Critiquing: #090 — Galatians, Tom vs Luther and Gender

November 4, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Galatians Commentary — Fruits of the Spirit — Gender in New Creation — Luther’s Perspective — Paul’s Theology

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B-	The content is accurate regarding the historical context and theological perspectives of Galatians and Paul’s theology. However, some interpretations, particularly concerning Luther’s perspective on the Jewish law and gender in the new creation, could benefit from more nuanced analysis and broader scholarly consensus.
Degree of Coherence	B	The discussion maintains logical coherence, with clear connections between the topics of Galatians, Paul’s theology, and Luther’s interpretations. However, occasional digressions and the blending of theological with historical discourse sometimes dilute the main arguments.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	The content generally avoids major logical fallacies. However, some generalizations and simplifications, such as the portrayal of Luther’s perspective and the implications of Paul’s statements on the law, may introduce potential misunderstandings.
Degree of Evidence	C	The episode supports its claims with references to scripture and historical contexts. Yet, the evidence is sometimes anecdotal, relying heavily on individual interpretations rather than a comprehensive review of diverse scholarly opinions. Additional citations from contemporary theological research would strengthen the arguments.
Degree of Testability	C-	The theological assertions made in the episode are inherently difficult to test empirically. Assertions about the new creation, immortality, and the relevance of the law rely on faith-based frameworks, which are not subject to empirical validation.
Rational Confidence	C	The confidence in conclusions reflects a moderate level of certainty. While some theological interpretations are well-founded, others, particularly those concerning Luther’s and Paul’s perspectives on the law and gender in the new creation, remain speculative and open to debate.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:

“Matthew Thomas goes right through all the writers in the second century who are reading Paul and for all of them the works of the law are not the moral deeds that we do in order to impress God…”

While the reference to Matthew Thomas’s work adds depth, it lacks a comprehensive review of diverse scholarly sources. Engaging with a wider array of theological and historical scholarship would provide a more balanced view. For instance, including perspectives from scholars who interpret Paul’s view on the law differently would help mitigate potential bias and provide a richer evidence base.

2. Degree of Testability:

“In the new creation, there will be no death… humans raised from the dead will be immortal and when you’re immortal there is no need for procreation…”

Theological claims about the new creation and immortality are speculative and not empirically testable. They rely on scriptural interpretations and doctrinal beliefs, which cannot be validated through scientific methods. To address this, the discussion could benefit from acknowledging the speculative nature of these assertions and exploring a range of theological perspectives on the new creation and eschatology.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Luther’s Perspective on the Law

Premises:

1. If the medieval church’s practices are corrupt, then a return to scripture is justified.
2. The medieval church’s practices were corrupt.
3. Luther advocated for a return to scripture.

Conclusion: Luther’s protest against the medieval church and his return to scripture were justified.

Counter-Argument:
While Luther’s protest against perceived corruptions was significant, his understanding of the Jewish law might be flawed. Luther projected his experiences with medieval Catholicism onto Paul’s opponents, potentially leading to a misinterpretation. Contemporary scholarship, such as E.P. Sanders’ “New Perspective on Paul,” argues that Paul’s statements about the law reflect a more nuanced understanding of Second Temple Judaism. Therefore, it is crucial to differentiate between Luther’s context and the historical context of Paul’s writings to avoid anachronistic interpretations.

---

Argument 2: Gender in the New Creation

Premises:

1. In the new creation, humans will be immortal and thus will not need to procreate.
2. Marriage is an institution designed for procreation.
3. In the new creation, marriage will not be necessary.

Conclusion: In the new creation, the institution of marriage will be dismantled.

Counter-Argument:
This interpretation assumes that marriage’s sole purpose is procreation. However, marriage also fulfills companionship, mutual support, and a reflection of divine love. Even in the absence of procreation, marriage could continue to hold value in the new creation, reflecting a transformed rather than abolished institution. Additionally, theological interpretations of eschatological texts, such as those in Revelation, suggest a symbolic rather than literal understanding of future relationships. Thus, marriage may evolve rather than be entirely dismantled in the new creation.

---

Argument 3: Paul’s View on the Law

Premises:

1. The works of the law are practices that Jews do to express their membership in the covenant.
2. In the new world, these practices are irrelevant for membership in God’s people.
3. Paul’s statements about the law reflect this shift.

Conclusion: The works of the law, as understood by Paul, are irrelevant for membership in God’s people in the new world.

Counter-Argument:
This view oversimplifies Paul’s complex relationship with the law. While Paul indicates that the works of the law are not necessary for salvation, he also acknowledges the law’s role in guiding human behavior. Scholars such as James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright have argued that Paul’s critique of the law was not a total rejection but a redefinition in light of Christ’s work. Therefore, dismissing the law’s relevance entirely overlooks its continued importance in shaping a Christian ethical framework and maintaining a connection to Jewish heritage.

◉ Addressing Argument #3:

The Arbitrary Nature of Old Testament Laws and the Incoherence of Eternal Damnation

The notion that the Old Testament laws were divinely instituted to promote charitable actions among the Israelites is a widely propagated fallacy. A meticulous examination of these laws reveals a starkly different reality: they were largely arbitrary rules designed either to test the obedience of the Israelites or were rationally derivable without any divine mandate. This exposes a fundamental incoherence in the concept of a benevolent God who would impose such laws and attach the penalty of eternal damnation for their breach.

