The King The Curse and The Cross OT Inte

The King, the Curse, and the Cross: OT Intertextuality, Paul’s Logic, and Justification
Abner Chou, Th.D.

Assistant Professor of Bible
The Master‘s College and Seminary
ETS Annual Meeting

November 2010
Wright has called evangelicals to examine the issue of justification in light of Paul‘s
context and vision.1 Based upon certain historical and biblical theological factors, Wright
contends that we have not aligned ourselves with the apostle‘s original logic.2 Instead, we have
inserted our own perspective or narrative into his thinking. However, this actually raises a
question: How do we know the apostle‘s rationale? Is there a way to derive the biblical writers‘
mindset? Wright has suggested a particular ―story‖ that Paul envisions as the logic from which
his idea of justification operates. How do we know whether Wright is right or at what points is
he inaccurate?
Intertextuality is a tool that may provide insight into this issue. I use the term in reference
to the way the inspired writers of old linked their writings with other texts. The OT prophets
alluded to previous revelation and correlated their new information with the old. This generated a
―single-plan-of-God-through-Israel-for-the-world‖ (to use Wright‘s wording).3 Paul presumably
links back to that train of thought and relies upon it for his own rationale. In this way, the
prophetic hermeneutic becomes and continues into the apostolic hermeneutic. By seeing how the
OT relates to itself and how Paul relates to the OT, we can determine how he thought. Such
analysis provides some help in defining the apostle‘s own rationale about justification. It grants
us further certainty of the way he thought. The focus of this study will be upon Paul‘s
correlation of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and justification in the book of Galatians.
Wright’s Perspective on Justification in Galatians
Wright‘s perspective of justification clashes with the traditional perception in several key
areas. Some of those issues (e.g., eschatological versus present justification) are discussed
primarily in Romans as opposed to Galatians. In the view of this writer, the primary point of
contention in Galatians concerns whether justification regards soteriological questions or
sociological problems.4 I realize at this point that my mention of sociological versus
soteriological creates a division that is horrid to Wright.5 He does not desire a sharp bifurcation
between the two. Nonetheless, his construal of Paul‘s logic seems to exhibit an emphasis of one
over the other.
Wright does believe that justification involves soteriological categories. At one point, he
says that righteous has ―as its central element the notion of having one‘s sin dealt with…‖6 Even
1
N. T.. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2009),
10-14.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., 122.
4
Ibid., 121-22; 133-36.
5
Ibid., 127.
6
Ibid.
© Abner Chou 2010

Chou, Curse, King, and the Cross ETS, November 2010 2
still, Wright argues that the focal concentration of the terms δικαιόω and δικαιοσύνη refer to
covenant membership and God‘s declaration of a person as such.7 This fits well with the table
fellowship context of Galatians 2. The dispute is over sociological issues of equality and
acceptance in the covenant community. Paul‘s use of ―justification‖ in such a dilemma must
answer such questions. Thus, it bears an ecclesiological scope.
In Galatians, Wright views the apostle as thinking on the basis of the ―single-plan-of-
God-through-Israel-for-the-world.‖8 Based upon this scheme, justification as covenant
membership is reinforced as Paul introduces Abraham and his faith and righteousness (Gal 3:6-
9) stating that any Israelite who follows Abraham‘s pattern is his true son. Hence, the question is
who really is a son of Abraham?9 Faith comprises the true covenant marker as opposed to what
the false teachers asserted. However, how then does the law function? This is where Wright
exposits more of Paul‘s bigger picture of the OT. The apostle asserts that law is not the way to
being a part of the covenant community for blessing but rather for curse. The story of Israel
grounds this reality. The nation kept the law but still ended in exile (Gal 3:10).10 Originally, they
were entrusted with the oracles of God in order to be the conduit of blessing for the Gentiles.
Nevertheless, because of their own sin they ended up in curse.11 In fact, as long as Israel abides
in that state, the promises would not be fulfilled and extend to the cosmos.12 However, per
Deuteronomy 30, once the curse is removed the blessings can flow and complete the Abrahamic
covenant.13 Hence, Christ‘s death on the cross according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23 makes him
bear the ultimate curse of exile for His people. After all, ―cursed is the one who hangs on the
tree.‖ This must relate to the covenant curses Paul discussed earlier (Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26) and
the paradigm Moses sets forth in Deuteronomy 27-30. Having borne the curse away through
corporate solidarity, the blessings now can come for both Jew and Gentile so that they are one
people.14
The big picture for Wright then is of promise to curse to renewal and fulfillment. Christ
ends covenant curse to bring in the fullness of blessings for both Jew and Gentile. Because of
this, His curse bearing work (and resurrection) is a reconstitution of God‘s people from old to
new (Gal 2:15-21). This links with the ending of covenant curse and the institution of blessing
(Gal 3:13-14).15 Jesus puts an end to the age of curse and begins the age of blessing. He also
transfers people (both Jew and Gentile as promised) from one age to the other with a fronted
eschatological vindication.
Based upon this brief description, we arrive at some definitions of Wright‘s perspective
of Paul in Galatians. To Wright, Paul conceives of the cross and justification primarily along an
ecclesiological axis. The question is not how one can be right with God as much as it is how
Israel will fulfill her promises and who participates together with her in receiving blessing.16
7
Ibid., 121-22; 133-34.
8
Ibid., 122.
9
Ibid.
10
N T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1994), 144-47.
11
Wright, Justification, 124.
12
Ibid., 125.
13
Wright, Climax, 152.
14
Wright, Justification, 124-25.
15
Ibid., 121, 24.
16
Ibid., 76.
© Abner Chou 2010

Within this, the historical background of ―whom can I eat with‖ comes into play.17 The apostle
views Christ‘s curse bearing not as much about sin as it is about moving history forward per a
Deuteronomic lens. It puts an end to one stage of redemptive history (curse) and institutes the
time period of renewal. Similarly, this view of the cross leads to a view of justification. The cross
enables one to be part of the true covenant community (justification) which is on its way to
receive eschatological blessings as God originally promised.
As I stated before, Wright both acknowledges soteriological and sociological aspects to
justification and eschews a sharp bifurcation between the two. However, he does indicate that
one (a united people of God) is at the forefront of justification and the cross in Galatians and the
other (dealing with sin) is in the background. As he states:
He [Paul] is now, on the basis of that assumption, arguing that all those of whom this is
true form a single family over which God has already pronounced the verdict ―righteous,‖
―my people,‖ ―my children,‖ ―seed of Abraham,‖ ―heirs according to promise.‖ That
verdict, issued in those rich terms, is the fuller meaning of “justification by faith.” Take it
back to the lawcourt if you want. If you need to know that God has accepted you freely,
sinner as you are, because of the achievement of Jesus, so that you are no longer to be
classified as ―a sinner‖ but as a rescued, liberated, adopted child, all that is there for the
asking. But do not imagine that by repeating that wonderful, refreshing, liberating
message you have even begun to understand the urgent message of Galatians 3. The
church needs Galatians 3 as it is, not in the shrunken versions the Western traditions have
been satisfied with.18
I do take from this that at least justification as liberation from sin is not as forefront as the
notion of covenant membership or the unity of God‘s people. Wright, even if trying to
incorporate both soteriological and sociological ideas richly and interchangeably, still
emphasizes the latter as predominant or full based upon the issues coming from the OT.
Intertextuality as Prophetic and Apostolic Logic
Wright‘s perspective brings various factors to the discussion of justification. He has

presented the issue in light of broader redemptive-historical themes and concerns. However, has
he accurately melded the particulars with the broader story? Certain scholars have raised these
issues by asking whether Wright‘s definition of justification correctly correlates certain ideas in
the foreground or background. They have suggested that Wright‘s definition is more about the
implications of justification rather than its essence.19
While I agree with such critiques, we need an evaluative method to demonstrate that Paul
was thinking the way Wright believes (or not). We have to quantify whether the apostle had the
same or different approach. Otherwise, Paul can be made to say what Wright says or what
someone else contends.
17
Ibid., 114.
18
Ibid., 134.
19
Douglas Moo, ―Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective,‖ in Israel
and the Law, 185-88; Mark Seifrid, ―The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.
T. Wright,‖ CTQ 72 (2008): 37-40, 44.
© Abner Chou 2010

Part of this solution relates to viewing intertextuality as an expression of authorial logic.

