\JSNT 26 (1986) 53-78]

''UNDER LAW*: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND PAULINE CONCEPT pF LAW IN GALATTANS 3:21-4:11 Linda L. Belleville
Wycliflfe College, Toronto, Ontario

Introduction HJ. Schoeps in his 1959 work, Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jdischen Religionsgeschichte, states that the Pauline understanding of the Law is in many ways the most intricate doctrinal issue in Pauline theology.1 Not only does Paul's usage of the term vary,2 but even where it is clear that refers to the Mosaic law, its exact nature, purpose, scope, and applicability are open to debate.3 On the one hand, the Law is "holy,righteous,and good' (Rom. 7.12) and the keeping of God's commandments is what counts (1 Cor. 7.19). On the other hand, Christ is the of the Law (Rom. 10.4) and the Christian has died to the Law (Gal. 2.19). In seeking to integrate Paul's various statements scholars have reached diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly with regard to the question of the relationship of the believer to the Mosaic law. For P. Blser itfollowsfromPaul's statements that the Law has been abrogated as a preceptive rule. It is no longer binding even though it remains God's law. With the coming of Christ the Law ceases to function as a standard of obligation for the Christian.4 Along these same lines F.F. Bruce talks in terms of 'an age of law' which was never meant to be other than a parenthesis in God's dealings with mankind. It has been superseded by 'the age of Christ'.5 C.E.B. Cranfield, on the other hand, can state that we are true to Paul's teaching when we say that God's word in Scripture is one. There is but one way of God with man. Hence, gospel and law are essentially one. In Christ the gracious purpose of the Law is clearly seen and the Spirit has set usfreefor obedience to God's absolute will as expressed in the Mosaic law. While it is clear that the validity of the ceremonial ordinances has passed except as a witness to Christ,

54

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

in so far as the Mosaic law reflects God's absolute will the Christian is bound to obey.6 It is particularly in light of these conflicting interpretations that GaL 3.21-4.11 stands as a crux interpretum for the Pauline concept of law. At the heart of the scholarly debate is a basic disagreement over the meaning of the phrase which occurs twice in Romans (6.14-15), three times in 1 Corinthians (9.20) and five times in Galatians (3.23; 4.4, 5,21; 5.18). It is a phrase peculiar to Paul and central to his argument in Gal. 3.21-4.11. For Paul it is the essence of the Christian's status and life that he is not but (Rom. 6.14f.) and that he is led (GaL 5.18). Therefore, to determine what Paul means by the phrase is to penetrate to the heart of the Pauline concept of law. In Gal. 3.21-4.11 Paul addresses the fundamental question 'Is the Law then opposed to the promises of God?' (v. 21), in answer to which he explicates the historical function of the Law, giving particular attention to defining its relationship to the Abrahamic covenant of promise and to the age of faith in Christ Central to this explication of the Law's function is the phrase . In v. 23 Paul summarizes this function as . Contextually to be held is to be 'shut up' () (v. 22), (v. 25), (4.2) and (4.3). It is important to notice that while these five phrases are syntactically parallel they are not logically parallel Verse 22 introduces the principal statement which Paul makes in answer to the question posed in v. 21 and on which he bases and develops his argument in w. 23ffi: . The implicar tions of this statement are spelled out in the form of two analogies: as being and as being . Thus, the logical structure of GaL 3.22ff. can be outlined as follows: (principal thesis) a: (past fact) b: (analogy) e: (present state; 3.26-29) b': (analogy) a': (past fact and present danger)

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galations 3.21-4.11

55

The intent of this article is to arrive at an understanding of the Pauline phrase that takes into consideration this structural analysis. The principal statement of Scripture confining all things under sin will be examined and the double analogical statements in 3.23-4.11 analyzed with a view to arriving at an understanding of the Law's function that is consistent with the chiastic structure outlined above. The Function of the Law: Gal. 3.21-4.11 Contextual Considerations: 3.1-20 Because Paul's treatment of is set within the broader discussion of the relationship of law and promise begun at 3.Iff, it is important at this point to get a sense ofhow his argument has led him to the fundamental question raised in 3.21. In 3.1-14 Paul argues that it is not those who are 'of the works of the Law' but those who are 'of faith' that are 'sons of Abraham' (3.15, 7). For it was on the basis of faith that Abraham himself was justified (v. 6) and that God declared that the Gentiles as well would be justified ( w. 8-9). Moreover, Scripture itself states that it is the one who Uves a life of faith who is justified (v. 11). The Law, on the other hand, is not based on a life of faith. It requires absolute obedience and stipulates that men shall Uve by accomplishing its demands (v. 12). It lays an obligation on the individual to observe it in its entirety if it is to be recognized as a norm for life (v. 10). Not only does adherence to a life of law not bring justification, but failure to adhere completely results in curse (v. 10). Paul goes on in 3.15-18 to discuss the temporal relationship of promise and law, arguing that God's promise to Abraham and to his 'seed' (Christ) could not be set aside or added to by a later covenant because this later covenant is not based on promise. Inheritance in the 'seed' is thus by promise and not by law. This conclusion raises the further question, 'What then is the Law?' (v. 19a). Paul's answer in w. 19b-20 is that the Law was given to bring to light sin as transgression of the defined will of God (v. 19b). It was not given directly by God but indirectly by divine messengers (or ambassadors) through the hand of a human mediator (v. 19c). Now this mediator represents the people as those who are under obUgation to uphold the Law. He does not mediate for God (who is 'one') but for the people (who are 'many*, v. 20). Because he is

56

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

mediator of a covenant on behalf of the many ('seeds') this covenant is not in the line of the promise which was given to Abraham on behalf of the one ('seed').7 Hence the Law is only temporary, instituted until the coming of the one seed (v. 19b). If the Law is not the indispensable link between Abraham and his seed, then it is legitimate to ask whether the Law does not in fact work against the unilateral promises of God (v. 21a). Paul's response in v. 21b is that if the Law had the power to vivify then there would be no need for a righteousness based on faith. The Law, however, does not work to bring life but has a very different function.8 It is this function that Paul goes on to expUcate in 3.22ff. It is significant that Paul shifts in w. 21-22 from not being able to impart life to confining all things under sin. most probably refers to Scripture as a distinct, authoritative entity (eg. , Rom. 9.17; , GaL 3.8) that functions as metonymy for God himself.9 The implication is that the action of'confining under sin' is by divine will and directive. as the expUcit subject of this action becomes the impUed subject of the four parallel statements in 3.23-4.3 and is to be differentiated from the Law which in w. 23ff. becomes the instrument of divine intent (i.e. ). The nature of this divine intent is captured by the phrase . can have the neutral sense 'to close' or 'to enclose' (e.g. , Gen. 20.18), the negative sense 'to confine' or 'to imprison' (e.g. , Exod. 14.3; cf. P. Fay. 135 [iv AD], or the positive sense 'to shut up for safekeeping* (e.g. P. Lond. 237 [iv AD] [] ).10 The neuter plural points to an all-pervasive state of affairs.11 would then refer to sin as the controlling principle within a given mode of existence. It might be tempting to see in Paul's use of the concept of sin as a power that needs defeating. , however, need not denote a negative state (e.g. Rom. 6.14, where the Christian is said to be )12 and it is Scripture that is the prevailing power in this passage, not 'sin'. The background for Paul's statement in v. 22 could be the idea that according to the judgment of Scripture all are without exception

