Justification by the Law

[Mike Fraley]

I'm posting these ideas as I'm working through my sermon in Galatians this week.

One of the caricatures that we generally present of the Jews is one of justification through Law, and we often go on about the futility of such efforts. However, I'm wondering if that's really a fair representation given the nature of the Covenant in the Old Testament as I see it. First, it seems to me that the Law of Moses was given to the people in order to help them form their character. God is a God of righteousness, justice, and morality. Thus he wants the people to have a representation of his character, even if it is a dim reflection of it. The Law is therefore God's instructions on how the people can best be representations of God's character. Second, it doesn't seem to me as though the people saw the Law as the means to possessing righteousness. I believe the psalms tell us that no one is righteous before God, and our righteousness, therefore pales in comparison to his. Third, God tells us in Amos that he much more values the contrite heart than all of the empty sacrifices of a stubborn, loveless people.

I'd like to make sure that all of these are proper understandings before continuing on to the Galatians. So... am I right thus far?

If so, now we move on to the Galatians. Paul feels the need to say that righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the Law. Were the Galatians indeed relying on the Law for their justification? If so, wouldn't that be going farther than the Jews themselves did? Or were the Galatians trying to continue the ethinic/moral distinctiveness that the Law afforded the Jews, and Paul was using this occasion to further expand on a theology of righteousness?

It seems to me that it would be odd for the Galatians to go farther than the Jews ever did. But it also seems odd for Paul to simply use this as a springboard to discuss theology. Is there some other element that I'm missing here?

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm posting these ideas as I'm working through my sermon in Galatians this week.

One of the caricatures that we generally present of the Jews is one of justification through Law, and we often go on about the futility of such efforts. However, I'm wondering if that's really a fair representation given the nature of the Covenant in the Old Testament as I see it. First, it seems to me that the Law of Moses was given to the people in order to help them form their character. God is a God of righteousness, justice, and morality. Thus he wants the people to have a representation of his character, even if it is a dim reflection of it. The Law is therefore God's instructions on how the people can best be representations of God's character. Second, it doesn't seem to me as though the people saw the Law as the means to possessing righteousness. I believe the psalms tell us that no one is righteous before God, and our righteousness, therefore pales in comparison to his. Third, God tells us in Amos that he much more values the contrite heart than all of the empty sacrifices of a stubborn, loveless people.

I'd like to make sure that all of these are proper understandings before continuing on to the Galatians. So... am I right thus far?

If so, now we move on to the Galatians. Paul feels the need to say that righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the Law. Were the Galatians indeed relying on the Law for their justification? If so, wouldn't that be going farther than the Jews themselves did? Or were the Galatians trying to continue the ethinic/moral distinctiveness that the Law afforded the Jews, and Paul was using this occasion to further expand on a theology of righteousness?

It seems to me that it would be odd for the Galatians to go farther than the Jews ever did. But it also seems odd for Paul to simply use this as a springboard to discuss theology. Is there some other element that I'm missing here?

There were a variety of views on righteousness and the law in Judaism at the time of Paul's letter to the Galatians. Generally, if we take Paul at face value, it seems he's responding to a minority view on how the law affects righteousness within Judaism. However, we must remember that he is not responding in general theology but is combating a specific teaching which he views as false. It is very possible that the false teachers Paul opposes in Galatia (Jewish Christians) did in fact hold that view of righteousness through the law which is of the more extreme sort within Judaism at the time. However, there are also many more ideas offered for what exactly is going on and its an area of considerable debate within Pauline scholarship.

Another option, though, is that Jewish Christians were attempting to impose torah-observance on Gentile converts to Christianity. For some scholars this is the entire decalogue (I think this first one is the stronger option of the two) and for others it is simply Sabbath, Circumcision, and dietary laws. Either way, those last three were highly significant. Either way, within this view, it would not be that they are being saved by law-observance, but they are "staying saved" by law observance.

[Chris Wells]

Perhaps it will be useful to be reminded that caricatures and stereotypes originate from real people making real spectacles of themselves.

the Law of Moses was given to the people in order to help them form their character. God is a God of righteousness, justice, and morality. Thus he wants the people to have a representation of his character, even if it is a dim reflection of it. The Law is therefore God's instructions on how the people can best be representations of God's character.

Indeed.

Second, it doesn't seem to me as though the people saw the Law as the means to possessing righteousness.

But apparently some did, otherwise they wouldn't need corrected. Or maybe it is as you say,

the Galatians were trying to continue the ethinic/moral distinctiveness that the Law afforded the Jews,

So why do you find it odd that Paul uses this as a diving board for theology sharks and minnows? Doesn't the doctrine of righteousness through faith in Christ, which is an amplification, continuation, and consummation of the Hebrew Covenant, need to be rearticulated to redirect the wayward detours of the Galations? It seems to me you're addressing your own concerns. Then again, perhaps I'm overlooking some subtlety, and I don't see the potholes in the sidewalk.

[Mike Fraley]

Well... what I'm reading now is that these ideas aren't so much a matter of re-articulation for instruction to the Galatians, but an articulation of commonly held beliefs in order to build to something larger, and this is a rhetorical device employed by Paul. Paul being long-winded is a simpler explanation than having to invent a problem that we know was unlikely to exist.