Trinity Journal 10 NS
(1989) 185-209
[Copyright
© 1989 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; cited with permission;
digitally
prepared for use at
"REDEEMED FROM THE CURSE OF THE
LAW"
THE USE OF DEUT
ARDEL CANEDAY
I. INTRODUCTION
The NT uses cu<lon with two notable points of reference within
the OT. One, which is confined to the
Apocalypse (Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14,
19) with its referent in the
"tree of life," continues the imagery of
Gen 2:9; 3:22, 24.1 The
other (Gal 3:13; Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet
2:24) apparently alludes to Deut
21:22-23.2
Of several
NT allusions that apply Deut 21:22-23 to the cross of
Jesus, Paul's citation in Gal 3:13 is the
clearest: "Christ redeemed us
from the curse of the law, having
become on our behalf a curse--for
it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who
hangs upon a tree."' This NT
citation of an obscure OT text has
been the occasion of several recent
studies, beginning with Lindars's
programmatic study.3
He sees
Paul's use of Deut 21:22-23 as a "sharpened form in which this text
*A paper read at
the Evangeilcal Theological Society Midwestern Section
Annual
Meeting at
1990
1
Cf. also post-biblical Judaism.
E.g. I Enoch 24:4; 25:1-6; T. Levi 18:11; 4 Ezra 8:52;
1QH 8:5.
2
The NT does not merge these two
reflections of OT images by identifying Jesus'
cross with the "tree of life," but some early patristic literature
does. See, e.g., Justin
Martyr, Dialogue 86:1: ". . .
Learn also that He whom the Scriptures show us as about
to come again in glory after being crucified had the type of the tree of life,
which it
was said was planted in paradise . . ." (cited from trans. by A. Lukyn
Williams,
Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho
[London: SPCK, 1930], 182). See also Barn
cf. 11:6, (citing Ps 1:3-6; cf. also Justin, Dialogue 86:4), 8:1, 5; 12:1, 7.
Barnabas states
in
the tree").
3 Barnabas Lindars, New
Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the
Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 232-37. See also
A. T.
Hanson, Studies in Paul's Technique and
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
45-51, 155, 197; F. F. Bruce, "The Curse of the Law," Paul and Paulinism: Essays
in Honour of C. K. Barrett (ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London:
SPCK, 1982) 27-
36; and Max Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'-Deut 21:22-23 in the New
Testament," JBL 96
(1977) 85-99.
186 TRINITY JOURNAL
was already
being used by the enemies of the Church."4 Accord-
ingly, Paul employed Deut 21:22-23 in a creative and ad hoc manner
as
it served his polemic purpose.5 Kim follows Lindars and sum-
marizes,
So the Jews must have looked upon the
crucified Jesus as accursed
by God. .
. . The
allusions to Deut 21.23 in Acts 5.30; 10.39; 1 Pet 2.24
suggest that from the beginning the Christians encountered Jewish
opposition based upon Deut 21.23 to their proclamations of Jesus as
the Messiah. The Christians would hardly have applied Deut 21.23 to
Jesus on their own initiative. Rather, they must have taken it from
their Jewish opponents, and turned it into a weapon of counter
attack.6
Against Lindars's influential
approach, Wilcox argues that the NT
use
of Deut 21:22-23 reflects a "tree-testimonia" as "part of an early
Jewish-Christian
midrashic exposition of the Akedah"
and was
used to
facilitate "the application of the role of Isaac to Jesus.”7
His study of Paul's use of Deut 21:22-23 is
dominated by Jewish mid-
rashic techniques by which he seeks to "exhaust its
influence" upon
the verses surrounding Gal 3:13.8 So Paul's warrant for using Deut
21:23
depends primarily upon his midrashic skills to find a
text
with link-words to continue his catenation
of citations.9
4 Lindars, New
Testament Apologetic, 233. Cf. the earlier article by U.
Holzmeister, "De Christi Crucifixione Quid e Deut.
Bib 27 (1946) 18-29. Holzmeister suggests that Deut 21:22-23 was a
text brought
against Paul by Jewish opponents, a text which Paul had to answer. See also
John
Hoad, "Some New Testament References to Isaiah
53," ExpTim 68
(1956-57) 254-55.
5Cf. Barnabas Lindars, "The Place of the Old Testament in the
Formation of New
Testament Theology,"
NTS 23 (1976)
64. Contrast Peder Borgen
("Response," NTS 23
[1976] 75), who argues that the role of the
OT in the NT "is much more than to be a
mere mode of expression used in an ad hoc way."
6Seyoon Kim, The
Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982) 46.
7 Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'," 86,
99. So Wilcox states, "In the NT model, in the
fullness
of time another [like Isaac] comes to the place of sacrifice, carrying his
'wood'/ 'cross' . . . and is put upon it. . . "
(p. 98).
8Ibid., 96-97. He finds
not only the obvious link back to 3:10 (curse/blessing mo-
tif), but also a link back to the citation of Gen 12:3 by
way of the promise of "the
land"
(h[ gh?, Deut 21:23b), and a link forward to
3:18, "inheritance" (klhronomi<a)
possibly
reflecting e]n klh<r& in the unquoted
portion of Deut 21:23b. Finally, Deut
aids Paul's pesher of
clue to Paul's interpretation of Gen 22:6.
9Cf. Nils A. Dahl, "The
Atonement--An Adequate Reward for the Akedah?
(Rom
Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox;
"There is a conscientious interpretation in the background. In Deut
man was accursed. This might be taken to exclude faith in a crucified Messiah,
but the passage could
be turned into an argument in favour of the Christian
faith if 'a man hanging upon a tree' was
combined with 'a ram caught in a thicket' (Gen 22:13). Thus the crucified Jesus
was understood to be the
lamb
of sacrifice provided by God. Here there is an element of typology; but the
ram, rather than Isaac, is
seen as a type of Christ."
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
Generally, scholars see in Gal 3:10-13 an appropriation of the
Jewish exegetical device, gezerah shawah ("equal category").
Many argue that Paul finds verbal
analogy in discrete OT texts
where, because "the same words
are applied to two separate cases,
it follows that the same
considerations apply to both."10 Paul's
"string of pearls" in Gal 3:10-13 may reflect Jewish literary appro-
priation techniques, for link-words are readily apparent.
However,
mere ascription of the use of gezerah shawah to Paul offers little or
no explanation for the apostle's use
of the selected texts beyond an
ad
hoc appropriation. So Paul's
warrant or authorization for em-
ploying the chosen texts (arising first from those
texts and then
from his theological framework) is
largely passed over without
discussion. Instead, some claim that
the OT text is "wrested from its
original context or modified somehow
to suit the new situation."11
Two questions must be asked to
determine Paul's warrant for em-
ploying Deut 21:22-23 in Gal 3:13: (1) How
did the NT writers, Paul in
particular,
use the OT to document their creed? (2) Upon what basis did the apostle
select Deut 21:22-23 to give credence to his assertion in Gal 3:13a?12
What is necessary is a reflective
consideration not only of
Paul's hermeneutical techniques but also of his controlling
"hermeneutical
axioms."13
The Christian community's theological
beliefs,14 that not only
transcend but also shape its hermeneutics,
inform Paul's actual appropriation
of OT texts. Accordingly, Paul's
appeals to the OT reflect this matrix
of the community's beliefs
that bear directly upon the way
Scripture is to be employed.
This fresh consideration of Paul's citation of Deut 21:23 in
Gal
3:13
is born out of an acknowledgement of both Jewish
interpretation
techniques as well as the
matrix of Christian theological beliefs.
The aim is to give proper
consideration to the contexts of both the
OT
text and its NT citation to demonstrate Paul's warrants for ap-
plying Deut
21:22-23 to Christ. Does Paul employ this Scripture
text in an ad hoc manner, i.e., wrenched from its OT context for the
10Richard
35; cf. 117. See, e.g., F. F. Bruce, "The Curse of the Law,"
30; Bruce, Commentary on Galatians
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 165.
11 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Use
of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in
in the New Testament," Essays on the
Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1971) 33. Concerning Paul's use of Deut 21:23, Fitzmyer states, "The only connection here
between the verse of Deuteronomy and the Pauline, use of it is the double pun
of the Law's
curse and the word 'cursed' and the crucifixion of Christ and 'hung on a
tree.' The orator Paul is
the one who makes the connection by putting
them together" (p. 45).
12Cf. Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'," 94, where he essentially asks
these two questions, but fails to
seek the answer outside the entanglement of midrash.
13See the use of this designation
in the extended discussion by Douglas J. Moo,
The Old
Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983) 56ff.
14Cf. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 50, who states, "Each of these, Pharisees, sectarians,
and Philo alike, worked from distinctive doctrinal and idealogical
commitments,
which
produced distinctive features in their exegetical methodologies."
188 TRINITY JOURNAL
particular
purpose at hand without further considerations? Or,
does Paul find authorization in the OT text
validated by his con-
temporary context that gives his
argument credibility?
