South Woods Baptist Church

GALATIANS 3:10-14
CHRIST: THE CURSE FOR OUR BLESSING

In many ways, the doctrine of justification as discussed in Galatians 3:10-14 is the basis of what one believes about the work of Christ.  What was Christ's role in salvation?  Was He a worthy sacrifice?  How could He procure such a grand blessing?  Since the time of the Protestant Reformation, theologians have been asking these questions of this passage, with result of not a few varying responses.  In recent decades, there has been a move to shift the paradigm of the categories traditionally used to define Paul's argument for justification.  This New Perspective (NP) on Paul has achieved a vast following within a relatively short time period.  There are different models of thought in the NP, but the basic argument is that Paul never meant to imply that works of the Law were not a basis for salvation.  He was not fighting against legalists, but instead against non-legalistic, covenantal nomism.  This covenantal, nomistic framework encouraged the view that "one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression."[1]  Therefore, for the recipients of Paul's repeated attacks throughout his letters, "the intention and effort to be obedient constitute the condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it."[2]

Can the above argument rightly be made from the substance of Paul's letters?  Is one justified in arguing that Paul was arguing about justification by works?  To answer these questions, it is necessary to look at Paul's own words on the subject, specifically to study the text and context of Galatians3:10-14, where one must understand Paul's argument that "For as many as are of works of the Law...Christ set [them] free from the curse of the Law by becoming for [them] a curse" (vs. 10a, 13a).

Exegesis of the Text

Context of 3:10-14

Paul has moved from discussing the basis and truthfulness of his apostleship in Ch. 1, to his relationship with and argument against the hypocrisy of Peter in Ch. 2, especially with regards to the latter's seeming reliance on the Law.  Paul concludes that, "if righteousness (is) through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (vs. 21).  Ch. 3 begins with Paul's wonder at the "foolish Galatians," how they could depart from the truth of the gospel.  As a result of their departure, Paul begins his argument of the relationship of the Law and faith, specifically with regards to the promise given to Abraham, which he will develop through the end of the chapter. 

It is important to note that the promise of blessing was given to Abraham, prior to the Law, thus not dependent on the Law.  In fact, Law never informs the equation of the promise, in that "those of faith are blessed with the faith of Abraham" (3:9).  It is not the Jews by the Law that would be blessed, but "all the nations will be blessed in [Abraham]" (3:8).  This promise is complete in and of itself. 

In contrast to this blessing given to both Abraham and those with his faith, Paul says that there is a curse for those under the Law.  The curse comes about as a result of unfulfilled works, because if we live according to the works of the Law, we must obey all of them (3:10).  Since none obey the Law, then all are under the curse of the Law.  It is for this reason that Christ became the curse for those who would believe, so that the promise may be found true, and that those who have faith in Christ will receive the promise of the blessing, not the condemnation of the curse, thus "those of faith, these are sons of Abraham" (3:7).

Vss. 10-14 is written in the form of a situation and response.  Vss. 10-12 are the situation of the curse Paul is setting forth, with vs. 10 stating that all who are of works of the Law are under a curse, vs. 11 stating no one is justified by the Law, and vs. 12 concluding the preceding vss. are true because the Law is not from faith.  Paul then presents the response to the situation in vss. 13-14 in the form of an action and purpose.  Vs. 13 is the action of the response of Christ, informing that "Christ set us free from the curse of the Law by becoming for us a curse."  Paul then tells the purpose of that action in vs. 14 by means of another action and purpose, the action being so that the blessing of Abraham might be in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, and the purpose being receiving of the promise of the Spirit.

3:10 - For as many as are of works of the Law, they are under a curse, because it has been written that, "under a curse is everyone who does not obey all that has been written in the book of the Law, to do them."