The Old Testament laws encompass a wide array of mandates that range from dietary restrictions to specific rituals and ceremonies. Many of these laws have no apparent justification. For instance, the prohibition against wearing clothing of mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19) or the dietary restrictions on consuming certain animals (Leviticus 11) are rules that do not inherently promote charitable behavior. Rather, they seem designed to create a distinct cultural identity for the Israelites or to test their willingness to follow God’s commands without question.

The arbitrariness of these laws is further highlighted by their inconsistency. Consider the mandate to observe the Sabbath strictly (Exodus 20:8-11), where even minor violations were punishable by death (Numbers 15:32-36). Such harsh penalties for seemingly trivial offenses do not align with the concept of a just and merciful deity. Instead, they reflect an authoritarian regime demanding blind obedience rather than encouraging thoughtful, ethical conduct.

Moreover, many of these laws can be seen as rational derivations within a society possessing the faculty of reason. Laws against theft, murder, and perjury are not unique to the Israelites; they are fundamental to any civilized society. These laws can be understood as essential for maintaining social order rather than divine imperatives. Therefore, attributing them to divine origin not only undermines the human capacity for rational ethical reasoning but also inflates the significance of divine intervention where none is needed.

The most egregious aspect of these laws is the doctrine of eternal damnation for their violation. The idea that a benevolent God would consign individuals to eternal suffering for failing to adhere to a set of arbitrary or rationally derivable rules is inherently incoherent. Such a doctrine contradicts the very notion of divine justice and mercy. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then creating a system where eternal punishment is the consequence for temporal, often minor infractions, suggests either a capricious nature or a profound indifference to human suffering.

This punitive framework stands in stark opposition to the principles of justice and proportionality. In any rational legal system, the punishment should fit the crime. However, the concept of eternal damnation for breaking arbitrary laws fails this fundamental test of justice. It imposes infinite consequences for finite actions, which is both irrational and indefensible within human standards. We only irrationally accept the alleged standards of an unsubstantiated God and abandon our own understanding of justice in the process.

In conclusion, the Old Testament laws, far from being divine imperatives promoting charity, are largely arbitrary rules or rationally derivable within any rational society. The notion of eternal damnation for their breach further exposes the incoherence of a benevolent and just God instituting such a system. It is imperative for modern society to critically examine these ancient texts and reject the irrational and logically dubious doctrines they propagate.

The Absurdity of Arbitrary Old Testament Laws Making “Sin More Sinful”

The concept that the arbitrary laws of the Old Testament serve to make “sin more sinful,” as suggested in Romans 7:13, is an absurdity that defies both rational and ethical considerations. These laws, designed to be difficult to follow and devoid of apparent social or personal value, could not be the creation of any just God. Instead, they reflect an authoritarian framework that seeks to impose control through impossible standards rather than fostering genuine “moral” development.

The idea that Old Testament laws are intended to exacerbate the nature of sin implies that these laws highlight human imperfection and the need for divine grace. However, many of these laws appear arbitrary and lack inherent value. For example, the prohibition against mixing different kinds of seeds or fabrics (Leviticus 19:19) does not contribute to personal virtue or societal well-being. Such rules seem to serve no purpose other than to test the obedience of the Israelites, rather than guiding them toward a higher behavioral standard.

Furthermore, the assertion that these laws make sin more sinful suggests that failing to adhere to them somehow deepens “moral” culpability. This notion is intrinsically flawed. Laws that are designed to be difficult to follow, with no clear rationale, do not enhance interpersonal awareness but rather engender confusion and frustration. If a law lacks a clear foundation, then breaking it does not carry the same “moral” weight as violating a law with evident social or personal value. Consequently, the idea that such laws make sin more sinful is logically incoherent.

Additionally, imposing harsh penalties for the breach of these arbitrary laws further underscores their unjust nature. The penalty for breaking certain dietary restrictions or Sabbath violations was often death, a punishment grossly disproportionate to the supposed offense. This punitive approach contradicts the notion of a just and merciful deity. A genuinely just God would institute laws that promote human flourishing and ethical behavior, not arbitrary decrees that serve merely to ensnare and condemn.

The belief that these laws are divine tests of faith also falls short upon closer scrutiny. True personal growth arises from understanding and internalizing principles of justice, compassion, and integrity. In contrast, adherence to arbitrary rules fosters a culture of fear and mindless obedience rather than genuine “moral” insight. A just God would seek to cultivate virtues that enhance personal and social well-being, not impose irrational burdens that do not contribute to such ends.

Moreover, the theological interpretation that these laws reveal the depth of human sinfulness relies on an anachronistic and culturally isolated understanding of human charity. Human societies have developed complex behavioral systems independently of religious doctrines, demonstrating that reasoning about our actions is a natural human capacity. To attribute the recognition of sinfulness to compliance with arbitrary religious laws diminishes the inherent ability of humans to discern right from wrong through rational reflection and communal consensus.

In conclusion, the notion that Old Testament laws were instituted to make sin more sinful is an absurd and irrational proposition. These laws, characterized by their arbitrariness and lack of clear ethical value, could not originate from a just deity. Instead, they reflect a framework designed to test obedience and impose control, rather than fostering true personal growth. The penalty of eternal damnation for failing to adhere to such laws further underscores their inherent injustice and incoherence.

---

We welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s engage in a robust and thoughtful dialogue on the nature of divine laws and the implications of their purported origins.