^{page 150 note 1} See Longenecker, Richard N., ‘The Pedagogical Use of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7’, JETS 25 (1982) 53–61Google Scholar; Belleville, Linda L., ‘“Under Law”: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3. 21–4. 11’, JSNT 26 (1986) 53–78Google Scholar; Lull, David J., ‘“The Law Was Our Pedagogue”: A Study in Galatians 3:19–25’, JBL 105, no. 3 (1986) 481–98, esp. 489–95Google Scholar; Young, Norman H., ‘Paidagogos: the Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor’, NT 29 (04, 1987) 150–76.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Interpretations of Paul's comments about νομος here as well as elsewhere tend to be prey to the error James Barr has described as ‘illegitimate totality transfer’ (Semantics of Biblical Language [Oxford: University Press, 1961] 217–22).Google Scholar Although νομος can refer to a number of different aspects of God's revelation for Paul, this does not legitimize the assumption that every time the term appears Paul is discussing his understanding of every aspect or function of the Law.

^{page 150 note 3} Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).Google Scholar Stendahl himself, p. vi, grants that his own perspective has been influenced by Anton Fridrichsen and Johannes Munck.

^{page 151 note 1} Cousar, Charles B., Galatians (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982) 71, 78Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 19Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 188Google Scholar; Dunn, James D. G., ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL 65 (1982) 94–122Google Scholar and ‘Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law’, NTS 31 (1985) 523–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Räisänen, Heikki, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 18–23Google Scholar; Donaldson, T. L., ‘The “Curse of the Law” and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3:13–14’, NTS 32 (1986) 94–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; David Gordon, T., ‘The Problem at Galatia’, Int xli, no. 1 (1987) 38–40.Google Scholar

In juxtaposing ‘soteriology’ and ‘ecclesiology’ we are not suggesting that ‘ecclesiology’ be understood in the restricted sense of varying polities or differing interpretations of sealing ordinances. Nor are we suggesting that Paul's concern here has no soteric consequences. Rather, we are suggesting that the prominent concern addressed in this epistle is the misdefinition of God's people. Specifically, Law is being misused by the insistence that one cannot be a member of the new covenant community without being identified as a member of the old covenant community. The Galatian ‘judaizers’ err because they teach that the Sinai covenant, which properly defined and distinguished God's people from those who were not his people for a particular period, continues to define and distinguish them today. Paul refutes this role for the Law, perceiving such a role to be a denial of the promise made to Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations. The issue at Galatia is indeed soteric; but the issue is not over the instrument of justification. The issue is about whether or not God has indeed brought about the promise made to Abraham, and whether the Sinai covenant's regulations which distinguished Israel from the nations is appropriate to a day when the nations, no less than Israel, are benefactors of Messiah's work.

^{page 151 note 2} Dunn, , ‘Works of the Law’, 524–6.Google Scholar Perhaps the term ‘sociological’ is not quite accurate enough in this context, since Torah not only identifies Israel sociologically, but religiously as well.

^{page 151 note 3} Despite the widespread comments out Paul's ‘negative’ estimate of Law, it must be maintained that such comments fail to appreciate adequately the difference between Paul's estimate of the Law's origin and intrinsic value on the one hand, and its effect among a sinful humanity on the other.

^{page 151 note 4} Lull, , ‘The Law Was Our Paidagogue’, JBL 105, no. 3 (1986) 482Google Scholar: ‘Paul begins his explanation of the purpose of the Law by placing temporal limitations [italics his] on the Law, thereby differing from the majority view within the various forms of Judaism of his day.’

Also Burton, , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980) 200Google Scholar: ‘Nor is the reference to the individual experience under law as bringing men individually to faith in Christ. For the context makes it clear that the apostle is speaking, rather, of the historic succession of one period of revelation upon another and the displacement of the law by Christ.’

