish identity (Le., because of their covenantal nornism).
109 Sanders, Law 20. Cf. Andrews, Teaching 38: 'The Judaisers had logic on their side.'
110 Sanders, op.cit 18.

184

V. Works and faith

understand that it was possible and indeed obvious to attack Paul at precisely
those points his opponents seem to have done without subscribing to 'legalist' soteriology based on works, or anything like that. All one needed was the
standard Jewish attitude to God's revelation in Scripture. If you like, it was a
question of 'Biblicism' rather than of 'legalism' .111
Let us approach the problem posed by Paul's implied picture of Jewish
soteriology from another point of view. It may be objected to the above discussion that, all told, however much the mercy and initiative of God may
have been stressed, the law remained after all in Judaism the only way - even
if the way ordained by God - to salvationJ12 It is admittedly extremely
difficult to define what constitutes a 'means of salvation' and what does not;
when the law is a 'way' to salvation and when it is merely a 'guidance'; or to
define when the law functions only as an 'imperative' based on an 'indicative' and When it has a more in dependant status; or to distinguish between
hard 'legalism' and 'covenantal nomism'. Nice distinctions are bound to remain academic. Fortunately they are, in the last analysis, unnecessary. The
important thing is simply to use the same kind of standards when reading the
NT, in particular Paul.
Paul, too, speaks of right behaviour as necessary for salvation. The judgment will still be according to deeds (2 Cor 5.10, cf. Rom 2.1-16). This is no
self-contradiction on his part. As E.P. Sanders puts it, 'It is not at all inconsistent that he expects correct behaviour on the part of those who are in
Christ, nor that he thinks that transgressions on the part of Christians will be
punished. This is in accord with the general Jewish view that election and
salvation are by God's grace, while reward and punishment correspond to
deeds. There is no conflict between God's mercy and his justice, and in fact
on this point Paul is a perfect example of the view which is charqcteristic of
first century Judaism .. .'113

111 No doubt political factors (the worsening of relations between Jews and Gentiles in
Palestine and the 'terror of the Zealots') also played a part - but hardly a decisive
part. Their significance seems to be over-estirnated by Dix, Jew 30 ff.; Reicke,
'Hintergrund'; Suhl, Paulus 15 ff., 72. 01 El( 1repLToll* in Gal 2.12 can hardly refer to
non-Christian Jews, as this theory requires. For a sound assessment of the role of
politicai factors in the formation of the theology of the 'Judaizers' see Becker, Galater
3 f., 23 f., 65, 81. See also Ellis,Prophecy 116 f.; Liidemann,Paulus 101 n. 97.
112 Cf. Byrne, 'Sons' 230 f.
113 Sanders, Law 105f. Cf. Donfried, 'Justification' 102: ' .. the gospel is the means
of salvation - but only if one holds fast to its power, only if one is obedient to its
claim ... When one does not hold fast, when one is not obedient, then one has believed
in vain (1 Cor 152) '" Paul affirms that the man who has received the gospel of
God's gracious mercy by faith and who has been justified through it, will receive the
final gift of salvation at the last judgment. This is purely an act of God's grace which

The Jewi8h gateway to 8alvation

185

According to Paul, salvation has to be 'worked out' with -fear and trembling (Phll 2.12). God is severe toward those who fall away from his kindness
(Rom 11.20-22). In 1 Cor 6.9 Paul threatens the licentious and quarreling
Corinthians by reminding them of the exclusion of the unrighteous (a[jtKOL)
from God's reign. The implication is that the Corinthians risk their salvation
if they continue their bad behaviour (cf. Gal 5.21 b). Gal 6.7, the reminder of
the correspondence between sowing and rearing, likewise implies that 'God
can and will reject disobedient Christians,.l1 1 Cor 10.1-13 strongly warns
against an understanding of baptism as an automatic guarantee of salvation. 115
This passage is remarkable in that in it Paul himself establishes an exact soteriological analogy between the 'fathers' in the wilderness and the Christians.116

the believer will receive if he remains obedient to the gift of God and His Spirit. For
the man who has been justified, but who then makes a mockery of God's gift by his
gross abuse and disobedience, such a one will not receive the gift of salvation at the
last judgment ... Thus the final criterion at the last judgment is, for Paul, not how.
many good works man has performed ... but whether man has held fast and remained
obedient to his new life in Christ.'
See also Fiedler, Je8u8 84: ' ... auch fur Paulus ein aus dem Empfang des Heils im
Glauben gefolgertes Tun "eine conditio sine qua non" ist, im Heil zu bleiben'; Fiedler
also refers to Jesus, 'dessen das Heilsangebot realisierendem Umkehrruf der Forderungscharakter nicht gut abgesprochen werden kann'.
114 Donfried, op.cit. 107. Synofzik, Gerichtsaus8agen 73 interprets Ga:16.7 f. differently.
But the verses are addressed to Chri8tians in order to be taken seriously: falling back
from the sphere ,of the Spirit into that of the flesh will have disastrous consequences.
Synofzik's correct observation that in 1 Cor 10.1-10 Paul does not ascribe to baptism
(i.e., to the reception of the Spirit!) a 'character indelebilis' (op.cit. 56) can be made
to bear on the interpretation of other passages as well.
115 Cf. J. Weiss ad loc.; Roetzel,Judgement 172.
116 Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 163 claims that the final justification is promised to the
believers even in the case that their acts prove a failure before God; cf. id., Gerechtigkeit 230 f. Stuhlmacher refers to Rom 8.31 ff. and 1 Cor 3.11-15. The latter passage
is, however, concerned with the ep"(ov of a missionary (Apollos), not with the moral
life of believers; correctly Donfried, art.cit. 106. In Rom 8.3 3 f. Paul asks the rhetorical question, Who could accuse or condemn God's elect as Christ has died for them?
In this context Paul is not, however, concerned with the question of Christian moral
conduct. He wishes to show that the earthly sufferings of Christians are of a transient
character and that the future glory by far excels the present troubles. No inimical
powers, be they cosmic or mundane, can really threaten a Christian's existence.
This.is the point of vv. 35-39 which take up vv. 17 f. Sins are not listed among the
factors which might, but actually cannot, separate Christians from God's love in
Christ. In fact, vv. 31-39 constitute the conclusion of the treatment of life in Spirit,
begun in 8.1 ff.; in the course of this treatment Paul presupposes that Christians will
not live 'according to the flesh'. Yet elsewhere he expresses the view that an umepentant Christian sinner ought to be excluded from the community (cf. 1 Cor 5.1 ff.,
2 Cor 12 .21; 1 Cor 5.5 is a difficult verse, but hardly a sufficient ground for the view
that Christ's intercession will save ill baptized). A rejection of the central gospel
message likewise brings with it a final separation from Christ (Gal 5.4, cf. 1 Cor

186

v. Works and faith

Bearing this in mind, it would be possible to claim that Paul actually teaches salvation (or at least reward) by works!117 If we (reasonably enough)
refrain from such a claim, it might be wise not to apply it to Paul's Jewish
contemporaries either.118 There is a difference of emphasis, to be sure, as the
'doing' is more in focus in Jewish texts;it is not clear that the pattern itself is
much different.1 19
In this light it also becomes easy to understand why the author of the
letter of James, true to the Jewish vision, just had to misunderstand Paul's
teaching. If the proper context of 'works' was that of t~e 'imperative' based

15.2b). Yet is has to be added that only heinous sins, which are not repented of, will
effect condemnation; other transgressions may be punished at the judgment, but final
damnation is another matter. See Sanders, op.cit. 110-112 and below, n. 119.
117 Synofzik, Gerichtsaussagen 152 actually criticizes Donfried (see above, n. 113) on
the dogmatic ground that his position 'does not avoid the danger of a synergistic
understanding of salvation' and that 'the fmal salvation is here explicitly made to
depend on man's acts in faith'; obviously, it is impossible to teach a 100 per cent
sola gratia doctrine except in theory.
118 Byrne, op.cit. 230 writes on Judaism in the course of his critique of Sanders: 'Whatever be the fundamental case in theory - that is, that the covenant and God's mercy
overarch the whole pattern of progress to salvation - if works are a condition of
remaining "in" the covenant community and 'if exclusion from that community
means loss of salvation, then in practice - that is, from the point of view of one on
the road from election to salvation - works are a means of gaining salvation.' (B's
italics.) But if 'Christ' is substituted for 'covenant', this observation (whatever its
worth) is applicable to Paul as well (cf. the previous note). By this logic, the doctrine
of double predestination is the only way to prevent 'works' from being a means of
gaining salvation. It is wrong to confront Jewish 'practice' with Christian 'theory'.
Nickelsburg, Rev. Klein 166 f. correctly points out that 'the concept that one's
eternal destiny will correspond to one's deeds on earth is so prevalent in the New
Testament as to be a commonplace', occurring in the Pauline letters as well. This
'indicates that judgment on the basis of works cannot be used as evidence that Je:.wsh
religion was legalistic'.
119 Admittedly, the passages mentioned are open to a somewhat 'milder' interpretation.
Sanders concludes his discussion as follows: 'It thus appears that, while Christians can
revert to the non-Christian state and share the fate of unbelievers, there is no deed
which necessarily leads to the condenmation of a believer, although Paul appears to
waver with regard to food offered to idols.' But he also points out that 'the difficulty
in determining precisely what, if anything, will permanently exclude and condemn a
member of the group does not make Paul's letters atypical'. We can say that 'in both
rabbinic literature and Paul's letters, remaining in the in-group is conditional on behavior. In neither case, however, does an act of disobedience bring automatic expulsion. Thus when the rabbis discuss atonement it turns out that every sin can be atoned
for. Only willful and unrepentant transgression brings condemnation, since that indicates rejection of God. In the end, it comes down to intention: those who intend to
deny the God who gave the commandments have no share in his promises. It is not
significantly otherwise with Paul. . .' (op.cit. 111f.). '

The Jewish gateway to salvation

187

on the 'indicative', and if Paul attacked the works, then from the classical
Biblical and Jewish point of view this attack had to seem ill-founded.
In the last analysis, Paul's sola gratia sine operibus is not an abstract theological thesis at all. As we have seen, Paul, at heart (when expressing himself
spontaneously), does not subscribe to the assumption of universal guilt which
can only be removed through the death of Christ (see Rom 2.14-16).120 He
does develop a theological theory to that effect, to be sure, but when the
theological control relaxes, his thought proceeds along other paths. The background for Paul's sola gratia is the practical problem of the inclusion of
Gentiles in the people of God. Where this problem is absent (as in I Thess),
there is no polemic against works of the law either .121
The conclusion, then, is hard to avoid that Paul tears apart, not without
violence, what belonged together in 'genuine' Judaism. It is he who drives a
wedge between law and grace, limiting 'grace' to the Christ event. He pays
no attention to the central place of God's free pardon to the penitent and the
role thus accorded to repentance in Judaism.122 It should not have been
possible to do away with the 'law as the way to salvation' for the simple reason that the law never was that way.
Here my assessment of Paul's position differs from that of E.P. Sanders,
if I understand him correctly. What Sanders regards as an incorrect formulation of the issue, seems to me a quite correct statement: 'Paul agreed on the
goal, righteousness, but saw that it should be received by grace through faith,
not achieved by works.'123 Sanders expressly admits that this formulation is
Paul's own; nevertheless he thinks that it 'actually misstates the fundamental
point of disagreement' (between Judaism and Paul).
I think that is correct as regards the disagreement between Paul and real
(characteristic) Judaism (covenantal nomism); but the kind of Judaism that
emerges from Paul's writings has a somewhat different face. The disagreement
between Paul and that (at least partly) distorted or uncharacteristic Judaism
is another matter.
Sanders is led to the conclusion that Paul explicitly rejects covenantal
nomism. 'Paul in fact explicitly denies that the Jewish covenant can be effective for salvation, thus consciously denying the basis of Judaism.' 'It is not
first of all against the means of being properly religious which are appropriate
to Judaism that Paul polemicizes ("by works of law"), but against the prior
120 See above, p. 107 f.
121 Cf. already Wernle, Christ 83 ff.: the doctrine of justification only serves the Gentile
mission. Stendahl,Paul26 f., 84 f., 130 f. etc. The point has been forcefully made by
E.P. Sanders.
122 Moule, 'Obligation' 398 ff. may succeed in refuting Knox's theory of the lack of
'repentance' in the life of Christians in Paul's theology (see Knox, Chapters 141 ff.).
In Paul's portrayal of ludaism this gap remains.
123 Sanders, op.cit. 551.

188

V. Works and faith

fundamentals of Judaism: the election, the covenant and the law; and it is
because these are wrong that the means appropriate to "righteousness according to the law" (Torah observance and repentance) are held to be wrong or
are not mentioned. In short, this is what Paul fmds wrong in Judaism: itis not
Christianity.'l24 Thus far Sanders.
Something like this would probably be the logical outcome of much that
Paul says about the law. But certainly such convictions are not 'explicitly'
stated or 'consciously' held by Paul! He makes emphatically explicit statements of a quite different sort.
Here as elsewhere we will have to distinguish between what Paul actually
says and what the logical conclusions (which Paul may not even remotely
perceive) might have been.125 Paul strongly affirms both tP-e election, the
covenant and the giving of the law (Rom 9.4 f.). God has not revoked the
election ofIsrael (Rom 9.6, 1-1.1 f., 11.29). Perhaps contrar.y to the .inner
logic of his position, Paul explicitly acknowledges (in Romans, at least) the
covenant as a gracious act of God in his conscious reasoning. He pays, we
might say, lip service to covenantal nomisHl. He wants his own position.to be
understood in far less radical terms than Sanders's reading <;>fit suggests (and
also in far less radical terms than what it actually amounts to!). As so often,
his theology has a Janus face. He points in one (covenantal) direction and
goes in another (without, I think, realizing where he actually is). We may
agree with Sanders that 'Paul was not trying accurately to represent Judaism
on its own terms, nor need we suppos~ that he was ignorant on essential
points' .126 But I cannot avoid the strong impression that Paul ~ctually does
give his readers a di~torted picture of Judaism. He comes to misrepresent
Judaism by suggesting that, within it, salvation is by works and the Torah
plays a role analogous to that of Christ in Paulinism.
We will try to take a closer look at the reasons for Paul's misrepresentation
in a later chapter. 127 Here we shall briefly consider three individual points
124 Op.cit. 551 f. I have added the emphasis on 'explicitly' and 'consciously' (in Sanders.
the whole sentence is italicised). Sanders has reformulated his statement in Law 47
as follows: 'What is wrong with the law, and thus with Judaism, is that it does not
provide for God's ultimate purpose, that of saving the entire world through faith
in Christ, and without the privilege accorded to Jews through the promises, the
covenants, and the law.' It is not quite clear to me whether this is just 'a more precise
and more understandable way' of putting the matter, as Sanders says, or whether
Paul's 'charge' is here actually understood in a milder way. On p. 160, anyway,
Sanders again states that Paul was 'denying the efficacy of the election', thus striking
at 'something which is crucial to Judaism'.
125 Compare the discussion of Paul's idea of the intention of the law (above, p. 154). In
that case, too, Paul's statements would logically lead to conclusions certainly not
intended by him.
126 Op.cit. 55l.
127 See below, VllI 7.

The Jewish gateway to salvation

189

which are connected with the mistaken notion of the law as the basis of salvation in Judaism.
1. Paul asks whether the Galatians received the Spirit 'by works of the
law, or by hearing with faith' (Gal 3.2 ff.). This is a question-begging alternative. One could just as well have asked, whether the Galatians received the
Spirit 'by obedience to the apostolic paraenesis, or by hearing with faith'.
Obviously, the reason for their experiencing great things had not been their
love of their neighbours or avoidance of fornication, so why bother about
such things? One would never come to the idea that observance of the law
ought to be the source of spiritual gifts, as long as the law is properly viewed
as the imperative resulting from the indicative of God's covenant.
In addition, this argument is beset with empirical problems. It seems that,
in Paul's view, spiritual rsfts were still a reality in Galatia, the new nomistic
trend notwithstanding. 1 8 Charismatic experiences were not unknown to the
more conservative community in Jerusalem either (Acts 2!), nor were prophecy, miracles etc. unknown in Judaism, although they were not appreciated
as highly as they were among Christians. 129 Paul has simply concocted an
ad hoc argument, based on the aprioristic view that faith and the Spirit
belong together, whereas the law and the Spirit do not.
2. In the same connection Paul sets up Abraham as a typos of those who
are 'of faith' (Gal 3.7). The example of Abraham demonstrates that 'Scripture'
saw in advance that oi El{ 1Tiu7WC; will receive the blessing along with Abraham, unlike those E~ ep"!wv VOJ.l.ov. Gen 15.6 is cited as proof: Abraham
E1TiU7VUV 74; -&4;. Paul again begs the question by tacitly identifying Abraham's 'faith' with faith in Christ, rather than taking it in the sense of trust in
God.130 Apparently Paul was forced to take up the case of Abraham, to

128 The present participles IhrtXOP1/,YWV and eVEp"(wv indicate that God has not revoked
his gifts; Mussner, Betz; Lull, Spirit 38, 50 n. 82.
129 For the connection between law and Spirit in Qumran see Jaubert,Alliance 238 ff.;
in Rabbinic Judaism: Davies, Paul 209 ff.; A. Guttmann, 'Miracles' 384 ff., 405 f.
Guttmann argues that the valuation of miracles and the bat qol declined in the period
after AD 70, because the Christians put so much emphasis on such things. Comparing
the NT and the Talmud may thus produce an optical illusion with respect to pneumatology. Cf. the references to Essene prophecy in Jos. Bell. 11, 159; I, 78-80;Ant.
XIII, 311-313; see O. Betz, Dffenbarung 99 ff.; Hengel, Judentum439. The threads
are completely confused, should the assumption be correct that ecstatic experiences
were not foreign to Paul the Pharisee either; thus Dodd, Studies 69 f.; Hengel, op.cit.
376. This, however, is purely conjectural.
130 That Paul sees Abraham totally from the view-point of faith in Christ, identifying in
an unreflective way the Septuagintal rrlane; with his own 'faith', is well perceived by
Mundle, Glaubensbegriff 96 ff. On faith as trust cf. the use of Hab 2.4 in Makk 3.16
(Makk 23b) as a reduction of the 613 commands. The point of the homily is that 'the
moral law ... may be compressed into the principle of seeking God (Amos), or of
faith in God (Habakkuk),; Schechter, Aspects 140. There is no tension here between

190

V. Works and faith.

whom his opponents probably referred as their 'father'. In Galatians Paul

manages to evade the fact that Abraham, too, was circumcised - a fact that
might have proved embarrassing for Paul's cause in that letter.
By the time of writing Romans he has found an explanation: the circumcision of Abraham was a 'seal of righteousness by faith' (Rom 4.11). But why,
then, was it prohibited for the Galatians to accept this very seal? Or, conversely, why was Abraham after his circumcision not obliged to fulftl the whole
law (Gal 5.3)?
3. Paul discredits the law by pointing out its weakness: its inability to
supply the power needed for its observance. The argument of Rom 7 ,7-8.4 i~
based on this allegation. But why ought the law to have been the source of
moral power in the first place? Why the law and not its giver? This difference
was perceived in Judaism, for 'even the Torah is not an all-powerful remedy
in itself without the aid of heaven, which gives the Torah its real efficiency'.
'The Torah by itself is ... not sufficient to defeat the Evil Yezer. The conquest
comes in the end from God.'131 In IV Ezra it is vigorously stressed that
man's weakness is due to the evil inclination (and thus, indirectly, to God!)
rather than to the law: 'Yet thou didst not take away from them the evil
heart, that thy Law might bring forth fruit 132 in them. For the first Adam,
burdened with the evil heart, transgressed and was overcome; and likewise also all who were born of him. Thus the infirmity became inveterate;
the Law indeed was in the heart of the people, but (in conjunction) with the
evil germ; so what was good departed and the evil remained.' (3.20-22; cf.
3.26,7.48).
As for the Christians, neither the apostolic paraenesis nor the commandments of Jesus himself were regarded by them as giving power to the Christians to live up to their ideals; the source of power lay elsewhere. It would
have occurred to no one to blame the paraenesis or the verba Christi for ethical shortcomings. Paul is only able to make his charge, because he ascribes to
the law an independent soteriological Irtatus which it probably never had in
genuine Jewish thought. The question shoUld have been: 'Why did God not
give men before the coming of Christ power to fulftl the law, which can now
(so Paul's theory) be fulftlled charismaticaily by the Christians?133 It would
have been natural to locate the source of man's plight in man hiIpself, rather
than in the law. No wonder that according to, e.g., Jer 31 only the human
'faith' and the legal commandments. Howard, Crisis 63 thin!cs that ~t must have been
clear to all that faith was the very warp and woof of the law', inferring that Paul
could !,!ot set them up as opposites. 'Paul would have been laugbed off the scene even
to have suggested a contrary notion.' Unfortunately, this seems to be wishful thinking.
131 Schechter, op.cit. 278.
132 Cf. the talk of the fruit of the Spirit in GalS!
133 Montefiore, ludaism 72 notes that, from the Jewish point of view, 'to throw the
blame for human sin upon the Law ... would be like throwing the blame upon God!'

Law and salvation in the rest of the New Testament

191

heart is expected to be transformed by God (so also Ezek 11 and 36), while
nothing is eXf:cted either to be achieved by the law or happen to it during
this process. 1

4. Law and salvation in the rest of the New Testament

According to some interpreters, Jesus takes in Mark 10.17-27135 a critical attitude to the law as the way to salvation 136 or 'disqualifies the path of
accomplishments' 137 . In this case Mark would more or less represent the
view-point (often falsely ascribed to Paul, as we have seen) that the Jewish
religion consists of 'legalism'. Let us consider this claim.
A man asks Jesus what he has to do in order to inherit eternal life (v. 17).
The assumption thus is that doing certain things leads to (eschatological)
life - a reversal of Paul's contention, to be sure. It has to be emphasized that
in his reply (v. 18-19, 21) Jesus does not decline the question as inappropriate. 138 He refers the man to the Decalogue (v. 19).139 When the man asserts that he has observed the commandments in question from his youth
(v. 20), Jesus does not object; he does not set forth any criticisms or reservations with regard to this claim. On the contrary, the gesture mentioned in
v. 21 (fryd1T1/OVa&rov) shows that he accepts the answer.1 40 Jesus, according to this passage, sees nothing wrong in the typical Jewish question 'what
shall I do?'.1 41 'Works' are not criticised.1 42 What man does is important to
134 See below, p. 241 f.
135 For a literary analysis of the passage see Reploh, Markus 191 ff.; Kuhn, Sammlungen 146 ff., 170 ff.
136 F.G. Lang, 'Sola gratia'.
137 Harnisch, 'Berufung' 174. Harnisch shares the traditional interpretation of JUdaism
as legalism and he finds in v. 21 b an antithesis 'zu jenem Denken jiidischer Provenienz,
der den Erwerb der !;'wTi a!wvto~ menschlicher Tat anheimstellt'.
138 Against Lohmeyer, Markus 210 and Harnisch, art.cit. 170 etc. According to Egger,
Nachfolge 127, the answer of Jesus invalidates 'die im lva-5atz (sc. v. 17b) zugrundeliegende Auffassung vom Tun urn zu erben'. But the use of Kat instead of tva is a
weak argument for the assertion. For stylistic reasons alone one could hardly expect
lva in the reply of Jesus in v. 21. Cf. 132: verses 21 and 29-31 replace 'die Frage
nach dem "Tun, urn ewjges Leben zu erben" , with a 'Verheissung fUr den, der tut'.
Cf. 135 f. This is an oversubtle distinction. 'Doing' is a prerequisite of 'inheriting'
anyhow, whatever the precise nuance.
139 The rejection of the attribute 'good' may suggest that far from setting forth a doctrine of his own, Jesus only teaches what God has revealed long ago through Moses;
cf. Pesch ad loco
140 Cf. Zimmerli, Offenbarung 318. Harnisch ignores the accepting gesture altogether.
141 Correctly Werner, Einfluss 91. Speculations to the effect that the question itself
shows that the man in question is unhappy with the law or with its common interpretations (Branscomb, Grundmann, Nineham) fail to take seriously the Jewish parallel Ber 28b bar (Rabbi Elieser; Billerbeck 1,808). Nor is it suggested in the text that
the man wanted to 'accomplish' something special (thus Schweizer; correctly Haen-

192

V. Works and faith

Jesus: his family consists of those who do God's will (Mk 3.35). The fault
with the man in question is indeed that he has not done enough! 'Jesus refers
in view of the man's alleged comprehensive law observance to one shortcoming', namely, the lack of almsgiving.1 43 The demand of God's law is radicalized in v. 21, but the framework oflaw is not abandoned.144
This is not to say that salvation is, according to our passage, 'by works';
it is a question of teshubah, of obedience to the radically interpreted will of
God. On the other hand, if one chooses to call the common Jewish view
'salvation by works' or 'a doctrine of reward' or the like, then this terminology should be applied to our passage, too. Contrary to Gal 3.21, it is assumed
in the passage that the way of the law does lead unto life. 145 Mark assumes
a soteriological continuity between the OT and the new situation.1 46 Verses
26-27 are certainly not meant to cancel the relevance of the commandments;147 it is to be borne in mind that the whole of Paul's decisive soteriological vocabulary is conspicuously lacking in Mark 148 and an individual
statement is not, therefore, to be too quickly interpreted in a Pauline sense.
Most probably verses (24)26-27 are designed to explain 'the failure of the
gospel to come home to some to whom it was preached,149 (cf. Mk 4.11 f.,
Rom 9.6 ff. etc.)150.

chen, Weg 352).

142 Against Braun, Radikalismus 11, 75 n. 1.
143 Pesch; cf. Montefiore. This view is found already in the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews,
Fragm.l1.
144 Verse 21 does not stand in contrast to the Torah-<:entred question in v. 19; against
Taylor, Nineham; Kuhn, 'Problem' 147 n. 11. There is no denying that Jesus lays
down a demand for the rich man as a condition for entering the reign of God. It is
doubtful to distinguish between the giving up of possessions and the call to follow
Jesus, as does e.g. Harnisch, art.cit. 174: 'Die Forderung des Besitzverzichts ist ...
nicht im Sinne einer '" Vorbedingung gemeint, die erst zur Nachfolge instand setzt.
Sie stellt vielmehr nur die Konsequenz vor Augen, die der Nachfolger Jesu natiirlicherweise (!) auf sich nimmt ... ' Cf. also Zimmerli, op.cit. 323. Such a distinction is
purely theoretical. Not surprisingly, the Evangelist at least is led to think of the
reward for those who give up everything (10.28-31).
145 Werner, op.cit. 93.
146 Thus no critique of the law is derived from Jesus' death on the cross. One might
rather say that the saving value of that death consists 'im Loskauf von der Schuld,
die man sich durch Verfehlungen gegen das Gesetz aufladet' (Werner, op.cit. 92);
yet Mark refrains from any reflections on the law qua law.
147 Verses 26-27 are sometimes taken as representing Pauline soteriology: cf. Schweizer; Harnisch, art.cit.; F.G. Lang, art.cit. 335; Egger, op.cit. 206, 220.
148 See Werner, op.cit.
149 Best, Following 112.
150 I have argued that 'predestinarian' statements in the NT (and elsewhere!) are best
understood as reactions to the negative social experience of the community in question (Hardening, esp. 79-98).

Law and salvation in the rest of the New Testament

193

In any case, the insertion (by Mark! 151) of v. 28-31 shows that the evangelist did not at all think that salvation is something totally independent of
man's activity; this is not his reading of the preceding verses 26-27. The decision to leave everything and follow Jesus is an act which brings a wonderful
reward with it (v. 30) to everybody who has done so (v. 29). The spirit of
Mk 10.17-31 is thoroughly Jewish throughout. If you stress God's prevenient grace in this passage, you should interpret Jewish texts in the same way;
if you read Jewish texts as teaching a doctrine of works, you should not
shrink from seeing the same thing here! Unlike Paul, the Markan account does
not tear apart the following of Jesus and obedience to the law; only, to
follow Jesus demands more than usual obedience. The passage is, however,
in full consonance with that train of thought in Paul which comes to expression in Rom 2. But as regards Paul's theological theory, set forth by him
in other passages, it is not wrong to say with S. Schulz that from its point of
view the Gospel of Mark is 'a book oflaw' .152 It is wrong, however, to go on
by claiming that in the centre of Mark's 'doctril}e of justification' (!) stands
'the pious man of accomplishment'.153
In Matthew, the law plays a much more important part than in Mark.
Matthew plays down critical Markan statements, preserves ultra-conservative
traditional statements about the law (5 .18!) and portrays Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the law. 'Better righteousness' than that of the scribes
and Pharisees is programmatically demanded of the disciples of Jesus - as a
condition for entering the reign of God (5.20)! All this is well-known and
needs no elaboration here. It is interesting to consider Schulz's evaluation of
Matthew's view of the law. He correctly notes that the antithesis of faith and
works, so typical of Paul, is unknown to Matthew. 154 Faith is, on the contrary, 'obedient moral action and, unlike Paul's view, in no way contrary
to the work of the law, but rather itself a work of the pious man'. The gulf
between Matthew and Paul 'cannot be bridged,.155 'The legal-ethical thinking
is in no way made dubious as the way to salvation'.1 56 Matthew does not
speak of Christ 'as the end of the law as the way to salvation and as a media151 Also Egger, op.cit. 192 presupposes that v. 29-31 were inserted by Mark.
152 Schulz,Mitte 219.
153 lbid. According to Werner, op.cit. 93, Mark stands on the side of those 'deren
Beklimpfung der ganze Galaterbrief gewidmet ist'. This goes too far, since Mark
would undoubtedly have included circumcision along with the washing of vessels
among the obscure Jewish rites. What can be said is that if the argument of this section is sound, neither Paul's opponents in Galatia nor the Markan Jesus presuppose
that the law is the basis of salvation.
154 Schulz, op.cit. 186. For a comparison of Matthew with Paul see also Hurnmel, op.cit.
69 f.
155 Op.cit. 187.
156 Op.cit. 188.

194

V. Works and faith

tor', but rather 'against Paul of the validity of the law down to every iota and
dot which is necessary for salvation,.lS7 Matthew presents Christianity as a
'law religion'. He does know 'indicative material', but this indicative never
succeeds in making the imperative of the law problematic as a way to salvation. 1S8
Schulz's sharp critique of Matthew is beneficial in that it reveals with
relentless clarity the logical consequences of the standard view that the law
was the way to salvation in Judaism. If the Jew is held to be saved by law not
grace, then the same is true of the Christian according to Matthew (along
with most other NT writers)! If Jewish piety reflects a religion of works, then
so does Matthew's. Schulz is quite correct in insisting on the necessity to
apply similar standards on both sides. He is wrong, however, as I see it, in
taking Paul's soteriology (understood in the Bultmannian way) as the yardstick. If we prefer Sanders' interpretation of Judaism as covenantal nomism,
it is quite natural to read Matthew in the same way.1S9 Both the Jewish teach
ers and Matthew called men to repentance and return to God and his will.
Obedience and works are necessary; they can even be spoken of as a precondition of salvation (as Matthew does in 5.20); but this does not necessarily
constitute 'legalism'in a bad sense. 160 '
Luke follows Paul in Acts 15.1 in that this verse seems to portray the law
as the way to salvation for the Jews. 161 He, however, understands the situa-

157 Op.cit. 183; thus also Bornkamm, 'Risen' 228.

158 Op.cit. 188.

159 Matthew inserts Jesus' commands into a book of history which tells of God's acting
through Jesus. Jesus is portrayed as the One, whose helpful and salutary presence is
time and again experienced in the congregation (cf. 1.23, 8.23 ff., 14.28 ff., 28.20,
etc.). See also Przybylski, Righteousness 106f. (although his clearcut distinction between 'righteousness' and 'will of God' pp. 107ff. is untenable; the 'righteousness'
terminology is not applied merely to 'properly religious Jews' - op.cit. 114).
160 This is well perceived by Luz, 'Gesetz' 85 who emphasizes that Matthew's theology
is 'a theology of the law but not a theology of righteousness by works'. 'Matthiius
kennt kein automatisches Hell ohne menschliche Gerechtigkeit. Aber es gilt for ihn,
was for das gesamte Judentum gilt: Menschliches Handeln ist nicht gleichzusetzen
mit menschlicher Leistung, aufgrund derer der Mensch bei Gott auf Gerechtigkeit
pochen darf.' (My italics.) If the standard Jewish views are branded as legalism, then
Matthew is a legalist, too; it is better to avoid this characterization in both cases.
161 On the historical background of Acts 15.1 see above, p.182.

Law and salvation in the rest of the New Testament

195

tion differently from Paul. Thus Luke lets Paul say in his speech in the Pisidian Antioch that, in Christ, every believer is justified a1TO (!) 1Tdvtwv WV
OVK. ijoVV1/t'}t/T. V VO/14J Mwiiuew, otKatwt'}ijvat (Acts 13.38). The way of
law and the way of faith are not opposites. Instead, faith comes in as a complement to obedience to the law, making good the lack of perfection as regards the latter. 162 There is no need to take this as an indication of 'meritorious' thinking. 163 Acts 13.38 can quite well be understood as man's
humble confession of his insufficiency.
There is a similar emphasis in Acts 15.1 0 f. The Jewish Christians have not
been able to bear the yoke of the law, but they believe that they will be saved
'through the grace .of the Lord Jesus' in the same way as the Gentiles. As for
Gentiles, faith replaces the way oflaw; as for born Jews, it seems to complete
it. The genuinely Pauline contrast is altogether lacking. 164 No wonder then
that Paul's position is reversed in the discussion about inheriting eternal life:
mum 1TOiet K.at ~r/ar/ (Lk 10.28), says Jesus! Once again it turns out that it is
Paul who is the odd man out.
Unlike Paul Luke 'does not separate pneuma and nomos, charismatic life
and observance of the law' either. 165 Thus he avoids one more anomaly
into which Paul has run. Even Stephen is both 'adherent to the law' and 'a
charismatic-ecstatic prophet', and Paul is the charismatic Pharisee! In summary, 'the combination of nomos and pneuma is all-important' .166
As for John, we can, by and large, follow the account of his theology of
the law by S. Pancaro. The closest equivalence to the Pauline 'works oflaw' is
in John the 'work(s) of God' (In 6.28 f.). John, however, sees faith as such a
work of God (i.e., a work expected by God), cf. also 7.17. 'Paul would avoid
such language ... John draws a line of continuity where Paul draws an opposition.'167 John 'seems to be trying to present faith as that which absorbs and
surpasses the works of the Law, rather than as something radically distinct
;md even opposed to the "works of the Law". For Jn the Law should lead to
Jesus, the "works of the Law" to faith in Jesus! ,168 'What is attacked and
condemned by Jn is a false understanding of the Law which would oppose
the Law and Jesus, observance of the Law and faith in Jesus.'169 The Jews

162 Harnack, Acts 285 f.; Vieihauer, 'Paulinism' 42. The terminology used suggests that
Luke attempts to portray Paul as the 'theologian of justification' (Lindemann,
Paulus 59.)
163 Against Schulz, op.cit. 112,150.
164 Cf. also Loning, Saulustradition 168 f.
165 Jervell, 'Paul' 301 f.
166 Jervell, ibid.
167 Pancaro, Law 527.
168 Op.cit. 392 f. Cr. von Wahlde, 'Faith'.
169 Op.cit. 527.

196

v. Works and faith

err in clinging to the law as the sole revelation of God and his will and, therefore, refusing to accept Jesus. 170
In In 1.17 'grace and truth' that came through Christ are juxtaposed to the
'law' given through Moses. In itself the verse is inconclusive: it is difficult to
decide whether the parallelism between law on one hand and grace and truth
on the other should be regarded as synthetic l71 or antithetical l72 . In the
light of the gospel as a whole it becomes clear that the former interpretation
is too positive as regards Moses and the law, whereas the opposite view is too
negative. The Son's revelation of the Father simply by far surpasses that of
Moses and thus outdates it. 173
The Pauline contrast is lacking in Hebrews as well. In 10.38 f. as well as in
the great treatise on faith in ch. 11 rrion<; is understood as trust in God and
obedience to him. Unlike Paul, the author refrains from a Christological interpretation of the rrion<; of the aT examples. He also ignores the doctrine of
justification by faith.174 Hab 2.4 receives a characteristically different
interpretation from that of Paul (He b 10.38 f.), and the phrase fJ Karu rrionv
oU<.awoVv1/ occurs in connection with Noah, denoting trust in and obedience
to the divine oracle (11.7).
The law is not spoken of as a way of salvation which was abolished in
Christ 175 nor is there any polemic against works of the law in the Pauline
sense (the 'dead works' are of cultic nature, whether heathen, 6.1, or Jewish,
9.14). There is nothing surprising in this, for if ever there were documents
that may justly be called 'legalist', then Hebrews with its emphatic denial of
the possibility of repentance after baptism (10.26, 29) is one.
James's famous controversy with Paul's sola fide (2.14-26) has nothing
to do with the problem of the Torah. Unlike Paul, James does not have to
wrestle with the problem of the inclusion of the Gentiles. James surely fights
a misunderstood Pauline thesis - whether the misunderstanding is due to him
or to some ultra-Paulinist opponents. 176
170 Pancaro, op.cit. 528. Pancaro thinks John is at variance with Paul in this. If, however,
my analysis is correct, Paul and John move on common ground. It is only in developing his theology of the law in a more polemical direction that Paul gets into his particular dilemmas.
171 Thus e.g. R.E. Brown (John names 'the two occasions of God's demonstration of the
covenant love'; John 1,35); cf. also Sloyan, Christ 117 f.
172 Thus Grasser, 'Polemik' 78 f.; Dassmann, Stachel 37.
173 On Jn 1.17 see esp. Pancaro, op.cit. 534 ff.; Haacker, Stiftung 30 ff.; Panirnolle,
Dono. It should be noted, however, that Richter, Studien 149 ff. has presented
powerf~l arguments for regarding 1.14-18 as a secondary addition to the gospel.
174 Loisy, 'Epitres attribuees' 311.
175 Correctly Percy,Probleme 288.
176 I think it is correct to say that James fights here a 'Paul become a formula'; thus
Eichholz, Glaube 37 f. Walker, 'Aus Werken' 191 f. is certainly wrong in denying any
reference to Paul or 'Paulinism'.

Law and salvation in the rest of the New Testament

197

According to Schulz, theology is for James 'in principle legal piety,

righteousness of works and a doctrine of merits' .177 Such a view is possible
only as long as one clings to the view of Judaism as man-centred legalism.
When this distorted view is given up, it is easy to realize that James simply
had to misunderstand the Pauline formula about justification by faith alone.
For all his emphasis on 'works', James's 'imperative' is certainly grounded
in the 'indicative,178 - in good Jewish fashion. To apply the formula of
Sanders, works belong for James in the context of 'staying in' - not perhaps
in the covenant, which is not mentioned in James, but in the proper relationship to God within the congregation. Works will show whether faith stands
the test (cf. 1.3, 12), as is clear from the example of Abraham (2.24). This is
close enough to the actual position of Paul as regards the eschatological
salvation, the differences in terminology and in the nature of the arguments
notwithstanding. 179 That James had to enter this dispute with Paul is another proof that various things, even central ones, in Paul's letters were not
without reason felt to be 'difficult to understand' (2 Pet 3.16); indeed, misunderstandings were unavoidable .180
The author of Ephesians speaks in the language of Paul's 'doctrine' of justification in 2.8 L, but the point of that doctrine has disappeared: the question
of the Torah is no longer a live issue. 181 The readers have been saved 'by
grace' and 'through faith' - 'not by works so that no one may boast'. The
works declined are not, however, works of the law, but man's own accomplishments in general. 182 Ephesians represents indeed to some degree the
idea often ascribed to Paul: man is not saved 'by works' 'in order that no one
would boast' (2.9). Salvation is God's gift, it is not 'from you' (2.8). The heathen past of the readers is, however, depicted in 2.1 ff. in dark colours (cf.
4.17 ff.). It is not suggested that they were not saved by works even though
they had done a lot of good works; the idea is rather that they had none,
but have nevertheless been saved by God's grace. The boasting declined in
v. 9 is not that of a Jew proud of his fulfilling the Torah, but rather the pride

177 Schulz, op.cit. 286; similarly Lindemann,Paulus 248 ff.; Walker, art.cit.
178 Cf. Eichholz, op.cit. 38 ff. There is a notable difference between this letter and
Hebrews with its intransigent negation of a second repentance. James explicitly
presupposes the possibility of repentance in Christian life: 5.15 f., 5.19 f. God is
lI'OAVU1rAa'YXllo~ and olKTlp~wlI!
179 To be sure, Paul and James could hardly have understood each other. 'Paul could
surely never have tolerated James's explicit assertion that justification is not by faith
alone ... However much one may modify the superficial contrast, a basic lack of
sympathy must remain.' Laws, James 133.
180 Burchard, art.cit. 43 f. n. 77, admitting that James is not Paul, justly asks whether
he is any more 'un-Pauline' than are, e.g., the Pastorals or Luke. I think not.
181 Vielhauer, Geschichte 214; cf. Gnilka, Comm 129 f.
182 Against Schlier; correctly Gnilka, op.cit. 130; Luz, 'Rechtfertigung' 374 f.

198

V. Works and faith

of Gentile Christians over against Jewish Christians. 183 The line of Rom
11.13 ff. is prolongated here, probably in a concrete situation where Gentile
Christianity is getting impatient over Jewish Christians who still hold to their
status quo (cf. 1 Cor 7.17).184 Otherwise the question of Torah is no longer
a live problem. There is no attack on Jewish legalism or the like. We hear
nothing of the law as a way to salvation.
In the Pastoral letters, too, we find formulas about salvation by grace
rather than by works that sound almost Pauline. God saved us and called us
with a holy calling 'not according to our works, but according to his own
plan and grace' (2 Tim 1.9). God saved us 'not by works done in righteousness which we had done but according to his mercy' (Tit 3.5). There is no
longer any trace visible of the problem of the inclusion of the Gentiles. The
'works' are no longer -'works of the law' in the sense of the Mosaic demands,
but good, indeed 'righteous' works in general. 'Not according to works'
means here simply putting the indicative before the imperative; requiring
'good works' of the Christians is indeed a standard theme in the Pastorals. 185
Actually Tit 3.3 shows that the 'we' of 3.8 did not have 'works done in
righteousness' at all in their heathen past, which is described with the aid of
a vice list. We find in the Past orals no longer any polemic against Jewish
soteriology; Jews as opponents are for the author already a thing in the past
(unlike the Gnosticizing Jewish Christians he is warning his readers of). On
the contrary, there is a strong Jewish flavour in the author's insistence on
good works as a necessity in Christian life. 'Getting in' is due to God's grace;
in the context of 'staying in' the deeds are of great importance.
Our survey shows, then, that Paul is alone in early Christianity in setting
up a contrast between the Torah with its demands on one hand and God's
grace or man's faith in Christ on the other.

183 Fischer, Tendenz 79 f.

184 See Fischer, op.cit. 79 ff.
185 1 Tim 2.10, 6.18; 2 Tim 3.17; Tit 2.14, 3.1, 3.8, 3.14.

VI. Conclusions
1. The concept of 'law' (never defined) oscillates. In contexts where

nomos clearly denotes the Torah Paul can simultaneously presuppose that
Gentiles, too, have been subject to it. The contours of the nomos are blurred;
the liberating Christ-event is much clearer than the description of the plight
men were liberated from.
Paul never makes an explicit distinction between different ('moral' as
against 'ritual') parts of the law, and several passages in his letters run counter
to such a distinction. Nevertheless he more than once tacitly reduces the
Torah to a moral law, apparently without realizirlg the looseness of his
speech. This vagueness is shared by some other NT writers. (Ch. I).
2. Paul states in unambiguous terms that the law has been abolished. In
his actual teaching he ignores it, the ritual and moral side alike.
The reasons given for the abolition of the law stand in some tension to
each other: on the one hand the law was designed to hold Its sway for a limited period of time at the outset, whereas death (that of Christ as well as of the
Christians) is required for its dominion to be terminated on the other. In
developing the latter thought Paul resorts to a confused analogy.
The abolition notwithstanding, Paul also makes positive statements which
imply that the law is still valid. The claim it justly puts on men is fulfilled
by Christians. Now and then Paul appeals to OT commands. Above all, he
asserts that he does not cancel the law with his teaching; on the contrary,
it is he who really establishes it. Apart from the tension with the abolition
statements, this conservative assertion hardly manages to refute the Jewish
claim that selectivity about the Torah actually means its rejection. By way of
an arbitrary exegesis Paul tries to show that the law itself is on his side.
Paul did not live among Gentiles as a practising Jew. He treated the Torah
as an adiaphoron. He did not replace it with a new 'law of the Messiah' either.
Paul apparently shares the vagueness of his 'fulftlment' assertions at least
with Matthew. The tension between radical and conservative statements is
paralleled in Ephesians. (Ch. 11).
3. Paul implies that no one is able to fulftl the law. Gentiles and Jews are
without exception under sin. This assertion is demonstrated by exaggerating
blanket accusations. Nevertheless, some Gentiles actually do what the law
requires. The Christians are able to fulftl, and do fulftl, the requirements of
the Jaw. In setting up this contrast between Christians and Jews, Paul comes
to compare Christian life at its best with Jewish life at its worst. No other
NT writer shares the notion of the unfulfillability of the law. (Ch. Ill).

200

VI. Conclusions

4. While generally holding fast to the divine origin of the law, Paul once
in a heated debate also suggests that it was only given by angels and is thus
inferior.
The purpose of the law was a negative one: it was to increase and even
bring about sin. This explanation of the origin of sin in the world of men
clashes with the usual one, also given by Paul, that the dominion of sin is to
be traced back to Adam's fall. Paul fails to explain why a commandment of
the law necessarily incites to sin while a commandment of an apostle does
not.
At some .places Paul also presupposes that the law had a positive purpose
as well: it was designed to lead men to life. This explanation runs counter to
Paul's assertions of an exclusively negative purpose for the law. Apart from
this contradiction, each of the two explanations is also problematic in itself.
While the positive explanation tends to downgrade the law to God's un
successfuJ first attempt to save humanity, the negative one logically leads to a
somewhat cynical picture of God's strategy. To some extent Paul shares his
difficulties in determining the purpose of the law with other Christian writers,
but the tension between a positive and a negative intention is peculiar to him.
No one else shares Paul's radical association of the law with sin. (Ch. IV).
5. Paul implies that the law is a rival principle of salvation, occupying in
the Jewish system a place analogous to that of Christ in the new order of
things. He constructs a sharp contrast between the law and the 'works of the
law' on the one hand and Christ, grace, Spirit, faith and promise on the other.
No other NT writer sees such a contrast between law and grace or faith.
~pparently Paul misconstrues Jewish 'soteriology', ignoring the pattern of
gratuity on which it was based as well as the role accorded to man's repentance. (Ch. V).
Paul's actual attitude to the Torah thus amounts to its abrogation. He
ignores the ritual side (except as an element in missionary strategy among
Jews), for which the fathers had died as martyrs. His ethics, by and large,
corresponds to standard Jewish ethics; it is not,however, based on the Torah
in principle. Paul selectively singles out the love command and obliges the
Christian to 'examine' in new situations what the will of God is (Rom 12.2).
If a Jew chooses to call Paul a renegade, he can hardly be blamed for this.
On the other hand, Paul has by no means broken all bonds that tie him to
his Jewish heritage. No doubt he always considered himself a Jew, and one of
the rather few true Jews at that. Now and then he makes use of the Torah as
if it were still as valid as ever. It is symptomatic that he never makes any
explicit distinctions within the law. His readers will receive the impression
that God's revealed will is unitary; Scripture cannot be split up in different parts, each of various value. Like other Christian writers down to the
latter half of the second century, Paul never admits that he has actually

Conclusions

201

rejected large parts of God's word. It is only the Gnostic Ptolemy who can
afford to be explicit and outspoken in this regard. Paul is inclined to conceal
his radicalism from others - and probably from himself as well.
Paul has a need to maintain that his view of the Torah actually stands in
continuity with the orthodox tradition. His practice and his developed
theological theory notwithstanding, he is quite capable of suggesting apologetically that the Torah is still in force, and it is the Christians and they alone
who fulfil it. It is also they alone who grasp the true meaning of the Torah,
namely, that it points to Christ. Thus it is really Paul, and not his opponents,
who 'establishes' the law (Rom 3.31). That the content of 'law' is never
defined is only natural; this vagueness is absolutely necessary for Paul's contention.
The starting point of Paul's thinking about the Torah is the Christ event,
not the law. This structure of thought he fully shares with other early Chris
tian writers. No other writer, however, is led to such radical and negative
conclusions with respect to the law as Paul: the law incites man to sin and increases transgressions; the law ought to be fulfilled 100 per cent; Jews do not
fulfil the law whereas the Christians do; the law was given through angels,
not by God. All these negative statements are made problematic because
other Pauline statements contradict them. Paul's most radical conclusions
about the law are thus strangely ambiguous. There is something strained and
artificial in his negativity - artificial from his own point ofview.1 He seems
at times to argue further in the negative direction than he really intends. The
same ambiguity adheres to his fundamental assertion about the Torah as the
Jewish mediator of salva tion.
It is tempting to see in all this the mechanism at work which is called
secondary rationalization in depth psychological theory: 'the actual driving
forces have been concealed under the pretext of some more or less plausible
rational reasons,.2 Paul has, for all practical purposes, broken with the law,
and he is now concerned to put forward 'rationalizations': it is, against all
appearance, he who really upholds the law; and insofar as this is not the case,
the fault lies with the law itself. He seems to be constantly looking for arguments against the law: empirical observations,3 legal analogies 4 etc. The very
inadequacy of these arguments betrays their secondary origin. Paul's argument runs 'backwards', having the Christ event as its starting point.
These problems indicate that Paul vacillates in his theological attitude to
the law. All his 'main' letters, Romans included, witness to a process of
1 See above, p. 107 f.
2 Cf. Niederwimmer, 'Tiefenpsychologie' 266 f. That there is 'a great deal of defense
or rationalization' in Galatians was observed by Andrews, Teaching 37 (cf. 143).
3 See above, p. 97 ff., 110,148 ff.
4 See above, p. 61 f., 129.

