Paul's problem with the law

The OT seems never appears to see the law itself as a problem. As Peter Enns comments:

the general tenor of the OT regarding [Torah/Law], however it is to be defined in each particular instance, is positive. The law is the psalmist’s delight (Ps 1:2; 119:70, 77, 92, 174). It is an object of devotion (2 Chron 31:4) and of careful study and observance (Deut 6:25; 31:11-13; Josh 1:8; Neh 8:3, 13). It is a source of wonder (Ps 119:18) and grace (119:29). It is precious (119:72) and true (119:142). It is not only to be obeyed, but loved (119:97, 113, 163, 165). The prophet looks forward to the day when the law of God will become part of the very inner fabric of God’s people: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jer 31:33). It is to be taught to the children (Deut 31:13; cf. 11:19-21). This positive view of the law may be best understood in the context of covenant. The law is an expression of God’s love for and commitment to his people. While enjoying a special relationship with Yahweh, the Israelites received the privilege of conducting their entire lives in accordance with his standards of conduct, which are themselves reflections of his character (VanGemeren, 24-35).

("Law of God" in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: volume 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 893-900.)

So when we consider Paul's problem with the law it can be tempting to shift his target from the law to a misunderstanding of the law, and this has been done by Christians of all traditions from all times. However Paul's problem can never be avoided in this way; whether by arguing that he was actually arguing against legalism (e.g. Dan Fuller), obedience without the Spirit (e.g. Scott Hafemann), or nationalistic pride (e.g. Tom Wright and Jimmy Dunn). It's not just me who thinks this. Heikki Räisänen agrees:

Heikki Räisänen objects to Dunn's claim that the Jews misunderstood the law in overly ethnic terms according to Galatians 3: "It is altogether impossible to read chapter 3 as an attack on just a particular attitude to the law. Why should the death of Christ have been necessary to liberate men from an attitude of theirs?" (p. 39, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

So does Andrew Das:

[Dunn argues that] the eschatological Spirit has liberated humanity "from that too narrowing understanding of the law's role" in terms of "pride in national identity" (p.387). Where does Paul address a mistaken understanding of the Law in Romans 7? (p.149, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

And so does Mark Seifrid:

Hafemann [and Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit! (p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, Mark Seifrid)

In the light of this there can be only one conclusion for someone who accepts the authority of the whole bible and that is that:

1. The law, while good, was not a perfect and full solution to humanities problem (and God's problem with humanity); and
2. The status of the law has now changed with the coming of Christ

To deal with Paul's language surrounding the law you do have to have to take into account both how there has been a problem with the law from the beginning, and yet that the problem has qualitatively changed with the coming of Christ.