The Law Was Meant to Be Kept

Brian Holloway

Annual Symposium
Urshan Graduate School of Theology
Florissant, Mo.
November 6-7, 2008
 The Law Was Meant To Be Kept

Brian Holloway

Introduction

One particular understanding of the law, especially related to the Pauline use of the word,

is that God never intended the law to be kept. The logic of such an understanding usually flows

from an argument from a sequence of scriptures such as the following: 1 In Romans 7:7, Paul

points out that one of the law’s purposes was to point out sin; in Romans 5:20 Paul said that the

law entered so that the offense might abound and in Romans 7:5 Paul seems to imply that the law

makes us to sin even more; in Galatians 3:24 Paul states that the law was temporary, probably

referring to the idea that the law has been superseded by the work of the cross; and in Romans

10:4 Paul implies that the law’s purpose was to point us to Christ. A particular conclusion of

these Pauline statements is that God knew that humans were not able to keep all of the precepts

of the law, that God knew that the law would only make us sin more and need a savior more, that

the law only makes us guilty before God, and therefore God never intended that the law should

be kept. This understanding of how Paul speaks about law is certainly not universally accepted,

but it is easy to find in theological literature that is relatively evangelical or tends toward

Reformed theology.2

This paper intends to show that the Pauline references to law do not show that God never

intended the law to be kept, and that the conclusion that God never intended that the law was to

1
See David A. Rich, Seven Biblical Truths You Won’t Hear in Church, But Might Change Your Life (Eugene,
Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2006), 55-66, for an example of this logic. Consider also Linda Belleville,
“‘Under Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline concept of Law in Galatians 3:21-4:11,” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 26 (F 1986): 71, who says, “the Law was never meant as a basis for righteousness.”
2
Reformed theology tends to overstress the foreknowledge of God, leading to conclusions such as: if God knows a
particular outcome, then God willed and desired that outcome. Therefore related the law, Reformed theology would
argue that since God knew the law would not be kept, therefore God did not want the law to be kept.

2
be kept is based upon faulty exegesis. To the contrary, this paper first intends to show that Paul

often used no,moj in a much wider sense than simply the particular regulations contained in the

Torah, and therefore the somewhat negative inferences to “law” in Paul’s letters must be

understood as Paul’s argument in favor of Christ’s introduction of a better covenant, not that the

law was never meant to be kept. Second, the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”, which has

had a profound effect on recent Pauline studies, has shown that Paul’s attitude toward law is not

nearly as negative as traditional Protestant theology has asserted, and therefore the New

Testament has never posited that God’s words to Moses were not intended to be kept. Third,

Paul’s reference to law as being a pedagogue (or “schoolmaster” as rendered by the KJV) in

Galatians brings significant clarity to his discussion of law. In particular, the nature of the law as

a pedagogue shows that Paul knew that God intended the law of Moses to be temporary and

limited in scope, being superseded by the work of Christ, but effective and useful in the overall

plan of God.

What Did Paul Mean By “Law”?

The meaning of “law,” as mentioned numerous times by Paul in his New Testament

letters, is an often-debated subject and is a bit of a thorny issue when trying to understand Paul’s

writings. 3 The particular choices that an exegete makes for the meaning and referent(s) of

no,moj (“law”) affects the interpretation of a significant portion of Paul’s letters, and therefore

affects many aspects of Christian theology. Since no,moj plays a significant role in our

understanding of the New Testament, it behooves us to investigate its meaning and to discard

those interpretations that lead to untenable conclusions. Although an extended discussion of the

meanings and referents for each Pauline mention of the word is beyond the scope of this paper,

3
See the informative discussion on the effect the interpretation of no,moj in Romans in Brendan Byrne, “The
Problem of Nomos and the Relationship with Judaism in Romans,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000).

3
we will consider information from the most respected New Testament lexicon, information from

the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, some grammatical considerations, along with

information from other authors to show that Paul many times used no,moj in a sense that

extends beyond simply the codes and regulations of the Law of Moses.