202

VI. Concluriom

thought that has not come to an ends. Paul is still looking for arguments for a
radical stance toward the law, while at the same time trying to maintain a
more conservative outlook. The law is a theological problem for him, and that
in a way that tends to make his handling of the issue a theological problem
(and not the solution of problems!) for us. We will try to shed some more
light on Paul's situation and the reasons that led to it in the final chapter.
Before that, however, a brief comparison with other early Christian overall
views of the law is carried through in order to find out what is really peculiar
to Paul in this regard.

5 Cf. E.P. Sanders's excellent discussion of the dynamics of Paul's thought on the law
in Law 65-86. The complexities of Paul's positions are partly to be explained as 'an
organic development with a momentum towards more and more negative statements
until there is a recoil in Romans 7, a recoil which produces other problems.' (76)
We have approached the subject from different angles, but the fmdings seem to converge to a remarkable degree.

VII. Paul's view of the law compared with other

early Christian conceptions
In the previous chapters of this work individual peculiarities in Paul's
view of the law were compared with such analogous ( or opposite) features as
were found in other early Christian writers. In this chapter we will be concerned with other overall views of the law as far as they can be briefly outlined on the basis of the extant texts; to avoid repetitions, reference will
frequently be made to the discussions included in the previous chapters.
Only those conceptions which are directly accessible will be surveyed, however. Thus, no attempt will be made to compare Paul's view with that of
Jesus, or with those found in the Jerusalem community around Peter or
James, or with the Hellenist group around Stephen, or with that of Q. These
conceptions are only accessible by way of reconstructions that are by necessity a good deal more hypothetical than for instance interpretations of the
views of the Evangelists (which in themselves are hypothetical enough!).
While some such hypotheses will be ventured in ch. VIII, the present chapter
will only be concerned with more tangible conceptions of the law. My purpose here is to sketch these other conceptions and briefly discuss their respective consistency, clarity and possible problems, in order to discover how
Paul's position comes out in such a comparison.

1. The Deuteropauline letters

It'is difficult to decide to what extent Colossians should be discussed in
this context. To be precise, it is not clear what part the Torah may have in
the Colossian "philosophy" attacked by the author, nor to what extent the
criticisms expressed by the author with regard to that philosophy would, in
his mind, apply to the Torah as well.
What is reasonably clear is that the author takes issue, above all in the section
2.6-23, with a syncretistic philosophy which has caused confusion arpong the Colossian Christians) This philosophy, in which angelic 'elements of the world' seem to
have played a large part, was characterized by various ceremonial and ascetic commandments and prohibitions (2.16, 22). The question of circumcision also played a
part (2.11, 13). The 'traditions' on which such precepts were based are branded by
the author not just as being KaTa Ta OTOlxew. TaU KDCTI'OV, but also as mere human
inventions (2.8, 22).

1 See, e.g., Dibelius, Kol 38 ff.; Uilmemann, Kolorrerbrief 63 ff.; Lohse, Kol 186 ff.;
Gnilka,KolI63-170.

204

VII. Other conceptions

The writer never mentions the OT nomos in this connection (or elsewhere, for
that matter). The closest he comes to it is the mention of a promissory note
(XLPCrtpa<pov) with its precepts (Toi~ oCrt/J.aow; the syntactical connection is unclear), which was against 'us', but was removed and nailed to the cross by God (2.14).
Perhaps this imagery, which undoubtedly comes from the Colossian mythology,
should be kept apart from the question of Torah altogether) Jewish ideas were in
any case only one strand in the Colossian heresy. As the issue at Colossae was not the
Torah, the writer never develops his view of the law.
On the other hand, the oO'Y/J.aTa criticized in Col 2 clearly overlap with Jewish
purity commandments (touching certain things and eating certain foods, v. 21;
eating arid drinking v. 16) and Jewish calendar piety including the Sabbath observance (v. 16). Even more striking is the application of Pauline theologoumena Which
originally had a bearing on the Torah to the Colossian syncretism: Christ's death on
the cross signals a triumph over the powers behind the XIjJCrtpa<pov with its demands
(v. 15); the Christians have died to the 'elements of the world' (v. 20), which is the
reason for their freedom from the 0Crt/J.ara.
It is difficult, then, to exclude the idea of the Torah altogether from the picture.
If the idea of freedom from the Torah through the death of Christ is implied in
2.14 f., then this liberation is seen as a paradigm for freedom from any bondage to
stipulations and prohibitions - from legalism, one might say) This could be seen
as a prolongation of the line of thought set forth by Paul in Gal 4, where the situation of the Jews under the law and that of non-Jews under the oTotxia TOU ,wo/J.ov(!)
fuse together. We would have before us a parallel example of a vacillating use of the
notion of the law.4
There remains some obscurity as to the origin of the oO'Y/J.ara. Can they really be,
in the mind of the author, mere human traditions (so 2.22)? How could this, in the
mind of a Christian, apply to the Sabbath, or to all food laws (2.16)? If the stipUlations are human inventions, how can they nevertheless be regarded as a 'shadow of
coming things' (2.17)?5 In fact, 2.8 says both that the Colossian philosophy is KaTa
TrjV 1rapaooow TWV d.vifpw1rwV and that it is KaTa Ta OTOLxia Toil KOO/J.OV. But how

2 Blaser, Gesetz 214 f. and Lueken assume that Paul is speaking of the law; thus also
Maurer, Gesetzeslehre' 54; Percy, Probleme 89 f.; Hanson, Studies 1 ff.; cf. Burger,
Schopfung 109 ff. Lohmeyer, Kol 116 f. thought the IOU was given by man to the
Devil in Paradise; against this interpretation see e.g. Lohse. The equation of the
oCrt/J.ara with the Mosaic ordinances is opposed by H. Weiss, 'Law', esp. 310 f.
The question is further complicated by the likelihood that an older liturgical piece
here receives comment by the author and perhaps, in addition, by a Paulinist 'glossator' (thus Burger, op.cit. 111 f., 151 f.). It is impossible to deal with these questions
here.
3 Cf. Schweizer, ad loc.: the author chose the term 0Crt/J.a, 'weil die in Kolossae wichtig
gewordenen Vorschriften (according to Schweizer Pythagoraean stipUlations) fiir ihn
grundsatzlich auf der gleichen Ebene liegen wie die alttestamentlichen Gebote,
obwohl er beides nicht einfach gleichsetzt ... Er will alles umfassen, was an Geboten
oder Vorschriften die Heilsgewissheit genihrden konnte.' Schweizer, to be sure, is
more explicit than the author himself, who is rather more vague.
4 See above, p.31 on the change of persons which parallels exactly that in Gal 3-4.
5 Percy, op.cit. 140 regards therefore 2.17a as a reference to the OT law; cf. ibid. 84.
Gnilka ad loco devalues the expression 'shadow' to mean something that has no significance, thus denying any typological value; cf. Philo, Flacc. 165.

The Deuteropauline letters

205

can it be both? Stipulations coming from inimical powers are, to be sure, even harder
to be regarded as a typological 'shadow' of the real thing. Finally, verses 2.14 f. seem
to suggest that Christ's triumph over the principalities and powers was the reason for
which the demands of the elements can safely be disregarded. But why was such a
dramatic victory necessary to get rid of some human inventions? There is a contradiction here reminiscent of that between Gal 3.13 and 3.19. 6 For the author of Colossians, as for Paul, the liberation effected by God in Christ stands out as clear,
whereas the plight of man tends to appear more obscure. If Colossians is not by
Paul,7 then it must be by someone very close to him and his way of thinking. In any
case, Colossians shows the natural development of Pauline insights in a wider context
where the Torah is. no longer the central issue. The trend is toward a case against
'legalism' in general, that is, against bondage to any kind of stipulations. By contrast, there is no trace of a polemic against boasting or human merits. Before the
reconciliation in Christ, the readers were enemies of God in their evil works (1.21).

Thus, the battle of Colossians against the local philosophy bears not a little
resemblance to Paul's argument in the undisputed letters. Yet is remains an
open question, whether we are entitled to speak of the author's view of the
law at all.. The Torah is not in focus in this letter,8 which is, in addition, far
too short for far-reaching conclusions. This last reservation of course applies
to most of the documen ts surveyed in this chapter.
By contrast, the author of Ephesians makes an explicit reference to the
vop.o<; TWV VTOAWV V 86yp.auw (2.14). This law had stood as a separating
wall between Jews and Gentiles, bringing about enmity. The enemies were,
however, reconciled through the death of Christ, by which the law was destroyed. The author here uses more outspoken language than Paul, in that he
makes the law without reservation the object of IWTap,,(iv; Paul always
speaks of men being 'destroyed' with respect to the law (Rom 7.6 etc.).
Otherwise, the role and function of the old law is not reflected upon. It
is not possible to sketch the 'doctrine of the law' of the author. The Torah is
for him no longer a live issue. The works declined are not works of the law,
and the boasting improper to a Christian is that of the Gentile Christian who
felt superior to the Jewish Christians. 9 Nothing is said of the law as a way to
salvation, and questions of its origin or purpose are not discussed.
There is one 'Pauline' inconsistency in the letter. On the one hand the

6 See above, p.59.

7 The present study aroused indeed in me the suspicion that the authenticity of Colossians may not be totally excluded after all. This possibility cannot, of course, be
explored here. See the careful discussion in Lahnemann, op.cit. 177 ff. It is intriguing
to speculate that Paul might have composed the letter together with one of his assistants (Epaphras? Timothy?); cf. Lahnemann, op.cit. 181 f. n. 82; Schweizer, Kol
20 ff.
8 Cf. H. Weiss, art.cit. 311: ' ... the Mosaic law is no longer functioning as a recognizable entity'.
9 See above, p. 197 f.

206

VII. Other conceptions

author regards the law 'of commandments and ordinances' as annulled; on

the other hand, he singles out one commandment of the Decalogue as particularly important (6.2). As a whole, the letter leaves most of our questions
about the law unanswered.
In the Pastora/s, too, the material concerning the law is so scanty that
anything like a systematic picture of the view of the author cannot be attempted. Nevertheless, in comparison with the authentic Paul, some significant changes appear.
The author no longer has the problem of Jews and Gentiles before his
eyes. He only comes to mention the law at all for the reason that the heresy
he is concerned to oppose has a Jewish flavour, even though the Jewish elements have been given a Gnosticizing interpretation.1 Much as in Paul's
genuine letters, the concept of 'law' oscillates between the Jewish Torah on
one hand and a more general moral or civil law on the other. 11
I Tim 1.8 clearly has Paul's statements in Rom 7.12 and 7.16 as its background. Yet the view of the character of the law is quite different. For the
author of 1 Tim the 'law' simply guarantees the order of society by holding
sinners and criminals in check; the loyal citizen, who lives in the proper way
anyhow, does not really need this law. There are no signs in the Past orals of
Paul's view that the law convicts humanity of sin,12 let alone of the views
that it leads to sin or that it cannot be fulfilled. 13 Nor do we hear of any
history-of-salvation role reserved for the law in God's plan. 14
1t is therefore not without some justification that scholars speak of 'a positive travesty' of Paul's teaching 15 or comment that 'a greater misunderstanding of Paul's thesis in Rom 7.12, 16 is hardly thinkable,16. And yet one hesitates before blaming the author very severely for his misunderstanding. On
the one hand, he had before his eyes Paul's statement that the law was 'good';
on the other hand he knew that Paul elsewhere spoke critically of the same
law. 1 Tim 1.8 f. may be seen as a modest attempt to strike a balance between these contradictory assertions: the law is good if used in the proper
way; for the 'righteous one' there is no law (VOJ.l()(; oV KLTat).1 7 Thus there is

10 On the Jewish elements in the opponents' teaching see 1 Tim 1.4 ff., Tit 1.10,
1.14 ff., 3.9.
11 See above, p. 31.
12 Against Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 57 who (following Schlatter) fmds that 1 Tim 1 agrees
with Paul's world of thought.
13 Cf. Holtzmann, Theologie II 296; Lindemann,Paulus 146.
14 Holtzmann, ibid. Holtzmann points out that, unlike Gal 3.23, it is grace that keeps
us under discipline (nat6evovaa) according to Tit 2.11 f.
15 Houlden ad loco
16 Luz, 'Rechtfertigung' 376. Cf. also Seott, ad loc.; Lindemann, op.cit. l36, 145;
Aleith, Paulusverstiindnis 16.
17 Cf: Lindemann, op.cit. 145.

Other letters

207

no need to speak of an end of the law. Unlike Paul, the author does not say
that the righteous man has died to the law or anything like that; obviously,
the law was not designed to have any significance for him at all (whereby
'righteous', of course, has a different meaning from that found in Paul).
No doubt Paul's powerful assertions about the law have been drastically
domesticated in the Pastorals. The dramatic theological dimension is gone.
In whatever way one wishes to evaluate this, it should be noted that the
author has let go precisely those aspects in Paul's view that were shown to be
the most artificial ones. In being silent on, e.g., the sin-engendering character
of the law, the author simply shows his common sense. No contrast is set up
between God's grace and the works of the law. 18 The inclusion of Gentiles
is no longer a problem, it is a well-established fact. Paul's slogan 'everything
is pure' has been given a new anti-heretical interpretation: 'he who sets up
requirements of purity is himself impure' (Tit 1.13-16).1 9 The Christian's
freedom from ritual (and ascetic) stipulations is a self-evident assumption of
the author.
One would like to knoW more about the author's view of the law. How did
he think of its origin and purpose? What function, if any, did he ascribe to
the ritual commandments found in the OT? Were they to be understood allegorically (cf. 1 Tim 5 .18)? What was included in the 'commandments of men'
(Tit 1.14)? One suspects that he would not have had satisfactory answers to
such questions. What he does say about the law is certainly lacking in theological intensity, most of all in comparison with Paul, but it is also free of the
many Pauline sic et nons. Obviously, the authentic Pauline statements just
could not be handed over without thorough modifications.

2. Other letters
In Hebrews the law is seen from the cultic point of view as the basis of
priesthood and sacrifices. The high-priestly sacrifice of Christ has superseded
the old covenant with its sacrifices; they have been rendered superfluous.
When priesthood changes, a 'change of law' is also necessary (7.12). The
priesthood of Christ has brought about the abolition (ditTT/at<;) of the previous 'commandment' (7.18). The old law was 'weak' and 'useless' (7.18);
it did not make anything perfect (7.19, cf. 9.9). The law was 'fleshlrc'
(aclpKUJO<;) , which means that it was concerned with external matters 0
(7.16; cf. 7.28, 8.2) and brought about 'purity of flesh' alone (9.13). Besides
the sacrifices, 'foods, drinks and ablutions' are singled out as merely fleshly
ordinances (litKatwf..lara aapKo<;) which only belong to the period before the

18 See above, p. 198.

19 Lindemann, op.cit. 141; cf. Dibelius-Conzelmann.
20 On the use of the word aclpK'vo~ in Hebrews see Michel ad loco

208

VII. Other conceptions

'reformation' (9.10).21 Such things amount to 'dead works' (9.14). The law
is replaced by the 'word of oath' that came 'after the law' (7.28). Interestingly
enough, the 'chronological' argument of Hebrews reverses that of Paul in Gal
3.17 22 , being no doubt the more natural one in terms oflegal practice 23 .
The law was closely connected with the old covenant, which God declared
antiquated by establishing the new one (8.13, cf. 10.9). This was not a merely
arbitrary stipulation, for the old covenant had grown old and was senile, and
its disappearance was thus impending (8.13). The new covenant was 'better'
in nature (7.22, 8.6). The old covenant was not 'blameless' (8.7); had it been,
or had it been able to bring about perfection (7.11), then no new covenant
would have been needed. The argument here parallels Gal 3.21. The law was a
mere 'shadow of coming good things', not containing the real substance of
things (10.1, cf. 8.5, 9.9, 9.230
Thus the basic conception of law in Hebrews stands out as very clear. In
the death of Christ God has abolished the OT law which was weak and useless
anyhow. This is an even more radical stance than Paul's. 'The only positive
value of the old covenant consists paradoxically in the fact that it is surpassed
and assimilated by the new one and thus through its own inefficiency indirectly witnesses to the power of the new covenant.'24 Nevertheless, the
OT text is cited as God's word to the Christians by the writer; the abolition

21 Whether 13.9 also refers to the aT food laws is controversial.

22 Cf. Gyllenberg ad loco
23 Cf. also the author's insistence on the necessity of the death of the testator for the
validity of a 6La~1\KT) (9.16 f.) in contrast to Pau1's vague use of the testament analogy
in Gal 3.15 ff. (see above, p. 129.)
24 Luz, 'Bund' 332; cf. Lindemann, Paulus 237: 'es gibt hier keine Analogie, sondern
einen qualitativen Umschlag'. This seems to be the correct view over against the idea
that the old covenant was a genuine if imperfect analogy of the new one, a 'Vorform'
of it; thus V. Campenhausen, Bibel 83 f.; Aleith, Paulusverstiindnis 8; Dassmann,
Stachel 62. Dassmann speaks of a 'verheissende(n) 'evangelische(n), Sinn' 'of the aT,
asserting that 'wo Paulus noch echte Gegensatze gesehen hatte, kann der Hebraerbrief auf Analogien hinweisen'. As for the 'promise', however, it is the new covenant
that has the character of a promise,.having indeed the 'better promises' (8.6, 9.15).
In view of the talk of the 'fleshly' character of the aT law and of the 'dead works'
it leads to, the idea of analogy must not be interpreted in too positive a way. With
such statements in mind one can hardly concur with Spicq, Comm. I 150 f. when he
maintains that a pious Jew could not have taken offence at the theology of law in
Hebrews. Correctly also Stylianopoulos, Justin 87 f.: in comparison with Paul,
Hebrews 'is more firm about the inefficacy, even the intrinsic weakness of the law'.
Differently Zimmermann, Bekenntnis 41-43, who senses a tension between texts
like 7.11-25, 8.8-12 on one hand, and 5.1-4, 9.1-10ab on the other. The former
passages construe an antithesis between the priesthood of Christ and that of the aT;
the latter ones assume more an analogy. Zimmermann proposes a redaction-<:ritical
interpretation: the more radical passages represent tradition, whereas the author himself moves on the analogical line.

Other letters

209

of the old covenant does not mean that the OT ceases to be God's word or
speech of the Holy Spirit (9.8,10.15).25 Like Paul, Hebrews combines the
assertion of the end of the law with a belief in its predictive or prefigurative
function.
What is the relation of the view of the law in Hebrews to that of Paul?
Schulz maintains: 'The law is in a quite un-Pauline way related only to the
weak and useless law of cultic sacrifices and of priesthood ... ,26 There is
indeed a clear difference here. In Hebrews, just the cultic side of the law is
criticized - which Paul consistently avoids doing?7 Both characterize the
law as 'weak' (Heb 7.18, Rom 8.3). Yet the statements cannot be harmonized.
Hebrews presents a rational criticism of the cult law: it is (self-evidently by nature, as it were!) impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could
take away sins (l0.4). Such a law is 'fleshly' (7.16). Paul, however, claims
that the law is spiritual (Rom 7.14) - a statement which would be impossible
in Hebrews - and suggests that the weakness results from the encounter of
the spiritual law with the fleshly man. In He brews, the inferiority of the law
has nothing to do with man's condition. The author of Hebrews mounts a
direct attack on the cultic law. If my reading is correct, a similar critique of
the cultic law is also the actual starting-point of Paul; Paul, however, never
spells this out and is just therefore compelled to develop his idiosyncratic
criticisms of the law.
These Pauline criticisms are consf:icuously lacking in Hebrews. The law is
not associated with sin and death. 8 It is not said to be given 'because of
transgressions', but as a pale shadow of what was to come, nor is its origin
with God put in doubt (the angels, mentioned in 2.2, enhance the significance of the law, unlike Gal 3.19). There is no talk of the law as a misconceived way of salvation. 29
It can be added that Paul and Hebrews display a similar structure of argument in that both take their stance with Christ and assess the previous period
from this point of view (cf. e.g. Heb 10.11 and Gal 2.21). Hebrews, however,
is more consistent in its thought and also less extravagant in its criticisms
than is Paul. 30

25 Cf. Luz, art cit. 333 f.

26 Schulz,Mitte 262.

27 See above, p. 23 ff.

28 Correctly Loisy, 'Epitres attribuees.' 311; D'Angelo, Moses 204 f. Cf. Windisch on
7.19.
29 See above, p. 196.
30 Cf. Loisy, art.cit. 315: the lack of foundation in the view oflaw (the assumption of
the intrinsic weakness of the law) notwithstanding, 'l'idee en sa construction logique
et meme en son elaboration exegetique a quelque chose de plus regulier que la theorie
de Paul et elIe ne defie pas le bon sens dans sa psychologie ni dans la place qu'eUe
attribue la Loi'.

210

VII. Otfzer conceptiom

One minor and one major problem remain, however. The minor problem
is the question of what has happened to the moral content of the OT law in
the mind of the author of Hebrews. This we do not learn. 31
The major problem is connected with the assumptions of the writer. 32
Why did God give a weak, useless and 'fleshly' law? Why was the old covenant in itself 'blameful'? The Christian apriori of the author leads him to an
insoluble problem of theodicy. This, however, he shares with Paul.
The author of Hebrews, then, has produced a solution which is beset with
much fewer difficulties than Paul's. One has, of course, to take into account
that he apparently did not have to wrestle with any such existential and practical problems as Paul had as regards the Torah. The letter reflects no dispute
with actual Jews. The opposition between Jewish and Gentile Christians is
lacking; the reasoning is 'purely academic,.33 As the Torah is no existential
problem to the author, he can afford a cool and logical solution. This privilege was not available to Paul in his different situation.
The references to the law in the letter of lames are far too scanty to allow
us to draw anything like a full picture of his conception of the law?4 Rough
outlines can nevertheless be detected. There is no dispute over the Jewish
Torah whatsoever in the letter; 'the battle of the significance of the law has
long since become a matter of the past'. 35 There is absolutely no trace of the
Jewish-Gentile problem. 36 Thus the framework of James is quite different
from that of Paul.
Everything James says about the nomos is absolutely positive; there are no
traces of a negative criticism of the law. James speaks of a 'perfect law of
liberty' (1.25, cf. 2.12)37 and of a 'royal' law (2.8). The law of liberty leads
man to true freedom. 38 This royal law is 'in accordance with the Scripture';

31 See above, p. 30.

32 See above, p. 155.
33 Vielhauer, Geschichte 247 f.
34 James probably could have said a lot more about the law had he wished to do so.
Although the letter has first and foremost a paraenetic character, the common view
that the writer merely sets forth an 'ethos' and has hardly a 'theology' at all needs
some revision. See the attempts of Luck, 'Jakobusbrief und Hoppe, Hintergrund
to locate James in the neighbourhood of Jewish Wisdom theology.
35 Vielhauer, Geschichte 575; cf. Seitz, 'James', esp. 484.
36 This is one of the many indications that James the brother of the Lord cannot be the
author. Laws, Jarnes 37 f. makes a good case that the author is a former 'God-fearer'.
She also notes (92, on 1.27) that 'James's language is neither Jewish nor anti-Jewish;
that is not the issue'.
37 The expression has nothing to do with the phrase hq hrwt found in 1 QS 10.6, 8, 11,
where one has to read /:Ioq /:Iarut, 'engraved ordhtan:ce' rather than /:IerUt, 'liberty'.
See the discussion in Fabris, Legge 103-113.
38 Cf. Liihrmann, Glaube 80, who notes a contrast with Paul's view (the law brings
about enslavement, not freedom!) ; Luz, 'Gesetz' 134.

Other letters

211

the love command (Lev 19.18) and two commandments of the Decalogue are
cited (2.8, 11) to lend force to the writer's paraenesis. God is referred to as
the law-giver (4.12); therefore one is not to oppose the law (4.11). In all this,
James suggests in the mind of the reader that the old law is being spoken of,
and indeed it is. The OT law, however, tacitly fuses together with the norms
of the Christian life. 39 The law can be summed up in the love commandment
(2.8)40 as in Paul and in the Gospels. 41 In his vague portayal of nomos
James thus closely resembles Paul.
Undoubtedly, James assumes a continuity between the old law and the
new one. His words suggest even an identity42; one would like to knowwhether he acknowledged the actual differences and how he would have explained
them - what was his view of the purpose of the ritual law, for example?
- but such issues are not under discussion in his letter, which is concerned
with purely inner-Christian questions. It should be noted, too, that he does
not consider the law as unfulfillable; on the contrary, he vigorously incites
his readers to fulfil it.
The controversy with a misunderstood Paul (2.14-26) has nothing to do
with the problem of the Torah. 43 It would seem that James was bound to
misunderstand Paul's statement about the exclusion of works, if this statement resulted from a Pauline distortion of the authentic Jewish attitude.
James is not 'legalistic' in any pejorative sense of the word. For all his emphasis on 'works', his 'imperative' is certainly grounded in the 'indicative' - in
39 See above, p. 31 f.
40 Cf. Luck; art.cit. 169 n. 29; Hoppe, op.cit. 89.

It is, to be sure, commonly assumed

that for James, curiously enough, the love commandment is just one commandment
among others (the 'one' commandment transgressed, which is referred to in 2.10).
As I read it, the 'one' commandment of 2.10 is the 1rpOaW1rOATJIJ.>/Jla, expressly mentioned in 2.9, which refers back to 2.1. Whoever transgresses this one demand of the
law is guilty of transgressing the 'whole' law, that is the whole 'royal' law characterized in 2.8 through the citation of the love command. To be sure, it would be hard
to point out a specific commandment of the OT law which could be said to prohibit
1rpOi:TW1rOATJIJ.>/J.la; yet James seems to assume as a matter of course that it is something contrary to the 'law'.
41 Whether ]ames regards Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the law who summarized it in the love command, or even gave a new law, is not clear. A new law of Christ
is assumed by Dibelius (on 1.25); Mltton ad loc.; Fabris, op.cit. 55 ff. 133 etc. In any
case James does not say that the Lord has 'changed, interpreted or even confirmed'
the old law; correctly Burchard, 'Jakobus 2, 14-26' 29. Be this as it may, it is certainly far-fetched to look to Jer 31 as the background of James' talk of the 'law of
liberty'; thus, e.g., Mitton, and Fabris, op.cit. 149.
42 Unless Mussner, Jak 107 is correct in the suggestion that the expression 'perfect law'
(1.25) refers to the law fulfilled by Jesus (Mt 5.17), which implies that the old law
was imperfect. It is, however, quite plausible to take the verse as a reference to the
capacity of the law to help man to perfection and freedom.
43 See above, p. 196.

212

VII. Other conceptions

good Jewish fashion. James' view of the law shares some of Paul's ambiguity,
but, ignoring precisely those aspects of Paul's view that have proved artificial,
it stands out as relatively clear.
The striking absence of problems connected with the law in the rest of the
NT letters deserves to be pointed out at this juncture. So, for all the indubitable 'Paulinism' of 1 Peter44 ,questions of law never turn up in that letter
(addressed, among others, to the congregations in Galatia!)4:l which represents a sober ethics of good works and mutual love.2Peterandlude attack
a libertinist heresy, but do not resort to appeal to the authority of the law in
that connection. 46 In the lohannine letters there is much talk about the
'commandments' of Christ, but the law is never mentioned. The commandments of Christ are comprised in the love command (1 Jn 3.23). God's
commandments are mentioned in 1 Jn 5.2 f., but the writer does not have the
old law in mind even here.

3. The Gospels, Acts, Revelation

Long ago, Martin Werner showed convincingly that Mark's is not a particularly 'Pauline' fospel.47 The problem of justification in the Pauline sense is
never touched, 8 and the word nomos is altogether lacking in Mark. 49
Instead, 'commandments' (evTo"Af/) are mentioned and discussed a few times.
In the gospel an im~licit distinction is made between ritual stipulations
and God's ethical will. 5 Like Paul, Mark never points out that this actually
means abandoning parts of God's written law. A passage like Mark 7.15 ff.
runs, of course, counter to important sections of that law. Mark, however,
never sets forth either his editorial comments on Jewish customs or Jesus'
critical remarks as a critique of the Torah. In some sections, on the other
hand, he places great emphasis on the continuity between the best Jewish
tradition and the teaching of Jesus.
44 It is intriguing to speculate how many of the ideas of the letter actually go back to
Silas-Silvanus (5.12).
45 The reference to the liberation of the (Gentile Christian) readers from their 'futile
walk, inherited from the fathers' (1.18) refers to thraldom under idols, not the Jewish halakah. 2.5, 9 shows how the ideas of sacrifice and priesthood are spiritualized.
Problems of Torah are simply ignored.
46 Only the \Vords of the prophets and the command of the Lord mediated through the
apostles are mentioned in 2 Pet 3.2; cf. the characterization of the word of the Lord
as the 'holy commandment handed over to them' in 2.2l.
47 Werner, Einfluss. Cf. now also Romaniuk, 'Probleme'; Lindemann, Paulus 151 ff.
48 The words I)u<awuv and I)tKawaVV1j are lacking in Mark, as are E1I"ayyel\la and xcipt~.
Cf. Werner, op.cit. 79, 207 f.
49 For a comparison as regards the law see Werner, op.cit. 79-98. By contrast, vO!Jo~
occurs 75 times in Romans alone. Mark does not use the word even in 12.28-34; in
the respective parallel passages it is introduced by both Matthew and Luke.
50 See above, p. 29.

The Gospels, Acts, Revelation

213

In all this, Mark shares a characteristic anomaly of Paul. On the one hand
he suggests that Jesus brings the intentions of the old religion to completion;
on the other hand he ignores the material conflict between some sayings of
Jesus and the actual contents of the Torah.
In 10.2-9 the Marcan Jesus confronts a stipulation of Moses with the
divine order of creation, but in 7.1 0 Moses is appealed to against the Pharisees. 51 The role of the Mosaic legislation remains unclarified. We get no clear
picture of its origin or intention.
That certain commandments of the law are valid and fulfillable is presupposed. 52 Moreover, the good Jewish question 'what shall I do to inherit
eternal life' is accepted by Jesus as a valid question. 53 Mark does not tear
apart faith and works in the Pauline way.
The gospel of Mark is thus free from most of the Pauline anomalies though
not from all. It would seem that it is above all the ceremonial law that has
been abrogated and, in addition, the too lenient stipulation concerning
divorce. Mark's Jesus advocates a human and rational interpretation of the
law, rejecting expressly only the superstitious traditions of the Jews (invented
by men) and at least devaluing the non-rational sacrifices. What exactly was
God's original purpose with the law, and what were its actual contents, we are
not told. But this unclarity Mark largely shares with Paul. As a whole, the picture presented by him contains fewer difficulties than that painted by Paul.
Unlike Mark, Matthew shows a vital interest in the question of the law. 54
Some of his traditions emphasize the permanent validity and immutability
of the law. On the other hand, Matthew views the law critically in the light of
its kernel, the dual commandment of love. The law and the prophets can be
summarized in the Golden Rule. Through the antitheses of the Sermon on
the Mount (5.21-48) certain commandments of the Torah are Iadicalized
and internalized, but some of the antitheses run counter to the Torah itself.
How Matthew himself understood these antitheses is difficult to make out.
Matthew's intention is evident in 5.17. Jesus did not come to abrogate the
law (and the prophets), but to fulfJ.1 them.
It is not clear whether Matthew shares Paul's dilemma when the apostle
clail)1s to establish the law (Rom 3.31) while actually doing away with most

51 See above, p. 84 f.
52 See above, p. 119.
S3 See above, p. 191 f.
54 For Matthew's understanding of the law see especially G. Barth, Gesetzesverstiindnis;
HUbner, Tradition 196 ff.; Meier, Law; Luz, 'Gesetz' 79 ff.; Simonsen, 'Auffassung';
Broer, Freihet. Sigal's informative and stimulating study (Halakhah) is vitiated by
his (conscious) refusal to distinguish between the Matthaean and the historical Jesus
(partly due to his subscription to Matthaean priority).

214

VII. Other conceptiom

of its contents. It is, namely, controversial whether or not Matthew thought

the ritual law to have been abrogated by Jesus.
Like Mark, Matthew shows no acquaintance with the Pauline antithesis
between works of law and faith in Christ. It is not wrong to speak of Christianity according to Matthew as a)law religion', but this is certainly not 'legalism' in any pejorative sense. 55 Matthew differs from Paul just on those
points where Paul's view turned out to be artificial: the law can be fulfilled
(as can the 'new' law); sin is transgression of the law; the law has nothing to
do with sin. 56
All told, Matthew is not very much interested in the law in itself. For him,
Christ has taken the place of the law in the new system. The words, teachings
and commandments of Jesus are the most important thing (28.16-20),
and special emphasis is put on the demand that the followers of Jesus have to
realize these words in their life (5.20,7.15 ff., 25.31 ff.).57 The teaching of
Jesus is, however, in harmony and continuity with the 0ldlaw. 58 Matthew's
view parallels that of Paul in that the Torah's actual loss of significance is a
consequence of Christology .59
Luke has a conservative view of the law.60 He does not reduce the permanently valid law to a morallaw. 61 On the contrary, he is most concerned

55 See above, p. 193 f.

56 It is pointless to blame Matthew for not characterizing the law as the power of sin in
the Pauline way - the problem lies with Paul! Against Schulz, op.cit. 183; Luz,
'Erfiillung' 435 (he wishes to grant to Paul 'greater consistency and depth'); cf. id.,
'Gesetz' 86.
57 It has been assumed that 7.15-23 (see esp. v. 22) reveals that Matthew is fighting
against antinomian libertinists; thus Barth,op.cit. 149 ff.; Bornkamm, 'Risen' 215 f.;
Hummel, Auseinandersetzung 64 ff. To infer this from the use of avollia in 7.23,
24.12 (cf. Barth, op.cit. 58, 69) is, however, a semantic mistake. The semantic
antonym of dvollla is not VOIlO~, but 6tKatO(]VV1); dvollia is synonymous with allaprla
(cf. Mt 23.28, Rom 6.19, 4.7,2 Cor 6.14, Heb 1.9, 10.17,1 In 3.4). Matthew is criticizing some group of pneumatics whose life does not, in his mind, show a good fruit;
the problem of Torah is not in focus. Correctly in this regard Walker, op.cit. 134 f.,
137; Meier, op.cit. 66 n. 61; Strecker, Weg 137 f. n. 4.
58 Barth, op.cit. 148. '
59 Meier, op.cit. 88 f.; Luz, 'Erfiillung' 433; Simonsen, art.cit. 67.
60 Jervell, Luke 141 claims, with reference to Harnack, Acts 284 ff., that Luke's view is
the most conservative in the whole NT. Jervell sees the reason for Luke's conservatism in his ecclesiology. He tries to refute the standard notion of the church as the
new Israel in Luke: 'Luke knows only one Israel, one people of God, one covenant.'
(Ibid.) Jervell's view of Luke's ecclesiology has met with criticism; see, e.g., Eltester,
'Israel' 122 ff.; Wilson, Gentiles 220 ff.; Conzelmann, 'Literaturbericht' 43 f.; a more
positive assessment is found in Dahl, Jesus 94 ff. But many of Jervell's observations
on the law can stand even if his interpretation of them is rejected; cf. the acknowledgement by Dahl, op.cit. 94. Jervell is followed by Sloyan, Christ 56 ff.
61 See above, p. 30.

The Gospels, Acts, Revelation

215

about its ritual aspects. The Lukan Jesus does not criticize the law at all. 62
The charges against Stephen were false, and Paul is a Torah-abiding Pharisee.
The law was given through angels (Acts 7.53, cf. 7.38), but this merely enhances its value. 63 The law consists of 'living words' which will remain valid
forever.
The law was replaced by the Apostolic Decree as regards Gentile Christians. This decision was made because of God's clear guidance, in accordance
with the words of the prophets. For Jewish Christians the law remains fully
in force. Luke considers the law of Moses as a way to salvation for Jews;
Paul's way of presenting things is still reflected here. The path of law and the
path of faith are no opposites, however: faith makes up what is lacking in
one's 'righteousness' so far. 64 Moreover, Luke is concerned to connect
charismatic life and observance of the law in his portrait of the early church,
Stephen and Paul.
We do find some mildly critical remarks on the law, to be sure (Acts
13.38, 15.10).65 Surely Jervell is correct in commenting that 'the idea is
obviously not that it is in principle impossible to keep the law', for this idea
'would make all other Lukan statements inconceivable,.66 Yet his own explanation 'that we, that is, Jews and Christian Jews, have so far not kept the
law,67 contradicts the 'other Lukan statements' just as bluntly. Consider
e.g. those passages where a picture of blameless Torah piety is painted both of
the Jerusalem congregation and of their predecessors (Lk 1.6!). An anomaly
remains. Another problem is: how can God-given 'living words'(Acts 7.38) be
such a burden?
Jervell glosses over Acts 13.38 and 15.1 0 as mere 'reminiscences and
echoes from t~adition'.68 This seems too easy a way out. 69 In fact, Jervell
himself gives in another connection a better explanation. Acts contains 'a few
statements that may be interpreted as reflecting a critical attitude toward the
law'; the point is, however, that such statements come from Peter and J ames,
not from Paul! 'What Paul says is actually far less critical than what Peter

62 See above, p. 91 f.
63 It is wrong to speak of a 'low view of the law and its institutions' in Luke-Acts; thus
D'Angelo,Moses 257.

64 See above, p. 195.

65 For a detailed treatment of Acts 15.10 see Nolland, 'Look'.
66 Jervell, Luke 151 n. 55.
67 Ibid. The conclusion of the sentence is misleading: 'something which the history of
Israel demonstrates (Acts 7, 53)'. Certainly Peter does not think of himself and his
fellow Christians as permanent opponents of the Holy Spirit (thus Stephen on the.
Jews in 7.53)! It is a question of the ceremonial law; the 'burden' of the Gentiles will
not be lightened with regard to the moral law.
68 Jervell, op.cit. 146.
69 cr. Hartnian's review (191).

216

VII. Other conceptions

and James have said. Since the faithfulness of these two towards Israel can
not be doubted, Luke expects the readers to make the same inference about
Paul.'70 Since Luke and his readers know the faithfulness to the law of the
historical James, Luke 'can attribute to him certain daring viewpoints' in
order to defend Paul. 71
Thus Luke is aware of some criticisms of the law made by Christians.
In a tactically skilful way he puts the criticisms which he cannot avoid recording into the mouth of the acknowledged pillars of orthodoxy, whereas Paul is
portrayed as an ultra-conservative Christian Pharisee. As Acts 21.20 ff. shows,
Luke knew full well that Paul had been (and was, still in Luke's days, in some
circles) suspect of apostasy from the law. He is at pains to exonerate Paul by
showing that whatever criticisms of law there were, they were of a mild
nature and were set forth by those known to be fully orthodox. In Luke's
presentation Paul (like Stephen!) is actually far more conservative than Peter
or James.72 Thus Luke is bound to report some remarks on the heaviness of
the law in order to be able to suggest some reason for the undeniable questioning of the law that had taken place among the Christians.
For all his tendency towards harmonizing the actual conflict, even Luke is
thus not able to present a synthesis which is free from all contradictions. The
tension between 'living words' and a 'heavy yoke' remains, as does the difficulty that the law from which not a single dot will disappear is nevertheless,
from the Gentile point of view, a preliminary and inferior form of revelation.
This suggests that Luke did not reflect very much on the p.urpose and nature
of the law. On the whole, however, his conception is relatively clear. He
does not oscillate between different concepts of law, nor does he distinguish
between ritual and moral aspects. Both sides of the law are permanently
valid. Instead, a distinction is made between different classes of people.
Jewish Christians continue to observe the whole law; Gentile Christians
observe the minimum law defined by the apostolic decree. On this basis it
might have been possible at least to attempt a dialogue with the Judaizers
of Galatia. Even though there would have been no final agreement, it might
have been possible to find a common language and to agree on what the real
problems were.
Luke's theory is thus not without merits. It is a bold attempt to show
what Paul and the others ought to have taught about the law! For all his
distortion of the historical conflict over the law, Luke's account serves to
underline that it is Paul who is the odd man out in early Christianity. It is
70 Jervell, op.cit. 198.
71 Op.cit.199.
72 Cf. Maurer, Gesetzeslehre 59: 'In der Ag. ist Petrus paulinischer als Paulus. Paulus
wird eher mit den Eigenschaften des Petrus, wie sich dieser nach Gal. 2 darstellt,
geschildert.'

The Gospels, Acts, Revelation

217

doubtful, however, whether a Jew could reasonably have been expected to

admit that the substitution of the apostolic decree (that is, the Noachian
commandments) for the Torah as regards proselytes was wellfounded. Quite
reasonably, he would have regarded the extreme trust in the guidance of the
Spirit on the part of the apostles as misguided enthusiasm. But surely he
would have found this Lukan suggestion preferable to Paul's negative asser
tions about the Torah.
John has taken his stance beyond the framework of the law. 73 He lets
Jesus speak to the Jews of 'your' law (7.19, 8.17, 10.34, cf. 7.22) and him
self comments on 'their' law (15.25), thus dissociating himself from the law.
The law was given through Moses4but it was superseded by the revelation of
grace and truth in Christ (1.17). 7 The Christians have outgrown the Jewish
religion (4.20 ff.).75 Nevertheless, John is not indifferent to the law 76
nor does he take a strictly negative attitude to it.77
Pancaro has argued that in the background of the gospel lurks an inten
sive dispute with Jews;78 indeed this must be one of the formative factors in
the process that led to the production of the fourth gospel 79 , even though
the process seems to be over by the time of the final composition. John's
presentation has little to do with reallife disputes with empirical Jews; the
'Jews' have become a mere foil against which the community is edified
through its consciousness of possessing the key to understanding - the faith. 80
Against this background John argues that the Christians are the true Jews 81
or, rather, he presupposes this as self-evident.
The question of the right interpretation of the law is an important thread
that runs through the gospel. Jesus' Jewish opponents appeal to the law
and wish to reject Jesus precisely as disciples of Moses (9.28). Only the ignorant am-ha-ares that does not know the law runs after Jesus (7.49). The Jews
believe that their law requires Jesus to be put to death because of his Chris.
tological claim (19.7).82 John tries to show that the testimony ofthe law is
on the side of the Christians. Moses will accuse the Jews, for if they really

73 See the thorough work of Pancaro, Law.

74 See above, p. 196.
75 Cf. Becker, Joh 84, 174 ff.
76 Thus v. Campenhausen, Bibel65.
77 Thus Dassmann,Stachel37 f.
78 Pancaro, op.cit. passim; see the summary pp. 530 ff.
79 Cf. also Dodd,lnterpretation 75 ff.; Schulz,Joh 127.
80 Luz, 'Gesetz' 125 f.
.
81 Pancaro, op.cit. 531 f.
82 Dassmann confuses the evangelist's view of the law with his portrayal of its misunderstanding on the part of the Jews, when he writes (op.cit. 38) on 19.7: 'Geradezu
Absurditat offenbart das Gesetz, wenn es zur Legitimierung der Verurteilung Jesu
herangezogen wird ... '

218

VII. Other conceptions

believed him, they would believe in Jesus, for Moses wrote about Jesus
(5.45-47 etc.). Jesus blames his opponents for not 'doing the law' themselves
(7.19). Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath (ch. 5) was not against the intentions
of the law (7.21-23).
John can take a relatively positive attitude to the law, since he stresses
exclusively its predictive function. This is its only purpose after the revelation of Jesus has taken place. John does not speak of Jesus as the fulfilment
of the law. From the point of view of the Christians, the law is definitely a
thing of the past. Only the words of Jesus have an imperishable value, first of
all the new commandment of (fraternal) love. Thus John shows an even
greater freedom with regard to the law than does Paul. While being free from
the law, John does not construe the law as the opposite of the gospel or of
grace. 83 In John, continuity prevails. The Jews are slaves of sin (8.30-36),
but this can in no way be ascribed to the law. The Jews err in clinging to the
Law as the sole revelation of God and his will and, therefore, refusing to
accept Jesus.
As a whole; John's conception of the law is much clearer and much more
consistent than Paul's. There is no oscillation in the concept of the law which
means the Torah 84 : it is not claimed that the Christians fulfil the law.85 The
law has been superseded; there is no 'Yes and No'. On the other hand, the law
is not denigrated. The only problems inherent in his view John shares with
Paul and other early Christians. He is not interested in the question why
God gave through Moses such a law as he did;86 but perhaps he thinks that
it had served quite well as a revelation of God's will in the period before
Christ. The fundamental assumption that the law predicts Christ and witnesses to him is, of course, quite arbitrary; but this arbitrariness John fully
shares with early Christianity as a whole. Given this premise, the Johannine
conception is probably the clearest within the New Testament.
In the book of Revelation, 'works' are emphatically demanded of the
Christian . It is repeatedly stressed that everybody will be judged according to
his deeds (2.23, 20.12 f., 22.12), and the shining clean robe of the bride of
83 See above, p. 195 f.
84 Except in some places (10.34, 15.25) where the meaning is 'Scripture'.
85 Pancaro, op.cit. 530 f. thinks that the Johannine community nevertheless observed
the Torah, differing from their non-Christian Jewish brethren in their faith in Jesus
and, consequently, in their attitude to the law: while following the law, they did not
'agree that their relationship to God is determined by their relationship to the law'
(530). This sounds abstract and modern. Does observance of the law really fit in with
the Johannine distance from it ('your' and 'their' law)? Luz, art.cit. 155 n. 200 is
justified in his sharp rejection of Pancaro's thesis. Moreover, unlike most NT writers,
John does not pay any lip service to the notion of the Christians' fulfilment of the
Torah. His theory is not undermined by actual nono{)bservance!
86 Luz, art.cit. 128 points out that John's Revealer renews all values in so radical a way
that the whole OT history fades altogether.

Later writings

219

the Lamb is identical with the righteous works of the saints (19.8). On the
other hand, the 'indicative' is not forgotten either, as is shown by the frequent mention of the death of the Lamb who has thus 'purchased' the
believers (1.5, 5.9, 7.14, 13.8, 14.3 f.). Thus the soteriology of Revelation
corresponds to the normal Jewish pattern: entrance into the community of
saints is through a divine act (in this case, the slaying of the Lamb), whereas
'staying in' and consequently the reward of eternal life is tied to proper
works. There is no sign of the Pauline conflict between faith and works of
law. The law is not spoken of at all; authority belongs to the words of Christ
(3.8,10; they can also be called his 'works', 2.26). There is a general reference
to keeping God's commandments in 12.17, 14.12. The only reflection of the
old conflict over the law is found in the letter to the congregation of Thyatira, in which the eating of meat offered to idols is regarded as a severe sin
(2.20). Those in Thyatira who have not fallen into this sin are promised that
no further 'burden' ((3dpoc;) will be put upon them (2.24 f.). The wording
recalls the Apostolic Decree, cf. especially Acts 15.28. 87 Revelation shares
with Acts the notion that the Jewish law is a 'yoke' as well as the view that
the Torah is not to be imposed on Gentile Christians. 88 Its insistence on a
'minimum oflegal requirements,89 implies, however, that the Torah is now as
before valid for Jewish Christians.