The presentation develops around three procedural
steps. First,
Paul's
hermeneutical matrix is considered to establish his ap-
proach to scripture. Second, Paul's use of Deut 21:22-23 in
Gal 3:13 is
studied
in three major sections: (1) a brief survey of Paul's polemi-
cal
thesis in Galatians 3 to contextualize the OT citation; (2) a con-
sideration of the warranted use of Deut 21:22-23
in Gal 3:13 from
the OT text and context, and (3) Paul's NT
basis for employing Deut
21:22-23 and its place in his
argument. A third brief section draws
conclusions with appropriate
implications.
II. PAUL'S HERMENEUTICAL
MATRIX
The
study of any OT text cited by Paul in Galatians 3 quickly
involves one's own biblical-theological scheme, for it draws one
into the apostle's whole argument against the Judaizers by which
he disparages the law. The exegete is confronted with the problem
of accounting for Paul's negative perspective upon the law, for his
argument in Galatians 3 suggests that he ignores the fact that the
law promised blessing to those who obeyed it. Central to his
polemic is the sanction that the law threatened, namely the curse.
Noth correctly observes, "It is . . . noteworthy that the Old
Testament itself does not appear to share Paul's judgment upon the
law, for from the law it apparently opens out the perspectives,
'blessing and curse', i.e. either blessing or curse, according as the in-
dividual or group fulfils or does not fulfil the requirements of the
law."15 Paul's view of the Mosaic law challenges the exegete's
search for an acceptable solution that properly acknowledges the
OT expressions concerning the law but also retains "what is nega-
tive in the Pauline picture of the law if God's new act in Christ is to
receive due stress."16
A. The OT Is To Be Read
Salvation-Historically
Paul's
argument in Galatians 3 is tightly structured and is fun-
damentally heilsgeschichtlich. It is thoroughly influenced by
Jesus'
teaching concerning the epochal and eschatological character
15Martin Noth, "For all who rely
on works of the law are under a curse," in The
Laws in the
Pentateuch and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 119. Though Noth's observation
is correct, he attempts to resolve the problem of Paul's perspective upon
the curse of the law by
taking Deut 27:26 (cited in Gal 3:10) as a seventh
century BC expression
of the final redactor that
"the threatened curse had already begun
to appear as an actual reality. . . .The blessing is for him
[the opinion of the author] already
something unreal, but the curse a reality which in his own
day had already appeared" (pp. 128-29).
16 Douglas J. Moo, "'Law,' 'Works of the Law,' and
Legalism in Paul," WTJ 45 (1983)
100.
CANEDAY:
DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
of his own ministry. Jesus summarily proclaimed that the
promise
of the great day of salvation (Isa 61:1, 2) dawned in him (Luke 4:18-
19), for he is the "sun of righteousness" (Mal 4:2), who
rises to bring
salvation to his people (Luke 1:78,
79). He has disclosed a righ-
teousness from heaven that already announces the divine verdict of
forgiveness (cf. Matt 9:6; Luke
the prophets" (Matt
5:17ff), is the lens through which diverse and
previously diffused or unassociated elements
of the OT converge.
Therefore, the apostle's retrospective reading of the OT, focalized
by Christ, sees the law functioning salvation-historically in keep-
ing with an anticipation/fulfillment motif. Christ's
epoch-making
entrance into salvation history has inaugurated the new age;
it has
restructured the
redemptive-historical understanding of the NT
writers.17 Because Paul interprets God's great act in
Christ from the
vantage point of one dwelling in the tension
between fulfillment
and expectation,18 his
two age construction is given two per-
spectives. On the one hand,
conscious of fulfillment and yet antici-
pating consummation, he
speaks in terms of "already" (2 Cor 6:2;
Eph
1 Cor
those who
desire to extend the law's jurisdiction coexistent
with
and coextensive
to the proclamation
of the gospel of Christ, the
present age is seen in sharp contrast to the former. So, Paul
fre-
quently punctuated his argument in Galatians 3 with this redemp-
tive-historical contrast, e.g., "before
this faith came" (pro> tou?
e]lqei?n th>n pi<stin [
come" (e]lqou<shj th?j pi<stewj [
17 Cf.
Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology
(
Press, 1930; reprint
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 68-69. See also Herman Ridderbos,
"The Redemptive-Historical Character of Paul's
Preaching," When the Time Had Fully
Come: Studies in New
Testament Theology (
Jordan Station,
18See
Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 52f.
19The epoch-making pi<stij, though debated, may be taken as Jesus Christ's faithfulness.
The writer recognizes the difficulty of speaking with certainty whether pi<stij ]Ihsou? Xristou?
(in Paul seven times: Rom
objective genitive. However, one must adopt the sense that best fits Paul's argument in Galatians 3.
The following are some reasons for adopting the subjective genitive reading of the phrase: (1) In
other places where Paul uses pi<stij followed by a genitive noun of person the genitive is invariably
subjective-[a] Rom 3:3 – th>n pi<stij tou? qeou? h[; [b] Rom 4:5 pi<stij au]tou? ei]j dikaiosu<nhn;
[c] Rom
peculiar change of idiom in Gal
use over the objective. Gal
prepositions dia</e]k with the genitive to express the faith of Christ and ei]j with the accusative to express
man's belief in Christ [cf. Phil 3:9]. (3) Likewise, Gal
]Ihsou? Xristou? is made synonymous with toi?j pisteu<ousin. The tautology reads, ". . . in order
that what was promised, might be given by faith in Jesus
190 TRINITY JOURNAL
B. OT Prediction Is Genuine and Perspicuous
True
as it is "that contemporary Jewish exegesis is the proper
background to the church's use of the Old Testament "21 the
coming
of Christ hermeneutically focuses the church's reading of the OT.
As much as Paul believes that Christ's coming has a great impact
on reading the OT scriptures, emphasis also must be placed on the
corresponding aspect, namely, the anticipatory character of the OT
scriptures. A proper christological reading of the OT does not start
with a confessional creed in need of apologetic support and then go
to the OT scriptures to marshal evidence for it, arbitrarily employ-
ing Jewish appropriation techniques.22 Instead Paul and the other
NT writers read the OT with a belief that the gospel is the end-
Christ to those who believe" (cf. NIV). But it appears evident that Paul deliberately
distinguishes the two expressions to differentiate between the basis upon which the
promise is given and the means by which it is apprehended by individuals. The giving
of the promise is grounded in the obedience/faithfulness of Jesus Christ; it is laid hold
of by belief. Though Paul does not specify an object after the substantival participle
–toi?j pisteu<ousin,
the object of belief is nonetheless clearly understood from
(h[mei?j ei]j Xristo>n ]Ihsou?n e]pisteu<samen). (4) The subjective genitive reading
better fits and puts into bold relief the christological
centrality of Paul's argument in Gal 3.
The phrase pi<stij ]Ihsou? Xristou? has attracted many studies. Some more
recent articles endorsing the subjective genitive are: Sam K. Williams, "Again Pistis
Christou," CBQ
49 (1987) 431-47; Richard B. Hays, The
Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation
of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11 (SBLDS 56; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983)
158-76; Luke Timothy Johnson, "Rom
Richard N. Longenecker, "The Obedience of Christ,"
Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament
Essays on Atonement and Eschatology presented to L. L. Morris (ed. by Robert Banks; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 146ff; George Howard, "The 'Faith of Christ'," ExpTim 85 (1973) 212-14;
D. W. B. Robinson, "'Faith of Jesus Christ' -- a New
Testament Debate," The Reformed
Theological
Review 29 (1970), 71-81; Markus Barth, "'The Faith of the Messiah'," The Heythrop Journal
10 (1969) 363-70; George Howard, "Notes and Observations on the 'Faith of Christ'," HTR 60 (1967)
459-65; Morna D. Hooker, "PISTIS XRISTOU," NTS 35 (1989) 321-42. Fewer have specifically
written to argue for the objective genitive: Arland J. Hultgren, "The Pistis Christou Formulation
in Paul," NovT
22 (1980) 248-63; C. F. D. Moule, "The Biblical Conception of Faith,"
ExpTim 68 (1957) 157.
20Cf. several other markers that clearly indicate that Paul's argument is inherently salvation-historical:
"the law, introduced 430 years later;" the law
"was added . . . until the Seed . . . had come" (prosete<qh
a@rxij ou$ e@lq^ to> spe<rma [
th>n me<llousan
pi<stin ktl. [
21 Lindars,
"Place of the Old Testament," 61.
22 Contrast Ibid, 64. Lindars implies this when he says, "Believing that Christ is the fulfilment of the
promises of God, and that they are living in the age to which
all the scriptures refer, they employ the
Old Testament in an ad hoc way, making recourse to it just when and how they
find it helpful for their
purposes. But they do this in a highly creative situation, because the Christ-event breaks through
conventional expectations, and demands new patterns of
exegesis for its elucidation."