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galations 3.21-4.11

57

sinners, sin being the controlling principle of their existence (eg. Rom. 3.9ff).13 If so, the meaning of the clause is parallel to the thought of Rom. 11.32: . would thus describe the character of existence: a system to which one is bound as a norm for life. Paul could also have a legal background in view, Scripture constraining all under the condemnation of sin (= , GaL 3.10).14 The background for Paul's thinking could likewise be the social notion of being sold as a slave to sin without thefreedomto do otherwise (eg. , Rom. 7.14ff ).15 A related background additionally cited is that of being held in custody as a lawbreaker with sin as the jailer.16 Any interpretation of this verse must be consistent with both the purpose of the Law as Paul defines it in v. 19a ( ) and the function of the Law explicated by means of the chiastic structure in w. 23fF. An accurate interpretation, therefore, depends on a closer examination of the subsequent verses. / Paul goes on to state that to be 'shut up under sin' (v. 22) is to be 'guarded and shut up under law9 (v. 23). This is by analogy comparable to being under the control of a paidaggos17 (w. 24-25). Verses 22-25 have been subjected to a variety of interpretations. Some have interpreted v. 22 in a negative sense and w. 23-25 in a positive sense. To be 'under sin' is to experience either Scripture's verdict of'sinner' or sin's enslaving power.18 To be 'under law* is to be under the guidance of a moral supervisor who either restrains those who are prone to sinfromdeviatingfromthe established norm or provides the power to control sin's influence.19 Such a negative-positive interpretation, however, destroys the structural parallelism of and by taking 'under sin' to denote a negative verdict of 'sinner' or a power of enslavement and 'under law9 to denote the positive means of controlling the results. This interpreta tion also requires that the verb, , be given a negative sense in v. 22, and then a positive sense in w. 23-25. Hence, the overall result is a lack of contextual consistency. Others equate and and understand w. 22-25 to be expUcating a two-fold, negative-neutral purpose of the Law. The negative function of the Law is to condemn sin (v. 22). Its neutral role is to provide supervisory and custodial care of therighteousJew

58

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

until the age of majority (vv. 23-25).20 This interpretation has in its favour that it takes seriously into account the Greco-Roman role of the paidaggos as a custodian of minors (see below). It overlooks, however, both the structural parallelism of and and the fact that Scripture is the impUed subject of the passive verbs in w. 23-25 and not the Law.21 In addition, this interpretation narrows the audience without sufficient textual justification, namely from the general reference to iti v. 22 to the righteous Jew in w. 23-25. There are some who interpret w. 22-25 in completely negative terms. Being 'under law' means to experience both legal condemnation and provocation to sin. The Law's task is to discover sin and to condemn it (v. 22). It also serves as a continual incitement to sin and as such can be described as a warden (= paidaggos) who holds men captive under the power of sin (w. 23-25). By means of its condemning and inciting character the Law makes evident the bankruptcy of human effort and in so doing 'shuts men up' to the grace of God as their only hope.22 Unlike the previous interpretation, this interpretation takes seriously the structural parallelism of w. 22-25. It has the weakness, however, of being based on the unwarranted equation of and and it remains to be seen whether the analogy of the paidaggos can admit a negative interpretation. Others, who are uncomfortable with attributing a negative role to the paidaggos, prefer to speak of the negative and positive as two sides of the same coin. According to H. Ridderbos the Law is negative as an enslaving power to sin but positive in that it prepares man for redemption by denying him a way of salvation.23 J.B. Lightfoot likewise sees the function of the Law both negatively as a means of deepening the conviction of sin and positively as a moral instructor rendering the world more capable of apprehending the Gospel24 According to G.B. Caird, the Law has a positive role when viewed within God's redemptive plan as a guide to Christ but a negative role as an instrument of sin when misunderstood as a basis forrighteousness.25Similarly,forC.E.B. Cranfield the Law becomes a condemning power when legalisticaUy misunderstood and a boon when viewed as the gracious revelation of God's wilL26 One difficulty with determining from v. 23 whether Paul is pointing to a negative or positive role of the Law is that the terminology can allow positive, negative, or even neutral connotations. The range of possibilities for and + the accusative has

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galations 3.21^4.11

59

already been discussed. The verb , likewise, permits a wide range of lexical possibiUties. It can be used of (1) holding in custody (Wis. 17.16), (2) protecting (e.g. , Phil 4.7; cf. 1 Pet 1.5), (3) enclosing (e.g. Ep. Diog. 6.4, where the soul is 'enclosed' by the body), (4) preventing (e.g. 2 Cor. 11.32, where the Ethnarch guarded Damascus to 'prevent' Paul's escape), (5) binding (e.g. with chains, P. Mag. Par. 1.3093) and (6) watching, observing (eg. from a coign of spiai unobserved, watched', Soph. Track. 915).27 The fact that there are negative, neutral and positive possibiUties for the terminology of v. 23 means that determination of the exact nature of the Law's function is dependent on what one makes of the role of the paidaggos in w. 24-25 as well as on a consideration of4.1-11. The Law as Paidaggos The image of being guarded and hemmed in under law for a designated period of time leads Paul to think of the analogy of the role of the paidaggos within Greco-Roman society. The paidaggos was a domestic slave within the household, whose task it was to oversee the activities of the children in the family from infancy to puberty ( , Xen. Laced. 3.1; , Philo, Saar. 15).28 According to Josephus, the paidaggos kept watch over a child's person and actions ( ' , Ant. 1.56). He accompanied the children to and from school29 and supervised their daily activities, their hygiene and their studies.30 He was also responsible for inculcating proper behavior and for teaching good manners.31 This supervisory role involved rebuke and punishment for wrong conduct32 To his charges the paidaggos was an , the one who impressed rules and customs on them and exercised his authority over them.33 Philo goes so far as to state that 'when the paidaggos is present his charge wiU not go amiss' (Mut. Nom. 217). According to Plato numerous regulations are necessary because 'of all wild creatures the child is the most intractable, as it, above all others, possesses a fount of reason that is yet uncurbed; a treacherous, sly and most insolent creature'. He must therefore be 'strapped up as it were with many bridles' ( ) and is thus in need of paidaggoi to guide his childish ignorance (Laws 7.808D-809B).