This section of Paul's argument in 3:10-14 is the grounds for his argumentation in 3:6-9 in that it is those of faith who "are sons of Abraham" (3:7) and who "are blessed with the faith of Abraham" (3:9), because those of the works of the Law are "under a curse" (3:10).[3]  That vss. 10-14 are the basis of his argument in vss. 6-9 is indicated by the postpositive conjunction gar, which acts as an explanatory conjunction, and not, as Betz suggests, an inferential one.[4]  Paul, then, uses vss. 10-14 to further explain that the blessing of Abraham is hindered by any who would attempt to be made righteous by the Law, which was never meant to make one righteous, but whose purpose was to shut one up to sin, so that the promise might be given to those who believe (vs. 22). 

The above-mentioned statement in vs. 7 that the sons of Abraham are those of faith finds its negative correspondent in the first phrase of vs. 10, "as many as are of the works of the Law."  Paul uses hosoi ("as many as") as a comparitative quantity, showing that all who strive after righteousness in the works of the Law are under a curse.  To whom, though, does the "as many as" refer?  While Betz and Longenecker understand hosoi as referring to Jewish Christians in the Galatian churches, it is more likely that Paul is speaking to any person who is of the sort that seek to do works as their righteousness.[5]  One should look into the arguments on both sides.

Jewish Christians.  A further inquiry into the identity of these workers has been the topic of much scholarly writing in the past few decades.  Those writing under the title of NP understand the hosoi to only be the Jewish Christians of the church at Galatia.  This being the case, Paul is naming a group of people hosoi ex ergon nomou ("as many as are of the works of the Law"), just as groups are now named "Baptist" or "Presbyterian," not referring to them by the negative term "legalist."[6]  His problem with this group, then, is not that they strive to keep the Law, because they are Jews - that is what good Jews do.  The problem lies in the fact that they are urging Gentile believers to become "children of Abraham" and receive the covenant "promises" by taking the covenant signs and submitting themselves to the works of the Law.  These Jewish Christians, then, needed to understand that the Gentiles are "those of faith", and therefore not under the Law unless they submit themselves to the Law for the sake of righteousness.  Why, though, are these of the works of the Law under a curse?  N.T. Wright argues that these Jews of the Diaspora accepted that they were under the Deuteronomic curse of exile, thus oppression under the Gentiles.[7]  This may be true, though Wright supplies no evidence that the Jews of the Diaspora felt that they were under the curse of exile, if the group of people referenced by Paul is wholly a group of Jewish Christians. 

Another train of thought that sees this group as being Jewish Christians says that there is an implied premise, the argument then being: given premise [As many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse], implied premise [if they abandon any of the laws], and textual proof [because under a curse are all who do not obey all that is written in the book of the Law].[8]  This implied premise avoids a hurtle that many try to get around, that of saying that Paul was referring to the impossibility of keeping the whole Law.  Why is this an issue?  Many exegetes understand that inherent in Judaism is a system of forgiveness by means of sacrifice, which made it possible to live life and be righteous by keeping the Law, and if there was a transgression, there was always a covenant promise of forgiveness if the proper sacrifice was made.  After all, Paul even says that he was blameless with regards to the Law (Phil. 3:6,9).

Though this implied premise view is helpful in understanding Paul's argument, it errs in its contribution to the argument by supplying a concessive clause instead of a causal clause, which will be discussed below.  Another problem with this view is that it argues that one can keep the Law and gain righteousness from its observance.  It is true that if one kept the Law they would be righteous.  Jesus lived according to the Law and was evidently declared righteous because He was resurrected from the dead (Rom. 1:4).  The difference is that Jesus did not have the fixture of original sin around His neck.  He was able to keep the Law, and rejoice in the keeping of it.  All others, conversely, are not able to keep the Law, and are condemned by the incurring of the curse of it.  One may say, but what of Paul?  Did he not refer to himself as blameless "as to the righteousness in the Law" (Phil. 3:6)  A cursory reading may produce this interpretation, but on a closer look at the context reveals that this is a look at how a pre-Christian Paul viewed himself.[9]  "[It] is an illusion of the Pharisee's heart."[10]  In Phil. 3:6, it is also the case that Paul is stating his case as compared to his contemporaries, which is similar to an earlier statement in Gal. 1:14.  A final problem with this view is Paul's use of personal pronoun hemas ("us") as connoting Paul along with another group (vs. 13).  This other group, as is shown in vs. 14, is not merely the Jewish Christians, but the Gentiles as well, because their blessing is the reason Christ died, and so that through faith they (including Paul and other Jews) might receive the promise of the Spirit.  It seems, then, that the hosoi ergon nomou ("those of works of the Law") should not be seen as only the Jewish Christians.