The meaning of this Greek word no,moj can be rather wide, as Walter Bauer’s lexicon,

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, shows by

listing five definitions for the word: 1) “generally, of any law,” 2) “a rule governing one’s

actions, principle, norm,” 3) “esp. of the law, which Moses received from God,” 4) “a collection

of holy writings precious to the Jews,” and 5) “fig. of Christianity as a ‘new law.’” 4 Bauer

references at least one New Testament verse for each definition, along with references to the

word from other early Christian literature. New Testament examples for definitions 1 (“any

law”) and 2 (“a rule”) are generally taken from the Pauline literature. In particular, Romans 3:27

(“By what law?”) and various references in Romans 7 and 8 give evidence for Paul using

no,moj in a rather general sense. Definition 3 (“Law of Moses”) occupies the largest number of

New Testament references in the entry in the lexicon, while Romans 3:19 is given as evidence

for definition 4 (“scripture”). Definition 5 (“Christian law”) is found most often in early

Christian literature other than the New Testament, but Bauer also lists Galatians 6:2 and Romans

8:2 as examples.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that the earliest classical usage

of no,moj “has the sense of ‘what is proper,’ ‘what is assigned to someone.’” 5 For the ancient

Greeks it was more than mere rules set from humankind – no,moj was a power of its own,

4
Walter Bauer, “no,moj” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(ed. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich; rev. and aug. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker; 2nd ed;
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 542-543.
5
H. Kleinknecht, “no,moj, ktl.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel and
Gerhard Friedich; trans. Geoffrey Bromiley; 10 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 4:1023.

4
sometimes equated with the gods themselves, and had significant links to the “cosmos,” the

supposedly controlling universe. 6 In Hellenistic times, no,moj came to be understood as words

from a king, and therefore no,moj was often a rule or set of rules that came from the political

leader.7 It should be noted that the usage of no,moj outside of the New Testament does not

carry any sense that people do not have the power to perform the requirements of law. 8

Therefore the Hellenistic background for the word is consistent with Bauer’s first and second

definition, and certainly without any presupposition that no,moj was never meant to be kept.

Possibly the most extensive treatment on the meaning of no,moj within the Pauline

literature is Michael Winger’s dissertation,9 where Winger investigates every mention of the

word in the undisputed Pauline letters. Winger concludes that Paul’s definition for no,moj can

be described with the following components of meaning:

no,moj

1) is verbal and is perceived;

2) is a standard for judgment;

3) is a guide to conduct;

4) controls;

5) is tied to a particular people;

6) has a source; and

7) is something that people put themselves under.10

Not surprisingly, when Paul uses the word, all seven components are not present at the

same time, and therefore Winger recognizes the breadth of usage for no,moj in Paul. Winger

6
Ibid., 1035.
7
Ibid., 1032.
8
Ibid., 1035. “For, to the Greek, law is never that which, rightly understood, crushes him and reduces him to despair
by making him aware that he cannot keep it.”
9
Michael Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of Nomos in the Letters of Paul, Atlanta: Scholars Press: 1992.
10
Ibid., 51-52.

5
investigates the Pauline usage of the word further by distinguishing between the meaning of a

word and its referent as used within a particular context. To show the difference between a

definition and a referent, consider that the word bicycle generally means a self propelled two-

wheeled vehicle, but when using the word in context, the word can refer to one particular

bicycle, or any number of bicycles in the world. Therefore in Paul, no,moj could refer to the

Law of Moses, the larger Old Testament, or any other law that has one or more of the

components of meaning that Winger has identified in the word. Winger then attempts to assign

referents to the various usages of no,moj in Paul. Winger concludes that most of the referents

are to the Jewish law, with some of them referring to only a portion of the Torah while some

others referring to the larger Old Testament, with the remaining usages to general references to

some law.11 Winger’s work is useful in that it reviews all of the Pauline usages of no,moj, but

Winger probably assigns more usages no,moj to the Law of Moses than he should, as we will

discuss below.

On a grammatical level, the fact that some of Paul’s uses of no,moj contain the Greek

article12 and others do not should shed some light on the meaning of the word in a particular

passage. Unfortunately, many interpreters have discarded any possible solution to understanding

no,moj that takes into consideration of the presence or the absence of the article, arguing that

Paul was inconsistent with his usage of the article. However, to completely discard the

grammarians work on the Greek article would be unwise. In relation to the Greek article, most

grammars agree that if the article is present, the noun is definite, while if the article is not

present, the noun may or may not be definite. 13 Additionally, when a Greek noun is used in a

11
Ibid., 86.
12
The presence of the Greek article before a noun is generally translated into the English word “the”, while the
absence of the Greek article before a noun is generally translated into the English word “a” or “an”.
13
See, for example, Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 243.