60

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

As a result, the life of a child undo* the control * paidaggos was strictly supervised. It was without any measure of freedom.34 The child was under the control of his paidaggos all his waking hours. When, however, he reached the age of maturity he was released from his paidaggoi; they no longer 'ruled over' him ( ). He was released to Uve 'by his own laws' ( ; Xen. Laced. 3.1). That this is the force of the analogy that Paul has in mind seems evident from the use of + accusative, and . The Law holds us in an authorized custody. It hems in our freedom and supervises every aspect of our Uves. As it is a divinely ordained over our Uves, we are 'under' its authority. It is a necessary supervision because we are also held in the custody of sin's prevailing influence. We are, therefore, strapped up, as it were, with the bridle of the Law which makes clear to us our obligation, supervises our conduct, and rebukes and punishes our wrongdoing. Josephus's portrayal of the role of the Law in Ap. 2.174 is surprisingly similar to what is found in GaL 3.22ff.: Beginning immediately from the earliest infancy and the appoint ment of everyone's diet, he [Moses] left nothing of the very smallest consequence to be done at the pleasure and disposal of the person himself...; accordingly he made the Law the standard and rule that we might live under it as under a father and master and be guilty of no sin through wilfulness or ignorance. For ignorance he left no pretext.35 This is not to say that existence under law is positive or negative. In Paul's thinking it was merely necessary. The picture of strict supervision and custodial care for a designated period of time does not fit with a positive interpretation of the Law's function as a moral guide or instructor that leads to Christ.36 Nor does the role of the paidaggos in Greco-Roman society warrant the estimate of a rude and rough character, little respected and recognizable by his rod.37 This does not accord with the available Uterary evidence. / Having described the supervisory, custodial function of the Law, Paul in w . 25-29 draws the Galatians' attention to the fact that the age of majority has now arrived. The age of law as paidaggos is past.

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law9 in Galations 3.21-A.U

61

Through faith they have entered into the age of sonship, a sonship that comes from belonging to the seed through whom the Gentiles have become fellow heirs with the Jews apart from the Law. The abrupt introduction of the concepts of sonship and inheritance in w. 26-29 leads Paul in 4.1-11 to explain by means of analogy and axiom the relationship of sonship and law, just as he sought to explicate by means of axiom and analogy the relationship of promise and law in 3.21-25. Paul attempts to illustrate this relationship by referring to the practice in Roman law called tutela impuberis (guardian for a minor) or more specifically tutela testamentaria (guardian established by testament). According to tutela impuberis, a child under the legal age of majority () at the time of his father's death became a ward of the court, and the court appointed a legal guardian () to manage the child's financial affairs until he reached majority ().38 By tutela testamentaria the father could, however, designate in his will whom he desired to function as legal guardian.39 Hence, as Paul states in 4.1, although a son is theoretically heir and lord of his father's estate, in reaUty while a he has no more rights than a slave. , in its legal sense, is used to designate one who has not reached the age of majority. Its association with the Ionic ('to be without power*) suggests the sense of legal incompetence.40 Paul's point is that, although a spiritual heir of the Abrahamic promise, while one is a one is without control over one's spiritual estate, which is managed by others. The nature of this state of legal incompetency is described by Paul as being ... until the time set by the father (v. 2). The exact function of the or 'legal guardian' is at issue. Josephus distinguishes , who govern people on behalf of the king, and , who manage the treasury,fields,and cattle (Ant. 7.369). In general, the guardian managed the household and the estate of the minor until he attained his majority (P. Oxy. 265 [81-95 AD]).41 This included providing the minor withfoodand clothing (P. Ryl. 153 [138-61 AD]) and all that was necessary for his schooling and general well-being (P. Ryl. 2017 [241-240 BC]). Plato states that a guardian must show as much care regarding the nurture and training of orphans as if he were contributing to his own support and that of his own children (Laws U.927C-928A). AU legal and business transactions had to be made through the guardian. The minor could not act independently (P. Ryl. 109 [235

62

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

AD]). Testimony could not be given unless the guardian was present (m. B. Qam. 4.4). A loan could not be drawn except through the guardian (P. Ryl. 120 [167 AD]). It was also the duty of the guardian to tithe the minor's produce (b. Git. 52a). In the case of a girl the guardian both aided in the choice of a spouse and gave her away in marriage (Plato, Laws 11.925B). It is clear, therefore, that the minor, although theoretically the legal owner of his inheritance, was prevented during his minority from managing that inheritance. The control of his property and his very well-being was in the hands of the legal guardian. Hence, in common with being , being signifies a lack offreedomduring one's minority. One's Ufe and possessions are controUed and managed by others. Paul states that the length of this period of guardianship is determined by the father (v. 2). Some have difficulty reconciling this statement with evidence indicating that Roman law stipulated the age of majority.42 There is also evidence, however, that the father was in fact at liberty to determine the duration of the guardianship. In P. Oxy. 491 (126 AD) the father stipulates that his sons shall have guardians until the age of twenty and shaU not be able to dispose of their inheritance before twenty-five years of age. Similarly, in P. Oxy. 495 (181-89 AD) the father stipulates that his son shall be under a guardian until he reaches twenty years of age. By analogy, Paul states that our heavenly father determines the period of his children's minority "under law' and at the appropriate time releases them from the Law's guardianship (4.4). It is surprising that Paul includes under the umbreUa of guardianship (4.2). There has been considerable debate whether Paul is referring to the Roman law that stipulates that a minor is to be under an until the age of fourteen and then under a until the age of twenty-five. This, however, is unlikely, given that a curator minoris in thefirstcentury was granted only on 43 application. It is also unlikely that Paul is thinking of a historical succession of guardians. The single preposition () and connective implies a contemporaneous state of affairs. One is simultaneously 'under guardians and stewards'. In the papyri there appears to be some overlap in function between the and the . In P. Ryl. 66 (ii BC) the who is in charge of the money revenues is distinguished from the manager () and the royal scribe. P. Ryl. 171 (56-57 AD), an