Any who seek righteousness from the Law.  It was mentioned above that there was an implied premise view that made use of a non-inferential assertion in arguing for Paul's meaning in the text.  This view sees the implied premise as being causal, and showing not why it is possible for some to keep the Law, but why it is impossible for any to keep it.  Textual proof [under a curse is everyone who does not obey all that is written in the book of the Law (Gal. 3:10b)], implied premise [because no one can keep the law perfectly], and inference [therefore, as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse (Gal. 3:10a)].[11] 

Can one make the argument of the implied premise, though, that no one can keep the law perfectly?  Paul does.  He does say he is blameless with reference to the righteousness found in the Law, but as argued above, this is Paul's view of himself B.C. and as compared with his peers.  Furthermore, he says in Gal. 3:21 that if righteousness could have been obtained by the Law, then righteousness would have been by the Law.  Throughout the epistle, Paul pits a dichotomy between Law and faith.  They are mutually exclusive.  "...So that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law, because by the works of the Law, all flesh will not be made righteous" (Gal. 3:16b).  If righteousness were able to come through the Law, then Christ would not have needed to die (Gal. 2:21).

Continuing with Paul's argument in 3:10-14, the grounding statement for Paul's assertion that those who are of the Law are under a curse is that Scripture says "under a curse are all who do not obey all that has been written in the book of the Law to do them."  This statement is a reference to Deut. 27:26.  It is more similar to the LXX than the MT in that the LXX adds paV (pas - "everyone") after epikataratos ("being cursed") and pasin ("all things") after hos ouk emmenei ("who is not abiding").  This curse Paul references is the last of the twelve curses in the "Shechemite dodecalogue."  It serves as a summary of the first eleven curses of the Mosaic covenant, for which the dodecalogue was part of a renewal ceremony.[12]  Paul, though, generalizes the basis of the curse by replacing pasin tois logois tou nomou toutou [LXX]("all writings of this law") with pasin tois gegrammenois en to bibliw tou nomou ("all being written in the book of the Law").  The main difference between the two is that Paul replaces "all the words of this Law," referring to the Mosaic covenant renewal, with "all that has been written in the book of the Law," referring to the Pentateuch.[13] 

3:11 - But that by the Law no one is justified before God is evident, because "the righteous will live by faith."

Paul continues his establishing of the situation by stating an alternate view with reference to those of the works of the Law - that the Law justifies no one before God.  It was a mistake for any of his recipients to think that by attempting to follow the Law they would be justified.  Looking ahead to the response to the situation in vss. 13-14, Paul inserts two verses from the Old Testament.  They both seem to affirm two opposite ways of living, with the verb zesetai ("he will/shall live") being the only common link between them.  So, is Paul trying to say there are two ways to live, one by works of the Law, and one by faith in Christ?  One must look at Paul's usage of the verses to acquire a firm answer.

Paul expands his frame of reference from ex ergon nomou ("from works of the Law") to en nomo ("in the Law").  This change in referent leads one to see that Paul is not merely arguing that works can not justify one under the Law, which he does argue in other places (Gal. 3:2-3, 5; Eph. 2:8-9).  Instead, Paul is stating that nothing in the Law had the capacity to justify, thus the need for the New Covenant, and the gift of salvation, which includes justification.[14]  Paul then states that righteousness is something that is declared or given, not earned, by his use of the passive with reference to dikaioutai ("he is justified").  Paul's argument in vs. 11 shows the forensic nature of justification, in that man is not morally righteous before God "by the Law," but is declared righteous by God.[15]  One may be able to boast of earned righteousness when compared to others of like kind (such as Paul and his contemporaries in Gal. 1:14), but not para to theo ("before God").  God is the standard of righteousness, and has given His Law as an instructor of His character.  There are none but God, along with those who retain His untainted image, who can achieve righteousness "by the Law."  Paul even accepts this statement as so much a given that he says it is delon ("evident").  There is a question as to whether this adjective should refer back to 11a, or forward to 11b.  Either way, it does not make a difference in the argument that no one is justified before God by the Law.  Why?  Paul gives his answer in 11b by quoting Habakkuk 2:4, "because the righteous will live by faith."