6
prepositional phrase without the article (which is not uncommon in the Pauline literature for

no,moj), the noun often functions qualitatively, showing the type or quality of the noun that the

prepositional phrase modifies.14

Therefore in relation to the various instances of no,moj in the Pauline literature, the

presence of the article would therefore suggest that Paul is speaking about a particular law, such

as the Law of Moses, as opposed to a general reference to laws of any origin. No,moj with the

article could also refer to the entire Old Testament, as the divisions of the Law, Prophets and

Writings of the Jewish scriptures were sometimes referred to as simply the Law and Prophets

(e.g. Romans 3:24) or even more simply as the Law. For example, John 15:25 records Jesus as

saying, “But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law,

They hated me without a cause.” In this verse no,moj has the article, and the Old Testament

reference is from Psalm 35:19 or Psalm 69:4, and since the Psalms are from the third division of

the Jewish scriptures (the Writings), it is apparent “the law” can mean the entire Old Testament,

not simply the Pentateuch.

In Romans 3, the presence or absence of the article with no,moj seems to help explain

the referent for the word. In verse 19, Paul says that whatsoever things the law says, it says to

those under the law, where each instance of “law” contains the article. Here Paul is referencing a

particular law, the Old Testament, from which he quoted several times in the preceding verses.

Paul continues in verse 20 by arguing that therefore works of law (without the article) will not

justify a person, that instead, law (without the article) shows sin, and that now the righteousness

of God without law (without the article) is shown by the Law (with the article) and the Prophets.

In this verse, the first three instances of no,moj do not include the article, yet could possibly

refer to the Law of Moses. As we will discuss below, “works of law” is probably a reference to a
14
Ibid., 247.

7
portion of Jewish laws, but the other two instances of no,moj without the article are probably

general references to law, especially since the they are set in contrast to the last instance with the

article, where the last instance is obviously a reference to the Old Testament. Later, in verse 27,

Paul asks, “By what law is boasting excluded? By a law of faith/faithfulness,” since he has

already said that a man is justified without works of law (without the article, but probably

referring to particular regulations, as will be discussed below.) In verse 31 Paul concludes that

we do not abolish law (without the article) through faith/faithfulness, but rather establish it.

These remaining instances of no,moj in Romans 3 without the article seem to be references to

the general concept of law or principle.

Using the presence or absence of the article to identify Paul’s referent for no,moj is not

a rule to be used without consideration of other factors. In Galatians 3:17, for example, Paul says

that no,moj (without the article) came 430 years after Christ, where no,moj obviously refers

to the Law of Moses. In other portions of Galatians 3, Paul argues against “works of law,” where

neither e;rgon nor no,moj include the article, but they are used in a prepositional phrase.

Most commentators have concluded that every use of no,moj in Galatians 3 refers to the Law

of Moses, arguing that the entire letter to the Galatians15 concerns circumcision, a particular

regulation of the Old Testament, and therefore any reference to the law must be referencing the

Jewish law in consideration of the context. As well, as noted earlier, Greek words without the

article in prepositional phrases are often qualitative in nature, meaning that Paul’s “works” are

those that are in relation to some specific law. Therefore “works of law” probably means some

particular actions related to the Law of Moses, even though Paul does not include the article.

15
Note that the context of Romans is considerably different, and therefore no,moj in Romans should be considered
separately from Galatians.

8
 Some interpreters argue that every Pauline use of no,moj, with or without the article,

has the definite reference to the Law of Moses,16 but there are a number of cases where Paul’s

use of no,moj to refer to the Law of Moses is, simply put, not very likely. For example, in

Galatians 6:2, Paul states, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”

Although some interpreters offer an attempt, equating this particular instance of no,moj with

any portion of the Old Testament is exceedingly difficult. A better explanation would be that

Paul is speaking of the whole of Christ’s teaching, and therefore no,moj is used in the sense of

a controlling principle distinct from the particular commandments of the Law of Moses. In this

instance of the word, the article is present, which would lead us to understand the verse to be

speaking of the particular law of Christ, separate from other laws, such as the Law of Moses.

Another example of a more general reference to law from the book of Galatians is Galatians

5:23, where Paul completes a list of the fruit of the Spirit with the statement, “against such there

is no law.” The probability that Paul meant that there is no part of the Law of Moses that is

against the fruit of the Spirit seems very low, unless we would think that Paul was unaware of

any civic laws (Roman or otherwise) other than the Law of Moses that condemned the list of

sinful actions in verses 19-21. It would be much better to recognize that Paul is making a general

reference to any regulation, whether from human or divine origin, not particularly any part of the

Pentateuch.

Furthermore, in the book of Romans, there are several instances where Paul almost

certainly used no,moj to refer to something other than the Law of Moses. For example, in

Romans 8:2, where Paul states, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me

free from the law of sin and death.” It could be that by “the law of sin and death” Paul meant the

16
James D. G. Dunn comes very close to this conclusion, but admits that “Nomos for Paul is not a narrowly
constricted term.” See James D. G. Dunn, “Paul and the Torah: The Role and Function of the Law in the Theology
of Paul the Apostle,” in The New Perspective on Paul (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 467.