While we initially may define intertextuality as a connection or allusion between texts, ultimately
as Fishbane and Hays have shown, intertextuality is a hermeneutical act.20 Under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, the author alludes to a text to use it for some purpose he had in his mind. That
act displays his rationale concerning that passage in terms of his interpretation and application of
that information. This activity seems to compound as the canon progresses. Studies have
illustrated that one author incorporates the ideas of a previous text into his own writing only to
have later writers repeat the same process. This creates a string of texts linguistically linked
together which maintain the original intent of the base text but with a growing specificity of its
impact. 21 These connections express the logic of the biblical writers who are unified by the
Divine Author.22 Scholars have observed that strings of text in Paul may evidence this
phenomenon (cf. Rom 10:25-29; 11:8-10).23
Accordingly, Moses may begin a particular thought only to have that echoed and carried
on by David and Isaiah which Paul recognizes and completes. Paul‘s logic in a passage then is
rooted in what Moses thought as specifically applied by David and Isaiah. The apostolic
hermeneutic continues the prophetic hermeneutic. Therefore, we can textually explain Paul’s
logic through the texts of the OT which the apostle alludes to. They are his “clues” to us to
define how he was thinking.24
Wright acknowledges this type of analysis. In his recent work, he claims that Paul does
have a ―rich and subtle use of the Old Testament.‖25 Wright accepts that the apostle understood
the context of OT quotes. Furthermore, as stated before, he also accepts that Paul imbibed a
greater framework of biblical theology at work.26 Hence, not only does the continuum of
prophetic to apostolic hermeneutics provide greater certainty of Paul‘s thought, it also allows us
to evaluate Wright on his own terms.
20
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1989), 10; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 10-19.
21
See G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of
God, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004); James M. Hamilton, ―The
Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham,‖ TynBul 58 (2007): 253-73; Paul R. House, ―Examining the
Narratives of Old Testament Narrative: An Exploration in Biblical Theology,‖ WTJ 67 (2005): 229-45.
22
Craig C. Broyles, ―Traditions, Intertextuality, and Canon,‖ in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide
for Exegesis, ed. Craig C. Broyles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 167-68.
23
He recognized links between texts such that he associates Hosea 2:25 with Isaiah 10:22, 28:22, and 1:9 in
Romans 10:25-29 or later between Deuteronomy 29:3, Isaiah 6:9, 26:10, and Psalm 68:23 in Romans 11:8-10. He
also does something similar with Deuteronomy 27:26, Habakkuk 2:4, Leviticus 18:5, and Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in
Galatians 3:10-14. Such intertextual associations may demonstrate his asserted continuity with the past. Scholars
have observed Paul‘s practice of what is known as gezerah shewa; the cutting and paralleling of texts. See Darrell L.
Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 457; H.L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992) 17; Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1975), 35; This rabbinic practice may be founded upon legitimate
correlations that the prophets in the OT already made amongst themselves.
24
Hays, Echoes, 10-19; G. K. Beale, ―Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the
Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus' and the Apostles' Exegetical Method,‖ in The Right
Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 398.
25
26
Ibid., 34.
© Abner Chou 2010

The King, the Curse, and the Cross
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 as a Base Text
We now require a starting point to begin tracing the prophetic hermeneutic to the
apostolic hermeneutic. If Paul explicitly links his discussion of justification with a line of OT
texts, then we can follow that line, analyze what the prophets were doing, and unravel what Paul
was thinking. Does such a line exist?
I would suggest that Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in Galatians 3:10-14 (―cursed is the one who
hangs on the tree‖) provides an important contribution in the discussion. Initially, Galatians
3:10-14 is part of Paul‘s thinking on justification. The passage expands the discussion (probatio)
of Paul‘s thesis (propositio) in 2:15-21.27 That thesis explicitly deliberates the notion of
justification (2:16-17). More specifically, Galatians 2:15-21 inextricably relates Paul‘s view of
the cross to justification. Justification in Christ and its implications are upheld by the law-
shattering power (Gal 2:18) of being crucified with Christ (vv. 19-20).28 Wright acknowledges
this reading of Galatians 2:15-21. He agrees that the apostle‘s perspective of the cross and
resurrection explains and substantiates his view of justification.29 Later in Galatians 3:10-14
itself, Paul uses his viewpoint of the cross both to exclude false justification by the law (ἐν νόμῳ
οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται, v. 11) and to propose the true way out of the curse of the law (v. 13).30 Once
again, Paul‘s perspective of the cross directs his definition of justification.
It appears that the cross plays a consistent part in Paul‘s narrative concerning
justification. This reason may be why the apostle passionately appeals to the readers‘ encounter
with the crucified Christ (3:1-5). He hopes that by understanding the cross, his readers would
correctly repent of their false view of justification.31 Therefore, per the logic in Galatians, Paul’s
view of the cross has determinative value for his view of justification. Thus, Deuteronomy 21:22-
23, a text that grounds the apostle’s own ideas about the cross, is vital in discerning his logic
concerning justification.32
One more point of observation helps us to see that Deuteronomy 21:22-32 participates in
Paul‘s wider view of Israel‘s story and justification. His use of the passage indicates he was
thinking of the text in a wider pattern. As some have observed, if Paul just thought of
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 by itself, then his logic is incoherent. For example, the Mosaic law does
not explicitly deal with any form of substitution or corporate solidarity. The person who sins will
die and must be buried.33 Paul‘s view of the cross in Galatians argues that we die with Christ
(2:19-20) or that He dies for us (3:13). How can he assert that based upon Deuteronomy 21:22-
27
Witherington, Galatia, 36-40; Joop Smit, ―The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech,‖
in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2002), 46-48.
28
Morris, Galatia, 88-90; Longenecker, Galatians, 91.
29
Wright, Justification, 120-21, 136. His own view is that ―The Messiah‘s death and resurrection
reconstitutes the people of God, in a way which means that they come out from under the rule of Torah and into the
new world which God Himself is making‖ (121). He later states ―…but there is no should be no dobut that for Paul
the Messiah‘s faithful death is the basis of everything that he says about justification, about the covenant family,
about God‘s purposes for the world‖ (136).
30
Longenecker, Galatians, 121.
31
Timothy George, Galatians, NAC (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 237.
32
Wright, Climax of the Covenants, 151. Wright accepts this connection when he says: ―Here [in Galatians
3:13] is a further outworking of that theology of the cross found in 2.19-20.‖
33
Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 198.
© Abner Chou 2010

23 when the law never says that?34 Since Paul quotes a string of OT passages with Deuteronomy
21:22-23, this has led some to think that the apostle is working with a broader context of the OT
as discussed above.35 That law participates and is intrinsically linked to a broader framework of
Israel‘s story.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in the Prophets
Exegesis of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
Moses‘ intent in writing Deuteronomy 21:22-23 serves as the foundation for the rest of
this discussion. First and foremost, the text is a law that deals with how Israel ought to satisfy
God‘s holy standard. It explains one of the Ten Commandments; namely, the precept to not
murder or preserve life.36 The law is actually the last of a set of statutes on that issue.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 states that there are times when God‘s wrath against sin demands that
Israel take away life but even then, the nation should be careful in how it does so. 37
Even though God prizes life, the law teaches that circumstances exist when God demands
death. The legal terminology of such extreme occasions is a ―sin worthy of death‖ ( ‫חֵטְא‬
‫)מִשְפַט־מָו ֶת‬. It appears that each law in the context deals with situations increasingly severe.38
The previous situation dealt with a young person insulting his parents (Deut 21:18-21). Such
actions corrode the very framework of Israelite society.39 ‫ חֵטְא מִשְפַט־מָו ֶת‬probably exceeds an
act that threatens societal structure. This may imply that the sin has some national scope or
impacts society far beyond just individual/interpersonal harm. The unique usage of the phrase in
Deuteronomy confirms the gravity of the crime.40
Israel must take the just action and execute the individual and impale or hang him. The
law has flexibility in both timing and exact method. The criminal could be executed and then
impaled or killed by impaling.41 Moreover, he could be impaled or hung.42 Nonetheless, Moses
34
Moises Silva, ―Galatians,‖ in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K.
Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 798.
35
Ibid.; Wright, Climax, 144-47; Mark Seifrid, ―The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A
Fresh Response to N. T. Wright,‖ CTQ 72 (2008): 27. Seifrid wisely notes that for us to claim that a certain narrative
influences Paul (or any other‘s) interpretation, we must also show clear linguistic presence of that narrative (or
passages) present. The explicit citation of Deut 21:22-23 forms the backbone of this claim with other OT citations.
With those visible quotations, we can argue that Paul was in the story of Israel as Seifrid himself acknowledges
(Seifrid, ―Narrative of Scripture,‖ 29).
36
Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976), 24; S.
A. Kaufman, ―The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,‖ Maarav 1 (1978–79): 105–58; J. H. Walton,
―Deuteronomy: An Exposition of the Spirit of the Law,‖ GTJ 8 (1987): 213–25; J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy,
AOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 326. The waw on the ‫ כי‬in Deut 21:22 is a discourse marker
for conclusion.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 292-93;
McConville, Deuteronomy, 326.
40
Moses has employed the collocation of ְ‫ב‬
ְ + ‫ חֵטְא‬throughout his instructions to Israel (cf. Deut 15:9;
23:22; 23:23; 24:15); conversely, he only uses the full phrase here. Arguably, this adds a level of severity over any
other crime. See McConville, Deuteronomy, 332.
41
The weqatals do not demand sequence. Rather they demonstrate a topical point; a growing intensity in
the execution. John A. Cook, ―The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal
in Biblical Hebrew Prose,‖ JSS 49 (2004): 248–51; IBHS, §32 (523–25); F. A. Gosling, ―An Interesting Use of the
© Abner Chou 2010