4. Later writings
While Ignatius never discusses the topic 'law' in his letters, he reveals in
his polemical utterances against some 'Judaizers' a complete lack of sympathy for Judaism, from which 'Christianity' is clearly distinguished (Magn
10.3, Phld 6.1). Conformity to 'Judaism' shows that one has not 'received
grace' (Magn 8.1). Judaism consists of 'erroneous teachings and ancient
fables which are useless'(dvwipA17C; Magn 8.1; cf. Heb 7.18) and of 'obsolete
practices' including Sabbath observance (9.1). Judaism is a 'deteriorated
leaven' (10.2). 'It is absurd to have Jesus Christ on the lips and at the same
time live like a Jew' (10.3). Ignatius even suggests that the Prophets who
were 'in conformity with Christ Jesus' did not observe the obsolete practices
(8.2, cf. 9.2, Phld 5.2).
Ignatius thus presupposes a complete and ruthless break with Judaism.
Unfortunately, we are not told what he thought of the origin and nature of
the OT law. What of the moral law? Was there a time when the deteriorated
leaven was fresh and useful, or was there not? The extant sources are not
sufficient to give answers to such questions.
87 A reference to the Decree is recognized here, e.g.,
miiller; U. Miiller, Theologiegeschichte 17 ff.
88 Cf. Conzelmann-Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch 320.
89 M.iiller, op.cit. 20.

by Charles, Bousset, Weiss-Heit-

220

VII. Other conceptions

The 'Letter of Barnabas' is an 'academic' treatise 90 about the right

relationshi~ of Christians to Judaism by a Gentile Christian teacher (14.5,
16.7,4.9). 1 It hardly owes its existence to any concrete danger from Judaism in the life of Christian congregations;92 the question is an inner-Christian
one, the problem of the relationship between the two covenants and of the
continuity of salvation history.93 The author takes a radical stance: there is
one covenant only, and the Christians alone have a claim on it (esp. chs. 4
and 14). To be sure, God offered the covenant to the Jews, but they lost it
forever when they turned to idolatry; Moses' breaking the tablets of law
demonstrates that their covenant was shattered 'in order that the covenant of
dear Jesus be sealed in our hearts' (4.7 f.).
Thus the OT law is a possession of the Christians who understand its meaning correctly. Moses 'legislated the law well' (10.11). Barn interprets the ceremonial part of the law by way of fanciful allegorizing (see esp. ch. 10 on the
food laws), squeezing moral lessons from the rituals. In this he of course
leans on Hellenistic Jewish models. The writer declines a literal interpretation
of sacrifices, fasting and of the temple cult altogether, always looking for
arguments for his view in the OT itself (chs. 2-3, 15-16). Moses himself
intended that the law be understood in this way (10.1 f., 9). 2.6 suggests that
the precepts of animal sacrifices were 'man-made'. Barn also spiritualizes
circumcision and explains the literal understanding of the rite as a misinterpretation caused by an evil angel (9.4) - the closest counterpart of Gal 3.19
in post-Pauline early Christian literature!94
Barn thus consistently reduces the God-given law to a moral law. The
moral law remains in force, as is shown by the detailed description of the
'way of light' in ch. 19. Barn follows in fact without reservations the moral
teaching of the Diaspora Synagogue. The OT law fuses completely together
with 'the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ' which is 'without the yoke of
compulsion' (2.6) - that is, without ritual precepts. 9S Otherwise, the 'new'
law is by no means new in content. 96
In terms of logic, the thesis of Barn is clear enough. The Jewish law is
divided in two parts; of these one is a Jewish misunderstanding, the other is

90 Vielhauer, Gerchichte 606.

91 Wengst, Tradition, assumes a 'school' activity behind Barn; see esp. SS ff. Bihhneyer,
Vater XXII and Wilde, Treatment 87 regard the writer as a Jewish Christian.
92 Vielhauer, op.cit. 60S f.;note, however, 3.6 ('in order that we may not suffer destruc:
tion if we come across their law without preparation'); cf. 4.6. Wilde, op.cit. 88
assumes a danger that Judaism was presenting to the Church.

93 Vielhauer, op.cit. 606.

94 On Barnabas' view of circumcision see above, p. 139.
95 See Wengst, op.cit. 83; Hasler, Gesetz 30; Klevinghaus, Stellung 30.
96 Wengst, op.cit. 73, 83.

Later writings

221

divine and valid. Some confusion is caused by the statement that God has
'abolished' (KarrlPYl7Uev) the sacrificial legislation (2.6) which would seem to
presuppose that this legislation was once in force. 97 A more probable interpretation is, however, that Karap'Yew here and elsewhere (9.4, 16.2) refer$ to
a timeless divine judgment on the essence of the sacrifices rather than to an
eschatological act; that is, God makes it clear in the texts of the OT itself that
sacrifices are not valid. 98 Logically, then, the solution of Barnabas is well and
good. Its weakness lies in its brutally question-begging nature, the author's
'naive Christian preunderstanding,99. The question of Christianity's relationship to Judaism is answered from the 'enlightened' rational viewpoint of a
total outsider; the Gordian knot is cut with force. lOO
Admittedly the writer is no very profound thinker, but his ability is often
unduly depteciated.1 1 But of course his situation was different than Paul's.
It was easy for him to apply ruthless logic to the question, as the problem was
not an existential one for him himself.
Marcion's aim was separatio legis et evangelii (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. I,
19). He thought through his fundamental thoughts with 'intransigent consistency,102. The contents of the OT exposed the god of the OT as a cruel and
brutal demiurge, far inferior to the 'unknown God', the God of love, revealed
by Jesus. In principle Marcion rejects the OT altogether as the book of the
creator which has no use in the Christian congregation. He consistently carries
through the abrogation line found in Paul's thought. Paul's other idea, that
his teaching establishes the law (Rom 3.31), was impossible to Marcion and
97 Windisch, Barn 311,393.
98 Klevinghaus, op.cit. 20 n. 1, 23 f.; Wengst, op.cit. 73 ff. 'Nicht ein christliches Heilsdatum also hat die jiidischen Entwicklungen ... eschatologisch relativiert und abgeschafft, sondern die Schrift selbst sagt, dass die se Einrichtungen grundsiitzlich und zu
jeder Zeit falsch sind und waren' (Wengst, op.cit. 73 f.) The use of Kamp,,{I.v in 9.4
(perfect tense) and 16.2 supports the timeless interpretation of 2.6; in 5.6 and 15.5
the same verb is, however, used in the sense of eschatological abolition (of death or
of the 'period of the lawless one' respectively). Should Windisch (see previous note)
therefore be right, after all, then a slight internal tension in Barn remains, pointing to
the arbitrarily aprioristic nature of the writer's premises which make it difficult for
him to deal with the concrete OT texts (which are his supreme, absolutely normative
authority; see Wengst, op.cit. 78, 119 and passim).
99 Wengst, op.cit. 78.
100 To be sure, Barn comes rather close to liberal Jews like the Alexandrian allegorizers
(Philo, Migr. Abr. 89 ff.), even though no dependence needs to be posited; cf. Windisch, Barn 395. Most probably, however, the 'allegorizers' did not combine any
polemic against the ritua1law with their spiritualization and personal non-<>bservance
of it. See above, p. 137.
101 Cf. e.g. Vielhauer, op.cit. 603 f. By contrast, Stylianopoulos, Justin 88 recognizes
that, like Justin and Hebrews but unlike Paul, Barn is 'uncompromising' as regards
the abolition of the ritual law.
102 von Campenhausen,BibeI176.

222

VII. Other conceptions

the verse was cancelled by him as was the following chapter (Rom 4) with its
Abraham typology .103
Thus the outline of Marcion's view of the law is free from the ambiguity
inherent in Paul's position. Nevertheless, Marcion's conception contains
several minor difficulties.1 4 To be sure, the confusion may to a great extent be due to the lack of adequate sources as regards Marcion's thought. 105
Anyway, Marcion retained in his 'apostolos' several Pauline statements which
we would have expected him to remove.106 These include the statements
that the law is good, just, holy and spiritual (Rom 7.12,14) and that 'I serve
God's law with my mind' (Rom 7.25), and that the law is summarized in the
love command.
Thus the law of the creator is not wholly objectionable, after all. Marcion
is simply not able, in view of the OT record and the use made ofit in Christianity, to develop a consistently negative view of the law. He has to admit a
good kernel in the OT law so that Christiani~ can be seen as the fulftlment of
its deepest intention (the love command).lO
Marcion, then, is (unlike Paul) quite consistent in his rejection of the law
in the present situation. Of the nature and purpose of the law, however, he is
not able to give a fully clear picture (if we are entitled to infer this much from
the sparse evidence available).
A striking feature in Marcion's treatment of the OT is that he takes the
book at face value. Besides rejecting the allegorical interpretation, he
'acknowledged the OT as a unitary whole, assumed no falsifications, interpolations etc. and did not regard the book as untrue either but rather as
throughout credible' .108 The OT was not subjected to such textual criticisms
103 Harnack, Marcion 48; 73*, 104*. Marcion also cancelled Gal 3.15 -25 because of its
'promise' theology.

104 See Harnack, op.cit. 109 f. n. 2.

105 We know Marcion's thought only through excerpts in his opponents' works; moreover, we have to make inferences from his redaction of Luke and Paul and it is not
self-evident that everything Marcion let stand in his text should be given full weight
in the reconstruction of his own thought.
106 See above, p. 139 f.
107 Verweijs, Gesetz 259 f. contends (against Harnack) that the idea of fulfilment is
'scharf antithetisch ausgerichtet', for 'bei den Christen erfiillt ist, was beim Welts.chopfer niemals erfiillt werden konnte'. He refers to Marcion's rendering of Gal
5.14: 'in one word' is omitted and Ell u/Jill added. This polemical orientation cannot
be denied. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is something in the creator's law
that deserves to be fulfilled.
A full rejection of the OT was carried out by some (not all!) Gnostics; see above
all the 'Second Treatise of the great Seth' (NHC VII, 2, p. 62, 27-65, 1; NHL 335 f.)
where 'Moses, a faithful servant' is called a 'laughingstock' (63, 26 ff.) - as is the OT
god ('Archon', 64, 18 ff.). Cf. H-F. Weiss, 'Gesetz' 78 f.; Bethge, 'Ambivalenz' 104 ff.;
see also Koschorke, 'Paulus' 180-183, 194-196.
108 Harnack, op.cit. 86.

Later writings

223

as were the gospel and the 'apostolos'. Harnack sees in this difference of attitudes a psychological riddle and conjectures that Marcion had a Jewish (proselyte) background. 109 Perhaps this is indeed the best hypothesis to account
for the striking combination of reverence for and a radical rejection of the
aT law, not quite unlike Paul's ambiguous attitude! It might also explain
Marcion's reluctance to make explicit distinctions within the law.
Given these tensions, Marcion's overall view of the law is still much clearer
than Paul's.110 He has taken up Paul's radical line of thought and brought it
to its logical end. The price he had to pay was, of course, a complete elimination of salvation history and the assumption of two gods along with which
went a world-denying asceticism.
Justin breaks new ground in the Christian interpretation of the law. 111
Apparently his conception was first formed in a battle with Marcionites; in
the Dialogue he later puts forward the same points of view in a confrontation
with Judaism.t 12 The significant features are Justin's 'tripartite division of
the law,113 and 'his historical concept of the purpose of the law,.114
From certain passa,ges in the Dialogue (45.3, 67.4, 10,44.2) it can be
inferred that Justin actually, if not explicitly, divides the law in three parts:
ethics, prophecy and historical dispensation.t 15 This helps him to preserve
'the principle of the absolute authority and consistency of Scripture'. 116
It is only the ritual part of the law that is a problem for Justin; God's moral
law is permanently valid. To solve the problem, Justin develops his view of
the ritual law as an historical dispensation.
The ritual law has been abolished through the new law (11.2; Justin often
calls Christ a vOJ,LOC; .)117 'It is the death of Christ as the new criterion of salvation which renders the Mosaic Law obsolete.,n8 Justin formulates the teaching of the cessation of the law much more sharply than subsequent orthodox
writers, being even 'more thoroughgoing' than Paul in this regard. 119 He
109 Harnack, op.cit. 22,67 n. 1. Cf. Conzelmann, Heiden 255 n. 217.
110 Cf. H-F. Weiss, art.cit. 76: 'Marcion's conception has, in comparison with Paul's,
the advantage of being absolutely unequivocal'.
111 See the fine study of Stylianopoulos, Justin.
112 See Stylianopoulos, op.cit. 7-44, 153 ff.
113 Op.cit. 1, 51 ff.
114 Op.cit. 1, 131 ff.
115 Op.cit. 55.
116 Op.cit. 76.
117 Op.cit. 78 ff.
118 Op.cit. 86.
1190p.cit. 87 and n. 24 (with reference to e.g. Rom 3.31). Stylianopoulos, op.cit. 90
finds it possible that behind the sharp abrogation theology may lie the idea that 'a
concept of fulfilment in the sense of bringing to perfection might well have suggested
to Justin imperfection on the part of the Mosaic Law and thus, consequently, also
of God ... ' This is indeed a dilemma of all 'fulfilment' theologies.

224

VII. Other conceptions

comes close to Marcion, the only important difference being that for Justin
the law was given by the same God and Father of all. To be able to maintain
this against the Marcionites, Justin had to find a purpose for the ritual law.
This was given on the account of the sinfulness of the Jews. 120
Thus Justin's view is much clearer and much more logical than Paul's.
He divides the law into different parts and deals with them differently: some
parts have been abolished, others not. The abolished parts, too, had a historical meaning in their time; Justin struggles to avoid the problem of theodicy,
inherent in so many Christian views of the law. While his explanation is logical, its individual parts (the reasons given for the precepts of circumcision
and Sabbath in the first place) are naive. Nevertheless, his was a bold attempt
to combine a theology of the abolition of the law with the principle of the
absolute divine authority of the OT scripture. Without a relativization of one
of the two a much better solution was indeed hardly to be attained.
To be sure, Justin found himself in a favourable situation in comparison
with Paul: the battle over the law was long since over. The law did not constitute a personal existential problem for Justih as it did for Paul. 121 Yet the
fact that Justin refrains from making his tripartite division of the law explicitly deserves attention;122 his high regard for the authority of Scripture may
have unconsciously prevented him from working out a bolder and clearer breakdown of the unity of Scripture. The analogy with Paul's case lies at hand.
Probably the most lucid solution to the problems of the law in early Christianity in terms of rational thought was suggested by the Valentinian Gnostic
Ptolemy in his letter to Flora. 123 In this short writing of 'unusually high
intellectual and literary standards,124 Ptolemy declines both the rejection of
the OT by Marcion and the total acceptance of the book by the mainstream
church and proceeds to make clear critical distinctions within the OT law.
The Mosaic law is not uniform nor of a single origin; it consists of different elements that are of different value. The law cannot have been given by
the perfect God; he just could not have given an imperfect law which needed
to be fulfilled by someone else and contained precepts incompatible with his
own being and will (3.4). The law comes neither from this God nor from the
devil (3.2)125 Its proper assessment is made possible through the 'words of
our Saviour' (3.8).1 26
120 See above, p. 155 f.
121 Nevertheless, the problem of the law was for Justin not just an academic problem
either. In ch. 47 he refers to the law-abiding Jewish Christians of his time, to whom
different Gentile Christians took a different attitude. Justin's tolerant viewpoint
deserves attention.
122 See above, p.32.
123 Text in Epiphanius,Panarion ch. 33.
124 Campenhausen, Bibel 98; cf. Aleith,Paulusverstiindnis 46.
125 The reference to the devil hints in a distorting way at Marcion's position; cf. v.

Later writings

225

The words of Jesus concerning divorce and the traditions of the elders
provide a clue for distinctions within the law (4.2-13). They expose additions both by Moses and by the elders. The contribution of Moses is revealed
in the admission of divorce (4.2-10), that of the elders in Jesus' criticism of
the Qorban institution (4.11-13). The rest is a law purified from human
additions. Yet even this law turns out, in the light of the words of Jesus, to be
non-uniform. Parts of it were accepted by Jesus and fulfilled through the
interpretation given in the Sermon on the Mount. This is the pure legislation
which is not mixed with evil (5.1). It is represented by the Decalogue. Nevertheless, even this part of the law was imperfect and had to be fulfilled by the
Saviour (5.3) through his interpretation given in the Sermon on the Mount
(6.11).
Other parts of the OT law, for example the laws of retaliation and killing,\
are in themselves righteous; nevertheless, they are not consonant with the
goodness of the true God, but take man's weakness into account (5.4-5).
Jesus, the Son of God, therefore abolished these ordinances, even though he
admitted their origin with God (5.7,6.2) - that is, with the demiurge. Still
another part of the law is the ceremonial or 'typical' law of images and symbols; in interpreting this Ptolemy appropriates the established Jewish allegorical method (5.8-15,6.4 f.). This part of the law has been transferred from
the literal level to a spiritual one (6.4).
Ptolemy thinks that this distinction between different layers within the
law (and it alone) solves all the problems connected with Paul's statements
about the law (6.6). When the apostle now rejects the law and now accepts it,
the ex~lanation is that he has different parts of this complex entity in
view. l 7 The Gnostic thus anticipates the views of Cranfield, K1isemann and
others.t 28 In his view, Rom 7.12 is a statement on that law which is not
mixed with evil, whereas Eph 2.15 is concerned with that mixed with unrighteousness (retaliation and the like). The fact that Ptolemy is forced to carry
out these distinctions is another palpable piece of proof of the problematic
nature of Paul's 'uniform' statements about the law. Where Paul strives after
a global solution (on the conscious level of his reasoning), Ptolemy examines

Campenhausen, op.cit. 103 n. 33.

126 Quispel, Lettre 16 points out the similarity with Kerygmata Petrou (Horn 3.50). To
what degree Hellenistic Iudaism may have prepared the way for Ptolemy (cf. Fallon,
'Law' 51) is another matter. It is not clear that Ptolemy's distinctions regarding the
origin of various parts of the law correspond to those made by Philo (see above,
p. 135). The allegorizers rebuked by Philo (see above, p.35) may have constituted
a link, but then again they may not. A study of the gospel of Matthew would have
sufficed to give Ptolemy his cue.
127 Camoenhausen, op.cit. 101.
128 Cf. above\ p. 42 ff., 65 t".

226

VII. Other conceptions

the contents of the law concretely on point after point; inescapably the result
then must-be a differentiated view about the law.
Unlike Paul (and even unlike Justin), Ptolemy is able to carry out these
distinctions, since he feels free to criticiZe the aT from his own Valentinian
frame of reference. It is the lack of existential commitment regarding the aT
that helps him, unlike the mainstream Christians of his time, to provide 'a
kind of scientifically critical account of the diversity of the Mosaic Law'. 129
The price he.has to pay is, of course, that the unity of God is lost; not even
'the 'divine' part of the law comes from the perfect God, the Father of All
(3.7), but-from the demiurge. 130 Unlike more 'orthodox' writers, however,
Ptolemy manages to avoid self-contradictions in God's revealed Wm. To be
sure, he thus 'tends to deny history,131; yet it can be doubted whether it
was at all possible to provide a much more convincing account (in intellectual terms) before the time of historical criticism; It is therefore justified to
regard him as a kind of precursor of modern Biblical study.132 In purely
intellectual terms his account of the law is consistent and clear and far more
impressive than Paul's.
Last but not least the Kerygmata Petrou are to be mentioned here. In
these texts from about AD 200133 which have survived in the Pseudoclementine romance. we at last frod clear distinctions within the Mosaic law made
/roin- within and not from the standpoint of a detached outsider. Behind the
KP stands a Christian community with a strictly Jewish identity which partly
represents an intensified nomism.t 34 According to KP, the aT contained
some 'false pericopes,.135 The original will of God which was revealed
through Moses was partly forgotten because of false teaching etc. (Hom 1.18,
Rec 1.15). As the revelation was written down only after Moses' death (Hom
3.47), the process of writing brought falsifications along with it (Hom 2.38).
Jesus, the reformer of the Mosaic law, distinguished between right and false
pericopes. He said that he did not come to -annul the law; nevertheless it

129 Styllanopouios,Justin 75.

130 Even this statement may be an oversimplification of Ptolemy's actual position.

Campenhausen, op.cit. 103 f. notes that actually 'werden die drei verschiedenen
Elemente des Gottesgesetzes nach valentinianischer Lehre vielmehr auf drei giittliche
Potenzen zuriickgefiihrt: den pneumatischen. Samen, die Sophia und die Kriifte des
Demiurgen. Ptolemaios schiitzt den Wert des At also teils Mher, tells noch niedriger
ein, als seine Zusammenfassung erkennen liisst.' a. Quispel, op.cit. 23 ff. Quispel,
op.cit. 9 refers to the exoteric and pedagogical nature of the letter to Flora.
131 Quispel, op.cit. 10, trying to play down the alleged 'modernity' of Ptolemy, who is
., in thiS respect 'even less "DlI;ldem" than the works of the Fathers' .
132Cf. C. Barth,Interpretaffoh 103.
133 See Strecker,Judenchristentum 219.
134 a. Schoeps, Theologie 188 ff.; id., Judenchristentum 81 ff:
135 See OD these Strecket,-op.cit. 166 ff.; Schoeps, Theologie 148 ff.

Conclusion

227

seems as if he had abolished parts of it. From this it can be concluded that
'what he annulled (KaTAUv) did not belong to the law' (Horn 3.51). The
things that did disappear before heaven and earth (cf. Lk 16.17) could not be
parts of the true law which is eternal. The false precepts included 'the sacrifices, the kingship and the female prophecy and other such things' (Horn
3.52).136 The 'other things' included anthropomorphisms, the stories about
the immorality of the ~atriarchs and Moses, etc.
This 'enlightened,1 7 theory probably owes its existence to some acute
crisis threatening the self-understanding of the Jewish-Christians responsible
for it, whether the threat came from Marcionites 138 or just from contact
with the non-Jewish environment in general. 139 The Jewish Christians in
question tried to overcome the threat by conceding as much as they could to
the opponents' position by way of 'Biblical criticism' while clinging all the
more steadfastly to what was seen as the hard core of the Mosaic legislation.
In a sense this attempt forms an analogy to the efforts of Philo and others to
meet the criticisms of non-Jews through an allegorical interpretation of the
offensive parts of Scripture. 140 The method chosen by KP is bolder and
relatively more 'historical' and also more plausible. This differentiated view of
the law also makes, in intellectual terms, more sense than Paul's vague suggestion of the angelic origin of the law in Gal 3.19. The law was not annulled;
only illegitimate additions to it were removed. Noteworthy is the firm opposition to Paul, the 'enemy' par excellence, reflected in the KP.141 In sum, the
solution proposed by KP is one of the clearest in the period surveyed.

5. Conclusion
The above survey should have made clear that Paul shares some of his
dilemmas with other early Christian writers, while others are peculiar to him.
Thus, the concept of 'law' often oscillates in other writers, too (Pastorals,
James, Mark, Matthew); it is by no means Paul alone who combines lip service to the idea of continuity with an actual break with the Torah-observance.
The problem of the divine origin of an inferior revelation is also a common

136 On the prophecy see Strecker, op.cit. 175 ff.; Schoeps,Judenchristentum 72 ff.
137 Cf. Schoeps, op.cit. 77.
138 Thus Schoeps, op.cit. 78.
139 Strecker, op.cit. 171 regards the theory as a product of the 'Jewish-Christian Gnosis';
cf. id., 'Judenchristentum und Gnosis' 278 f. The analogy with Ptolemy's treatment
of the question is indeed obvious; cf. above, n. 126.
140 Cf. Strecker, Judenchristenttim 169.
141 Cf. Strecker, op.cit. 187 ff. It is not advisable to trace the theory of KP back to the
primitive community in Jerusalem (thus Schoeps, The%gie 256 ff.; cf. Simon's
attempt to connect Stephen with them: Stephen 113 ff.); see Strecker, op.cit. 180
etc.

228

VII. Other conceptions

one to most of the writers in question; it is indeed only solved by writers at

the fringe of second century Christianity (Ptolemy, Kerygmata Petrou) who
had the freedom and courage to introduce critical distinctions, refusing to
regard the total OT legislation as God-given.
The Pauline tension between the annulment of the law and its continued
validity still turns up in Ephesians. Other writers, however, are at pains to
find a more consistent solution (in either direction). Indeed, the modern
efforts to portray Paul as a consistent critic or else as a consistent upholder
of the law (cL the conflict between the views of Kasemann and Cranfield)
can be seen as a continuation of this early hermeneutical necessity. Some
ancient writers attempt to reconcile Paul's ideas by introducing new definitions (Pastorals) or distinctions (Ptolemy, explicitly interpreting Paul's apparent self-contradictions).
Several dilemmas in Paul's thought on the law are, however, peculiar to
him alone. This applies, above all, to the many negative things said about the
divine law (that Gnostics who denied the origin of the law with the supreme
God said bad things about it is, of course, something different).
In sum, I am not able to find in the relevant literature any conception of
the law which involves such inconsistencies or such arbitrariness as does Paul's.
While most of the conceptions surveyed above are not free from problems
either, all of them appear more consistent and less problematic than Paul's.
The common view that Paul is the thinker in early Christianity is, I must
conclude, misleading. On the contrary, the estimate of the philosopher von
Hartmann at the beginning of this century has proved correct: 'Paul moves in
more severe contradictions than any other New Testament writer.' 142
In part, however, this is due to the fact that Paul at least attempts to answer
questions which were simply by-passed by others.

142 Christentum 176.

VIII. The origins of Paul's conception of the law

In this chapter I attempt to find a historical explanation for the rise of
Paul's peculiar view of the law. How and why did Paul come to the ideas we
now encounter in his letters? It is not, of course, difficult to account for the
'conservative', law-affirming elements in his view: obviously, they are part of
Paul's Jewish heritage. A plausible theory about the origins of Paul's final
view must, however, explain the perseverance of these elements among all
those radical statements dictated by the apostle. Above all, a plausible theory
ought to account for the distinctively Pauline features. While Paul was not
alone in early Christianity in taking a liberal stance toward the Torah, it is he
alone who put forward extremely negative statements about the connection
between the law and sin, and the like. A plausible theory ought to suggest, at
least, a reason why Paul speaks of the law in a way unlike any other early
Christian.
I will engage in a search for such a theory by surveying the various possibilities. The enterprise is, of course, hypothetical to a rather high degree, and the
caveat stated in the introduction should perhaps be repeated here: the analysis
of part one in this work should not be deemed to depend on the plausibility
of the solution developed here.

1. Paul's experience under the law?

It was earlier quite common to trace Paul's critical attitude to the law back
to his Pharisaic experience: Paul broke down, it was held, under the distressing burden of the law. The demands were too high; Paul, as a very sincere
man, was just incapable of fulfIlling them. This interpretation was, of course,
based on Romans 7, taken as an autobiography;1 Acts 26.14 also played a
part. 2 In recent times this explanation, while not wholly without its advocates 3 , has generally been laid to rest,4 and rightly so.
1 E.g. Deissmann, Paul 93 ff.; Weinel, Paul 68 ff. (p. 72 Paul is made to side with
Luther); id., Theologie 416 ff.; Holtzmann, Theologie 11 30; W.L. Knox, Jerusalem
28; Gulin, Freude 193 f.; Klausner, Jesus 463; Dodd, Romans 107 ff. (speaking of
Paul's 'desperation', p. 115); Andrews, Teaching 148, 155 ff.; Gr~nbech, Paulus 9
ff.; cf. also Nock,Paul67 ff.
2 Cf. still Caird, Age 119. On Acts 26.14 see Ktimmel, RO"mer 7, 154 ff.
3 Cf. Dodd, Studies 74 ff.; Davies, Paul 23 ff.; Buber, Zwei Glaubensweisen 149 ff.;
Sandmel, Genius 24 ff.; Hunt, Portrait 27 f.; Ben-Chorin, Paulus 60 ff. M. Grant,

230

VIII. The origins

In Phil 3.6 Paul unequivocally states that he was, in his past life, blameless
according to Pharisaic standards. If the interpretation suggested above 5 is
on the right track, Rom 7.14-25 represents a radicalization and generalization by Paul of a well-known psychological conflict. Man is not always able to
realize what he knows to be right. Paul's 'apology of the law' in Rom 7
suggests that this is always the case within the dominion of the law. Despite
the use of the first person pronoun as a stylistic device 6 Rom 7.14 ff. does
not convey the impression of being the description of an intense personal
experience. 7 As the preceding verses 7-13 obviously belong together with
14 ff. 8 , there is no reason to understand the process there described in particularly personal terms either. In these verses, too, Paul speaks as ifthe events
described were universally valid; he is speaking of the effects of the law
always and everywhere (with overtones from the story of Adam, to be sure).9
We do not have to do with his particular personal story.
Paul 23,45 ff., 109; as one explanatory factor among several also Lindeskog, Jesus
163; Caird, op.cit. 119. Another version of this interpretation is that of Hunt, loco
cit.: Rom 7 describes an internal struggle rather than external actions; Paul had
omitted to observe none of the commandments, and yet 'within him there were these
inordinate desires'. Cf. Dodd, op.cit. 75. Yet the modern notion, stemming from
Western Christian introspection, of an evil desire which spoils even good actions, was
foreign to the men of antiquity before Augustine; cf. Stendahl, Paul 78 ff. According
to the Jewish view, desire was the root of all evil because it led to evil deeds. Cf.
Rliislinen, 'Gebrauch' 91 with note 34. Moreover, there is no talk of 'desire' (mentioned in Rom 7.7 f.) any more in the section about the divided man in 7.14 ff.
It is not said that the Ego performs externally good actions while tortured by evil
desires. On the contrary, there is within that man the will for good, and yet he is
unable to do 'external' good things (7 .18b, cf. v. 15b. 16a).
4 To a great extent this is due to the careful study of KUmme1, Romer Z
5 See above, III 4.
6 See KUmmel, op.cit. 119 ff.
7 Not even 7.24a. Dodd, op.cit. 107, comments on this verse: 'A man is not moved like
that by an ideal construction'; cf. Buber, op.cit. 150; Nygren; Beker, Paul 240;
Gundry, 'Frustration' 229. Yet such an exclamation seems to be a traditional topos
in such a connection; cf. infelix in Ovid,Metamorph. 8,18.
8 Verses 14 ff. state either the consequence of, or, more probably, the reason for the
events described in vv. 7-13; see above, p.142 f.
9 It is now fashionable to see the story of Adam reflected on in Rom 7.7 -11 (thus
Klisemann, Schlier, and many others). But why, then, did Paul not simply mention
Adam (cf. Bornkamm, Ende 58 f.)? It is true that, according to some Jewish traditions, the law was proleptically given to Adam in the Paradise already (Targum
Neofiti Gen 2.15 'to observe the law'; ibid. on Gen 3.24 the tree oflife is identified
with the law); cf. Lyonnet,Histoire 135 ff.; id., 'Tu ne convoiteras pas' 162 f. It does
not automatically follow from the existence of such traditions, however, that Paul
must have used them. If Paul was really speaking of Adam in Rom 7, a blunt contradiction arises between this chapter and Rom 5, where the law is explicitly dated in
a much later time (cf. Luz, Geschichtsverstiindnls 166); cf. also Gal 3.15 ff. In Rom 7
Paul is concerned to develop an 'apology' for the Mosaic law (cf. the reference to the

Paul's experience under the law?

231

If we are allowed to draw from Paul's Christian statements about sin and
transgression conclusions about the degree of his pre-Christian scrupulousness, the picture converges with that suggested by Phil3.6. Nothing indicates
that Paul had an ovedy sensitive mind in the vein of Luther. 1O Paul the Christian seems on the contrary to possess a rather 'robust' conscience. l1 He can
say that he has nothing on his conscience (1 Cor 4.4).12 The only past sin
(not classified as such in express words, to be sure!) of which he shows consciousness is his persecution of the church.!3 It is only natural to assume a
mental continuity between the Jewish and the Christian Paul.
The nature of Paul's argument in Rom 2-3 points in the same direction.1 4
In his effort to convict the Jew, along with the pagan, of sin, Paul does not
try to show, say, that even the best actions of a man are spoiled by his evil
desires; instead, he charges the Jew almost desperately with extremely gross
transgressions. The way Paul the Christian talks about sin does not indicate
a mind steeped in introspection. In sum, we can safely subscribe to the now
common opinion that Paul's critique of the law was not born out of any
personal moral difficulties. Paul was no Luther before Luther.
To say that Paul had no moral difficulties with the law is one thing. It is
another to claim that Paul did not have and could not have any kind of
difficulties, not even unconscious ones, amid his blameless fulfilment of the
law. Conversions do have a psychological prehistory, even if the convert himself is the last one to see it. That Paul went through 'a volcanic internal
crisis' 15 can hardly be denied. 'His conversion happened as a drastic psychological crisis, which he does not and could not explain, and which we
cannot either,;16 nevertheless, some educated guesses on our part can hardly
be out of place. Indeed 'analogies suggest that his conversion was not the
sudden thing which it seemed to him,.17
Decalogue!). If Paul was speaking of Adam in Rom 7, then the confusion of his argument is worse than ever! But it is more natural to take the passage as an account of
the fall of any Jew, described in the language of the Biblical story of the Fall (Barrett).
For a critique of the 'Adam' interpretation see now Gundry, art.cit. 230-232.
10 M. Grant, Paul 109 postulates 'self-tortures' which 'continued throughout his life'!
There is not a shred of evidence for this.
11 Stendahl, Paul 80; cf. Dahl, Studies 111; Gager, 'Notes' 698 f. See further the very
interesting suggestions about the personality of first century Mediterranean people
by Malina, 'Individual' 126 ff. Interestingly enough even Wenham, who holds that
Paul speaks from personal experience in Rom 7.14-25 ('Life' 89) goes a long way
toward Stendahl's position (art.cit. 82, 89, 94 n. 41).
12 On 1 Cor 4.4 see also Windisch, Taufe 125 f. One is reminded of the simple optimism
ofthe pious psalm singers, see e.g. Ps 19.13 f.
13 Stendahl, op.cit. 89.
14 See above, III 2.
15 Nock,PauI31.
16 Nock, op.cit. 67 f.
17 Nock, op.cit. 73; cf. M. Grant, op.cit. 46; Kuss,Paulus 345 n. 3.

232

VIII. The origins

In modern times it has become customary, most of all among German

exegetes, to exclude categorically all psychological arguments from the interpretation of what Paul wrote. 18 All theories to the effect that encounter
with Christians might have prepared Paul's mind can be put aside as 'pure
phantasy' .1 9 The reason is simply that Paul himself says nothing of the
kind! 20 This naive trust on a man's testimony about himself is a curious
fundamentalistic survival within critical scholarship. We have of course very
little hope of being able to penetrate into the psychic life of a per.son of the
ancient world 2000 years later. 21 Nevertheless, some psychological commonplaces are probably applicable. It is one such commonplace that the
unconscious can break through in opposition to the conscious belief to which
one clings. There is 'a polarity, a kind of opposition, between unconscious
experience and consciousness' so that 'the more we are unconsciously smitten
with doubts about an idea, the more dogmatically we fight for it in our conscious arguments.' 'A dynamic struggle goes on within a person between what
he or she consciously thinks on the one hand and, on the other, some insight,
some perspective that is struggling to be born.'22
18 Representatively Conzehnann, Outline 155.
19 Klimmel, Romer 7, 154.
20 Cf. Kliinmel, op.cit. 160: 'Alle psychologisierenden Hypothesen und alle Behauptungen, die liber das aus den Quellen zu Erhebende hinausgehen, flihren nur an den
Tatsachen vorbei und vergessen die Ehrfurcht vor der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit.'
As if the texts alone were the 'historical reality'! Bornkamm's inconsistent reasoning
(Paulus 46) well reflects the problems inherent in this anti-psychological attitude: at
first he admits that 'one has to assume with certainty' that the christological question, 'geweckt durch Glauben und Zeugnis seiner Jtinger, an ihm (Paul) und in ihm
gearbeitet hat'. Then he goes on, however: 'Freilich, er selbst schweigt darliber und
bestatigt eindeu tig (!), dass nicht em langsamer Reifepro-zess, sondern allein die souverane und freie Tat Gottes die Wende heraufgefUhrt hat.' But one cannot have it both
ways! Correctly Lowe, 'Examination' 130: 'Paul always thought of his conversion as
a sheer bolt from the blue'; 'as a psycholugical description of the process, that may
be all wrong; it probably is'.
21 Psychological study of the NT is still in its infancy. I cannot find much illumination
in current psychoanalytical attempts to interpret Paul; cf. Vergote, 'Beitrag'; Rubenstein, Paul; Scroggs, Paul. Attempting to establish a parallel between Rom 7 and
psychoanalytical insights into the Oedipus complex, Vergote interprets the 'law' of
Rom 7 as 'the law of the father' (which prohibits desiring the mother) rather than the
Torah; the pronoun E-yw, too, is interpreted in a framework totally foreign to Paul.
Rubenstein's book is a curious combination of sound exegetical knowledge, profound theological insights and wild and hazardous psychoanalytical interpretations.
For some good comments see now Gager, 'Notes'. He sees Paul's notion of justification through faith 'as a theological commentary ... on Paul's own biography'
(702). This presupposes, however, the old notion of the law as the path to righteousness in Paul's pre-conversion value system (700) which was simply turned upside
down with the conversion.
22 May, Courage 59 (in a passage entitled 'Creativity and the Unconscious'). Beker, op.

Paul's experience under the law?

233

But what insight, what perspective? What was Paul's unconscious struggle,
if we may posit such a thing, all about? We have seen that a personal failure
with respect to observance of the commandments does not come into
question. There are other possibilities; it lies in the nature of the matter that
they must remain highly conjectural.
With all caution, the question may be raised, why did Paul come later to
speak of his (and other people's) non-Christian past repeatedly and strongly
as slavery? Why is the contrast between past and present set forth so markedly as one between bondage and freedom? Given all secondary rationalizations
and Paul's indubitable tendency to see things in black-and-white - are the
strong contrasts of Gal 3-4, 2 Cor 3, Rom 5-6 etc. really explicable if Paul
had never had any feelings of bondage, fear, and the like, in his pre-Christian
past? For all the joy connected with the task of fulfilling God's commandments, the cheerful yoke of the law was, for the pious Jew, nevertheless a
yoke; the image was not coined for nothing. 23 We may conclude that it is at
least not impossible that Paul's great stress on the 'new situation in the Spirit'
(Rom 7.6) and on the contrast between the freedom in the Spirit and the
'letter' of the law (2 Cor 3.6, Rom 7.6) had something to do with a personal
experience of liberation. It is very one-sided to view Paul's conversion or call
experience just as a theological reorientation. Early Christianity was a charismatic movement where ecstatic experiences were daily bread, and we have
good reasons to assume that Paul was not an exception.
If the pneumatic experience of Christ had liberated Paul from the 'letter',
what exactly was he liberated from? A full answer would presuppose an
account of the attitude to the law of those Christians whom Paul had persecuted. What had they been liberated from? This might give a clue for the
assessment of Paul's situation; we must, however, postpone a discussion of
the views of the 'Hellenists' for a while (see below, VIII 6). Here we must
content ourselves with a couple of clues from Paul's letters.

cit. 237 is quite justified in asking, 'How could the Christophany have been so traumatic and so radical in its consequences unless it lit up and answered a hidden quest
in his (Paul's) soul?' CL also Gager, art.cit. 699 ff. Beker thinks that Paul's Christophany 'unmasked and resolved' 'a hidden conflict', making evident to Paul his actual
transgression (cf. Rom 7), hypocrisy (cf. Rom 2.17 ff.), and boasting (cf. Rom 3.26);
op.cit. 241. While agreeing with the notion of a hidden conflict I envisage the nature
of that conflict quite differently (largelybecause I read the texts from Romans mentioned above differently).
23 Cf. Rava's statement 'The precepts were not given for enjoyment, for their observance is the King's decreeirnposed upon them' (RSh 28a), cited by Urbach, Sages
389 who is discussing the concept of 'yoke'. In fairness to Paul, the possibility
(indeed likelihood) of 'secondary rationalization' on the part of the Rabbis when
speaking of the joy of the commandments must also be taken into accountr

234

VIII. The origins

It is unlikely that Paul's great experience of liberation had much to do

with ordinances as such. He did not replace a bondage under 'rules' with a
freedom with 'no rules,?4 on the contrary, he is not afraid of confronting
his converts - the Thessalonians as well as the Corinthians - with pretty
clear rules as to what is God's will. 25 Even the Christian Paul is quite contented with being a 'slave' of the Lord 26 which entails taking orders and
behaving in a certain way.
In a revealing passage Paul writes to the Roman Christians that they are
children of God, 'For you have not received a spirit of slavery to be again
in fear (mLAtv eif; 'l'6{3ov) , but you have received the Spirit of sonship ... '
(Rom 8.15). In the following relative clause which describes the effects of the
Spirit bestowed on the believers Paul switches over to the first person: 'in
which we cry, "Abba the father"'. It is thus unlikely that Paul thinks that
only the recipients of the letter had lived in fear before becoming Christians
(besides, part of them were Jewish Christians as he himself); he probably
includes himself among those liberated from fear. May we conclude that, all
his blamelessness notwithstanding, Paul was not free from fear in his preChristian life?27 Was he one of those 'Pharisees of fear' who are criticized
in Jewish sources for observing the law out of fear of punishment?28 It is
impossible to prove such a conjecture, but the possibility shoufd not be.
rejected out of hand either.
Still another possibility which does not exclude the one just mentioned
but may complement it arises more from a consideration of Paul's general
background than directly from his letters, even though a few hints may be
found there as well. Even if Paul had not spent his youth in the Dispersion
but had received his parental upbringing and formal education in Jerusalem
(a question which I would like to leave open)29, he can hardly have escaped

24 See Schtage, Einzelgebote; cf. Hoheisel,ludentum 182.

25 See above, p. 115 n. 108.
26 Rom 1.1, Phill.1, Gal 1.10, cf. Rom 6.16 ff.
27 Attention was called to Rom 8.15 by Deissmann, Paul 83, who concluded that
'slavish terror' was 'the prevailing tone' in the mind of Paul the Pharisee. I am not
suggesting anything so dramatic. I wish only to say that fear of punishment may not
have to be excluded from Paul's motives for obeying the law.
28 See Moore, Judaism 11, 193 f. Klausner, op.cit. 464 f. regarded Paul as just such a
person.
29 van Unnik, Sparsa I 259 ff. has shown that Acts 22.3 reflects a current biographical
pattern (cf. Acts 7.20) and indicates that, according to Luke, Paul had spent even his
youth in Jerusalem, where he received a scribal education under Gamaliel I. van Unnik
accepts this information as historical. His conclusion is shared by many scholars, e.g.
Hengel, Geschichtsschreibung 71. Paul is, on the other hand, still seen as a Dispersion
Jew e.g. by Sandmel, Genius 12 f.; Schoeps, Paul; Strecker, Eschaton 232 f. n. 10;
Goodenough, 'Paul'. The most natural reading of Gal 1.22 is that Paul was unknown

Paul's experience under the law?

235

the problem of the motivation of many apparently opaque stipulations (as

the dietary laws) of the Torah. Hellenistic Judaism was hard put to discovel
'grounds' for the ritual precepts; the problem was solved by way of allegori
zation. We have seen how tremendous a problem such stipulations posed for
Philo; nevertheless, Philo was strict on the necessity of observing them to the
point of recommending the lynching of apostates! 30 But Palestinian and
Hellenistic Judaism were not two watertight separate compartments. 31
The unmotivated precepts of the law were a problem for the Rabbis as well; 32
they were aware that both Gentile peoples and the evil iflclination argued
against the prohibition to eat pork and similar precepts. 33 The tendency of
some circles to 'examine the grounds for the precepts' is attested in Rabbinic
sources where it is criticized. 34
Passages like LevR 13.3 or MidrPs 146.4 betray a certain amount of impatience with some of the more meticulous ritual stipulations, and a prospect of
an eschato10gical compensation is held out for the efforts undertaken in this
world to observe them: in the eschatological future God will declare permitted some things now forbidden and the righteous will then have the privilege of some enjoyments they have in this life abstained from. 35 In MidrPs
even to the congregation of Jerusalem (in view of the thrust of the context, where
Paul is at pains to show his independence of Jerusalem, it is not very natural to
exclude Jerusalem from the 'congregations of Judaea'). In a city of some 25,000
inhabitants (Jeremias, Jerusalem 98) this is curious, for Paul was, for the Christians,
not just any Rabbinic pupil. It is moreover surprising that Paul did not go to Jeru~a
lem after his conversion until three years later, if that city had been his residence
until then (is fear a sufficient ground for this?). It is therefore likely that Paul did not
persecute Christians in Jerusalem. Are we to suppose that he had recently moved
from Jerusalem to the area of Damascus? Acts 22.3 does not easily combine with the
data from Paul's letters. Furthermore, Paul's use of the LXX calls for attention.
30 See above, p. 36.
31 It is sufficient here to refer to the magisterial study of Hengel, Judentum.
32 See Urbach, Sages 311-314.
33 Sifra Ahare 13.10; cited by Urbach, op.cit. 320 f.
34 Schlifer, 'Torah' 38-42; cf. Jervell, 'Tora' 108.
35 In MidrPs 146.4 the words 'The Lord will loose the bonds' (Ps 146.7) are interpreted
as follows. 'Some say that of every animal whose flesh it is forbidden to eat in this
world, the Holy one, blessed be He, will declare in the time-to-come that the eating
of the flesh is permitted ... Others say ... Though nothing is more strongly forbidden
than intercourse with a menstruous woman ... in the time-to-come, God will permit
such intercourse ... '
The idea of compensation is evident in LevR 13.3 (a description of the contest
between the two beasts Behemoth and Leviathan in which both are killed; they
provide the meat for the eschatological banquet, although they were not properly
slaughtered. for God will give a new commandment): ' ... whoever has not been a
spectator at the wild-beast contests of the heathen nations in this world will be
accorded the boon of seeing one in the World to come ... whoever has not eaten
nebelah in this world will have the privilege of enjoying it in the World to come.'

236

VIII. The origins

146.4 the only reason for some food laws is found in the statement that God
wanted to 'see who would accept His commandments and who would not
accept them'. Mainstream Rabbinic thought found this line of reasoning
dangerous and the search for grounds for individual commandments was
condemned, reference being made to Solomon who was revealed the grounds
for two ~articular commandments which he then broke and was carried to
calamity. 6 It is not unnatural to assume that Paul, too, was exposed to this
kind of intellectual pressure, although he gloriously suppressed his doubts
about the ritual law on the conscious level of his mind.
I tend to guess that part of Paul's liberation experience was freedom from
the observance of unmotivated precepts. For him, 'everything is allowed'
(1 Cor 10.23) in Christ; the Christian possesses freedom (v. 29). That nevertheless not everything is, in actual practice, admissible for a Christian,
Paul must argue from the point of view that everything is not 'useful' (v. 23).
Thus he brings in chs. 8 and lOa motivated argument about what is the right
attitude to meat offered to idols. In the same vein, h,e invites his fellow Christians to test(8o"IJ.l(i~I.V)what God's will is (Rom 12.2, Phill.l0). It is not
impossible that Paul the Pharisee had (suppressed) doubts about some of the
ritual stipulations; his fanatic persecution of those Christians who openly
supported these doubts and drew practical conclusions would fit well with
such a state of mind. The logical thing to do would have been a critique of
the ritual part of the law or of the unmotivated precepts in it. Paul, however,
in his extant letters shrinks back from making explicit distinctions within
God's law and is therefore finally driven to criticize the law as a whole.
Some such uneasiness with the law (which, be it repeated, cannot be
conclusively proved) could to some extent explain Paul's conversion to Christ
along with which went the acceptance of a more or less lax attitude to Torah
observance. The Christ experience liberated Paul from these possible suppressed misgivings about the law. Such problems with the law are hardly,
however, a sufficient explanation for Paul's unique and radical critique of
the law in his later epistles. Why did he apparently go much farthe~ than the
Hellenists he had persecuted? To fmd out, other possibilities must be explored.

2. Application of a current Jewish idea?

It has repeatedly been suggested that it was a common expectation in
Cf. the temptations of Jews in the Roman world reflected in the seeech of Zambrias (Josephus, Ant. IV, 145-147; see above, p.133). Zambrias charges Moses for
'having purposed to abolish things which all the world has unanimously admitted to
be excellent and for having set up, over against universal opinion, thine own extravagances' (147).
36 Sanh 21b etc.; see Schiifer, art.cit. 41 f. (with n. 57).

Application of a current Jewish idea?