Once again, there are some differences between Paul's use of the Old Testament passage over against the MT and the LXX.  The MT reads "the righteous shall live by his faithfulness."  The LXX has two readings, "the righteous will live by means of my faithfulness" (o dikaios mou ek pisteos zesetai) and "my righteous ones will live by means of faith" (o dikaios mou ek pisteos zesetai).[16]  Paul omits mou ("my") altogether because his emphasis is not on it, but on ek pisteos ("from/by faith").  "[T]he point he his making here is that righteousness in this pivotal text is associated with faith alone - not with the law!"[17]

3:12 - But the Law is not from faith, but "the one who does them will live by them."

Paul again includes an adversative conjunction in his argument to contrast again the former statement.  In this instance, he is highlighting that though "the righteous will live by faith," "the Law is not from faith."  With the pair of adversatives, one in vs. 11 and the other in vs. 12, we have somewhat of an ABA' pattern.  Vss. 10 and 12 (A and A') speak of Law and curse, while vs. 11 (B) speaks of faith and righteousness.[18]  Once again, "the Law" is akin to "works of the Law."   Since, as in vs. 11, the righteous live by faith, and here in vs. 12, the Law is not from faith, then the conclusion is that righteousness cannot come from the Law.[19]

Paul sets out a principle in vs. 12, that of Law not being from or based on faith.  He is content with not supporting his contention with argument, but instead with an Old Testament reference to Lev. 18:5.  He sets 12b apart from 12a by the strong adversative alla ("but"), hinging on the closest phrase, ek pisteos ("from/by faith"), thus contrasting faith with the requirement of the Law.  Those who actually do the requirements of the Law (all 242 positive commands, and 365 prohibitions), will live by them, but who can do them?  None have lived but Christ![20]  Bruce maintains that "Paul understands 'life' practically in the sense of 'justification.'"[21]  This thought is true in a sense, but instead of envisaging the formula life equals justification, it is better to see justification as producing life (Rom. 5:21).  So in answer to the question previously raised, yes, hypothetically there are two ways to live; but practically, no, there are not, because of the presence of sin in our natures.  The way of faith, as mentioned in vs. 11, is now our only way to live, because Christ has championed the second way, that of the Law, so that we are no longer condemned by it.

3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, by becoming for us a curse, because it has been written, "Under a curse is everyone who is hanged on a tree,"

Paul begins vs. 13 with an asyndeton, which is a literary device of not having a connective where one is expected.  This device is especially effective in light of the previous three vss. beginning with a connective.  It is used here rhetorically to highlight a change of subject and the flow of argument.  This verse begins Paul's response to the situation presented in vss. 10-12.  For all who were under the curse of the Law, in that they tried to gain righteousness apart from faith in God, Christ redeemed them by becoming a curse for them.  The action of Christ's redeeming was affected by means of His becoming a curse.  Exegorasen ("he redeemed") is a commercial term that literally means "to set free by the payment of a price."[22]  With reference to exegorasen, the Middle Age idea of Christ paying a 'ransom' to the devil is not necessary.  Paul does not make mention of Christ paying to anyone because He was not in debt to anyone.  The idea of ransom is best seen as Christ securing His creation from themselves, in spite of their sin.  In this respect, the hemas ("us") refers to all who are in Christ.  

In what way, though, did Christ become a curse for us?  He was born under the Law (4:4), but it is evident by His resurrection that He was righteous with regards to the Law.  The details of transfer are not fully given here by Paul, but we do see an imputation taking place between the curse of our account and Christ's account (sticking with the commercial metaphors).