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
product of OT anticipation.23
So the OT is much more than a source
book of proof-texts used "on an ad
hoc basis" to validate its fulfill-
ment in Christ "as the
need arose."24 The OT is necessary and inte-
gral for interpreting the
coming of Christ, for it anticipates what is
now realized in him, not only
by way of propositional prediction
but also in enigmatic
expressions; corporate solidarity motifs; and
typological correspondences
of persons, institutions, situations,
events, etc.25
Thus, Paul and the other NT writers are not dependent
on their own skills in pesher and midrash to search the OT with an
effort to find what is needed
apologetically and make arbitrary
associations even if it
includes wrenching texts from their contexts.26
Instead, they read the OT
through the lens of Christ's coming,
which brings into focus and
clarifies formerly unassociated and
enigmatic motifs and features
of divine revelation. They believe
that what they see was
genuinely predictive and anticipated
Christ, so that when they
appeal to those elements to verify ful-
fillment, they do so
believing that the OT scriptures are perspicu-
ous as they anticipate Christ
throughout, not only in their proposi-
tionally predictive parts
(cf. Acts
III. PAUL'S USE OF DEUT
A. Paul's Polemical Thesis in
Gal 3:1-14
Having
surveyed Paul's hermeneutical approach to the OT, it
is necessary to review briefly Gal 3:1-14 to set the context of his use
of Deut 21:22-23 and establish. its function in his argument. His ar-
gument consists of four appeals: (1) reception of the Spirit (3:1-5);
(2) blessed with Abraham (3:6-9); (3) cursed by the law (
and (4) redeemed from the curse (
After
reminding the Galatians that he had clearly preached
Christ to them as crucified, Paul begins his polemic by framing his
first argument around a question designed to bring the Galatians to
concede Paul's case. "This only I desire to learn from you--did you
receive the promised Spirit originating from the deeds demanded
by the law [e]c
e@rgwn no<mou] or in association with
the proclama-
23 Cf.
similar discussion by Max Wilcox, "On Investigating the Use of the Old
Testament in the New
Testament," Text and Interpretation:
Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black (ed. Ernest
Best and R. McL. Wilson; Cambridge:, Cambridge University Press, 1979) 234-35;
and Matthew Black,
"The Theological- Appropriation of the Old Testament by the New
Testament," SJT 39 (1986) 7.
24 Lindars, "Place of
the Old Testament," 63.
25 Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, "'Who is
the prophet talking about?': Some reflections on the New
Testament's Use of the Old," Themelios
13 (1987) 4-5.
26
According to Fitzmyer, "OT Quotations in
New Testament, 33.
27 Cf.
Dan G. McCartney, "The New Testament's Use of the Old Testament," Inerrancy and
Hermeneutics (ed. Harvie M. Conn;
192 TRINITY
JOURNAL
tion of faith [e]c a]koh?j pi<stewj]?"28 The first appeal of the
apostle's argument may be
summarized: "If you
received the charismatic Spirit grounded in the law's demands, the
proclamation of the faith is
superfluous. But if the promised Spirit came among you only
as an attendant of the
preaching of the gospel and
attesting it, then it is obvious that you are being unsettled by a dif-
ferent gospel."29
Paul's
next appeal sets up his third: "If the blessing of Abraham comes to of oi[
e]k
pi<stewj, what then is there for those
who are oi[ e]c
e@rgwn no<mou?"30 To establish
his thesis, that oi[ e]k
28 The contrast which Paul draws
is between the messages of two covenants. Based on
evidence supplied by Rom
best be taken as report or
message. Cf. Gerhard Kittel, "a]kou<w—a]koh<," TDNT
1.221; Hans
Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to
the Churches in
take a]koh< in the active sense ("hearing") against the
passive sense ("message, report, the thing
preached") frequently
follow J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of
St. Paul to the Galatians (
University Press, 1865;
reprint
better contrast to e@rgwn, which requires some word expressing the part taken
by the Galatians
themselves" (Cf. Sam K.
Williams, "The Hearing of Faith: AKOH PISTEWS in
Galatians 3,"
NTS 35
[1989], 82-93, esp. 86; and Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians [NICNT;
no<mou primarily has in view "human deeds
performed." However, recognition that in Paul e@rga
no<mou is a fuller synonym for no<moj, leads one to conclude that both expressions
represent the
old covenant with its demands
and sanctions. Cf. Joseph B. Tyson, "'Works of Law' in Galatians,"
JBL 92
(1973) 423-31, esp. 429; Stephen
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 117,
121. Cf. also Moo, "Law," 90-99. But James D. G. Dunn ("The New
Perspective on Paul," BJRL 65 [1982-831107), restricts e@rga no<mou to circumcision and food laws.
29 Paul's early appeal to the
reception of the Spirit remains a central element in his argument, as
it resurfaces in
Vos, "The Eschatological
Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," Redemptive History and
Biblical Interpretation (ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.;
1980) 91-125.
30 Paul's two expressions – oi[ e]k pi<stewj and o!soi e]c e@rgwn no<mou ei]si<n -- are frequently
misread as oi[ pisteu<ontej ("the believers") or o!soi pisteu<ousin ("those who believe") and of
oi[
e]rgazo<menoi or oi[ poiou?ntej ta> no<mou ("those who do the things of the law")
respectively.
However, both phrases have
parallels elsewhere in Paul that suggest that this is an incorrect
understanding. Phrases similar
to the former occur in Rom
Rom
similar to the second are
found in Rom
no<mou
klhrono<moi), and in Rom
this nature: Acts
e]nanti<aj), and Gal
tival article + e]k + the genitive--are appropriately classified by Zerwick. He states,
"An important
usage, especially in Paul,
is. . . described . . . in the following manner: as we use the ending
<< -ist >> to denote
a member of a certain class or party or sect or school of thought
(<<socialist,
idealist, pessimist>>
etc.), so Paul uses for the same purpose o[ e]k . . ., oi[ e]k. . . etc., with the
genitive of what is the
characteristic of the class in question" (Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical
Greek Illustrated by Examples [
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
pi<stewj are the sons of Abraham,31 he appeals to
Gen 15:6, which
is more than a claim of
scriptural support; he claims solidarity
with Abraham, the patriarch
held in high regard in Jewish
tradition.32 His
citation of Gen 15:6 is followed by his interpreta-
tion (ginw<skete, v. 7) that expresses his thesis. Then Paul
draws his first proof from
the "blessing of Abraham" (Gen 12:3;
sage leads Paul to assert, oi[ e]k pi<stewj eu]logou?ntai
su>n . . .
]Abraa<m
(v. 9), the link that prepares for the corresponding oppo-
site, o!soi e]c e@rgwn no<mou ei]sin u[po> kata<ran ei]si<n (v.
10).
In
vv. 10-12, the structure is reversed. Here Paul states his
proposition first, followed by the supporting OT citation. In this
way the quotations are not presented as premises leading to conclu-
sions, as in vv. 6-9, but their entrance into the text is to support
assertions. So the introductory formulas to the passages cited have
causal rather than simply consecutive force." Thus Paul intensifies
his argument by asserting two propositions: (1) "Clearly no one is
declared righteous before God e]n no<m&," verified
by citing Hab
2:4; and (2) "The law is not e]k pi<stewj, but
[a]lla<] 'the one who
does these things shall live in them’" (vv. 11, 12).
These
three difficult verses (10-12) have generated volumes of
discussion. For the purpose of this study, only v. 10 will be consid-
ered, since it only is crucial for understanding v. 13. The
"blessing"
motif associated with Abraham in vv. 8-9 is now contrasted with
the "cursing" motif connected with the law's sanctions. Therefore,
Paul abruptly states, "As many as are of the demands of the law
are under a curse [u[po>
kata<ran]!' To prove his point he
cites Deut
27:26 with the causal introductory formula (ge<graptai ga>r o!ti):
"For it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all
the things written in the book of the law to do them.’" It is fre-
quently observed that on the surface Deut 27:26 says the opposite of
what Paul claims.34 This would be true if the expression o!soi e]c
e@rgwn no<mou ei]si<n is read,
"'as many as do the works of the
Accordingly, Paul's
expressions – oi[ e]k
pi<stewj and o!soi e]c e@rgwn no<mou
ei]si<n
-- do not identify
individuals by their actions but by their orientation either to the old
covenant or the new:
"Nomists" or "Gospelists" (i.e., Christians). So, the term
nomist,
without connotations of
legalism, may best translate o!soi e]c e@rgwn no<mou ei]si<n.
See Longenecker, Paul, 82. Cf. also the term
"covenantal nomism" in E. P. Sanders,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 422f.
31 The conclusion to which Paul's
thesis progresses is that "to belong to Christ" is
"to be Abraham's
seed" (
32 See the excursus on Abraham in
Betz, Galatians, 139-40.
33 Cf. Gerhard Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of
Galatians
(Philadelphia: Fortress,
1985) 169.