paints a picture of the harshest penalty of all for the worst offence.43 The ANE regards impaling
as the most heinous of all executions.44
Conversely, God demands that His people also bury the criminal immediately (v. 23a).
This may have surprised the original audience since the entire point of a public display was for
humiliation. In ANE tradition, a body could be exposed for quite a while.45 Initially, this
reinforces God‘s justice. Once God‘s wrath is satisfied against sin there is no need to go further.
Israel must go against the culture and abide by a different standard—God‘s holiness.
At this point, one may inquire why the situation is so serious, why such a drastic
punishment must be taken, and why should Israel take care of the body so cautiously. Although
the phrase ‫ללַת אֱלֹהִים תָלוי‬ ְ ִ‫( כִי־ק‬v. 23b) is not the main clause of the law, it provides the key
explanation for God‘s entire rationale. The term for curse (‫ )קלל‬as opposed to any other root for
curse (e.g., ‫ )ארר‬stresses one‘s viewpoint. It denotes how one stands in another person‘s eyes.46
In this law, God views the one who is impaled/hanged as an object of His hatred or wrath.47 He
has cursed this individual for terrible sins and demands an equally brutal punishment. This
reality also explains why Israel must handle the body with such care. As Moses later says,
obedience will prevent the land, which is God‘s gift, from being defiled (Deut 21:23b). Without
following God‘s procedures carefully, Israel could allow the curse to spread.48 This national
threat reinforces that the sin involved is not just a “lighter matter” or something that is personal
but one that could impact the entire country. 49
This law reinforces the justice of God against sin. Certain transgressions stand above
others involving God‘s curse. Those extreme circumstances will require the violent taking of life.
The punishment of “hanging on the tree” from start to finish is designed to deal with God’s
curse and sin. The law, not surprisingly, is judicial in nature dealing with right and wrong; sin
and justice. Israel must take care to follow these instructions precisely.
Waw Consecutive,‖ ZAW 110 (1998): 406–8; S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some
Other Syntactical Questions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 118; J-M, §119 (397–403). Weqatal does
not inherently demand sequence but rather correlation. Certain laws cannot have the weqatal in sequence (cf. Exod
22:5; Lev 5:21 [Heb; 6:2; Eng]; 25:26) but rather relate logically to each other based upon context. Semantically,
weqatals relate to each other atemporally when the first term is more general than the next. In this case (like in Lev
5:21), the following weqatals specify the nature of the head term.
42
Cf. 2 Sam 18:9; Num 25:4; Ezra 6:11 for impaling/hanging alive versus Gen 40:19; Josh 10:26 which is
post-mortem display. See also COS 1:338, 345, 349 for examples for impaling as the means of death or post-mortem
display. The term ‫ תלה‬can encompasses either action.
43
McConville, Deuteronomy, 332; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 198.
44
Gleason L. Archer, ―Crimes and Punishment,‖ in Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed.
Merrill C Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1976), 1:1035–36. Raymond Westbrook, ―Punishment and
Crimes,‖ in ABD, 5:546-56.
45
McConville, Deuteronomy, 332; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 198.
46
Leonard J. Coppes, ―‫קלל‬,‖ in TWOT, 2:800–1; HALOT, 2:110; J. Scharbert, ―‫קלל‬,‖ trans. David E.
Green, in TDOT, 13:37–44; Robert Gordon ―‫ ‖קלל‬in NIDOTTE 3:926–27; H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse”
in the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1968), 180–81.
47
Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 198. Some have rendered the construct as objective in nature. The hanged
corpse is an affront to God rather than subjective whereby God has viewed the individual as cursed. ‫ קללה‬in constr
uct more often appears in the subjective sense than objective. When collocated to a proper noun, it is always used
subjectively. As an explanatory clause, it appears that the hanging does not make the person cursed but rather God
had cursed the person so he hung. See Craigie, Deuteronomy, 285.
48
McConville, Deuteronomy, 332; S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy,
ICC (New York: Scribner's Press, 1902), 249; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 198.
49
Tigay, Deuteronomy, 198; McConville, Deuteronomy, 332.
© Abner Chou 2010

Non-Messianic Usage of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
If one does a survey of ‫ תלה‬and its synonyms, a pattern emerges. The prophets seem to
consistently apply Deuteronomy 21:22-23 to leaders who die in reference to their people.
Consistent with what the law originally implied, these situations include national sin and God’s
curse which the execution must satisfy.50 For example, as the Canaanites were cursed, God
demanded the king of Ai and the kings of the southern coalition to be executed by being hung on
a tree. Their deaths in such a manner contributed to satiating God‘s wrath against their people
(Josh 8:29; 10:26).51 Similarly, David hangs two military leaders who instigated a national coup
(2 Sam 4:12).52 Absalom dies in similar fashion for comparable reasons (18:10).53 Later in the
exile, Haman, a leader amongst the Amalekites, suffers the same fate because God had cursed
Amalek for their wickedness long ago (cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 25:19; 1 Sam 15:3; Esth 9:13-15).54
Each occasion portrays that those who die on the tree satisfy His curse against corporate sin.
Two cases deserve more attention: Baal Peor (Num 25:4) and the execution of Saul‘s
sons (2 Sam 21:1-14).55 Both examples still involve leadership who die to satisfy God‘s curse
against corporate sin. God explicitly commands Moses to impale the leaders of the country to
turn away God‘s wrath against the nation (Num 25:4).56 The sin of national apostasy made it
clear that they were under covenant curse (cf. Lev 26:14-16). Similarly, the famine, God‘s curse
for sin (cf. Deut 28:17), ends when David both executes and properly buries Saul‘s sons (v. 10,
50
The original law implied a national/corporate scope to the crime; in each of the examples mentioned, this
also follows. See Ardel B. Caneday, ―The Curse of the Law and the Cross: Works of the Law and Faith in Galatians
3:1–14,‖ Trinity Journal 10 (1992): 185-209. See Caneday‘s excellent discussion over the hosts of these issues. I
would contend that the Messianic portion of discussion would supplement much of what he asserts.
51
David M. Howard, Joshua, NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998), 211.
52
Robert G. Boling, Judges, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 237; Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of
Joshua, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), 178.
53
Robert Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 421. ―The words used
by the soldier to report Absalom‘s condition are of great theological and thematic significance: ‗Absalom was
hanging [Hb., tālûy] in an oak tree.‘ The word translated ―hanging‖ here is used only once in the Torah (Deut 21:23)
to declare that ―anyone who is hung [tālûy] on a tree is under God‘s curse.‖ Absalom had rebelled against divine
law by rebelling against his father (cf. Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; 21:18–21) and sleeping with members of David‘s
harem (Lev 20:11). Absalom had the massive armies of Israel fighting to protect him, and he was personally
equipped with a fast means of escape not afforded other soldiers—a mule. Nevertheless, in spite of these seemingly
insurmountable advantages, Absalom could not escape God‘s judgment. The Lord had declared in the Torah that
one who dishonored his father was cursed (Deut 27:16) and likewise that one who slept with his father‘s wife was
cursed (Deut 27:20)—Absalom, of course, had done both. Although no army had been able to catch Absalom and
punish him, God himself had sent a curse against him that simultaneously caught and punished the rebel. The fearful
judgments of the Torah had proven credible: the Lord had upheld his law.‖
54
Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Cannonical, and Thematic Approach
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 767–77; Adele Berlin, Esther, JPSTC (Philaldelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
2001), 33-34.
55
HALOT, 1:431; J. A. Thompson, ―‫יקע‬,‖ in NIDOTTE, 5 vols., ed. Willem VanGemeren, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997), 2:521; Paul R. Gilchrist, ―‫יקע‬,‖ in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird
Harris (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke:1:397; Jacob Milgrom,
Numbers, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 213. Milgrom convincingly demonstrates that
the term must be linked with the act of impalement.
56
Note the wording ‫קַח אֶת־כָל־רָ אשֵי הָעָם ו ְהוֹ קַע אוֹ תָם‬. The leaders are clearly involved. Note also
the purpose clause: ‫ו ְי ָשֹב חֲרוֹ ן אַף־י ְהו ָה מִי ִשְרָ אֵל‬. The purpose expresses that the leaders‘ death will satisfy
God‘s wrath against Israel. This is corporate solidarity.
© Abner Chou 2010