9
particular penal regulations of the Law of Moses that detail the consequences of sin, but to try to

equate “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” with any portion of the Old Testament is

nearly an exercise in futility. Yet another example, mentioned above, from Romans is 3:27,

where Paul states, “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by

the law of faith.” To pose a question such as “by what law?” leads the reader to think of various

laws, and a reference to a “law of faith” should point to a general principle of faith/faithfulness

that is enjoined in all of scripture.

One suggestion on Paul’s use of no,moj in Romans is that Paul could have been

referring to only a portion of the Old Testament in a particular context. 17 Taking the above

example of Romans 3:27, it is possible that the law of faith could refer to those sections of the

Torah that relate to faith toward God, such the Genesis narrative of Abraham in following

Yahweh’s directive to leave Haran and go to Canaan. This interpretation could be labeled as a

“partitive” interpretation, where only a part of the Old Testament is in view when no,moj is

used.

Klyne Snodgrass has developed the “partitive” suggestion further in discussing how

Paul’s usage of no,moj functions in “spheres of influence.”18 For example, when discussing the

negative aspects of the law in Romans 7, Paul seems to say that sin is the most prevalent factor,

where sin has taken advantage of the law’s precepts to cause difficulty for humans. The law

itself, however, is holy and just and good. Snodgrass suggests that the problem Paul discusses is

when the law is in the sphere of influence of sin, the law becomes a negative in our life. If the

law were to be in the sphere of influence of faith and the Spirit, the law can be helpful and

17
See, for example, Akio Ito, “NOMOS TWN ERGWN and NOMOS PISTEWS: The Pauline Rhetoric and Theology
of NOMOS” Novum Testamentum 65: 257.
18
Klyne Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law” in Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 32 (F 1988): 99.

10
positive, like what we see in Romans 8. Snodgrass admits that his suggestion will not work in

every case, but that it helps to clarify many instances of Paul’s use of no,moj.19 He concludes

that no,moj can function negatively in the spheres of sin, flesh and death, and positively in the

spheres of faith, Spirit and Christ in the book of Romans.20

While the “partitive” interpretation for no,moj could be a solution to Romans 7 and 8,

where Paul’s discussion of law is somewhat complex, it probably does not aid our understanding

for passages in Galatians and Corinthians, or even other sections of Romans. It is more likely an

attempt to place all of Paul’s usages of no,moj into a particular meaning – that Paul always

meant the Law of Moses when he spoke of “law.” The “partitive” interpretation is therefore not a

solution to understanding the Pauline usage, but it does recognize that Paul’s usage of the word

is rather wide. Furthermore, even Snodgrass’s proposed interpretation for no,moj within

“spheres of influence” suggests that Paul’s usage of the word is sometimes multifaceted and

complex.

The preceding discussion of the meaning of no,moj shows that Paul can use the word in

a very general sense to mean a principle, a more specific sense in the Old Testament, a narrower

sense to mean the Law of Moses as found in the Pentateuch, or even a specific portion of the

Law of Moses (or possibly a specific portion of another part of the Jewish scriptures) that relate

to a particular topic. Understanding the wide usage of no,moj in Paul means that Paul was not

nearly as antinomian as some interpreters have tried to make Paul out to be, as his negative

inferences to law are most likely referring to only portions of Jewish law, such as the

requirements for circumcision or dietary restrictions. In fact, Paul could be quite supportive of

the idea of laws and regulations, even after the advent of the cross, and therefore Paul’s writings

19
Ibid., 98.
20
Ibid., 108.

11
should not be understood as suggesting that God never intended that the Law of Moses, or even

the larger Old Testament, was never meant to be followed.

The New Perspective on Paul

James D. G. Dunn has coined the term “The New Perspective on Paul” in light of the

groundbreaking work of E. P. Sanders, whose research on first century Judaism showed that the

assumptions that Martin Luther and other reformers made about the legalistic nature of Judaism

were in significant error. The change in perspective on the amount of legalism that first century

Judaism contained has had a significant effect on New Testament scholarship, and this change in

how we read Pauline texts is often termed the New Perspective on Paul. In particular, the New

Perspective on Paul offers several important points of understanding on how Paul speaks about

law, and these points help to show that the Pauline texts do not teach that God never intended the

law to be kept.

