Works of the Law in Galatians - A Defect in Translation and Interpretation 1
Created:
In this message, we are reframing the debate on law and grace in early Christianity. These findings will be challenging traditional Christian (and Jewish) interpretations of Paul's letter to the Galatians.
Before we begin...
A Word of Caution
Before studying the book of Galatians, it should be said that there are two ways to read this epistle by Paul [1]:
- The Jewish way
- The Christian way
Both will come to different, yes, even contrary conclusions about Paul and his writings. The Christian way will interpret Galatians as an abrogation of the Torah[2] making obsolete any if not all acts of obedience to God and Yeshua [3]. Those believers who have faith in Yeshua and want to obey God's commandments are even demonised and looked upon within the majority of the Christian church. Self-proclaimed Gentile believers are no short of name-calling those who are faithful to Messiah Yeshua's teachings and commandments as Judaizers, Pharisees, or worse.
"The Works of the Law"
The letter to the Galatians shows a staggering number of occurrences of the phrase "Works of the Law". Traditionally in Christianity, this is understood as Torah, or all of God's Law and commandments. Commonly referred to as the "600 something laws in the Old Testament".
Upon further investigation and studying of the B'rit Chadashah (בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה - New Testament/New Covenant) especially in its original Jewish context, we can find three concrete suggestions by three different sources as to why 'Works of the Law' should not only be understood as 'Torah'—it needs further careful distinction.
Complete Jewish Bible, and The Jewish New Testament Commentary
David Stern [4], in his Bible translation "Complete Jewish Bible", uses distinct nuances in the translation of 'Works of the Law'. In all practicality, Stern uses the term 'legalism'. Exemplarily, Galatians chapter 2 verse 16:
16. even so, we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through the Messiah Yeshua’s trusting faithfulness. Therefore, we too have put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of the Messiah’s trusting faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of Torah commands. For on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, no one will be declared righteous" (Psalm 143:2).
(Italics for emphasis)
When the epistle to the Galatians is read in light of this choice of words, we immediately see clearly the nuance that such translation gives us.
There remains, however, the question of how trustworthy is such choice of words in Stern's translation. Did he merely twist Scripture to fit his theology? Let us hear from his own commentary on Gal 2:16
Legalistic observance of Torah commands. The Greek word "nomos" usually means "law"; it is also the normal New Testament word for Hebrew Torah, which can usually be translated by the phrase, "Law of Moses," or simply, "Law." Most Christians therefore suppose that "erga nomou," literally, "works of law," a term which appears three times in v. 16, must mean, "actions done in obedience to the Torah.'' But this is wrong. One of the best-kept secrets about the New Testament is that when Sha'ul writes "nomos" he frequently does not mean "law" but "legalism."
(Bold and Italics for emphasis)
In his commentary on the New Testament [5] on Galatians 2:16, Stern gives not only a profound insight on 'legalistic observance'; he also states two grounds on which he bases his translation. Food for thought for Christianity.
Cranfield on Romans
... the Greek language of Paul' s day possessed no word-group corresponding to our 'legalism,' 'legalist' and 'legalistic." This means that he lacked a convenient terminology for expressing a vital distinction, and so was surely seriously hampered in the work of clarifying the Christian position with regard to the law.
In view of this, we should always, we think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminology.
In this very difficult terrain Paul was pioneering. If we make due allowance for these circumstances, we shall not be so easily baffled or misled by a certain impreciseness of statement which we shall sometimes encounter."
Peter warns us that Paul's writings can be hard to understand, and easily twisted by uneducated men [6]. Over the past 1800 years, it seems as though Christianity has rested on its flawed laurels of a misinterpretation of Paul's writings (and other significant parts of the New Testament).
Cranfield gives us a clear explanation as to why, for the uneducated eye, it seems as if Paul abrogated the Torah—something that Yeshua Messiah said will not happen until heaven and earth pass away[7].
Stern gives yet another source as to why it seems profitable and right to interpret 'works of the law' in a more nuanced light.