14b).57 These examples reinforce what we have observed above. Even more, these two passages
show that the nature of death on a tree can actually satisfy God‘s covenant curses (cf. Deut
28:45). The death of leaders who bear God‘s curse ends His wrath against the nation and at times
even ushers it into blessing (cf. the concept of rain in 2 Sam 21:14 and Deut 28:12). This only
works because of the prophets‘ consistency with the original nature of Deuteronomy 21:22-23.
The law is designed to assuage God‘s wrath and curse against the most serious (corporate) sins.
Messianic Usage of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
In addition to the examples above, the prophets appear to incorporate the motif of
impaling/hanging into their paradigm concerning the Messiah and God‘s plan. The prophets have
applied the law in reference to leaders who represent their people. Similar logic relates the law to
the Messiah, the ultimate Davidic king. Three passages connected with the Messiah seem to have
this motif: Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and Zechariah 12. Psalm 22 graphically depicts the psalmist as
part of a public execution.58 The flaying of skin, mention of hands and feet, and the disjointing of
bones all resemble what occurs in impaling (cf. 2 Sam 4:11).59 Similarly, the imagery of animals,
particularly the lion and the dog, are associated with military executions and the dishonorable
deaths of royalty under God‘s judgment (cf. 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:23–24; 22:38; Jer 15:3).60
Through such imagery, David figuratively describes his pain as a person undergoing the
torturous execution of ‫תלה‬.61 Isaiah 53 contains allusions back to Psalm 22 incorporating the
suffering of David into the suffering of the Servant.62 Furthermore, the word for ―pierced‖ (‫)חלל‬
in ―pierced for our transgressions‖ (‫חלָל‬ֹ ְ‫ֵנו ו ְהוא מ‬
ְ ‫ְשע‬
ָ ‫ )מִפ‬has connections in Akkadian and in
biblical literature with impaling.63 Scholars have observed that the word in certain contexts is
57
Famine was deemed by God‘s covenant as a curse which showed His displeasure against the nation‘s sin
(cf. Lev 26:19; Deut 28:17). See John Hartley, Leviticus, WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 465.
58
J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1976), 242. Note
Perowne‘s comment ―Hence it would seem that the body was racked by some violent torture…‖; Derek Kidner,
Psalms 1–72, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 105–7; Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC
(Waco, Tex.: Word Publishing, 1983), 202. Kidner comments (in part quoting Bentzen), ―…it is not a description of
illness, but of an execution; and while David was once threatened with stoning (1 Sam 30:6), this is a very different
scene.‖
59
H. Saggs, ―Assyrian Warfare in the Sargonid Period,‖ Iraq 25 (1963): 149; Brent A. Strawn, ―Psalm
22:17b: More Guessing,‖ JBL 119 (2000): 445-49; Kristin M. Swenson, ―Psalm 22:17: Circling Around the Problem
Again,‖ JBL 123 (2004): 637–48.
60
Charles A.. Briggs and Emilie G Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms,
ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976), 1:196; Richard D. Patterson, ―Psalm 22: From Trial to Triumph,‖ JETS 47
(2004): 222; Mark H. Heinemann, ―An Exposition of Psalm 22,‖ BSac 147 (1990): 296; Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings,
NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 233. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 198
61
Kidner, Psalms, 105-7. See also, J. P. Brown, ―Techniques of Imperial Control: The Background of the
Gospel Event,‖ The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics, ed. Norman K. Gottwald (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1983), 373. Brown concludes that Psalm 22 ―was originally conceived as a lament of a crucified one‖
(373).
62
See later discussion for examples.
63
A. Leo Oppenheim, ed., The Assyrian Dictionary, 19 vols. (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1964), 1:330; Cf.
Code of Hammurabi (COH) 21. Šumma awīlum bītam ipluš ina pani pilšim šuati idukku šuma ihallušu. If a man
breaks into a house, they will kill him and hang him in front of that breach. See also COH 227. See also Donald
Wiseman, ―‫חלל‬,‖ in TWOT, 1:288 who argues that ‫ חלל‬in execution context denotes the most shameful form of
death.
© Abner Chou 2010

metonymy for death by impaling.64 Thus, the Suffering Servant also dies per the terms of
Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Isaiah may even mention the Servant‘s burial for this reason (Isa 53:9;
cf. Deut 21:23). Zechariah 12:10 also mentions that God was pierced (‫)דקר‬. That term also was
used as a metonymy for impaling in Numbers 25. Phinehas carries out God‘s command to impale
(‫ )תקע‬the leaders by piercing (‫ )דקר‬one of the perpetrators (Num 25:4, 8).65 The descriptions
within each of these passages appear to communicate a public execution of a king. He dies by
piercing which is, in execution contexts, a distinctive marker of death by impaling/hanging.66
This, with other factors, leads some to see that David, Isaiah, and Zechariah use Deuteronomy
21:22-23 in their own respective writings.67
How did these prophets integrate the pattern of the law into God‘s revelation about His
Messiah? This becomes of greater interest as the notions of justification (Isa 53:11), the end of
the curse of exile (Isa 54:1; Zech 12:1-10), and blessing for Jew and Gentile (Ps 22:22-31; Isa
53:12) are present. Paul correlates the same ideas in Galatians 3:10-14. 68 This confirms the
possibility that the apostle was thinking along the lines of the prophets and now we must identify
how they pieced all of these elements together.
Psalm 22 provides the general paradigm for how Messiah‘s suffering per Deuteronomy
21:22-23 relates to God‘s plan. The psalmist does express his intense pain in terms of a public
shameful execution. Like other instances where the prophets apply Deuteronomy 21:22-23,
David cries out as a leader—as a king and not merely a righteous sufferer. He appeals to the
Davidic covenant as the basis for his deliverance.69 The Lord had guaranteed chastisement for
the Davidic house when they sinned (2 Sam 7:14). However, He also promises that His
lovingkindness will never depart which will accomplish the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant
(2 Sam 7:15-16). The psalm follows a similar arrangement. David pictures suffering in terms of
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (Ps 22:1-21) bearing God‘s curse, wrath, and thereby dereliction (v. 1,
15c).70 Because of God‘s promise and the way the law works, the psalmist can then envision the
fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (vv. 22-31).71 After such suffering, the curse against the king
is over and so the blessings can come. Israel will worship the Lord (v. 23) as well as have the
fullness of life and deliverance from death (v. 26).72Furthermore, Gentiles also will receive great
64
Brown, ―Techniques,‖ 373; Geoffrey W. Grogan, ―Isaiah,‖ in EBC, 6:303. Grogan states ―Piercing and
crushing are both appropriate terms for the Crucifixion, the first literal and the second figurative.‖ See also, Anthony
R. Ceresko, ―The Rhetorical Strategy of the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13–53:12),‖ CBQ 56 (1994): 46. Death
by piercing in an execution context distinguishes it from other forms of execution such as stoning, drowning, or
burning. Cf. Archer, ―Crimes and Punishments,‖ 1:1035–36; Westbrook, ―Punishments and Crimes,‖ 546-56.
65
Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 518;
Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 18.
66
See fn. 63.
67
See Kidner, Psalms, 105-7; Ceresko, ―Rhetorical,‖ 46; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 353.
68
Gal 3:10 discusses covenant curse presumably of exile. Verses 11-12 discusses
righteousness/justification and verses 13-14 cover both the curse bearing work of Christ as well as the results of
blessing and the Holy Spirit.
69
Ellen F. Davis, ―Exploding the Limits: Form and Function in Psalm 22,‖ JSOT 53 (1992): 97; Nancy L.
deClaisse-Walford, ―An Intertextual Reading of Psalm 22, 23, and 24,‖ in The Book of Psalms: Composition and
Reception, ed. Patrick D. Miller Peter W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 139-51; Perowne, Psalms, 239; Patterson,
―Psalm 22,‖ 220.
70
Kidner, Psalms, 106; Allan M.. Harman, Commentary on the Psalms, Mentor Commentary (, UK:
Mentor, 1998), 120-21.
71
Sheldon Tostengard, ―Psalm 22,‖ Interpretation 46 (1992): 169-70; Heineman, ―Psalm 22,‖ 300-2.
72
Tostengard, ―Psalm 22,‖ 169-70; Heineman, ―Psalm 22,‖ 300-2.
© Abner Chou 2010

benefits including communion with the Lord and sustained life (v. 29).73 The blessings for Jew
and Gentile conceptually echo what the Abrahamic covenant promises. Indeed, the Jews become
a secure nation and the Gentiles blessed (Gen 12:1-3). This makes sense since the two covenants
are highly interrelated.74 David seems to incorporate Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and its curse
bearing for sin as part of the mechanism to deal with God’s discipline mentioned in the Davidic
covenant. This facilitates the Davidic and Abrahamic covenant blessings to come.75
Isaiah reiterates this general paradigm. Like Psalm 22, the Suffering Servant seems to be
punished by God in the manner of a Davidic king. The audience believes that the Servant is
going through Davidic chastisement as any other Davidic king. The people thought he was
stricken (ַ‫ )נ ָגוע‬and afflicted of God (ְ‫אלֹהִים‬
ֱ ‫)מֻכֵה‬. These phrases resemble what God said in
the Davidic covenant (‫וְהֹכַחְתִיו…ובְנ ִגְעֵי בְנ ֵי אָדָ ם‬, emphasis added).76 Moreover, the
Servant‘s suffering resembles Psalm 22. The Servant, like the psalmist, is less than human (Isa
52:14-15; cf. Ps 22:7). God hides His face from both the Servant and David (Isa 53:3; cf. Ps
22:25) Just as the psalmist depicts himself as an impaled king, so Isaiah describes the Servant as
pierced (‫חלל‬, Isa 53:5) which stands as metonymy for impaling.77 Both the individual in Psalm
22 and the Suffering Servant encounter an identical execution. In their own ways, David and
Isaiah describes God‘s wrath against the king. Likewise, both passages also include the blessings
of a curse removed. In Psalm 22, blessing extends to both Jew and Gentile (Ps 22:26-31). In
Isaiah, the Servant has dominion over the Gentiles which blesses them (Isa 53:12) and frees
Israel of its former barrenness/curse of exile (Isa 54:1).78 Thus, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53
seems to have the same experience as the Davidic king of Psalm 22. Israel‘s true king
experiences tremendous suffering bearing God‘s curse which brings about blessing to both Jew
and Gentile.
Isaiah also adds some important details to David‘s paradigm. These details are intricately
connected with what we have observed about Deuteronomy 21:22-23. The prophet reinforces the
aspects of corporate solidarity, sin, and curse/exile. These concepts are at the center of the
meaning and application of the law. The impaled criminal dies because of a heinous sin bringing
God‘s curse. He typically is a leader who is executed in reference to his people. In this way, the
Servant dies in place of His people for their sin but He does so perfectly innocent (Isa 53:4-7).79
Furthermore, in context, Israel‘s sin has brought on covenant curse: the exile (cf. Deut 28:45-48;
73
Kidner, Psalms, 108-9; Perowne, Psalms, 243.
74
Michael A. Grisanti, ―The Davidic Covenant,‖ MSJ 10 (1999): 247; Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of
the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), 156; Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old
Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 185.
75
Some have questioned whether this is a direct Messianic prophecy. While some certainly think so (see
Kidner, Psalms, 106; Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1995), 111-13), others object claiming that this only relates to David himself (see Harman, Psalms, 120-21; Craigie,
Psalms, 198). Perhaps a mediating position could be to see this as David‘s expression of his own suffering in terms
of the Davidic covenant. Since the Davidic covenant does apply to the Messiah, He too could experience such
suffering. Even more, since He actually fulfills the suffering David imagines, He can also facilitate the completion
of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Kaiser has a similar view.
76
James Mays, ―Isaiah‘s Royal Theology and the Messiah,‖ in Reading and Preaching the book of Isaiah,
ed. C. R. Seitz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 39–51; Robert B. Chisholm, ―The Christological Fulfillment of
Isaiah‘s Servant Songs,‖ BSac 163 (Oct-Dec 2006): 388;
77
See above discussion; fn. 66-67.
78
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1998), 415-17.
79
Oswalt, Isaiah, 415-17.
© Abner Chou 2010