237

Judaism that the law would cease in the Messianic age. 37 According to
Schweitzer, Paul was only drawing the logical conclusion from the fact that
the law ceases to be when the Messianic reign begins.38 Schweitzer's only
textual basis was, however, the silence of Jewish apocalypses about the law in
the Messianic age. In addition9he speculated that, logically, the law is dispensable if evil no longer eXists. 3 This kind of thinking totally ignores -the fact
that the law did not exist, according the Jewish view, merely to hold evil in
check. It was the order of creation. From this point of view the idea of its
abolition in the Messianic age becomes very difficult.40
In recent times the main representative of this interpretation has been
Schoeps41 who has also tried to adduce Rabbinic evidence.42 He claims that
it was a wide-spread opinion in Rabbinic literature that in the Messianic age
the old law would be abolished along with the evil inclination and that God
would give, through the Messiah, a new Torah. 43 Yet the Jewish material is
sparse, marginal and partly late, and its interpretation is disputed; it is quite
insufficient to support the notion of a well-known 'Messianic dogma' which

37 Earlier representatives of this view were Lowy, 'Lehre' (1904), 323 ff. and Bugge,
'Gesetz' 95 ff. (a rather fantastic version); cf. also Gottlob Klein, Studien 76 ff.
38 Mystik 186.
39 Ibid. 188 f.
40 See J. Maier, Geschichte 172 f.
41 Paul 171 ff.; Schoeps is followed by Ben-Chorin, Paulus 70 ff. Similarly Stendahl,
Paul 84; cf. also Davies, Setting 184.
42 Sanh 97a (paralleled by AZ 9a, pMeg 70d) records a tradition from the rnidrash
Tanna debe Eliyahu, according to which 2000 years of Tohuwabohu and 2000 years
of the Torah will be followed by 2000 years of the days of the Messiah. The statement is embedded in a iong section which focuses on the coming of the Messianic
era (in AZ in a section about calendar matters) and it goes on (Sanh 97b): 'but
through our many iniquities all these years (sc. the years of the Messianic era already
passed by) have been lost'. Freedman (ET 657) is surely correct in commenting that
the 2000 years of the Torah do 'not mean that the Torah should cease thereafter,
but is mentioned merely to distinguish it from the next era'; cf. Schiifer, art.cit. 37:
'es geht urn die Frage nach dem Beginn der messianischen Zeit ... ' Cf. also Davies,
Torah 78 f.
The statement in Nid 61 b that the commandments will cease in the Age to come
is taken to refer to the state of the dead by Davies, Torah 80 ff.; id., Setting 181 f.,
which is plausible. The point is that it is therefore lawful to bury a person in a shroud
with kil'ayim.

The statement that there will be neither merits nor guilt in the Messianic era
(Shab 151b) is most naturally taken to mean that in the Messianic era Israel can
perfectly understand the Torah and therefore fulfil it; perfect fulfilment is the point
(Schlifer, art.cit. 37 f.).
Some passages, however, do contain the idea that individual commandments
will be changed in the eschatological future, the most radical one being MidrPs
146.4. See above, p. 235f. and below, p. 238.
43 Schoeps, op.cit. 172.

238

VIII. The origins

Paul could have taken up and developed. 44 Thus W.D. Davies rather more
cautiously concludes that the evidence 'cannot be regarded as very impressive' .45 In the final analysis, the most important argument is that the Christians, according to Davies, found room for the concept of a 'Messianic
Torah'! 46
Thus, neither the idea of a new Torah nor the expectation of the abolition
of the old one are characteristic of Rabbinic Judaism. What can be verified is
a tendency in some circles to 'examine the grounds fo, the precepts'. In these
more radical groups even some purity and slaughter stipulations were expected to be changed in the eschatological future. 47 The most radical text in this
regard is the Midrash on Psalms 146.4, referred to above. This idea of a modification of the Torah is, however, limited to the periphery of Rabbinic
thought. It was by no means a well-known or accepted 'dogma' (it was
explicitly rejected by mainstream Rabbis) on which Paul or anyone else
could have built his theology without even mentioning the underlying
assumption. 48
If the modification of the law is to take place in the Messianic age, it
follows that a new legislation by the Messiah is needed. Characteristically,
both Davies and Schoees are led to assume that the idea of a 'law of the
Messiah' for the Christians played a part in Paul's thought. The phrase VOfJ.O<;
tou XPWTOU (Gal 6.2) is taken as a reference to such a new law; Schoeps sees
even in the VOfJ.O<; Tri01"wC; of Rom 3.27 such a reference. 49 We have seen
before that such an interpretation of Gal 6 .2 can hardly be upheld. 50
Schoeps also refers to much later Jewish pseudomessianic movements (the
Sabbatians, the Frankists) who declared the Mosaic law to be superseded
because the end time had begun with their Messiah.51 This is not a true
analogy, however, for unlike Paul Sabbatai Zwi and his followers were outspoken antinomists who ostentatiously broke the Torah. It is noteworthy
that the historian of the Sabbatian movement, G. Scholem, does not use this
i

44 Against Schoeps cf. Sandmel, Genius 40 f.; Bammel, 'Nomos' 121 ff.; Sanders Paul
479 f.
. ,
45
46
47
48

Davies, Torah 90.

Op.cit. 90 ff.
See above, p. 235 f.
Cf. also Urbach, Sages 297 ff.; Luz, 'Gesetz' 53 f. Contrast the view of Bugge, art.cit.
107: Pa.u1's latent presupposition was so self-evident and so well-known to his readers that it did not have to be set forth directly.
49 Schoeps, op.cit. 172 f.
50 See above, 11 7.
51 Schoeps, op.cit. 173.

Application of a current Jewish idea?

239

analogy to explain the rise of Paulinism which, in his view, 'did not arise out
of any immanent logic,.52
.
The conclusive proof that Paul did not build his teaching on the law on a
ready-made Rabbinic 'dogma' is the fact that he never makes a reference to
such a 'generally accepted' (so the theory of Schoeps) premise. Such an
accepted basis would have been more than welcome in Paul's argument with
the Judaizers. Instead, Paul has to develop arguments of a different kind,
arguments that are both more complicated and less persuasive. What a splendid opportunity to argue from that well-known dogma (had it existed) Paul
would have had in Rom 7.1-6! Instead of appealing to the 'fact' that the law
will come" to an end when the Messiah has appeared Paul resorts to the argument that the law is not binding when a person has died 53 without, however,
being able to keep his comparisons in order. 54 Likewise, 'the complicated
argumentation of Gal 3, 17 ff .... shows most clearly that he could not avail
himself of the conception according to which the Law was either to be replaced in the Messianic age or supplemented by the Messiah,.55
At best we can thus say that Paul may have been (more or less unconsciously?) plagued' by a similar questioning of the unmotivated commandments of the law as is implied in the quest of 'ground-searchers' - a questioning no doubt promptly suppressed by him on the conscious level of his mind.
His theological argument is not constructed on such a basis.
~Even less plausible is Hartmut Gese's and Peter Stuhlmacher's theory
of an eschatological 'Zion Torah', allegedly expected by many Jews since the
time of the Exile and, apparently, still by apocalyptic circles in Paul's times. 56
The picture of the 'Zion Torah' as portrayed by these scholars57 is an artificial conglomerate from widely different contexts 58 and there is not a shred
52 Scholem,Idea 57. On Scholem's view see below, p. 262 n. 167.
53 Cf. Davies; Setting 183 n. 1; Sanders, op.cit. 479 f.
54 See above, p. 61 f..
55 Bammel, art.cit. 124 f.
56 Gese, Theologie 73 ff.; Stuhlmacher, Vers6hnung 142 ff. On p. 82 Gese cleai:ly
assumes that the expectation of the 'Zion Torah' was alive in apocalyptic circJes, for
he states: Paul 'geht vom letzten alttestamentlichen Gesetzesverstiindnis in der
Apokalyptik: aus, d.h. er .setzfden G'egensatz alter una neuer Aon voraus und dementsprechend den Gegensatz der Sinaitora und der Zionsoffenbarung' (my italics). On
Stuhlmacher's view see below, n. 59.
.
57 The characteristics of the eschatological Torah according to Stuhlmacher, op.cit.
143, are as follows. It goes forth from Zion, not Sinai. Thanks to the gift of the
Spirit and the annihilation of death this Torah will be in itself intelligible and practicable. In its centre will be the Todah, the thanksgiving offering after deliverance
from danger of death. The Zion Torah is addressed to all nations. In all this it amounts
to an eschatological fulfilment of the historically provisional Torah of Sinai. See the
following note..
58 Gese and Stuhlmacher cite as evidence Jer 31.31 ff., Ezek 36.22 ff., Ezek 37, Ezek
20.25 f., Isa 2.2 ff., Mic 4.1 ff., Isa 25.7 ff., Ezek 40-48, and Ps 50. As for the

240

VIII. The origins

of evidence for the assumption that the apocalyptic contrast between the two
aeons corresponded to a contrast between the Torah of Sinai and the revelation on Zion.59 Paul did not take up a current Jewish expectation in his
'doctrine' of the law. The question still remains, however, whether he might
not have seized-on an expectation witnessed in the OT but neglected by
subsequent generations. We therefore next turn to this question.

3. Taking up an Old Testament prophecy?

It is often suggested that Paul's theology of the law is due to his application .of certain OT prophecies to the situation in which the Christians lived.
The crucial prophecy is then, of course, the promise of the new covenant in
Jer 31.31-34, in conjunction with Ezek 11.19 f., 36.25-'--27,37, where a new
spirit and a new heart are spoken of. 60 But did Paul perceive such a connection between his statements on the law and Jer 31 ?61 If so, the estabcharacteristics of the Zion Torah mentioned in the preceding note it should be noted
that there is no interest in ZiOlt in Jer 31, Ezek 20.25 f. or Ezek 36 f.; no concern
with Gentiles either in' the just mentioned texts or in Ezek 40 ff. or in Ps 50; Ezek
36 f. are the only chapters to mention the Spirit, !sa 25 the only passage to mention
annihilation of death, and Ps 50 to mention the Todah offering (Gese sees the meal
described in Isa 25 as a Todah meal as well). No reference to an eschatological future
is found in Ps 50. The individual text that contains most of the said characteristics
(Zion, Gentiles, reference to the eschatological future, annihilation of death), namely
!sa 25, is also the one which contains absolutely no reference to the law whatsoever!
A conception which brings the eschatological face-to-face vision of God (!sa 25) and
the everyday religion of Ps 50 together under the umbrella of a 'new revelation of the
Torah from Zion' is surely a bit monstrous! The only text that can be said to contain
any kind of critique of the Torah is Ezek 20.25 f.; in this text, however, there is no
mention of Zion, the Gentiles, the Spirit, or eschatology. For a discussion <if Jer 31
from this point of view see below, VIII 3.
59 Thus, Gese's reference to Paul's alleged apocalyptic background as regards his notion
of the law is tacitly dropped by Stuhlmacher (cf. Versohnung 144 ff.). It is not clear
whether Stuhlmacher assumes that Paul was conscious of a 'Zion Torah' promised in
the OT in the texts brought together by Gese (albeit ignored by the generation of the
apostle) or whether he sees only a theological analogy between Paul and the 'Zion
Torah' passages. If the latter alternative is true (and the former one would be wellnigh absurd), then Stuhlmacher's language is at least misleading: he produces, in his.
exegesis of Paul, statements like' "the Torah of Christ" (sc. of Gal 6.2, HR) is the
Zion Torah brought by Jesus' (op.cit. 158) etc.
60 Thus, e.g., Feuillet, 'Loi ancienne' 790 f., 803; Lyonnet, Etapes 160 ff. (trying to
establish a correspondence between Rom 8.1-4 and the larger contexts of Jer 31
and Ezek 36, so that e.g. the condemnation of sin Rom 8.3 takes up the prophecy of.
Gog and Magog in Ezek 38 f.!); Michel on Rom 8.2; Cranfield on Rom 8.4; Bruce,
'Paul' 275 f.; Stuhlmacher, op.cit. 159, 161.
61 It is often not clear whether an interpreter assumes that Paul consciously took up a
passage like Jer 31, or whether there is just a theological analogy between what he
says and the OT passage (cf. above, n. 59); if the latter is the case this would not help

Taking up an Old Te,tament prophecy?

241

lishment of such a connection must have been a creative act ofinterpretation,

for contemporary Judaism did not hold an expectation of a new law on the
basis of these passages. Whether or not the idea of the new covenant which
was so prominent in Qumran was based on Jer 31,62 in Qumran that idea
certainly did not have the notion of a new Torah as its corollary.
Curiously enough, Christian interpreters who see a connection between
Jer 31 and Paul's teaching on the law are divided as to what kind of message
Paul got from the prophetic passage. While some think that, just as Jer 31
anticipates, the old law is replaced with a quite new one in Paul63 , others
claim that the similarity consists instead in the fact that the law remains the
same; it is man, not the Torah, who changes. 64 What, then, is actually said'
about the law in Jer 31 and the related passages?
The point of Jer 31.31-3465 is undoubtedly the miraculous change in
man's attitude to God's law. This change is effected, in the eschatological
future, by God himself. He will put his law in the inward parts of men, or
write it in their hearts (v. 32). At that time it will be unnecessary to admonish
anybody to 'know the Lord' for, as a result of the forgiveness of sins, all
Israel will know him anyway. This great renewal in man's relation to Yahweh
makes up the content of the new covenant which will supersede the old one
that was broken by Israel. Men's hearts will be renewed. There is no reference
to any changes in the content of the Torah,66 let alone to the notion of a law
of the Messiah. This is also clear from the fact that in parallel passages the
same promise can be expressed without any Torah terminology at all. Thus,
the promise of an 'eternal covenant' is paralleled in Jer 32.40 by the concomitant one that God will put the fear of him in the hearts of the Israelites, 67
and in Jer 24.7 the description of the restitution ofIsrael as Yahweh's people
includes the statement that God will 'give them a heart so that they will know
me' (without any mention of the law).68
Thus Jer 31.31 ff. appears to be wholly in keeping with the basic con-

to explain the rise of Paul's view although the analogy would be signiilCant for a
'biblical theology'.
62 For the thesis that it was not see below, p. 242 f.
63 Thus Michel on Rom 8.2.
64 Thus Cranfield on Rom 8.4.
65 It is of course unnecessary to discuss here the authenticity of the passage; most probably it should be ascribed to a Deuteronomistic redaction. See for authenticity
Rudolph ad loc.; against it Herrmann, Heil,erwartungen 179-185; Perlitt, BundeBtheologie 180; BBhmer, Heimkehr 74-78 (the passage is deuteronomistic).
66 Rudolph, ad loc.; von Rad, Theology 11 270: 'The new thing lies in the human
sphere, in a change in the hearts of men.'
67 This passage, too, appears to be Deuteronomistic and Exilic; cf. Bohmer, op.cit. 43.
68 Jer 24.7, too, seems to stem from Deuteronomistic redactors: Thiel, Redaktion
256; Bohmer, op.cit. 32.

242

VIII. The origins

ception of Deuteronomy, expressed classically in Deut 6.5: Israel is to love

Yahweh with all its heart. 69 The passage in Jeremiah, however, displays no
optimism as regards man's ability to do this. The reason is clear: between
Deuteronomy and Jer 3llay the catastrophe of the year 587. The Deuteronomic reform had failed to prevent the calamity. The hope of a better future
could only be placed in Yahweh, in his ability to change man's obstinate
heart. This expectation of a change in man's attitude, brought about by God
himself, was one that stirred the minds in Exilic times to a remarkably great
extent (in addition to the passages in Jeremiah see Ezek 11.19, 36.26, Deut
29.3 f., Deut 30.6).70 It is not the law that is the problem for the circles in
question; the problem lies with man. There is no basis for a theology of an
abrogation of the law in Jer 31 or the related texts.71 Judaism was quite
justified in not expecting such an abrogation to take place on the basis of Jer
31.
Thus Paul could not seize on jer 31 if he understood the passage in its
original meaning or in consonance with contemporary Jewish understanding.
At best, he could have gained support from Jeremiah or Ezekiel for his notion
of the true fulfilment of the 'just requirement of the law' by Christians (Rom
8.4). No clear linguistic allusions to such prophecies, however, can be detected in Rom 8.4.
The possibility still remains, of course, that Paul understood Jer 31
differently. He might have thought that the pass~e referred to a transformation or even to an abrogation of the old law. 2 But what evidence is
there that Paul actually has Jer 31 at the back of his mind?
The evidence is surprisingly slight. Paul does mention the new covenant,
apart from the Lord's Supper tradition (1 Cor 11.25), in 2 Cor 3.6, 14 (cf.
also Gal 4.21 ff.) but he does not cite Jer 31 in this connection. At least it is
not clear that Jeremiah is in his mind at all. Paul did not have to turn to
Jeremiah to get the key word 'new covenant'; it was already there in the
tradition of the institution of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11.25). It is not clear,
whether that tradition was influenced by Jer 31 either. 73 Chr. Wolff ,has
argued that the idea of a new covenant in Judaism (Bar 2.35, Qumran) does
69 Herrmann, op.cit. 185, cf. 200.
70 Cf. Bohmer, op.cit. 76 f. Fiedler, Jegug 34 f. suggests that even the theocentric statements should be taken mainly as an appeal to the remaining rest of the people to
repent (cf. Deut 30.1-10, Ezek 48, Ezek 33).
71 Ezek 36.27 (par 11.20) lets God say: 'My Spirit will I give within you and bring
about that you. will walk according to my commandments, obey my statutes and
keep them'; there is no hint of any changes in these commandments. The one OT
passage which might have lent itself to support the abrogation of the old law, Ezek
20.25 (see above, p. 158 ff.) , is never alluded to by Paul.
72 The author of Hebrews seems to have deduced that from Jer 31.
73 Such an influence is denied by Wolff, Jeremia 131-134.

Taking up an Old Testament prophecy?

243

not go back to Jer 31 74 , but rather to Deuteronomistic theology in general. 75

Be that as it may, it is at any rate noteworthy that the distinguishing features
of Jer 31.31 ff. were indeed taken up neither in Qumran nor among early
Christians. We hear nothing of either the law being written in the hearts
of the people or of the sfontaneous knowledge of the Lord that renders all
admonition superfluous. 7 There is none of this in 2 Cor 3.6 ff. either.
But what about 2 Cor 3.3? There a contrast is set up between what is
written on 'stone tablets' on one hand and on 'the tablets of fleshly hearts' on
the other. Some expositors read this as a reference to the law of Sinai and to
the same law as written in the hearts of the Christians respectively. 77 Moreover, the verse is often taken as an indication of the influence of Jer 31 on
Paul's thought,78 although the mention of 'fleshly hearts' comes from
Ezek 11.19, 36.26 (the hearts are not characterized as 'fleshly' in Jer 31.33;
on the other hand, nothing is 'written'in the hearts in Ezek 11 or 36).
In 2 Cor 3.3, however, Paul does not speak of a law written in men's
hearts (as he does, in a different context, in Rom 2.15 79 ). He argues in 3.1-3
that, unlike his rivals, he does not need letters of recommendation. He has,
namely, such a letter in the Corinthians themselves! This letter is written in
Paul's heart where everybody can read it. 80 This somewhat odd image 81 is
used by Paul in v. 2 without any OT reminiscences.
In v. 3 Paul tries to develop the comparison. The COrinthians, as a
'letter', are written by Christ and delivered by Paul. This living letter has been
written, 'not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God'. This antithesis
does not suggest any OT mode1. 82 The choice of 'Spirit' as a means used by
Christ is a natural one, and Paul is still thinking of the image of letter-writing
when mentioning 'ink' (he could not think of the Decalogue as being written
with ink!).
It is only with the next phrase that the Decalogue enters the picture:
Christ's letter of recommendation is not written on 'stone tablets' (cf. Ex
74 As against, e.g., F. Lang, 'Gesetz' 311.
75 Wolff, op.cit. 117-130, cf. 146.
76 Wolff, op.cit. 117 points out that a connection ofa given passage with Jer 31 cannot
be established with any certainty, if there is no reference to either of these specific
features of Jer 31.
77 Thus Hughes ad loc.: 'It is most important to realize that it is the selfsame law which
was graven on tablets of stone at Sinai that in this age of the new covenant is graven
on the tablets of the human heart by the Holy Spirit.'
78 Thus, e.g., Cranfield, 'Paul' 57; id., Romans 854; Vos, Untersuchungen 137; van
Unnik:, Sparra I 176.185; Lang, art.cit. 315; Rissi, Studien 22.
79 For Rom 2.15 see above, p. 105.
80 Reading f!~WII. Barrett chooses the weakly !ittested reading U~II; similarly Rissi,
op.cit.20.
81 Cf. Robertson-Plummer, Lietzmann ad loc.; Georgi, Gegner 246 f.; Gale, Use 153 f.
82 Correctly WindisCh ad loco

244

VIII. The origins

31.18, 34.1). Paul's opponents had probably, along with their letters of
recommendation, appealed to the revelation given to Moses. But why the
'tablets of fleshly hearts' as a counterpart? And whose heart is Paul now
thinking of?
Starting from the picture used by Paul in v. 2 it would be logical to take
the 'fleshly hearts' as a-reference to Paul's own heart. 83 This, however, would
render the contrast between stone and flesh inexplicable. Surely the impression is correct that 'as Paul wrote v. 3 the picture of the letters of recommendation gradually faded away as new thoughts crowded into the writer's
mind,.84 Kapoiut aapKivat is a reminiscence of Ezek 11.19,36.26. Now it is a
well-known Rabbinic association to establish a connection-between the stone
heart of the book of Ezekiel and the stone tablets of Exodus: it is proper that
stone should watch over stone (the law over the stone heart, identified with
the evil inc1ination).85 This association may have been known to Paul; he,
however, gives it a new turn. His thought flies from the stone heart to its
opposite number, the heart of flesh; this he mentions as a contrast to the
stone tablets, omitting to mention the heart of stone altogether. The reference
is thus to the new life created by Christ with his Spirit in the hearts of the
Corinthian believers - by Christ with his Spirit and not by the law for which
the tablets of stone here stand.
It is noteworthy that the OT ~assage Paul undoubtedly alludes to is the
promise of a new heart in Ezekiel. -6 It is quite clear that there is no mention
of a change of the law in Ezekiel 11 or 36 f. It is uncertain, whether there is
any allusion to Jer 31 in Paul's words here. There is at least no clear linguistic
connection. 87 A dependence on Jer 31 is plausible on the assumption alone
that Ezek 11.19 (36.26) and Jer 31.31 ff. belonged, in Paul's mind, inseparably together, so that the 'fleshly heart' (Ezek) without further ado brought
to his mind the 'law written in the hearts' of Jeremiah as well. Such a connection is not a priori impossible. 88 It is difficult to establish it positively, either;
83 Cf. Kiimmel ad loc.; Wolff, op.cit. 135.
84 Gale, op.cit. 155.
85 LevR 35.5; cf. Schechter, Aspects 274 f.
86 Wolff, op.cit. 135 is not justified in glossing over this reference.
87 The only link would be that between IhT! Kap{jla~ .. 'Ypal/lw Jer 31.33 and
e'Y'YE'Ypaj.lj.lEVll . EV Kap{jlaL~ 2 Cor 3.3. The link is tenuous. The alleged allusion to
Jer 31 would be very colourless indeed. Even in Rom 2.15 there is a closer verbal
similarity with Jer 31 (whether or not an allusion is intended; cf. above, p.l05).
One could just as well see 2 Cor 3.3 as an allusion to Prov 7.3 eTrl-ypal/lov {je eTr!
TO TrAaTO~ n'i~ Kap{jla~ (JOV (cC. Windisch, 2 Kor 104; Wolff, op.cit. 135) - if there is
any OT allusion at all. Nestle-Aland 26 takes 2 Cor 3.3 as an allusion to Prov 7.3
(Novum Testamentum p. 757), whereas no allusion to Jer 31 is found in 2 Cor 3 (see
p. 763), unlike Rom 2.15. Ellis, Use 153. does not list a reference to Jer 31 in 2 Cor 3
either.
88 It seems that Ezek 36.26 was more often quoted in Rabbinic Judaism than was Jer

Taking up Jesus traditions?

245

interestingly enough it has been argued that it is doubtful whether Paul ever
used the book of Jeremiah at all!89
But even on a 'maximalist' reading of 2 Cor 3.3 it is clear that Jer 31 is not
of much help in our quest for the roots of Paul's theology of the law. At best
we can detect in v. 3 a marginal theme which is not developed. The prediction
of Jeremiah plays no part in v. 6 ff. where Paul elaborates the contrast
between the Mosaic 'service' and his own apostleship. If Paul intended an allusion to J er 31 in 2 Cor 3.3 or 3.6, it is all the more conspicuous that he omits
what Jer 31 says about the law. For it is clear that it is not the law in any
sense that has been written in the Corinthians' hearts according to verse
3. 90 The tablets of stone stand for the 'YpaJ.Ll.la which is the opposite of
1TVeVJ.1a (v. 6).91
As in the previous chapter,a quite simple observation may serve to produce
the final confirmation that Paul did not make use of a pre-existent thesis in
his theology of the law, in this case of the idea of a new covenant as expressed
in Jer 31. Had Paul found in Jeremiah a confirmation of the notion that the
law or parts of it were to be superseded (in whatever sense) at some point in
the future, then why did he omit such a superb argument in his debates with
more conservative Christians? Why did he never cite Jer 31 when arguing that
Christ was the end of the law (contrast Heb 8.8-13, 10.16-18)? How much
simpler would it have been to start from the new situation created"by the new
covenant than to develop the artificial analogy about the irrevocable human
8W.~r1KT/ (Gal 3.15 ff.), or the marriage analogy in Rom 7.1 ff.! Paul did not
derive his theology of the law from the promise of the new covenant in Jer 31.

4. Taking up Jesus traditions?

It has been said that instead of being 'an innovator', Paul was in his theology of the law 'an interpreter and exponent of the teachings of Jesus'. 92
Now what Jesus really 'taught' about the law is debated and it is not possible
to discuss so complex a problem adequately in the framework of this study. 93
This is no great drawback, however, for Paul had no direct access to the

31.31 ff. In KohR I, 2,4 Jer 31.33 and Ezek 36.26 do occur, however, in parallel
trains of thought, ascribed to the Tannaites R. Judah and R. Nehemiah respectively.
89 Thus Wolff, op.cit. 141 f.
90 Lietzmann ad loco is more correct in stating that what was written in the hearts of the
Corinthians was 'the gospel'; similarly Barrett.
91 Lang, art.cit. 317 f. thinks that Paul omitted to cite Jer 31 precisely because of his
view of the law, thus recognizing that Jer 31 would have been a poor support for a
contrast between the law and the new covenant.
92 Branscomb, Jesus 279. Cf. Davies, Paul 136 ff.; Longenecker, Paul 128 ff.; Stuhlmacher, 'Rabbi' 68 f.
93 Cf. HUbner, Tradition 226 ff.; Banks, Jesus (a somewhat uncritical study); Braun,
Radikalismus 11, 3 ff.

246

VIII. The origins

teachings of Jesus. He was totally dependent on whatever traditions about the

proclamation of Jesus were curre-nt in the congregations he had contact with,
especially in Antioch; possibly Jerusalem traditions are relevant as well. 94
Our question, then, must take the following form: is Paul's teaching of the
law explicable as an interpretation or a development of early Christian
traditions about Jesus?
As is well-known, Paul has very few explicit quotations from the 'words of
the Lord' in his letters. The actual quotations have no bearing on Paul's
discussions about the law. 95 It is more difficult to decide whether Paul was
consciously drawing on words of the Lord when chrystallizing the law into
the commandment of loving one's neighbour (Rom 13.8-10, Gal 5.14).96
The issue is complicated through the fact that the authenticity of the dual
commandment of love (paul, however, omits the love of God!) as part of
Jesus' teaching is debated 97 ; we cannot be sure that it was actually contained
in any tradition of Jesus' sayings at the time Paul was writing. But even on
the (to my mind, unlikely) assumption that Paul consciously took up a word
of Jesus in this case, this state of affairs would hardly explain any of Paul's
idiosyncracies as regards his view of the law. It would only account for
similarities between Paul and, say, Matthew; their differences would stand out
as a greater problem than ever.
The crucial statement of Paul to be discussed in this connection is, however, his assertion that 'nothing is unclean in itself (ovliev KOLVOV li,' eavTov)
in Rom 14.14, along with the statement that 'everything is clean' (1rdvra Ilev
Kaf}apd) in Rom 14.20. Both statements occur in a discussion of foods
which posed a problem in a community like the Roman congregation, as the
'weak' (v. 1) refused to eat meat (v. 2, 21) or drink wine (v. 21). In v. 14
Paul introduces his statement with the affirmation 'I know and am convinced
in Lord Jesus' (ollia Kai 1r1rLUllat ev KVpicp 'I1]aoo). Is this clause intended
by Paul as a citation formula which indicates that he is quoting a saying
(Mk 7.15) from the traditions about Jesus?98 This is often assumed but
hardly any real arguments have been put forward to support the clahn. 99
94 Antiochian traditions, of course, went back to the Stephen circle in the first place.
As Paul was relatively early in contact with Peter, he must have had a direct access to
some Jerusalem traditions, too.
95 The saying on divorce (1 Cor 7.10) could have been relevant, but it is not used by
Paul in any such way.
96 Cf. Banett.
97 Cf. for different views Burchard, 'Liebesgebot' and R.H. Fuller, 'Doppelgebot'.
98 In favour of a quotation: i.a. Zahn, B. Weiss, Lagrange, Michel, H.W. Schmidt, Leenhardt, Kasemann; Jeremias, Theology 210 (with n. 1); Waiter, 'Christusglaube' 428
(with n. 29). Against a quotation i.a. Lipsius, Sanday-Headlam, Ktihl, Lietzmann,
Barrett; Schlatter, Gerechtigkeit 374.
99 Some scholars suggest that the mention of the name 'Jesus' could contain a reference

Taking up Jesus traditions?

247

To say the least, the oUia Kat 1T7TWllaL clause would be a very surprising
formula to introduce a quotation from verba domini. In the indubitable
quotations Paul refers to what the Lord has 'said' (1 Thess 4.15 V Airy~
KVPWV, cf. A'Yt 1 Cor 7.12) or commanded (1Tapa'Y'YAAW 1 Cor 7.10,
litTa1;V 1 Cor 9.14; cf. 1TtTayr/ 1 Cor 7.25).100 These statements are surrounded by an air of objective authority; there is to be no discussion pro
et contra about commandments of the Lord. In Rom 14 Paul's argument is
quite different; no wonder, for his topic is an adiaphoron. The owa Kat
.,re1TWllaL statement gives expression to a deeply felt personal conviction
which Paul has reached because of his communion with the Lord. 101 It is
paralleled by a set of related statements in his letters: 'I trust (.,re1Tou~a)
in you in the Lord that' Gal 5.10; 'I am convinced (1T1TOt~a) in the Lord that
... 'Phil 2.24. 102 Paul can also express a similar trust without an 'in the Lord'
formula: 'having this conviction I know that... '(1T1TOt~W~ ollia) Phil 1.25;
'I am convinced (1T1TWllat) about you that ... ' (Rom 15.14); 'I am convinced (1TbrWllat) that ... ' (Rom 8.38).1 03 Interestingly enough it is only in
Romans that Paul uses the form 1T1TWllaL. It seems clear to me that Paul is
in Rom 14.14 drawing on his Christian experience rather than on any saying
of the Lord. 104
Moreover, the similarity between Mk 7.15 and Rom 14.14 is limited to the
words oriliv and KOWov/KOwWaat. 105 Paul's usage in this passage has a closer
affinity with the Markan commentary Ka~apl~wv 1TClvTa Ta (3pwllaTa (Mk
7 J 9), for when Paul takes up in v. 20 the thought of v. 14 he uses the words
1TdvTa (sc. (3pWJ.l.aTa) IlV Ka~apa. This indeed raises the possibility that Mark
is influenced by Pauline traditions rather than vice versa.

to the historical Jesus; thus Zahn, B. Weiss, Lagrange (as a possibility), Cranfield
(likewise), Leenhardt. This is a weak argument. For one thing, Paul mostly uses 'the
Lord' instead of 'Jesus' in the indubitable cases when he refers to words of the historical Jesus (1 Cor 7.10, 12, 25; 9.14). And secondly, the formulation 'the Lord
Jesus' occurs, to be sure. as a designation of the historical Jesus in 1 Cor 11.23 and 1
Thess 2.15 (cf. 2 Cor 4.14); however, the expression '(our) Lord Jesus' often enough
also clearly refers to the exalted Kyrios. This is the case (without 'our') in 1 Cor
16.23, 2 Cor 11.31, Phil 2.19 and 1 Thess 4.2; with 'our' the formula refers to the
earthly Jesus in 1 Cor 5.4 (twice), 2 Cor 1.14, 1 Thess 2.19, 3.11, 13.
100 Yet even the 'commandment of the Lord' in 1 Cor 14.37 is probably not a word of
the Lord; neither are the 'orders' given 'through the Lord Jesus' 1 Thes8 4.2. See
above, p. 80, 82.
101 Cf. Lipsius, Lietzmann.
102 Cf. also 2 Thess 3.4.
103 Cf. also 2 Tim 1.12.
104 Dodd objects ('Ennomos' 106) that if Paul meant no more than 'I am convinced in
virtue of my union with Christ as a member of his body', then 'it is not easy to see
what reply Paul would have to one who should say ''and I am convinced in the Lord
Jesus that the reverse is true"'. 1 think that Paul actually had no reply; probably
he would simply have denied the value of the other conviction.
105 Cf. Kiihl.

248

VIII The origins

Furthermore, Paul does not use the statement made in Rom 14.14 (20)
in any of his extended discussions over the law. This silence must be deemed
highly significant. 106 What an effective argument would a word from the
Lord have been in the Galatians debate. for instance! It is even more difficult
to conceive that Paul would have refrained from using such a weapon in the
Antiochian conflict. There is no such hint in Gal 2.11 ff., however; instead,
Paul- develops his argument from theological insights gained after Easter.
There would hardly have been a need to argue the case at all had a suitable
word of the Lord been readily at hand. It is perhaps even more significant
that there is no indication in Gal 2.1 ff. - and in this regard the account completely agrees with Acts 15 - that decisions made by Jesus played any part
in the discussions on the Apostolic Council; on the contrary, it was argued
from what had been experienced in the missionary work (Gal 2.8, cf. Acts
15.8 f., 12). It must be concluded that if Paul knew a word of the Lord like
Mk 7.15, in any case he did not argue from it; he did not base his theology
of the law on it. And as Paul went to the council as a representative of the
Antiochian congregation which no doubt cherished the traditions of the
Hellenists who had founded it, it is clear that whatever the attitude of the
Hellenists to the law, it was not argued on the basis of such sayings. The
natural conclusion is that the saying was not known either to Paul or to his
predecessors in Gentile mission. Whether we should also conclude that the
historical Jesus never took so radical an attitude to the law as implied in
Mk 7.15 is not to be debatedhere. 107
Add to this that Paul speaks of Jesus both as one who 'came under the
law' (Gal 4.4 f.) and as a 'servant of circumcision' (Rom 15.8), and it seems
rather unlikely that he would have attributed a critical attitude to the law to
the historical Jesus.1 8
It should still be added that even if, contrary to all likelihood, there
existed a genetic connection between the saying in Mk 7.15 and Paul's view
of the law, that could at best explain a feature shared by Paul with many of
his Christian contemporaries (his neglect to observe the ritual law among
Gentiles). It would not account for the radical features, e.g. the close connection between law and sin; no saying pointing to such a connection can be
found in the Jesus traditions.

106 Cf. MiiI1er, 'Rezeption' 159.

107 Cf. Merkel, 'Markus 7, 15'; Carlston, 'Things'; Percy, Botschaft 118, for different
answers to the question; and see my articles 'Herkunft' and 'Jesus'.
108 Cf. Wrede,Pau/us 83, 92; Liitgert, Freiheitspredigt 10; Wernle, Anfonge 216; Bacon,
Matthew 357. It should be recalled here that even Paul himself, who says he is (unlike
Christ, according to Gal 4.4) not 'under the law', behaved toward 'those under the
law' as being himself in the same position (1 Cor 9.20). How much more must this
apply to the historical Jesus who was a servant of tlie circumcised. (alonel !

Meditation on Deut 21.23?

249

5. Meditation on Deut 21.23?

It is not uncommon to trace Paul's attitude to the Torah back to a meditation on Deut 21.23 (cited in Gal 3.13) in the light of his Christophany.
Certainly Paul the Pharisee was offended by the Christians' proclamation
largely because they proclaimed a crucified Messiah, 'a scandal to the Jews'
(1 Cor 1.23). In Paul's time, the statement of the Torah concerning the curse
inflicted by God on a person hanged on a tree (Deut 21.23) was quite commOn1fi" applied to those who underwent the Roman penalty of crucifIxion,
too. 1 9 It is likely, then, that Paul (and other opponents of the new sect)
.had persecuted the Christians in the conviction that on the basis of the law
.
itself Jesus could not have been the real Messiah.
The Christian Paul, however, has an explanation for the dilemma of the
crucifIed Messiah: Jesus became 'a curse' on behalf of us, in order to redeem
us from the curse pronounced on us by the law (Gal 3.13). Many interpreters
see in this very verse an indication of what it was that changed Paul's mind as
regards the status of the Torah. The Christophany, it is held,proved to Paul
not only that God had vindicated Jesus as the Messiah by resurrecting him
from the dead, but also that the law which contained the curse over the crucifIed was wrong or no longer valid. Thus Schweitzer argued that at this point
the law was proved to be wrong at one particular; consequently it JIlust be
totally invalid,u This interpretation is clearly wrong: Deut 21.23 is not
invalidated in Gal 3.13. It is the very point of that verse that Christ was
indeed under a curse while hanging on the cross. 1ll Only, this is shown to
be explicable on account of the idea of a vicarious curse.
A more usual interpretation is as follows. Paul's encounter with the risen
Christ revealed to him that the law had come to an end, for God's vindication
of Jesus simultaneously signalled his judgment over the very law that had
condemned Jesus, put him under a curse and brought him to the cross. 112
Paul was able to conclude from his Christophany, it is held, that God himself
had revoked the law. This interpretation, too, is based on incorrect premises.
Thus Paul never suyests that it was the law that condemned Jesus or brought
him to the cross.ll He does not indicate that Jesus was killed, say, because

109 See above, p. 59.

110 Myrtik 73. Cf. also Kim, Origin 274.
111 It is J ustin (J)ial. 111.2), not Paul, who denies that Christ was under the curse on the
cross.
112 Thus Maurer, Geretzedehre 62 f., 97; Stuhlmacher, Gerechngkeit 95; id., Verrohnung
182,185,194-196; Beker, Paul 185 f., 261; Weder, ,Kreuz 190 ff.; cf. also Duncan;
Kim, Origin 274. Luz, 'Gesetz' 91 would apparently attribute a similar view to Christians before Paul.
113 Cf. Leivestad, ehrirt 105: 'The execution of Jesus ~an never be conceived as a lawful
act. He is not convicted according to the Mosaic law. His condemnation cannot be

250

V/If. The origins

of his critical attitude to the law;114 on the contrary, he states that Je~us
was a 'servant of circumcision' (Rom 15.8) and, therefore, himself 'under the'
law' (Gal 4.4).115 The crucif1Xion is attributed to cosmic powers rather than
to zealous legalists (1 Cor 2.8)116 and, in the final analysis, to God's salvific
purpose. Christ took the curse voluntarily upon him (cf. e.g. Phi! 2.8) on behalf of others. It is by no means obvious that the idea of a person bearing the
c~rse of others should logically lead to the idea that the law which entailed
the curse must be abolished, just as the destiny of the OT scapegoat did not
lead to the idea of an abolition of the Torah. It is indeed hardly to be doubted that Paul's Jewish Christian opponents shared with him the idea of Christ's
death on behalf of us.117 It did not occur to them, however, that the law had
therefore come to an end. It is not clear that the logic ascribed to Paul by his
interpreters at this point is compelling. If there was a connection between
Paul's exegesis of Deut 21.23 and his critique of the law, he never spells it out.
It is indeed quite likely that Gal 3.13 should be taken in another sense.
It shows that Paul had found an intellectual solution to the dilemma of a
crucified Messiah by ascribing a vicarious value to the curse the reality of
which, in the light of God's word in the Torah, could not be doubted. The
idea of a vicarious curse, then, answers the question why the Messiah had
died in such a scandalous way.
The Christophany, it would seem, convinced Paul that Jesus was no longer
under the curse of the law. He had been, but for quite a specific purpose. The
law was not wrong in pronouncing that curse; indeed the framework of the
Torah is not surrendered in the course of this particular argument. God thus
did not have to annul anything in the law. Jesus suffered the curse on behalf
of others; the curse itselfremains.as valid a.s ever for transgressors (Gal3JO!).
What has changed is not the status of the lawbut the situation of the believers in Christ. For them there is no condemnation (Rom 8.1). It is very hard
to see how antinomian consequences should follow from these. considerations
alone, i.e. from a meditation upon Deut 21.23 in the light of Paul's call vision
alone. Something more was needed.
It should be noted, moreover, that there is no reference to the resurrection
of Jesus in the context of Gal 3.13. Conversely, no reference to the theme of
justified through a legitimate reference to the law. Therefore -the law cannot be
directly responsible for his death.'
114 Thus Pannenberg, Jesus 254; Edwards, Christ 267 f., 316 f., 347; Weder, Kreuz
191 n. 262; Ttircke,Potential 81-83.
115 Cf. above, p.248.
116 Beker, op.cit. 262 would include the law among these powers in 1 Cor 2.8.
117 Cf. Mussner, Gal 185; Grafe, Lehre 20: 'Aber durch diese Tilgung der auf den Gesetzestibertretern lastenden KaTdpa glaubten sie (Paul's adversaries) das Gesetz nun erst
recht in seinem Bestande befestigt und den Menschen zu erneuter Erfiillung des
Gesetzes befahigt.' See also Eckert, Verkiindigung 111.

Adopting a pattern set by the 'Hellenists'?

251

'curse' occurs in Paul's - admittedly brief - accounts of his call experience.

Some interpreters would read even more out of Gal 3.13. J.C. Beker
writes: 'In his conversion experience, Paul discovers the strange truth that the
power of sin does not collide with the Torah but allies itself with it. Otherwise, the Torah could not have condemned the Son of God, who was sent by
God to redeem us.' Paul can thus conclude that' "the power of sin" operates
not only behind our individual "sins" ... but even more behind the poisonous
function of the law. How otherwise could those who, like Paul, had been
most faithful to the law have persecuted and crucified the Messiah of God on
the very basis of the law?,118 Such a construction, were it tenable, might
indeed make Paul's allegations of the close connection between law and sin
more intelligible. Yet it must be repeated that according to Paul, it was not
the Torah that had caused the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus. The
alleged connection between law and sin cannot, therefore, be accounted for
in this way. When Paul speaks of the sin-engenderlng capacity of the law, the
context always shows that he has transgressions of the law in mind rather
than legalistic hybris. 119

6. Adopting a pattern set by the 'Hellenists'?

It is a real pity that we know so little about the 'Hellenist' group around
Stephen. 120 Quite indubitably there was some point of contact at least between their thinking and Paul's. Paul had persecuted Christians before his
conversion. Not all Christians, however, were persecuted at this point, but
most probably just the 'Hellenists'.1 21 The Hellenists must therefore have
held views different from those of the 'Hebrews'. It is a natural conclusion
that these differences had something to do with the law. Luke's account of
the accusajions against Stephen (Acts 6.11, 13 f.), whatever its historical
value, points to the same dir.ection. According to Luke, the accusation was
that Stephen had blasphemed against Moses and God (v. 11) by claiming that
Jesus would destroy the temple and change 'the customs' delivered by Moses
(v. 14). Whether the speech in Acts 7 can cast any light on the views-.ofthe
historical Stephen is not clear .122 It would seem that the Hellenists displayed
118 Beker, op.cit. 261 f.

119 Cf. aeove, p. 141 f.

120 For reconstructions of their activity and teachings see Wilson, Gentiles 138 ff.; Dunn,
Unity 268 ff.; Schneider, 'Stephanus';and above all Hengel, 'Jesus'.
121 Acts 11.19 clearly indicates (against 8.1) that not all Christians of Jerusalem were
disperse4 by a persecution, as does the fact that the Apostles could remain in the city
(8.1). That a conflict over the law was the reason for the persecution is doubted by
Strecker, Eschaton 233 f. and by Hultgren, 'Persecutions' 97 ff.; cf. also Schade,
Chrilltologie Ill. But why else should just the Hellenists have been persecuted while
the Hebraist leaders were not?
122 Simon, Stephen and Scharlemann, Stephen still build on it; cf. Scroggs, 'Christianity';

252

VIII. The origins

some disregard if not hostility toward the Temple and its cult as well as some
laxity as regards the ritual Torah in general. What exactly this entailed we
cannot say; in any case, they must have taken a noticeably different attitude
from that of the Hebrews.
To be sure, the attitude of the Hellenists to the law is often taken to have
been a lot more radical. It is held that they re:Eudiated the law altogether 123
or at least sat light to its cultic-ritual part. 1 4 There is no great difference
between these two views, since a rejection of the law must have become visible to outsiders first and foremost as non-observance of the ritual Torah.
The assumption that the Hellenists had expressly rejected the law 'as a way of
righteousness,125 is, in the absence of evidence, dubious; for, as we have
seen, it is very much the question whether there existed in Judaism at all.the
idea of the law 'as a way of righteousness' which could be either accepted or
rejected. This contrast is distinctively Pauline and should not be read back to
the teaching of Stephen. As for the rejection of the ritual law as a whole, this
thesis makes Paul, for all his radicalism, to appear somewhat reactionary.
Whereas Stephen had, on this view, suggested in Jerusalem, faced with Jews,
that 'the' ritual law was obsolete, Paul remained 'a Jew for the Jews' (1 Cor
9.19) wherever he was among them. Is this really plausible? I think not.

Dunn, op.cit. 270 f.; Schneider, art.cit. 236 f. Yet it is discarded even by Hengel,
'Jesus' 186 f.
123 W.L. Knox, Jerusalem 11; Schmithals, James 23, 25; Suhl, Paulus 31 f.; llahn, Gottesdienst 50 f.; Kasting, Anftinge 55.
124 Hengel, 'Mission' 27; id., 'Jesus' 191 n. 137; Conzelmann, Heiden 236 f.; cf. Kim,
Origin 45. For a more cautious view see Hultgren, art.cit. 98 n. 4: Stephen was only
against the temple and its cult; Kraft, Offenbarung 73. Dunn, op.cit. speaks of
Stephen's 'outspoken attack on the temple', but also notes th:h this does not mean
attacking the law as well (272 f.): 'Stephen himself probably did not yet consider his
position as constituting a breach with Judaism and the law; he may indeed have believed that Jesus' coming and exaltation as the prophet like Moses (Acts 7.37) constituted a call to return to the authentic religion of Moses, stripped of all its later idolatrous abuses and corruptions (sacrifices, ritual and temple).' Scroggs, art.cit. (esp.
201) argues that the Hellenists may have rejected just the temple (which is not mentioned in the Pentateuch!). Cf. also Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 80 ff., 154, 216 (he
attributes the tradition cited by Paul in Rom 3.25 f. to the Hellenists and evaluates
this as a rejection of the old expiation system by them). Cf. also Luz, 'Gesetz' 9l.
Stuhlmacher also regards the Epistle to the Hebrews as representative of what the
Hellenists taught (op.cit. 155). Even so, Paul's peculiarly negative statements on the
law would not be accounted for; see on the differences between Hebrews and Paul in
this regard above, p. 209.
125 Cf. S. Brown, 'Community' 198 f.: Paul was converted 'to a form of Christianity
which repudiated the law as a way of righteousness' which 'can only be explained if
his hostility was directed against and caused by this very form of belief'. Yet Brown
(205), too, stresses the difference of view between the Hellenists and Paul in that for
Paul the Torah takes on 'demonic overtones'.

Adopting a pattern set by the 'Hellenists'?