Burton on Galatians
43 years before Cranfield, Ernest De Witt Burton, in his classic commentary on Galatians, also made clear that in the present verse "nomos" means "legalism" and not God's Torah:
"Nomou is here evidently used... in its legalistic sense, denoting divine law viewed as a purely legalistic system made up of statutes, on the basis of obedience or disobedience to which men are approved or condemned as a matter of debt without grace. This is divine law as the legalist defined it. In the apostle's thought it stands for a reality only in that it constitutes a single element of the divine law detached from all other elements and aspects of divine revelation; by such detachment it misrepresents the will of God and his real attitude towards men. By erga nomou Paul means deeds of obedience to formal statutes done in the legalistic spirit, with the expectation of thereby meriting and securing divine approval and award, such obedience, in other words, as the legalists rendered to the law of the Old Testament as expanded and interpreted by them. Though nomos in this sense had no existence as representing the basis of justification in the divine government, yet erga nomou had a very real existence in the thought and practice of men who conceived of the divine law after this fashion.... The translation of this phrase here and constantly... by 'the works of the law'... is a serious defect of (version s that have it)."
Burton even speaks of a serious defect in Bible version translation 'erga nomou' by 'the works of the law'.
Stern continues in his commentary:
The phrase, "erga nomou," found only in Sha'ul's writings, is used eight times, always in technical discussion of the Torah — here three times; 3:2, 5, 10; and Ro 3:20, 28. Two other uses of "erga" ("works") are closely associated with the word "nomos" ("law") — Ro 3:27,9:32. Even when he uses erga by itself, the implied meaning is frequently "legalistic works" (5:19; Ro 4:2,6; 9:11; 11:6; Ep 2:9; 2 Ti 1:9; Ti 3:5), although he uses it 17 times in a neutral way (Ro 2:6; 13:3,12; 2C 11:15; Ep2:10,5:11; Co 1:21; 1 Ti 2:10; 5:10, 25; 2 Ti 3:17,4:14; Ti 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14).
I submit that in every instance "erga nomou" means not deeds done in virtue of following the Torah in the way God intended, but deeds done in consequence of perverting the Torah into a set of rules which, it is presumed, can be obeyed mechanically, automatically, legalistically, without having faith, without having trust in God, without having love for God or man, and without being empowered by the Holy Spirit.
"Erga nomou,'" therefore, is a technical term coined by Sha'ul to meet precisely the need Cranfield has written about; it speaks of legalism, not Law.
Legalism, not Law
3 witnesses have now established the matter concerning Paul's writings about the Torah and his largely misinterpreted use of 'erga nomou', i.e. 'works of the law'. According to Torah, 2 or 3 witnesses are required to establish a matter. The witness of one is insufficient. With Stern, Cranfield, and Burton, we have such 3 witnesses required.
What does this mean to Christianity?
As Stern points out in his commentary: Christianity should stop 'gentalising' Jews. Just as much as Jews should stop the requirement of full conversion on gentile believers.
Yeshua has created a new Way. A new Truth. Salvation comes from the Jews, Messiah told the woman at the well [8]. The Gospel of the Jewish Messiah is brought to the nations by Jews to bring them to Messiah, to bring them to faith and obedience to the Father[9], and to make them a partaker of the promise[10] by being Abraham's seed in Messiah[11].
Footnotes
Sh'aul ↩︎
God's Law & Commandments, First 5 Books of the Tanakh (so called Old Testament) ↩︎
In particular, the 10 Commandments, the Shema and other commandments found in the Torah ↩︎
https://kifakz.github.io/eng/bible/stern/stern_galatam_02.html | ↩︎
2 Pet 3.16 - as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. ↩︎
This passage of Messiah in Matt 5.17-19 should not only be taken literally but with a Jewish midrashic and mysticism context ↩︎
John 4.22 You worship that which you don't know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. ↩︎
Matt 7.21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ↩︎
Ephes 3.6 that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of his promise in Christ Jesus through the Good News, ↩︎
Gal 3.29 If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to promise. ↩︎