Does the Apostle of the Gentiles contradict himself in his writings?
1. Alleged inconsistencies or contradictions.
The letters of the apostle Paul continually raise new discussions, because they contain many problematic passages, the result of the impulsive temperament of the apostle, who did not have the patience to correct his text to achieve an optimal degree of coherence and clarity. The Second Letter of Peter already stated that in Paul’s letters “there are passages that are difficult to understand, and ignorant and weak people distort their meaning” (2 Pet 3:16). Modern exegetes have estimated that Paul lacked coherence in his successive positions. In a work on “Paul and the Law,” a Finnish author, Heikki Räisänen, has written that Paul “contradicts himself” and that “contradictions and tensions must be accepted as constant lines of the Pauline theology of the Law.”1. Another author states: “There is nothing easier than finding verbal contradictions in Paul.”2. A precise examination of the texts is necessary to verify this type of judgment. First let us note that tensions and contradictions can be clearly distinguished. In the writings of the apostle, tensions can often be noted, which correspond to various aspects of a situation experienced, but it does not follow that contradictions per se can be found there. The case that comes closest to such a contradiction on an essential point of Pauline doctrine is that of Rom 2:13 in relation to Rom 3:20 and Ga 2:16. In Rom 2:13 Paul declares: “Indeed, it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the keepers (lit.: ‘workers’) of the Law will be justified.”
In Rom 3:20, Paul takes up his doctrine of Gal 2:16, supported by an expression from Ps 143:2, and proclaims: “By virtue of the works of the Law no flesh will be justified before Him.” At first glance, these texts seem contradictory. The first promises justification to those who will have observed the Law; the other two oppose this promise. Is there really a contradiction? No, because these texts are not expressed in the same terms. Rom 2:13 does not use the expression ex ergon nomou, “by works of law,” which is found in Rom 3:20 and Ga 2:16. The expression hoi poietai nomou, “the Law-observers,” may be thought to suggest the same idea. Indeed, many readers do not perceive the difference. But the difference exists. Rom 2:13 does not say that justification will have its origin in the works of the Law.
A second observation is semantic. Even when the texts use the same term (this is the case here of the verb dikaiothesontai, used in Rm 2,13 as in Rm 3,20 and Ga 2,16), it does not follow that this term designates the same reality in both texts. To decide, it is necessary to examine the context. In Rom 2:13 the context is that of judgment; the preceding verse contains the verb krithesontai, “they will be judged”; A parallel invites us to put dikaiothesontai, “they will be justified,” in relation to this krithesontai. Verse 16 specifies that it is the last judgment, which will take place “on the day when God will judge the secret actions of men” (Rom 2:16). Note that the use of the verb dikaioun, “justify,” in the context of judgment was the normal usage before Paul’s paradoxical innovation in the matter of “justification.” Since Rom 2:13 is the first passage of the epistle in which this verb appears, the Christians of Rome would have easily recognized in it a perspective that was familiar to them.
But in c. 3, Paul sets out to expound his doctrine of justification, which places the term in an entirely different context. Pauline justification, in fact, is not situated in the day of final judgment. It has, on the contrary, an initial character: it is at the beginning of the Christian life that it is received. God then gives it to the believer doing exactly the opposite of what an honest judge should do. The Torá prescribes to the judge: “You shall not justify the wicked” (ou dikaioseis ton asebe: Ex 23,7), evidently the role of the judge consisting in “justifying the innocent and condemning the guilty” (Dt 5,1). Contrary to these prescriptions, Paul does not hesitate to designate God as “he who justifies the wicked” (ton dikaounta ton asebe: Rom 4,3), a scandalous expression in itself, which is not acceptable except in light of the explanations given by Paul in the preceding context (Rom 3,21-26) and following (4,6-8; 5,6-10). It is this Pauline justification that the phrases of Rom 3:20 and Ga 2:16 have in view and not the traditional final justification, recalled in Rom 2:13. It follows that there can be no direct contradiction between these texts, since the same term, dikaioun, has different realities in mind.
The other alleged contradictions that various exegetes claim to find in Paul’s letters stand up to examination even less. These are never really contradictory statements, but only phrases from which it is possible to deduce, by interpreting them in a certain way, contradictory statements.
2. Pauline coherence on justification.
One problem, however, remains to be studied: can traditional final justification find a place alongside Pauline justification? Or, in other words: is Paul consistent with his own doctrine of justification, when he takes up, without criticizing it, the traditional doctrine of final justification?