Paul gives as the grounding proof of the assertion of 13ab the quotation found in13c of Deut. 21:23, "under a curse is everyone who is hanged on a tree."  Deut. 21:23 originally had reference to the body of a criminal after his execution.  Israel was given command to not expose the corpse overnight, because to do so would desecrate the land.  Israel did not practice Roman crucifixion, but in the New Testament period, these regulations pertaining to humilative hanging were transferred to the practice of crucifixion.[23] 

Once again, Paul differs from the MT and LXX renderings of this quoted verse.  He assimilates epikataratos  ("being cursed") from the earlier quote of Deut. 27:26 in vs. 10, rather than retaining the LXX kekataramatos ("being cursed").  Paul also excludes hypo theo ("by God") after epikataratos ("being cursed"), surely not to keep from saying that God directly cursed Jesus, because he freely states the same in other letters (Rom. 5:19, 2 Cor. 5:19).[24]  It may be that Paul was emphasizing the condemnation inherent in the curse itself.[25]

3:14 - So that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might be in Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.

Why did Christ redeem any from the curse of the Law?  The purpose of His action is stated in vs. 14 - so the blessing of Abraham might be in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles.  The promise made to Abraham in Gen. 12:3, "and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed," is the referent of which Paul is writing.  The promise was made before the sign of circumcision, and also before the Law at Sinai, again supporting Paul's teaching that Gentiles need not succumb to the Law for salvation.  By Christ becoming a curse, He redeemed Jews and Gentiles, thus allowing both to experience the blessing of Abraham, though here Paul is more interested in speaking of the Gentiles' inclusion in the promise, as he is still arguing for their equality in the curse of the Law and in the blessing of Abraham.

There is some debate as to how the two ina clauses should be structured.  Bruce, Burton, and Longenecker interpret these clauses as coordinating, both expressing "the purpose of Christ's redemptive death."[26]  This is a possible interpretation, but it seems that there is cause to understand the second purpose clause as being the purpose of the first clause, thus making the argument: Christ set us free from the curse of the Law (13a), so that the blessing of Abraham might be to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus (14a), so that "we" might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (14b).  The second phrase logically assumes the existence of the first, thus it cannot be simply parallel to it.[27]  There is a parallel structure in Gal. 4:5, where Paul says, "so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."  The act of redemption must logically take place prior to the adoption as sons.  In the same way, the blessing of Abraham must be enacted logically prior to the receiving the promise of the Spirit.[28]  Paul also uses these final two ina clauses to conclude this section of his letter by chiastically summarizing the argument of 3:1-5 and 3:6-13 in reverse order: "so that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might be in Christ Jesus" (3:6-13), and "so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (3:1-5).[29]

Conclusion

Now that Christ has accomplished His redemptive work, all those who are of faith may receive the promise of the Spirit.  The idea of promise ends this section of Paul's argument in Galatians, but it also begins the next section of 3:15-4:31, where 'promise' dominates the text.[30]  In this section, though, Paul's argument has been traced to see that firstly, the Law is not equal to or based on faith, neither is it vice versa.  Secondly, if one goes down the road of the Law, he must travel without fault, because the road is on a perilous cliff, and with one slip of the foot, the traveler is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-3).  There is another way - that of faith.  The road of faith is not of a different kind than that of the Law; rather it is traveled by a different kind.  If one ventures to travel this road, he is not a lone traveler.  In fact, he is borne by the Spirit of Christ, who knows the road intimately because the road is the same that He traveled.  He knows where to step, and conversely, where not to step.  If we are content to be led by the Spirit, we will make it to the end of our travels unharmed, but if we insist on getting out and going it alone, we will fall under the curse of all who take such a path.

It is necessary that the Christian life be filled with faith in Christ.  We see in this passage that Paul now knows there is no hope in the works of the Law.  Though he thought his righteousness to be great (Gal. 1:14), he grew to understand that he was still under the curse, because by the Law no one is declared righteous before God.  It is evident.  The righteous must live by faith, and in doing so, entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.  The redemption brought about in Christ is the believer's only hope.  It is only through Jesus, the seed, that the blessing and promise is ours.