The New Perspective (NP) on Paul has several key tenets.21 First and foremost, the NP

argues that Second Temple Judaism, as taught in a significant amount of rabbinical literature,

was not a religion that was based on works-righteousness, where an adherent would perform

certain rituals to earn right standing with Yahweh.22 Rather, Judaism in the time of Paul can be

better understood in terms of covenant, where Jews (and proselytes) came into covenant with

Yahweh due to a gracious gift of covenant from Yahweh. The laws of Judaism, then, were not a

way to earn entrance into the nation of Israel, but they were the way in which Jews stayed in

covenant. Therefore Sanders coined the term “covenantal nomism” to describe the relationship

between first century Jews and the Torah. Second, the NP does not view law and gospel as polar

21
See the informative summary in Brendan Byrne, “Interpreting Romans: The New Perspective and Beyond,”
Interpretation 58 no 3 (Jl 2004): 245-247.
22
The Judaism of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Essenes is probably closer to a works-righteousness style, but the
thoughts of the Essenes were probably not mainstream Judaism of Paul’s time.

12
opposites, at least as much as the reformers tended to see the distinction between law and gospel

in Paul. Third, the Pauline phrase of “works of the law,” which has been so often interpreted as

the keeping of the various regulations of the Law of Moses, are better understood to be those

laws that made the Jewish nation particular, such as dietary restrictions and circumcision. Fourth,

the NP tends to stress the continuities between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity,

recognizing that early Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, and that Paul (and the larger

New Testament) often shows Jews in a good light. This emphasis on the continuities between

Judaism and Christianity leads to a significant amount of ecumenism, sometimes to the point of

allowing that Jews do not need to accept Jesus as the Christ to be saved, suggesting that even

today Jews have their own covenant and can be saved without Jesus Christ. While most of the

NP’s tenets form a promising structure that can assist us in better understanding Paul, the NP’s

ecumenism is an unfortunate outgrowth.

While the arguments for and against the NP are too numerous to discuss in this short

paper, two points of the NP help us to properly understand Paul’s thoughts on the law, and those

points need to be reviewed. First, the idea that Judaism, and especially the Judaism that prevailed

in Paul’s day, was a religion of works-righteousness cannot be supported from the available

literature. As Sanders has shown,23 the topic of grace was far from unknown in Second Temple

Judaism. In fact, many Jews believed that salvation was by grace, and that the keeping of the law

allowed the individual to maintain his/her status within the people of God. This maintenance of

status included atonement, where disobedience of the law could be forgiven, and the sinning

individual could be restored into the covenant that God had graciously offered to Israel. The Law

of Moses – and by extension, the entire Jewish scriptures – was a God-given instrument to keep

23
There are many articles that summarize the very large volumes that Sanders has produced. For an example, see
Mark A. Chancey, “Paul and the Law: E P Sanders’s Retrieval of Judaism,” Christian Century 123 no 12 (June 13,
2006): 20-23.

13
the covenant relationship that God had first extended to Abraham, and later to the children of

Israel.

Second, and more importantly, if salvation came by grace in Judaism, and the Law of

Moses was established to restore individuals to covenant status, then what did Paul mean by the

“works of the law” and his rather negative views of “works”? In leading the NP view, James

Dunn has argued that the Pauline phrase “works of the law” is better understood in terms of the

social boundary markers contained in the Torah, such as circumcision, dietary restrictions and

Sabbath observance. Dunn recognized that the first mention of “works of the law,” accepting that

Galatians was the first of the Pauline letters, can be found in Galatians 2:16, and that this

introduction to the phrase should be instructive to other references to the phrase in the remainder

of the letter and also in the letter to the Romans.24 The preceding context of Galatians 2:16

concerns Paul’s heated exchange with Peter over Peter’s refusal for table fellowship with Gentile

Christians, with the mention of Titus not receiving circumcision before going to Jerusalem with

Paul just prior in sequence. Considering that circumcision and dietary observance is the

immediate context for the phrase “works of the law,” Paul’s argument in Galatians against “the

law” seems to be that the particularly Jewish aspects of the Law of Moses created a division

within the early church that God did not intend. Whereas Paul had been successful in converting

Gentiles to Christianity without requiring circumcision, Paul’s opponents seemed to argue that

full conversion to Judaism followed by conversion to Christianity was necessary. Therefore

Paul’s argument against the “law” was simply that those requirements that separated a person

socially into the nation of Israel, such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, were no longer

necessary.

24
There are undoubtedly many references where Dunn makes this point, but a rather recent defense of his thoughts
can be found in James D. G. Dunn, “Noch Einmal ‘Works of the Law’,” in The New Perspective on Paul (rev. ed.,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 414-418.