Isa 5:13; 7:16-8:8; 39:6). The Lord has already assumed the role of covenant judge who will
contend against His people based upon such violations (cf. Isa 1:1-3; Deut 32:1).80 This
corresponds to the law as well. The prophets relate the heinous sins (‫ )חֵטְא מִשְפַט־מָו ֶת‬of
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 to national crimes that bring about God‘s curse. Isaiah still focuses upon
what was in view in the law: God‘s wrath/curse against sin. Along this line, we have seen before
that curse bearing per Deuteronomy 21:22-23 can satisfy God‘s covenantal curses (cf. Num 25:4;
2 Sam 21:1-14) and bring about blessing. So here, the Messiah‘s impaling does the same. He
bears national sins and curse to end the curse of exile. So to specify the paradigm of Psalm 22
more, the curse against the King satisfies God’s wrath against national sins, ends the curse of
exile and brings in the blessings of Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. This is completely
consistent with the previous usage of the law.
This leads to another important contribution. According to Isaiah, the curse against the
King results in justification (Isa 53:11). The prophet claims by what the Servant knew or
experienced, He, the Righteous One (‫)צ ִַדיק‬, would justify (‫ )יַצ ְִדיק‬the many.81 While an entire
lexical study of ‫ צדק‬is out of the question, we can make several observations about the term.
The qal stem denotes the state of being righteous.82 It is a law court status but indicative of
conformity to a standard (morality). Hence, Judah admits that Tamar, in the eyes of the law,
actually did what was more appropriate or correct than he had done in view of the cultural
standard (Gen 38:26). She thereby is not punished.83 The piel is factitive denoting the proof that
one has this status.84 Even though Elihu declares Job not to be right (v. 12), through his speech
he can correct Job such that ultimately Job comes into a right state before God.85 However, the
hiphil (the form in Isa 53:11) is declarative. It denotes the judge‘s declaration or verdict and
enforcement of a person‘s vindication before the court. Solomon prays that God would rightly
judge such that those who are wicked would be condemned and that He would justify the
righteous according to that individual’s righteousness (ְֹ‫כצִדְ קָתו‬
ְ ֹ‫לתֶת לו‬
ָ ‫ולְהַצ ְִדיק צ ִַדיק‬, 1
Kgs 8:32, emphasis added). Thus, the hiphil of justification seems to presume that the person in
80
Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 42, 85-89.
81
Oswalt, Isaiah, 403-4; Motyer, Isaiah, 441-42. Some may opt to translate this ―my servant will vindicate
the righteous to the many‖ because it is unusual for the verb to take a ְ‫ ל‬preposition. Several options exist to resolve
this issue. Most likely, the ְ‫ ל‬preposition functions similar to a direct object. It is indirect because it denotes the
benefit bestowed on those who are righteous and declared to be so. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:32 for a parallel. Hence, the Servant
has declared the many to be right with God and now they are prepared to receive the blessings associated with that.
Perhaps (even though there is no grammatical parallel to this), it could also be construed that God or the Servant
justifies the righteous one (‫ )יַצ ְִדיק צ ִַדיק‬who is actually the Servant for the sake or benefit of the many (ְ‫)לָרַ בִים‬.
In this construction, the Servant‘s righteousness will be for the many which still denotes something similar to the
first option. One could render the two words ―justify‖ and ―righteous‖ as a dittography; however, all versions
include both words. See Oswalt, Isaiah, 399.
82
HALOT, 2:1003-4.
83
Kenneth Matthews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, NAC (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2005), 723;
Gordn J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994), 369. Judah admits that Tamar is
innocent in comparison with himself and thus righteousness is a judicial standing. However, Judah‘s statement
cannot be construed apart from Tamar‘s consistency with the law of the time. In reference to that standard, Tamar
had lived in higher moral conformity to the law against Judah. Hence, a harsh bifurcation between moral
righteousness and judicial rightness is inappropriate.
84
IBHS §24.2 (400). Walkte and O‘Connor list ‫ צדק‬as a primary case example of qal intransitive, piel
factitive, and hiphil causative.
85
David Clines, Job 21-37, WBC (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 741.
© Abner Chou 2010

court has some sort of righteousness or conformity to the legal standard. For this reason God
detests those who justify the wicked and condemn the righteous links all of these elements (Prov
17:15).86 To do so misevaluates the way people truly stand before the law. A correct justification
instead enforces people‘s right status. God calls on human judges to rule fairly by justifying even
the poor of society (Ps 82:3). Consequently, these righteous people are to have the full force of
the law on their side (Ps 82:4). This declaration is not superficial but results that the judge treats
the person accordingly and sides with him.87
Therefore, when the Servant justifies the many in Isaiah 53:11, He declares that the many
are right before Him.88 Therefore, they have a status of being right.89 What is interesting is the
word play between the Servant who is the Righteous One (‫ )צַ ִדיק‬with justification (‫)יַצ ְִדיק‬. It
seems to be that the Servant is the judge who declares that the peoples are righteous not because
of an innate righteousness they possess but because of His own righteousness.90 He is the basis
for the people‘s justification. He declares them right with the law through the means of what He
has experienced (ְֹ‫)בְדַ עְתו‬. In context, the Servant atones for His people by substituting for them
as a penal sacrifice.91 He bears their sin to put away God‘s wrath and curse. This is due to His
corporate solidarity with them as their King. For the same reason, His righteousness becomes the
grounds for their justification. Justification then is a declaration that the people stand before the
Judge without sin and with the court‘s full vindication because they have a status in full
conformity to the law; they possess the status of the Servant. The parallelism in Isaiah 53:11
confirms this. The Servant justifies as well as bears the people sins or guilt (‫)יִסְבֹל וַעֲוֹ נֹתָם הוא‬.
This antithesis places justification as dealing with judicial guilt rather than covenant
membership or standing. This fits exactly with the nature of the law; one which deals with sin
and satisfying God’s holy standard. The Servant’s death satisfies the law and thereby vindicates
God’s people from its condemnation. This type of right standing entitles Israel and the Gentiles
to the blessings promised by the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. Thus, justification is the
lynchpin in the transition from curse to blessing.
Hence, synthesizing David and Isaiah, a fuller paradigm comes into view. Israel has
sinned and is under the ultimate covenant curse of exile. The Servant, the Davidic king bears the
curse for His people. Something like this has happened in times past; however, unlike any other
instance, the Servant is perfect and has done nothing wrong. Even more, because of His death by
piercing, He bears Israel’s guilt and sin and appeases God’s wrath and covenant curse. This is
how Deuteronomy 21:22-23 functions. The law’s requirement is fulfilled according to its own
parameters. Hence, this sin/curse bearing death directly relates to and results in justification.
The Servant declares His people not to be in condemnation before the Judge but in vindication.
86
Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15–31, NICOT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2005), 84-85. ―As for one who pronounced the wicked person [see I: 109] innocent denotes a corrupt judge who
esteems and declares the behavior of the guilty as conforming to the divinely established moral order and so acquits
them from the punishment of wrong doing…‖ (84).
87
Ibid. The full force of the law on one‘s side means that they are not going to be punished but rather
upheld.
88
Oswalt, Isaiah, 404-5; Motyer, Isaiah, 442. The many include not only the Jews but also the Gentiles as
Isa 52:13-15 indicates. See John W. Olley, ―'The Many': How is Isa 53: 12a to be understood,‖ Biblica 68 (1987):
335–56.
89
Oswalt, Isaiah, 415-17.
90
Motyer, Isaiah, 441-42; Oswalt, Isaiah, 415-17.
91
Allan A. MacRae, Studies in Isaiah (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1995),
256.
© Abner Chou 2010

