In what sense does Paul set the law of Moses aside, and in what sense does he retain it?

Michael Bird, in a recent post, summarize Paul’s views on Mosaic Torah in the following terms:

According to Paul the Torah exists in a set of binitarian antitheses between Christ and Torah and Torah and Spirit (e.g. 2 Cor. 3.1-9; Rom. 8.2; 10.4). The Torah points to salvation but does not provide it (Gal. 3.21-25; Rom. 3.21). Torah is bound up with the old age of sin, law, and death which those in Christ are free from (Rom. 7.5-6; 8.2; 1 Cor. 15.56). The Torah remains good and holy (Rom. 7.12). While the Torah can still inform the righteous behavior of the Jesus-believers (Rom. 13.9-10), the basis for upright living is the example of Christ (e.g. Phil. 2.5-11), the teaching of Christ (1 Cor. 9.20-21; Gal. 6.2), and life in the Spirit (e.g. Gal. 5.18; Rom. 7.6; 8.2-4). In the context of defending the integrity of his Gentile converts Paul regards law observance as leading to a curse (Gal. 3.10; cf. Acts 15.10), slavery (Gal. 4.22–5.1; Rom. 7.6) and he likens compelled obedience to Torah as to submission to hostile pagan deities (Gal. 4.8-9; Col. 2.14-15). What counts is not circumcision but new creation (1 Cor. 7.19; Gal. 6.15).

Is this an accurate summary? I don’t think so. Here is an attempt to adjust Michael’s summary to a broader range of texts:

According to Paul, mitzvot such as circumcision, refusing to eat meat offered to idols, keeping a kosher table, and calendrical observances do not bind Gentile Jesus-believers (Gal 6:12-13; 1 Cor 8; Col 2:16). He waged a pitched battle against those who compelled Gentiles to observance of said mitzvot, and in that context, likens obedience to Torah as no different than said Gentiles’ former submission to pagan deities (Gal 4:8-9; Col 2:14-15).

He could also refer to the Torah of Moses as a dead letter, and those who lived under it without the benefit of the Spirit as under a dispensation of death (2 Cor 3). At the same time, he thought Jesus-believers could read the Torah of Moses with the benefit of the Spirit, and interpret it aright. In that sense, Paul did not regard the Torah of Moses as abrogated at all. He continued to structure his exhortation around both narrative and legal portions thereof (Rom 4; 1 Cor 9:9). The Torah remains good and holy (Rom 7:12). Paul bases Christian ethics on it in matters large (Rom. 13.9-10) and small (1 Cor 7: the Torah as interpreted by Jesus with respect to marriage is affirmed but also expanded upon and adjusted, in typical rabbinic fashion, to suit the situation). At the same time, the example of Christ (e.g. Phil. 2:5-11) becomes the new criterion of Christian living. This is not unlike what we find in the gospel of John. God’s law remains valid, but the old commandment - love your neighbor as yourself - is subsumed (not abolished) by the new commandment - love one another as I have loved you – (John 13:34). By virtue of the Spirit, the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in the believer (Rom 8:4).

Paul continued to regard circumcision as an advantage to the Jew, “a seal of the righteousness Abraham had by faith” (Rom 3:1-3; 4:11). But he was adamant that the promises made to Abraham were valid apart from circumcision, and inherited by Gentiles through faith in the Messiah. Physical circumcision was meaningless apart from spiritual circumcision. A person is a Jew who is one inwardly: real circumcision is a matter of the heart. It is not enough to be circumcised to be a true Jew, one must also abide by the moral mitzvot of the Torah – a truth recognized, of course, by the law of Moses itself (Rom 2:17-29; Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; cf. Jer 4:4; 9:26).

No less than under the law of Moses, a Christian’s salvation could be undone by egregious transgression (Deut 30:19; Rom 5:16; 1 Cor 5). No less than Jesus, Paul understood righteous living to be an inevitable outcome of following Jesus - what Paul called life in the Spirit. The law might be summed up in a single commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Gal 5:14), but the Christian, in the strength of the Spirit, will give proof of living by a more all-encompassing list of dos and don’ts (Gal 5:16-26). No matter what the guilty party might say, Paul affirmed that those who persevere in works of the flesh – including those explicitly condemned in the Torah of Moses, such as sexual immorality, idolatry, and sorcery - cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21). Paul could also refer to “the law of the Spirit,” on the basis of which the deeds of the body are put to death, in opposition to “the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2, 13). The latter is not to be equated with the law of Moses (against Bird). “The law of God/the Spirit” and “the law of sin,” polar opposites, refer not to mitzvot but to dominions of sovereignty in Rom 7-8 (cf. 7:22-23).

Paul does not abrogate the law of Moses, except insofar as particular mitzvot are held to be non-binding on Gentiles. But that is no abrogation at all. Most mitzvot were never construed as binding on Gentiles in the first place, except by so-called “Judaizers” who thought of Gentile Jesus-believers as proselytes to be circumcised and made into Jews.

The blessings which accrue to those who keep mitzvot remain in effect, as do the curses with respect to those who do not (Rom 2:25). The curse which would otherwise fall on those whose break mitzvot - Gentiles included, with respect to mitzvot which apply to them - is removed by Christ’s death on the cross (Gal 3:13). On the other hand, the moment the removal of the curse is interpreted as an excuse to sin, the curse applies again, and will result in death (Rom 5:16).

I would be very surprised if I’ve succeeded here in capturing all of the nuances of Paul’s views on Torah and mitzvot. But I contend, in accordance with the measure of chutzpah meted out to me, that I’ve improved on Michael Bird’s attempt to describe Paul’s relevant views.

Comments

[James McGrath]

I've decided to bestow upon you the highly prestigious 'E for Excellent' award. Feel free to substitute a letter from the Hebrew alphabet as appropriate...

[JohnFH]

That's very kind of you, James. I will eventually get around to making my own awards.

[guest]

Your distortion of Paul is not an improvement. You would do well to read Seifrid's "Christ, Our Righteousness".

[Bob MacDonald]

John - I do like your deconstruction of this meme - bravo!

[JohnFH]

Guest,

You would do us all a favor if you pointed out the distortions you see, and argued your case.

I haven't read Seifrid, though I am intrigued that according to Simon Gathercole, he "takes seriously Paul's theology of final judgement according to works . . . thus showing the harmony between Paul and James." If so, Seifrid and I are in agreement more than your unargued Sibylline dismissal of my summary would suggest.

[guest]

I'm not saying that it is not necessaryily an either-or between "justifications by faith" and "works": only that the arguement you present as one more "textured" than, say, Peters, may not be as wholly textured and able to handle all the data you would like it to. Much of the above seems to me to be proof-texting rather than exegetical engagement. Perhaps Seifried is the "textured" view you seek. In any case, he is not afraid to have a go at tradition where it is needed.

[JohnFH]

Of course, in the space of six paragraphs seeking to cover all of Paul's relevant statements on Torah, exegetical engagement is impossible.

But Seifrid whom you reference sounds like an interesting read. If he is able to get beyond the usual "either/or" nonsense, that's already a step in the right direction.

[guest]

In my opinion Seifrid does indeed get beyond the typical either-or argumentation as he accepts "justification by faith alone" as well as final judgement being one of works. This paradox is explored without minimising either (it seems to me you have downplayed "justification by faith alone" in your own dealings with this issue and which is why Peter has been raising his voice in opposition). You may be interested too in the provocatively-titled article: Seifrid, Mark A. 2001. "Justified by Faith and Judged by Works: A Biblical Paradox and Its Significance." Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5/4: 84-97. You might be also interested in the following: Avemarie, Friedrich. 1996. Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur. TSAJ 55. Tübingen: Mohr.
Avemarie, Friedrich. 1999. "Erwählung und Vergeltung. Zur optionalen struktur Rabbinischer Soteriologie." New Testament Studies 45: 108-126. Laato, Timo. 1995. Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach. SFSHJ 115. Atlanta: Scholars.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, guest, for the valuable references. And you're right: the relative importance of Paul's emphasis on justification apart from works of the Law does not receive due emphasis in my summary.

[Peter Kirk]

"Paul does not abrogate the law of Moses, except insofar as particular mitzvot are held to be non-binding on Gentiles. But that is no abrogation at all."

Well, I can accept that Paul considered the mitzvot to be binding on those who accepted the Jewish religion, including circumcision. See Galatians 5:2-4. But this applied to the Galatian former believers because, at least in Paul's views, they had renounced the Christian faith and committed apostasy by being circumcised. So they were back in the position of 3:10-11: relying on the law and under its curse.

On the other hand, it did not apply to Christians, regardless of their racial background and their religion before they became Christians. I really don't think you can argue from Paul, in the light of Galatians 3:28 and 6:15, for racial discrimination in which commandments Christians were expected to obey. Compare 2:11-14 where Paul roundly condemns Jewish Christians for obeying the Jewish law of shunning Gentiles.

[JohnFH]

You make a good point, Peter, about Paul's condemnation of the Jewish practice of shunning Gentiles. But I think, like Jesus before him, he would reject the notion that such shunning is taught by God in his law.

Elsewhere in his correspondence, Paul is careful to create a space for Christians to abide by rules, such as not eating meat sacrificed to idols, even if Paul also refuses the suggestion that such rules are binding on all Christians (1 Cor 8). So I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions.