Part Two

John G. Reisinger

In Part One of this series, we covered the origin of the "New Perspective on Justification." The view began with a man named Sanders who insisted that the Jews at the time of Christ and Paul believed in salvation by grace. This new view was necessitated by a new understanding of secular Jewish literature written contemporaneously with the New Testament Scriptures. This made it necessary to take a completely new approach to Paul's theology of justification. Ultimately, nearly everything hangs on whether Sanders' view is correct. We then discussed whether it is correct to call the view advocated by men like James Dunn, N.T. Wright, Don Garlington, Thom Smith, John Armstrong, and Scott Hafeman, a new view of justification, or is it only a new view of Second-Temple Judaism? We concluded that the view is indeed a radically different view of justification than that preached by Luther, the Reformers, and of most Reformed people today.

We listed some specific points where the Old and New views differed greatly. In this article, we will look at one major difference between these views. We will examine the very different views of the true nature of the Old Covenant. As we mentioned before, the New View insists the Old Covenant could be kept because it did not require sinless perfection. The Old View says the exact opposite. The Old View insisted that the basic purpose of the Old Covenant was to convict sinners of their need of a Messiah. The two views see two different basic purposes of the Torah of God. Garlington's New Perspective view of the Old Covenant is set forth in his book, Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:10-13. The purpose of this book is to resolve a supposed difficulty in Galatians 3:10-13. On the surface, the passage certainly appears to teach that Paul is insisting all men who are under the law are guilty sinners simply because they could not obey the terms of the Old Covenant. Garlington is insisting the exact opposite. He is insisting that the Torah could, and was in some cases, kept. What then can Paul mean in Galatians 3:10-13?

Garlington quotes a man named C.D. Stanley:

Whereas Paul's own statement appears to pronounce a "curse" upon anyone who would appear to live by the Jewish Torah, the biblical text to which he appeals [Deut. 27:26 in Gal. 3:10b] clearly affirms the opposite: its "curse" falls not on those who do the law, but on those who fail to do it. From: Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:10-13, p. 86

Garlington's immediate comment on Stanley's statement is as follows:

Therefore, while elements of the passage are straightforward enough, what remains contested is the rationale behind the apostle's conviction that his adversaries are under the curse of the Torah, and how exactly the text chosen by him supports his accusation.

Perhaps we should print out the verses being discussed:

10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Galatians 3:10-13

The meaning of Stanely's quotation, and Garlington's comment on it, is determined by the meaning of the phrase "to live by the Jewish Torah." I assume that "those who do the law" means the same thing as "those who live by the Torah." In no way does verse 10 say or imply that either Paul or Moses is pronouncing a curse on people who sincerely "attempt to live," in the sense as a rule for their life, "by the Jewish Torah." Jewish Christians, Seventh Day Adventists, as well as some covenant theologians, do that very thing today. However, seeking to obey the Torah, or "to live by it" because you love God, and seeking to obey the Torah in order to gain life, or be saved, are two entirely different things. This difference is the heart of the difference between Luther's view of justification and that of the New Perspective. In no sense is Paul condemning a person just because he uses the Torah as the guide for his life. Paul is condemning the man who is attempting to earn life, or salvation, by obeying the Torah. He is condemning the Judaizers who insist that circumcision and obedience to the Torah are essential to be saved or to be a true child of Abraham. Paul is clearly setting forth the two ways that men use to secure justification before God. The view of the Judaizers is "salvation by works" and the view of Paul is "salvation by grace." Are we justified by faith or are we justified by obedience to Torah? Are we justified by grace or by works? That is the issue and the real problem that Paul addresses. Of course, if Paul is comparing salvation by grace and by works, then the New Perspective is wrong at its starting point. Luther's understanding of Paul cannot be reconciled with the New Perspective's view that Second-Temple Judaism promoted salvation by grace and did not believe in a salvation by works. The New Perspective insists that Luther did not understand Paul because he read his fight with Rome into Galatians and Romans.

Garlington's problem, articulated by Stanley, arises when he attempts to make the Law to be something totally different from the traditional view's definition. In the New View, the Old Covenant can no longer be seen as a "ministry of death" (2 Cor.3) with a primary purpose of convicting unbelievers of sin. There is indeed a problem in Paul's theology if Torah was given to a redeemed people for their sanctification instead of given to a nation of lost rebels as a covenant of life and death to convict those lost rebels of their need of a redeemer. Here is a clear example of the radical difference between the New Perspective and the view of Luther and the Reformers.

Stanley is half-right when he says, "the biblical text to which he [Paul] appeals [Deut. 27:26 in 3:10b] clearly affirms the opposite: its 'curse' falls not on those who do the law, but on those who fail to do it." Deuteronomy 27:26 does indeed affirm that a curse falls on all who fail to keep the whole Law. However, Stanley is dead wrong in the way in which he tries to make Paul say something different than Moses. Paul is not contradicting Moses, he is quoting Moses. And he is quoting Moses simply because he, Paul, is saying the same thing that Moses said. Garlington insists that unless we realize that Paul is using "Reverse Role Playing" then we will not understand that Paul is contradicting Moses. It seems to me that Stanley, Garlington, and the New Perspective are totally missing Paul's point in Galatians 3:10-12. The whole point of the passage is that Torah cannot give life unless it is kept to perfection. The New Perspective must reject this view because it believes the Old Covenant could indeed be kept simply because it did not require perfect obedience. This is where the Old View would disagree with Garlington, Stanley, and the New Perspective. Here is Paul's logic:

• The Torah demands perfection.
• The Torah's curse must fall on those who do not keep it perfectly.
• No one can perfectly keep the Torah; therefore all who try to be justified by keeping Torah are under the Torah's curse. Moses and Paul are in clear agreement.
• The Galatians were going back to the very view of Torah they had left in order to become Christians. They were trying to earn salvation by law-keeping.

  Stanley uses this text to teach that some people can actually "do the law" or keep the Torah. What else can he mean by, "its [Torah's] 'curse' falls not on those who do the law, but on those who fail to do it."? This statement clearly implies that that there are some who are able do the law and will thus avoid its curse. The New View teaches that the Old Covenant did not demand perfection and could be kept. I think it is quite clear that when Paul, in Galatians 3:10-13, talks about "living by the law" he does not mean using the Torah as a standard to guide our behavior. He is talking about gaining life before God, or being justified, by one's obedience to the Torah. The New Perspective people that I know personally are quite emphatic that they no longer believe, as they once did, that the primary purpose of the Torah was to convict of sin and lead to faith.

  Garlington makes it very clear that he agrees with Stanley concerning the nature of the Old Covenant when he criticizes a man named Peter Craig for "two mistakes." Garlington says that one of Craig's mistakes is a failure to see that Deuteronomy 27:15-26 is dealing primarily with idolatry, and not with keeping the law perfectly. He then gives Moses a whole new twist. The emphasis in bold type is mine.

  One [mistake] is a failure to recognize that Deut. 27:15-26 revolves around idolatry, with its resultant problems. The cursed one [in Deut. 27], "who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them", is not merely the one who falls short at various points, but the apostate and the idolater. The 'reach of the law' is not perfect compliance with its demands, or anything approaching it, but fidelity to the God who graciously gave it to Israel. Ibid. p 97.

  The Old View has always understood and preached that the Law demanded perfect obedience, and used Galatians 3:10-13 as a proof text. The Old View taught, and I still do, that, "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10). That sounds like a demand for sinless perfection to me. Merely "falling short at various points" cannot be made to mean the same thing as "if you stumble at one point you are guilty of breaking all" of the law. The man in Numbers who was stoned to death for picking up a few sticks certainly appeared to merely stumble at one point. The shift of the New View on this point is not only forcing its adherents into clear conflict with the historic view of justification, but is really a whole new approach to all of Scripture. It uses a radically different paradigm than historic Reformed Theology does.

  Garlington continues with his criticism of Craig, and again the emphasis in bold is mine:

  The other mistake [by Craig] is a failure to realize that the law is in fact performable. Obedience to the Torah in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves (as distinct from later theologies) is never portrayed as an unobtainable goal. Rather, according to Deut. 30:11-20, it is a thing within Israel's grasp ('this commandment … is not too hard for you, neither is it far off', v.11). One is able to say this because, again, 'keeping the law', 'obedience', and such expressions, speak of perseverance, not sinless perfection. Ibid., p. 97.

  The New View's position that the Old Covenant can indeed be kept is not just contrary to "later theologies," it is contrary to how the New Testament writers understand and apply the true intent of the Law. Paul clearly states that the Law was given "to stop every mouth and prove all men are guilty…By the law is the knowledge of sin… I had not known sin but by the law…The law was added so the trespass might increase…the law works wrath…the law was added because of transgressions…Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone…" (Rom. 3:19, 20; 7:7; 5:20; 4:15; Gal. 3:19; 2 Cor. 3:7). The primary purpose of the law was to make sin increase so its true nature could be seen and sinners could feel their awful guilt. I cannot see how anyone can reconcile these texts stated above with the New View's claim that the Old Covenant did not demand perfection and was in fact performable.

  I think Garlington misunderstands and misuses Deuteronomy 30. His whole position rests on insisting that the Israelite could perform the obedience that the law demanded. Is he not in danger of throwing total depravity right out the window? The New View insists that the law did not demand either perfection or anything approaching it, but was primarily concerned only with the sin of idolatry and not with all the individual commandments. Did not our Lord condemn the Rich Young Ruler for this very thing? Did he not insist on every "jot and tittle" being kept?