^{page 152 note 1} Note the temporal expressions which occur in Gal 3. 19–4. 7: ἃχρıς σ, 3. 19; Πρὸ το δὲ έλθεν τὴν πίστıν, 3. 23; είς employed temporally (so Mußner, , Der Galaterbrief [Freiburg: Herder, 1974] 256Google Scholar, Bruce, , Commentary on Galatians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 183Google Scholar, Betz, , Galatians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 178Google Scholar, and Cousar, , Galatians [Atlanta: John Knox, 1982] 79Google Scholar) in 3. 23 and 24 (είς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστıν άποκαλουφλναı and είς Χρıστόν); ούκέτı in 3. 25 in conjunction with a genuinely temporal Aorist participle, έλθούσης δὲ τς πίστεως (Mußner, Galaterbrief, 254); έφ' ὅσον χρόνσν in 4. 1; ἅχρı in 4. 2; ὅτε in 4. 3 and 4. 4; and ούκέτı again in 4. 7.

^{page 152 note 2} See the very comprehensive recent surveys by Longenecker, Belleville, Lull and Young, cited above.

^{page 152 note 3} This temporary aspect of the παıδαγωγός is well documented and thoroughly argued by Young, Norman H., ‘Paidagogos: the Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor’, NT 29 (04, 1987) 150–76, esp. pp. 168–9.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} For the argument that in Galatians νόμος finds its focus, if not its exclusive referent in these dimensions of Torah, see Dunn, James D. G., ‘Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law’, NTS 31 (1985) 527–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nor would this understanding be uniquely pauline; Jewish sources also are aware that Torah could be perceived especially in terms of its capacity to protect from the Gentiles. G. B. Caird calls attention to this in his comments on the ‘wall’ of Ephesians 2: ‘But the closest parallel is provided by the Letter of Aristeas (139), which declares that Moses by his gift of the law “hedged us about with impregnable ramparts and iron walls, to prevent all contact with any of the other nations, and to keep us pure in body and soul, free from futile speculations, worshipping the one Almighty God above the whole creation.”’ Paul's Letters from Prison (Oxford: University Press, 1976) 58–9.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} The Lutheran ‘third use’ of the Law, Standards of Concord Article VI, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX, section vi.

^{page 153 note 2} Betz, , Galatians, 176.Google Scholar See also Young, Norman H. (‘Paidagogos’, 158)Google Scholar, who says, ‘The pedagogue's first task, then, was preventive and protective.’ Young follows this with many citations which demonstrate this important function. Similarly Lull, , ‘The Law’, JBL 103, p. 490Google Scholar: ‘Affection for pedagogues was justified by tales about slave attendants who were loyal to their charges, even to the point of dying trying to defend them from attack in the streets.’

^{page 153 note 3} So Young, Norman H., ‘Paidagogos’, 171Google Scholar: ‘The presence of φρουρέω and σογκλείω in close conjunction makes it clear that Paul's main point – if not his only point – in the metaphor is not a matter of discipline, education, instruction or punishment, but of restriction.’

^{page 153 note 4} Contra Young, , 171Google Scholar: ‘Of course the restrictive and curbing nature of the pedagogue's role provided a positive protection for the child, but this is not Paul's point in the analogy… Restriction not protection is the idea that Paul is emphasizing in the metaphor.’

^{page 154 note 1} So Young, , 170–1.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} However, Paul is not to be perceived as dividing the written Torah into separate parts in this epistle, distinguishing the Gentile-excluding portions from other portions. Rather, he perceives the Torah as the document of the Sinai covenant, which document includes these parts, and which, as a covenant document, requires obedience to all of its parts (Έπıκατάρατος πâς ὅς ούκ ὲμμένεı πâσıν ποîς γεγραμμένοıς έν τ βıβλί τσ νóμου το ποıσαı αύτά, 3. 11). As a covenant document addressed to a particular people, defining them in contra-distinction to other peoples, Torah is inappropriate as a covenant document in a community which is inter-national and inter-ethnic in character.

^{page 154 note 3} This does not close the discussion out a possible continuing role of other functions of Torah. But as the Torah is being employed at Galatia, to distinguish Jews from Gentiles, its function is indeed terminated.