34
See, e.g., Betz, Galatians, 145. Even
Luther states, "These two statements, Paul's
and Moses', are in complete
conflict. Paul's is: 'Whoever does the works of the Law is
accursed.' Moses' is:
'Whoever does not do the works of the Law is accursed,' How
can these be reconciled? Or
(what is more) how can the one be proved on the basis
of the other?" (Lectures on Galatians 1535, Luther's Works, vol. 26 (ed. Jaraslav
Pelikan;
194 TRINITY
JOURNAL
law."35 This
mistaken reading creates the first problem for inter-
preting Paul's use of Deut 27:26. The second problem is generated be-
cause Paul's warrant for selecting Deut 27:26 to prove his assertion
is generally submerged in the morass of interpretations offered.
With regard to the first problem, as long as one reads o!soi e]c
e@rgwn
no<mou ei]si<n as suggesting
"doing the law," "relying upon
the law," or similar
ideas of human action, one begins down a path
Paul's argument does not go.
For example, Dunn argues that e@rga
no<mou essentially consist of keeping commandments
concerning cir-
cumcision, the food laws,
and the sabbath, i.e., wearing badges
of
covenantal identity." He
clarifies his interpretation: "Yet once
more we must note that it is
works of the law that Paul disparages,
not the law itself or
law-keeping in general."37 He opens himself up
to Raisanen's criticism:
"Dune thus presents a new version of an old
thesis: what Paul attacks is
not the law as such or as a whole, but
just the law as viewed in
some particular perspective, a particular
attitude to the law, or some
specific (mis-)understanding of
it."38
There are two problems with
such an approach. First, it fails to
recognize that o!soi is linked with it e]c e@rgwn no<mou
by the copu-
lative ei]mi< to denote "belonging to" (BAGD, 225),39 and is not des-
ignated as performing action
upon the law. Second, it fails to ac-
count for the fact that what
is required to redeem from the curse is
the epoch-making death of
Christ.40 In contrast, understanding o!soi
e]c
e@rgwn no<mou ei]si<n to mean
"as many as are nomists (i.e.,
identify with the old
covenant)," observes Paul's equation of e@rga<
no<mou
with no<moj and allows
for the true impact of the redemp-
tive-historical act of
Christ (
A
solution to the second problem must be summarized. Paul's
logic is plain enough:
"As many as are nomists are under a curse, for
it is written, "Cursed
is everyone who fails to do all that the law
requires."' The text
cited is part of the sanctions of the old coven-
ant. The deuteronomical
conception of the curse of the law, being
cast in terms of sanctions of
a suzerainty treaty between king and
vassal nation,41
does not atomize the curse to individuals distinct
35 But see the discussion above
in note 30.
36
Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," BJRL 65 (1982-83)110f.
37 Ibid., 117. It is in this
context that he criticizes Sanders who "keeps taking
the phrase 'works of the law'
as though it was simply a fuller synonym for 'law.'"
38 Heikki Raisanen,
"Galatians
544 (italics original). The
same criticism may be applied to H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The
Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish
Religious History (
and the Law," SJT 17 (1964) 43-68; Daniel Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or
Continuum?
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 87ff..
39
Cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §134.
40
Cf. Dunn, "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians
NTS 31
(1985) 536: "The curse which was removed therefore by Christ's death was
. . . the curse of a wrong understanding of
the law."
41 See Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of
the Great King: The Covenant Structure of
Deuteronomy (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 121ff and 13-44.
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
from identity with the
covenant nation. The individual within the
nation was treated as a member of the covenant people until such a
time that his conduct
violated the covenant. Then the nation was to
act as a community to punish
the offender (Deut 13:9f).
Paul's
citation evidently draws upon the LXX text-type, but it
conflates two texts, perhaps
Deut 27:26 and 28:61. His inclusion of
toi?j
gegramme<noij e]n t&? bibli<& tou? no<mou suggests that Paul
does not intend his citation
of Deut 27:26 to be restricted to the
twelve curses of 27:15-26,
but to include all the curses spoken to
the covenant-breaker, for it
-vas pronounced at the close of a
covenant-renewal ceremony.
The
citation of Deut 27:26, conflated with 28:61, both proves
the proposition of 3:10a and
prepares for
curse. Reading the OT from
his controlling hermeneutical axioms,
established by fulfillment in
Christ, Paul sees
der the law typologically42
as a monument of human unfaithfulness
now, in view of the
faithfulness of the "New Israel," i.e., "the
Seed" who is Christ (Gal
nature, it inflicted its
sanctions upon all when the covenant was vi-
olated by its fathers and
leaders.43 Therefore, the nation's disloyalty
incurred the curse of the law
which enveloped God's covenant
people for centuries,
including the remnant which cried out to
Yahweh for deliverance from
the curse44 and for "the redemption of
Thus,
since the coming of Christ, for the Galatians to seek
adoption as Abraham's sons by
becoming nomists, is to join them-
selves to the old nation,
violated covenant. The
history of
cries out for a "new
whom blessing spills out upon
all who are identified with him.
Verse
13 breaks upon the darkened scene of the broken and vio-
lated covenant, which holds
its curse over all its subjects. One may
expect from Paul's strong
deprecation of the law in 3:12a that he
would say, Xristo>j h[ma?j e]chgo<rasen
e]k tou? no<mou, as he more
nearly does in 4:5a. However,
Paul has argued that the law's curse
looms over
tion in order for the curse
to be lifted from God's people. Conse-
quently, he states instead,
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law, having become a
curse in our place" (Xristo>j h[ma?j e]ch-
42 See e.g. Douglas J. Moo,
"
W. Karlberg, "
'Old Man,"' TrinJ NS 7 (1986) 65-74; idem, "The
Significance of Israel in Biblical Theology,"
JETS 31
(1988) 257-69.
43 Thus the proverb, "The
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on
edge" (Jer 31:29). Contrast
the new covenant which inaugurates the day when "everyone will die
for his own sin; whoever,
eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge" (31:31).
44 Cf. Daniel's prayer (Dan
9:5-13) and Zechariah's song (Luke 1:68-75).
196 TRINITY
JOURNAL
go<rasen
e]k th?j kata<raj tou? no<mou geno<menoj u[pe>r h[mw?n
kata<ra). To prove his assertion, he cites Dent 21:23:
"For it is writ-
ten, "Cursed is everyone
who hangs upon a tree." Before further de-
veloping Paul's warrant for
citing Deut 21:22-23 in the context of
Gal 3:13, it is necessary
first to understand what it is in the OT pas-
sage that attracted Paul's
use of it to support his assertion concern-
ing Christ.
B. Paul's OT Warrant for Citing Deut 21:22-23
1. The Text of Deut
(a.) Evidence from the LXX and MT. It has long been observed
that Paul's use of Deut 21:23
does not reproduce exactly either
the MT or the LXX.45 His
brief citation reads, e]pikata<ratoj
pa?j o[
krema<menoj
e]pi> cu<lou, but the portion
alluded to in the LXX
reads, o!ti kekatarame<noj
(kekathrame<noj) u[po> qeou? pa?j
krema<menoj
e]pi> cu<lou. Two main differences
must be observed: (1)
Paul's substitution of an
adjective for the participle of the LXX; and
(2) his omission of the words
u[po> qeou?.46 Yet he agrees with the
LXX against the MT by adding e]pi> cu<lon after krema<menoj.47
First,
Paul substitutes e]pikata<ratoj
in place of kekatara-
me<noj (LXX). In the Masoretic text of Deut
not said to be rUrxA (the word rendered e]pikata<ratoj, "cursed," in
Dent 27:26) but Myhilox< tlal;qi ("a curse of God").48 Whereas
the
Myhilox<
tlal;qi is rendered in the LXX kekatarame<noj u[po> qeou?,
Paul uses e]pikata<ratoj, the same verbal adjective the LXX em-
ploys to translate rUrxA in Deut 27:26, thus connecting the two texts.
Accordingly, if Paul employs
the exegetical technique gezerah
shawah here,
the common term of the two texts brought together is
in neither the Masoretic text nor in the LXX. Did he employ an un-
known Greek text? It may be that he used the verbal adjective e]pi-
45
See, e.g. Crawford Howell Toy, Quotations
in the New Testament (
Scribner's Sons, 1884)
192-93; Otto Michel, Paulus and seine
Bibel (BFCT 2/18;
Mohn, 1929; reprinted,
46 Because Paul's citation does
not correspond exactly either to the MT or to the LXX, some
older commentators concluded
that the apostle's variation was due to a reliance upon memory. So
John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Galatians (
Oliphant and Sons, 1853;
47 Though the MT does not include
the phrase corresponding to the LXX after krema<menoj
the phrase appears twice
earlier: Cfe-lfI
Otxo tAyliv; (
(21:23a). Schoeps (Paul, 179) points out that yUlTA in Deut 21:23b, meaning "hanged" or
"elevated,"
may serve the evangelist
John's purpose in his verb yUlTA (John
elevation of Jesus but also
the manner of his death. See Schoeps's extended discussion (pp. 179-80).
