My Critique of Campbell's take on Leviticus 18:5

Preamble (!)

It's too bad that I'm picking on one the the few disagreements I have with Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God:  An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.  Overall, his take on "Justification" mirrors what on my website I refer to as the "Standard Evangelical Story".  However, I still think he gets Paul's use of Leviticus 18:5 wrong, and I think the problems he admits he faces with respect to Romans 9:27-10:5 and Galatians 3:6-14 would vanish if he were to adopt my interpretation.

Works of Law

Ultimately, my disagreement with Campbell has to do with his understanding of "works of Law".  On my interpretation, "works of law" are something less than obeying the law in the full sense.  Campbell criticises Dunn's attempt to explain works of law in terms of Jewish identity markers.  But whatever "work of law" are, they seem to fall short of complete obedience to the law.  This is all my interpretation needs because my argument free-flows from the assumption that "works of law" are not the same as obeying the law and certainly not the same as "good works".  One of my main pieces of evidence is in Galatians 6:13: "Even the circumcised [those who are of the works of law] do not themselves obey the law."  This is confirmed in Galatians 3:10, cf. Romans 2 and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:23-24.  So, the problem isn't legalism nor is the problem that the law cannot be perfectly  fulfilled, the problem is that the law is not completely fulfilled.

Galatians 3:6-14

Campbell notices a nice chiasm in this section
A 3:6-9 Abraham
B 3:10 curse
C 3:11 life
C' 3:12 life
B' 3:13 curse
A' 3:14 Abraham
However, I think this structure actually reinforces my interpretation.  One would think that both middle sections (C/C') would say similar things and that is what they do on my interpretation, but are contrasting on Campbell's interpretation.

3:11a Now by law no one is being justified before God is clear,
3:11b because the just by fidelity will live [Hab. 2:4]
3:12a But the law is not of fidelity
3:12b but the one doing these things will live in them [Lev. 18:5]

Note that both 3:11a and 3:12a say something negative about the law and so I claim that both 3:11b and 3:12b say something positive and provide proof of the truth of the a's.

Here is how I see the argument go in verses 11 and 12:

(1) [3:11b] Those who are faithful get life (= justification).
(2) [3:12b] To be faithful to the law, one has to faithful to [do!] all the law
(3) [3:10] Those who are of the works of law do not obey all the law
(4) [3:12a] therefore, those who are of the works of law are not faithful
(5) [3:11a] therefore, those who are of works of law are not justified [get life] before God.

Campbell lays out his take in argument form of this section (p. 863) but does not address why Leviticus 18:5 fails.

Romans 9:27-10:5

Many commentators agree with my interpretation when it comes to Romans, even if they don't with regard to Galatians.  However, I want to make the case here too.

One of my key assumptions, that works of law is not the same as obeying the law completely, seems to be stated in 9:31: "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness to that law did not arrive".  I take it that Israel failed to reach the goal of the "righteousness race".  Their proper goal was the law but they failed to reach it.  Campbell's translation of 9:31 is awkward: "But Israel, pursuing a torah of righteous activity toward that law, did not [attain righteousness]".

Campbell thinks that when Paul says "works of law" in 9:32 he is referencing Leviticus 18:5.  Furthermore, he does not think that "the person doing these things" or talk about Jesus doing anything reprises anything that Paul says about Jesus earlier.  However, he ignores 10:4 where Paul says that Jesus is the goal/end [telos] of the law.  If Jesus is the goal of the law then it would make sense to use Leviticus 18:5 positively.

Here is how I would make sense of 10:5 and it connection to 6-8 [see my website]:

For Moses writes of the righteousness of the law that the one having done these things will live in/by them, and...[Deut. 30:12-14]

Most translations interpret the connective de as 'but' which would imply a contrast between Leviticus 18:5 [10:5] and Deuteronomy 30:12-13 [10:6-8].  However, the connective can mean "and" which is how Paul uses  the gar...de sequence elsewhere (Rom. 10:10; 11:15; 7:8).  It would be odd for Paul to claim that Leviticus 18:5 fails and conflicts with another passage from the law!

Conclusion

These passages are the citadel of the standard evangelical story and so when they fail to defend that story the story is in big trouble.  The rest of Campbell's book, for the most part, does a great job presenting an alternative rereading of Paul's theology.