Is Paul consistent with himself when, after having exposed his doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the Law (Gal 2,16-5,12), he begins to exhort believers to “act” (Gal 6,10: ergazometha), to find themselves in a good situation in the final judgment, evoked under the image of the harvest (Gal 6,7.8.9; cf. Mt. 13,30.39; Rev. 14,15-16)?
It is possible to give a negative answer to this question. The very formulation I have just adopted suggests that Paul is incoherent. And this is what many authors maintain, as is known. One of them comes to judge the inconsistency so serious that he concludes in the non-authenticity of the 24 verses that go from Gal 5:13 to 6:10. In his work, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London, 1972), J.C. O’Neill attributes these 24 verses to an interpolator, which, according to him, have no relation to the theme of the epistle. But this position is unsustainable. Indeed, from the point of view of sound textual criticism, it is impossible to demonstrate the non-authenticity of this last part of the epistle, unanimously attested by all the witnesses of the text. Throughout his book, J.C. O’Neill displays a strange lack of method. For him, textual criticism invariably consists of proposing omissions, based not on the evidence of manuscripts, but on reasons of internal criticism, which are often in reality nothing more than subjective impressions. It is surprising that a study that lacks scientific rigor to this point has found a publisher.
Our problem cannot be solved in this expeditious way, which suppresses the difficulty instead of facing it. On the contrary, it is essential to preserve all data and examine it closely.
Regarding Rom 2:13, one could be tempted to avoid the issue by saying that Paul expresses the current position in this phrase, without really taking it into his own hands. But this solution is made inadmissible by the text of v. 16 where Paul affirms that what he says is according to his gospel (kata ton euangelion mou). The final judgment “according to works” (Rom 2:6) is part of Paul’s gospel3. The expression ergazesthai to agathon, “to do good,” found in the exhortation of Gal 6:10 in relation to the final harvest, is found in Rom 2:10 in the perspective of judgment.
But there is room to note that after having expounded his doctrine of initial justification, the apostle then avoids, consciously or not, speaking of final “justification” on the occasion of the judgment. In the letter to the Galatians, the verb dikaioun, “justify,” is only used in the first context. The perspective of judgment is present, we have said, in parenesis, but it is evoked there by the metaphor of the harvest (Gal 6,7-9), without recourse to the vocabulary of condemnation and justification4. A preceding phrase, however, uses the noun dikaiosune in a perspective of eschatological waiting: “We, in fact, by the spirit [and] by virtue of faith, wait for a hope of righteousness” (Gal 5,5). This phrase surprises commentators, precisely because it evokes a final “justification.” However, it does not raise difficulties for the problem at hand, since Paul is there consistent with himself: it is faith, and not works, that he places at the origin of this final justification.
In the epistle to the Romans, after having expounded his doctrine of initial justification, mentioned in the present (Rom 3,24.26.28; 4,5; 8,33) and in the past (Greek aorist: Rom 4,2; 5,1.9), Paul no longer uses the verb dikaioun, “justify”, to speak of the final stage. In Rom 5:9-10 he characterizes this as the moment of future salvation. He places salvation in relation to “anger”, avoiding speaking of “judgment”, since, semantically, “judgment” is not in relation to “salvation”, but rather to “condemnation” or “justification”. Paul’s phrase thus distinguishes two stages: the first, of a “justification” obtained in the past, without any relation to a “judgment,” and the next, of a future “salvation,” implicitly situated, by the allusion to “wrath,” at the moment of the final judgment (cf. Rom 2:5).5. Paul proclaims: “Having now been justified by his blood (aorist) we will be saved by him from wrath (future); in fact, if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God by the death of his Son, even more so, having been reconciled (aorist), we will be saved (future) in his life” (Rom 5:9-10). It can then be concluded that Paul has therefore shown himself to be consistent in his way of expressing the two decisive moments of Christian existence, that of initial “justification” and that of final “salvation”.
In the hortatory part of the epistle to the Romans, the theme of anger and divine retribution appears only indirectly, when the apostle invites Christians not to take justice for themselves, but to leave the initiative “to the wrath” of God (Rom 12:19). Thus, the perspective of divine judgment is brought indirectly; To dissuade anyone from judging his brother, Paul reminds us that “we must all appear before the court of God”, “each one of us must give an account of himself to God” (Rom 14,10.12). Paul then omits to specify what will need to be accounted for. Its text leaves the possibility of very diverse interpretations, but, due to the very fact that it remains vague, it does not in itself express any position that is logically irreconcilable with the doctrine set forth earlier in the epistle.