  As long as a person did not go into idolatry then, according to the New View, he was OK. They then use Deuteronomy 30:11-30 as proof of these claims. Since the New View's whole position of the nature and purpose of the Old Covenant is tied up with this interpretation, let us look at the whole giving of the covenant in Deuteronomy, chapters 27-30, and see if their understanding is correct. The key text is Deuteronomy 27:26 which Paul quotes in Galatians 3:10. The question is this: "Is the major concern stated in this text, and context, merely idolatry or is there an equal concern for every detail of all the commandments in the Torah?" The New View's whole position of the Old Covenant rests on that specific question. I think the text and context are quite clear that it is the "whole law" without a single exception and not just idolatry. This is an example of how the New View will make a statement, build a whole point of doctrine on that statement, and then ignore texts that cannot be made to confirm what has been said.

  In Deuteronomy 27:1, Israel was commanded to "Keep all these commands that I give you today." Idolatry is not singled out or even mentioned. In verses 2 and 3, they are told to set up some large stones and "Write on them all the words of this law…." and again idolatry is not singled out or even mentioned. It is equally essential that all of the commandments are kept. Verse 14 says, "The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice" and then follows a list of specific commandments. If any of these are disobeyed by the Israelites, God will curse them. Notice the list of things that will earn God's curse:

  15: "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol…"

  16: "Cursed is the man who dishonors his father or his mother."

  17: "Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone."

  18: "Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the road."

  19: "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow."

  20: "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his father's wife…"

  21: "Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal."

  22: "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister…."

  23: "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his mother-in-law."

  24: "Cursed is the man who kills his neighbor secretly."

  25: "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person."

  26: "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out."

  It is true that verse 15 lists idolatry as earning God's curse. However, verses 16-25 then list ten other specific sins that equally earn the curse of God. Idolatry is clearly put on an equal level with the other ten sins. These verses not only do not back up Garlington's claim, they clearly refute it. It is impossible, from these texts, to prove the New View's thesis that the passage is talking only, or even primarily, about idolatry. Idolatry is one of eleven equal sins worthy of God's curse. Garlington insists that Deuteronomy 27:15-26 is "dealing primarily with idolatry" without a stitch of textual evidence and in the face of contrary evidence. There is a ten to one ratio between idolatry and the other sins, and all are equally under God's curse. Garlington's essential distinction making idolatry to be the primary emphasis is nowhere mentioned or even hinted at in the proof text.

  Verse 26 is conclusive and proves beyond doubt that for Paul "continuing in the law" did not merely mean persevering within some covenantal markers and not going into idolatry, but it meant keeping all of Torah to perfection. This verse is stating the exact opposite of what the New Perspective claims as the foundation point of its thesis on Galatians 3:10-13. I think Garlington misuses this text. Idolatry, in Deuteronomy 27 and in Paul's theology of "keeping the law" in Galatians, and for James in his Epistle, is, in one sense, no worse than sleeping with animals. Both are equally cursed of God in Torah and will earn God's curse.

  Again, as we continue on in Deuteronomy 28:1, we have the same exhortation. "If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth." The text does not single out idolatry, but it certainly does sound like God is demanding the same sinless perfection that James referred to when he talked about breaking the law in only one point.

  Deuteronomy 28:14-15 again speaks of "all his commandments." Idolatry is not singled out as the primary sin but is merely "one" of the "all commandments."

  Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them. However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you.

  In no way can those words be made to mean that only idolatry or apostasy could bring the curse of God upon an individual.

  Deuteronomy 28:58 sets forth the same message. Again, idolatry is not mentioned. "If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book . . ."

  Deuteronomy 29:1 records the specific covenant terms: "These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb." In verses 2 through 8, Moses reminds them of God's love and care for them in the past. He then exhorts them in verse 9 to, "Carefully follow the terms of this covenant, so that you may prosper in everything you do." God then again warns them about the consequences of disobeying the covenant in any of its parts or terms. Again, idolatry is not singled out.

  Deuteronomy 30:1-2 again exhorts obedience to "everything I command you." Idolatry is not singled out.

  When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today."

  There is not one iota of textual evidence for the basic presupposition of the New View concerning the nature of Torah. Where, in the whole of Deuteronomy 27 - 30, can anyone find evidence for the following statement?

  One [mistake] is a failure to recognize that Deuteronomy 27:15-26 revolves around idolatry, with its resultant problems. The cursed one [in Deut. 27], "who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them", is not merely the one who falls short at various points, but the apostate and the idolater. The 'reach of the law' is not perfect compliance with its demands, or anything approaching it, but fidelity to the God who graciously gave it to Israel." Ibid., p. 97.