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galations 3.21-4.11

63

application for the lease of land, is addressed to the who is designated as the agent of the estate. In Ant. 12.198-200 Hyrcanus asks his father for a letter to his in order that he might provide him with money to buy whatever he wants. However, while the functions of the and the overlap their spheres of applicability differ. is not used in reference to Roman inheritance laws. It is an administrative term with no apparent legal connotations.44 The interchangeabiUty of and in Lk. 12.42-43 indicates that the was often a member of the immediate household (cf. Philo, Omn. Prob. Lib. 35). This fact has led some to suggest that Paul chose because it can designate a supervisor of slaves.45 Others propose that Paul is using a non-legal term to amplify and elucidate a legal term.46 Somewhat similar is the argument that Paul is intro ducing a non-Palestinian term to define a Palestinian loan word.47 In balance, however, it seems more likely that Paul in his use of both and is merely referring to those who had effective control of the person, property, andfinancesof a minor (i.e. 'under the control of all types of guardians and stewards') as the plural would also suggest.48 In some cases this might be one or more legal guardians, while in other cases the guardian might delegate some of his responsibilities to the care of a steward.49 Paul's point, in any event, is clear. While the minor is 'under guardians and stewards' he, like the slave, lacks the capacity of selfrepresentation and self-determination. Similarly, the Jew 'under law' lacks as weU this capacity. Paul, however, is not focusing, as in 3.2325, on the passingfromone historical age to another (Le.fromthe age of law to the age of faith in Christ) but pointing to the realization at the coming of Christ of what under law is merely nominal. For Paul, then, to be a son of God is to be free to Uve out that sonship on the basis of personal initiative rather than in accordance with the 50 decisions of others. These 'others' Paul designates in 4.3 as . He argues in 4.1-3 that as we were under the control of guardians and stewards while in our legal minority so we were while in our spiritual minority. What Paul means by and what the relationship is between (. 3) and (. 5) have been the focus of much debate.

64

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

(. 3) is perhaps the most difficult statement in these verses to interpret. Its close ties, however, with the analogy of being 'under guardians and stewards' point to a condition that renders the individual powerless to regulate and control his own affairs. is derived from ? a 'row', 'series', or 'line'. The verbal form, , means to 'go in a row1, 'be in line with', or 'walk by5. It is a short step, then, to which designates a part or component of a row or series and has the basic sense of 'element'.51 Within Classical as weU as HeUenistic usage the plural, , refers primarily to: (1) elementary principles or rudi ments of knowledge, or (2) the physical constituents of the universe. Predominant usage in the religious literature of the NT period is to the physical concept of as the constituent elements of the world, generally specified asfire,air, earth and water.52 Wisdom of Solomon 7.17 refers to the structure of the world and the activity of the (cf. 19.18). According to 4 Mace. 12.13 all men are made of the same . Philo refers to the four out of which the world was made and brought to completion (Op. Mund. 131; Rer. Div. Her. 197; Vit. Cont. 3). Josephus refers to 'universal nature' which God fashioned from the four (Ant. 3.183-84). 2 Pet. 3.10 may also reflect this usage when it states that at the day of the Lord the heavens will disappear, the will be destroyed and the earth will be laid bare (cf. 3.12).53 References to the four of the world are alsofrequentin the Uterature of the postapostolic period (e.g. Ep. Diog. 8.2; Hermas, Vis. 3.13; Justin, Dial. 62.2).54 This widespread usage of as 'the physical elements' has led some to see in Paul's use of a reference to the constituent elements of the world which the Gentiles had elevated to the status of gods (cf. Gal. 4.8). These elemental forces, among which the Law must be ranked, represent for Paul all that man places his trust in apart from God and on which his existence rests prior to Christ55 It is difficult, however, to see in what sense as the constituent elements of the world could maintain effective control over the Uves of men in anything more than the providential sense of the natural world order. Even to raise these elements to the status of

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galations 3.21-4.11

65

deity is only to personalize those naturalforcesto which all men are bound throughout their Uves and not just during the period of minority. Man is always under the regulating activity of the physical elements. Paul's point, however, is that the period ofbeing 'under the elements of the world' is past (4.3). It is also difficult to see in what sense being 'under the physical constituents of the world' (v. 3) and being 'under law' (v. 4) are parallel. Nor do such solutions as reducing the elemental forces to 'the flesh' and 'the Law'56 or associating these elemental forces with the powers of the Law, sin, and death57 prove satisfactory. No examples have yet been found in the bibUcal or extra-bibUcal Uterature of antiquity where the flesh, sin and death are expUcitly identified or conceptualized as . Others have extended the sense of'the constituent elements of the world' to include planetary bodies. It is claimed that in later antiquity these planetary bodies were regarded as demonic entities of cosmic proportions and as astral powers that exerted their control over men. Supporters of this interpretation turn to Wis. 13.2, which states that the Gentiles 'supposed that either fire or wind or swift air or the circle of the stars or turbulent water or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world' (c Philo, Vit. Cont. 5), and to Paul himsel who elsewhere, it is claimed, expresses the view that pagan gods are demons which hold the Gentile world in inteUectual bondage and blind their eyes to knowledge of the true God (1 Cor. 10.20).58 The use, however, of for the planetary bodies appears to be a second-century development (e.g. , Justin, Apol. //, 5.2; cf. Dial. 23.3; Theophilus, Ad Amol. 2.35).59 Nor is there in the Pauline or pre-Pauline period an equation of astral bodies with demonicforces.Also, unless one views 'under law' as a surrogate expression for 'under the rule of hostile angels' it is hard to see what the regulatory control of an impersonal code of rules has in common with the cosmic rule of demonic beings. Moreover, even if one were to understand 'under the elements of the world' as referring primarily to the mental bondage that resultsfromidolatrous planetary worship, Paul is not speaking in these verses of mental bondage but of legal bondage. The approach most commonly taken today is to interpret , in light of Paul's earUer reference in 3.19 to angels, as 'elemental spirits'. F.F. Brace's statement is representative: 'It

66

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

appears indeed that the angels through whom the law was ordained are equated with the "elemental spirits of the world" which impose their yoke on the minds of men outside of Christ whether they be Jews or Gentiles'.60 The identification of with elemental spirits is based on the synergistic reUgious tendency of later antiquity to associate spiritual beings with the astral elements. The belief that spiritual powers had their abode among the stars and ruled these heavenly bodiesfirstappears in the late second century. Testatnent of Solomon 8.2 speaks of seven spirits which claimed to be , (cf. 18.1-2). Theodotus 55 refers to the stars as spiritual bodies that are governed by angels.61 Earlier support for this identification is usually Usted as foUows: (1) Deut. 4.19, which warns against worshipping and serving the heavenly hosts, (2) the LXX translation in Ps. 102(103).21 of the phrase w a r 1 by ai , (3) Theod. Dan. 10.13, 20-21; 12.1, where the angelic princes of Persia, Greece, and Israel are called of this age, (4) Plato and Aristotle, where the term is sometimes identified with the word , (5) Philo, who in Abr. 143 speaks of'the powers' as God's servants, (6) Paul's references to 'the rulers of this age' (1 Cor. 2.6-8), to the worship of angels (Col. 2.18) and to 'the god of this age' (2 Cor. 4.4), and (7) the role of angels in the NT in supervising the secular state (Rom. 13.1) and as guardians of worship (1 Cor. 11.10).62 In Ught of this background it is contended that is a reference to the role that angels play as rulers and powers of this world. There is, however, disagreement whether these are hostile powers (e.g. 'they sacrifice to demons', 1 Cor. 10.20) or divine emissaries (e.g. 'because of the angels', 1 Cor. 11.10). Although this is the most common interpretation today, it is also the most problematic. The association of angels with astral bodies is 63 a development subsequent to Paul's day. Also, association and identification are not the same thing. Moreover, it is difficult to understand in what way being 'under law' (an impersonal concept) can be equal to being 'under angels' (a personal concept). Several additional difficulties become apparent on closer examina tion of the evidence: (1) in Plato and Aristotle when used in conjunction with clearly means 'first principle' or 'element' and not 'power' or 'authority'.64 (2) The worship of'the sun, moon and stars' (Deut. 4.19) is not the same as the worship of elemental

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law9 in Galations 3.21-4.11

67

spirits. (3) In Ps. 102(103) ai are distinguished from oi (w. 20-21; see Isa. 34.4[B] where ai refers to the physical heavens: for Dsr^D and for DKWtt). (4) Philo more commonly uses ai of the divine nature and virtues and their worldly counterparts (see e.g. Saar. 59-60; Spec. Leg. 1.45-50; and Cher. 51-52). (5) There is no scholarly consensus regarding Paul's use of and . In the case of Rom. 13.1 = 'angels' is highly improbable on contextual grounds. (6) Moreover, since Paul does not elsewhere speak explicitly of being in bondage or subjection to angels it seems unlikely that this would be his meaning in either GaL 3.19 or 4.3. It is also important to recognize that exaltation of'the elements of the world' to the status of 'gods' by the Gentiles (4.8) does not necessarily indicate that these 'elements' are in fact personal beings (cf. Rom. 1.18-32). There is a difference between worshipping as though they were gods and worshipping that are in fact gods.65 The second primary usage of as 'elementary or rudimentary principles' is an option that not many have supported.66 Although this sense is not so commonly attested as 'physical consti tuents', it is nonetheless the option that best fits the context and provides the most suitable background for understanding Paul's line of argument. Aristotle uses of 'an elementary principle' (e.g. , Pol. 1309M6). In Plato is used to mean 'a fundamental assumption' (e.g. Laws 7.790C). Xenophon in speaking about educating youth suggests that one begin with food as one of'the elementary principles' or rudiments ( , Mem. 2.1.1). Philo uses to refer to the letters in grammar (eg. Op. Mund. 126, ) and contrasts what is 'elementary' () with what is 'completed' (, Rev. Dw. Her. 209). Heb. 5.12 clearly reflects this extra-biblical usage in its use of to refer to the 'elementary principles of the oracles of God'.67 In Col. 2.8-23, the only other Pauline passage where occurs, the phrase plainly refers to legal regulations imposed as normative for daily living (, v. 20; , . 22). As in Galatians, Paul is warning that he who has died in Christ has

68

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

nothing further to do with 'the regulatory principles of the world'. This usage closely parallels NT usage of the verbal form, . In Acts 21.24 is used of leading a closely regulated life in accordance with definite rules. In Galatians itself, is used of keeping to the rule of life (6.16) and of ordering erne's life in accordance with the Spirit (5.25b). This use of to mean basic or elementary rules that closely regulate one's lifefitswell the context of Gal. 4.1-11. A period of spiritual minority in w. 1-2 suggests the notion of necessary regulation. The combination of and in v. 9 suggests the imposition of regulations and controls that displace self-determination but, like the Law, are not able to impart life (c 3.21). The further reference to those things that 'by nature are not gods' (v. 8) in conjunction with closely following days, months, and years (v. 10) points in the case of the lapsed Galatians to elementary, regulatory teachings that were closely tied to an astrolo gical calendar.68 The question must then be raised how the Law and these 'elementary principles' are associated in Paul's argument It seems clear from the context that 4.1-5 refers specifically to pre-Christian, Jewish life under law (see v. 5, ).69 The structure of these verses can be outlined as follows: This reference to Jewish life under law reflects Paul's principle: to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. It is only after establishing the basis of sonship for the Jew in w. 1-5 that Paul turns to the Gentile in w. 6-11 (see the shift from to ). This means that thefirstreference to in 4.3 concerns the pre-Christian life of the Jew. Paul's warning to the Gentiles in w. 8-11 then becomes clearer. To place themselves 'under law*, that is, to subject every aspect of their Uves to strict regulation and close supervision, is in effect to return to serving that

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galations 3.21-A.ll

69

which is by nature "not gods'. Not that the Law and 'the rudimentary principles' are one and the same. Nor is the Law one of these principles. Paul does not state this. What he does state is that being "under law' and being 'under the rudimentary principles of the world' are similar experiences with similar results. What the Law and the elementary principles of the world have in common is that they regulate and legislate in accordance with rules and standards that are suitable only for a period of spiritual minority. The Jew can thus be said to be in that his life is regulated by that which is by nature rudimentary and temporarily suitable for an age of minority. It is in this sense that Paul can speak in 6.14-15 of circumcision as "of the world', that is, of a nature suitable only for a period of spiritual minority. These elementary principles are not, however, suitableforan age of majority which is characterized by the receipt of the Spirit as an inward power and controlling principle and not by an external, regulatory code. It is also important to notice that Paul does not state in w. 1-5 that the Jewish Christian prior to faith in Christ served that which is by nature 'not gods'. This is an indictment that Paul makes in w. 8-11 specifically against the Gentiles. It is the Gentile who exalted these elemental principles to the status of'gods'. Conclusions Paul's argument in 3.21-4.11 can be summarized as follows: Does the Law work against the promise? By no means! For the Law was never meant to impart life. If this had been its intent then righteousness would have come by means of the Law and the Law would have been in conflict with the promise which stipulates that righteousness be based on faith. On the contrary, Scripture shut up all things to the principle and experience of sin so that the promise might be based on faith and not on works. To this end we Jews were placed under the management and guardianship of the Law, to be regulated and hemmed in until faith in Christ is revealed. The Law became our paidaggos, regulating every aspect of our lives. Now, however, that faith in Christ has arrived, we are no longer under the management of the Law. Moreover, you Gentiles have become sons of God through faith in Christ And if you belong to Christ, then you are of the 'one seed' of Abraham and heirs of the promise along with us. While,

70

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986) however, an heir is a legal minor he is in practice no different from a slave, although he is technically lord of all he inherits. He is like a slave in that he is controlled by guardians and stewards for as long as his father stipulates. So too we Jews while we were spiritual infants were ruled and managed by temporal regulations and rudimentary principles until God sent his Son at the designated time in order that we might be released from the control of guardians and stewards and enter into our spiritual majority as sons. Now because you too are sons, God sent his Spirit into your hearts and ours70 to bear witness to this feet. Hence, you are no longer slaves but sons and heirs although you were once slaves to weak and ineffectual regulations and principles which you served as though gods. If you have become sons through the Spirit why then do you desire to return to those rudimentary principles that were only intended to supervise a period of spiritual minority?

The tightly knit structure of this argument and the broad pattern of chiasm in these verses points to a single function of the Law. This function is that of a custodian who closely regulates and supervises God's people in a period of spiritual minority. Like the elementary principles of the world, the Law orders the daily affairs of its wards until sonship is realized. It was established as a temporary but necessary expedient given the operative principle of sin and functions as a 'bridle' for a people that are prone to sin, bringing to light the defined will of God as a basis for covenant obligation. With, however, the coming of faith in Christ, the Law's function as guardian and custodian ceases and the Spirit becomes the internal guiding principle. This raises a final question, namely whether any kind of relationship continues to exist between the Christian and the Law. A satisfactory answer would, of course, require a close examination of Paul's overall teaching on the Law. Several conclusions can, however, be drawn on the basis of Gal. 3.21-4.11. First, sonship and 'lawship' are mutually exclusive. The son is no longer 'under law'. Nor is he any longer 'under sin'. The controlling principle in his life now is the Spirit. The Law no longer functions to supervise closely and regulate strictly all the aspects of his life. For the Gentile, who was never 'under law', Paul argues that to take on the yoke of the Law is: (1) to negate the fact of his sonship through faith in Christ, (2) to deny that the Spirit is now the operative force in his life, and (3) to return to a condition of regulation by those

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law9 in Galations 3.21-4.11

71

rudimentary principles that the Gentiles in their ignorance elevate to the status of "gods'. Second, the Law was never meant as a basis for righteousness.71 This is clearfrom3.21, where Paul states that it was not given with the intent to impart life (cf. 3.1-18). It was intended to function as a temporary, regulatory code which, on the analogy of the GrecoRoman paidaggos, manages our life and hems us in to its directions and judgments. This is a somewhat neutral picture of . The role of the Law to accuse, condemn and hold us guilty for our conduct is not in view in these verses. These verses do not picture a no-exit situation.72 Otherwise the analogies of a , , and , as well as the parallel with , become meaningless. Third, and are distinguished in w. 22-23. This should draw attention to the fact that Paul is not using synonymously with the Pentateuch. Nor is he using in the sense of a command of God given anywhere in Scripture. By Paul is thinking specifically of the legal covenant that was established on Mt Sinai 'through angels' and 'by the hand of a mediator' (3.19). The fact that the historical record of this covenant is part of Scripture signifies that it remains profitable for instruction (cf. 2 Tim. 3.16). The sense in which it is profitable is, of course, heatedly debated. What is clear from this Galatians passage is that it is no longer profitable as a legal norm and rule in a covenant relationship. If it has a relevance beyond that of historical example it is a relevance that stems from its appropriateness, and not its necessity, for our character and status as sons of God and our union with Christ. Even here, however, it would need to be appropriateness in example rather than in principle or precept since the principle of 'law' gives way temporally to the principle of'faith' (3.22-26) and 'Spirit' (4.6-7; cf. 3.2-5). NOTES 1. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, ET: London: Lutterworth, 1961, p. 168. 2. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (ET: London: SCM, 1952-55), I, pp. 259ff, gives five uses: (1) the OT law, (2) the whole OT, (3) the Pentateuch, (4) a general norm or principle, and (5) a compulsion or constraint Compare H.H. Esser ('Law*, NIDNTT, [1976], pp. 444-45) who lists seven uses: (1) Scripture as a whole, (2) the Pentateuch,

72

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

(3) the Mosaic law, (4) the Decalogue, (5) specific laws, (6) a metaphorical sense, and (7) a personified use. Compare also P. Blser ('Law*, Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology [ed J.B. Bauer], II [1970], pp. 484-85) who distinguishes four uses of'law*: (1) the Mosaic law, (2) afeetof experience, (3) the law of the Spirit, and (4) the law of Christ; and four uses of 'Torah': (1) the Sinaitic enactments, (2) the Pentateuch, (3) Scripture as a whole, and (4) oral tradition. 3. See C.E.B. Cranfield, 'St Paul and the Law', SJT17 (1964), pp. 4368, who delineates ten aspects of the nature and function of the Mosaic law in Paul. 4. 'Law', II, p. 493. 5. 'Paul and the Law of Moses', BJRL 57 (1974-75), p. 262. 6. 'St. Paul and the Law', pp. 66-68. 7. This interpretation of Gal. 3.19-20 will be presented in a forthcoming article. 8. J.A. Fitzmyer claims on the basis of Lev. 18.5 that the Mosaic law had been intended to impart life but because of its impotency and man's moral weakness it ended up as no more than an external norm (in A Companion to Paul, ed. Michael J. Taylor [New York: Alba, 1975], p. 77). Lev. 18.5, however, need only state that the Law was supposed to provide a norm to live by. Nor is Donald Guthrie correct in saying that if the whole Law had been kept salvation would have been assured (New Testament Theology [Downers Grove: IVP, 1981], p. 691). It is this very notion that God gave the Law as a means of righteousness and life that Paul is arguing against throughout Galatians. For discussion see H.D. Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 173-74; Ragnar Bring, Commentary on Galatians (ET: Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961), pp. 173-74; and Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), pp. 16364. John Drane claims that this is evidence for the moral weakness of the Law (Tradition, Law and Ethics in Pauline Theology', NovT 16 [1974], p. 169). It is not, however, the Law that is morally weak but man, as GaL 3.10 makes clear. The Law's purpose is not to impart life but to regulate ('under law*). The power to regulate implies strength, not weakness. 9. Cf. 'Scripture says' in Rom. 4.3; 10.11; 11.2; GaL 4.30 and 1 Tim. 5.18. On the use of 'Scripture' as metonymy for God see Charles H. Cosgrove, 'The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Study in Galatians 3', WTJ 41 (197879), p. 160. 10. can also be used of (1) filling a gap; connecting closely together (e.g Pholaus 6) and (2) bringing to a conclusion (e.g Apollonius Dyscolus,/li\ 121.1). See BAG, rev. by Gingrich and Danker, s.v.; LiddellScott, s.v.; and Moulton-Milligan, ''. 11. For with reference to a general quality see F. Blass, A.

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11

73

Debrunner, and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961), #138.1. 12. For + ace = 'rest beneath' see C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 65-66. 13. See F. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (HThK, 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), pp. 252-53 and M.-J. Lagrange, ptre aux Galates (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), p. 88. 14. For this interpretation see Ernest D. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), pp. 196-97. 15. See Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 181. 16. Ibid., p. 180. 17. Because there is no exact parallel in today's society to the GrecoRoman concept of the no attempt will be made to translate this term. It will be left in its transliterated form. 18. For the former interpretation see e g Mussner, Galaterbrief, pp. 25257; for the latter see eg. Cosgrove, 'The Mosaic Law9, pp. 162-63. 19. Ibid. C George S. Duncan who understands 'under sin' in the sense of dread impasse and interprets 'under law' as being under the custody of a protective restrainer who acts as a fence of separationfromthe Gentiles (The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1934], pp. 118-21); also Paul G. Bretscher, who maintains that the Law was designed to hold God's people in check and bind them under its discipline ('LightfromGalatians 3.1 on Pauline Theology', CTM 34 [1963], p. 91). 20. See e g Richard N. Longenecker, 'The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3.19-4.7', JETS 25 (1982), p. 58. 21. If the Law were the implied subject of w. 23-25 this would result in the logical dilemma of'the Law guarding and confining "under law"'. 22. E.g. Blser, 'La^, p. 492; Bring, Galatians, pp. 175-79; Burton, Galatians, pp. 196-201; D.R. de Lacey, 'The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law', in From Sabbath to Lord's Day (ed. D.A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 175. C Hans Hbner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), p. 34, 'unter dem Zuchtmeister'. F.F. Bruce appears to give no less than three senses to 'under law*: (1) to stimulate to sin, (2) to be under a tyrannizing restrainer, (3) to be under the control of a slave attendant who keeps God's people in leading-strings (Galatians, pp. 181-83). 23. Paul: An Outline of His Theology (ET: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 151-53. 24. Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (rev. edn; New York: Macmillan, 1896), p. 168.

74

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

25. Principalities and Powers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), p. 41. 26. 'St. Paul and the Law', pp. 66-67. 27. See BAG, rev. Gingrich and Danker, s.v. ; Moulton-Milligan, s. v. ; and Liddell-Scott, s.v. 28. Herodotus 8.75 refers to one Sicinnus who is described as of the household of Themistocles and attendant over his children ( ). Cf. Plato, Lysis 209c. 29. See P. Oxy. 930 (ii-iii AD), where a mother urges that her son and his paidaggos go to another suitable teacher. 30. See Epict. 3.19.5, which refers to a paidaggos who beat the cook for not having the food ready after the boys' bath. 31. See Philo, Saar. 15 and 51. The paidaggos is to be distinguished from the and the . The role ofthe paidaggos was that of an attendant over children while the role of the and the was that of a teacher over pupils (see P. Oxy. 930). 32. See Philo, Migr. Abr. 116; Det. Pot. Ins. 145, 33. See Xen. Laced. 3.1 'under a ruler'; c Plato, Lysis 208c, 'governs you'; Philo, Sacr. 15, 'rules and customs which impress and exercise their authority on him'. 34. Plato states that a child up to the age of maturity is to he treated as a slave. The study of letters is begun at ten for three years and lyre-playing at thirteen for a similar duration whether the child likes it or not (Laws 7.810AC). These 'rules' were enforced by 'law wardens' (, ibid.). 35. Cf. also Memar Markah 4.11, where it is stated that the Israelites 'were shut up by the command of God' ( HDM pMD *H). 36. For a positive view of the Law as a moral guide see J.W. MacGorman, 'The Law as Paidaggos: A Study in Pauline Analogy', in New Testament Studies (ed. H.L Drumwright and C. Vaughan; Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 1975), pp. 103-11. For the position that the Law is an instructor to Christ see Stanislas Lyonnet, 'Paul's Gospel of Freedom', in A Companion to Paul (ed. Michael J. Taylor, New York: Alba, 1975), p. 97; Fitzmyer, 'Law', p. 79; Schoeps, Paul, p. 30; and Drane, 'Tradition', p. 170. 37. For this position see Betz, Galatians, p. 177, and Hbner, Das Gesetz, pp. 31-32. 38. See Raphael Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri 332 BC-640 AD (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955), pp. 157-81. The usual term for the legal guardian of a minor is . The terms and can, however, also be found. See b. Ketub. 100a; b. Yebam. 67b; and b. Bik. 1.5 (see also n. 2) for use of the loan word &&. According to Taubenschlag, in the first century the legal age of majority for boys in peregrine law (non-citizens) was fourteen ( ). By the father's disposition or by that of the authorities the guardianship could

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galatians 3.21-4.11

75

be extended up to the age of twenty-five (ibid., p. 167). In contrast, the Roman minor is called ('of age') at the age of twenty-five. There is also no evidence to show how long the guardianship of Roman boys continued (ibid., pp. 168 and 178). See P. Oxy. 487 (156 AD) which refers to minors twenty-five years of age as still needing guardians. 39. Ibid., pp. 160-61. Cf. Alan Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 114-17. In Roman law both men and women could be appointed as guardians. A wife, relative, or even a slave could function as a guardian to a minor (see P. Oxy. 495 and 898 [123 AD]; m. Ketub. 9.4; and Philo, Om. Prob. Lib. 35). The father is at complete liberty to appoint whomever he wishes and however many guardians he desires (see Plato, Laws 11.924A; P. Ryl. 109 and 153; b. Git. 52a). In the case of a man who dies intestate or neglects to designate a guardian in his will, one is appointed by the court on the application of the mother or a relative (Taubenschlag, Law, pp. 161-63). Cf. Plato, Laws 11.924B, who stipulates that the court is obliged to appoint the nearest of kin, two from each side, and one of thefriendsof the deceased. 40. The more common term for minority is while the adult is called or . See Georg Bertram, '', TDNT, IV, p. 912, and Taubenschlag, Law, p. 178. 41. Or, in case of a girl, until she married (ibid., p. 167; cf. Watson, The Law of Persons, pp. 131-84). In P. Ryl. 121 (ii AD) a guardian is appointed where the father left many creditors to satisfy. C b. Pesah. 49b n. 1 (Soncino, p. 238) where & is defined as a steward who looks after another person's estate. 42. Samuel Belkin states that one must look to Jewish law for the appropriate background since it is Roman law itself thatfixesthe period of minority and not the father ('The Religious Background of Paul', JBL 54 [1935], pp. 52-53). However, there is no Mishnaic halakah that states that the father determines the length of guardianship whereas the papyri do give instances where the father determines the length of this period (see above). 43. Prior to the third century AD a curator was appointed only on application. From the third century on a curator could, however, be appointed without application to assist with legal transactions. See Tauben schlag, Law, pp. 178-81. 44. Liddell-Scott defines as 'one who manages a household*, 'an administrator'. See Lk. 16.1, which speaks of an who is accused of wasting his master's possessions and Lk. 12.42, which refers to a faithful and wise manager who is in charge of giving the servants their food allowance at the proper time. Cf. Rom. 16.23, where Erastus is identified as . 45. See e.g. Betz, Galatians, pp. 203-204. 46. See e.g. Otto Michel, '', TDNT, V, p. 150 and Jrgen Goetzmann, 'House', NIDNTT, , p. 254.

76

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

47. Belkin,'Background', p. 55. 48. An inscription at Ghirge, Egypt (68 AD) brings the two terms together, indicating that they were conceptually linked in Paul's day ( ). See John Reumann, 'Stewards of GodPre-Christian Religious Application of Oikonomos in Greetf, JBL 77 (1958), p. 339 n. 2. 49. See P. Ryl. 233 (ii AD) where the steward submits an account to the minor to be passed on to the guardian regarding the progress made in the building and fitting of a house. 50. R. Judah b. liai (T4) uses the analogy of minority-majority in the opposite way. While Israel was a minor God could talk to her in public. When, however, she reached her majority ( = received the Torah) public interchange was no longer fitting, so God spoke to her from the midst of the tabernacle (in Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages [ET: Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979], p. 52). 51. See Liddell-Scott, s.v.; Moulton-Milligan, s.v.; and BAG, rev. Gingrich and Danker, s.v. 52. The fifth-century BC physicist, Empedocles, reduced the physical constituents of the universe to these four fundamental components, called . The term first appears in Plato. See Liddell-Scott, s.v. 53. For the textual problem in this verse see Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 1971). That 2 Pet. 3.10 is referring to the physical components of the universe rather than to planetary bodies seems probable, given the distinction between o and both here and in v. 12. See Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (Anchor, New York: Doubleday, 1964), p. 180. For the position that these 'elements' are astral bodies see Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistles of Jude and II Peter (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 159-60, and J.N.D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 364. 54. See also Corp. Herrn., Asclepius 1.3a: 'the elements through which all matter has been endued with form are four in numberfire, water, earth, and air'. Cf. Libellus 12.20a. The Nag Hammadi tractate Zostrianos 113 also reflects this usage ('the simple elements'). 55. See H.H. Esser, 'Law', NIDNTT, II, p. 453, and Gerhard Delling, '', TDNT, VII, p. 685. 56. See AJ. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's Teaching (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1964), pp. 61-67. 57. See e.g Bring, 'Der Mittler und das Gesetz', p. 299. 58. For this position see Betz, Galatians, pp. 204-205; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS, 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 67-68; Bring, Galatians, pp. 190-92; Duncan, Galatians, p. 135; and Hbner, Das Gesetz, p. 35.

BELLEVILLE 'Under Law' in Galatians 3.21-4.11

77

Later antiquity by no means uniformly regarded astral luminaries as hostile as Betz et al. would claim. See Corp. Herrn., Stobaeus 6.6, which speaks of thirty-six stars as careful guardians and overseers ( ) of the universe. In 6.10 they are called 'gods'. 59. For instance, Philo distinguishes between 'the elements' and astral bodies (see Vit. Cont. 5; Rer. Div. Her. 226; and Vit. Mos. 1.96). 60. This is Bruce's position in 'Paul and the Law of Moses', p. 265. However, in his recent commentary on Galatians he has apparently revised his opinion since he states that the reference to angels in 3.19 is 'too incidental for us to be sure of this [equation]' (Galatians, p. 203). 61. Cf. in the Mandaean documents GR 1.21.16, which states that the luminaries are angels of the perishable house. They are not, however, referred to as the 'elements' of the world, 62. For this position see Caird, Principalities, pp. 4E; Bo Reicke, 'The Law and this World According to Paul', JBL 70 (1951), pp. 261ffi; JeanSamuel Javet, 'Les "lments du monde" pour saint Paul', in Hommage et Reconnaissance (d. Jean-Jacques von Allmen; Paris: Delachaux et Niestl, 1946), pp. 210ff.; Bligh, Galatians, pp. 158, 166; Bernard H. Brinsmead, GalatiansDialogical Response to Opponents (SBLDS, 65; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 123; and Otto Lagercrantz, Elementum (Uppsala: A.-B. Akademiska, 1911), pp. 45-48. 63. For discussion see Wesley Carr, Angeh and Principalities (SNTSMS, 42; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 72-74. 64. See Liddell-Scott, s.v. 65. As Delling states, to speak of spiritualforcesis a forced solution which conflicts with the linguisticfindingsand is hardly in accord with the context ('', TDNT, VII, p. 684). Furthermore, in 1 Thess. 1.9 the converted pagan is described by Paul as having turned from serving idols, not angels. 66. See, however, Burton, Galatians, pp. 215-16 and 518; Carr, Angels, pp. 75-76; Ridderbos, Paul, p. 149; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 167; and Lagrange, Galates, pp. 99-100. 67. For additional lexical data see Burton, Galatians, pp. 510-11. For a detailed examination of this use of see Walter Burkert, '', Philologus, 103-4 (1959-60), pp. 167-97. 68. Lightfoot understands 'the elements of the world' as ritual systems that were made up of precepts and ordinances (Galatians, p. 173). While this reading may be fine for 4.8 it does not fit well with 4.1-3. See rather Carr, who suggests rudimentary notions that are suited to the childhood of humanity (Angels, p. 75). 69. As Duncan states, given the course of Paul's argument 'under law* in 4.4 must refer primarily at least to the Mosaic law. God's scheme of salvation is that one section of humanity be placed 'under law' and then in the fullness of time be ransomed by one 'under law' and thus the blessing

78

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986)

spreadfromIsrael to the world in general (Galatians, pp. 129-30). 70. Although is the best attested reading it does not fit well in the context Most commentators skirt the problem. If 'our hearts' is to be preferred the sense must be 'your hearts as well as ours'. C Bruce, Galatians, p. 198. 71. See E.P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), which is devoted to an examination of this issue. 72. See J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), pp. 243-44, for this position.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.