This is based upon the Servant’s own sacrificial experience and righteousness. Because they are
in right standing before the Lord, He will treat them as such. Thus, the promises of the Davidic
and Abrahamic covenant can come to pass.
Zechariah reinforces much of this discussion. Scholars have identified connections back
to Isaiah as well as the familiar motif of kingly suffering in the book.92 Regarding Zechariah
12:10, the Holy Spirit compels Israel to repent and grieve over the king they have pierced (‫)דקר‬.
In context, this may relate to the betrayal of the Shepherd in the previous chapter (Zech 11:4-11;
see also 13:7).93 Israel‘s acceptance of the pierced Messiah does lead to covenant blessings as
David and Isaiah have proclaimed for both Israel and the nations (cf. Zech 14:5-21). However,
what serves as the critical transition are Israel‘s repentance and the forgiveness of their sins
(Zech 12:10-13:2). This reinforces Isaiah‘s paradigm that justification, which negatively
expressed is the bearing away of guilt, function as the lynchpin from suffering to blessing upon
Jew and Gentile (‫וַעֲוֹ נֹתָם הוא יִסְבֹל‬, Isa 53:11).
This investigation has observed that Wright has made some legitimate observations. The
prophets connect the implementation of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 with the end of exile and Gentile
blessing. However, they have made a distinction between those events and justification itself.
Justification leads to them (Isa 53:11-54:1) but is not the same as them. Moreover, the prophets
are consistent in making justification about the issue of sin (as opposed strictly or primarily to
covenant membership) and thereby a soteriological question. This all starts with Moses‘
intention with the law. It deals with sin (‫)חֵטְא מִשְפַט־מָו ֶת‬. The prophets incorporate the law
into situations dealing in general with national sin and satisfying God‘s justice. David references
it when describing God‘s judgment against sin per the Davidic covenant (Ps 22:1-15; cf. 2 Sam
7:14). Isaiah explicitly relates the Messiah‘s death to satisfying God‘s wrath and curse against
covenant disobedience (Isa 53:4-7). In that trajectory, he states that justification results (Isa
53:11). Zechariah agrees stating that the acceptance of a pierced Messiah is for the people‘s
forgiveness (Zech 12:10-13:1). Therefore, the prophets agree that justification deals with the
matters of forgiving Israel‘s guilt (Isa 53:11; Zech 13:1) and plays a tremendous role as such in
the bigger picture of God‘s plan (Psalm 22:21-31; Isa 53:11-54:1).
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in Paul
Does the prophetic hermeneutic continue into the apostolic hermeneutic? The prophets
could have construed biblical theology in one way and Paul in another. At first, we could argue
that Galatians 3:10-14 has striking similarities to the prophetic paradigm of covenantal curse,
justification, a quotation from Deuteronomy 21:23, and blessing for Jew and Gentile. Before
going there, Acts 13 can provide even more evidence for Paul‘s continuity with the prophets.94
92
See Deborah Krause, ―The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11:1–10 as a
Midrash on Genesis 49:11, Zechariah 9:9, and Psalm 118:25–26,‖ in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures
of Israel: Investigations & Proposals, JSNTSup 148, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 146–48; David Instone-Brewer, ―The Two Asses of Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew
21,‖ TynBul 54, no. 1 (2003): 88; Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1972), 163-64.
93
Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 333; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984),
278.
94
We may observe additional confirmation from Qumran in 11QTemple 64:6-13 and 4QpNahum 9:6-8.
See Yigael Yadin, ―Pesher Nahum (4QpNahum) Reconsidered,‖ IEJ 21 (1971): 9; Johann Maier, The Temple
Scroll: An Introduction, Translation & Commentary, JSOTSup 34 (Sheffield, UK: Journal for the Study of the Old
© Abner Chou 2010

Granted, some may exclude Acts from a discussion of Pauline theology since Luke wrote Acts
for his own purposes. The inclusion of Paul‘s discourse in Acts 13 at Psidian Antioch contributes
to Lucan theology.95 Nevertheless, we can first consider this as a legitimate expression of Paul‘s
thought for two reasons. First, Luke was heavily influenced by Paul. Luke‘s theology in Acts,
which already concentrates heavily on Paul, should legitimately incorporate Paul‘s thought.
Second, Luke claims to record Paul‘s speech accurately (cf. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2). Even if
Acts 13 cannot contribute to a Pauline theology directly, it can at least provide legitimate
background to the entire discussion.96
Such background is significant. If one holds that Galatians was written to the southern
region, Psidian Antioch is a key city in that region.97 Moreover, Paul‘s speech historically occurs
(ca. 47-48) before the epistle to the Galatians no matter if one holds to an early date of
composition (ca. 50 A.D. right before Jerusalem Counsel, around Acts 15) or a late date (ca. 54
A.D.).98 This argues that the very audience of Galatia would have been well aware of what he
had said to them earlier. They could have Acts 13 in the background of their mind.
In this discourse, Paul uses the term ξύλον for ―cross‖ instead of σταυρός (Acts 13:29).
This indicates that the apostle may have viewed the cross in terms of Deuteronomy 21:22-23. 99
This makes an initial link between Paul and the prophets and is just the beginning of the
apostle‘s incorporation of what his predecessors has said.
Paul claims his ideas come directly from the prophets in two ways. First, he engrains
himself in the story of Israel (cf. Acts 13:16-23).100 This will become important later when he
again will recount Israel‘s story in Galatians. The speaker specifically focuses upon David and
the Davidic covenant (vv. 21-23) and claims that God had raised Jesus up according to the
promise of the Davidic covenant. 101 This foundation matches the underpinnings for how
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 works in OT Messianic passages. The curse links to the Davidic king
based upon the Davidic covenant. Hence, Paul continues the narrative of Israel and accepts key
presuppositions that the prophets had. Second, he explicit asserts that his ideas about Jesus come
from the OT (Acts 13:26-27). He states that the prophets had already described what was to take
Testament, 1985), 133; Otto Betz, ―Jesus and the Temple Scroll,‖ in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H.
Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 80; Lawrence H. Schriffman, ―The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic
Psuedepigrapha of the Second Temple Period,‖ in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 31, ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone (Leiden: Brill,
1999), 130–31. Contra Joseph M. Baumgarten, ―Does ‫ תלה‬in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion,‖ JBL 91
(1972): 474. Baumgarten raises an objection against Yadin‘s interpretation of Pesher Nahum and the second temple
link between ‫ תלה‬and crucifixion on the grounds of the four forms of death provided by the Mishnah. However,
some have argued that the metaphorical language of early second temple period documents do provide warrant of
viewing crucifixion under those categories. See David J. Halperin, ―Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the
Rabbinic Penalty of Strangulation,‖ JJS 32, no. 1 (1981): 33–34, 46; Caneday,‖Redeemed,‖ 198.
95
F F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 16-17.
96
Ibid.
97
Witherington, Galatia, 4.
98
Hans D. Betz, ―Galatians, Epistle to the,‖ in ABD, 2: 872; H. N. Ridderbos, ―Galatians, Epistle to the,‖ in
ISBE, 2:383; Ronald Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988), 9-
10.
99
Bock, Acts, 456; C. K. Barrett, Acts, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 1:641.
100
Bocks, Acts, 452-6; Barrett, Acts, 1:641.
101
Bock, Acts, 452; John B. Polhill, Acts, NAC (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1992), 301; Dale
Goldsmith, ―Acts 13:33–37: A Pesher on 2 Samuel 7,‖ JBL 87 (1968): 321-24.
© Abner Chou 2010