14
 Probably the most convincing argument for the NP’s view of the “works of the law” is

that Paul seems to wholeheartedly preach that there are moral and social restrictions for

Christians, and that he enjoins good works.25 For example, Paul implores the Colossians (1:10)

to be fruitful in every good work, and the Corinthians (9:8) to abound in good works. Paul even

teaches that our judgment will be according to our works (2 Corinthians 5:10), and that only a

foolish self-righteous hypocrite would miss the fact that God judges people based upon their

life’s work (Romans 2:1-16.) Many evangelical writers assert that salvation is by grace alone and

that Paul’s pleas for good works will merely result in increased rewards in heaven, but Paul

could be considered downright legalistic in Galatians 5:19-21 by his denunciation of the list of

sinful actions, where he tells the Galatians that people who do these sins have no inheritance in

the kingdom of God. If “works of the law” in Paul’s vocabulary meant the active restraint from

the sinful acts that are detailed in any part of the Old Testament, then Paul is decidedly two-faced

in his arguments against “law” and “works of the law.”

Therefore the New Perspective on Paul has shown that the traditional evangelical

understanding of Paul’s argument against “law” falls short of Paul’s intended meaning. A better

interpretation is that those regulations that are particular to the Jewish nation, those social

boundary markers such as circumcision, Sabbath observance and dietary restrictions, are no

longer necessary for the Christian. As well, the sacrificial system of the Torah is superseded by

the work of Christ, as He has become our perfect and final sacrifice for our sins. However, God’s

intentions for “the law” was that it was to be kept, in that it provided for maintenance of the

covenant that God gave to the nation of Israel.

25
Although this may be an obvious point to many people, it may take an established theologian to point out the
deficiency of the evangelical view point on “works.” See Dunn, “Paul and the Torah: The Role and Function of the
Law in the Theology of Paul the Apostle,” in The New Perspective on Paul (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 466-467.

15
 The Law as a Pedagogue

In Galatians 3:24-25, Paul introduces a new metaphor for the law: that it was our

pedagogue (paidagwgo,j). The use of a pedagogue is an ancient practice, and one that is not

readily understood in modern times. In fact, Paul’s usage of the word in Galatians can be

misinterpreted due to the historical distance that we have from a first century’s perspective of the

word. A full understanding of the word helps us to recognize that Paul’s discussion of no,moj

in Galatians was not to suggest that the Jewish law was never intended to be kept, but served a

critical purpose in the lives of God’s people until the coming of the Holy Spirit in the lives of

those who had become Christians.

The English equivalent of the Greek word paidagwgo,j (pedagogue) has come to be

understood as a teacher or pupil, but the modern definition has strayed significantly from the

understanding of the role of the pedagogue in ancient society. Furthermore, the KJV translation

of the word is “schoolmaster” or “instructor,” which also points to an aspect of teaching, and

carries some sense of harsh discipline, such as the teacher who regularly administers corporal

punishment to students who are not particularly attuned to their studies. In reference to the Greek

word itself, the roots of the word come from the two words pai,j (child) and agwgo,j (leader

or guide), and therefore the general meaning of the word tends towards one who leads children,

possibly a guardian or caretaker.

In fact, the translation of “schoolmaster” in Galatians 3:24-25 probably flows out of the

effects of the Reformation, where Luther and other reformers reacted against the harsh and

sometimes disciplinary dogma of the medieval Catholic Church. In Luther’s particular

experience, he struggled with his own shortcomings in living up to the demands of a priest in the

Catholic Church, and therefore came to view the requirements of the Catholic Church to be

16
restrictive, and overly disciplinarian. His argument against the legalism of the medieval Catholic

Church was then transferred to Paul’s arguments against parts of the Jewish law. Luther

concluded that “law” was the very antithesis of gospel, and therefore “the law” was, most

naturally, just like a harsh and unforgiving teacher. However, Luther’s struggles against the

legalism of his day should not be allowed to color the ancient understanding of the role of the

pedagogue. Paul’s use of the metaphor of the law as a pedagogue deserves our full attention to

the nuances of the ancient meaning of paidagwgo,j.

The pedagogue in ancient society was, generally speaking, a slave who made sure that a

child attended the education that the child’s parents provided.26 In the Hellenistic period, a child

that was born to a household of some level of wealth was raised by his/her mother (or another

nurse) until approximately the age of seven. Then the child was given to the pedagogue, who was

charged with overseeing the activities of the youth until late adolescence. The pedagogue did not

teach the child in any particular academic subject, but made sure that the child would attend to

his/her studies. The pedagogue would naturally teach the child some amount of manners and

ethics, however, since the pedagogue would spend an extended amount of time with the child.