3. Incoherence of language and coherence of thought.
Let us return to the Epistle to the Galatians, where the tensions between doctrine and exhortation raise a greater number of problems. To what extent can the apostle be accused of lack of coherence? By the way, it is important to distinguish two types of lack of coherence, that of language and that of thought. Paul himself suggests this distinction in 2 Cor 11:6: there he admits that his language is defective. Indeed, his impulsive temperament prevents him from taking care of the expression of his thoughts. His style is irregular, depending on the inspiration of the moment. He often jumps from one idea to another without indicating the logical link between the two. The reader must fill in the missing links.
These defects of language are most frequent in the final exhortations of the epistles. Pablo doesn’t take the trouble to explain himself well. Ga 6:10 is a good example of that. At first glance, there is no logical connection between v. 2 and v. 3-4; as for v. 5, seems in contradiction with v. 2 on the one hand and with v. 6, on the other. Let me explain: v. 2 is a plural exhortation to “carry each other’s burdens”; The perspective is communal. Without transition, the v. 3 moves on to a reflection in the singular on a totally different topic: “If anyone thinks he is something, while being nothing, he deceives himself.” The v. 4 gives an admonition on the same line and v. 5 declares: “Each one, in fact, will carry his own burden,” which seems to nullify the preceding exhortation to “carry one another’s burdens” (6:2). But the v. 6 comes immediately to apparently refute v. 5 inviting to “share”. Throughout this passage, Paul’s language manifestly lacks coherence. It is possible to conclude that his thinking is also missing from her. It will be said that incoherent speech reflects incoherent thought.
This way of seeing is contestable. Language is not necessarily the adequate expression of thought. It usually happens that he expresses it poorly, allowing, however, to apprehend it, but at the price of patient attention. A methodical analysis of Gal 6:1-6 allows us to distinguish, in this passage, two intertwined themes, expressed both in the first verse. The first theme is that of fraternal help: “correct him in a spirit of meekness” (6,1b); It is taken up and expanded in v. 2: “carry each other’s burdens,” and in v. 6: “that the catechized person share with the catechist.” The other topic concerns the examination of personal conscience: “take care of yourself, lest you also be tempted.” The v. 1 establishes a connection between these two themes: The second is taken up in vv. 3-5. The declaration of v. 5: “each one has to carry his own burden” concerns this second theme, that of the examination of personal conscience, and therefore does not nullify the exhortation of v. 2 to “carry each other’s burdens.” On the contrary, it reinforces it, since any offense against this “law of Christ” would be an additional “burden” for the conscience of the Christian on the day of judgment. But Paul does not say this explicitly. Only by reflecting on its text can we reach this conclusion, which other Pauline texts confirm, in particular that of 1 Cor 11,17-346.
4. A significant inconsistency.
Another case: a lack of coherence in language can reveal a correction made to thought. The analysis of Ga 4:19 leads us to this observation. In the first part of the sentence, Paul attributes the action of giving birth to the Galatians in pain; In the second, he speaks of a process of formation of Christ in them, which refers not to a birth, but to a gestation, and this gestation is located, one could say, in the maternal womb of the Galatians. Paul’s phrase lacks coherence, and this lack is significant: the second part of the phrase corrects what is excessive in the first. In this, everything seems to depend on Paul’s activity: “she gives birth in labor pains” to the Galatians; verb odino, in the active voice, first person singular. Pablo gives himself too much importance there, which often happened to him. The expression that follows corrects the excess by using a passive form in 3a. person (morphothr[i]) to talk about the main process. The perspective of 1Co 3:6-7 is then implicitly found: “I planted, Apollos watered, but it was God who gave the growth. So neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who makes it grow.”
5. Incoherence and paradox.
Another case: that of a voluntarily chosen lack of coherence, in order to give the expression of thought a paradoxical nuance. Paul expresses himself with pleasure in paradoxes. This literary form pleased his combative and provocative temperament. But a paradox always involves a lack of coherence and even an apparent contradiction. It is the very law of the genre: to obtain a paradox, two aspects are sought in a given situation that may seem irreconcilable, but which nevertheless coexist. They are expressed taking care to indicate the elements that allow us to understand their coexistence. In this way, received ideas are challenged and the reader is encouraged to seek a deeper truth.