place and that those in Jerusalem fulfilled those prophesies (v. 27). Thus, the apostle begins to
follow how his prophetic predecessors and maintains his continuity with them.
This is important since in the rest of the discourse, he follows them so closely. Based
upon Paul‘s claims, the following parallels are far from coincidental. The apostle argues that the
Messiah was completely innocent of any crime (v. 28). This matches what we read in Isaiah
53.102 Furthermore, Paul links the death on a tree (καθελόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου) and burial
(ἔθηκαν εἰς μνημεῖον) with the completion of God‘s plan as revealed by the prophets (ὡς δὲ
ἐτέλεσαν πάντα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα, v. 29). The usage of tree in this context is hardly
accidental. Deuteronomy demands that Israel hang the criminal and then bury him. Paul follows
that pattern in his words. He has linked Deuteronomy 21:22-23 with the Messiah. In context, this
is not just because he saw the Messiah crucified but because the prophets have proclaimed such a
connection. This indicates Paul‘s incorporation of the prophetic paradigm. As Bock states, ―They
took him down from the ‗tree‘ (ξύλον, xylou), an allusion to Deut. 21:22. The texts in mind here
would include Isa. 52:13-53:12; Pss. 22, 69, and 118.‖103 Paul views the cross in light of the
prophetic use of the law. The curse meets the Davidic King and the cross.
Paul continues to follow the prophetic train of thought. Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and
Zechariah 12:10 state that after suffering comes the fulfillment of the Davidic and Abrahamic
covenants. The apostle proclaims that God had raised Jesus from the dead. This act is an
essential part of the gospel (εὐαγγελιζόμεθα) and the fulfillment of God‘s promises to the
fathers which include Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν
γενομένην…ἐκπεπλήρωκεν, Acts 13:32-33).104
In light of this, the apostle exhorts his readers to understand that forgiveness and
justification from sin is now available (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται, vv. 38-39). This too
follows the close connection that Isaiah makes between the curse-bearing death of Messiah and
justification. It also reiterates the soteriological axis that the prophet has concerning justification.
Isaiah pairs forgiveness and justification as Paul does here. In fact, the parallelism between the
noun ἁμαρτία and the verb δικαιόω only occurs in these two passages (LXX of Isa 53:11 and
Acts 13:38-39).105 This suggests that the apostle had Isaiah 53 in mind.106 Paul follows the
definitions made by his prophetic predecessors. Such justification frees one or vindicates one
from the hold of the law on the individual due to sin.107 The law never had the capability to do
what the Messiah accomplished received in faith (Acts13:38b-39). Such faith is exemplified in
Zechariah 12:10.
The apostle concludes his speech with a warning that if people do not believe in the
Messiah, they will continue in exile (vv. 40-41). The apostle quotes from Habakkuk 1:5, a
102
Bock, Acts, 454; Caneday, ―Redeemed,‖ 207. Caneday suggests that Paul reinforced Messiah as sinless
to contrast the situation of Deut 21:22. He Himself did not have a sin worthy of death but was bearing it for others.
103
Bock, Acts, 454.
104
Ibid., 455-56; Withinergton, Acts, 412;
105
Sir. 23:11; 26:29; Isa. 53:11; Ezek. 16:51-52; Acts 13:38; Rom. 3:20;.6:7; Gal. 2:17 are the only times
when the two terms appear in the same verse. In some passages, the two terms are not in parallel but are a part of
two different statements (Sir 23:11; Ezek 16:51-52; 3:20; Rom 3:20; Gal 2:17). In other texts, sin is not in parallel
but directly collocated with the verb (Sir 26:29; Rom 6:7). Only Isa 53:11 and Acts 13:38 have them as parallel
terms.
106
Peter Stuhlmacher, ―Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,‖ trans. Daniel P. Bailey, in The Suffering
Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 153-55, 161-62.
107
Bock, Acts, 454.
© Abner Chou 2010

warning about the exile.108 Paul has positioned the cross and justification as the lynchpin that
determines the movement from the curse of exile to blessing. By this, the apostle shows how
justification is inextricably tied with blessings and the end of exile but still distinct. These
correlations match David, Isaiah, and Zechariah. Acts 13 demonstrates that the apostle continues
the prophets‘ thought. Paul imitates their rich and intricate understanding of how the Messiah‘s
death by Deuteronomy 21:22-23 leads to being right with God and thereby to the fulfillment of
the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.
This viewpoint shared by the prophets and Paul flows into the epistle of Galatians. In the
letter, the apostle essentially deals with a heresy (cf. Gal 1:6–8) asserting a certain form of
sanctification that inherently contradicts justification. This is the specific way that they had a
heretical understanding of justification. Their teaching truly is summed in the words
ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε (3:3).109 The Judaizers argue that Jesus‘ work
saves or justifies an individual; however, to receive the complete benefits or to become perfected
in this, one must follow the law to some degree and belong to the Jewish community (receive
circumcision).110 The Messiah brought one into right standing with God but for full acceptance,
one must adopt Jewish practices.111 In their minds, one does not have holistic Christian status
without the law.112 Thus, the issue of table fellowship is critical in the book of Galatians. Peter‘s
hypocritical treatment of the Gentiles indicated something false about the gospel that Paul had
proclaimed to the Galatians before (Gal 2:14a; cf. Acts 13:32). This context has led some like
Wright to assert that justification must regard covenant membership and a more ecclesiological
matter rather than soteriological.113
So how does Paul answer these questions? Wright asserts that we must describe Paul as
he appears in context which includes his viewpoint of the ―greater story of Israel.‖114 I have no
methodological disagreements here. Paul speaks to this context with a mindset he has already
revealed not only to us but to the original audience in his speech at Psidian Antioch. That
discourse links to what the prophets have more exhaustively unveiled. Does this paradigm fit
with Paul‘s discussions in Galatians 2:15-21 and Galatians 3:10-14?
Paul has expressed agreement with Peter (note first person in Gal 2:15-16) that
justification is not by works of the law but by faith in the Messiah. In the morass of issues
surrounding ἔργων νόμου, we can still observe that the parallelism of faith and law has
precedent in Paul‘s story of Israel. Acts 13:38-39 contrasts the inability of the law to justify with
faith the Messiah. Moreover, Paul uses the cross to further explain justification which
108
Smith, Micah-Malachi, 101.
109
Richard Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1990), xcv; Ridderbos,
―Galatians,‖ 2:683; Guthrie, Introduction, 483.
110
L. M. Petersen, ―Galatians, Epistle to,‖ in ZPEB, 2:630–31; James D. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians
(Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1993), 8–10; Daniel Hayden King, ―Paul and the Tannaim: A Study in Galatians,‖
WTJ 45, no. 2(1983): 340–44.
111
Petersen, ―Galatians,‖ 2:630–31; Dunn, Galatians, 8–10; Witherington, Galatains, 172–78; Mark D.
Nanos, The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, MS:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 292–315.
112
Nanos, ―Stake,‖ 292–315; Fung, Galatians, 8; Dan B. Garlington, ―Role Reversal and Paul's Use of
Scripture in Galatians 3:10–13,‖ JSNT 65 (1997): 89.
113
James D. Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, New Testament Theology (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 33; James D. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, Mass:
Hendrickson, 1993), 230; James D. Dunn, ―Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul‘s Letter to the Galatians,‖ JBL
112 (1993): 459–77.
114
Wright, Justification, 133-34.
© Abner Chou 2010

strengthens the continuity between Acts 13 and Galatians. He has already linked the two at
Psidian Antioch (Acts 13:28-39). The apostle does seem to follow his own previous line of
thought. What makes this abundantly clear is when Paul discusses the notion of being ―crucified
with Christ‖ (συνεσταύρωμαι). How can the apostle state that he, in some sense, died with
Christ? Wright asserts that Paul will unveil the logic further in Galatians 3:10-14 and I agree.115
The corporate solidarity between Jesus and His people facilitates this reality. He bore our
punishment on our behalf and so it is as if we died with Him (cf. Gal 3:13). That is the heart and
soul of how Deuteronomy 21:22-23 works in the prophetic paradigm. The curse goes against the
King for His people. Through and through, the logic and constructions of Paul in Galatians 2:15-
20 match how he viewed the line of thought surrounding Deuteronomy 21:22-23. In light of such
consistency, when Paul discusses justification with Peter (Gal 2:15-16), he most likely uses the
same paradigm at Psidian Antioch. This places his discussion of δικαιόω along a soteriological
axis.
This becomes even clearer in Galatians 3:10-14. The apostle remains consistent as he
goes into further explanation of the relationship between law, curse, King, cross, justification,
and blessing in verses 10-14. Paul alleges that those who keep the law are under curse (v. 10).
The proof is due to the curse of the law in Deuteronomy 27:26. People puzzle how Paul can
associate law keepers with those who transgress the law.116 However, as Wright observes and
more importantly, as the prophets themselves proclaim, Israel is under the curse; the curse of
exile. This is the entire situation of Isaiah 53:1-54:1 and Zechariah 12:10. Paul maintains the
same stance with his warning in Acts 13:40-41. It did not matter how ―successful‖ one person
was at keeping it or how ―good‖ others were, the curse was the redemptive historical outcome.117
While, to be sure, human depravity and Israel‘s inability to keep the law underscores the entire
reason for this, Paul‘s understanding of the OT provides a more immediate step in his logic
toward that end. Verse 10 harmonizes with the prophetic logic construed.
The inability of the law to justify is stated by Paul in Acts 13:38-39 and stems from the
prophet‘s central proclamation that the cursed Messiah is the means to attaining forgiveness and
justification. Hence, doing the law for right standing with God is mutually exclusive to the way
115
Wright, Climax, 150.
116
Silva, ―Galatians,‖ 794–98; Judith Lieu, ―Reading in Canon and Community: Deuteronomy 21:22–23, a
Test Case for Dialogue,‖ in Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Reogerson, ed. David R. Clines and
Phillip R. Davies (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 322; Joel Willitts, ―Context Matters: Paul's Use
of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,‖ TynBul 54 (2003): 105; Timothy G. Gombis, ―The ‗Transgressor‘ and the
‗Curse of the Law‘: The Logic of Paul‘s Argument in Galatians 2–3,‖ NTS 53 (2007): 81–82.
117
Longenecker, Galatians, 116–17; Thatcher, ―The Plot,‖ 401–10. Wright, Climax, 143–47; Hong, ―Law,‖
177–78; Stanley, ―Under the Curse,‖ 497. Those who allege that there were individuals who kept the law
blamelessly as the Scriptures portray (cf. Lk 1:6; Phil 3:6) somewhat miss the entire point. All of those individuals
who kept the law blamelessly still ended up in the national/corporate curse without exception. The reason for this is
the inability of man as Paul states it in Rom 1–3 for sure. However, what is immediately up front is a doxological
historical reality. All who engage in law-keeping will inevitably end up in curse; that is the trajectory of the law as
history has shown and what presently stands. Contra Cranford, ―Cursed,‖ 247–58. Cranford argues that the
sacrificial system and OT faith would equate to keeping the law and the ability to have the forgiveness of sins.
However, if Paul‘s logic is as asserted here, Cranford‘s own argumentation is irrelevant to the debate. Israel, with
the sacrificial system and with individuals of faith who kept the law, still ended up in curse. Depravity, as Cranford
admits, provides the underlying cause as it allows even the supposed escape of the curse of the law (sacrificial
system) to become corrupted in human hands (cf. Isa 1:10–15). While this writer has no qualms about the traditional
idea of the inability of man, that is not the most immediate premise (although, admittedly, it undergirds why Israel
has failed and fell under curse). See also In-Gyu Hong, ―Does Paul Misinterpret the Jewish Law? Law and Covenant
in Gal. 3:1–14,‖ NovT 36 (1994): 177–78.
© Abner Chou 2010