  Both Deuteronomy 27:15-26, and its context, say the very opposite of what the New View is claiming. These texts clearly state the very thing the New View is trying to deny. I think it is important to remember that the New Perspective is forced into its view concerning idolatry because of its view of the nature of the Old Covenant. Of course, the same is true of Luther. He was also forced into his view by his understanding of the nature of the Old Covenant. The contrasting conclusions demonstrate how radically different Luther's view of the Old Covenant is from that of the New Perspective.

  The New View uses Deuteronomy 30:10-14 to prove its thesis that Israel could have obeyed the covenant. Again, it seems to me the texts do not back up this position.

  If you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 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.

  First, nowhere do these texts even mention idolatry let alone single it out. Moses is very emphatic that everything, all of the "commands and decrees that are written in the Book of the Law," are to be kept.

  Secondly, Garlington is using these verses to prove that it was possible for Israel to keep the law. He said, "according to Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it is a thing within Israel's grasp ('this commandment…is not too hard for you, neither is it far off', v.11)." It seems to me that the thing that is not "beyond Israel's reach" is not perfect, or even partial, obedience to the law but the clear knowledge of the law. It was not hidden. They did not have to go up to heaven or across the sea to find the law. God had clearly given it to them. That is surely the way Paul uses these verses in Romans 10:9-13. The following verses, 15 and 16, support this idea. God again reminds Israel of the covenant of life and death set before them. "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess" (Deut. 30: 15,16). Again, idolatry is not singled out or even mentioned. The exhortation is to obey every commandment and decree God has given.

  If the new view is right concerning idolatry being the primary emphasis, why would God have a man stoned to death for merely picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Why was that such a heinous sin? That act had nothing to do with idolatry.

  Garlington's problem with Galatians 3:13 really confuses me. He says,

  "Moreover, an additional complication arises out of the proposition of v. 13 that Christ, assuming the place of the incorrigible son of Deut 21, delivered ek hz kataraz tou nomou, genomenoz uper katara. [out from under the curse of the law, being a made a curse for us]. In what sense could the Messiah, for Paul, have actually been considered the "glutton and drunkard" of Deuteronomy 21 who would not obey the voice of parents?" Ibid., p.86.

  I cannot follow his exegesis here. Nowhere does Paul in any way suggest that Jesus was the "glutton and drunkard" in Deuteronomy 21. Garlington seems to be putting words into Paul's mouth. Let me quote the context (Deut. 21:18-23) of the specific passage (Deut. 21:22, 23) that Paul actually quotes in Galatians 3:13.

  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

  (Deut. 21:18-21)

  These three verses (18-21) are not quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:13. The following two verses are the verses Paul quoted in Galatians 3:13.

  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deut. 21:22 -23)

  It is true that verses 18-21 are talking about a stubborn and rebellious son, but verses 22 and 23, the verses Paul quotes, are not talking about a "stubborn son" but about "any man." There is a world of difference between "a rebellious son" who is stoned to death and "any man" who is publicly hung on a tree. Garlington seems to totally misunderstand Paul's point. Paul is not saying that Jesus was the rebellious son that earned God's curse. Paul is emphasizing that death on a cross, regardless of who ("a man, any man") it was that was crucified, was proof that the person died as a covenant breaker under the curse of God. Jesus was "made to be sin" and treated by God (death on a cross) as if he were a real sinner or covenant breaker. The rebellious son in Deuteronomy 21 was stoned to death, not hung on a tree. The kind of death Christ died means he was dying under the curse of God as a deliberate covenant breaker. This was the great problem for the Jews. They would ask, "How can Jesus be the Messiah when he dies under the curse of God as a covenant breaker?" They were right that he died under God's curse, but they did not understand that his death under the wrath of God was for our sins. His death delivered us from the curse of the law.

  I fail to see Garlington's problem with the text. How can he possibly think that when Paul uses Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 the death by hanging on a tree somehow refers to Christ as the stubborn and rebellious son in verse 18-21 that was to be stoned? The passage from Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 refers to "a man, ANY man" who "commits a sin worthy of death by hanging on a tree." Paul never mentions verses 18-21 in Galatians 3:13. He is showing that anyone, not just a rebellious son, who in any way sins against Torah is not only worthy of death, but a specific kind of death to prove they are covenant breakers.

  It seems to me that all of the New View's problems with Galatians 3:10-13 are of their own making. If we accept the traditional view (and as far as I am concerned it is the biblical view) of the purpose and function of the Torah as given to "make the trespass increase" (Romans 5:20) there is no problem. Garlington's whole approach, along with Stanley's, does not seem to fit Paul's view of Torah. It certainly cannot be reconciled to Luther's view.

  In our next article we will look more carefully at the New View's understanding of "getting into the covenant" and "staying in the covenant." This aspect of the New Perspective presents a different concept of the Gospel from that of traditional Reformed theology.

  
  Copyright 2004 John G. Reisinger