48 Paul
may show that he is aware that the Hebrew text of Deut
eaning "curse" rather than a participle meaning "cursed" when he speaks of Christ as geno<menoj . . .
kata<ra (Gal 3:13a).
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
kata<ratoj instead of the perfect passive participle of the LXX
by
way of assimilation to his citation of Deut 27:2649 in 3:10.50
Second,
and more difficult, is Paul's omission of the u[po> qeou?
of
the LXX in his quotation. The
additional phrase in the LXX at-
tempts to clarify the Hebrew
text, "a hanged man is a curse of God"
(yUlTA Myhilox< tlal;qi) by reading, "everyone hung upon a tree is ac-
cursed by God."51
Scholars frequently regard Paul's omission of u[po>
qeou? after e]pikata<ratoj as
his attempt to avoid suggesting that
Christ on the cross was
really cursed by God.52 Paul leaves the
"curse"
unqualified, for his point is that Christ became "on our be-
half" (u[pe>r h[mw?n) "a curse" (kata<ra)
absolutely, so he makes no
reference to God in either
his assertion (3:13a) or the quotation itself (3:13b).53
(b.)
Evidence from Targums and Translations.
Whatever Paul's
reason for the omission, not
only the form of the text he cited but
also its interpretation
reflects a history of ambiguity. Symmachus
interprets the text, stating
explicitly o!ti
dia> th>n blasfhmi<an
tou? qeou?
e]krema<sq^, "for he was hanged
on account of blasphemy
of God." Tg. Onqelos approaches this, as it
reads, bylFcyx yy
Mdq
bHr lf
yrx ("For he was hanged because he
sinned before the
Lord").54 The
Targum circumvents the association of "curse" with
"God" in the Hebrew
text by translating generally tlal;qi ("curse)
with "'sinned" and
then associates the act of sinning with man be-
fore (Mdq) God. Similarly, m. Sanh. 6:4
responds to the question,
"Why was this one
hanged?"--"because he blessed
[a euphemism
for 'blasphemed'] the
Name".55 In a similar way Tg.
Pseudo-
Jonathan
states, "because it is a disgrace before God to impale
someone unless his sins were
the cause of it" in an attempt to cir-
cumvent the problem. At issue
with these Jewish traditions is
whether Myhilox< tlal;qi means "cursing God" or "being cursed
by
God." Symmachus, Tg. Onqelos and Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan are in-
clined toward the former
while the LXX favors the latter.
devoted to the principle of
literalism,56 and the Theodotion revi-
sion reproduce the ambiguity
of the Hebrew in the Greek. On the
other hand Tg. Neofiti is closer to the LXX and
Paul: "for everyone
who is hanged is accursed
before the Lord."
Paul
may have excised the words u[po> qeou? not only to adapt
the quotation better to the
earlier part of the verse ("having be-
come a curse for us"),
but even more to agree with the covenantal
49 This quotation diverges from the LXX at several
points.
50 See Wilcox,
"'Upon the Tree'," 87; Bruce, Galatians,
165.
51 So also
52 Cf. Bruce, Galatians,
165.
53 Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'," 87.
54
Cf.
55 Some texts read "cursed."
56 For a brief background on
Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 53-55.
198 TRINITY
JOURNAL
sanction-form in which he
casts the quotation.57 His use of e]pika-
ta<ratoj instead of the LXX kekatarame<noj may favor the omis-
sion, since e]pikata<ratoj u[po> qeou? is doubtful Greek."
Among
all the Jewish witnesses to the text thus far considered
there is no suggestion that
"hanging upon the tree" is the means of
execution; in all it is the
corpse that is strung up after
execution.
Yet, apparently Deut
lations and targums
concerning Myhilox<
tlal;qi, leaving a complex his-
tory of the text.
(c.)
Evidence from
tracted the attention of some
concerning the use of Deut
the NT: 4QpNah 3-4; i.7-8 and
11QTemple 64:6-13. The former
speaks of "the furious
young lion" who "hangs [or formerly hanged]
men up alive" (rw,xE
Myyiha MywinAxE hl,t;yi). The line
following (line 8)
adds a further note
concerning "a man hanged alive
on [the] tree"
(Cfe [hA] lfaya yUltAl; yKi). The wording of this line is uncertain because
of lacunae.59 So,
whether 4QpNah 3-4; i.7-8 alludes to Deut 21:22-
23 is unsure60 --
too uncertain to warrant firm conclusions.61
More
significant and closely connected with Deut 21:22-23 is
11QTemple 64:6-13, for this
passage immediately follows a clear
reference to Deut
23. Of the explanatory
features added to the text of Deut 21:22-
23, the most significant is
the inversion of the order of the "hanging"
and "dying." Yadin
claims that this pesher interpretation offers
evidence that the
(i.e., crucifixion) as valid
punishment for certain offenses, espe-
cially treason.62
Whether this text even suggests "crucifixion" is
disputed and doubtful.63
Besides, though 11QTemple 64:6-13 twice
reverses the sequence of
"hanging" and "dying," it is not clear that
the text makes hanging the
means of execution. Lines 8a (Tmyv Cfh
lf) and 11 (vyvx vlty) reverse
the order of Deut
8b-9a clearly retain the
sequence of the MT ("On the testimony of
two witnesses and on the testimony
of three witnesses he shall be
57 Greater discussion of this
follows in the next section.
58 See Hanson, Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology,
49.
59 The words Cfe[ hA] lfa are reconstructed from mere
traces of letters, while the
last word of line 8, taken as
xriq.Ayi, is cut short in the middle by a void in the MS. See
J.
M. Allegro, "Further
Light on the History of the
60 Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (
1963) 131-35, esp. 133
enthusiastically observes that both 4QpNah 3-4; i.7-8 and the LXX
of Deut
"the one hung . .
." (yvlt). He argues, then, that the link between krema<menoj and e]pi>
cu<lon
in Deut
found in Hebrew as well.
61 Cf. the discussion by Wilcox,
"'Upon the Tree'," 88.
62 Yigael Yadin, "Pesher
Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered," IEJ
21 (1971) 12.
63 See Joseph M. Baumgarten,
"Does TLH in the
JBL 91
(1972) 472-81, esp. 476-78.
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
put to death and they shall
hang him on the tree").64 Accordingly,
the text hardly speaks of
crucifixion, and at best it is unclear
whether hanging is even
considered a means of execution.65 Still,
11QTemple 64:12 is evidence
of a text of Deut 21:23 that is closer to
Gal 3:13b and the LXX,66
particularly with the inclusion of the
words "upon the
tree" after yvlt, "hanged man."67
2. The Place of Deut
(a.) Legal Regulations Concerning Capital Offense. The text
which Paul cites in Gal 3:13
(to verify the fact that Christ "became
a curse") is set within a
context dealing with covenant sanctions for
capital crimes. Deut 21:18-21
addresses the case of a rebellious son
who is to be stoned to death.
Verses 22-23 generalize concerning any
case of capital crime. This
sanction concerned with hanging corpses
upon trees does not initiate
the practice, a practice that is ancient,
but it only imposes certain
restrictions on its use.68 The sequence
shows that the hanging was
not the means of execution. Rather the
criminal's corpse was hung on
a "tree" or "wooden post"69 the same
day of his death to be
exposed as a warning. The gruesome display
forcefully warned the
Israelites concerning the results of breaking
covenant laws that were
punishable by death.
The
limitation imposed upon the practice by the Mosaic law
was that the body of the
criminal was to be removed from the tree
or wooden post before sunset,
and the corpse was to be buried. To
leave the corpse upon the
tree would pollute the land. The concern
is not so much over the
decomposition of the body but the symbolic
desecration, for the land
belonged to the Lord and would be given to
The
victim is not yUlT
Myhilox< tlal;qi-yKi ("an object
of curse,"
BDB, 887)
because it is hanging upon a tree (CfehA-lfa) instead,
hanging upon a tree is a
graphic sign of his being "an object of curse"
to God. Also, the body is not
a curse to God because it is dead (for all
men die), but it is accursed
because of the reason for the death,
64 The texts reads vtvx vlty hmhv tMvy Mydf hwvlw yp
lfv Mydf Mynw yp lf
Cfh.
65
Contrary to Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'," 90.
66 See Ibid. Wilcox offers two
conclusions from his study of 11 QTemple 64:6-13: "(a) that it
is no longer necessary to
view the Peshitta form [on Deut
on account of a sin worthy of
death, and be hung upon a tree and be put to death . . ."] as due
to christianizing influence,
in view of the early date given to the
form in Acts 5:30; 10:39, . .
. put (him) to death by hanging (him) upon a tree,' may reflect the
same variant OT textual tradition."
67 The text reads Cfh lf yvlt Mywnxv Myhvlx yllvqm
yk ("for he who is hanged
on the tree is accursed of
God and men").
68 See Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT;
1976) 285.
69
The Hebrew Cfe, like the Greek cu<lon, is used
for "tree," "wood," and "wooden articles"
(BDB, 781).