253

It was these Hellenists who began the Gentile mission and founded the
mixed congregation in Antioch (cf. Acts 11.19 ff.). It would be tempting to
locate the events hinted at in Acts 11.19 ff., with Schmithals, in the time
before the death of Stephen. 126 If it was known in Jerusalem that these
people had admitted Gentiles as Proselytes 127 without circumcision and
without imposing the Torah on them, their persecution would cause no surprise. This reconstruction, however, hangs pretty much in the air. 128 Yet the
other possibility merits serious consideration: that the Christians Paul persecuted in the region of Damascus were Hellenists or their adherents who had
already accepted Gentiles into the community.129 This would presuppose
that some time had elapsed since the death of Stephen. The advantage of this
theory is that it explains why Paul's vision at once convinced him of being
called an apostle to the Gentiles. 130 It would seem natural to infer that the
status of the Gentiles, and thus the status of circumcision, was an important
bone of contention between Paul the Pharisee and the Christians persecuted
by him.
It is to be kept in mind that over long years Paul worked among Gentiles
along with Barnabas who had close connections with the Hellenists. The evidence sugfests that for quite a long time Paul worked as a junior partner of
Barnabas. 31 The Antiochian conflict that took place later was hardly a
success for Paul. 132 He apparently did not win over Peter and the people

126 Schmithals, op.cit. 32. He traces the liberalism of the Hellenists back to Galilaean
influences, assuming that the new faith spread to Syria directly from Galilee; cf.
Kasting, Anfiinge 101 f.; Suhl, op.cit. 34. His underlying assumption that Galilaeans
were generally quite lax in their Torah observance (22) is dubious, however; cf.
Hengel, art.cit. 162-164.
127 There was, of course, no separate entity 'Christianity' at this stage, so that conversions
to the new faith would have been regarded as admission of proselytes to Judaism.
128 Cf. Wilson, op.cit. 151. Had this really been the reason for the split between the
Hebrews and the Hellenists, then the Hebrews would have taken sides against the
admission of Gentiles without circumcision; had this been the case, then their later
tolerance in this matter would be very difficult to account for.
129 Cf. Scroggs, 'Christianity' 199; Stuhlmacher, Evangelium I, 74; Schrage, 'Ekklesia'
197; Miiller, 'Rezeption' 167 f.; and the cautious reflections of Luz, art.cit. 88 f. In
any case, even Acts tells - prior to the conversion of Paul - that the Hellenist Philip
proclaimed Christ to Samaritans.
130 This is so even if the conjecture were correct that Paul had been interested (if not
engaged) in Jewish missionary work before his conversion. It was circumcision
that stood between Jewish and Christian mission to Gentiles.
131 See Loisy, Birth 136 ff.; cf. Klisemann, Versuche 11, 244; Ollrog, Paulus 10-12. In
Acts 13.1 ff. Paul is one of the many prophets and teachers in Antioch, whereas
Barnabas is singled out as the leading figure. In the lccount of the 'ilrst missionary
journey' Barnabas is often mentioned before Paul (still in 14.14), and his comparison
with Zeus in 14.12 suggests that he is viewed as the leader.
,132 Thus e.g. Gaechter, Petrus 251 ff.; Mussner, Gal; Haenchen,Apg 458 f.; Dunn, Unity

254

VIII. The origins

around him. He from now on had to part ways with Barnabas. This shows
that Barnabas did not at all fully share Paul's theory of the law (or at least all
its practical implications) as Paul set it forth then in Antioch; it may be
assumed that Gal 2.15 ff. still reflects the thrust of that argumentP3 It
Jollows, then, that Paul can hardly have set forth any. thoroughgoing critique
of the law long before that time.
It may well be that 1 Thess conveys a picture of what Paul's attitude to
the law was before his conflict with the Judaizers. Even if the letter is not
very early134 but belongs to the time after the apostolic council, it serves to
indicate what Paul's relation to the law was when he was not engaged. in
actual polemics - when the 'earlier mood' was still present. 1 Thess conveys
the impression of a total disinterest in the law, positively as well as negatively.
There is no critique of the law; the law is simply bypassed in the summary of
the missionary proclamation (1.9 f.). There is no positive interest in the law
either; the ethos of the letter is not Torah-oriented even though 'orders'
concerning the right way oflife are not lacking (cf. 4.1 ff.). The law seems to
be a non-entity, an adiaphoron. When the circumstances allow it (Le., when
there is no 'Judaizing' agitation), Paul can simply ignore the law when communicating with a (predominantly) Gentile congregation, even though many
of its members must have been recruited from those who were previously
under the influence of the Synagogue.1 35
It would thus seem likely that Paul met with the Hellenists a somewhat
relaxed attitude to the observance of the ritual Torah, perhaps even a neglect
of circumcision as part of the missionary strategy. Certainly he found in
Antioch a mixed congregation not scrupulous about the Torah. We might say
that the (ritual) law was dealt with more or less as an adiaphoron. 136 This of
course implied some criticisms of details of the law, but no hostility. We are
reminded of those mysterious allegorizers of Alexandria, mildly rebuked by
Philo in Migr. Abr. 89 ff.137 Were they in some sense predecessors of the
Hellenists? It is in any case difficult not to connect the 'liberalism' of the
Hellenists in one way or another with their Dispersion background. 138 They

254. Paul woUld hardly have omitted to menti~n his success to the Galatians, had he
had any. The separation from Barnabas points to the same direction.
133 Even though the speech begun in 2.15 flows smoothly into an address to the Galatians; see above, p. 47 n. 21.
134 Cf. above, p. 10.
135 Cr. Acts 17.1 ff. and the reflections on the circumstances of Paul's work in Haenchen, Apg 493.
136 Cf. Wrede,Paulus 84; Strecker,Eschaton 230 f.
137 See above, p. 35, 93.
138 Cf. Bohlig, Geisteskultur 165 f.; Lake, Epistles 23 ff. (yet I would reduce the evidence presented by Lake to the Alexandrian allegorizers only). Hengel, art.cit. 185
assumes. not without reason, that those Dispersion Jews who returned to Jerusalem

Adopting a pattern set by the 'Hellenists'?

255

may have felt the pressure from their non-Jewish environment as a sore problem. The breakthrough of a new way of life, characterized by some neglect
of the Torah, must have been connected with the experience of eschatological
fulftlment found in the new community. One conjectures that ecstatic experiences of the Spirit played a part, even thou~ the portrait of Stephen as a
charismatic in Acts 6 is palpably Lukan style. 39 It is more difficult to determine to what extent their liberalism was due to what they heard of the life
style of the historical Jesus. 140 It is not clear that Jesus ever attacked the
Torah in so many words; ifhe did,it is by no means obvious that his followers
in Jerusalem should have made much of it. But at least Jesus' not uncritical
stance to the temple and his saying about its eschatological destruction must
have established a link between Jesus and Stephen.141
Whatever the origin and nature of the liberalism of the Hellenists, both
Acts and Paul suggest that the rise of the circumcision-free Gentile mission
was 'haphazard'. 'There was no decisive theological step;,142 'action preceded theology' .143 Surely the experience that uncircumcised Gentiles displayed the same kind of ecstatic gifts as circumcised Jewish Christians (cf.
Acts 10.44 ff., 15.7-12, Gal 2.8) was important. 144
It would seem that Palll at first,. as a consequence of his Christophany,
simply adopted this 'liberal' pattern. Had it been clear to him from the start
that 'C_hrist is the end of the law' (or even- that the Torah leads to sinning!),

had a strong religious motivation. BlJt as little as in the case of Paul does a sincere
religiosity necessarily exclude latent difficulties with the Torah due to an 'enlightened' enVironment in the minds of some of them. Hengel, 'Mission' 27 IT. 44 suggests
indeed a connection between the thought of the Hellenists and the preponderance of
the ethical commandments as well as the common ethical or spiritual-a1legorical
interpretation of the ritual stipulations in Hellenistic Jewish writings. Differently
S. Brown, art.cit. 202. The fact that the nature of the worship in the temple did not
necessarily meet the high expectations of th~ pilgrims (cr. Hengel, 'Jesus' 203) could
easily have made some of them receptive to the new faith.
139 Hengel, art.cit. 193 ff. infers from Acts 6 that the critique of law and temple on the
part of the Hellenists was connected with their eschatological enthusiasm. Strecker,
art.cit. 481 n. 8 correctly points out that the mention of the Spirit in Acts 6 goes
back to Lucan redaction. Nevertheless, Luke may be right. Whatever the actual experience behind the confused account in Acts 2, there must have been some striking
charismatic phenomena in the Jerusalem community, and nothing tells against the
assumption that people like Stephen shared in them. Cf. the description of the
Hellenist Philip as an ecstatic in Acts 8 and the mention that his daughters were
prophetesses (Acts 21.9).
140 Hengel, art.cit. 199 ff. construes a close connection; cf. Kasting, op.cit. 101-103
(via the Galilaeans); S. Brown, art.cit. 202; Miiller, 'Rezeption' 164-167.
14l'Cf. Wilson, op.cit. 150.
142-Wllso_n,op.cit. 152.
143 Jervell,Luke 136; id .., 'Minority' 19.
144 Cf. S. Brown, art.cit. 2031.

256

VIII. The origins

then one would expect him to have expressed this conviction in his later
letters in a much more consistent way. But in fact the perseverance oflawaffirming elements in Paul's thought is as striking as is the extreme nature of
some of his negative corpments. Should my analysis of Paul's theological
difficulties with the law be on the right track, then these very inconsistencies
indicate that as late as in the fifties Paul was still looking for arguments for
his peculiar view of the law; and in part, at least, the arguments are palpably
tentative (let me once more refer to the marriage analogy Rom 7.1-6, the
image of the will Gal 3.15-18 and the attribution of the legislation to angels
in Gal 3.19-20). One would imagine that Paul would have found some firmer
ground to stand on if he had reflected on the problem for twenty years! It is
my contention that t~e theory of a theology of the law which was basically
'ready' with Paul's conversion cannot adequately explain the nature of the
extant material. In his letters, Paul is trying to cope with recent events,
among which his conflicts with 'Judilizing' opponents had played an eminent
part. It may be that had it not been for these conflicts Paul's stated view of
the law would have been a good deal different. 145

7. The significance of the missionary experience and the

conflict with the 'Judaizers'
Before Paul entered the stage, Christian mission to the Gentiles had begun:

145 Besides Wrede and Strecker (above, n. 136) cf. also Case, 'Bias' 26; Enslin, Ethics
12 f., 85 f.; Sloyan, Christ 96, 103; Baumbach, 'Dialog' 12 f. Stuhlmacher, Versohnung 90 f., 156 objects to this theory by appealing to Paul's sUbjection to flogging by
the Jews (a penalty 'typical of offenses again'st the law'). But Paul was not the only
one to be persecuted in this way; the question is indeed, just how much laxity with
regard to the law did one have to display to get punished in this way? Mt 23.34 (cf.
10.17) as compared with Lk 11.49 shows indeed that the flogging experience was not
foreign to Matthew's (!) community, surely not suspect of radical antinomism. On
the question of flogging see Hare, Theme 43-46. Hare concludes that disturbance of
the public order and peace (through divisive missio~ary activity) may have been a
sufficient reason for flogging. E.P. Sanders, Law 191 argues that, in the case of
Paul, 'the issue was circumcision; that is, the admission of Gentiles to the 'people of
God without requiring them to make full proselytization to Judaism' (195).
Kim's critique of Strecker (Origin 269 ff.) misses the point, confusing the law-free
Gentile mission without circumcision with the full-blown theology of justification by
faith alone. He asks: 'How is one to believe that Paul the Pharisee whose whole life
had been oriented to achieving his salvation by keeping the law could perceive God's
saving work in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ and yet fail to consider how this
saving work of God in Christ was related to the law?' (270) This problem disappears,
if Paul's life had been oriented to the law as an expression of God's revealed will
which was not, in itself, a 'way to salvation'. Then it is quite conceivable that Paul
did consider the relation between God's work in Christ and the law, but drew less
radical copclusions than he was later to propose.

The significance of the missionary experience

257

a mission that abstained from requiring circumcision of the converts. As we

have seen, this giving up of important parts of the ritual law (besides circumcision, other ritual precepts as the food laws were also neglected) was apparently a spontaneous response to the new eschatological situation which was
characterized by charismatic phenomena. The Gentile question had received a
practical solution but hardly a theological foundation.
This state of affairs was tolerated, perha,Es even welcomed, by Palestinian
Jewish Christians for quite a long time. 1 6 It is only some fifteen years
later that we see a reaction coming. Some time around 48 A.D. a serious
theological debate about the situation arose. This is probably due to the
growing number of former Pharisees joining the new faith (cf. Acts 15.5).147
By that time some Jewish Christians produced weighty history-of-salvation
arguments to the effect that the sign of God's covenant had to be taken
seriously and the covenantal law had to be observed even in the new situation.
If Gentile Christians wished to be part of the eschatological Israel, they had
to be circumcised and take upon themselves the yoke of the law. As we have
seen, this was a thoroughly Biblical position, probably stemming from a deep
selJ.se of responsibility and reverence for God's word revealed in Scripture.
Ought not God's revealed word to be kept above decisions based on pneumatic experiences like glossolalia?148 Perhaps the notion of the Pauline Christ as
'an agent of sin' (Gal 2.17) reflects the argument of these Christians: Paul's
version of Christianity incited people to ignore (parts of) the law, thus leading
them to sin. 149
This attempt at a theological restoration did not remain ineffective. To be
sure, the requirement of circumcising the Gentile converts did not prevail at
the Jerusalem meeting, where the liberal policy of the Antiochian congregation was accepted. 150 The restorative pressure did not cease, however. Even

146 This is emphasized by]ervell, 'Yolk' 91 f. Jervell, art.cit. 102 n. 38, remarks that not
until about AD 48 did Jewish Christians awake to a theological consciousness. See
further id., 'Minority' 17-21. A quite different picture is drawn by Holtz, 'Bedeutung' 130 ff.: at first, converted Gentiles were circumcised even in Antioch (133 f.);
Paul, too, subscribed to this practice (137). On this theory, it was only after the Gentile converts were no longer willing to submit to the rite that Paul became aware of
the true practical implications of his theology (138 f.) This is a quite unlikely account
of the Hellenists' mission.
147 Jervell, 'Minority' 20 persuasively suggests that 'the Jewish Christians could tolerate
Gentiles when they were few ... But they were confronted with a totally new situation when the Gentiles ... threatened to become the majority.'
148 See abeve,p.183 f.
149 Cf.. Betz, Gal ad loco
150 It is notoriously difficult to find out what exactly was decided in the meeting; cf.
Haenchen ad loco and Wilson, op.cit. 185 ff. For the present purpose it is enough to
note the 'minimum' result mentioned in the text (cf. Haenchen). Obviously, whatever
the decision was, it was not capable of clearing up the situation for long ..

258

VIII. The origins

if the admission of Gentiles remained an established fact, the relations between

Jewish and Gentile Christians appeared all the more problematic. Some time
after the meeting 151 the Apostolic Decree was laid down, which tried to
impose on the Gentile Christians the stipulations which foreigners sojourning
in Israel had to observe according to Lev 17-18.1 52 The restoration trend is
clearly reflected in the incidentin Antioch, described by Paul in Gal2.11 ff. 153
It seems that Peter, Barnabas and others recognized the force of the restorative arguments. One would think that they there by displayed just that kind of
flexibility that Paul proclaims when stating that he is 'all things to all men' (1
Cor 9.22).1 54 Paul, however, saw the situation quite differently.
It is clear that over the years Paul had become internally alienated from
the ritual aspects of the law. 155 In the course of his work among Gentiles he
had fully internalized the Gentile point of view and identified himself with it.
While agreeing with the moral content of the Torah, Paul seldom based his
ethical instruction explicitly upon it. Often complying with the ritual precepts for strategic reasons, he felt free from the law and dead to it (Gal 2.19).
He had rightfully torn down the law with its food regulations (Gal 2.18) and
could say that all food was clean (Rom 14.14,20). He was capable of pouring
scorn on the sacred rite of circumcision (Gal 5.12, cf. Phil 3.2). That is no
longer a genuinely Jewish stance.
Paul had had ample time to develop this attitude. For more than a decade
the Gentiles had been allowed to flourish without paying attention to the
ritual law. Then, all of a sudden, the demand was raised that they ought
either to be circumcised or to form isolated separate congregations. The situation might have been different, had such a debate been raised right at the
beginning of the Gentile mission. Now the restorers, however orthodox their
theology, were definitely too late.
Paul could not contemplate Gentile Christians living separately from the
community which stood for the continuity with old Israel. After all, it was
151 It is also difficult to date the decree with any certainty. Obviously, it was wellestablished in Luke's time. Most scholars would date it relatively shortly after the
meeting; recently Strobel, 'Aposteldekret'; Pesch, 'Abkommen'. This is not the place
for a discussion of the peculiar theses of these scholars in detail. Catchpole, 'Paul'
argues that the decree was the immediate cause of the incident in Antioch (Gal 2.11
ff.). This must remain conjectural. The recent attempt of Borse, 'Paulus' 51 f., 61 to
attribute the decree to the Jerusalem council after all is hardly persuasive.
152 Haenchen, Conzelmann.
153 Pace Lildemann, Paulus 77 ff., 101 ff., who would date the incident before the apostolic meeting (thus reversing the chronological order between Gal 2.1-10 and 2.1114). The assumption that Paul does not stick to the chronological order in Gal 2 is
somewhat strange and it is hardly rendered likely through Liidemann's rhetorical
analysis.
154 Cf. Richardson, 'Inconsistency' 360 ff.
155 See above, p. 76 f.

The sign-ijicanceofthe missionary experience

259

Israel and Scripture which gave Christians, Gentiles as well as Jewish, their
identity. The unity of all believers in Christ (Gal 3.28) was a very real thing
to Paul, confIrmed by his long experience. On the other hand, it was impossible for him to consider the possibility that any parts of the Torah could be
imposed on Gentile Christians for reasons of practical unity.
It would seem that the Antiochian episode reveals us a great deal of how
Paul's 'fInal' theology of the law took shape. It is a great pity that we have
only his account of that incident and nothing at all from the other side. Whatever the circumstances were - whether Peter and others were persuaded- by
James' men because of theological considerations or, as Paul's wording suggests, because of fear of the Jews 156 - the behaviour which Paul so strongly
condemns reminds a detached observer of his own maxim of being 'to those
under law as being myself under the law', not to mention the demonstration
ofloyalty which Paul undertook according to Acts 21. Probably Peter did not
in any way attempt to 'compel the Gentiles live in the Jewish way' as Paul
insinuates (Gal 2.14).157 He decided to behave, in the given circumstances,
in the 'Jewish way', probably leaving it free to the Gentile Christians to continue their way of daily life. The issue must have seemed to him mainly a
pastorai-tme.1t is Paul who turns it into a question of soteriology, to a matter
of life and death. 'To live in the Jewish way' takes on the meaning to try to
attain 'righteousness through the law'. This metabasis eis aUo genos is comparable to the distortion of the other side's motives in the statement that Peter,
Barnabas and others acted as 'hypocrites' (v. 13).1 58
The context of Gal 2.15 ff. makes it abundantly clear that when Paul here
speaks of the 'works of the law' (v. 16) he has the keeping of ritual requirements in mind. It is that part of the law which constituted a wall between
Jews and Gentiles that had been 'tom down' (v. 18) by Paul and Peter, when
they had admitted uncircumcised Gentiles to the congregation and mixed
with them, at table as elsewhere. It was this construction that Peter was in
fact building up again through his changed behaviour, thus indicating that his
previous life style had been an error, a transgression. 159 Paul does not view

15.6 Cf. S. Brown, art.cit. 210 n. 74.

157 Eckert, Verkiindigung 198 f. Differently Holtz, art.cit. 123 f.; Catchpole, art.cit.
441. For an interesting attempt to reconstruct the events in Antioch from a proPetrine point of view see Gaechter, Petr.us 213 ff.
158 See on this Richardson, art.cit. 350, 360 f.
159 The most natural way to interpret Gal 2.18 is to take avvlC1Tavw as a reference to
Paul's (and Peter's) previous behaviour: I show myself to have been a transgressor.
The period of non-Qbservance turns out, in retrospect, to have been a time of arbitrarylaxity (if the food regulations need to be 'rebuilt'). Cf. Oepke, Mussner. Several
scholars would, however, take avvLuravw in a future sense: by subjecting myself to
stipulations which I will not be able to observe I make myself a transgressor of the
law from now on (Lietzmann, Schlier, Gyllenberg; Hahn, 'Gesetzesverstandnis' 53).

260

VOl. The origing

the situation from the missionary's own point of view as he does in 1 Cor 9.
His point of view js now completely that of the Gentile Christians. They are
being hurt in this situation. Unlike the situation in Corinth or Rome, it is
they who are in a 'weak' g0sition: under pressure from that party which feels
strong in its conviction.16

It is in such a situation that Paul sets up the contrast between faith in

Christ and works of law; whether he really spoke in this way at that time in
Antioch or whether he formulates the contrast in retrospect because of the
analogy with the Galatian situation. It is in the course of such a conflict that
the law 'becomes' the Jewish (or the heretical Jewish Christian) 'way of
salvation' which it was not for genuine Jewish thought (if the reasoning set
forth in ch. V is on the right track). If it was to these people so important to
comply with the law, at the cost of the well-being of their Gentile brethren, .
was the law then not, for all practical purposes, made the cornerstone of
salvation? If they wished to exclude uncircumcised Gentiles from established table-fellowship, did they not indeed (again for all practical purposes)
exclude them from the salvation in Christ? Or, at least, was not their behaviour bound to suggest to the Gentile Christians that actually they, too,
ought to get circumcised?161 In some such way Paul may (unconsciously, to
be sure) have reasoned. His understanding of the logic of his opponents'
position was probably different from theirs. The same was probably true of
the Galatian situation. It is quite possible that circumcision was not propagated in Galatia for soteriological reasons but rather as the proper response, in
the light of Scripture, to what God had done. 162

Bultmann, Exegetica 398 gives a similar interpretation with a different motivation:

I make myself a transgressor, because to be under law is by defmition to remain in
sin (cf. Rom 4.15); cf. van Diilmen, Theologie 21 n. 1.8; Byme, 'Som' 146 (in reerecting the barrier behyeenJews and Gentiles I 'transgress' the command of the law:
'Die!', expressed in v. 19!); and already Mundle, 'Gal 2.17.18' 153. This seems farfetched. In addition, OVII'l1TaIlW clearly means 'show, demonstrate' in Rom 3.5,
5.8, whereas no clear cases for the meaning 'to make oneself' have been adduced. To
be sure, Schlier (ad loc.) refers to Num 27.23, P. Tebt. 317, 10 f., P. Oxy 11261. But
these occurrences refer to cases when one is 'appointed to a charge' or 'appointed as
a representative'; cf. Liddell-8cott,Lexicon s.v. IV 1 d, e (Schlieralso refers to LiddellScott, but the lexicon does not support hig interpretation).
Lambrecht, 'Line of Thought' 488 correctly opts for themeaning 'to show myself'
for OVII'I1TaIlW; nevertheles~ he would take the verb in a future sense. But it is not
clear what value v. 18 would have as a 'proof' if the transgressions mentioned are
yet there. V. 18 makes perfectly good sense if it is taken to refer to the return to the
ritual law of a previously liberal Jewish Christian.
160 Cf. Richardson, art.clt. 352, 362.
161 honica11y, Jews might probably have inferred from Paul's way of life analogously
that he encouraged Jewish Christians to neglect the Torah; see above, p. 77 n. 181.
162 See above, p.182 ff.

not-

The significance of the missionary experience

261

One could claim that in some sense Paul was justified in his diagnosis. It
all depends on one's perspective. What seemed simple obedience to God's
revealed word to a Jew, must have seemed rather different from the Gentile
point of view. For most 163 of them, acceptance of circumcision and food
regulations would have meant a much more strenuous effort than for the
born Jew. Observance of the Torah would have exposed them to derision
from friends and neighbours, and circumcision might have endangered even
their llves.t 64 Psychologically, such an achievement might have had the flavour of man's effort to make himself acceptable to God. Paul attacked the
Jewish Christian position, because he came to assess it from a Gentile's point
of view.
The conflict with Jewish Christian 'covenantal nomism' brought Paul, the.
partly alienated Jew, face to face with the adamant demand that God's revealed
law had to be taken seriously as a whole. Selectivity about God's law could
not be tolerated. Acceptable forms for the intercourse between Jewish and
Gentile Christians had to be created. In face of this challenge the old practical
liberalism simply would not do. It had to give way either to a more conservative or else to a more radical position. Peter, Barnabas and others at least
temporarily opted for the former course. Paul, not being able to retrace his
steps, had to develop a consciously radical position. He had to argue why his
attitude was different and why it had to be different. Through the pressure of
events he was led to search for arguments for a global rejection of the law; for
in his consci~us thinking he, too, was against selectivity.165 He thus came

163 The Galatians seem to be expectional in their apparent willingness to accept circumcision.
164 Cf. Smailwood, Jews 123f.
165 Linton, 'Paulus' 186 points out that Paul is not a rebel against the law. What he is
really f'Jghting for is the freedom of Gentile Christians from circumcision. 'We might
think that Paul would have proceeded by turning first of ail against circumcision.
But this law cannot, according to Paul's basic conviction which he shares with the
Rabbis, be torn a:sunder from the general framework (Gal 5.3). It is quite foreign to
Paul to set himself above the law. Therefore he had to go the way he has gone and
put the whole law in the light of his new faith. Paul could not envisage any revision
of the law. That would havebeen sheer arbitrariness.' Only, Linton does not show
awareness of the irony of a couple of his statements. Precisely because of his refusal
to undertake a conscious revision of the law - a refusal probably due to inherited
reverence for God's word, cf. above p. 28, 32, 223 - Paul was actually led to extremely arbitrary conclusions, much more so than those (like Ptolemy) who did put themselves in the position of passing judgment on different parts of the law.
Cf. also Cerfaux, Christian 409 f.: 'At the time which we are dealing with, it was
impossible to dissociate "material" practices in the law from those which were purely
moral ... It was thus necessary to abolish the law altogether, so that we might live
according to the Spirit.' See also the view of Bousset, referred to above, p. 25.

262

VIII. The origim

upon several ad hoc arguments for the termination of the law (the analogies
of marriage and will; the legislation through angels) and its allegedly sinengendering and sin-enhancing nature etc. The numerous problems and selfcontradictions in his statements expose the overall theory as more or less
artificial. 166 It would seem that the difficulties can best be explained if the
whole theory owes its origin to a polemical situation. 167 We have found indications that Paul went in his theorizing often a great deal further in a radical
direction than his 'natural' reasoning would suggest. One may venture the
statement that 'Paul the theologian' develops a radical theory which does not
quite correspond to the thoughts of 'Paul the man'.
The above description of the emergence of Paul's radicalized stance as a
result of his conflicts with fellow Christians may be oversimplified, since Paul
did have conflicts with non-Christian Jews as well, possibly long before the
battle with the Christian 'Judaizers' .168 Unfortunately, we know little
either about the exact reasons for or the chronology of Paul's persecution
by the Jews, although 2 Cor 11.24 ff. gives some idea of its intensity. It is
difficult to know to what extent these persecutions were due to fear of
laxity in the observance of the law as a consequence of Paul's preaching. 169
Paul did not ostensibly disregard the Torah among his kinsmen (1 Cor 9.20).
To be sure, he came to be regarded as an antinomistic apostate by the Jews
(cf. Acts 21), but just how early did he get such a reputation (was it perhaps
only after the apostles' meeting or after the Antiochian incident?)? No doubt
the anger of the Jews was often aroused by the fact that Paul's preaching was
suited to win over many of the 'Godfearers' from the fringes of the Synagogue to the Christian community, not least because they did not have to
bother about circumcision.170 In 1 Thess 2.16a Paul complains that the Jews
166 On the artificiality of Paul's radical line of thought see already Wrede,Pauius 78 f.
167 A casual observation by Scholem therefore seems to be close to the truth: Paulinism
'did not arise out of any immanent logic', but received 'its direct impulse from the
outside'. Paul, that is, had 'in the interest of Christian propaganda ... to forgo demanding of Gentile Christians that they keep the law or accept its obligation'. Afterwards
(as in Romans 7), however, 'the crisis of the tradition is explained out of the inner
dynamic of the redemption itself in which the considerations that led to this theology have become unimportant and have receded completely into the background
... 'Idea 57 f.
168 Luke lets the Jewish persecution begin as early as Acts 9.23 ff. Paul does not mention
Jews in 2 Cor 11.32 f., where he refers to the same incident, and it seems that the
role ascribed to the Jews is Lukan style; cf. Haenchen. Haenchen thinks it was Paul's
proclamation of Lord Jesus and the imminent end of this world that made him suspect in the eyes of the ruling power. On the other hand, Windisch (on 2 Cor 11.32 f.)
regards it as possible that Paul was made suspect by the Jews, who could then have
been the ultimate case of the ambush.
169 Cf. Smith, 'Persecution'.
170 Cf. Schmithals, Romerbrief 78 and Theissen, Untersuchungen 265, who points out

The significance of the missionary experience

263

are hindering him from speaking to Gentiles 'in order that they may be
saved'.I71 This may well refer to Jewish attempts to protect the non-Jewish
sympathizers from the new propaganda.
Should conflicts over the Torah with non-Christian Jews predate the battle
with Jewish Christians, it is of course possible that the radical development of
Paul's view of the law had begun already in that connection. But even if this
were so, it would seem, as 1 Thess 2.16a indicates, that the question of what
happens to the Gentiles was an important driving force in this process. And in
any case, Paul's language got its biting sharpness in the battle with .fellow
Christians. The decisive phase is tangible in Gal 2.11 ff. We there find Paul
ascribing soteriological significance to something which the other side understood in a rather different way.l72

the social and financial importance of the 'God-fearers' for the Jewish communities
in the Dispersion.
171 There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of 1 Thess 2.14-16 on the score that it
clashes with Rom 11.25 ff. Paul has here concrete hostile Jews in mind, whereas in
writing Romans he - in a different mood, to be sure - considers the subject more
calmly from a theological point of view. Cf. Davies, 'People' 8. Schade, Christologie
128 objects that Paul is speaking of the Jews generally in 1 Thess as well; but this
would not be the only case that Paul expresses rather sweeping generalizations while
starting from limited experiences!
As regards our problem, it is noteworthy that this polemical outburst does not
lead Paul to any explicit comments on the law. Could this be taken as another indication that it was indeed the Jewish Christian rather than the Jewish opposition that
made the question oflaw acute to Paul?
For the authenticity of the passage see recently Schade, op.cit. 126-128; Okeke,
'Fate'; Ltidemann, 'Judentum', section 3.2. Paul makes use here of traditional topoi,
but v. 16a seems to be his own 'addition' (cf. Schade, op.cit. 127).
172 Let me try to construe an analogy. Suppose that a modern Christian missionary
decided to give up baptising his converts, since they have displayed charismatic gifts
in their unbaptised status. An average Christian theologian need hardly attribute
saving value ex opere opera to to baptism to be somewhat upset by such events.
If our imaginary missionary now in the course of a debate ascribed to his critics the
view that a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is the basis of man's salvation (that they
indeed teach 'salvation by water' or sacramental magic as Heilsweg), this would seem
to be more or less analogous to the case of Paul. There are, of course, two basic
differences. There is in baptism nothing inherently repulsive to the mind of a convert, as was often the case with circumcision. And, more importantly, Paul and others
had ample time to establish the liberal practice before it came to be questioned.

Some concluding reflections

Paul's thought on the law is full of difficulties and inconsistencies. A short
summary of these was set forth in ch. VI, to which the reader is referred. 1
The result of ch. VII was that while PaUl shares some of the difficulties with
other early Christian writers, no one else gets iI\volved in so many and so
drastic problems. 2 In ch. VIII the suggestion was developed that the historical
reason for Paul's plight should be looked for in his conflict with the Jewish
Christian 'restorers' and their program.
It may be pointed out in passing that it is not just in his treatment of the
law that Paul gets involved in intellectual difficulties. He likewise contradicts
himself when discussing the not unrelated problem of Israel's reluctance to
accept the gospel. In Rom 9 he resorts to the extreme explanation of divine
hardening which takes place regardless of any of man's doings (9.6-23),
whereas he in the very next chapter puts all emphasis on Israel's own notorious disobedience. In chapter 11, at last, Paul defmitely discards his predestinarian construction and replaces it with the statement that Israel's obduracy
is of a temporary nature. 3 This runs counter to 1 Thess 2.14-16 as well. The
observations made in the course of this study about Paul's self-contradictions
suggest that one should hardly posit a theological development in Paul's
thinking about Israel from 1 Thess to Romans. 4 It is sufficient to note that
Paul fmds himself in a different situation. No wonder that precisely in issues
concerning his relationship to his Jewish heritage Paul gets caught in theological difficulties. He is tom into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving
the tension in terms of theological thought. 5
It remains to draw some theological conclusions. We find Paul struggling
with the problem that a divine institution has been abolished through what

1 See above, p. 199 ff.

2 See above, p. 227 f.
3 On Paul's inconsistencies in Rom 9-11 see Riiisanen, Hardening 79-87; cf. also
Ruether, Faith 105f; Goodenough, 'Paul' 63f.; E.P. Sanders, Law 198: 'Paul's solution to the problem posed by Israel's unfaith (sc. in ch. 11) is to be seen as a somewhat desperate expedient ... How can the promise be irrevocable if it is conditional
on a requirement which most Jews reject? He has a problem, a problem of conflicting
convictions which can be better asserted than explained .. ' Sanders also correctly
points out the analogy with Paul's dilemma in Rom 7.
4 See, however, also Liidemann,Judentum 41-43.
5 Cf. Lowe, 'Examination' 141 (cited above, p. 11 n. 72).

Some concluding reflections

265

God has done in Christ. Most of Palil's troubles can be reduced to this simple
formula. Paul tries to hush up the abolition; he never admits that he has
actually rejectedlarge parts of the law. Instead, he has recourse to the arbitrary assertion that it is his teaching that really fulfIls or 'upholds' the law. A
Christian who regards this assertion as convincing should by way of logic not
object if a Muslim claims that the Koran is the fulfIlment of the (Jewish and)
Christian Scripture, or if a Hindu asserts that Christianity attains its fulfIl-
ment in Hinduism.6 He is only tasting his own medicine. Paul Wernle's comments on Christian claims of fulfilling the law are to the point: 7 'These claims
were in reality untrue. No one in the world fulfIls circumcision, Sabbath or
food laws through neglecting them. Yet how often has theological ingenuity
managed to make a yes of a no and a no of a yes!,8
The problem of an abolition of a divine institution is clearly reflected in
Paul's inability to give a satisfactory answer to the question 'Why then did
God give th~s weak and imperfect law in the first place?' In fact, Paul gives
two incompatible answers, neither of which is satisfactory.9 Either he must
attribute to God an unsuccessful first attempt to carry through his will (as if
it took God a long time to devise an adequate means for this), or else he gets
involved in the cynicism that God explicitly provides men with a law 'unto
life' while knowing from the start that this instrument will not work. This
problem, like the preceding one, Paul to be sure shares with many other NT
writers.
If something is truly divine, it is hardly capable of being abrogated! Of
course, we may from our modern point of view deem Paul's view to display
'an historical realism': 'his views are determined by the new experience of
God who gives life through the Spirit. Paul claimed that the Judaizers who
wanted to combine this experience with the law, were dragging the past into
the present!,10 Only, it must be borne in mind that the 'past' was taken to
represent God's absolutely authoritative word embodied in Scripture and this
not by the Judaizers alone. From the point of view of Paul's opponents
Paul's 'realism' must have seemed identical with misguided enthusiasm, an
excessive and arbitrary reliance on feelings and charismatic experiences. Can
we really blame them for this?l1 The course of history has shown the Utopian;
6 For Hinduism cf. Hick, God 131 f.
7 Wernle is commenting on Mt 5.17 ff., but his words are applicable to Paul as well.
8 Anfiinge 313. On the hybris of the Christian 'fulfilment' position see also Ruether,
op.cit. 94 f.
9 See above, p. 151 ff.
10 Moxnes, Theology 265.
11 Cf. Ruether, Faith 244 f. Radical as it may seem in its implications, Ruether's section
on Christology (246-251) is helpful and very important (more so than her 'dualistic'
interpretation of Paul in the same book); cf. Ruether-, 'Discussion' 242-~46. Cf. also
von der Osten-Sacken, 'Notwendigkeit'. Mussner, Traktat 356-363 does not succeed
in refuting Ruether.
.

266

Some concluding reflections

character of the first Christians' expectation of the Parousia and thereby

proved that the Jewish suspicion of the new charismatic movement was not
groundless. 12
The only reasonable way to cope with the Torah theologically (if you are
not an orthodox Jew or a Fundamentalist Christian) is to admit that it was
not a direct divine revelation to Moses. It consists of a long series of human
attempts to respond appropriately to what God was believed to have done. Its
commandments are therefore historically conditioned. 13 From such a critical
point of view one is enabled to make distinctions within the Torah and give
some parts more importance than others. But this was not the starting point
of Paul (or of Jesus, or of any Christian of the first generations)14; only later
was the idea that parts of the law are human intimated by people like Ptolemy
or, above all, the Jewish Christians behind Kerygmata Petrou. Paul did (at
times even passionately) cling to the traditional idea that the law was all
divine; this is why he was caught up in so many inconsistencies in trying to
relate the new experience to the authoritative tradition. While his life was
totally oriented to the new powerful experience of Christ, he was bound to
pay lip service (surely never realized as such by himself) to the tradition in
order not to undercut the unity of the divine purpose and will.
It is a fundamental mistake of much Pauline exegesis in this century to
have portrayed Paul as the 'prince of thinkers' and the Christian 'theologian

12 Cf. also Lapide, 'Rabbi' 55 ff.

13 Even the Decalogue was originally probably not transmitted as words of God. It was,
according to Smend, 'Gesetz' 15 ff., originally connected with 'Belehrung im Rahmen
der Grossfamilie' (16) rather than with the events on Sinai; the speaker was 'zunachst
das Familienhaupt oder eine andere Autoritatsperson'. Deuteronomy and the Priestly
Code represent obvious retrojections of more recent customs into a Mosaic setting;
cf. ibid. 27,31.
14 Cf. Montefiore, Gospels I 157 (commenting on Mk 7.15, but his point is applicable to
Paul as well): Jesus is illogical, since he holds fast to the law on one hand and utters a
principle which invalidates it on the other .... Amos could have uttered the principle
without inconsistency, because in his day there was no perfect, divine, immutable
Mosaic Law in existence; and we, to-day, can consistently utter the principle because
we no longer believe in such a Law - because we do separate the moral from the
ritual - but Jesus could only utter the principle at the cost of an inconsistency,
which does not, indeed, lessen the greatness of the principle or of him who spoke it,
but which justifies, exonerates, and explains the opposition and disbelief of the
Rabbis and Pharisees, who saw more clearly than Jesus whither the principle must
tend and how much it implied.' Cf. the prudent reflections on the Sabbath pp. 157 f.;
further p. 160: 'Yet I cannot see that the Rabbis were wrong in their opposition to
(Mark) vii. 15. If the Law is throughout Mosaic, perfect and divine, then it must he
obeyed throughout. But a saying like vii. 15 would imply that God made a mistake.
In ordering Moses to bid the children of Israel observe for ever certain laws about
food, etc., God apparently meant that there was such a thing as outward demement.'

Some concluding reflections

267

par excellence' .15 Paul was indeed an original and imaginative thinker, and
his letters are full of seminal in sights and thought-provoking suggestions. He
is, however, first and foremost a missionary, a man of practical religion who
develops a line of thought to make a practical point, to influence the conduct
of his readers;16 in the next moment he is quite capable of putting forward
a statement which logically contradicts the previous one when trying to make
a different point 17 or, rather, struggling with a different problem. Paul will

15 See above, pp. 1 f. notes 10-14. My assessment of Paul's thought converges with
that of Andrews in an undeservedly ignored study, in which she sought to approach
Paul and his ethical teaching 'by way of his social experience'. 'The predominance of
practical problems, which this approach reveals, shows that Paul has been greatly
over-estimated as an intellectual, particularly as the important early Christian theologian. Practice was uppermost with Paul.' Teaching 169.
16 See the assessments of Paul's thought in the quotations adduced above, pp. 11 f.
notes 71-75.
17 No doubt my assessment of Paul's thought also runs counter to attempts to interpret his letters as carefully planned rhetorical products which follow the set rules of
the time (even though good rhetoric does not, of course, in itself guarantee good
logic). See esp. Betz, 'Composition'; id., Galatians; cf. also Liidemann,Paulus 63 ff.
Besides reversing Paul's own judgment of his rhetorical skill (1 Cor 2.1-5) Betz's
analyses leave a rather strained impression. To mention just a few points: Betz tries
to analyze Galatians as an 'apologetic letter' ('Composition' 354, Galarians 14), but
in the end he shifts his ground and makes of ita 'magical letter' as well (,Composition' 379, .Gal 25). Thus the addressees who are first identified with the jury in a
fictitious law court situation ('Composition' 377, "Gal 24) become all of a sudden
defendants, who 'will either go free - be acquitted - or they will be sent back to the
cosmic "prison" guarded by the "elements of the world" .. .' (Gal 25 ; cf. 'Composition'
379). Furthermore, Betz admits that the central section of Galatians (chs. 3--4) is
'extremely difficult' to analyze in terms of rhetoric. Determined to demonstrate;
however, that the section is indeed designed to make up the probatio of the rhetoricians, he makes a virtue out of a necessity and declares that 'Paul has been very
successful - as a skilled rhetorician would be expected to be - in disguising his argumentative strategy' (,Composition' 369, Gal 129)! Finally, I fail to see why the use of
an amanuensis should in itself 'rule out a haphazard writing of the letter' and 'presuppose the existence of Paul's first draft' ('Composition' 356, cf. Gal 312).
Add to this that 'the most famous example' (Betz, Gal 15, following Momigliano,
Biography 60-62) of an apologetic letter, Plato's Epistle 7, does not at all display
such a rhetorical organization as Betz (arguing from the nature of the genre!) postulates for Galatians (Gal 16-23). Plato's Epistle 7 (the authenticity of which is disputed) can be characterized as a 'lengthy, and somewhat confused, narrative' which
includes a philosophical digression (Bury, Plato 9, p. 471, cf. 463). Edelstein (arguing for inauthenticity) characterizes it and other ancient letters' as 'historical novels'
(Letter 159); , ... what the epistle tells about Plato's teaching is incidental to the historical narrative' (op.cit. 70). On the whole I suspect that Betz's cardinal mistake
consists in comparing Galatians mainly to text-books of the rhetoricians rather than
to actual 'apologetic letters' or the like. Cf. Meeks's review (esp. 306).

268

Some concluding reflectiom

have to be carefully listened to in Christian theology and in interreligious

discussions, but his contribution must be assimilated critically.18
It seems that Paul has by way of intuition (or because of his faith in Christ,
if you like) arrived at important in sights regarding for example the Christian's freedom. 19 Having my roots in 'Gentile' Lutheran Christianity I fully
concur with his emphasis on the Gentile Christian's freedom from the Jewish
Torah as well as from the 'elements of the world'. Christian theology will
always remain in Paul's debt thanks to his consistent underlining of the priority of God's gracious initiative over human efforts to secure salvation (a
contention fully in line with the best Jewish tradition). But I can find no
fault with the Jew who says that, as a Jew, Paul should not have said much
that he actually said. In his attempt to tell what the law is all abou~ Paul gets
involved in self-contradictions. What is worse; he conveys a distorted picture
of the Jewish religion which has, contrary to Paul's intentions to be sure, had
a share in the tragic history of the Jews at the mercy of Christians. 20
Christian theology should have fastened on Paul's intuition .. But to later
Christianity for which the Torah was no longer an issue Paul's intuition about
the ritual law (largely shared by him with the Hellenists) seemed simply a
matter of course. Instead, especially in Protestantism, the rationalizations

18 Cr. the prudent counsel of von Rad, Theology 11,409: 'Such a bold interpretation'
as Paul's (who was 'only one of many charismatic interpreters of the Old Testament')
'could scarcely be taken as normative'. 'Every age has the task of hearing what the
old book has to say to it, in the light of its own insight and its own needs.'
19 Deissmann, Paul 104 f. correctly points out that 'too much has been made of' Paul's
'dialectic'. 'Logical proof ... and progress in a direct line of argument are not Paul's
strong points .... In controversy, for instance, Paul is much too impulsive a nature to
be a great dialectician ... in dealing with religious problems he is more successful
generally on the intuitive and contemplative side than on the purely speculative.' Cf.
Sandmel, Genius 7.
20 Parkes, the historian of the Christian-Jewish relationships, concludes (Judaism 105):
'The bare fact is that nearly two thousand years of Jewish history owe their sufferings more to the writings of Paul than to any other individual outside the evangelists.'
In both cases, 'it was not the effect which the author intended'. 'It is the Paulinists
rather than Paul himself who bear the direct responsibility ... ' Nevertheless: ' ... Paul
himself must be held primarily responsible for the fact that instead of a gradual and
peaceful development, without schism, a violent break between the two faiths took
place. Out of the mass of his teaching on the subject, the simple Gentile Christians
of his day retained only two ideas about Judaism', namely that the law was a tutor
to Christ, now superfluous, and that the law consists of a set of external rules (ibid.
107 f.). Cr. Flusser, 'Thesen' 182 (thesis 22).
After this I should perhaps add that this study was not conceived or carried out
(for better or for worse) out of guilt feelings because of the maltreatment of Jews by
Christians. Even if Christians had dealt with Jews throughout history as with angels,
this would not free us from the duty to examine whether Paul is fair in his polemics.

Some concluding rejlectiom

269

Paul contrived in support of his intuition came to be seen as his actual inval. t U1't'Ion. 21
uable accomplishment. I propose that we return to stress t h e In
One of the lessons to be learnt from Paul's dealing with the Torah is something like this. It is worth while taking new experiences in new situations very
seriously. If we take the risk of pursuing our theological quest in unorthodox
directions, we may have the right to look unto Paul as our 'patron saint'.
Imitation of the apostle is neither desirable nor possible. But if we stop
'dragging the past into the present'22 despite the fact that pure doctrine and
Scripture are often enough on the opposite side of the controversy, we may
well find ourselves within the Pauline trajectory. Paul himself did not realize
that Scripture was not on his side. We may be expected to realize and to
admit that Scripture and tradition are not always on our side - and nevertheless continue our pilgrimage in the 'dangerous' direction. Certainly a person
trying to deal with sacred tradition with 'historical realism,23 is not bound to'
be able to appeal to Paul. And yet there simply are in Paul's work fascinating
elements which justify the claim that it is a blueprint for radical if responsible.
Christian and theological freedom.

21 Having noted that Paul's treatment of circumcision in GaIatians 'is marked by a great
deal of defen&e or rationalization', Andrews (Teaching 37) remarked critically: 'it
is with the rationalization that many writers on Paul expend most of their energy'.
Brandt, Rhetoric 22 points out that 'argumentative thinking is probably always a
secondary process, a reduction from some sort of intuited understanding that takes
place [lIst'.
22 Moxnes; see above, p. 265.
23 Again Moxnes; see preceding note.

Bibliography
Standard text editions, translations, concordances and synopses are not listed, unless
special reference is made to them in the footnotes. Only works referred to are listed.
Aleith, E., l!aulusverstiindnis in der alten Kirche. BZNW 18. Berlin 1937.
Althaus, P.,Der Brief an die Romer. NTD 6 11 . Gottingen 1970.
Mthaus, P.,Die christliche Wahrheit. Lehrbuch der Dogmatik. Glitersloh 1966 7 .
Althaus, P., Paulus und Luther iiber den Menschen. Ein Vergleich. Glitersloh 1963 4 .
Aly, W., Strabon von Amaseia. Untersuchungen liber Text, Aufbau und Quellen der
Geographika. Antiquitas, Reihe 1,5. Berlin 1957.
Andrews, M.E., The Ethical Teaching of Paul. A Study in Origin. Chapel Hill 1934.
Andrews, M.E., Paul, Philo and the Intellectuals. JBL 53,1934,150-166.
Auten, G., Christus Victor. An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of
the Atonement. Transl. A.G. Hebert. London 1970 (repr.).
Bacon, B.W., Jesus and the Law. A Study of the First 'Book' of Matthew (Mt. 3-7).
JBL 47,1928,203-231.
Bacon, B.W., Studies in Matthew. London 1930.
Bamberger, B.J., Proselytism in the Talmudic Period. New York 1968 (repr.).
Bammel, E., Gottes AIAE>HKH (Gal. Ill. 15-17) und das jlidische Rechtsdenken. NTS
6,1959-60,313-319.
Bamme1, E., No~o~ Xp,uroii. StudEv Ill, 1964, 120-128.
Bandas, R.G., The Master-Idea of Saint Paul's Epistles, or the Redemption. A Study of
Biblical Theology. Bruges 1925.
Bandstra, A.J., The Law and the Elements of the World. An Exegetical Study in Aspects
of Paul's Teaching. Kampen 1964.
Banks, R.,Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. MSSNTS 28. Cambridge 1975.
Baring-Gould, S.,A Study of St. Paul. His character and opinions. London 1897.
Barr, J., The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford 1961.
Barrett, C.K.,A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London 1957.
Barrett, C.K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London
1968.
Barrett, C.K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London
1973.
Bartchy, S.S., MAAAON XPHl:AI: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1
Corinthians 7.21. SBL Diss 11. Missoula 1973.
Barth, C., Die interpretation des Neuen Testaments in der valentinianischen Gnosis.
TU 37/3. Leipzig 1911.
Barth, G., Das Gesetzesverstiindnis des Evangelisten Matthiius. G. Bornkamm - G. Barth
- H.J. Held, ~er1ieferung und Auslegung im Matthiiusevangelium, WMANT 1,
Neukirchen 1961 ,54-154.
Barth, K., Die kirchliche Dogmatik 1:2. Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes. Zollikon 1938.
Barth, M., St. Paul - A Good Jew. Horizons in Biblical Theology 1,1979,7 -37.
Barth, M., Die Stellung des Paulus zu Gesetz und Ordnung. EvTh 33,1973,496-526.
Bauer, W., Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Shriften des Neuen Testaments
und der iibrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin 1958 .