of faith in Messiah.118 The apostle‘s use of Leviticus 18:5 to further his point also meshes with
his established paradigm. One cannot begin with faith and continue with the law because of its
holy demand.119 The prophets later used Leviticus 18:5 to condemn Israel (Ezek 18:9, 20:11;
Neh 9:29) but in the same context point to hope of future blessing.120 In each case, the content of
Israel‘s hope comprises of the outcomes gained by the Messiah‘s execution in other passages.
If the law cannot achieve the ultimate blessings, then what/who can? The prophets, Paul
at Psidian Antioch, and he again in this epistle answer unanimously: Christ. Every detail of
Galatians 3:13-14 are replete with Paul‘s paradigm based upon the prophets. The Messiah does
buy Israel out from the curse (cf. Ps 22:23-32; Isa 53:11-54:1; Zech 12:10-13:2; Acts 13:28-32).
He does so by His curse bearing work since Christ is a king who represents his people (Isa 53:4-
6; Acts 13:28-29). This is based upon Deuteronomy 21:22-23. The results (ἵνα) of Jesus‘
sacrificial death, as David, Isaiah, Zechariah, and Paul have all said, are blessings for Gentile and
Jew (cf. Ps 22:23-32; Isaiah 53:11-12; Acts 13:32-33). This includes the promise of the Holy
Spirit (Zech 12:10). Christ is the solution to obtain blessings. Paul invokes what the Galatians
know well as they heard it before. The discussion of Galatians heavily relies upon how the
prophets use Deuteronomy 21:22-23.
This allows us to have a complete explanation of Paul‘s thesis in Galatians 2:15-21 and
thereby resolve how Paul used justification to the Galatians. The crucified Messiah appeases
God‘s wrath against covenant sin. He alone (and not the law) bears the covenant curse away and
institutes blessing. His sacrificial and atoning work on the cross satisfies God‘s curse and wrath.
This accomplishes forgiveness of sin and a right standing before God based upon the Messiah‘s
righteousness (Gal 2:15-17; Isa 53:11; Acts 13:38-39). If God has declared one to be in the right,
then the law no longer can stand over the believer; he is vindicated from it as having died to it
with Christ (Gal 2:19; cf. Acts 13:38). Thereby the jurisdiction of the law is over.121 Moreover,
justification entitles one to the privileges of that status. This is part of how justification functions
as the lynchpin from curse to blessing in the prophetic paradigm. Jesus has ended the curses due
to sin, thereby completing the prerogative of the law and entitling every person, both Jew and
Gentile, to the blessings because of his right standing before the Lord (Gal 2:15-16, 20). Thus,
the blessings are in Christ and Him alone; to force anyone (including Gentiles) on an alternative
route (the law) is to pervert the very nature of the gospel. It rebuilds what was torn down by the
118
Witherington, Galatia, 234. See also, C J. Collins, ―Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?,‖
TynBul 54, no. 1 (2003): 86.
119
Willitts, ―Context,‖ 110. Willitts‘ article provides a tremendous contribution in two ways. First, he
demonstrates the continuity of prophetic to apostolic hermeneutics with observing how Lev 18:5 echoes in prophetic
use and then in Paul‘s use. Second, in doing so, he demonstrates the logic of Paul and how it reinforces the paradigm
of Israel‘s failure to keep God‘s holy standard and attain blessing through the law. However, their failure pointed
always to a hope to be accomplished by God‘s intervention in Messiah.
120
Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1982), 232–33; Willitts, ―Context,‖ 113–14.
121
Longenecker, Galatians, 91. See also, Witherington, Galatia, 175, 189. Witherington has two excellent
explanations along these lines. First, he states about how justification fits in Paul‘s argument ―Paul‘s primary
concern in this letter is with how the Galatians will go on in Christ…The language about how they entered the
Christian community is used in service of the larger discussion, reminding them how they got in, but also discussing
how they should now walk in Christ‖ (175). Second, his comments on how justification relates to vindication from
the jurisdiction of the law are beneficial. ―It was Christ himself, taking on the curse of the Law how died to the Law
for all, through the execution of the Law‘s curse on him. Inasmuch as Paul or any Christina was crucified ‗with‘
Christ on that occasion…he or any Christian also as a result died to the Law. This meant they were no longer under
the Law‘s power, free from the Law‘s curse and demands‖ (189).
© Abner Chou 2010

true trajectory of God‘s plan concerning the curse, the King, the cross, and justification (Gal
2:18). It visibly negates the power of the cross and destroys what Christ did and provided (v. 21).
The domino effect of the definitive soteriological act of the cross is the ecclesiological blessing
for Jew and Gentile. In this light, the Galatians have moved contrary to God‘s plan. Indeed they
began correctly but finished completely antithetical to the trajectory of what the prophets and
Paul have proclaimed God has done in the One who hung on the tree for us (cf. Gal 3:3, 13-14).
Conclusion
Wright has argued in Galatians that Paul thought of justification in a more sociological
light. He appeals to the apostle‘s logic based upon the bigger story of Israel. We agree with
Wright that Paul did have a grander narrative involved. However, within this, the prophets
express their construction of justification and the death of Messiah differently. As they interpret
and apply Deuteronomy 21:22-23, they consistent relate the law to issues regarding the
satisfaction of God‘s wrath and curse against sin. This applies to leaders who die in reference to
their people. The Messiah is the ultimate leader along these lines. The curse goes against the
King. The prophets predict that the His execution per the terms of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 will
satisfy God‘s wrath against His people‘s sins. He grants His people forgiveness and right
standing before God based upon His own righteousness (cf. Isa 53:11). This will end the curse
and bring forth blessings promised long ago for both Jew and Gentile. In this framework, the
cross and justification are soteriological. Paul follows this paradigm precisely in Acts and
because he claims to speaks of what the prophets wrote (cf. Acts 13:26-28), we should take him
to follow the logic of his prophetic predecessors intentionally. Consequently we observe in
Galatians that Paul relies upon the prophetic use of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 to make his
conclusions. The apostle is still thinking along the lines of the prophets before him. Therefore, to
Paul, the curse, the King, and the cross lead to the forgiveness of sins and a verdict of being
righteous before God. Such right standing entitles believers to all the blessings that God had
promised extending to Jew and Gentile as well as including the Holy Spirit. Soteriology will lead
to ecclesiology.
In Wright‘s recent work on justification, he cites an example where a teacher asks his
students why Christ bore the curse. They reply for the forgiveness of our sins. The teacher in
response cites Galatians 3:13-14. Wright takes this to illustrate that Paul thinks of justification
differently than the traditionalists. Jesus‘ death, the curse, the cross, and justification all point to
the unity of one covenant people.122 In our analysis, Paul does follow the prophets as Wright
contends. However, their viewpoint starting from Deuteronomy 21:22-23 would say that a
legitimate distinction exists between what justification is and what it does. The prophets maintain
that justification is the lynchpin that leads to (ἵνα, Gal 3:14) blessings relating to covenant
membership and unity but is not justification itself. Rather, the curse, the King, and the cross
lead us along a trajectory where justification is God‘s declaration that we stand forgiven and
righteous in Christ before God. That soteriological emphasis is its substance and foreground.
122
© Abner Chou 2010

The King The Curse and The Cross OT Inte

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The King The Curse and The Cross OT Inte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The King, the Curse, and the Cross: OT Intertextuality, Paul’s Logic, and Justification

Abner Chou, Th.D.

ETS Annual Meeting

Wright’s Perspective on Justification in Galatians

© Abner Chou 2010

© Abner Chou 2010

Intertextuality as Prophetic and Apostolic Logic

Wright‘s perspective brings various factors to the discussion of justification. He has

© Abner Chou 2010

Part of this solution relates to viewing intertextuality as an expression of authorial logic.

© Abner Chou 2010