200 TRINITY
JOURNAL
namely covenant violation. For an Israelite to violate
God's law in-
curred God's curse, the death
penalty. It was to die the worst possi-
ble kind of death, for the
means of death was a formal and termi-
nal separation from the
community of God's people.
The Hebrew phrase, Myhilox<
tlal;qi-yKi, may denote either the
person who pronounces the curse (Jdg
whom the curse is pronounced (Gen 27:13).
Accordingly it may read,
"everyone who is hanged upon a tree is cursed by God"
(LXX,
Vulgate,
Syriac, Paul in NT, Gal 3:13). Or it may read
"the one who
is hanged [yUlTA infinitive absolute,
BDB, 1068] is a curse (injury, in-
sult,
mockery) to God" (Symrnachus, Tg. Onqelos, m. Sanh. 6:4).
(b.) Deut
context of Deuteronomy 21 suggests the practice
of stringing up
corpses upon posts was employed in cases of
capital crimes of
covenant violation (d. 2 Sam
the custom was employed in military operations.
When Joshua de-
stroyed Ai, the king was
captured alive (Josh
upon killing the king, Joshua hung him upon a tree (CfehA-lfa hlATa)
until evening. Observing the law's restriction set
forth in Deut
21:22-23,
at sunset Joshua ordered that the body should be taken
down from the tree and buried under a pile of stones
(Josh
Also,
when Joshua captured five Amorite kings who fled and hid in
the cave at Makkedah, he
killed them and hung them from five
trees (Mlet;y.iva
Mycife hwAmihE lfa,
Josh
restriction, Joshua had the bodies removed from the
trees at sunset
and buried in the cave (
Two other passages, though referring obliquely
to the sanction
outlined in Deut 21:22-23, are more promising in
identifying Paul's
warrant for citing that text (Num 25:4; 2 Sam
21:6, 13).71 Instead of
hlATA, both passages employ fqiyA ("be dislocated, alienated," BDB,
429)
in a figurative sense of a solemn form of execution.72 When
Israelites
were seduced by Moabite women, the Lord's vengeance
was greatly aroused against
how his wrath against
leaders of these people and hang them to
exposure [fqaOhv;] in broad
daylight before the Lord [hvAhyla], so that the Lord's fierce anger
may be turned away [bw.iyAv;] from
lates the difficult phrase: paradeigma<tison au]tou>j kuri<&
a]pe<nanti
tou? h[li<ou.
Here paradeigmati<zw
suggests public expo-
70 David had Baanah
and Recab killed, for they had slain Ish-Bosheth, and
after severing their hands and feet he had their
bodies hung (ult;y.iva; e]kre<
LXX) by the pool in
some act in satisfaction for a capital offense.
,"'
71 While the bodies of enemies killed in
battle were evidently exposed largely;
for publicity purposes, this is less likely in the
case of criminals, for the community
participated in the execution of the
covenant-breaker, making it a public act. See
Anthony
Phillips, Ancient
72 Ibid, 26. Neither passage makes
clear the means of death.
CANEDAY: DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
sure by hanging.73 Of particular
importance is the fact that Yah-
weh not only prescribes
that the death of the covenant-breakers
would displace his wrath from upon the nation, but
the manner of
averting his anger includes hanging the violators
up for exposure to
Yahweh's wrath (hvAhyla) for satisfaction.
In a similar way, David employed this form of
execution upon
seven descendants of Saul to turn away the curse of
Yahweh. God
had sent a famine upon the land for three years
because of Saul's
violation of a covenant with the Gibeonites. Upon David's inquiry,
the Gibeonites prescribed
that seven male descendants of Saul
should be hung for exposure (MUnfEqaOhv;; e]chlia<swmen ["expo-
sure to the sun"]) before Yahweh (hvAhyla) (2 Sam 21:6). The seven
were given to the Gibeonites
who hung them for exposure (Mfuyqiyo.va;
e]chli<asan, LXX) on a hill before
Yahweh (ynep;li
hvAhyE, 21:9). After
David
had retrieved the remains of the seven who had been killed
and exposed (MyfiqAUm.ha,
favored the land (
the vengeance of Yahweh being turned away from the
nation by in-
fliction of the curse upon a
substitute, in this case upon seven male
descendants of Saul.
3. Summary
Deut 21:22-23 does not address the death penalty
per se, but re-
stricts an intensification of
it. When this Mosaic sanction is ob-
served in the practice of
the corpse (by hanging?) is, at times, divinely
sanctioned as the
means to propitiate Yahweh's vengeance on behalf of
corpse is suspended upon a wooden post or tree (Deut
the executed criminal from the earth, which he was
no longer wor-
thy to tread (2 Sam
hope, exposing him to the greater vengeance of God
to turn away
his wrath from
is hung upon a tree" is detestable (tlal;qi) or cursed of God, that one
must be removed out of sight before nightfall, lest
the land given by
God
be defiled (d. Lev 18:24-30; Num 35:34, Deut 11:12).
Accordingly, the suspension of the criminal in
Deut 21:22-23 is
associated with the propitiation of Yahweh's wrath.
There is no
need to search for a text tradition that interprets
Deut 21:22-23 as
speaking of crucifixion, for the association
which Paul expresses in
Gal
upon a tree" / "vicariously bearing a
curse." With this covenantal
significance, Deut 21:22-23 provides
a sufficient OT warrant for its
73 Heinrich Schlier, "dei<knumi,
ktl," TDNT 2.32.
Coincidentally, the only use of
paradeigmati<zw in the NT is in Heb
6:6, where it speaks of the apostate's sub-
jecting the Son of God to open
shame.
202
TRINITY
JOURNAL
use in Gal
tree" as the bearer of the curse.
C. Paul's NT Warrant for
Citing Deut 21:22-23
It has already been argued that the basis upon
which Paul used
the OT, though undoubtedly influenced by Jewish
exegetical tech-
niques, was hermeneutically
controlled by his belief that the OT
finds its realization and fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the
exegete is obliged to give proper consideration
to the contexts of
both the OT text cited and the NT citation to
determine Paul's sanc-
tion for quoting scripture
as he does. Consideration of both the text
and covenantal context of Deut 21:22-23 provides
the "curse" / "re-
moval of curse" motif
around which Paul's argument builds and
terminates in Gal 3:13. It is now necessary to find
Paul's authoriza-
tion for citing Deut
21:22-23 with application to Christ by examin-
ing the counterpart of the
OT text, Gal 3:13-14.
1.
Gal 3:13-14: Contextual Considerations
The "blessing" motif is introduced by
Paul's citation of Gen 15:6
in 3:8 to prepare for the "cursing"
motif of 3:10ff. Still, Paul must
now explain two problems: (1) How can Gentiles
receive the bless-
ing promised to Abraham
apart from becoming his sons by circumci-
sion? (2) If the law no
longer blesses, how is there any hope for
Jews,
who being subjected to the law, reside under its curse? The col-
location of Deut 21:23 and Deut 27:26 points the
way to resolution of
both. Paul contends that both the blessing extended
to Gentiles and
the removal of the law's curse are resolved in the
single act of
Christ:
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a
curse for us . . . in order that the blessing of
Abraham might be given
in Christ to the Gentiles." Of the two
problems Paul poses, he ad-
dresses the second first.
(a.)
Christ Redeems by Vicarious Curse Bearing. There is no
doubt that the kata<ra
from which Christ has redeemed h[ma?j is
the curse of Deut 27:26. Yet, the act of Christ did
not destroy the
curse of the law itself, for it still hangs heavily
upon all who are
nomists (
("redeem"), used in both
"buying free" subjects of the law. In 4:5,75 e]cagora<zw depicts the
74 Cf. John Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of
Publications, 1969) 265.
75 See Daniel R. Schwartz, "Two
Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism
of the Crucifixion," JBL 102 (1983) 260-62, who states, "Now one might note a
serious
problem regarding 4:4-5: while it states that
God redeemed the Jews by sending forth
His
son, it does not state how this redeemed them" (p. 260). He disregards
Paul's
explanation in
e]caposte<llw
in 4:4 and links it, through the LXX, with Hlw
(piel) in Leviticus 14
CANEDAY:
DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
transaction in Christ that liberates tou>j u[po>
no<mon from slavery
or minority (mixed metaphors) unto ui[oqesi<a ("sonship") and
e]leuqeri<a. ("freedom, 5:1).76
However, in
scribes the act of Christ's releasing “us” from
the effects of the
law's curse by interposing himself in our place as he
became u[pe<r
h[mw?n kata<ra..
Riesenfeld appropriately points out that Xristo>j
.
. . geno<menoj
kata<ra is probably an instance
of abstractum pro
concreto: "curse” = “bearer
of the curse.”77 The expression u[pe<r
h[mw?n, by itself, need not mean any more than “on our behalf.”78
Yet,
“in our place” is appropriate in view of the OT imagery to
which
Paul
appeals.79 So 3:13 portrays Jesus in his death as vicariously
taking upon himself the curse of the violated covenant
to release
his people from the law's curse.80
(b.) The
Referent of h[mei?j.