Bibliography

271

Bauh~s, R., L 'Evangile, Puissance de Dieu. Commentaire de I'Epitre aux Romains. LeDiv

53. Paris 1968.

Baumbach, G., Der christlich-jiidische Dialog - Herausforderung und neue Erkenntnisse. Kairos 23, 1981,1-16.
Beck, I., Altes und Neues Gesetz. Eine Untetsuchung liber die Kompromisslosigkeit des
paulinischen Denkens.M7hZ 15, 1964, 127-142.
Becker, J., Der Brief an die Galater. NTD 8 14 , Gottingen 1976, 1-85.
Becker, J.,Das Evangelium nach Johannes. OTK 4. Glitersloh 1979-1981-.
Beker, J.C., Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia
1980.
Ben-Chorin, S., Paulus. Der VOlkerapostel in jiidischer Sicht. Mlinchen 1970.
Benoit, P., Exeghe et theologie H. La theologie de Saint Paul. Paris 1961.
Berger, K., Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. M7hZ 17,1966,47 -89.
Berger, K., Exegese des Neuen Testaments. Neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung. UTB
658. Heidelberg 1977.
Berger, K., Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und
im Alten Testament. 1. Markus und Parallelen. WMANT 40.1. Neukirchen 1972.
Berger, K., Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz. Die Vorgeschichte des antijlidischen
Vorwurfs in Mc 105 .ZNW61, 1970, 1-47.
Bernays, J., Gesammelte Abhandlungen I. Berlin 1885.
Bertram, G., Hebriiischer und griechischer Qohelet. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der hellenistischen Bibel. ZA W 64,1952,26-49.
Bertram, G., Das Problem der Umschrift und die religionsgeschichtliche Erforschung der
Septuaginta. Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments, BZAW 66, Berlin 1936,
97-109.
Bertram, G., Die religiose Umdeutung altorientalischer Lebens-Weisheit in der griechischen Ubersetzung des Alten Testaments. ZAW 54,1936,153-167.
Bertram,.G., Vom Wesen der Septuaginta-Frommigkeit. WO H:3, 1956, 274-284.
Best, E., The First and Second Epistles to the 7hessalonians. BNTC. London 1977.
Best, E., The Letter of Paul to the Romans. CBC. Cambridge 1967.
Bethge, H-G., Die Ambivalenz alttestamentlicher Geschichtstraditionen in der Gnosis.
AFG, 1980, 89-109.
Betz, H.D., Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches of Galatia.
Hermeneia. Philadelphia 1979.
Betz, H.D., The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians.
NTS 21, 1974-75, 353-379.
Betz, H.D., Spirit, Freedom, and Law. Paul's Message to the Galatian Churches. SEA.
39,1974,145-160.
Betz, 0., Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumramekte. WUNT 6. Tiibingen
1960.
Bickermann, E., Der Gott der Makkabiier. Uiltersuchungen liber Sinn und Ursprung der
makkabiiischen Erhebung. Berlin 1937.
Bihlmeyer, K., Die apostolischen Vater. Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe. SQS,
2. Reihe 1. Tiibingen 1956.
Blackman, E.C., Marcion and His Influence. London 1948.
Bliiser, P.,Das Gesetz bei Paulus. NTA 19, 1/2. Miinster 1941.
Blank, J.,Paulus und Jesus. Eine theologische Grundlegung. StANT 18. Mlinchen 1968.
Blank, J., Warum sagt Paulus: 'Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird niemand gerecht'? EKK. V.
1, Neukirchen 1969, 79-95.
Blass, F. - Debrunner,A. - Rehkopf, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch.
Gottingen 1979 15 .

272

Bibliography

Bligh, J., Galatians. A Discussion of St Paul's Epistle. HousCom 1. London 1969.

Bohlig, H., Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos im augusteischen Zeitalter mit Beriicksichtigung
der paulinischen Schriften. FRLANT, NF 2. Gottingen 1913.
Bohmer, S., Heimkehr und neuer Bund. Studien zu Jeremia 30-31. GTA 5. Gottingen
1976.
Bogaert, P-M., Introduction litteraire VI. La datation du livre. In: PseudoPhilon, Les
Antiquites Bibliques 11, SC 230, Paris 1976, 66-74.
Bonnard, P., L 'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Galates. CNT (N) 9. Neuchlitel1953.
Borgen, P., Observations on the Theme "Paul and Philo". PLT, 1980, 85-102.
Bornkamm, G., Das Ende des Gesetzes. Paulusstudien. Gesammelte Aufsatze I. BEvTh
16. Miinchen 19634 .
Bornkamm, G., Geschichte und Glaube 11. Gesammelte Aufsatze IV. Miinchen 1971.
Bornkamm,G.,Paulus. VB 119 D. Berlin 1969.
Bornkamm, G., The Risen Lord and the Earthly Jesus. Matthew 28.16-20. The Future
of Our Religious Past, Essays in Honour of R. Bultmann, London 1971, 203-229.
Bornkamm, G., Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum. Gesammelte Aufsatze 11. BEvTh
28. Miinchen 1963 2 .
Borse, V., Paulus in Jerusalem. KuE, 1981,43-64.
Borse, V.,Der Standort des Galaterbriefes. BBB 41. Koln-Bonn 1972.
Bousset, W., Der Brief an die Galater. SNT 2,31-74.
Bousset, W.,Die Offenbarung Johannis. KEK 16. Gottingen 1966 6 (repr.).
Bousset, W. - Gressmann, H., Die Religion des Judentums im spiithellenistischen Zeitalter. HNT 21. Ttibingen 1966.
Brandenburger, E., Adam und Christus. Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Vntersuchung
zu Rom. 512-21 (1. Kor. 15). WMANT 7. Neukirchen 1962.
Brandt, W.J., The Rhetoric of Argumentation. New York 1970.
Branscomb, B.H., Jesus and the Law of Moses. London 1930.
Branscomb, B.H., The Gospel of Mark. MNTC. London 1948 5 .
Braun, H., Romer 7, 7-25 und das Selbstverstandnis des Qumran-Frommen. ZThK 56,
1959,1-18.
Braun, H., Spiitjiidisch-hiiretischer und [riihchristlicher Radikalismus. Jesus von Nazareth
und die essenische Qumransekte. 11. Die Synoptiker. BHTh 24. Tiibingen 1957.
Braun, H., Wie man iiber Gott nicht denken soli. Dargelegt an Gedankengangen Philos
von Ale){llndria. Ttibingen 1971.
Breech, E., These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins: The Form and Function
of4 Ezra. JBL 92,1973,267-274.
Bremer, P.L., Paul's Understanding of the Death of Christ according to Romans 1-8.
Diss. Princeton 1974 (microfilm).
Bring, R., Christus und das Gesetz. Die Bedeutung des Gesetzes des Alten Testaments
nach Paulus und sein Glauben an Christus. Leiden 1969.
Bring, R., Commentary on Galatians. Transl. E. Wahlstrom. Philadelphia 1961.
Bring, R., Paul and the Old Testament. A Study of the ideas of Election, Faith and Law
in Paul, with special reference to Romans 9.30-10.30 (sic). StTh 25, 1971. 21-60.
Broer, I.~ Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthaus. SBS 98. Stuttgart 1980.
Brooke, G., Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. JJS 30, 1979,247250.
Brown, R.E., The Gospel according to John 1-2. AncB. New York 1966.
Brown, S., The Matthaean Community and the Gentile Mission.NT 22,1980,193-221.
Bruce, F.F., Paul and the Law of Moses.BJRL 57, 1975, 259-279.
Buber, M., Zwei Glauhensweisen. ZUrich 1950.

Bibliography

273

Buck, Ch. - Taylor, G., Saint Paul. A Study of the Development of His Thought. New
York 1969.
Biichler, A., Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. LBS. New York 1967 (Repr.).
Bugge, Chr. A., Das Gesetz und Christus nach der Amchauung der iiltesten Christengemeinde. ZNW4, 1903,89-110.
Bultmann, R., Exegetica. Aufsiitze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Tiibingen
1967.
Bultmann,.R., Glauben und VeTBtehen 11. GesammeIte Aufsiitze. Tiibingen 1961 3.
Bultmann, R., Ein neues Paulus - Verstandnis? ThLZ 84, 1959,481-486.
Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament. Transl. K. Grobel. London 19789 .
Bultmann, R.,Der zweite Briefan die Korinther. KEK Sonlierband 2. Gottingen 1976.
Burchard, C., Das doppeIte Liebesgebot in der friihen christlichen Uberlieferung. Der
Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde (Festschrift J. Ieremias), Gottingen 1970,
39-62.
Burchard, C., Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden. JCHT, 1975,409-432.
Burchard, C., Zu Iakobus 214-26. ZNW 71,1980,27-45.
Burger, C., Schopfung und VeTBohnung. Studien zum liturgischen Gut im Kolosserund Epheserbrief. WMANT 46. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975.
Burton, E.D., A critical and t!xegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians.
ICC. Edinburgh 1921.
Bury, R.B., Plato, Works 9. LCL. London 1952.
Bussmann, C., Themen der paulinischen Mis,;ompredigt auf dem Hinter.grund der
spatiiidisch-hellenistischen Missionditeratur. EHS.T 3. Bern-Frankfurt a.M. 1971.
Byrne, B., 'Sons of God' - 'Seed of Abraham '. A Study of the Idea of Sonship Of God
of All Christians in Paul against the I~wish Background. AnBib 83. Rome 1979.
Caird, G.B., The Apostolic Age. Studies in Theology. London 1966 (= 1955).
Caird, G.B.,Principalities and PoweTB. A Study in Pauline Theology. Oxford 1956.
Caird, G.B., Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Iudaism. JThS 29, 1978,
538-543.
Callan, T., Pauline Midrash: the Exegetical Background of Gal 3.19b. JBL 99, 1980,
549-567.
Cambier, I.-M., Le jugement de tous hommes par Dieu seul, selon la verite, dans Rom
21-320. ZNW 67,1976,187-213.
Campbell, D.H., The Identity ofE-yw in Romans 7.7 -25. StudBibl, 1980, 57-64.
Campbell, W.S., Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4. Stud Bibl, 1980, 73-81.
Campenhausen, H. Fr. v., Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel. BHTh 39. Tiibingen
1968.
Carlston, C.E., The Things That Deme (Mark vii. 15) and the Law in Matthew and Mark.
NTS 15 (1968-69), 75-96.
Case, S.J., The Iewish Bias of Paul. JBL 47,1928,20-31.
Catchpole, D.R., Paul, lames and the Apostolic Decree. NTS 23 (1976-77), 428-449.
Cava1lin, H.C., ''The Righteous Shall Live by Faith". A Decisive Argument for the Tradi
tional Interpretation. St'rh 32, 1978, 33-43.
Cerfaux, L., The Christian in the Theology of Saint Paul. Transl. L. Soiron. London
1967.
.
Chadwick, H., 'All Things to All Men' (1 Cor ix. 22).NTS 1, 1954-55, 261-275.
Charles, R.H., A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St. John 1-2.
ICC. Edinburgh 1920.
Charlesworth, I.H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modem Research. SCS 7. Missoula 1976.
Clements, R.E., God's Chosen People. A Theological Interpretation of the Book of

8ibliography

274

Deuteronomy. London 1968.

,
,
Collange, J-F., Enigmes de la deuxieme epitre de Paul aux Corinthiens. Etude exegetique
de 2 Cor. 2.14-7.4. MS SNTS 18. Cambridge 1972.
Co1son, F.H.,Philo 7. LCL. London 1958.
Conzelmann, H.,Die Apostelgeschichte. HNT 7. Tiibingen 1972 2.
Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther. KEK 5. Gottingen 1969.
Conzelmann, H., Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. EETh 2. Miinchen
1968 2. (ET: An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, transl. J. Bowden,
London 1969).
Conzelmann, H., Heiden - Juden - Christen. Auseinandersetzungen in der Literatur der
hellenistisch-romischen Zeit. BHTh 62. Tiibingen 1981.
Conzelmann, H., Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien. ThR 43, 1978,

3-5l.
Conzelmann, H., Die Mitte der Zeit. Studien zur Theologie des Lukas. BHTh 17. Ttibingen 19624.
Conzelmam'l, H. - Lindemanrt, A., Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament. UTB52. Tiibingen 19805 .
Cranfield, C.E.B., A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
1-2. ICC. Edinburgh 1975-1979.
Cranfield, C.E.B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark. CGTC. Cambridge 1963 2.
Cranfield, C.E.B., Some Notes on Romans 9.30-33. Jesus und Paulus, Festschr. W.G.
Kiimmel, Gottingen 1975, 35-43.
Cranfield, C.E.B., St. Paul and the Law. SJTh 17, 1964,43-68.
Crouch, I.E., The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel. FRLANT 109.
Gottingen 1972.
Cullmann, 0., Heil als Geschichte. Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament.
Tiibingen 1965.
Dabelstein, R., Die Beurteilung der 'Heiden' bei Paulus. BET 14. Frankfurt a.M. - Bern
- Cirencester 1981.
Dahl, N.A.,Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis 1976.
Dahl, N.A., Rev. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian JUdaism. RSRev4, 1978,153-158.
Dahl, N.A., Studies in Paul. Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis 1977.
Dalbert, P., Die Theologie der hellenistisch-iiidischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluss
von Philo und Josephus. ThF 4. Hamburg 1954.
D'Angelo, M.R., Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBL Diss 42. Ann Arbor 1979.
Danker, F.W., Romans v.12: Sin under Law.NTS 14, 1967-68, 424-439.
Dassmann, E., Der Stachel im Fleisch. Paulus in der friihchristlichen Literatur bis
Irenaus: Miinster 1979.
Davies, W.D., From Schweitzer to Scholem. Reflections on Sabbatai Svi. JBL 95, 1976,
529-558.
Davies, W.D., Paul and the People of Israel. NTS 24, 1977-78,4-39.
Davies, W.D., Paul and Rabbinic Juciaism. Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology.
HTB 146. New York 1967 (revised ed.)
Davies, W.D., Review of I. Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte. NTS 2, 1955-56,
60-72.
Davies, W.D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge 1964.
Davies, W.D., Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come. JBL. MS 7. Philadelphia 1952.
Deissmann, A., Paul. A Study of Social and Religious History. New York 1957.
Delling, G., C1'To!Xeiov. ThWNT VI. 670-687.
Demann. P., Moses und das Gesetz bei Paulus. In: Moses in Schrift und Uberlieferung,
Diisseldorf 1963,205-264.

Bibliography.

275

Dequeker, L., Der jiidisch-christliche Dialog eine Herausforderung flir die Theologie?
Offene Fragen und Interpretationen. FrRu 28, 1976, 13-16.
Derrett, LD.M., Law in the New Testament. London 1970.
Dibelius, M.,An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon. HNT 12. Tiibingen 1927 2 .
Dibelius, M.,Der Brief des Jakobus. KEK 15 11 . Gottingen 1964.
Dibelius, M.,Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus. Gottingen 1909.
Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Ed. H. Greeven. Transl. M. Ling. London 1956.
Dibelius, M. - Conzelmann, H.,Die Pastoralbriefe. HNT 13. Tiibingen 19664 .
Dietrich, W., Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Gottingen 1972.
Dietzfelbinger, Chr., Die Antithesen der Bergptedigt imVerstandnis des Matthaus. ZNW
70,1979,1-15.
Dietzfelbinger, Chr., PseudQ'Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae. IiidSchrHell-rom Zeit 11:2.
Giitersloh 1975.
Dinkler, E., Signum crucis. Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament und zur Christlichen Archaologie. Tiibingen 1967.
Dix, G., Jew and Greek. A Study in the Primitive Church. Glasgow 1953.
Dodd, C.H., ENNOMOl: XPIl:TOT. Studia Paulina, in honorem J. de Zwaan, Haarlem
1953,96-110.
Dodd, C.H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge 1968 (Repr.).
Dodd, C.H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC London 1947 (Repr.).
Dodd, C.H.,New Testament Studies. Manchester 1967 (Repr.).
Doeve, J.W., Some Notes with Reference to TA AOrIA TOT 0EOT in Romans 1112.
Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan, Haarlem 1953,111-123.
Donfried, K.P., Justification and Last Judgment in Paul. ZNW 67, 1976,90-110.
Donfried, K.P. (ed.), The Romans Debate. Minneapolis 1977.
Drane, J.W., Paul - Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline
Epistles. London 1975.
Drane, J.W., Theological Diversity in the Letters of St. Paul. TynB 27,1976,3-26.
Drane, J.W., Tradition, Law and Ethics in Pauline Theology.NT 16, 1974, 167 -178.
Drane, J.W., Why Did Paul Write Romans? PSt 208-227.
van Diilmen, A.,Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. SBM 5. Stuttgart 1968.
Dugandzic, I., Das "Ja" Gottes in Christus. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung des Alten Testaments flir das Christusverstandnis des Paulus. FzB 26. Wiirzburg 1977.
Duncan, G.S., The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. MNTC. London 1944 (Repr.).
Dunn, I.D.G., Rom. 7, 14-25 in the Theology of Paul. ThZ 31, 1975, 257-273.
Dunn, J.D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. An Inquiry into the character
of Earliest Christianitv. London 1977.
Eckert, J., Die urchristliche Verkiindigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnem
nach dem Galaterbrief BH 6. Regensburg 1971.
Edelstein, L., Plato's Seventh Letter. Leiden 1966.
Edwards, E.G., Christ, a Curse, and the Cross. An Interpretative Study of lJalatians
3.13. Diss. Princeton 1972 (microfilm).
Egger, W., Nachfolge als Weg zum Leben. Chancen neuerer exegetischer Methoden dargelegt an Mk 10, 17-31. bsterreicher Biblische Studien 1. Klosterneuburg 1979.
Ehrlich, E., Uber die Tora. Wegweisung, VIKJ 8, Berlin 1978,66-71.
Eichholz, G., Glaube und Werk bei Paulus und Jakobus. TEH NF 88. Miinchen 1961.
Eichholz, G., Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972.
Eichrodt, W.,Ezekiel. A Commentary. Transl. C. Quin. OTL. London 1970.
Eissfeldt, 0., Ein,{eitung in das Alte Testament ... NTG. Tiibingen 1964 3.

276

Bibliography

Ellis, E.E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh-London 1957.

Ellis, E.E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. New Testament Essays.
WUNT 18. Tiibingen 1978.
Eltester, W., Israel im lukanischen Werk und die Nazarethperikope. W. Eltester (ed.) ,
Jesus in Nazareth, BZNW 40, Berlin 1972, 76-147.
Enslin, M.S., The Ethics of Paul. New York-London 1930.
Fabris, R., Legge della liberta in Giacomo. Suppl. RivBib 8. Brescia 1977.
Fallon, F.T., The Law in Philo and Ptolemy: A Note on the Letter to Flora. VigChr
30,1976,45-51.
Feine, P., Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus nach seinem Werdegang dargestellt.
Leipzig 1899.
Feine, P. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin 1951 8 .
Feld, H., 'Christus Diener der Siinde'. Zum Ausgang des Streites zwischen Petrus und
Paulus. ThQ 153, 1973, 119-131.
Fenton, J., Saint Matthew. PNTC. London 1973 (repr.).
Feuillet, A., Loi ancienne et Morale chretienne d'apres l'Epitre aux Romains. NR Th 92,
1970,785-805.
Feuillet, A., Loi de Dieu, loi du Christ et loi de l'Esprit d'apres les epitres pauliniennes.
Les rapports de ces trois lois avec la Loi Mosaique. NT 22, 1980,29-65.
ofiedler, P., Jesus und die Siinder. Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 3.
Frankfurt a.M. - Bern 1976.
Fischer, K.M., Tendenz und Absicht des Epheserbriefes. FRLANT 111. Gottingen 1973.
Fleischhauer, Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. ThSW 4,1883,37 -71.
Fliickiger, F., Christus, des Gesetzes telos. ThZ 11,1955,153-157.
Fliickiger, F., Die Werke des Gesetzes bei den Heiden (nach Rom 2, 14 ff.). ThZ 8, 1952,
17-42.
Flusser, D., Die Christenheit nach dem Apostelkonzil. Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Miinchen 1967,60-81.
Flusser, D., Das Erlebnis, ein Jude zu sein. In: Richte unsere Fiisse auf den Weg des
Friedens, Festschrift H. Gollwitzer, MUnchen 1979, 15-25.
Flusser, D., Thesen zur Entstehung des Christentums aus dem Judentum. FrRu 27,
1975,181-184.
Friedlander, M., Geschichte der jiidischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christenturns. Eine historisch-kritische Darstellung der Propaganda und Apologie im Alten
Testament und in der hellenistischen Diaspora. Amsterdam 1973 (repr.).
Friedllinder, M., Die religiosen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu.
Berlin 1905.
Friedrich, G.,Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. NTD 8 14 . Gottingen 1976.
Friedrich, G., Das Gesetz des Glaubens Rom. 3, 27. ThZ 10, 1954,401-417.
Fuchs, E.,Die Freiheit des Glaubens. Romer 5-8 ausgelegt. BEvTh 14. Miinchen 1949.
Fuller, D.P., Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids 1980.
Fuller, D.P., Paul and the 'Works of the Law'. WThJ 38,1975-76,28-42.
Fuller, R.H., Das Doppelgebot der Liebe. Ein Testfall flir die Echtheitskriterien der
Worte Jesu. JCHT, 1975, 317-329.
,Fung, R. Y-K., Justification by Faith in 1 & 2 Corinthians. PSt 246-261.
Furnish, V.P., Development in Paul's Thought. JAAR 38, 1970, 289-303.
Furnish, V.P., The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville-New York 1972.
Furnish, V.P., Theology and Ethics in Paul. New York 1968.
Gaechter, P.,Petrus und seine Zeit. Neutestamentliche Studien. Innsbruck 1958.
Gager, J.G., Kingdom and Community. The Social World of Early Christianity. PrenticeHall Studies in Religion series. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1915.

Bibliography

277

Gager, J.,Moses in Greco-RomanPaganism. SBLMS 16. Nashville 1972.

Gager, J.G., Some Notes on Paul's Conversion.NTS 27,1981,697-704.
Gale, H.M., The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul. Philadelphia 1964.
Gardner, P., The Religious Experience of Saint Paul. London-New York 1913 2.
Garnet, P., Qumran Light on Pauline Soteriology.PSt 19-32.
Garnet, P., Salvation and Atonement in the Q.umran Scrolls. WUNT, 2. Reihe 3. Ttibingen 1977.
Garscha, J., Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ez
1-39. EHS. T 23. Bern-Frankfurt a.M. 1974.
Gaston, L., Paul and the Torah. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (ed.
A.T. Davies), New York-Ramsey-Toronto 1979,48-71.
Gayer, R., Die Stellung des Sklaven in den parilinischen Gemeinden und bei Paulus.
Zugleich ein sozialgeschichtlich vergleichender Beitrag zur Wertung des Sklaven in
der Antike. EHS.T 78. Bern-Frankfurt 1976.
Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. Studien zur religiosen Propaganda in der Spatantike. WMANT 11. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964.
Georgi, D., Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus fUr Jerusalem. ThF 38. HamburgBergstedt 1965.
Gerhardsson, B., 1 Kor 13. Zui Frage von Paulus' rabbinischem Hintergrund. Donum
Gentilicium, in honour ofD. Daube, Oxford 1978, 185-209.
Gerhardsson, B., Bibelns ethos. Etik och kristen tro, Lund 1971, 13-92.
Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript. Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic JUdaism and Early Christianity. ASNU 22, Uppsala 1961.
Gerleinan, G., Religion och moral i Septuagintas Proverbiativerslittning. SvTK 26, 1950,
222-232.
Gese, H., Ezechiel 20, 25 f. und die Erstgeburtsopfer. Beitriige zur Alttestamentlichen
Theologie, Festschr. W. Zimmerli,Gtittingen 1977, 140-151.
Gese, H., Psalm 50 und das alttestamentliche Gesetzesverstlindnis. RF, 1976, 57 -7-7.
Gese, H., Vom Sinai zum Zion. Alttestamentliche Beitrlige zur biblischen Theologie.
BEvTh 64, Mtinchen 1974.
Gese, H., Zur biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vortrage. BEvTh 78. Mtinchen
1977.
Gifford, E.H., The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. With notes and Introduction.
London 1886.
Glock, J.Ph.,Die Gesetzesfrage im Leben Jesu und in der Lehre des Paulus. Eine biblischkritische Untersuchung ... Karlsruhe & Leipzig 1885.
Gnilka, J.,Der Epheserbrief. HThK 10.2. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1971.
Gnilka, J.,Der Kolosserbrief. HThK 10.1. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1980.
Gnilka, J.,Der Phr7ipperbrief. HThK 10.3. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1968.
GoodenougJ!., E.R., By Light, Light. The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New
Haven 1935.
Goodenough, E.R.,An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. Oxford 1962 2.
Goodenough, E.R., Paul and the Hellenization of Christianity. RelAnt, 1968, 23-68.
Goppelt, L., Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert. Ein Aufriss
der Urgeschichte der Kirche. BFChTh 2. Reihe 55. Gtitersloh 1954.
Goppelt, L., Christologie und Ethik. Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament. Gtittingen 1968.
Grasser, E., Albert Schweitzer ab Theologe. BHTh 60. Ttibingen 1979.
Grasser, E., Die antijtidische Polernik im JohaMesevangelium. NTS 10, 1964-65, 74-90.
Grafe, E.,Die paulinische Lehl'e vom Gesetz nach den vier Hauptbriefen. Leipzig 1893 2.
Grant, F.C.,Ancient Judaism and the New Testament. Edinburgh-London 1960.
Grant, F .C., An Introduction to New Testament Thought. New York-Nashville 1950.

278

Bibliography

Grant, F.C., Prolegomenon, in: A. Biichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, New York
1967, xvii-xxxix.
Grant, F.C., Romans - Revelation. NB'C 7. New York 1962.
Grant, M., Saint Paul. London 1976.
Grant, R.M., The Letter and the Spirit. London 1957.
Grant, R.M., The Wisdom of the Corinthians. The Joy of Study (Festschrift F .C. Grant),
New York 1951,51-55.
GrtPnbech, V., Paulus. Jesu Kristi apostel. KtPbenhavn 1940.
Gronemeyer, R., Zur Frage nach dem paulinischen Antinomismus. Exegetisch-systematische Uberlegungen mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Forschungsgeschichte
im 19. Jahrhundert. Diss. Hamburg 1970.
Grosheide, F.W., Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. NLC 6. London
1954 2 .
Gross, }I., Tora und Gnade im Alten Testament. Kairos 14, 1972, 220-231.
Grundmann, W.,Das Evangelium nach Markus. ThHK 2. Berlin 1980 8 .
Grundmann, W., Gesetz, Rechtfertigung und Mystik bei Paulus. Zum Problem der
Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Verkiindigung. ZNW 32,1933,52-65.
Giittgemanns, E., Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr. Studien zur paulinischen Christologie. FRLANT 90. Gottingen 1966.
Giittgemanns, E., Studia linguistica neotestamentica. Gesammelte Aufslltze zur linguistischen Grundlage einer neutestamentlichen Theologie. BEvTh 60. Miinchen 1971.
Gulin, E.G.,Die Freude im Neuen Testament I. AA SF 26.2. Helsinki 1932.
Gundry, R.H., The Moral Frustration of Paul before his Conversion. PSt 228-245.
Gunther, J.J., St. Paul's Opponents and their Background. A Study of Apocalyptic and
Jewish Sectarian Teachings. NT. S 25. Leiden 1973.
Gutbrod, W., VOIlO'; B-D. ThWNT IV, 1029-1077.
Gutbrod, W.,Die paulinischeAnthropologie. BWANT 15. Stuttgart-Berlin 1934.
Guthrie, D., Galatians. CeB. London 1969.
Guttmann, A., The Significance of Miracles for Talmudic Judaism. HUCA 20, 1947,
363-406.
Guttmann, M., Das Judentum und seine Umwelt I. Eine Darstellung der religiosen und
reclitlichen Beziehungen zwischen Juden und Nichtjuden mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der talmudisch-rabbinischen Quellen. Allgemeiner Tell. Berlin 1927.
Gyllenberg, R.,Hebrealaiskirje. SUTS. Helsinki 1971 2 .
Gyllenberg, R.,Korinttolaiskirjeet. SUTS. Helsinki 1969 2 .
Gyllenberg, R.G., Rechtfertigung und Altes Testament. FDV 1966. Stuttgart 1973.
Gyllenberg, R., Viisi Paavalin kirjettii. (Five Letters of Paul, incl. Galatians). SUTS.
Helsinki 1975.
Haacker, K., Die Stiftung des Heils. Untersuchungen zur Struktur der johanneischen
Theologie. AzTh 1,47. Stuttgart 1972.
Haenchen, E.,Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK 316 . Gottingen 1977 7
Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erkliirung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen. de Gruyter-Lehrbuch. Berlin 1968 2 .
Hahn, F., Das Gesetzesverstiindnis im Romer- und Galaterbrief. ZNW 67,1976,29-63.
Hahn, F.,D.er urchristliche Gottesdienst. SBS 41. Stuttgart 1970.
Hanson, A.T., Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology. London 1974.
Hanson, S., The Unity of the Church in the New Testament. Colossians and Ephesians.
ASNU 14. Uppsala 1946.
Hare, D.R.A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to
St. Matthew. MS SNTS 6. Cambridge 1967.
Harnack, A., Beitriige zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Ill. Die Apostelgeschichte.

Bibliography

279

Leipzig 1908.
Harnack, A., Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3.
Jahrhunderts. Die in Apocriticus des Macarius Magnes enthaltene Streitschrift. TU
3.7/4, Leipzig 1911.
Harnack, A., Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. TU 45. Leipzig 1924 2 .
Harnisch, W., Die Berufung des Reichen. Zur Analyse von Markus 10, 17 -27. Festschrift
E. Fuchs, Tubingen 1973, 161-176.
Harnisch, W., Verhiingnis und Verheissung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeitund Geschichtsverstandnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syrischen Baruchapokalypse.
FRLANT 97. Gottingen 1969.
Harringt6n, D.J., God's People in Christ. New Testament Perspectives on the Church and
Judaism. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia 1980.
Hartman, L., Bundesideologie in und hinter einigen paulinischen Texten. PLT, 1980,
103-118.
von Hartmann, E.,Das Christentum des neuen Testaments. Sachsen im Harz 1905.
Hasler, V.E., Gesetz und Evangelium in der alten Kirche bis Origenes. Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Ziirich 1953.
Hasler, V., Glaube und Existenz. Hermeneutische Erwagungen zu Gal. 2, 15-21. ThZ
25,1969,241-251.
Haufe, Chr.,Die sittliche Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus. Halle (Saale) 1957.
Haufe, Chr., Die Stellung des Paulus zum Gesetz. ThLZ 91,1966,171-178.
Hays, R.B., Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3. JBL 99,1980,107-115.
Hedenius, I., Helvetesliiran. Stockholm 1972.
Heinemann, I., La loi da/<ls la pen see juive. Adaptation fran<;aise par C.Touati. Presences
dujudaisme. Paris 1962.
Heinemann, I., Philons griechische und jiidische Bildung. Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der jiidischen Gesetze: Breslau 1932.
Helfgott, B.W., The Doctrine of Election in Tannaitic Literature. New York 1954.
Hengel, M., Anonymitat, Pseudepigraphie und "Literarische Falschung" in der jiidischhellenistischen LiteratuI. Pseudepigrapha I Pseudopythagorica - Lettres de Platon Litterature pseudepigraphique juive. Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique 18. Gemlve
1972. P. 229-308.
Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer
Beriicksichtigung Palastinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v.ChI. WUNT 10. Tiibingen
1973 2 .
Hengel, M., Die Urspriinge der christlichen Mission. NTS 18, 1971-72, 15-38.
Hengel, M., Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Calwer paperback. Stuttgart 1979.
Hengel, M., Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die "Hellenisten", die "Sieben" und Stephanus
(Apg 6,1-15; 7, 54-8, 3):ZThK 72, 1975, 151~206.
Hering, J., La premiere epitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens. CNT. Neuchlitel1949.
Hering, J., La seconde epitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens. CNT 8. Neuchlitel1958.
Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. Ursprung und
Gestaltwandel. BWANT Fiinfte Folge 5. Stuttgart 1965.
Hick, J., God and the Universe of Faiths. Fount Paperbacks. Glasgow 1977.
Hickling, C.J.A., Centre and Periphery in the Thought of Paul. StudBibl, 1980, 199-214.
Hickling, C.J.A., The Sequence of Thought in II Corinthians, Chapter Three. NTS 21,
1974-75,380-395.
Hoheisel, K., Das antike Judentum in christlicher Sicht. Ein Beitrag zur neueren Forschungsgeschichte. Studies in Oriental Religions 2. Wiesbaden 1978.
Holsten, C., Das Evangelium des Paulus I. Die aussere Entwicklungsgeschichte des pau-

280

Bibliography

linischen Evangeliums. Abt. 1. Der Brief an die Gemeinden Galatiens und der erste
Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth. Berlin 1880.
Holsten, C., Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus. Rostock 1868.
Holtz, T., Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils fiir Paulus. NT 16,1974,110-148.
Holtz, T., Zur Frage der inhaltlichen Weisungen bei Paulus. ThLZ 106,1981,385-400.
Holtzmann, H.J., Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie 11. Tiibingen 1?112.
Hommel, H., Das 7. Kapitel des Romerbriefs im Licht antiker Uberlieferung. ThViat 8,
1961-62,90-116.
Hooker, M.D., Beyond the Things that are Written? St. Paul's Use of Scripture. NTS 27,
1980-81,295-309.
Hooker, M.D.,Pauline Pieces. London 1979.
Hoppe, R.,Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes. FzB 28. Wiirzburg 1977.
Horbury, W., Paul and Judaism.ET 89,1977-78,116-118.
Horslcly, R.A., Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth. CBQ 39, 1977,
224-239.
van der Horst, P., Pseudo-Phocylides and the New Testament. ZNW 69,1978,187-202.
van der Horst, P.W., The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. With Introduction and Commentary. SVTP Leiden 1978.
Houlden, J.L., The Pastoral Epistles. PNTC. Harmondsworth 1976.
Howard, G.E., Christ the End of the Law. The Meaning of Romans 104 ff. JBL 88,
1969,331-337.
Howard, G., The 'Faith of Christ'. ET 85,1973-74,212-215.
Howard, G.E., On the 'Faith of Christ'. HThR 60, 1967,459-465.
Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology. MSSNTS 35.
Cambridge 1979.
Howard, G., Romans 3.21-31 and the Inclusion of the Gentiles. HThR 63, 1970, 223233.
Howard, R.E., Newness of Life. A Study in the Thought of Paul. Kansas City 1975.
Hruby, K., Gesetz und Gnade in der rabbinischen Uberlieferung. R. Brunner (ed.),
Gesetz und Gnade im Alten Testament und im iiidischen Denken, Ziirich 1969,
30-63.
Hubner, H., E1rti}UJJla etc. EWNTII, 68-71.
Hiibner, H., Gal 3, 10 und die Herkunft des Paulus. KuD 19,1973,215-231.
Hiibner, H., Das ganze und das eine Gesetz. KuD 21,1975,239-256.
Hiibner, H., Das Gesetz als elementares Thema einer Biblischen Theologie? KuD 22;
1976,250-276.
Hubner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie.
FRLANT 119. Gottingen 1980 2. (Cited as Gesetz)
Hiibner, H., Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition. Studien zur These einer progressiven .Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition; Witten
1973. (Cited as Tradition)
Hiibner, H., Mark. 7.1-23 und das 'jiidisch-hellenistische' Gesetzesverstandnis.NTS 22,
1975-76,319-345.
Hiibner, H., Pauli Theologiae Proprium. NTS 26,1979-80,445-473.
Hughes, P.,Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London-Edinburgh 1962.
Hultgren, A., Pau~'s Pre~hristian Persecutions of the Church: Their Purpese, Locale,
and Nature.JBL 95, 1976,97-111.
Hultgren, A.J., The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul. NT 22,1980,248-263.
Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthiiusevangelium. BEvTh 33. Miinchen 1963.
Hunt, E.W. , Portrait of Paul. London 1968.

Bibliography

281

Illman, K-J., Die Tora - Mitte der jiidischen Bibel. Der He" ist einer, uns"er gemeinsames
Erbe, Abo 1979,27-42.
Jackson, B.S., Legalism. JJS 30,1979,1-22.
Jacoby, F.,Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 11. Berlin 1926.
Jaubert, A., La notion d'alliance dans le Juda/sme aux abords de !'ere chretienne. PatSor
6. Paris 1963.
Jeremias, J., Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte. Gottingen 1969 3.
Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology I. The Proclamation of Jesus. Transl. J. Bowden.
NTL. London 1971.
Jeremias, J., Paulus als Hillelit. Neotestamentica et Semitica in honour of M. Black,
Edinburgh 1969, 88-94.
Jeremias, J.,Der Schliissel zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. CwH 115. Stuttgart 1971.
JervelI, J., Die Beschneidung des Messias. Theologie aus dem Norden, SNTU A 2, 1977,
68-78.
JervelI, J., Gud og hans fiender. Fors~k pit it tolke Romerbrevet. Oslo-Bergen-Troms~
1973.
Jervell, J., Imago Dei. Gen 1, 26 f. im Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. FRLANT 76. Gottingen 1960.
Jervell, J., The Letter to Jerusalem. RD, 1977,.61-74.
Jervell, J., Luke and the People of God. A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis 1972.
Jervell, J., The Mighty Minority. StTh 34, 1980, 13-38.
JervelI, J., Die offenbarte und die verborgene Tora. Zur Vorstellung iiber die neue Tora
im Rabbinismus. StTh 25, 1971, 90-108.
Jervell, J., Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. Tradition, History, Theology. In: Les Actes
des Apbtres. Traditions, redaction, theologie. BEThL 48. Leuven 1979, 297 -306.
JervelI, J., Der unbekannte Paulus.PLT, 1980, 29-40.
JervelI, J., Das Volkdes Geistes. GCHP, 1977,87-106.
Jewett, R.,Dating Paul's Life. London 1979.
Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms. A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings.
AGJU 10. Leiden 1971.
Joest, W., Gesetz und Freiheit. Das Problem des tertius usus legis bei Luther und die
neutestamentliche Parainese. Gottingen 1951.
Jtilicher, A., Der Brief an die Romer. SNT 2,223-335.
Jiingel, E., Das Gesetz zwischen Adam und Christus, Eine theologische Studie zu Rom.
5,12-21. ZThK 60,1963,42-74.
Hingel, E., Paulus und Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zur Prazisierung der Frage nach dem
Ursprung der Christologie. HUTh 2. Tiibingen 1962.
Kiisemann, E., Commentary on Romans. Trans!. G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids 1980.
Kiisemann, E., Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen 1-11. Gottingen 1960.
Kiisemann, E., Paulinische Perspektiven. Tiibingen 1972 2.
Kasting, H., Die Anfiinge der urchristlichen Mission. Eine historische Untersuchung.
BEvTh 55. Miinchen 1969.
Kaye, B.N., The Thought Structure of Romans with Special Reference to chapter 6.
Austin 1979.
Keck, L.E., The Function of Rom 3.10-18. Observations and Suggestions. GCHP,
1977,141-157.
Keck, L.E., The Law and 'The Law of Sin and Death' (Rom 8.1-4): Reflections on the
Spirit and Ethics in Paul. The Divine Helmsman (Studies on God's Control of Human
Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman), New York 1980,41-57.
KelIermann, U .,Messias und Gesetz. Grundlinien einer alttestamentlichen Heilserwartung.

282

Bibliography

Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Einfiihrung. BSt 61. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971.

Kettelge, K., "Rechtfertigung" bei Paulus. Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffes. NTA 3. MUnster 1967.
Kettunen, M.,Der Abfassungszweck desRomerbriefs. AASF Diss. Hum.Litt. 18. Helsinki
1979.
.
Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel. WUNT, 2. Reihe 4. Tiibingen 1981.
King, N., Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.Bib. 61,1980,141-144.
Kirk, K.E., The Epistle to the Romans. Cffiib. Oxford 1937.
Klausner, J., Von Jesus zu Paulus. Obers. von F. Thieberger. Jerusalem 1950.
Klein, Ch., Theologie und Anti-Judaismus. Eine Studie zur deutschen theologischen
Literatur der Gegenwart. ACJD 6. Miinchen 1975.
Klein, Gottlob,Studien iiber Paulus. Stockholm 1918.
Klein, Giinther, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation. Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Neuen
Testament. BEvTh 50. MUnchen 1969.
Klevinghaus, J., Die theologische Stellung der apostolischen Viiter zur alttestamentlichen
Offenbarung. BFChTh 44.1. Giitersloh 1948.
Klinzing, G., Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. StUNT 7. Gottingen 1971.
Knox, J., Chapters in a Life of Paul. Nashville 1950.
Knox, J., The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the Church. Its Authority and Its Relevance. London 1961.
Knox, W.L., St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles. Cambridge 1939.
Kn1)x, W.L., St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem. Cambridge 1925.
Koch; K., Review M. Noth, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. ThLZ 83, 1958,
831-833.
_
Konig, A., Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2.12-16. JTSA
15, June 1976,53-60.
Koster, H., <pv(Jt~. ThW IX, 246-271.
Koschorke, K., Paulus in den Nag-Hammadi-Texten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Paulusrezeption im friihen Christentum. ZThK 78,1981,177-205.
Kraabel, A.T., The Disappearance of the 'God-Fearers'. Numen 28, 1981,113-126.
Kraft, H., Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16a. Tiibingen 1974.
Kraus, H-J.,Biblisch-theologische Aufsiitze. Neukirchen 1972.
Kremer, J., "Denn der Buchstabetotet, derGeist aber macht lebendig". Methodologische
und hermeneutiS'che Erwagungen zu 2 Kor 3, 6b.Begegnung mit dem Wort (Festschr.
H. Zimmermann), BBB 53, Bonn 1980, 219-250.
Kiihl, E.,Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer. Leipzig 1913.
Ktihl, E., Stellung und Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes im Zusammenhang
der paulinischen Lehre. ThStKr 67,1894,120-146.
Kuhn, H-W., ..,rltere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium. StUNT 8. Gottingen 1971.
Kuhn, H-W., Jesus als Gekreuzigter in der friihchristlichen Verkiindigung bis zur Mitte
des 2. Jahrhunderts. ZThK 72,1975,1-46.
Kuhn, H-W., Zum Problem des Verhaltnisses der markinischen Redaktion zur israelitischjiidischen Tradition. Tradition und Glaube (Festschr. K.G. Kuhn), Gottingen 1971,
299-309.
Kuhn, K.G., 1TPO(JrlAVTO~. Th WNT VI, 727 - 745.
Kuhn, K.G. - Stegemann, H., Proselyten. PRE Suppl. 9 (1962), 1248-1283.
Kphr, F., Romer 214 f. und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 3131 ff. ZNW 55, 1964, 243261.
..
Kiimmel, W.G., Aussere und innere Reinheit des Menschen bei Jesus. Das Wort und die
Worter (Festschr. G. Friedrich), Stuttgart etc. 1973,35-46.
Kiimmel, W.G.,Das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament. In: Riimer 7 und das Bild

Bibliography

283

des Menschen im Neuen Testament. Zwei Studien. TB 53. Miinchen 1974.

Kiimmel, W.G., 'Individualgeschichte' und 'Weltgeschichte' in Gal. 2.15-21. Christ and
the Spirit in the New Testament (in honour of C.F.D. Moule), Cambridge 1973,
157-173.
Kiimmel, W.G., Introduction to the New Testament. Transl. H.C. Kee. Nashville-New
York 1975.
Kiimme1, W.G.,Romer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. UNT 17. Leipzig 1929.
Kiimme1;W.G.,1 Kor.: see Lietzmann, H.
Kurfess, A., Sibyllinische Weissagungen. Urtext und Dbersetzung. Tusculum-Biicherei.
Berlin 1951.
Kuss, 0., Die Heiden und die Werke des Gesetzes (nach Rom 2, 14-16). MThZ 5,1954,
77-98.
Kuss, 0., Nomos bei Pau1us.MThZ 17,1966,173-227.
Kuss, 0., Paulus. Die RoUe des Aposte1s in der theo1ogischen Entwicklung der Urkirche.
Auslegung und Verkiindigung Ill. Regensburg 1971.
Kuss, O.,Der Romerbrief I-Ill. Regensburg 1959, 1963, 1978.
Lackmann, M., Vom Geheimnis der Schopfung. Die Geschichte der Exegese von Romer
1,18-23, 11, 14-;-16 und Acta XIV, 15-17, XVII, 22-29 vom 2. Jahrhundert bis
zum Beginn der Orthodoxie. Stuttgart 1952.
Ladd, G.E., Paul and the Law. Soli Deo Gloria, in honour of W.C. Robinson, Richmond
1968,50-67.
Liihnemann, J., Der Kolosserbrief Komposition, Situation und Argumentation. StNT 3.
Guters10h 1971.
Lagrange, M-J., Saint Paul, Epitre aux Galates. EtB. Paris 19424 .
Lagrange, M-J., Saint Paul, Epitre aux Romains. EtB. Paris 1922.
Lake, K., The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul. Their Motive and Origin. London 1911.
Lambrech~, J., Jesus and the Law. An Investigation of Mk 7,1-23. EThL 53, 1977,
24-82.
Lambrecht, J., The Line of Thought in Gal. 2.14b-21.NTS 24,1977-78,484-495.
Lang, F., Gesetz und Bund bei Paulus. RF, 1976,305-320.
Lang, F.G., Sola gratia im Markusevangelium. DieSoterio1ogie des Markus nach 9, 14-29
und 10, 17-31.RF, 1976, 321-337.
Lapide, P., Der Rabbi von Tarsus. In: P. Lapide - P-Stuhlmacher, Paulus - Rabbi und
Apostel, Ein jiidisch-christlicher Dialog, Stuttgart-Miinchen 1981, 35 -61.
Laws, S.,A Commentary on the Epistle of James. BNTC. London 1980.
Lebram, J.C.H., Der Idealstaat der Juden.Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus,
dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Festschrift O. Michel. Gottingen
1974. P. 233-253.
Leenhardt, F.,L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains. CNT 6. NeucMte11957.
Leivestad, R., Christ the Conqueror. Ideas of Conflict and Victory in the NewTestament.
London 1954.
Liedke, G. - Petersen, C., tora Weisung, THAT 11, 1032-1043.
Lietzmann, H.,An die Galater. HNT 10. Tiibingen 1971 4 .
Lietzmann,H.,An die Korinther 1.2. (Erg. von W.G. KUmmel.) HNT 9. Tiibingen 1969 5 .
Lietzmann, H.,An die Romer. HNT 8. Tiibingen 1971 5 .
Lightfoot, J.B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London 189010 .
Limbeek, M., Von der Ohnmacht des Rechts. Untersuchungen zur Gesetzeskritik des
Neuen Testaments. Theo1ogische Perspektiven, Zur gegenwartigen Prob1emlage.
Diisse1dorf 1972.
Limbeck; M., Die Ordnung des Heils. l1ntersuchungen zum Gesetzesverstandnis des
Friihjudentums. KBANT. DiisseJdorf 1971.

284

Bibliography

Lindemann, A., Die Au/hebung der Zeit. Geschichtsverstiindnis und Eschatologie im

Epheserbrief. StNT 12. Gtitersloh 1975.
Lindemann, A., Paulus im iiltesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frtihchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. BHTh
58. Ttibingen 1979.
Lindeskog, G.,Judarnas Jesus. Stockholm 1972 2 .
Linton, 0., Den paulinska forskningens bitda huvudproblem. SvTK 11,1935,115-141.
Linton, 0., Paulus ochjuridiken. SvTK 21,1945,173-192.
Lipsius, R.A., Briefe an die Galater, Romer. Philipper. HC 2.2, Freiburg LB. 1891.
Ljungman, H., Das Gesetz erfiillen. Matth. 5,17 ff. und 3.15 untersucht. LUA 50:6.
Lund 1954.
Ltining, K.,Die Saulustradition.in der Apostelgeschichte. NTA 9. Mtinster 1973.
Lohfink, N., Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer. Christliche Auseinandersetzungen mit dem
Alten Testament. Frankfurt a.M. 1966 2.
Lohmeyer, E ,Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon. KEK 9.2 10 . Gtittingen 1954.
Lohmeyer, E.,Das Evangelium des Marleus. KEK 1/2 15 . Gottingen 1959.
Lohmeyer, E., Probleme paulinischer Theologie. Darmstadt 1954.
Lohse, E.,Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon. KEK 15. Gtittingen 1977 2
Lohse, E., Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie. ThW 5. Stuttgart 1974.
Lohse, E., b vdJ.l.O~ Toil 1rVEtJJ.l.aTO~ rrj~ tw*. Exegetische Anmerkungen zu Rom 8, 2.
Neues Testament und christliche Existenz, Festschr. H. Braun, Tiibingen 1973,
279-287.
Lohse, E., Israel und die Christenheit. Gottingen 1960.
Lohse, E., Die Offenbarung des Johannes. NTD 11. Gtittingen 1976 11
Loisy, A., LesActes des Apotres. Paris 1920.
Loisy, A., The Birth of the Christian Religion. Transl. L.P. Jacks. London 1948.
Loisy, A., L 'kpitre aux Galates. Paris 1916.
Loisy, A., L'epitres attribuees a Paul et les epttres catholiques. RHLR 7,1921,289348.
Loisy, A., Les epitres de Paul.RHLR 7,1921,76-125,213-250.
Loisy, A., The Origins of the New Testament. Transl.L.P. Jacks. London 1950.
Loisy, A., Remarques sur la iitterature epistolaire du Nouveau Testament. Paris 1935.
Longenecker, R.N.,Paul, Apostle of Liberty. New York 1964.
Lowe, 1., An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in St. Paul's Theology.
JThS 42,1941,129-142.
Ltiwy, M., Die Paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. Nach ihren Quellen untersucht. MG WJ 47,
1903,322-339,417-433,534-544;48,1904,268-276,321-327,400-416.
Luck, U., Der lakobusbrief und die Theologie des Paulus. ThG161, 1971, 161-179.
Lueken, W., Die Briefe an Philemon, an die Kolosser und an die Epheser. SNT 2,335383..
Ltidemann, G., Paulus, der Heidenapostel. I: Studien zur Chronologie. FRLANT 123.
Gtittingen 1980.
Liidemann, G., Paulus und das Judentum. TEH 215. Miinchen 1983.
Ltidemann, G., Zum Antipaulinismus im frtihen Christentum. EvTh 40, 1980,437-455.
LUhrmann, D.,Der Brief an die Galater. ZBK NT 7. Ztirich 1978.
Ltihrmann, D., Glaube im friihen Christentum. Gtitersloh 1976.
Ltihrmann, D., Das Offenbarungsverstiindnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden.
WMANT 16. Neukirchen 1965.
Ltitgert, W., Freiheitspredigt U1id Schwarmgeister in Korinth. Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der ChristusparteL Gtitersloh 1908.
Ltitgert, W., Gesetz und Geist. Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes.
BFChTh 22.6. GtittlIsloh 1919.

Bibliography

285

Lull, D.J., The Spirit in Galatia. Paul's Interpretation of Pneuma as Divine Power. SBL
Diss. 49. Chico 1980.
Lust, J., Traditie, RediJctie en Kerygma bij Ezechiel. Een Analyse van Ez., XX, 1-26.
VVAW.L 31, Nr. 65, Brussel1969.
Luz, U., Der alte und neue Bund bei Paulus und im Hebraerbrief.Evth 27,1967,318336.
Luz, U., Die Eifiillung des Gesetzes bei Matthlius (Mt 5, 17-20). ZThK 75, 1978,
398-435.
Luz, U.,Das Geschichtsverstiindnis des Paulus: BEvTh 49. MUnchen 1968.
Luz, U., Das Gesetz im Friihjudentum; Das Neue Testament. In: R. Smend - U. Luz,
Gesetz. Biblische Konfrontationen 1015, Stuttgart etc. 1981. pp. 45-139, 148-156.
(Cited as: Luz, 'Gesetz'.)
Luz, U., Rechtfertigung bei den Paulusschillern. RF, 1976, 365-383.
Luz, U., Review H. Hiibner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus. ThZ 35, 1979,121-123.
Lyonnet, S., Les ktapes du mystere du Salut selon l'epitre aux Romains. Bibliotheque
Oecumenique 8. Paris 1969.
Lyonnet, S., L'histoire du salut selon le chapftre VII de l'epitre aux Romains. Bib
43,1962,117-151.
Lyonnet, S., Le Nouveau Testament ala lumiCre de l'Ancien. Apropos du Rom 8, 2-4.
NRTh 87, 1965,561-587.
Lyonnet, S., ''Tu ne convoiteras pas" (Rom. vii 7). Neotestamentica et Patristica, Festschrift O. Cullmann, NT.S 6, Leiden 1962, 157-165.
Maher, M., 'Take my Yoke upon you' (Matt. XI. 29).NTS 22, 1975-76, 97-103.
Maier, J., Jiidische Faktoren bei der Entstehung der Gnosis?AFG, 1980,239-258.
Maier, J., Geschichte der jiidischen Religion. Von der Zeit Alexander des Grossen bis zur
Aufklar\lIlg mit einem Ausblick auf das 19./20. Jahrhundert. de Gruyter Lehrbuch.
Berlin-New York 1972.
Maier, J., "Gesetz" und "Gnade" im Wandel des Gesetzesverstlindnisses der nachtalmudischen Zeit. R. Brunner (ed.), Gesetz und Gnade im Alten Testament und im
jiidischen Denken, Ziirich 1969,64-176.
Maier, J. - Neusner, J., Die gesetzlichen Uberlieferungen. Literatur und Religion des
Friihjudentums. Eine Einfiihrung (ed. J. Maier - J. Schreiner), Wiirzburg 1973,
57-72.
Malina, B.J., The Individual and the Community - Personality in the Social World of
Early Christianity.BTB 9,1979,126-138.
van Manen, W.C.,Die Unechtheit des Romerbriefes. Transl. G. Schlager. Leipzig 1906.
Manson, T.W., The Sayings of Jesus. As recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke. London 1950.
Manson, T.W., The Teaching of Jesus. Studies of its Form and Content. Cambridge 1955
(repr.).
Marcus, R., Law in the Apocrypha. OSCU 26. New York 1927.
Marshall, L.H., The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. London 1966 (Repr,).
Marxsen, W., Der lTepo<; 1101-10<; Rom. 13,8. ThZ 11,1955, 230-237.
Mauerhofer, E., Der -Kampf zwischen Fleisch und Geist bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag zur kIarung der Frage nach der Stellung der GIaubigen ZUI SUnde im paulinischen Heiligungs- und VollkommeMeitsverstandnis. Frutigen 1980.
Maurer, Chr., Die Gesetzeslehre des Paulus nach ihrem Ursprungund in ihrer Entfaltung
dargelegt. Ziirich 1941.
Mauser, U., Galater ili. 20: die Universalitlit des Hells. NTS 13,1966-67,258-270.
Mauser, U., Gottesbild und Menschwerdung. Eine Untersuchung zur Einheit des Alten

286

Bibliography

und Neuen Testaments. BHTh 43. TUbingen 1971.

May, R., The Courage to Create. New York 1975.
McEleney, N.J., Conversion, Circumcision and the Law. NTS 20, 1973-74,319-341.
Meeks, W.A., Review of H.D. Betz, Galatians. lBL 100, 1981, 304-307.
Meier, J.P., Law and History in Matthew's Gospel. A Redactional Study of Mt. 5.17-48.
AnBib 71. Rome 1976.
Merk, 0., Der Beginn der Paranese irn Galaterbrief. ZNW 60,1969,83-104.
Merk, 0., Handeln aus Glauben. Die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik. MTh~t 5.
Marburg 1968.
Merkel, H., Markus 7, 15 - das Jesuswort Uber die innere Verumeinigung. ZRGG 20,
1968,340-363.
Meyer, P.W., Romans 10.4 and the 'End' of the Law. The Divine Helmsman (Studies in
God's Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman), New York 1980,
59-78.
Michel, O.,Der Brief an die Hebriier. KEK 13 12 . Gottingen 1966.
Michel, O.,Der Brief an die Romer. KEK 414. Gottingen 1978.
Michels, F., Paul and the Law of Love. Milwaukee 1967.
van der Minde, H-J., Schrift und Tradition bei Paulus. Ihre Bedeutung und Funktion irn
Romerbrief. Paderborner Theo!' Studien 3. MUnchen-Paderborn-Wien 1976.
Mitton, C.L., The Epistle of lames. London-Edinburgh 1966.
Momigliano, A., The Development of Greek Biography. Four Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.
1971.
Montefiore, C.G.,ludaism and St. Paul. Two Essays. London 1914.
Montefiore, C.G., The Synoptic Gospels 1-2. Library of Biblical Studies. New York 1968
(repr.).
Moore, G.F., Christian Writers on Judaism.HThR 14,1921,197-254.
Moore, G.F., ludaism in the first centuries of the Christian era. The age of Tannairn.
1-3. Cambridge, Mass. 1927-30.
Moult;' C.F .D., Interpreting Paul by Pau!. An Essay in the Comparative Study of Pauline
Thought. New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World, Essays in honour
ofH. Sawyerr, London 1974, 78-90.
Moule, C.F.D., Obligation in the ethic of Paul. Christian History and Interpretation,
Studies presented to J. Knox, Cambridge 1967, 389--406.
Moxnes, H., Theology in Conflict. Studies in Paul's Understanding of God in Romans.
NT.S 53. Leiden 1980.
MUller, U.B., Zur friihchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Judenchristentum und Paulinismus in Kleinasien an der Wende vom ersten zum zweiten Jahrhundert n. Chr.
GUtersloh 1976.
MUller, U.B., Zur Rezeption gesetzeskritischer JesusUberlieferung irn frUhen Christentum.NTS 27,1980-81,158-185.
Munck, J., Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte. AJut 26, 1. K9Ibenhavn 1954.
Mundle, W., Der Glaubensbegriff des Paulus. Eine Untersuchung zur Dogmengeschichte
des altesten Christentums. Darmstadt 1977 (=Leipzig 1932).
Mundle, W., Das religiose Problem des IV. Esrabuches. ZAW47, 1929,222-249.
Mundle, W., Zur Auslegung von Gal 217 .18 . ZNW 23, 1924, 152-153.
Mundle, W., Zur Auslegung von Rom 2, 13ff. ThBl13, 1934, 249-256.
Murphy.()'Connor, J., Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian JUdaism. RB 85,
1978,122-126.
Murray, G., Aeschylos, Oresteia. London 1928.
Murray, J., The Epistle to the Romans. NLC 11. London-Edinburgh 1967.
Mussner, F.,Der Galaterbrief HThK 9. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1974.

Bibliography

287

Mussner, F.,Der Jakobusbrief HThK 13.1. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1967 2.

Mussner, F.! Theologische 'Wiedergutmachung'. Am Beispiel der Auslegung des Galaterbriefes.FrRu 26, 1974, 7-11.
Mussner, F., Wer ist "der ganze Samen" in Rom 4, 16? Begegnung mit dem Wort (Festschr. H. Zimmermann), BBB 53, Bonn 1980, 213-217.
Mussner, F., Traktat iiberdie Juden. Miinchen 1979.
Myers, J.M., Grace and Torah. Philadelphia 1975.
Myre, A., Les caracteristiques de la loi mosaique selon Philon d'Alexandrie. sees 27,
1975,35-69.
Myre, A., La loi de la nature et la loi mosaique selonPhilond'Alexandrie. sees 28,1976,
163-181.
Neil, W., The Acts of the Apostles. NCeB. London 1973.
Nei1, W., The Letter of Paul to the Galatians. CBC. Cambridge 1967.
Nestle, W./ Die Haupteinwande des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum. ARW 37,
1941/42,51-100.
Neusner, J., Comparing Judaisms. HR 18,.1978,177-191.
Neusner, J., The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
1. Leiden 1973.
Neusner, J., "Judaism" after Moore: A Programmatic Statement. JJS 31, 1980, 141156.
Neusner, J., The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 I. The Masters. Lei~
den 1971.
Neusner, J., The Use of Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of Paul. Approaches to
Ancient Judaism 11 (ed. W.S. Green), Brown Judaic Studies 9, Chico 1980,43-63.
NickeIsburg, G.W.E., Rev. Ch. Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology. RSRev 4,
1978,161-168.
Niederwimmer, K.,DeiBegrlff der Freiheit im Neuen Testam"ent. TBT 11. Berlin 1966.
Niederwimmer, K., Johannes Markus und die Frage nach dem Verfasser des zweiten
Evangeliums. ZNW 58,1967,172-188.
Niederwimmer, K., Tiefenpsychologie und Exegese. WzM 22,1970,257-272.
Nikiprowetzky, V., Le commentaire de licriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie. Son caractere et sa portee. Observations philologiques. ALGHJ 11. Leiden 1977.
Nikiprowetzky, V., La Troisieme Sibylle. EtJ 9. Paris 1970.
Nikolainen, A.T., Roomalaiskirje. SUTS. Hameenlinna 1975.
Nineharn, D.E., Saint Mark. PNTC. London 1969 (repr.).
Nissen, A., Gott und der Niichste im antiken Judentum. Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Hebe. WUNT 15. Tiibingen 1974.
Noack, B., Are the Essenes Referred to in the Sibylline Oracles? StTh 16,1962,90-102.
Noack, B., Evangeliet om Loven. En side af Romerbrevet. Festschrift N.H. SfJe, K16benhavn, 131-150.
Nock, A.D., Posidonius.JRS 49,1959,1-15.
Nock, A.D., St. Paul. London 1960 (repr.).
Nolland, J.L., A Fresh Look at Acts 15.10.NT.S 27, 1980-81, 105-U5.
Nolland, J.L., Uncircumcised Proselytes? JSJ 12,1981,173-194.
Norden, E., Jahve und Moses in hellenistischer Theologie. Festgabe A. v. Hamack,
Tiibingen 1921, 292-201.
Noth, M., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. ThB 6. Miinchen 1957. (ET:
The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays. Transl. D.R. Ap-Thomas. EdinburghPhiladelphia 1966.)
Nygren, A.,Der Romerbrief Transl. I. Nygren. Gottingen 1959 3.
Odeberg, H.,Pharisaism and ChristiJznity. Saint Louis 1964.

288

Bibliography

Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (bearb. J. Rohde). ThHk 9. Berlin 1973 3.
Okeke, G.E., I Thess. ii. l3-16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews. NTS 27,1980-81,
127-136.
Ollrog, WH., Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zur Theorie und Praxis der
paulinischen Mission. WMANT 50. Neunkirchen-Vluyn 1979 ..
O'Neill, J.C., Paul's Letter to the Romans. Penguin Books. London 1975.
O'Neill, J.C., The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians. London 1972.
Ortkemper, F-J., Leben aus dem Glauben. Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Romer 1213. NTA 14. Miinster 1980.
von der Osten-Sacken, P., Befreiung durch das Gesetz. In: Richte unsere Fiisse auf den
Wegdes Friedens, Festschrift H. Gollwitzer, Miinchen 1979, 349-360.
von der Osten-Sacken, P., Das paulinische Verstiindnis des Gesetzes im Spannungsfeld
von Eschatologie und Geschichte. ErHiuterungen zum Evangelium als Faktor von
theologischem Antijudaismus. EvTh 37, 1977,549-587.
von der Osten-Sacken, P., Paulus und das Gesetz. Wegweisung, VIKJ 8, Berlin, 59-66.
von der Osten-Sacken, P., Romer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie. FRLANT 112.
Gottingen 1975.
von der Osten-Sacken, P., Von der Notwendigkeit theologischen Besitzverzichts. Nachwort in R. Ruether, Niichstenliebe und Brudermord, ACJD 7, Mlinchen 1978,244251.
Pallis, A., To the Romans. A Commentary. Liverpool 1920.
Pancaro, S., The Law in the Fourth Gospel. The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus,
Judaism and Christianity according to John. NT.S 42. Leiden 1975.
Panimolle, S.A., Il dono della legge e la grazia della veritd (Gv 1,17). Teologia oggi 21.
Roma 1973 .
. Pannenberg, W., Jesus - God and Man. Transl. L.L. Williams and D. Priebe. Philadelphia
1968.
Parkes, J., The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism. London 1934.
Parkes, J., Jesus, Paul and the Jews. London 1936.
Parkes, J., The Foundations of Judaism and Christianity. London 1960.
Parkes, J., Judaism and Christianity. London 1948.
Parkes, J., Prelude to Dialogue. Jewish-Christian Relationships. London 1969.
Paschen, W., Rein und Unrein. Untersuchung zur biblischen Wortgeschichte. StANT 24.
Miinchen 1970.
Pasinya, L.M., La Notion de NOMOS dans le Pentateuque Grec_ AnBib 52. Rome 1973.
Pearson, B.A., The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians. A Study in the
Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism. SBL
Diss. 12. Missoula 1973.
Percy, E., Die Botschaft Jesu. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung.
LUA 49. Lund 1953.
Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe. SHVL 39. Lund 1946.
Perrot, C., Introduction litteraire, in: Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquites Bibliques 11, SC
230, Paris 1976, 10-65.
Perrot, C. - Bogaert, P-M., Commentaire. Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquites Bibliques 11, SC
230, Paris 1976, 79-245.
Pesch, R., Das Jerusalemer Abkommen und die Losung des Antiochenischen Konflikts.
Ein Versuch liber Gal 2, Apg 10, 1-11, 18, Apg 11, 27-30; 12, 25 und Apg 15,
1-41. KuE, 1981, 105-122.
Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium 1-11. HThK 2.1-2. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1976-77.
Petuchowski, J.J., Heirs of the Pharisees. New York 1970.

Bibliography

289

Pfieiderer, 0., Der Paulinismus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der urchristIichen Theologie.
Leipzig 18902 .
Pohlenz, M., Paulus und die Stoa. ZNW 42,1949,69-104.
Prat, F., The Theology of Saint Paul I. Transl. J.L. Stoddard. London-Dublin 1945.
Pregeant, R., Grace and Recompense: Reflections on a Pauline Paradox. JAAR 47, 1979,
73-96.
Przybylski, B., Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought. MSSNTS 41.
Cambridge 1980.
Quispel, G., Pto/emee, Lettre oFlora. Texte, traduction et.introduction. SC 24, Paris
1949.
von Rad, G.,Das {Unfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium. ATD 8. Gottingen 1968 2 .
von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology I-II. Transl. D.M.G. Stalker. London 1975 (repr.).
Rliislinen, H., Das 'Gesetz des Glaubens' (Rom. 3.27) und das 'Gesetz des Geistes' (Rom.
8.2).NTS 26, 1979-80, 101-117.
Rliislinen, H., The Idea of Divine Hardening. A Comparative Study of the Notion of
Divine Hardening, Leading Astray and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Qur'an.
PFES 25, Helsinki 1976 2.
Rliisanen, H., Jesus and the Food Laws. Reflections on Mark 7.15. JSNT 16,1982,79100.
Riiislinen, H., Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem. PLT, 1980,63-83.
Riiisiinen, H., Paul) Theological Difficulties with the Law. StudBibl, 1980, 301-320.
Riiisiinen, H., Sprachliches zum Spiel des Paulus mit nomos. Glaube und Gerechtigkeit,
In memoriam R. Gyllenberg, PFES 38, 1983,131-154.
Rliisanen, H., Zum Gebrauch von EPITHYMIA und EPITHYMEIN bei Paulus. StTh 33,
1979,85-99.
Rliisanen, H., Zur Herkunft von Mk 7,15. Logia.Les paroles de Jesus, BEThL 59, Leuven
1982,477-484.
Reicke, B., Der geschichtliche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der AntiochiaEpisode, Gal. 2, 1-14. Studia Paulina in honorem 1. de Zwaan, Haarlem 1953,
172-187.
Reicke, B., The Law and this World according to Paul. Some Thoughts Concerning Gal
4 1- 11 , JBL 70,1951,259-276.
Reicke, B., Syneidesisin Rom. 2, 15. ThZ 12, 1956, 157-161.
Reinhardt, K., Poseidonios iiber Ursprung und Entartung. Interpretation zweier-kulturgeschichtIicher Fragmente. Orient und Antike 6. Heidelberg 1928.
Reploh, K-G., Markus - Lehrer der Gemeinde. Eine redaktionsgeschichtIiche Studie zu
den Jtingerperikopen des Markus-Evangelium.s. SBM 9. Stuttgart 1969.
Reventlow, H., Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich unterrucht. WMANT 6. Neukirchen 1961.
Richardson, P.,Israelin the Apostolic Church. MSSNTS 10. Cambridge 1969.
Richardson, P., Pauline Inconsistency:' 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14.
NTS 26, 1979-80, 347-362.
Richter, G., Studien zum Johannesevangelium (ed. J. Hainz). BU 13. Regensburg 1977.
Riclderbos, H.N., The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. NIC. Grand Rapids
19706 .
Ridderbos, H., Paulus. Ein Entwurf seiner Theologie. Ubers. E-W.. Pollmann. Wuppertal
1970.
Riddle, D.W., The Jewishness of Paul. JR 23, 1943,240-244.
Riedl, J.,Das Heil der Heiden nach R 2, 14-16.26.27. StGSt 20. Wien 1965.
Rissi, M., Studien zum zweiten Korintherbrief. Der alte Bund - Der Prediger - Der Tod.
AthANT 56. Ziirich 1969.

290

Bibliography

Ritschl, A., Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Vers6hnung 11. Bonn
1882 2 .
Ritschl, A., Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. Eine kirchen- und dogmengeschichtliche Monographie. Bonn 1857 2.
Robertson, A. - Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh 1914 2.
Robinson, D.W.B., The Circumcision of Titus, and Paul's "Liberty". ABR 12, 1964,
24-42.
Robinson, D.W.B., The Distinction Between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians.
ABR 13,1965,29-48.
Robinson, J.A.T., Redatingthe New Testament. London 1976.
Roetzel, C.J., Judgement in the Community. A Study of tlte Relationship between
Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden 1972.
Roloff, J., Das Neue Testament. Neukirchener Arbeitsbiicher. Neukirchen-Vluyn i977.
Romaniuk, K., Le Problt~me des Paulinismes dans l'Evangile de Marc.NTS 23, 1976-77,
266-274.
Rordorf, W., Der Sonntag. Geschichte des Ruhe- und Gottesdiensttages irn iiltesten
Christentum. AThANT 43: Ziirich 1962.
Rose, M., Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes. Deuteronomistische Schultheologie
und Volksfrtimmigkeit in der spiiteren Ktinigszeit. BWANT 6.6. Stuttgart 1975.
Rubenstein, R.L.,My Brother Paul. HTB. New York 1972.
Rudolpb, W.,Jeremia. HAT 1, 12. Tiibingen 1968 3.
Ruether, R.R., Faith and Fratricide. The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. London
1975.
Ruether, R.R., The Faith and Fratricide Discussion: Old Problems and New Dimension.
Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (ed. A.T. Davies), New YorkRamsey-Toronto 1979,230-256.
Saldarini, A.J., Review of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. JBr 98, 1979,
299-303.
Sanchez Bosch, J., 'Gloriarse' segun San Pablo. Sentido y teologta de kaukhaomai.
AnBib 40. Rome 1970.
Sand, A., Der Begriff "Fleisch" in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. BD 2. Regensburg
1967.
Sand, A., Das Gesetz und die Propheten. Dntersuchungen zur Theologie des Evangeliums
nach Matthiius. BD 11. Regensburg 1974.
Sanday, W. - Headlam, A., A critical and exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans. ICC. Edinburgh 1925 (repr.).
Sandelin, K-G.,Die Auseinandersetzung mit der Weisheit in 1. Korinther 15. Publications
of the Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation 12. Abo 1976.
Sandelin, K-G., Vishetstradition sasom bakgrund till 1. Kor. 15. TAik 83, 1978,148155.
Sanders, E.P., The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in
Pal\lstinian and Hellenistic JUdaism. Jews, Greeks and Christians (essays in honor of
W.D. Davies), Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 21, Leiden 1976, 11-44.
Sanders, E.P., Literary Dependence in Colossians. JBL 85, 1966, 28-45.
Sanders, E.P., On the Question of Fulfilling. the Law in Paul and Rabbinic JUdaism.
Donum Gentilicium, New Testament Studies in Honour of D. Daube, Oxford 1978,
103-126.
Sanders, E.P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Forthcoming. (Cited as Law).
Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.
London 1977. (Cited as Paul).

 Bibliography

291

Sanders, E.P., Puzzling out Rabbinic Judaism. Approaches to ancient Judaism 11 (ed.
W.S. Green), Brown Judaic Studies 9, Chico 1980,65-79.
Sanders, J.A., Torah and Christ. Interp. 29,1975,372-380.
Sanders, LA., Torah and Paul. GCH 1977,132-140.
Sanders, J.T., Ethics and the New Testament. Change and Development. Philadelphia
1975.
Sandmel, S., The Genius of Paul. A Study in History. Philadelphia 1979.
van de Sandt, H.W.M., An Explanation of Rom. 8, Aa. Bijdr. 37,1976,361-378.
van de Sandt, H.W.M., Research into Rom. 8, 4a: The Legal Claim of the Law. Bijdr.
37,1976,252-269.
Schade, H-H., Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus. Studien zum Zusammenhang von
Christologie und Eschatologie in den Paulusbriefen. GTA 18. Gottingen 1981.
Schlifer, P., Die Torah der messianischen Zeit. ZNW 65,1974,27-42.
Scharlemann, M.H., Stephen: A Singular Saint. AnBib 34. Rome 1968.
Schechter, S., Some Arpectr of Rabbinic Theology. London 1909.
Schlatter, A., Der Glaube im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart 1963 5 .
Schlatter, A., Gotter Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Romerbrief. Stuttgart 1935.
Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 714 . Gottingen 1971 5 .
Schlier, H., Grundziige einer paulinischen Theologie. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1978.
Schlier, H.,Der Romerbrief HThK 6 .. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1977.
Schlier, H., Von den Juden in Romer 2, 1-29. EvTh 5, 1938,263-275.
Schlink, E., Gesetz und Paraklese. Antwort (Festschrift K. Barth), Zollikon-Ziirich 1956,
323-335.
Schmid, H., Gesetz und Gnac;le im Alten Testament. R. Brunner (ed.), Gesetz und Gnade
im Alten Testament und im jiidirchen Denken, ZUrich 1969, 3 -29.
Schmidt, H.W.,Der Brief des Paulur an die Romer. ThHK 6. Berlin 1963.
Schmithals, W.,Paurand the Gnosticr. Transl. J.E. Steely. Nashville 1972.
Schmithals, W.,Paul and James. Transl. D.M. Barton. SBT 46. London 1965.
Schmithals, W., Der Romerbrief air hirtorircher Problem. StNT 9. Gottingen 1975.
Schmithals, W., Die theologirche Anthropologie des Paulus. Auslegung von Rom 7,
17-8,39. Kohlhammer Taschenbiicher 1021. Stuttgart 1980.
Schnackenburg, R., Romer 7 im Zusammenhang des Romerbriefes. Jerur und Paulur,
Festschr. W.G. Kiimmel, Gottingen 1975, 283-300.
Schneider, G., Stephanus, die Hellenisten und Samaria. Les Acter des Apotres. Traditions,
nidaction, theologie ..BEThL 48, Leuven 1979,215-240.
Schneidermeyer,
Galatians as Literature. JRT 28, 1971, 132-138.
Schniewind, J., Zur Erneuerung des Chrirtenrtandes. KVR 226/227. Gottingen 1966.
Schoeps, H-J., Das Judenchristentum. Untersuchungen iiber Gruppenbildungen und
Partell\limpfe in der friihen Christenheit. DTb 376. Bern-Miinchen 1964.
Schoeps, H-J., Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious
History. London 1961.
Schoeps, H-J., Studien zur unbekannten Religions' und Geistesgeschichte. Veroffentlichungen der Gesellschaft fUr Geistesgeschichte. Gottingen 1963.
Schoeps, H-J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums. Tiibingen 1949.
Scholem, G., The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality.
London 1971.
Schottroff, L., Die Erziihlung vom Pharislier und Zollner als Beispiel fiir die theologische
Kunst des Uberredens. Neues Testament und christliche Existenz, Festschrift H.
Braun, Tiibingen 1973,439-461.
Schottroff, L., Die Schreckensherrschaft der Siinde und die Befreiung durch Christus
nach dem Romerbrief des Paulus. EvTh 39,1979,497-510.

w..,

292

Bibliography

Schrage, W., "Ekklesia" und "Synagoge". Zum Ursprung des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs. ZThK60, 1963, 178-202.
Schrage, W., Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paranese. Ein Beitrag zur
neutestamentlichen Ethik. Giitersloh 1961.
Schrage, W., Das Verstandnis des Todes Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament. Das Kreuz
Jew Christi als Grund des Heils, STAEKU, Giitersloh 1969 3, 49-90.
Schrenk, G., 6/(1/ /erA. ThWNT 11,180-229.
Schubert, K., Die jUdisch-<:hristliche Oekumene. Reflexionen zu Grundfragen des christlich-jiidischen Dialogs. Kairos 22, 1980, 1-33.
Schiirer, E., Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi 1-3. Leipzig
1907-114.
Schiirmann, H., "Das Gesetz des Christus" (Gal 6, 2). Jesu Verhalten und Wort als letztgiiltige sittliche Norm nach Paulus. NTK 1974, 282-300.
Schulz, S., Die Decke des Moses. Untersuchungen zu einer vorpaulinischen tiberlieferung
in 11 Cor 3 7- 18 . ZNW 49,1958,1-30.
Schulz, S., Die Mitte der Schrift. Der Friihkatholizismus im Neuen Testament als Herausforderung an den Protestantismus. Stuttgart/Berlin 1976.
Schulz, S., Die neue Frage nach dem historischen Jesus. Neues Testament und Geschichte, Festschrift O. Cullmann, ZUrich 1972, 33-42.
Schulz, S.,Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4 12. Gottingen 1972.
Schulz, S., Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Ziirich 1972.
Schulz, S., Die Stunde der Botschaft. Einfiihrung in die TheolQgie der vier Evangelisten.
Hamburg 1967.
Schweitzer, A.,Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus. UTB 1091. Tiibingen 1981 (repr. 1930).
Schweizer, E., Der Brief an die Kolosser. EKK. Ziirich 1976.
Schweizer, E.,Das Evangelium nach Markus. NTD 1 13 . Gottingen 1973 3.
Schweizer, E., "Der Jude im Verborgenen ... , dessen Lob nicht von Menschen, sondern
von Gott kommt". Zu Rom 2,28 fund Mt 6, 1-18.NTK, 1974, 115-124.
Scott, E.F., The Pastoral Epistles. MNTC. London 1957 7.
Scroggs, R., The Earliest Hellenistic Christianity. RelAnt, 1968,176-206.
S croggs, R., Paul for a New Day. Philadelphia 1977.
Seitz, O.J.F., James and the Law. StEv 1,472-486.
Sieffert, F., Die Entwicklungslinie der paulinischen Gesetzeslehre nach den vier Hauptbriefen des Apostels. Theologische Studien, Festschrift B. Weiss, Gottingen 1897;
332-357.
Sieffert, F.,Des Paulus Brief an die Galater. KEK 6. Gottingen 1880.
Siegert, F., Gottesfiirchtige und Sympathisanten. Journal for the Study of Judilism 4,
1973,109-164.
Siegwalt, G., La Loi, chemin du Salut. Etude sur la signification de la loi de l'Ancien
Testament. BT(N), Neuchitel1971.
Sigal, P., The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Matthew.
Diss. Pittsburgh (microfilm) i979.
Simon, M. St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church. London 1958.
Simon, M., VerUs Israel. Etude sur les relations entre chretiens et juifs dans l'empire
Romain (135-425). Paris 1948.
Simonsen, H., Die Auffassung vom Gesetz im Mattausevangelium. Theologie aus dem
Norden, SNTU A 2, 1977,44-67.
Sjoberg, E., Gott und die Sunder im palastinischen Judentum nach dem Zeugnis der
Tannaiten und der apokryphisch- pseudepigraphischen Literatur. BWANT 79. Stuttgart 1938.
Sjoberg, E., Herrens bud 1 Kor. 14.37. SEA 22-23, 1957-58, 168-171.

Bibliography

293

Slaten, A.W., The Qualitative Use of vOJ.W~: in the Pauline Epistles. AJT 23, 1919,
213-219.
Sloyan, G., Is Christ the End of the Law? Biblical Perspectives on Current Issues. Philadelphia 1978.
Smallwood, KM., The Jews under ROman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in
Judaism in Late Antiquity 20. Leiden 1976.
Smend, R., Das Alte Testament. In: R. Smend - U. Luz, Gesetz. Biblische Konfrontationen 1015. Stuttgart etc. 1981. Pp. 9-44, 145-148.
Smith, M., The Reason for the Persecution of Paul and the Obscurity of Acts. Studies in
Mysticism and Religion presented to G.G. Scholem, Jerusalem 1967, 261-268.
Smith M., Pauline Problems. Apropos of 1. Munck, 'Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte'.
HThR 50,1957,107-131.
Soucek, J.B., Zur Exegese von Rom. 2, 14 ff. Antwort, Festschrift K. Barth, ZollikonZiirich 1956,99-113.
Spicq, C.;L 'Epitre aux Hebreux. EtB. Paris 1952-53.
Stacey, W.D., The Pauline View of Man In Relation to its Judaic and Hellenistic Background. London 1956.
Stamm, R.T., The Epistle to the Galatians. IntB 9. New York 1953.
Stanton, G., Stephen in Lucan Perspective. Stud Bibl, 1980, 345 -360.
Steck, R., Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Berlin 1888.
Stegemann, E., Der Jude Paulus und seine antijiidische Auslegung. In: R. RendtorffE. Stegemann (ed.), Auschwitz-Krise der christlichen Theologie, ACJD 10, Miinchen
1980,117-139.
Stemberger, G., Das klassische Judentum. Kultur und Geschichte (70 v.Chr. bis 1040
n. Chr.). Beck'sche Elementarbiicher. Miinchen 1979.
van Stempvoort, P., Gal. 6.2. NedThT 7,1952-53,362-363.
Stendahl, K., Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and other Essays. Philadelphia 1976.
Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1. From Herodotus to Plutarch. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Jerusalem 1974.
Stevens, G.B., The Pauline Theology. A Study of the Origin and Correlation of the
Doctrinal Teachings of the Apostle Paul. Rev. ed. New York 1900.
Stoike, D.A., "The Law of Christ": A Study of Paul's Use of the Expression in Galatians
6.2. Diss. CIaremont 1971 (microfilm).
Strachan, R.H., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. MNTC. London 1946
(Repr.).
Strack, H. - Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 1-6. Miinchen 1954-56 2 .
Strecker, G., Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 521-48 par). ZNW 69,1978,36-72.
Strecker, G., Eschaton und Historie. Aufsatze. Gottingen 1979.
Strecker, G.,Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen. TU 70. Berlin 1958.
Strecker, G., Judenchristentum und Gnosis.AFG, 1980, 261-282.
Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthaus.
FRLANT 82. Gottingen 1962.
Strelan, J.G., Burden-bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-examination of Galatians
6.2. JBL 94, 1975,266-276.
Strobel, A., Das Aposteldekret als Folge des antiochenischen Streites. Uberlegungen
zum Verhaltnis von Wahrheit und Einheit im Gesprach der Kirchen. KuE, 1981,
81-104.
Stuhlmacher, P., Gerech tigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. FRLANT 87. Gottingen 1966 2 .

294

Bibliography

Stuhlrnacher, P., Das paulinische Evangelium I. Vorgeschichte. FRLANT 95. Gottingen

1968.
Stuhlmacher, P., Paulus, ein Rabbi, der Apostel wurde. Zur Diskussion. In: P. Lapide P. Stuhlrnacher, Paulus - Rabbi und Ap.ostel, Ein jUdisch-christlicher Dialog, Stuttgart-Munchen 1981,62-69.
Stuhlmacher, P., Versohnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. Aufsatze zur biblischen Theologie. Gottingen 1981.
Stylianopoulos, T., Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law. SBL Diss. 20. Missoula 1975.
Suggs, M.I., The Antitheses as Redactional Products. JCHT, 1975,433-444.
Suhl, A., Paulus und seine Briefe. Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie. StNT 11.
GUtersloh 1975.
Synofzik, E., Die Gerichts und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. GTA 8. Gottingen 1977.
Tannehill, R.C., Dying and Rising with Christ; A Study in Pauline Theology. BZNW 32.
Berlin 196 7.
Taylor, V., The Gospel according to Mark. London 1952.
Tcherikover, V., The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas.HThR 51,1958,59-85.
Theissen, G., Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. WUNT 19. Tubingen 1979.
Therrien, G., Le discemement dans les ecrits pauliniens. EB. Paris 1973.
Thiel, W., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25. WMANT 41. Neukirchen 1973.
Thiselton, A.C., Realized Eschatology at Corinth.NTS 24, 1977-78, 510-526.
Thompson, A.L., Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra. A Study Illustrating the Significance of Form and Structure for the Meaning of the Book. SBL Diss.
29. Missoula 1977.
ThUsing, W., Per Christum in Deum. Studien zum Verhaltnis von Christozentrik und
Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. NTA 1. MUnster 1969 2 .
Thyen, H., Exegese des Neuen Testaments nach d.em Holocaust. In: R. RendtorffE. Stegemann (ed.), Auschwitz - Krise der christlichen Theologie, ACJD 10, MUnchen 1980, 140-158.
Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthausevangeliums. EThSt 7.
Leipzig 1959.
Trocme, E., Paul-Ia-colere: eloge d'un Schismatique. RHPR 61, 1981, 341-350.
Tiircke, C., Zum ideologiekritischen Potential der Theologie. Konsequenzen einer
materialistischen Paulus-Interpretation. Pahl-Rugenstein Hochschulschriften 8. KOln
1979.
Tyson, J.B., "Works of Law" in Galatians. JBL 92, 1973,423-431.
Ulonska, H.,Paulus und das Alte Testament. Diss. MUnster 1964.
van Unnik, W.C., Josephus' account of the story of Israels sin with alien women in the
country of Midian (Num. 25.1 ff.). Travels in the World of the Old Testament (Festschr. M.A. Beek), Assen 1974, 241-261.
van Unnik, W.C., Sparsa Collecta I. NTS 29. Leiden 1973.
Urbach, E.E., The Sages - Their Concepts and Beliefs .1-11. Transl. I. Abrahams. Publications of the Perry Foundations in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem
1975.
Vanhoye, A., Un mtldiateur des anges en Ga 3, 19-20. Bib. 59,1978,403-411.
da Vaux, R., Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice. Cardiff 1964.
Vergote, A., Der Beitrag der Psychoanalyse zur Exegese. Leben, Gesetz und Ich-Spaltung im 7. Kapitel des Romerbriefs. Exegese im Methodenkon/likt (ed. X. LeonDufour), MUnchen 1973, 73-116.
Vermes, G., The Decalogue and the Minim. In memoriam P. Kahle, BZAW 103, Berlin
1968,232-240.

Bibliography

295

Verweij s, P.G., Evangelium und neues Gesetz in der iiltesten Christenheit bis auf Marcion.
STRT 5. Utrecht 1960.
Viard, A., Saint Paul. Epitre aux Romains. SBL Paris 1975.
Vielhauer, P., Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Einleitung in das Neue Testament,
die Apokryphen und Apostolischen Vater. GLB. Berlin-New York 1975.
Vielhauer, P., Gesetzesdienst und Stoicheiadienst im Galaterbrief. RF, 1976,543-555.
Vielhauer, P., On the 'Paulinism' of Acts. Studies in Luke-Acts (Festschrift P. Schubert),
Nashville-New York 1966, 33-50.
Vielhauer, P., Paulus und das Alte Testament. Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie
der Reformation, Festschrift E. Bizer, Neukirchen 1969, 33-62.
Volkmar, G., Paulus Romerbrief. Der lilteste Text deutsch und im Zusammenhang
erkliirt. Ziirich 1875.
Vos, J.S., Traditiom;geschichtliche Untenuchungen zur paulinischen Pneumatologie.
GTB 47. Assen 1973.
von Wahlde, U.C., Faith and Works in In VI 28-29. Exegesis or Eisegesis? NT 22,1980,
304-315.
Walker, R., Allein aus Werken. Zur Auslegung von Jakobus 2, 14-26. ZThK 61, 1964,
155-192.
Walker, R., Die Heiden und das Gericht. Zur Auslegung von Romer 2, 12-16. EvTh 20,
1960,302-314.
Walker, R.,Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium. FRLANT91. Gottingen 1967.
Wallis, G., Torah und Nomos. Zur Frage nach Gesetz und Hell. ThLZ 105, 1980, 321332.
Waiter, J., Derreligiose Gehalt des. Galaterbriefes. Gottingen 1904.
Walter, N., Christusglaube und heidnische Religiositiit in paulinischen Gemeinden. NTS
25,1978-79,422--442.
Weber, F., Jiidische Theologie auf"Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. Leipzig 1897 2.
Wedderburn, A.J.M., Adam in Paul's Letter to the Romans. StudBibl, 1980,413-430.
Wedderburn, A.J.M., Keeping up with Recent Studies. VIII. Some Recent Pauline
Chronologies. ET 92,1980-81,103-107.
Weder, H., Das Kreuz Jesu bei Paulus. Ein Versuch, iiber den Geschichtsbezug des
christlichen Glaubens nachzudenken. FRLANT 125. Giittingen 1981.
Weinel, H., St Paul. The Man and His Work. Transl. G.A. Bieneman, ed. W.D. Morrison.
London 1906.
Weiss, B.,Der Brief an die Romer. KEK 4 9 . Giittingen 1899.
Weiss, H., The Law in the Epistle to the Colossians. CBQ 34,1972,294-314.
Weiss, H-F., Das Gesetz in der Gnosis. AFG, Berlin 1980, 71-88.
Weiss, J.,Der erste Korintherbrief. KEK 59. Giittingen 1910.
Weiss, J., Das Urchristentum (ed. R. Knopt). Giittingen 1917. (ET: History of Early
Christianity. ed. F.C. Grant, New York 1959 repr.)
Weiss, J. - Heitmiiller, W.,Die Offenbarung des Johannes. SNT 4. Gottingen 1918 3
Wellhausen, J.,lsraelitische und jiidische Geschichte. Berlin 1904 5 .
Wells, G.A., The Jesus of the Early Christians. A Study of Christian Origins. London
1971.
Wendland, H-D., Gesetz und Geist. Zum Problem des Schwarmertums bei Paulus. SThKAB
6,1952,38-64.
Wengst, K., Tradition und Theologie des Bamabasbriefes. AKG 42. Berlin 1971.
Wenham, D., The Christian Life: A Life of Tension? A Consideration of the Nature of
Christian Experience in Paul. PSt 80-94.
Werblowsky, R.J.Z., Paulus in jiidischer Sicht. Paulus - Apostat oder Apostel (ed.
M. Barth etc.), Regensburg 1977,135-146.

296

Bibliography

Werblowsky, R.J.Z., Tora als Gnade. Kairos 14, 1972, 156-163.

Werner, M., Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium. Eine Studie zur
neutestamentlichen Theologie. BZNW 1. Giessen 1923.
Wernle, P., Die Anj'iinge umerer Religion. Tiibingen-Leipzig 1904 2. (ET: The Beginnings
ofChristianity I, transl. G.A. Bienemann. New York 1903.)
Wernle, P.,Der Christ und die Siinde bei Paulus. Freiburg LB. - Leipzig 1897.
Westerholrn, S., Review of H. Hiibner, Das Gesetz beiPaulus. SEA 44, 1979, 194-199.
Westerholrn, S.,Jesusand Scribal Authority. CB.NT 10. Lund 1978.
Wevers, J.W.,Ezekiel. CenB. London 1969.
Wevers, J.W., Septuaginta-Forschungen. ThR 22,1954,85-138,171-190.
Whiteley, D.E.H., The Theology of St. Paul. Oxford 1964.
Wilckens, V.,Der Brief an die Romer 1-2. EKK 6/1-2. Ziirich 1978-80.
Wilckens, V., Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzesverstandnisses. NTS 28, 1982,
154-190.
Wilckens, V., Jesusiiberlieferung und Christuskerygma - zwei Wege urchristlicher Uberlieferungsgeschichte. ThViat 10, 1965-66, 310-339.
Wilckens, V., Rechtfertigung als Freiheit. Paulusstudien. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974.
Wilde, R., The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers of the First Three
Centuries. Washington 1949.
Wiles, M.F., The Divine Apostle. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles in the Early
Church. Cambridge 1967.
Wiles, M.F., St. Paul's Conception of Law. ChM 69,1955-56,144-152,228-234.
Williams, S.K., Jesus' Death as Saving Event. The Background and Origin of a Concept.
Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2. Missoula 1975.
Williams, S.K., The "Righteousness of God" in Romans. JBL 99,1980,241-290.
Wilson, S.G., The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. MSSNTS 23. Cambridge 1973.
Windisch, H.,Die apostolischen Vater. Ill. Der Barnabasbrief. HNT Erg. Tiibingen 1920.
Windisch, H.,Der Hebraerbrief HNT 14. Tiibingen 19312.
Windisch, H., Das Problem des paulinischen Imperativs. ZNW 23,1924,265-281.
. Windisch, H., Taufe und Siinde im altesten Christentum bis auf Origenes. Ein Beitrag
zur altchristlichen Dogmengeschichte. Tiibinen 1908.
Windisch, H.,Der zweite Korintherbrief KEK 6 . Gottingen 1970 (repr.).
Wolff, Chr .. Jeremia im Friihiudentum und Urchristentum. TV 118. Berlin 1976.
Wolff, H-W., Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, ZA W 32, 1961,
171-186.
Wolfson, H.A., Philo I. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. Cambridge, Mass. 1947.
Worgul, G.S., Romans 9-11 and Ecclesiology.BTB 7, 1977,98-109.
Wrede, W.,Paulus. RV 1.516. Halle 1907 2 . (ET: Paul. Transl. E. Lummis. London 1907.)
Wuellner, W., Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans~ RD, 1977, 152-174.
Wuellner, W., Toposforschung und Torahinterpretation bei Paulus und Jesus. NTS 24,
1977-78.463-483.
Wiirthwein, E., Gesetz Il. Im AT. RGG Il, 1513-1515.
Zahn, A., Das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre und Erfahrung des Apostel Paulus. Halle
1876.
Zahn, T.,Der Brief des Paulusan die Romer. KNT 6. Leipzig 1925.
Zehnpfund, R., Das Gesetz in den paulinischen Briefen. NKZ 8,1897,384-419.
Zeller, D., Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus. Studien zum Romerbrief. FzB 1.
Stuttgart 1973.

Bibliography

297

Zenger, E., Die spate Weisheit und das Gesetz. Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums
(ed. J. Maier-J. Schreiner), Wiirzburg 1973,43-56.
Ziener, G., Die theologische Begriffssprache im Buche der Weisheit. BBB 11, Bonn 1956.
Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel. BK AT 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969.
Zimmerli, W., The Law and the Prophets. A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament.
Transl. R.E. elements. Oxford 1965.
Zimmerli, W., Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsiitze zum Alten Testament. TB.
Miinchen 1963.
Zimmermann, H., Das Bekenntnis der Hoffnung. Tradition und Redaktion im Hebraerbrief. BBB 47. Koln 1977.

Index of Passages
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
2.15
3.16
3.24

230
69
230

Exodus
13.12
16.18
20.18-21
22.29
22.31
31.18
34.1
34.29
34.33-35

159
68
134
159f.
37
243f.
244
131
57

Leviticus
11
17-18
17.15
18.5
19.18
22.8
26

84,89
258
37
55,153
64,211
37
126

Numbers
27.23

260

Deuteronomy
5
5.22
5.31
5.32f.
5.33
6.3
6.5
6.18
6.24f.
7.9
7.12.
8.1

134
134
134
134
126
126
242
126
126
126
126
126

10.13
11.8f.
11.13-15
11.21
11.22ff.
11.26-28
12.1
12.28
13.4
13.6
14.29
15.4f.
15.10
15.18
16.20
17.7
17.12
18.20
19.8f.
19.13
19.19
21.21
21.23
22.7
22.21-24
23.21
24.7
24.19
27.26
28.1-68
28.9
28.25-69
29.3f.
30.1-10
30.6
30.11f.
30.19
32
32.35
33.2

126
126
126
126
126
125
126
126
127
126
125
126
125
125
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
59, 249f.
126
126
125
126
125
94f., 124, 127
125
126
126
242
242
242
55
125
134
68
133

299

Index of Passages

2 Kings
22
23.24

126
71

2 Chronicles
35.19

71

Psalms
19.13f.
31.1f.
50
106.20
146.7

231
172
239f.
97f.
235

Proverbs
7.3

244

Isaiah
2.2-4
25.7-10
Jeremiah
3.8
20.7
24.7
31.31-34
31.33
32.40

239
239f.