The epistle to the Galatians is full of paradoxical expressions, already in its doctrinal part (cf. 2,19; 3,13; 3,22; 4,4-5; 4,25) and again in the exhortations. The first phrase of the hortatory part establishes a paradoxical orientation from the outset, saying: “it is to freedom that you have been called […], but become slaves…” (Gal 5,13). Isn’t there a blatant contradiction there? How can the Christian vocation be oriented simultaneously in two opposite directions, freedom and servitude? Paul could have easily avoided the contrast by refraining from using here the verb douleuein, “to be a slave”, which he has always presented in a pejorative form before (cf. Gal 4,8.9.25), but his taste for paradox has led him to choose precisely this verb. Thanks to this choice, he combats more effectively a false conception of Christian freedom, which would lead the believer to become a slave to selfishness. The details given by the apostle allow the well-disposed and discerning reader to understand that the servitude of which this phrase speaks is, in reality, the most beautiful realization of freedom, since it is practiced “out of love” and is reciprocal. What is done out of love is not done through violence, but freely and with joy. On the other hand, “to become slaves of one another” is to overcome the situation of domination of the master over the slave, to establish everything together in a relationship of authentic brotherhood. No Christian is a boss; no one is a slave (cf. Gal 3:28). Everyone serves and is served. In this paradoxical phrase, Paul boldly relativizes the vocabulary of freedom.
He also relativizes it in the Epistle to the Romans, but in a different way. There he explains that the choice must be made between two slaverys, that “of sin which leads to death” and that “of obedience, which leads to justice” (Rom 6:16). He tells Christians: “Freed from sin, you have become slaves of justice” (6:18) and invites them to “present your members as slaves of justice in view of sanctification” (6:19). Paul is therefore indifferent to the use of the terms “freedom” and “slavery.” What matters to him is to give him contact with realities, which he seeks to express either in one way or another, without worrying too much about coherence in his language. To follow his thinking, you have to show proof of insight.
6. Polysemy of nomos.
Regarding the word nomos, “Law”, it is noted that Paul makes consistent use of it in Galatians, except in three passages (Gal 4:21; 5:14; 6:2). Of 32 uses of this term, 30 take it in the legislative sense of a set of rules of conduct. Although the term is often devoid of an article, the context makes it clear that it is the legislation of the Israelite people.7.
The first passage that makes exception to the usual use of the term is located in 4.21. Pablo plays there on the term nomos using it in two different senses in the same sentence, once without the article (hypo nomon) and once with the article (ton nomon). Paul asks the Galatians: “Tell me, you who want to be under a law: Do you not hear the Law?” Present in the previous context (Ga 3,23; 4,4.5), the expression devoid of article designates the law-obligation, while tou nomou with the article designates, according to what follows in the text, Torá as a revealing Scripture, as an inspired story. In relation to these two aspects of the same Torá, Paul, it is known, takes two very different positions: he rejects the legislative authority of the law-obligation, but fully admits the revelatory authority of this inspired account. Even more, he resorts to this revelatory authority of the Torá to demonstrate to the Galatians made Christians that they should not submit to the legislative authority of the same Torá. Paul thus manifests a surprising dialectical ability.
The same bold position is found in Rm 3:21. His influence has been decisive for the Christian conception of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. The way in which Paul allegorizes the biblical text clearly does not satisfy the demands of modern exegesis, but, in the final analysis, Paul’s position is not based on allegorical subtlety; It is based on a deep understanding of the crucifixion of Christ, an event that broke with the Law (cf. Gal 2:19), but which nevertheless fulfills the prophecies (cf. 1 Cor 15:3).
7. The law of Christ.
The other two texts that constitute exception (Gal 5,14; 6,2) do not concern Torá as revelation; nomos there preserves its sense of obligation to “fulfill” (Gal 5:14; 6:2). What is surprising there is that Paul puts nomos there in a favorable light. The first passage (Gal 5,14) is clearly related to the Law of Moses, from which the precept of love for one’s neighbor is cited (Lev 19,18), while the second passage (Gal 6,2) uses the expression “the law of Christ”, hapax neotestamentario.