From the point of view of the child, a pedagogue would, of course, be an unwelcome

addition to the child’s desired world of play. The discipline necessary to lead the child to school

would undoubtedly engender dislike in the child towards the pedagogue, and corporal

punishment administered by the pedagogue was common. The teaching of manners was part and

parcel to the work of the pedagogue, as the pedagogue would even teach the child proper

pronunciation of the Greek language. As well, the moral teachings of the pedagogues could

26
See the extended discussion of the historical record of pedagogues in the ancient world in Norman H. Young,
“Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor,” Novum Testamentum 29 no 2 (Ap 1987): 150-169. While
Young’s article requires some level of familiarity with Greek, Richard N. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of
the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (Mr 1982): 53-61gives a more
readable article on the duties of a pedagogue, although with less detail than Young’s article.

17
extend to the sexual conduct of older adolescents, as a pedagogue might limit the associations of

the adolescent with members of the opposite sex. Therefore the theatre and literature of the

Hellenistic period advances a caricature of the pedagogue who is old, grumpy, somewhat of a

wet blanket and from whom the child would find a decided amount of freedom in their

graduation to adulthood.

Conversely, the view of the pedagogue from words of parents and adults who had been

raised with a pedagogue was considerably more positive. The pedagogue was often a trusted

friend of the family, or was even considered part of the family, a family member that cared for

the children, in rare cases giving their own lives for the lives of the children.27 Adults

remembered their own pedagogues in appreciative terms, recognizing the value of the

pedagogue’s aid in their upbringing, as the pedagogue was sometimes recognized as a teacher of

virtue.28 Sometimes a pedagogue would be granted freedom from slavery when their charges

reached maturity, while other pedagogues were fondly remembered in inscriptions at their

gravesites. In Jewish literature such as the Talmud, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, David, and Jeremiah

are described as pedagogues, using a Hebrew loan word from the Greek word.29 Certainly these

Hebrew leaders were always considered positive leaders of the nation of Israel, people who led

and cared for the people of God for a period of time. These positive views of the pedagogue

show us that Paul’s use of the word should not be colored by wholly negative inferences. There

are, however, two important features of the pedagogue’s role that provide insight into Paul’s

usage of the word: the pedagogue was custodian, and the pedagogue’s role as a custodian was

temporary.

27
David J. Lull, “‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105
(1986): 490.
28
Ibid., 492.
29
Richard N. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 25 (Mr 1982): 55.

18
 There are two instances where Paul makes use of paidagwgo,j: 1 Corinthians 4:15

and Romans 3:24-25. In the context of 1 Corinthians 4:15, Paul is arguing for the Corinthians to

listen to his leadership, since he was the missionary that initially birthed the church in Corinth. In

his discussion, Paul states that “… though ye have ten thousand (pedagogues) in Christ, yet have

ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” Here, Paul is

contrasting his work with the Corinthian church against the work of others in the lives of the

Corinthians by using the example of the differences between the office of the pedagogue with the

role of the parent. Whereas the pedagogue is a temporary guardian, the parent is a lifelong

influence in the child, and therefore Paul’s point is that the Corinthians should first listen to their

father in the gospel. In this passage, those who are simply pedagogues are certainly not a

negative influence in the lives of the Corinthian believers, just a lesser influence than their

missionary (Paul) who laid the foundation for their local churches.

In Galatians 3:24-25, Paul analogizes the role of the law to the role of the pedagogue.

Correctly recognizing the ancient role of the paidagwgo,j shows us that Paul was not saying

that the law was a harsh taskmaster or a disciplinarian that was never intended to be obeyed.

Rather, the Jewish regulations of the Torah served as a guardian that protected the nation of

Israel from the various practices of idol worship in other nations and similar pagan influences.

However, the role of the law was temporary, just like a pedagogue. At the appointed time, the

parent removed the protection and oversight of the pedagogue from the child, therefore at the

appointed time (the coming of Christ) the people of God were no longer required to be under the

protection of the parts of the law that made the Jewish nation particular.

With a correct understanding of the role of the pedagogue in ancient society, Paul’s

metaphorical association of no,moj with a pedagogue is not nearly as negative as it has often

19
been characterized. In fact, it can easily be understood in a rather positive sense, where the law

pointed the people of God toward new and better covenant, just like the pedagogue pointed a

child in a proper direction towards education and morality, in order that the life of the child

during maturity would be improved. Therefore in Galatians and Romans, Paul was certainly not

arguing that the requirements of the law were never meant to be kept.