Bruce and other scholars contend
that h[mei?j;
is an inclusive group of Jewish and Gentile Christians,
for Paul's argument excludes the possibility that
only Jews were re-
deemed from the law's curse.81 Bruce argues
this on the basis that
ei]j ta>
e@qnh (v. 14) suggests benefits extended to the Gentiles and
that ta>
pa<nta is inclusive language (v. 22).82 Westerholm suggests
that Paul's language is “an unconscious
generalization.”83 However,
though scholars generally think that Paul
indiscriminately
employs pronouns in Galatians 3-4,84
the progression of his argument
makes better sense if they are distinguished.85
In Gal 3:10-4:7, Paul
employs the first person when life under the law
is in view and the
and 16 where impurity or sin is transferred to a
live bird or the scapegoat and sent
forth from the camp into the
desert (p. 261).
76 Cf. Friedrich Buchsel, "a]gora<zw, e]cagora<zw,"
TDNT 1.126-27.
77 Harald
Riesenfeld, "u[pe<r," TDNT 8.509. Cf. Herman Ridderbos, "The Earliest
Confession of the Atonement in Paul,"
Reconciliation and Hope, 80.
78 Cf. Fung, Galatians,
148.
79 Cf. Zerwick, Biblical
Greek §91; M. J. Harris, NIDNTT
3.1197.
80 Cf. Ibid. Contrast Morna D. Hooker, "Interchange in Christ," JTS 22 (1971) 349-
61,
whose scheme cannot adequately explain Paul's language in Gal 3:13. See also
James
D. G. Dunn, "Paul's Understanding of the Death of Jesus," Reconciliation and
Hope, 123-41, who, like
Hooker, attempts to interpret Jesus' death in terms of
representation only, without
substitution. But contrast Ridderbos, "The
Earliest
Confession," Reconciliation and Hope, 79ff.
81 Bruce, Galatians, 166-67.
82 Ibid. Cf. George Howard, Paul: Crisis in
University
Press, 1979) 59; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the
Law and the Jewish People
(Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983) 68f, 72, 81; Franz Musser, Der Galaterbrief
(HTKNT; Freiburg:
Herder, 1977) 231-34, 268-70; Fung, Galatians, 148-49.
83 Westerholm,
84 See Raisanen, Paul and
the Law, 18-23, with a sufficient bibliography.
Raisanen points out that when Paul depicts the
human dilemma outside Christ, he
occasionally appears to include the
Gentiles and the Jews together as subjects of the law.
85 Yet, it must also be kept in
mind that underlying Paul's salvation-historical
argument is his typological use of
plight placed in contrast to the faithfulness of the
New Israel. Cf. T. L. Donaldson,
'Curse
of the Law' and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3:13-14," NTS 32
(1986) 105-6.
204
TRINITY
JOURNAL
second person when the gentile Galatians' own
situation is
discussed.86
It is true, as Bruce points out, that ei]j
ta> e@qnh (v. 14) indicates
that the Gentiles are beneficiaries of Christ's
becoming a curse for
the h[mei?j.
Yet, the blessing extended to the Gentiles is one step re-
moved from Christ's bearing the curse of the law;87
his bearing the
law's curse redeemed (e]cagora<zw) the h[mei?j (i.e. toi?j
u[po> no<mou,
4:5)
from the curse of the law, "in order that" (i!na, v. 14) the bless-
ing may extend to the
Gentiles. The natural reading suggests that
the divine transaction of redeeming Jewish
believers out from under
the curse of the law was a precondition to
bestowing the blessing of
Abraham
upon the Gentiles.58
(c.) Deut
21:22-23 Cited.
Lindars astutely observes that the
apostle conforms his citation of Deut 21:23 to
match the string of
curses in Deut 27:15-26, so the factual statement
("everyone is ac-
cursed who hangs") becomes an anathema
("cursed is everyone who
hangs").89 Paul's modification of the
LXX kekatarame<noj
to
e]pikata<ratoj;
suggests more than mere assimilation. It reflects his
redemptive-historical understanding of the
law as a covenant of
demands with sanctions; Paul reads the law as a
cohesive covenant.
As
such, its various and diverse parts together anticipated fulfill-
ment in Christ. Paul, not as
a rabbi bound only to the middoth, but
as a Christian whose perspective is transformed by
Christ's coming,
interprets Deut 21:22-23 not so much in the light
of Deut 27:26
(gezerah shawah), but
sees the two together through the optic
of
fulfillment in Christ. The two
texts, though isolated from one an-
other in the context of the law, converge in Christ.
So, the simple
affirmation of the LXX is recast in the form of a
sanction.
86 See Moo, "Law," 81.
Cf. also Douglas R. de Lacey, "The Sabbath/Sunday
Question and the Law in the Pauline
Corpus," From Sabbath to Lord's Day,
(ed. D.
A.
The Law and the Elements
of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's
Teaching (Kampen:
Kok, 1964) 59-60 (on 4:3); Bligh, Galatians, 235 (who interest-
ingly finds in this segment
of Galatians a reproduction of Paul's speech on the
Distinction
between Jewish and Gentile Believers in
87 Cf. Donaldson, "The
'Curse of the Law' ," 94.
88 Hays, The Faith of Jesus
Christ, 116-21, who convincingly shows concerning
3:13-14
and 4:3-6, that "The pattern is the same in both cases: Christ's action
enables
the Jews to receive redemption, the Gentiles to
receive blessing/adoption, and Jews
and Gentiles alike to receive the Spirit.
Furthermore, in both cases the formulation
moves from an initial division between 'us' and
'them' towards a final inclusive 'we'
that makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile,
and in both cases this movement
is associated with the gift of the Spirit"
(p. 117).
89 Lindars, New
Testament Apologetic, 232. Yet, he fails to show any significance
to his observation. Instead, he attributes this
change not only to assimilation to the
preceding quotation of Deut 27:26, but he states,
"It is also possible that it accurately
represents the sharpened form in which this text
was already being used by the
enemies of the Church" (pp. 232-33).
CANEDAY:
DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
Paul's appeal to Deut 21:22-23 is not to speak
to the manner90 of
Christ's
death, for clearly the OT text does not address the means
by which the criminal is to be executed. The
apostle finds in this
text a prophetic anticipation of Christ, not in his
being suspended
alive upon the cross, but in his relation to the law
as the final and
superior one who, "hung upon the tree,"
bears the curse of the law on
behalf of
history. His manner suggests that he expects his
use of Deut 21:22-
23
with 27:26 is perspicuous and gives credibility to his argument
concerning the law.
(d.)
Messianic "Blessing" Spills over to the Gentiles. Paul's
question raised by 3:8 (How can Gentiles receive
the blessing
promised to Abraham apart from becoming his sons
by circumci-
sion?) is
answered in
Christ
became the substitutionary bearer of the law's curse
for
those dwelling under the law. It does so with two i!na. clauses,
the
second of which is arguably subordinate to the former
(d. NASB,
NIV).91
Both clauses express salvation-historical realities to
be
realized at Messiah's coming: (1) the blessing of
the Gentiles, and
(2)
the arrival of the Spirit (d. 3:2-5; 4:6). Both
effects mentioned
in
the curse of the law.92
When Christ was hung "upon the tree,"
he replaced unfaithful
fect of his hanging
"upon the tree" greatly transcends the effects of
those of old, who by bearing the law's curse, with
temporary bene-
fits, turned away God's vengeance in cases of
plagues upon
specific breaches of the covenant (cf. Num 25:4;
2 Sam 21:6ff). His
curse bearing is far-superior, for he did not merely
bear the curse on
behalf of believing Jews and remove it from them,
leaving them un-
der the law's jurisdiction.
He "redeemed" them out from under the
law's curse by replacing the law (cf. 3:19, 22-25;
4:5ff). Therefore,
his curse bearing, which has salvation-historical
ramifications, is
described in terms of
of the benefits of Christ's death poured out upon
the Gentiles, he
does not employ the language of "redemption
from the curse of the
law." Instead, the blessing of Abraham spills
out upon the Gentiles,
because
of God's blessing beyond the bounds of ethnic
90 Wilcox: ("'Upon the
Tree'," 89-90, 93-94) fails to recognize the warrant for
Paul's
citation of Deut 21:22-23 and unduly pursues the possibility of an alternate
explanation that, though the OT text did not
"originally refer to crucifixion, it has
been the subject of an early midrashic
interpretation to accommodate it to such a con-
text" (p. 90).
91 Cf. Betz, Galatians, 152. Contrast Fung, Galatians, 151, who takes them as co-
ordinate clauses. He argues that the first
"makes a statement from the perspective
of salvation history" while the latter
expresses the same truth "in terms of individ-
spiritual experience."