This second text therefore constitutes a lexical innovation. This, as a German exegete has noted, “must surely surprise, especially in the Letter to the Galatians, which carries out such a harsh polemic against the Law and legalism.”8. There is found another example of Paul’s indifference in matters of vocabulary. There is room to think, however, that this indifference is not lacking in significance here. She reveals that “the harsh controversy” of the preceding chapters did not have in view the term nomos, nor the concept of law in general. It had a more precise objective, the attribution to the legislation of the Jewish people of a fundamental importance for Christian life. Consequently, Paul shows no difficulty in speaking of “the law of Christ.”
His attitude will be similar in the epistle to the Romans, in an even more pronounced way. There he will take the term nomos in very varied meanings: written norm, attractive ideal, irrepressible tendency. He will speak of “the law of God” (Rom 7,22.25; 8,7), of “the law of my spirit” (7,23), of an “other law in my members” (7,23), of “the law of sin” (7,23.25), of “the law of sin and death” (8,2) and he will not hesitate to forge the paradoxical expression: “the law of the spirit of life” (8.2). He knows what he is talking about, but, more than ever, insight is essential to follow the movement of thought well.
8. The whole of the Law is fulfilled.
The text of Gal 5:14 seems the most surprising of all, since it raises a problem of doctrinal coherence and not simply of lexical clarity. As we have already noted, from a semantic point of view the term nomos retains the meaning it regularly has in previous developments; designates the Law as a set of obligations and, more precisely, the legislation contained in the A.T. The new and unexpected fact is that, in Gal 5:14, Paul does not express any prevention against the fulfillment of this Law. Furthermore, he resorts to this fulfillment as an argument that supports the exhortation he has just given. The conjunction gar expresses this logical link: “serve one another in love, for you will love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal 5:14; Lev 19:18). Reading this phrase, one gets the clear impression that Paul has renounced his polemic against the Law, which fills the preceding chapters and verses. But this impression is refuted in the following verses, where Paul again becomes controversial and declares: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal 5:18); Then, having enumerated nine components of the “fruits of the Spirit,” he observes: “against such [provisions] there is no law” (Gal 5:23). The entire law reaches its fullness in a single word:
Without going into every detail, I propose to briefly consider the problem of disagreement or agreement between doctrine and exhortation. To tell the truth, we are dealing here primarily with the relations between two different sectors of Pauline exhortation, one sector that is in close connection with the doctrine and another sector that seems to ignore it. Paul, at the beginning of chapter 5, exhorts the Galatians to “stand firm” and “not allow themselves to be oppressed again under the yoke of slavery” (5:1), an obvious allusion to the “disposition” of Sinai, which “gives birth to slavery” (4:24). But in v. 14 places compliance with the Law in a favorable perspective. Is this not inconsequential on your part? In response to this question, it should first of all be noted that there is no opposition in Paul’s text between two exhortations in the opposite sense. Indeed, if the phrase in Gal 5:1 is hortatory, that in Gal 5:14 is not. Paul does not exhort the Galatians to fulfill the Law of Moses. It does not use the imperative, but the indicative: “the entire Law reaches its fulfillment…” The phrase does not challenge the Galatians in the 2nd person plural; she does not name them in any way. The subject is the Law. The verb is not in the active voice, but in the perfect passive. These particularities are significant. If Paul invited the Galatians to submit to the Law of Moses, he would fall into incoherence. But his way of speaking has in view, on the contrary, to exempt the Galatians from referring to the Law. They must only live in charity, and the Law will be fulfilled, without their having to think about it. Let them let themselves be led by the Spirit, and the Law will not be able to reproach them for anything (cf. Gal 5:23). On the other hand, the expression ho pas nomos, which puts pas after the article, designates the entire Law and implies a refusal to be interested in the details of its prescriptions.9.
In the parallel passage in Romans (Rom 13:8), the perspective remains the same. Paul does not exhort there to observe the Law. In none of his letters is an exhortation in this sense found. One may wonder if he taught the Decalogue to his catechumens. Many texts, including Gal 5:21, leave the impression that he did not teach them, but rather preferred to warn against vices that exclude them from the kingdom of God. However, one text, 1 Cor 7:19, speaks in the opposite sense, since it attributes essential importance to an “observance of the commandments of God.”10, in contrast to circumcision or uncircumcision.
Whatever this point may be, it is clear that in Rom 13:8b Paul speaks about the Law without exhorting it to be observed. His phrase is not in the imperative as at the beginning of the verse, but in the indicative. The verb, this time, is active, but in the perfect form, which describes an already completed fact: “For he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.” Useless, then, to worry about all the prohibitions of the Decalogue! It is enough to live according to divine charity, “poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom 5:4) and all these prohibitions will be observed (Rom 13:9). Let us even add that their demand will be more than satisfied, since charity is not content with abstaining from evil, but produces all kinds of good works. But these are not human exploits or “works of the Law”; It is about the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5,22-23), about works of faith (cf. Gal 5,6). It is God who, making “all grace abound,” gives believers “abound in every good work” (cf. 2 Cor 9:8).
Another passage from Romans (Romans 8:3-4) gives important details regarding the fulfillment of the Law. This fulfillment is placed in an extremely favorable light, since it is presented, on the one hand, as the end intended by God, when “he has condemned sin in the flesh,” and it is there defined, on the other hand, as the result of conduct “according to the Spirit.” But, again, this text involves some significant particularities, which correspond very closely to those of Gal 5:14. Paul writes: hina to dikaioma tou nomou plerothê(i) en hemin, “so that the just prescription of the Law may be fulfilled in us.” Note the form of the verb pleroun: a passive and not an active; a global aorist and not a present of continuity. As for the Law, Paul designates it by an expression in the singular, to dikaioma tou nomou, which implies even more clearly than ho pas nomos of Ga 5,14, a refusal to take the prescriptions into account in detail. So Paul does not tell us that we must continually fulfill the multiple prescriptions of the Law. He says that God has made it so that the overall orientation established by the Law is globally realized in us, thanks to the constant action of his Spirit.11. Once again it is clear that this is not a question of human prowess, but of receiving the gift of God.
9. Omissions are not denials.
In his exhortations, Paul does not always bother to specify this fundamental point. In Gal 6:9-10, for example, there are two vigorous calls to carry out good works, without the slightest allusion to the gift of grace: “In doing good (to de kalon poiountes), let us not get tired […]; while we have the opportunity, let us do good (ergazometha to agathon)”. One possible option is to maintain that, in this exhortation, Paul forgets his doctrine and contradicts it, falling back into the path of traditional morality. But this option is contestable, since it has no basis other than an ex silentio argument, of very dubious value. Paul, in fact, does not deny in these verses, in any way, the fundamental role of faith and the need for grace. Simply omit to mention them. In Gal 5:13 he does not specify that charity is a gift from God (cf. Rom 5:4), nor, in Gal 5:16-23, that the Spirit is received by believers thanks to “the hearing of faith” (cf. Gal 3:2.5). His exhortation pushes believers to action, without reminding them that it is God who “works in you to will and to act” (Phil 2:13). Not remembering, however, is not equivalent to denying12.
Let us note here that, also on his side, the doctrinal developments of the epistle present omissions, but it would be wrong to consider them as denials. Paul’s impulsive temperament led him to express himself in an absolute and unilateral manner both in expositions of doctrine and in exhortations. In the first chapters of Galatians, Paul seems to leave no place for works in the Christian life. He does not behave as a theologian who is careful to take into account the various aspects of the problem and arrive at a wisely balanced solution. He speaks as a passionate apostle, who wants to remove at all costs a danger that threatens the faith of his faithful. He also speaks as an experienced speaker, who knows that a speech that is too nuanced loses its persuasive power. It is advisable to take this existential situation into account if the scope of his statements is to be correctly appreciated. Otherwise, positions will be attributed to him that are not really his, and he will be accused of being unfaithful to them, particularly when he passes on to exhortation.
10. Conclusion.
Paul’s writings are often difficult to interpret. Hence the possibility of divergent interpretations.
But it is false to pretend that Paul very frequently contradicts himself and that his exhortations do not agree with his doctrine. In his letters, no contradictions per se are found. Even a text like Rom 2:13, which seems to oppose Ga 2:16 and Rom 3:20, does not formally contradict them, since, not having the expression ex ergon nomou, it does not speak explicitly of the origin of justification and, on the other hand, it does not apply to the initial justification, but to the final judgment.
It must be safely admitted that, without directly contradicting himself, Paul lacks coherence more than once at the level of language, whether unintentionally, since he is not careful with his style, particularly in the exhortations (cf. Gal 6:1-6), or voluntarily, in his use of paradox (cf. Gal 5:13). But it is not about incoherence at the level of thought.
In the Letter to the Galatians, we have noted three passages where the term nomos is used in a way that does not agree with the other 29 uses of the word, regularly taken in the meaning of “legislative system.” In Gal 4:21 Paul couples this meaning with another, current in Judaism: Torá as inspired Scripture, but he takes a paradoxical position, inconceivable for Judaism, since he implies that the revelatory authority of Torá leads believers to reject its legislative authority. In 6:2, a new expression, “the law of Christ,” implicitly states that Paul’s polemic against the Jewish Law does not make him a systematic enemy of all law; Paul recognizes above all the authority of Christ. In 5:14, finally, a positive allusion to the fulfillment of the Law may surprise, but the precise examination of this text and some other parallel ones shows that, far from constituting an exhortation to fulfill the Law, this phrase teaches Christians that, if they live generously in charity, they should not be careful regarding the fulfillment of the Law.
It is beyond doubt that Paul often expresses himself in a one-sided or lazy manner, both in his doctrinal expositions and in his exhortations. It follows that, to know all of his thoughts, one must be careful not to isolate one or another of his phrases with a paper cutter, but rather to be careful to specify the scope taking into account the texts that carry a complementary clarification. It is particularly convenient, when one wants to define the meaning of the apostle’s doctrinal statements, to interrogate his exhortations and, reciprocally, to interpret his exhortations more correctly, to appeal to his doctrinal expositions.
Among other advantages, efforts of this kind have great ecumenical utility. Divisions among Christians have, in fact, been more than once provoked or accentuated by rigid interpretations of certain Pauline statements. A more faithful docility to all the texts, which takes into account the complementary nature of the doctrine and the parenesis and consequently suggests a greater breadth of vision in interpretation, should allow everyone to progress towards unity.
Author: Rev. Fr. Dr. Albert Vanhoye, SJ, Conference delivered at the 1999 Biblical Conference, Institute of the Incarnate Word, San Rafael, Mendoza, Argentina
Source: Apologetica.org
NOTES
[1] H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, Tübingen 1983, p. 265 et p. 11. [2] J. Lowe, “An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in St. Paul’s Theology,” JThS 42 (1941) 129-142, p. 140, cited by H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, p. 11, no. 72. [3] Confirmation of this is found in Rom 14,10.12 and, even more explicitly, in 2 Cor 5,10 (cf. also Eph 6,8). Correctly understood, the phrase from Rom 2:13b applies to the final judgment of Christians. In fact, if they are docile to the dynamism of “the faith that works through love” (Gal 5:6), Christians fulfill the law fully (cf. Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8-10) and are then, in their own way, which is superabundant, poietai nomou, “observers of the law” (Rom 2:13b); they will be “recognized righteous” at the final judgment (ibid.). But his “justice” does not therefore come ex ergôv nomou, it has its source, let us repeat, in “the faith that works through love” (Gal 5,6). The most important text of Rom 8:3-4 leads to the same conclusions. [4] In Gal 5:10 the term krima is found in a phrase where Paul threatens “he who troubles” the Galatians. It is the only use of the vocabulary of judgment. Krinein never appears, neither krisin, nor katakrinein. [5] In Rom 2:5 Paul speaks of “the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment (dikaiokrisía) of God.” [6] In 1 Cor 11:17-34 Paul reproaches the Corinthians for their lack of solidarity and invites an examination of conscience to avoid judgment; the warning of 1 Cor 11,28 (“let one examine himself”) and that of Gal 6,4 (“let each one examine his work”; literally: “the work of himself”). [7] A quote from Deuteronomy explicitly confirms this point, speaking of the “book of the Law” (Dt. 27:46 cited in Gal 3:10). The mention of an interval of 430 years between the establishment of the Law and the promise made by God to Abraham (Gal 3:17) places the origin of the Law at the time of the Exodus. [8] W. Schrage, “Problem”, p. 184. [9] Cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Cambridge/Chicago, 1961, n. 275, 7: “G 5: ho pas nomos in contrast to the multiple laws.” [10] The expression is without articles: têrêsis entolôn Theou. The fact that the beginning of the phrase, contrary to Ga 5,6 and 6,15, places the article before peritomê and akrobystía, invites us to take this absence of the article into account and then raises problems of interpretation. [11] The expression peripatousin… kata pneuma is in the present of continuity. [12] The text of Phil 2:12-13 shows perfectly that a call to action does not in any way exclude the conviction that everything is the work of God. In this passage, in fact, the call to action is explicitly based on this conviction: “work with fear and trembling for your salvation, for it is God who works in you to will and to act.” Cf. T.J. Deidun, New Covenant Morality in Paul (AnBib 89; Rome 1981) pp. 63-68.