Conclusion

The particular conclusion that God’s laws, whether narrowly focused on the Pentateuch

or the larger Old Testament, were never meant to be kept cannot be supported from Paul’s

discussions concerning the “law” in his letters. Any such interpretation is sorely lacking in

consideration of the wide range of meaning for no,moj in Paul’s letters, and does not recognize

the larger context of the arguments that Paul made. Instead, Paul argued that the particular

regulations of the Law of Moses for Israel are superseded by the work of the Holy Spirit, which

enables the believer to live in accordance with God’s intentions and desires.

Properly understanding Paul’s discussion of law has significant ramifications for the

Apostolic movement, mainly for the general exegesis and understanding of the Pauline corpus.

In particular, evangelical and Reformed Christian literature, which is oftentimes attractive to

Apostolics due to its rather literal interpretation of Biblical texts, is often used by Apostolic

pastors, teachers, and evangelists to support their preaching and teaching. However, these

evangelical and Reformed sources all too often presuppose that “the law” is the antithesis of

gospel, and that God places no requirements upon Christians today in what is often described as

an “age of grace.” Using these evangelical and Reformed sources in context of Pentecostal

theology, then, creates some confusing dichotomies. For example, teaching that “the law” has

ended for the Christian yet teaching that God has commanded Christians to live holy becomes a

20
conundrum for the average saint, a puzzle that only theologians can attempt to solve through

language – regardless of tongue or dialect – that is inaccessible to the most of the world’s

population.

Rather, we should understand that just as God graciously offered covenant to Israel and

expected them to live and abide by the inspired witness that God gave to Moses and the prophets,

God has graciously offered salvation to the world along with inspired commandments and

requirements. Those Old Testament commandments that are particularly Jewish in nature, which

separated the Jewish nation from the other nations, are no longer applicable for the church, since

the church has been called out of many nations to become a holy nation unto the Lord. Therefore

in the age of the church, God has given us inspired instructions in the Biblical text, not to simply

become full Jewish adherents with recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, but to repent, to be

baptized, to receive the Spirit, to love one another, and to abstain from sin – in short, to be a

Christian. These instructions are not suggestions, where, for example, baptism is an optional

component that has no real effect, but these instructions are requirements for proper and

complete initiation into the body of Christ and for a continued right relationship with God. God

expected his laws to be kept in the Old Testament, and now He expects His inspired Word to

serve as a roadmap and controlling feature for His body, the church.

21
 Selected Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini and Bruce Metzger,
eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1998.

Belleville, Linda L. “‘Under Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline concept of Law in
Galatians 3:21-4:11.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (F 1986): 53-78.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, revised and edited by
Frederick Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Byrne, Brendan. “Interpreting Romans: The New Perspective and Beyond.” Interpretation 58 no
3 (Jl 2004): 241-252.

______. “The Problem of Nomos and the Relationship with Judaism in Romans.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 294-309.

Chancey, Mark A. “Paul and the Law: E P Sanders’s Retrieval of Judaism.” Christian Century
123 no 12 (June 13, 2006): 20-23.

Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005.

Hanson, Anthony T. “The Origin of Paul's use of Paidagōgos for the Law.” Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 34 (O 1988): 71-76.

Hollander, Harm W. “The Meaning of the Term ‘Law’ (NOMOS) in 1 Corinthians.” Novum
Testamentum 40 (Ap 1998): 117-135.

Ito, Akio. “NOMOS (TWN) ERGWN and NOMOS PISTEWS: The Pauline Rhetoric and Theology
of NOMOS.” Novum Testamentum 45 no 3 (2003): 237-259.

Kittle, G. and G. Friedich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated and
edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1964-1976.

Longenecker, Richard N. “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7.” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (Mr 1982): 53-61.

Lull, David J. “‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 481-498.

22
Marcus, Joel. “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 63 no 1 (Ja 2001): 72-83.

Rich, David A. Seven Biblical Truths You Won’t Hear in Church, But Might Change Your Life.
Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2006.

Snodgrass, Klyne. “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the
Law.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (F 1988): 93-113.

Smith, Michael J. “The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians.” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (Ap-Je
2006):197-214.

Winger, Michael. By What Law? The Meaning of Nomos in the Letters of Paul. Atlanta: Scholars
Press: 1992.

______. “Meaning and Law.” JBL 117 no 1 (Spr 1998): 105-110.

Young, Norman H. “Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor.” Novum

Testamentum 29 no 2 (Ap 1987): 150-176.

23