92 Cf. Bligh, Galatians, 272
206
TRINITY
JOURNAL
believing Jew has been “bought out from under the
law” (4:5) so that
he, with the believing Gentile, now finds Abrahamic sonship de-
fined by belonging to Christ, not to the law (
status, Jew and Gentile together are made recipients
of the prom-
ised Spirit, for as the
Galatians' own experience testifies, the
Spirit
comes only apart from the law in association with the
preaching of the gospel (3:2-5).
2.
“Tree" Motif in the NT
The presence of other allusions to Deut 21:22-23
in the NT re-
quires brief consideration to examine the extent to
which they co-
here with and are influenced by Paul's citation in
Gal
allusions are discussed under two heads: (1)
References in Acts; and
(2)
1 Pet 2:24.
(a.)
References in Acts. There are three passages in the book of
Acts
that allude to Deut 21:22-23. The first two are ascribed to
Peter
(Acts
cu<lon, a locution for crucifixion. For the purpose of comparison,
the
two texts are set out as follows:
Acts
o[
qeo>j tw?n pate<rwn h[mw?n
h@geiren ]Ihsou?n,
o{n u[mei?j
diexeiri<sasqe o{n kai>
a]nei?lan,
krema<santej e]pi> cu<lou.
krema<santej e]pi> cu<lou.
tou?ton o[ qeo>j
h@geiren e]n t^? tri<t^ h[me<r%
Wilcox contends that these two texts employ a
Greek version of
Deut
kai>
krema<shte au]to>n e]pi> cu<lou.93 However, that such brief
allusions to scripture differ from the source may
be explained by the
conventions of extemporaneous speech rather than by
a different
source text.
Whatever Peter's text may have been, the most
crucial matter
is his change of the finite krema<shte of the LXX to the
participle
krema<santej, making it depend upon diexeiri<sasqe (
a]nei?lan (
tinct acts from the MT tmAUhv; (“he is put to
death") and tAylitAv; (“he is
hung"), Peter's words do not separate the two.
As a result, if kre-
ma<santej is translated instrumentally (by hanging,"
NASB,
93 Cf. Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1965) 34-35;
idem, "'Upon the Tree'," JBL 96 (1977) 91. His argument is based
upon: (1) the use of
diaxeiri<zomai (
creating a difference from a]poqan^ of the LXX; (2) krema<shte
is changed to the
participle krema<santej (3) both omit au]to<n after krema<santej; and (4) the words
krema<santej
e]pi> cu<lou are introduced without explanation, though
their link
with Deut 21:22-23 is apparent.
CANEDAY:
DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
NIV),
the reference to Deut 21:22-23 is more oblique. A clearer allu-
sion is preserved if the
participle is rendered purely circumstan-
tially, "whom you (they)
had, killed, hanging him upon the tree."
In
is to be killed for seducing
reads, "Your hands [ai[
xei?rej] shall be upon him first to kill him,
and afterwards the hands of all the people"
(LXX,
allusion is correctly identified, it strengthens
the OT imagery of
Deut
21:22-23 referred to in the words krema<santej e]pi> cu<lon.
The
Sanhedrin surely understood the reference, for it had con-
demned Jesus for blasphemy
(Matt 26:65) and received testimony
against him for falsely prophesying (Matt
26:61).
The Sanhedrin's orders for the apostles to cease
proclaiming
Jesus
elicited Peter's response: "The God of our fathers raised
up
[h@geiren] Jesus, whom you put to
death, hanging him upon the tree.
This
one God exalted to his right hand" (
ceivably a reference to
"resurrection," as the word is frequently used
(BAGD, 215). Yet, it is better taken
as the "raising up" of a
prophet, for two reasons: (1) In Acts, where e]gei<rw denotes resurrec-
tion, other indicators are
present;96 and (2) it better suits the se-
quence of Peter's speech--God
raised Jesus as a prophet among his
people;97 You put him to death,
hanging him upon the tree; But God
did not ratify your condemnation of Jesus as a
blasphemer, for he
exalted him.
The third allusion to Deut 21:22-23 in Acts is
ticular elements in the text
suggest that Deut 21:22-23 is regarded
here as fulfilled in Christ's Passion. First, and
more obvious, is the
mention of the removal of the body from the tree
(kaqelo<ntej a]po>
tou?
cu<lou, vs. 29). Second, the
expression mhdemi<an
ai]ti<an
qana<tou, "no capital
charge," recalls the occasion of the legisla-
tion
of Deut 21:22a.98
(b.) 1 Pet
2:24.
Peter explicitly associates Deut 21:22-23 with
Isaiah
53:
o{j
ta>j a[marti<aj h[mw?n au]to>j a]nh<negken,
"who himself bore our sins" (cf. Isa
53:12);
94 Cf. its use in Acts 26:21,
where it is also used to describe an "arrest" with an
intention to put to death for an alleged violation
of the Mosaic law.
95 Cf. e]pe<balon
ta>j xei?raj e]pi> tou>j a]posto<louj
(
96 Cf.
h@geiren
e]n t^? h[me<r%;
e]gei<rei. Contrast Wilcox,
"'Upon the Tree'," 94, who takes e]gei<rw in
“resurrection."
97 See BAGD, p. 215. a. Matt
98 Cf. the use of ai]ti<a in the Passion narraties (Matt 27:27; Mark
6).
Luke 24:20b reads, instead, kri<ma
qana<tou, reflecting the LXX
form of Deut 21:22a.
208
TRINITY
JOURNAL
e]n
t&? sw<mati au]tou? e]pi>
to> cu<lon,
“in ‘his body' ‘upon
the tree'" (cf. Deut
By bringing together the two passages, he
interprets Isa 53:12
as fulfilled in Jesus' death “upon the tree."
Like Paul in Acts 13:28-
30,
Peter does not merely associate Deut 21:22-23 with Jesus' death,
but also with his guiltlessness (cf. 1 Pet
curse pronounced upon the criminal. Rather, he uses
the passage to
draw attention to the shame of the punishment Christ
suffered.
Though
he was convicted of no capital offense, Jesus was neverthe-
less treated as the guilty man of Deut 21:22-23, for
he was “hung
upon the tree" to be reviled. Peter's purpose
is parenetic rather
than doctrinal.
There are, thus, indications that Deut
garded as fulfilled in
Christ's Passion. So, when Paul penned his
words to the Galatians, an early Christian exegetical
tradition al-
ready interpreted Deut 21:22-23 concerning Christ's
guiltlessness,
bearing the curse, hanging upon the cross, and
burial, for the church
realized that it was the Christ whom the text
anticipated.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Much of Paul's argument in Galatians 3 depends
upon the OT
scriptures. So, to grasp the development of his
thesis, one must un-
derstand how he is using his OT
citations. This study has isolated
Gal
This
is done recognizing that he employed Jewish hermeneutical
techniques In his use of the OT, yet that these
were governed by his
Christian
hermeneutical matrix, namely, his belief that the entire
OT
realized its termination in Christ. Accordingly, the OT must
now be read through the optic provided by his
inauguration of the
OT's eschatological hope and anticipation. This lens now brings
into focus what was formerly diffused and
enigmatically predic-
tive.
the legitimacy of Paul's use of that passage in Gal
3:13. In its OT
covenantal context, Deut 21:22-23 prepares for and
anticipates
Christ's
curse bearing upon the cross. The corpse of the covenant-
breaker is hung “upon the tree" as a
gruesome sign that he is an ob-
ject of curse. He is suspended
between heaven and earth, exposed to
the vengeance of God to propitiate his wrath toward
25:4;
2 Sam 21:6ff).
From his salvation-historical perspective, Paul
argues that
Christ
hung “upon the tree" in
the violated covenant and turning away God's wrath
from his peo-
ple by redeeming them out
from under the law's curse. This redemp-
tion of believing Jews from
the law's curse is epochal in character,
for Christ replaces the law for Jews and in so
doing extends to
CANEDAY:
DEUT 21:22-23 IN GAL
Gentiles
the blessing promised to Abraham. Thus, Jew and Gentile
together are made recipients of the long-awaited
Spirit of the new
covenant.
Paul's use of Deut 21:22-23 to speak of Christ's
Passion is corrob-
orated by other NT uses of the "tree motif."
Though Acts
13:29;
and 1 Pet
to Christ's cross, they do so without bringing
over to the NT all
that Paul does in Gal 3:13. Instead, they underscore
Christ's guilt-
lessness, his divine
vindication, and the shame he endured.
If this study is reasonably correct in its
identification of bibli-
cal authorization for Paul's quotation of Deut
21:22-23 in Gal 3:13,
it demonstrates the short-sightedness of exegesis
that becomes un-
duly entangled in pursuing hidden midrashic link-words. Paul's
warrant for employing his selected passage,
though undoubtedly
influenced by gezerah shawah, is not bound to the middoth, nor is
he driven to find and appropriate in an ad hoc manner OT passages
to validate the NT creed. The eye of faith,
reading the OT through
Paul's
optic (namely the coming of Christ) will yield fresh and re-
warding insights concerning how the NT cites the
OT.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
2065 Half Day Road
http://www.tiu.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu