Epistles considered authentic and the order in which they were possibly written: (Timelines differ) Estimated dating is 50-60 CE.
First Thessalonians
Galatians
First Corinthians
Romans
Second Corinthians
Philippians
Philemon
For some reason, I have in my head some old memories (that I don't remember where I got) that the ordering was different. So I am curious as to where you got this ordering. It is somewhat relevant to your topic because I recall from those same memories there being a discussion about how Paul's view of the law changed over time as is reflected in his authentic works. I don't remember the exact ordering but I do remember that Galatians was earliest and Romans the latest and what is interesting about these two books is that they represent the ends of the spectrum of Paul's discussions about the law. It may still be relevant given your ordering since Romans is still later than Galatians.
In Galatians he is very forceful in making a distinction between the law and faith. I agree that he eventually comes around to calling the law "holy" and "spiritual" as he does in Romans but it does seem like he is doing so due to what he perceives as a misunderstanding of his prior exhortations concerning the law such as he does in Galatians.
He didn't claim that Christ's death abolished any portion of a written legal system or that God's Law was cursed. He considered God's Law to be holy and spiritual.
My thought is, I wonder how much of this is him backpedaling just a little bit? Its not that his opinion of the law is all that different from Galatians but he certainly is expanding and clarifying the notion of freedom from the law. In both books he refers to the law as a reactionary element to sin:
Galatians 3 writes:
Why then the law?
It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.
Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.
Romans writes:
While we were living in the flesh,
our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet,
if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
So in Galatians he is saying that the law was necessary but specifically says that righteousness cannot come through the law. Thats a pretty bold claim considering the people who were under the law who were also called righteous. In Romans he makes the same point about the law being necessary, but ties that necessity into something of more cosmic relevance, illuminating the need for justification by faith.
In Galatians the law is a stop-gap thing, a "disciplinarian until Christ" as he says. In Romans he is saying that you cannot know sin without the law. That seems like a pretty big clarification in my mind. Not necessarily discordant with Galatians, but certainly a refinement.
Ephesians 2:14-16 writes:
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
In all the previous discussion about Ephesians, I don't really see this verse as being all that different from, "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian" from that same Galatians quote and, "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" from the same Romans quote.
Moreover, the writer of Ephesians here is not necessarily making a point about the law here. He is really making a point about Gentile acceptance into the religion of the Jews. Look at the verse in full context:
Ephesians 2:11-22 writes:
So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"-a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands- remember that you were at that time without Christ,
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.
So maybe, just maybe he is being careless with his description of the law here but that may be only because he really is trying to make a different point. His main point here in full context is that Jesus tore down the wall between Jew and Gentile. Granted, that wall existed because of the law, but that doesn't contradict the role that the law plays as outlined in Galatians and Romans.
So overall, I think you are going a little bit too far with how firm the author of Ephesians is dismissing the law. I do believe there are theological discrepancies between Ephesians and the rest of the Paulean corpus but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
(1)