101
157
241
190f., 211, 239,
240-245
104f.
241

Ezekiel
11.19f.
16.16-21
16.21
20.25
20.25f.
20.31
33
36.22-28
37
40-48
44f.
44.31
48

191,240,242,244
160
159
142
158-161, 239f.
160
242
191, 239f., 242, 244
239f.
160, 239f.
160
37
242

Daniel
9.24

158

Hosea
1-3

101

Micah
4.1-3

239

Habakkuk
2.4

189,196

Malachi
3.8f.

101

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew
1.23
3.7-12
5.17-20
5.17
5.18
5.18f.
5.20
5.21-48
5.34
7.12
7.15-23
7.28
8.23-27
9.13
1O.5f.

194
168
66,265
29f., 81, 86, 87[,89,
211,213
29,86,90,193
89
193f.,214
29,87,89,101,213
87
87
214
87
194
30,87f.
89

10.10
10.17
11.13
11.25-30
12.7
14.28-31
15.2
15.11
15.12-14
15.17
15.20
18.15-20
22.40
23
23.2f.
23.4
23.23

79
256
86
89
30, 87f.
194
89
30,88,90
89
30,88
30,89
79
86f.
167
86,89
79
89

300
23.28
23.34
24.12
24.20
25.31-46
28.16-20
28.20

Index of Passages

214
256
214
88
214
88f.,214
194

Mark

1.22
1.27
1.41
2-3
3.35
4.11f.
7
7.3f.
7.6 -13
7.7f.
7.8f.
7.8-13
7.10
7.15-23
7.15
7.18f.
7.19
8.11f.
8.15
8.34-10.45
10.2-9
10.5
10.17-31
10.17-21
1O.18f.
10.21
11.27f.
12.9
12.28-34
12.33
12.38-40
15.38

85
85,87
8S
85
192
192
91
84f.
84
138
29
138
29,138,213
84{.,212
29,35,84,246-248,266
29,84
89,247
85
85
119
84,91, 137f., 213
29
191-193
84,119
29
84
85
85
29,84,86,119,212
84
85
29

Luke

1-2
1.6
10.8
10.25-28
10.28
11.37-42
11.49
13.17

138
119,215
91
91,139,155
195
9lf.
256
91

14.6
16.16
16.17
16.18
18.9-14

91
86,91
90f., 155, 227
91
167

John

1.14-18
1.17
4.20-24
5.18
5.45-47
6.28f.
7.17
7.19
7.21-23
7.22
7.49
8.17
8.30-36
8.34
8.44
9.28
10.34
15.25
19.7

196
196,217
217
90
218
195
195
120, 217f.
90,218
217
217
90,217
218
156
156
217
217f.
217f.
217

Acts
2.1-13
6
6.11
6.13
6.13f.
6.14
7
7.37
7.38
7.44-50
7.44
7.48-50
7.51-53
7.53
8
8.1
9.23-25
10.11-16
10.28
10.44-48
11.3
11.8
11.15-18

189,255
255
251
30
251
9lf.,251
251
252
131,133,138,155,215
138
138
30,138
120
43,134,215
255
251
262
92
92
183,255
92
92
183

Index of Passages

11.19-26
11.19
13.1-3
13.38
14.12
14.14
15
15.1
15.5
15.7-12
15.7-14
15.8f.
15.9
15.10
15.10f.
15.12
15.15-17
15.19
15.21-29
15.21
15.28
16.3
17.1-9
21.9
21.17-26
21.20-26
21.21
21.24-26
22.3
25.8
26.14
28.17
Romans
1.1
1.18-3.20

1.18-2.29
1.18-2.8
1.18-32
1.18
1.23f.
1.24-32
1.24
1.28-31
1.32
2-3
2
2.1-3
2.1

253
251
253
195,215
253
253
37,248
182,194
182,257
255

2.9-13
2.9
2.9f.
2.12-16
2.12
2.12f.
2.14-16
2.14
2.14f.

92

2.15
2.15f.
2.16
2.17-24

183,248
92
215[
119, 155, 195
248
92

155
92

92
219
74[,9lf.
254
255
92

91,216,262
92
74,259
234f.
92
229
92

234
95f., 97-109,110, 132f.,
151,153
97,101,111,124,130
97
7,97, 101 f., 106, 110,
112f.,149
97
97
146
112
98
65
26,170,231
16,96-98, 107, 193
98
27,97,101

2.17
2.18
2.21-24
2.23
2.25
2.26f.
2.27
2.28
2.28f.
2.29
3-4
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.9-20
3.9
3.10-20
3.10-18
3.19
3.19f.
3.20
3.21-30
3.21-26
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.23f.
3.24-26
3.25f.
3.26
3.27-31
3.27-30
3.27

301
102
111
104f.
19,25[, 112, 145f.
20,157
17,139
11,98, 105f., 187
5,17,139
7,28,64,101-109,110,
118,124
243f.
106
146
7, 96f., 102, 110, 112f.,
149,168,233
98,128,170
17,49
98-101
17,128,170
17,139
101-109,110,112,118
17,26
108
103,128
104f.,113
176
70,128
99
260
70,117
145
97-99,106
97
16,70,99
97,157
69
97,99, 102, 106, 140f.,
145,148,161,163,170
106
170
16,25,56,69f.
170
60,99,170
152
60
252
233
70
171
16,42,50-52,53,78,80,
169,170[,238

302
3.27f.
3.28
3.29
3.31
4.1-16
4.2-5
4.2
4.4
4.4f.
4.6-8
4.7
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.11f.
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
5-7
5-6
5.6-8
5.8
5.12-21
5.12
5.13
5.13f.
5.14
5.20
5.20f.
6-8
6.2-11
6.4-7
6.7-11
6.7
6.11
6.12-21
6.12
6.14
6.15
6.16-20
6.19
6.21
6.22
6.23
7

Index of Passages

69,163
5lf.
171
28,63,69-72,86,88,201,
213,221,223
69f.,139
163,169
171
176
171
172
214
172
72
128, 190
172
17
163
25,141,143,146,147[.,
260
172
99
233
60
76,260
5,17,99,147,150,230
145f.
11,141,145-147,148
16
145f.
9, 100, 129, 134, 140f.,
143[.,148,153,158
144
13
58, 144
61
61
114
31
144,150
112
47, 114,141,148,150,162
47,70,117
100,110,234
141,149,214
141
100
145
18,65,100, 152f., 202,
229, 232f., 264

7.1-6
7.4-6
7.5
7.6
7.7-13
7.7-11
7.7
7.7f.
7.8
7.10
7.12
7.13
7.14-25
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20-25
7.21-25
7.21
7.22
7.23
7.25
8.1-8
8.1-4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4-11
8.4
8.5-8
8.5
8.7
8.7f.
8.9-11
8.15
8.17f.
8.22
8.31-39
8.32

46[.,50, 58f., 61[.,66,

239,245,256
21
25,112,141,142,148
44f., 141, 153, 178, 205,
233
68, 14lf., 230
25,141-143,147-149
17,67,102,110,139,145,
147
111,148,157,230
142, 147, 150
152[.,154
7,128,139,152,206,222,
225
111,142

109-113,114,132,
149,230[.
7,45,128,139,142[.,
150, 152f., 209, 222
109
110,206
110
143
109
16
52[.,67
53
113,128
141,150
6,128,139,222
185
240
47,250

42,50-53,67,78,80,
150, 240f.
7,53,60,67,110,118,
143,152,209,240
109, 113, 116
28,63 f., 65-67, 70, 104f.,
113-115,139,240-242
114
103
67,128
170
114
234
185
143
185
31,60

Index of Passages
8.37
8.38
9-11
9-10
9
9.4
9.4f.
9.6-23
9.6-13
9.6
9.11f.
9.18
9.24-30
9.30-10.13
9.30
9.31
9.32f.
9.33
10.1-3
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5-8
10.5
10.5f.
10.6
10.10
10.11
10.12
1O.12f.
10.21
11
11.1f.
11.6
11.7
11.13-24
11.17f.
11.20-22
11.25-30
11.29
12-13
12.1-2
12.2
12.19
13.1-7
13.8-10
13.9
13.10-14
13.13
13.14

64
247
264
176
14,57,175
24,77,128
25,188
264
192
188
177
4
175
175
103,175
108,174
174[.
53[.,56
54
100,108,168,170,174
70, 163,174, 175f.
17, SO, 53-56, 65,175
54[',62,70,72, 175
4,153
163
163
54
174f.
175
174
4
264
188
117
54
198
173
185
263
188
78
49,64,77
236
68
7,27
7,26[.,33-35,63,64-66,
68,70,78,113,139,246
25,68
117
149
112

303

14.15
14.19
14.20
14.21
14.22f.
15.1-9
15.1
15.2
15.4
15.8
15.14
15.18
15.19
15.30

76,78
64, 77
246
246
48
27
24,48, 78f., 246-248,
258
64
103
24,48,246,258
246
49
64
64
64
83
248,250
247
82
173
82

1 Corinthians
1-4
1.14
1.16
1.17
1.18-31
1.23
1.26-31
1.29
1.31
2.1-5
2.6-16
2.8
2.11
2.14
3.1
3.3
3.11-15
3.16
3.18-4.7
3.21-23
4.4
4.17
5-6
5.1-5
5.1
5.4
5.9-13

173
143
143
173
173
249
172f.
172[.
170,174
267
173
250
103
103
116
116
185
116
173
173
231
115
117
116,185
100
247
116

14
14.1-15.13
14.1
14.2
14.5
14.13
14.14

304
5.13
6.1-11
6.9
6.12-20
6.12
7.10
7.12
7.17-24
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.25
7.32-34
8
8.7-13
9.8
9.8f.
9.12
9.14
9.19-23
9.19
9.20-22
9.20
9.20f.
9.21
9.22
10
10.1-13
10.23
10.24
10.29
10.33
11.23
11.25
13
14.21
14.34
14.37
15.2
15.9
15.45
15.56
16.12
16.23

Index of Passages

127
116
185
116

24,48f.
78, 81, 246f.
247
19
198
75

7,63,67f.,81,139,149
78,81,247
103
236
77
16
17,68,128,139
114
81,247
75,260
252
19
74,248,262
16,19, 77-81
20,75,105
258
76,236
185
24,48,236
114
236
75,114
247
242
101, 113f.
16,68
68

80f.,247
184, 186
118
143
7,141,143,148,151
173
247

2 Corinthians
174
1.12-14
247
1.14
7,14,44-46,47,57,
3
60, 152f., 176, 233
243
3.1-3

3.2
3.3
3.6-18
3.6
3.6f.
3.7-18
3.7
3.9
3.13
3.14-18
3.14
3.15
4.4
4.14
5.10
5.18-21
5.20
6.14-7.1
6.14
8.15
11-12
11.24-33
11.31
12.12
12.20f.
12.21
Galatians
1.10
1.23
2-3
2.1-10
2.3
2.4
2.8
2.11-21
2.11-14
2.12
2.13
2.14-21
2.14
2.14f.
2.15-21
2.15
2.15f.
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20

243f.
243-245
7,105,243
105, 150 f., 178,233, 242, 245
25,83,157
16
150f.
150f.
56
7
242
72
57
247
184
60
82
6
214
68
174
262
247
173
116f.
185

234
175
176
10, 248, 258
74
129, 182
248,255
19
10, 73, 75f., 216,248,258, 263
184
259
169
20,259
19

47f.,70,179,254,259
16, 76, 104
171,177
162f.,259
76,257
13,19,47,56,58,70,
76, 179, 258, 259f
57f., 61,143,258
60,64

Index of Passages
2.21
3-4
3
3.2-5
3.6-9
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.10-14
3.10-12
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13

3.13f.
3.15-25
3.15-20
3.15-18
3.15-17
3.16
3.17-20
3.17
3.17f.
3.18
3.19-25
3.19

108f., 162, 169,209

5,23,31,64,79,204,
233,267
47,73,110,140
19,163,177,189
94,163
163
189
95,169
19
55,94-9~

109,177

4, 63f., 118-122, 124,

126, 130, 250
17,163
14,17,63,153,163
9,17,21,47,58,
59-61,151, 158, 205,
249-251
19[
222
21,23,43[,45,62,
128,136-138,230,245
256
129[,208
73
239
16f., 19, 129, 208
151
17,163
60, 145
9,17,24,56,59,140,
151,153,205,209,
220,227

3.19f.

22,128-I33,134f.,
139,140[.144[,148,256

3.21

132,151-154,192,
208
163
13,150
132,145,151,163

3.2lf.
3.22-25
3.22
3.23-26
3.23-25
3.23
3.23f.
3.24
3.25
3.26-29
3.26
3.28
3.29
4-5

20,21,23
56f.
175,206
131
44,145
44,79,175
23
44
259
21
46

4.1-11
4.lf.
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4f.
4.5
4.5f.
4.8f.
4.9
4.10
4.12
4.21-31
4.21
4.25
4.30
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.6
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13-6.10
5.13-26
5.13f.
5.14-23
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19-21
5.21
5.22
5.22f.
5.23
5.24
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.7
6.13
6.14
6.15

305
22[,"204
20
131
20,131
250
59,131,248
44

20[
20
131
76
75
44,62,70,72,242
16,56,70
46
16
20,22,59
27,55, 63f., 95,190,
261
162,185
67[,139
247
74
76,85,258
79
114
63[,68
113
7,9,26[, 33f., 65f.,
78,80,139,222,246
116
112,115
115,117
114
114
185
65,79,190
66, 104, 114, 124
64,114f.
112
79f.,116
16, 64f., 77-80, 238,
240
80
169,171
185
96,169
169
67[,139

Index of Passages

306
Ephesians
LlO
1.23
2.1-3
2.3
2.8f.
2.14-18
2.14
2.14f.
2.15
4.17-19
4.24-32
5.10
6.2
6.2f.
Philippians
1.1
1.9
LlO
1.25
2.8
2.12
2.19
2.20
2.20f.
2.24
3.2
3.3
3.4-11
_ 3.4-6
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.8
4.9
Colossians
1.19
1.21
2.6-23
2.8-15
2.8
2.9
2.13
2.17
2.20
2.22

27
27
197
104
197f.
20
205
83
225
197
117
84
206
84

234
49
49,77,236
247
250
185
247
129
114
247
7,76,85,176,258
105, 128
106, 169f., 175f.
118
106, 109, 163, 230f.
77
163
49f., 114, 119
50

27
205
203-205
31
22
27
31
84
31
31

1 Thessalonians
115
1.7f.
117
254
1.9f.
115
2.8
263f
2.14-16
247
2.15
262f.
2.16
247
2.19
115
3.6
117
3.10
3.11
247
115
3.12
115,117,247
3.13
254
4.1-8
4.lf.
115
82,247
4.2
4.3-12
117
112
4.5
115
4.8
27
4.9
115
4.9f.
4.15
247
115
5.8
115
5.13
117
5.23
1.3

2 Thessalonians
247
3.4
1 Timothy
1.4-10
1.7-10
1.8
1.9
2.10
5.18
6.18

31,206
119
206
206
198
207
198

2 Timothy
1.9
Ll2
3.17

198
247
198

Titus
LlO
1.13-16
1.14
2.11f.
2.14
3.1

206
206f.
207
206
198
198

Index of Passages
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.9
3.14
Hebrews
1.9
2.2
2.2f.
3.16-19
4.6
5.1-4
6.1
7.11-25
7.11
7.12
7.16
7.18
7.19
7.22
7.28
8.2
8.5
8.6
"8.7
8.8-13
8.8-12
8.13
9.1-10
9.8
9.9
9.10
9.13
9.14
9.15
9.16f.
9.23f.
10.1
10.4
10.9
10.11
10.15
10.16-18
10.17
10.26
10.28
10.29
1O.38f.
11.7
12.18-24

198
198
198
206
198
214
131,133[,139,155,209
30f.
155
155
208
196
208
208
154,207
154,207,209
154,207,209,219
154,207
208
207f.
207
208
208
154f.
245
208
154,208
208
209
207f.
208
207
196,208
208
208
208
154,208
30,209
208
209
209
245
214
196
31
196
196
196
155

307

12.25
13.9

30
208

James
1.3
1.12
1.25
1.27
2.1
2.8--13
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.10f.
2.11
2.12
2.14-26
2.24
3.2
4.11f.
4.12
5.15f.
5.19f.

197
197
211
210
211
12
210f.
211
121,211
119
211
210
196,211
197
120
31
211
197
197

1 Peter
1.18
2.5
2.9
5.12

212
212
212
212

2 Peter
2.21
3.2
3.16

212
212
197

1 John
3.4
3.23
5.2f.

214
212
212

Revelation
1.5
2.20
2.23
2.24f.
2.26
3.8
3.10
5.9
7.14
12.17

219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219

Index of Passages

308
13.8
14.3f.
14.12

219
219
219

19.8
22.12

219
219

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Wisdom of Solomon
53
2.11
182
3.9
182
4.15
182
6.18
182
8.17
182
8.21
181
9.13-18
9.18
181
181
10ff.
1l.23ff.
181
12.2
181
12.19ff.
181
108
13-14
13-15
124
15.1ff.
182
182
16.7ff.
16.7
181
181
18.5
181
18.7
Buuch
2.35

4Ezra
3.8
3.20-22
3.26
3.36
4.30
4.38
7.48
7.60
7.72
7.77
7.81
7.92
8.31-36
8.35
8.48f.
9.36f.

177
190
190
124
158
122
123
190
123
123
123
123
123,158
122
122
123
122

2 Baruch
48.38
48.40

177
177

1ubilees
6.34

135

6.~2

242

1 Maccabees
1.11
2.27
2.55

136
71
64

4 Maccabees
5.16-21
5.25
5.33

72
71
71f.

Apocalypse of Moses
1
133

121
121

Testaments of the Patriarchs

Testament of Levi
9.7
34
14.4ff.
124
16.1
34
16.1f.
124

3Ezra
4.34-40
4.37

Letter of Aristeas
34
129-171
35
139
34
167-169
38
170
234
38

Assumption of Moses
1.14
131
3.12
131

Testament of Dan
6.2
131,133

309

Index of Passages

Testament of Asher
34
2.9f.
4.5
34
SibyHian Oracles
3.218-247
124
3.219
38
3.234
38
38f.,64
3.246
39
3.266
3.272
39
39
3.281
3.575-579
39
3.591-595
39
39
3.686
3.688
39
3.717
39
3.719
39
39
3.733f.
3.757-759
39
39
3.772
39
4.8
4.27-30
39
4.130-136
40
40
4.165

Pseudo-Phocylides
31
37
84f.
37
139
37
147f.
37
228
36,38
Pseudo-Philo
9.7f.
180
11.1-3
180
12.7
122
13.10
180
16.1
134
21.10
180
23.2
180
23.10
180
25.9-13
122
25.13
134
30.7
180
49.5
122
62.9
122

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

1 QS
1.13f.
8.8
8.16ff.
10.6
10.8
10.11

121
121
121
210
210
210

ill
3.14f.
4.12ff.
5.13-17
6.18f.

134
124
99
135

Temple Scroll
59
64.6-13

4QpNahum
59
3-4 I 6-8

JOSEPHUS AND PHILO

Josephus
Antiquities
1.230
1.315
4.145-147
13.311-313
15.136
15.157
20.38ff.

War

51
50
72,133,236
189
130, 133f.
50
40

1.11
2.90
2.159
5.20
6.239
6.346
6.353

51
50
189
51
50
50
50

310

Index of Passages

De speciaJibus leglllUs
1.54-57
36
1.316
36
2.187
51
2.242-257
36
3.208f.
35
4.96
51

Contra Apionem
2.213
37
Philo
De confusione linguarum
2ff.
93
Dedecalogo
175

De virtutibus
180ff.
124

135

De vita Mosis

De migratione Abrahami
89-93
35,93, 136f., 221,254

2.166
2.188

131
135

De somniis
1.14lff.
1.142

In Flaccum
165

204

133
131

Quaestiones in Exodum
11.2
40
RABBINIC LITERATURE

Mishnah
Nedarim
3.11

40

Pesahim
96a

40

Sukkah
52b

157

Sanhedrin
10.1

134

Rosh Ha-Shanah
28a
233

Makkoth
3.16

189

Yebamoth
46a

40

BabaBathra
16a

157

Sanhedrin
21b
8la
97a

236
121
237

Makkoth
23b
24a

189
121

Tosefta
T. Sotah
14.lff.

100

Babylonian Talmud
Berakoth
28b

191

Shabbath
30a
3la
151b

61
33
237

Abodah Zarah
9a
237

Index of Passages
Hullin
4b

40

Niddah
61b

237

311

Exodus Rabbah
5.9
157
30.11
157
31.13
121
31.14
121
Leviticus Rabbah
13.3
235
35.5
244

Palestinian Talmud
p8erakoth
3c

36

Deuteronomy Rabbah
37
6.2

pMegiIIah
70d

237

Ecclesiastes Rabbah
1.2,4
245
Tanhuma
Jethro 10

Midrashim

Sifra
Ahare 13.10

235

Aboth d'R. Nathan

2
157

Sifre Numbers
112
72

Midrash on the Psalms

146.4
235f.,237f.

Sifre Deuteronomy
306
157

Pesiqta Rabbati
21
133
21.16
157

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Gospel according to the Hebrews
11
192
Aristides
Apology (Syriac)
14
139
8arnabas
2-3
2.6
3.6
4
4.6
4.7f.
4.9
5.1
5.6
9.4
9.6

220
220f.
220
220
220
220
220
27
221
139, 220f.
139

9.8
10
10.1f.
10.9
10.11
14
14.5
15-16
15.5
15.6f.
16.2
16.7

139
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
221
120
221
220

Chrysostomos
Homilia in Rom.

12.2

62

312
Epiphanius
Panarion
28.1.3
33

Index of Passages

140
224-226

Eusebius
Praeparatio evangelica
8.7
37
8.9
37
Ignatius
Magnesians
8.1
9.1
9.2
10.2
10.3

Kerygmata Petrou
Homilies
1.8
140,226
2.38
140,226
3.47
140,226
3.50
225
3.51
227
3.52
140,227
Recognitions
1.15

219
219
219
219
219

Philadelphians
5.2
219
6.1
219
Justin Martyr
Dialogue with Trypho
11.2
223
12.2
120
16.2
156
19.6-20.1
156
20.4
120
21
156
21.1
32,160
22.1
32
25.lf.
168
27.3
99
27.4
120
32.1
59
44.lf.
168
44.2
223
45.3
223
55.3
120
67.4
223
67.10
156,223
89.2
59
90.1
59
94.5
59
95.1
98
102.6
168,170
140.lf.
168
141.2f.
168

140,226

Maca.rius Magnes
Apocriticus
3.30
3
3.34
3
Origen
Comm. in Rom.
5.6
62
Polyca.rp
3.3

64

Ptolemy
Letter to Flora
3.2
224
3.4
224
3.7
226
3.8
225
4.2-13
225
5.1
225
5.3
225
5.4f.
225
5.7
225
5.8-15
225
6.2
225
6.4f.
225
6.6
225
6.11
225
Tertullian
Against Marcion
1.19
221
Nag Hammadi Codices
Gospel of Philip
NHCII.
73.27-74.12 157

313

Index of Passages

Second Treatise of the Great Seth

NHCVII.
2.62.27-65.1 222

Testimonium Veritatis
NHCIX.
30.2-18
156
NHCIX.
48.4-8
156

OTHER ANCIENT LITERATURE

Appianos
Basil.
1.2
Juvenal
Satires
14.96-106

50

Polyaenus
Strategemata
5.15.2
50

41

Polybios
Hist.
2.58.10

50

Strabo
Geography
16.2.34-45

135-137

P.Oxy
2.261

260

P. Tebt.
317.1Of.

260

Ovid

Metamorphoses
8.18
230
Photios
Bibliotheca
109a 25-26
Plato
Epistle 7

50f.

261

Index of Authors
Aleith, E., 206, 208, 224
Althaus, P., 2,111,113,115,118
Aly, W., 135,137
Andrews, M.E., 12, 15, 183,201,229,
267,269
Aulen, G., 151
Bacon, B. W., 248
Bamberger, B.J., 41
Bammel, E., 80, 129, 238f.
Bandas, R.G., 17,148
Bandstra, A.J., 20-22,53, 55f.
Banks, R.,-84, 245
Baring-Gould, S., 2
Barr, J., 165
Barrett, C.K., 45,58,80,101,141,171,
177,231,243,245f.
Bartchy, S.S., 75
Barth, C., 226
Barth, G., 86-88,213f.
Barth, K., 104, 114, 149
Barth, M., 11,53,63,72,96,104,162,
177,183
Bauer, B., 6
Bauer, W., 64, 129f., 143
Baules, R., 53
Baumbach, G., 256
Beck, I., 148
Becker, J., 19,63,90,94, 184,217
Beker, J.C., 23,97, 106,114,230,233,
249-251
Ben-Chorin, S., 229,237
Benoit, P., 65
Berger, K., 29,34-36,38,40,51,94,
97,134
Bernays, J., 36f.
Bertram, G., 165
Best, E., 53,70,82,114,117,192
Bethge, H.-G., 222
Betz, H.D., 2,10, 19f., 22, 44, 57f., 63,
65,72, 75f., 79f., 96,115, 129f.,
136,162,183,189,257,267

Betz,O., 189
Bickermann, E., 136
Bihlmeyer, K., 220
Billerbeck, P., 40,61,100,157, 165f.
Blackman, E., 140
Blaser, P., 16f., 26,49, 53f., 57f., 60f.,
69,80,83,105,115,130, 141f.,145,
150, 152f., 174f., 204
Blank, J., 158
Bligh, J., 19,24
Bohlig, H., 254
Bohmer, S., 24lf.
Bogaert, P-M., 180
Bonnard, P., 19f.,22
Borgen, P., 124
Bornkamm, G., 26,69,72,89, 97f., 102,
104f., 111f., 142, 164, 194,214,230,
232
Borse, U., 8,258
Bousset, W., 19,25,62,94,96, 165 f.,
219,261
Brandenburger, E., 122f., 142, 144-147
Brandt, W.J., 15,269
Branscomb, B.H., 191,245
Braun, H., 15,24, 110f., 192,245
Breech, E., 123, 180
Bremer, P.L., 107,162
Bring, R., 4, 42f., 53,55 f., 60, 72, 95,
130, 140f.
Broer, I., 87 f., 213
Brooke, G., 1.68
Brown, R.E., 196
Brown, S., 88,252,255,259
Bruce, F.F., 19, 114,240
Buber, M., 94,122, 159, 175, 229f.
Buck, Ch., 7, 9, 57
Biichler, A., 165
Bugge, Chr., 237f.
Bultmann, R., 18,25,42,45,58,76,81,
83,90,97,104,110-112,116,141,
147,150, 164f., 169-172, 175, 178,
183,260

Index of Authors
Burchard, C., 87,197,211,246
Burger, C., 204
Burridge, K., 77
Burton, E.D., 17,19, 48f., 59, 74, 79
Bury, R.B., 267
Bussmann, C., 97, 181
Byme, B., 19f., 25,51,53,61,94,129,
184,186,260
Caird, G.B., 4,91,108,131,151,157,
229f.
Callan, T., 130f., 133, 139, 157
Calvin, I., 43f.
Cambier, I-M., 26
Campbell, D.H., 109
Campbell, W.S., 53
Campenhausen, H. Fr. von, 138,208,217,
224-226
Caxlston, C.E., 248
Case, S.I., 256
Catchpole, D.R., 258f.
Cavallin, H.C., 163
Cerfaux, L., 2,97,114,164,261
Chadwick, H., 74
Charles, R.H., 219
Charlesworth, I.H., 34
Clements, R.E., 126
Collange, I-F., 57
Colson, F.H., 35
Conzelmann, H., 1,4-6, 10f., 25,81,83,
92,114,150,153,182,214,219,223,
232,252,258
Cranfield, C.E.B., 3f., 27,42-47,51,
53-56,58, 62f., 66, 69, 72,101,104,
109,114,119,133,141,174,225,
240f., 243, 247
Crouch, I. E., 37, 40
Cullmann,O., 152
Dabelstein, R., 97
Dahl, N.A., 1 f., 58, 96, 163, 168, 173,
214,231
Dalbert, P., 37
D'Angelo, M.R., 83,209,215
DAnker, F.W., 146
Dassmann, E., 196,208, 217
Davies, W.D., 74, 77 f., 87f., 122, 183,
189,237-239,245,263
Deissmann, A., 12,229,234,268
Delling, G., 22f., 53f.
Derrett, I.D.M., 62

315

Demann, P., 53
Dequeker, L., 42
Dibelius, M., 22, 31, 99, 121, 130f., 203,
207,211
Dietrich, W., 126
Dietzfelbinger, Chr., 87,180
Dinkler, E., 60
Dix, G., 184
Dodd, C.H., 7,16,48, 6lf., 70f., 78-81,
97,99,108,122, 14lf., 144, 165, 189,
217, 229f., 247
Doeve, I.W., 70
Donfried, K.P., 9,184-186
Drane, I.W., 7-10,15,22,49,53,59,
68,75,96,106,115,131,133,143,
148
van Diilmen, A., 16,20,26,54,58,68,
70,78,94,99,103,106,115,129,
14lf., 144f., 152, 169, 172, 174,260
Dugandzic, I., 45,53,69,114
Duncan, G.S., 19f., 57,141,177,249
Dunn, I.D.G., 109,113,251-253
Eckert, I., 63,96,250,259
Edelstein, L., 267
Edwards, E.G., 19, 124, 250
Egger, W., 191-193
Ehrlich, E., 165
Eichholz, G., 1,100,124, 196f.
Eichrodt, W., 159
Eissfeldt, 0., 34
Ellis, E.E., 42,53,73, 163, 184, 244
Eltester, W., 214
Enslin, M. S., 256
Fabris, R., 210f.
Fallon, F. T., 135,225
Feine, P., 10,19,65, 103f., 107
Feld, H., 76
Fenton, I., 88
Feuillet, A., 27,53,78, 109f., 144,240
Fiedler, P., 166,185,242
Fischer, K.M., 1,83,198
Fleischhauer, 18,53
Fliickiger, F., 53f., 56, 102-105
Flusser, D., 37,165,178,268
Friedliinder, M., 38f.,93
Friedrich, G., 51,69,78,117
Fuchs, E., 5lf.
Fuller, D.P., 53f., 174f., 177
Fuller, R.H., 246

316

Index of Authors

Fung, R. Y-K., 45,172

Furnish, V.P., 7, 27,53,68, 111
Gaechter, P., 12,75,253,259
Gager, J., 77, 135 f., 231-233
Gale, H.M., 6H.,243f.
Gardner, P., 11-13,28,74
Garnet, P., 122, 179
Garscha, J., 159
Gaston, L., 18-20,51,77,162,166,179
Gayer, R., 68
Georgi, D., 57,243
Gerhardsson, B., 2,65,78
Gerleman, G., 165
Gese, H., 134, 159f., 239f.
Gifford, E. H., 17, 62, 71
Glock, J.Ph., 25,62
Gnilka,1., 50,106,197, 203f.
Goodenough, E.R., 124,234
Goppelt, L., H., 101
Grasser, E., 11, 196
Grafe, E., 9, 17, 25 f., 53, 62, 66, 103,
250
Grant, F.C., 12, 72f., 147, 166, 168
Grant, M., 12,28,101,117,229,231
Grant, R.M., 134, 136f., 173
. Gressmann, H., 165
Gr~bech, V., 12, 229
Gronemeyer, R., 4,62,65,131,151
Grosheide, F.W., 81
Gross, H., 164
Grundmann, W., 94,119,191
Giittgemanns, E., 75f.
Gulin, E.G., 151,169,229
Gundry, R.H., 109f.,230f.
Gunther, J.J., 74,96,131,183
Gutbrod, W., 16, 26f., 111
Guthrie, D., 19,22,130
Guttmann, A., 189
Guttmann, M., 25,37, 40f., 182
Gyllenberg, R., 20,52,58,68, 129, 140,
208,259
Haacker, K., 196
Haenchen, E., 74f., 92, 173, 191, 254,
257f.,262
Hahn, F., 19,51,78, 97f., 105, 145, 148,
163, 252, 259
Hanson,A.T., 99,163,204
Hanson, S., 151
Hare, D. R.A., 256

Harnack, A., 3,74, 139f., 195,214, 22f.

Harnisch, W., 122f., 158, 180, 19lf.
Harrington,D.J., 44,53
Hartman, L., 168, 181,215
von Hartmann, E., 3,59, 101,228
Hasler, V., 84f.,220
Haufe, Chr., 24f.
Hays, R.B., 163
Headlam, A., 17,51,53,62,65,69,141,
171,174,246
Hedenius, I., 3
Heinemann, I., 15,36,73,93,165
Heitmiiller, W., 219
Helfgott, B.W., 182
Hengel, M., 37f., 80, 136, 171, 181, 189,
234f.,251-255
Hering, J., 56,75
Herrmann, S., 241f.
Hick, J., 265
Hickling, C.1.A., 14,45,131
Hoheisel, K., 67,78,83,94,165-167,
169,234
Holsten, C., 17, 19, 24
Holtz, T., 49,257,259
Holtzmann, H.J., 119,152,206,229
Hommel, H., 61,110,142
Hooker, M.D., 57,98
Hoppe, R., 210f.
Horbury, W., 168
Horsley, R.A., 173
van der Horst, P.W., 36-38
Houlden, J.L., 31,206
Howard, G.E., 19, 2H., 53f., 95f., 162,
166,169,190
Howard, R.E., 18,57,103,164
Hruby, K., 166, 179
Hiibner, H., 1,5,7-10,13,19,24, 26f.,
34, 36f., 42, 50-52, 63, 65, 69f.,
84-89, 9lf., 94-96, 99,112,121,
130-132,138, 14lf., 144, 148, 153f.,
161,169,213,245
Hughes, P., 243
Hultgren, A., 162, 25lf.
Hummel, R., 84,87-89,193,214
Hunt, E.W., 229f.
Illman, K-J., 164
Jackson, B.S., 165
Jacoby, F., 135
Jaubert, A., 166, 182, 189

Index ofAuthors
Jeremias, J., 33,97,144,235,246
JeIVell, J., 8,30, 53f., 69, 74f., 91f.,
97f., 171 f., 195, 214-216, 235, 255,
257
Jewett, R., 10,111
Joest, W., 5, 152
Jillicher, A., 69,117
Jiingel, E., 53,105,141,144,146
Kasemann, E., 2-4,26,42,45,50,
52-54,58,62,64-69, 73, 77,98,
100, 104f., 110-112, 141f., 144, 146,
152, 171 f., 174,225,230,246,253
Kasting, H., 36,41, 101, 252f., 255
Kaye, B.N., 99, 146
Keck, L.E., 65f., 99,106
Kellermann, U., 126
Kertelge, K., 18,94,96
Kettunen, M., 9
Kim, S., 4,144, 171,175,249,252,256
King, N., 168
Kirk, K.E., 101
Klausner, J., 65,69, 117, 148,229,234
Klein, Ch., 166
Klein, Gottlob, 158, 237
Klein, Giinther, 19,97,131
Klevinghaus, J., 139,220f.
Klinzing, G., 135
Knox, J., 10,62,65, 187
Knox, W. L., 100,107.117,140,229,252
Koch, K., 126
Konig, A., 104,107
Koster, H., 105
Koschorke, K., 157,222
Kraabel,A.T., 41
Kraft, H., 252
Kraus, H-J., 165
Kremer, J., 45
Kiihl, E., 62f., 144, 152, 169, 246f.
Kiimmel, W.G., 8,48,62,81,105, 109f.,
113, 141f., 145, 147,167, 229f., 232,
244
Kuhn, H-W., 29, 59, 86, 191f.
Kuhn, K.G., 41
Kuhr, F., 104f.
Kurfess, A., 40
Kuss,O., 2,58,65,98,100, 104f., 108f.,
111,114,145,231
Lackmann, M., 102, 104
Ladd, G.E., 53, 114, 141

317

Llihnemann, J., 203,205

Lagrange, M-J., 14, 19,20,53,62,69,
130, 246f.
Lake, K., 254
Lambrecht, J., 76,85,260
Lang, F., 243,245
Lang, F.G., 191f.
Lapide, P., 178, 266
Laws, S., 197,210
Lebram,J.C.H., 135f.
Leenhardt, F., 58,246f.
Leivestad, R., 131, 133,249
Liedke, G., 164
Lietzmann, H., 17,19,22, 48f., 53, 57f.,
62,65, 69f., 76, 94,103, 114f.,
129f., 141-143,152,171,174,243,
245-247,259
Lightfoot,J.B.,8,17,19f.
Limbeck, M., 24,131,165-161,169,
179,181
Lindemann, A., 3,83,195,197,206-208,
212,219
Lindeskog, G., 230
Linton,O., 16,58,151,261
Lipsius, R.A., 53,69,94, 246f.
Ljungman, H., 90
LOning, K., 195
LOwy, M., 121,137,157,237
Lohfink, N., 126f., 161, 165
Lohmeyer, E., 177,191,204
Lohse, E., 1,22,51,78, 203f.
Loisy,A., 6, 13f., 19, 94,114,117, 130f.,
147, 149f., 164, 166, 182, 196, 209, 253
Longenecker, R.N., 53,55, 166,245
Lowe, J., 7f., 11,232,264
Luck, U., 169, 210f.
Lueken, W., 204
Liidemann, G., 7f., 10, 183f., 258, 263f., 267
Liihrmann, D., 166, 169, 177,210
Liitgert, W., 49,96, 248
Lull, D.J., 95,140, 163,177,183,189
Lust, J., 161
Luther, M., 229, 231
Luz, U., 2,9,19,21,24,31,53,70,80,
85,87f.,91,93-96, 101, 122,
141-144,146,153,155,166,194,
197,206,208-210, 213f., 217f., 230,
238, 249, 252f.
Lyonnet, S., 65, 112,230,240
Maher, M., 166

318

Index of Authors

Maier, I., 72,122, 166f., 237

Ma1ina, B.I., 231
van Manen, W.C., 6,107
Manson, T. W., 62, 86,91
Marcus, R., 181
Marshall, l.H., 62,65
Marxsen, W., 27
Mauerhofer, E., 114f., 118
Maurer, Chr., 19,27,49,83,94,103,146,
150,152,164,204,206,216,249
Mauser, V., 112,130
May, R., 232
McEleney, N.I., 1,40
Meeks, W.A., 267
Meier,I.P., 87-89,213f.
Merk,O., 27,75
Merkel, H., 248
Meyer, P.W., 46,51,53,158,174
Michel,O., 25,27, 53f., 58, 64, 69-71,
97,100,102,144,148,152,155,174,
207, 240 f., 246
Michels, F., 4,52
van der Minde, H-I., 53,94,99
Mitton, C.1., 211
Momigliano, A., 267
Montefiore, C.G., 13,87,91, 101, 167f.,
179,181,190,192,266
Moore, G.F., 14,95,109,120, 165f.,
182,234
Moule, C.F.D., 1,42, 164, 187
Moxnes, H., 70,265,269
Miiller, V.B., 219, 248,253, 255
Munck, I., 96,183
Mundle, W., 104, 122f., 169, 177, 189,
260
Murphy-O'Connor, I., 168
Murray, G., 158
Murray, I., 53
Mussner, F., 4, 19f., 27,48,59,76, 79f.,
83,94-96,101,129f.,166,172,183,
189,211,250,253,259,265
Myers,J.M., 164
Myre, A., 135

Nikolainen, A. T., 53f., 70, 141, 144

Nineham, D.E., 29,86, 19lf.
Nissen, A., 33f.
Noack, B., 5, 39f., 76, 143
Nock, A.D., 136,229,231
Nolland,J.1., 40,215
Norden, E., 135 f.
Noth, M., 124-127, 164f.
Nygren, A., 53,66,69, 102f., 105, 109,
114, 15lf., 230
Odeberg, H., 166
Oepke, A., 19f., 22, 44, 48,58,60,
74-76,80,94,115,129,132,141,
158,259
Okeke, G.E., 263
Ollrog, W-H., 173,253
O'Neill, I.C., 4,6,10,79,107,128,146
Ortkemper, F-I., 26-28
von der Osten-Sacken, P., 5,42,50-53,
55,64-67,69,101,265
Pallis, A., 6
Pancaro, S., 76, 90f., 120, 195f., 217f.
Panimolle, S.A., 196
Pannenberg, W., 250
Parkes, I., 12f., 74,154,166,268
Pasinya,1.M., 16,165
Paulsen, H., 66
Pearson, B.A., 173
Percy, E., 83, 130f., 196,204,248
Perlitt, 1., 241
Perrot, C., 122,180
Pesch, R., 29,86, 19lf., 258
Petersen, C., 164
Petuchowski,I.J., 183
Pfleiderer, 0., 25,62
Plummer, A., 80,243
Pohlenz, M., 106
Prat, F., 62
Pregeant, R., 107
Przybylski,B., 87,179,194
Quispel, G., 225 f.

Neil, W., 94,130,182

Nestle, W., 3
Neusner, I., 24,33,168, 182
Nickelsburg, G. W.E., 166, 186
Niederwimmer, K., 85,111,164,201
Nietsche, F., 72
Nikiprowetzky, V., 39 f., 135

von Rad, G., 126 f., 158, 161, 164,241,268

Raisanen, H., 4, 14, 5lf., 91, 101, l1lf.,
142,169-171,192,230,248,264
Reicke, B., 22,102,131,184
Reinhardt, K., 135
Reploh, K-G., 191

Index of Authors
Reventlow, H., 127
Richardson, P., 75,77,258-260
Richter, G., 196
Ridderbos, H.N., 19f., 24f., 48
Riddle, D.W., 72,75
Riedl, J., 17,26,104
Rissi, M., 243
Ritschl, A., 152
Robertson, A., 80, 243
Robinson, D.W.B., 20f.,74
Robinson, J.A. T., 8
Roetzel, C.J., 185
Roloff, J., 78, 101,170
Romaniuk, K., 212
Rordorf, W., 77
Rose, M., 127
Rubenstein, R.1., 232
Rudolph, W., 241
Ruether, R.R., 117,166, 264f.
Saldarini, A.J., 168
Sanchez Bosch, J., 170,173
Sand, A., 87,111
Sanday, W., 17,51,53,62,65,69,141,
171,174,246
Sandelin, K-G., 143, 181
Sanders, E.P., 23f., 28, 31, 48f., 77,95,
97,101,105, 107f., 111, 121-123, 152,
157,165-169, 171 f., 175f., 178-181,
183t,186-18~ 19~197,20~238f~

256,264
Sanders, J.A., 18,53,166
Sanders, J. T., 114
Sandmel, S., 13,63,73,101,133,135,
229,234,238,268
van de Sandt, H. W. M., 65
Schade, H-H., 8,10,117,251,263
Schafer, P., 235-237
Scharlemann, M.H., 40,251
Schechter, S., 15,157, 165, 168, 189f.,
244
Schlatter, A., 94, 100, 206, 246
Schlier, H., 16, 19f., 22,42,48, 58, 70,
74,76,79,94,100, 104, 111, 129f.,
140,163,174,197,230,259
Schlink, E., 80, 149
Schmid, H., 164
Schmidt, H.W., 54,70,105,144,246
Schmithals, W., 5,40,58,64, 74f., 96f.,
111,113t,171t,252t,262
Schnackenburg, R., 90

319

Schneider, G., 25lf.

Schneidermayer, W., 115
Schniewind, J., 2
Schoeps, H.J., 1,6,16,61,72,74,77,
94-96,110,121,133,150,158,165,
181,226t, 234, 237t
Scholem, G., 238f., 262
Schottroff,1., 99,122,167
Schrage, W., 25,45,49,60,81,83,111,
115,142,234,253
Schrenk, G., 65
Schubert, K., 62
Schiirer, E., 40f., 136
Schiirmann, H., 81
Schulz, A., 75
Schulz, S., 2, 30, 57, 84f., 88, 119, 178,
193-195,197,209,214,217
Schweitzer,A., 1,73f.,128,131,237,249
Schweizer, E., 85,88,103,113, 19lf.,
204f.
Scott, E.F., 206
Scroggs, R., 169,232,251-253
Seitz,O.LF., 31,210
Sieffert, F., 7,19-21,45,63,94,141
Siegert, F., 41
Siegwalt, G., 42,56
Sigal, P., 87,213
Simon, M., 39,65,139,227,251
Simonsen, H., 88f., 213
Sjoberg, E., 80, 166
Slaten, A. W., 17
Sloyan, G., 179,196,214,256
Smallwood, E.M., 261
Smend, R., 2, 164f., 266
Smith, M., 75,96,183,262
Soueek, J.B., 104f.
Spicq, C., 208
Stacey, W.D., 12,113
Stamm,R.T., 17,19
Stanton, G.N., 138
Steck, R., 128
Stegemann, E., 42
Stegemann, H., 41
Stemberger, G., 166
van Stempvoort, P., 80
Stendahl, K., 2,9,94.,108, 113, 118,
187, 230f., 237
Stern, M., 136f.
Stevens, G. B., 17, 25 f.
Stoike, D.A., 74,80
Strachan, R., 57

320

Index of Authors

Strecker, G., 87f., 147, 176,214, 226f.,

234,251,254,256
Stre1an, J.G., 79
StrobeI, A., 74,258
Stuhlmacher, P., 4, 18, 51, 53, 78, 80,
144,158,160,176,185, 239 f., 245,
249, 252f., 256
Stylianopoulos, T., 9,32,120, 155f., 208,
221,223,226
Suggs, M.J., 87
SuhI, A., 8, 10,96, 184, 252f.
Synofzik, E., 97,99, 105f., 124, 185f.
Tannehill, R.C., 58,76
TayIor, G., 7,9,57
TayIor, V., 192
Tcherikover, V., 35
Theissen, G., 262
Therrien, G., 49
ThieI, W., 241
Thiselton, A., 116
Thompson, A.L., 122,158
Thiising, W., 58, 82
Thyen, H., 42
Trilling, W., 88
Trocme, E., 1
Tiircke, C., 5,145, 152f., 250
TurmeI, J., 147
Tyson, J.B., 96,169,177
Ulonska, H., 27, 97
van Unnik, W.C., 133 f., 234, 243
Urbach, E.E., 16,233,235,238
Vanhoye, A., 130f.
de Vaux, R., 158-160
Vergote, A., 232 .
Vermes, G., 36, 134
Verweijs, ~.G., 1,222
Viard, A., 97, 104
VieIhauer, P., 8, 18,22,44, 72f., 163,
195,197,21O,220f.
Volkmar, G., 17
Vos, J.S., 57,94,103,106,124,243
von Wahlde, U.C., 195
Walker, R., 86,103,105,119, 196f.,
214
Wallis, G., 165
WaIter, J., 19,63,65,129

WaIter, N., 246

Weber, F., 165
Wedderburn, A.J.M., 10, 14, 147
Weder, H., 58,151, 249f.
WeineI, H., 229
Weiss, B., 246f.
Weiss, H., 204f.
Weiss, H-F., 222f.
Weiss, J., 10f., 14, 74f., 80f., 114,116,
143,185,219
Wellhausen, J., 164
Wells, G.A., 158
Wendland, H-D., 5
Wengst, K., 220f.
Wenham, D., 109,231
WerbIowsky, R.J.Z., 16,165,168, 178f.,
181
Werner, M., 25,84,86,119,138,
191-193,212
Wernle, P., 13,62,108, 117f., 177, 187,
248,265
.
Westerholm, S., l3lf., 154
Wevers, J.W., 159,165
WhiteIey, D.E.H., 141
Wilckens, U., 8, SO-53, 62, 66, 71, 78,
82f., 94,100,141,152, 169f., 175
Wilde, R., 220
Wiles, M.F., 3,53,62, 156
Williams, S.K., 9, SS, 60, 69, 162
Wilson, S.G., 214,251,253,255,257
Windisch, H., 57, 117f., 120, 151,209,
221,231, 243 f., 262
Wolff, Chr., 242-245
Wolff, H.W., 126
Wolfson, H.A., 35,93, 134, 137
WorguI, G.S., 53
Wrede, W., 11 f., 74, 101, 248, 254, 256,
262
Wiirthwein, E., 164

ZahnA., 42
Zahn, T., 104,246f.
Zehnpfund, R., 94
Zeller, D., 53,70, 175
Zenger, E., 166
Ziener, G., 182
Zimmerli, W., 158-160,165, 19lf.
Zimmermann, H., 208