The Atonement in Galatians 3
I've learned the lesson of writing lengthy posts - they never get read fully and a lot of work goes to waste- so I've split this one up into three bitesize chunks which will hopefully be more nourishing. Part 2 here and part 3 here.
Reading Paul
Following on from my post on works of the law in Galatians, here's a few thoughts on the atonement in Galatians 3. Following the controversy over Steve Chalke's book The Lost Message of Jesus, the Evangelical Alliance held a symposium on the atonement (see here). Among the papers making a defence of penal substitution was this one by I Howard Marshall. Although I still on the whole disagree with his conclusions, he presents a good case and corrects some unhelpful errors that have arisen in some expressions of the doctrine, even in the writing of notables such as Wayne Grudem and also other theologians who have inseparably bound up the idea of penal substitution with a doctrine of limited atonement.
Marshall drew on one of the key texts for a scriptural defence of penal substitution by quoting Galatians 3:13, about which he states: "if this is not penal substitution, I do not know what is." Indeed this has been the normative reading of this Galatians text throughout most of evangelical exegetical history, although after having studied it as part of my thesis I'm less convinced that such a reading of the text really accurately conveys what Paul is trying to say.
Paul is not a systematic theologian, and we severely handicap our reading of him if we attempt to approach him as such. Christian dogmatic theology should not be a matter of simply cooking up a selection of verses and then, voila, producing a doctrine. That is to say nothing of attempts to create a doctrine first and then seek biblical texts to support it (pioneers of teetotalism as a Christian dogma being a good example of this in my own tradition). We will better understand Paul if rather than blending his writing into some kind of doctrinal purée (nourishing as it may be), we read his works as a whole and seek to understand the history, stories, and underlying ideas he brings to bear in his writings.
For instance, when Paul says 'the curse of the law' in Galatians 3:10-14 he is not talking about some general divine pronouncement on humanity, or on those who may try and earn their salvation by merit, and far less some kind of post mortem fate that awaits the unfaithful. In a passage that evokes the history of God's dealings with his people from Abraham onwards and the blessing-curse theme of the covenant (the OT quotes are in 3:10 and 3:12 are from Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5 respectively), the curse of the law that Christ bears 'for us' (more on who the 'us' is presently) has to be understood as the covenantal curse set out in the Torah, which enables us to think much more contextually and specifically about the 'curse' than interpretations of this text which want to turn the curse into some general sense of divine displeasure with the behaviour of sinners. This is not to say that there is no sense of judgement and wrath taken into account in the atonement, but that this is not what Paul is saying here.
Some problems with the traditional reading of Gal 3:10-14
First of all, here's a quick summary of Galatians up to this point. Paul is confronting a false Gospel that has reached his church in Galatia (note to the watchdogs out there: 'another Gospel' does not refer to the emerging church, N T Wright, arminianism, Roman Catholicism, Benny Hinn, Brian Maclaren, the charismatics, or anyone else who is often scandalously condemned on 'biblical' grounds by having Gal 1:6-9 hurled at them. Paul has quite something else in mind here.) and this other Gospel seems to advocate adherence to Jewish food laws and circumcision for Gentiles who have become Christians. These 'works of the law' are not medieval Catholic style attempts to earn salvation, but those acts (such as circumcision and food laws) which separate those who are 'Jews by birth' from 'Gentile sinners'. Paul chastises Peter for this, and reminds him that justification takes place not through the works of the law, but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (and faith in him of course, but that's an issue for another day.) What Galatians boils down to then is not 'how do I get saved?' or but 'who are Abraham's offspring, and thus the children of God?'. Paul makes clear in the opening part of Gal 3 that although Abraham was circumcised, he received the promise and blessing through faith, not by observing circumcision. Paul also points out to the Galatians that they received and experienced the Spirit in response to believing what they heard preached to them without any circumcision or any other works of the law, so why do they now consider these things necessary? Furthermore, this also shows that sharing in the blessing and the Spirit is done by faith in/faith of the Messiah, Jesus Christ and not by works of the law. so now we come to 3:10-14:
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."
I'm painting with a rather broad brush for the sake of brevity but the traditional evangelical reading of this text goes something like this:
1. Trying to earn one's salvation by good works invokes a curse, because complete obedience to the law is impossible.
2. Therefore everyone is under a curse, since they can never be obedient enough to earn salvation.
3. A better way to be saved is by faith, not relying on our own works.
4. God's justice meant all of humanity was under a curse, because of our lack of obedience.
5. To uphold his justice, he curses Christ instead of us by hanging him on the cross.
6. By way of exchange, the blessings are now transferred to us and are received by faith, together with the Spirit.
This is not to say of course, that the Bible does not therefore teach any of these things, but only that there is no way that Paul can possibly be saying what is attributed to him in these verses. It is not a cast iron "proof from scripture" for a doctrine of penal substitution, but evokes and elaborates something rather different.
Who is under the curse of the law?
The traditional reading of Gal 3:10 runs into problems because it assumes something that Paul himself does not actually say or, I would argue, even anticipate. It usually wants to read that the law demands full legal obedience, but this is impossible, and thus everyone is under a curse. There are multiple problems with this understanding.
Firstly, the covenantal nature of this passage with its allusions to Abraham, Deuteronomy and Leviticus means that the "curse of the law" must refer back specifically to the curses in the Torah, and any attempt to understand Paul apart from this is bound to run into confusion. This being the case, the "all" who rely on works of the law cannot possibly mean "all humanity" since coming under the curse of the law set out in the covenant can only apply to those who are part of the covenant people in the first place. Similarly, the "works of the law" are also bound up with the covenant, and need to be understood in this specific context first of all, not in some broader abstract scheme of merit or religious good works.
Secondly, it is highly questionable as to whether the Bible really does consider that full obedience of the law is impossible. This is not the view shared by the law itself:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it." (Deut 30:11-14)
Neither is it the view of the Paul prior to his conversion:
"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." (Phil 4b-6)
(Just as an aside here, it is interesting to note that Paul sees his righteousness in terms of his Jewish heritage (circumcised, part of Israel, tribe of Benjamin, Hebrew of Hebrews etc) and there are no connotations of his having 'earned' his righteous status by merit or good works. This understanding of being part of the people of God more accurately reflects the problems posed by the Judaizers in Galatia and their "works of the law" than an understanding of the Galatian problem as merit v grace.)
None of these things means that the law anticipated sinless perfection. Paul's claim that he was "faultless" does not mean that he never sinned, because it must also be remembered that the law contained a system of sacrifice and repentance for dealing with transgressions. There are then sufficient grounds for calling into question the traditional reading of the text which interprets 3:10 as saying all are under a curse who rely upon the works of the law because (it is assumed Paul is implying) such obedience is impossible. We have seen that obedience to the law was not necessarily impossible and that in any curse, the curse of the law is only extended to the covenant community of Israel, and Paul cannot mean that it applies to all of humanity because of universal human attempts to earn their salvation.
>
Go to part two.