“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight,
since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” - Romans 3:20
This phrase has been, and continues to be so
wrongly interpreted, that there is almost a universal consensus of error! That
is, both those who see the Apostle Paul as a very important figure in the
foundation of Christianity; and those who see him as a total fraud and
counterfeit promoter of a pagan religion, see this phrase as referring to
keeping or doing the commandments, that is, keeping Torah[1].
The famous and highly respected Christian
scholar Dr James DG Dunn did eventually recognize to a large degree, what this
phrase actually means and this was part of the introduction of a new
appreciation of the Apostle Paul’s Jewishness called the ‘New Perspective on
Paul’ (this new movement and recognition amongst Christian scholars began in
earnest around 1982). Why I think there are some still some significant errors
in the understanding of these ‘New Perspective’ scholars, I believe that they
have appreciated and articulated the most significant issue of how it should
NOT be interpreted[2].
Until this ‘New Perspective’ movement or James
DG Dunn et al, most Christian scholars and preachers had thought that when the
Apostle Paul uses this phrase he means 'the commandments of Torah' and that he
speaks disparagingly about them when addressing Gentiles.
This is a very serious and crucial error of
interpretation. It results in a totally false understanding of Galatians and of
Paul's teaching in general.
While I detail this in my book 'Defending the
Apostle Paul: Weighing the Evidence' I will discuss a little of the detail in
this short article.
To repeat, the understanding of this phrase is
vital to the perspective we take on the Apostle Paul. Here is a common
(mis)-understanding of a well known Christian scholar:
“In context, no reader of the Book of Galatians can reasonably
conclude the definition of Paul’s idea “works of the law” as meaning
‘circumcision’, once they have carefully read the first 3 chapters, this is
a fact. … “works of the law” means
“doing the righteous things of Torah”
The phrase ‘doing the righteous things of Torah’
means obeying the Commandments, i.e. obeying Torah.
With such emphatic phrases such as ‘this is a
fact’, many still clearly do not see the phrase ‘works of the law’ as referring
to doing the Commandments. This also has very significant implications in terms
of the whole argument regarding whether or not the Apostle Paul was
‘pro-Torah’, that is a Torah observant Jew, or whether he was a founder of a
religion that was effectively anti-Torah, because it rejects the argument that
obedience to the commandments of God is a necessary part of salvation.
If as this Christian scholar argues, this phrase
does ‘in fact’ mean ‘obeying Torah’ or ‘doing the commandments of Torah’, then
it is very strong evidence that the Apostle Paul was anti-Torah and clearly not
a Torah observant Jew.
Can we demonstrate from a critical analysis of
the use of this phrase (found only in the Romans and Galatians epistles) which
meaning most properly fits the context?
I believe we can, and especially if we start
with Romans 3:20 “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight,
since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
This phrase has the logical form:
“For , since ”
or more clearly, “ is true
because of ”.
That is, leads to the
conclusion of .
So here we can see that Paul states that:
‘Because through knowing Torah (law), we
know what sin is, that is, what it means to act un-righteously, therefore
we can state that no-one can be made right before God (justified) by ‘works
of the Torah/law’.
Now we can analyse this passage by inserting our
alternative understandings of ‘works of
the law’ into this logical construct, and see whether either, or any
actually make sense, that is, if the cause, or reason (the ‘because of’ or
‘since’ statement) can be seen to reasonably lead to our understanding of
‘works of the law’.
First, let’s insert the ‘rites required for
Jewish proselytizaton’ in place of ‘works of the law’.
So Romans 3:20 now re-phrased reads:
“For we can state that no-one can be made
right before God (justified) just by undertaking the rites required for Jewish
proselytizaton, since through knowing Torah (law), we know what sin is, that
is, what it means to act un-righteously.”
Romans 3:20 is then stating that just being a
Jew, or becoming a proselytized Jew does not bring ‘justification’ (and by
inference, salvation). Even a Jew can sin. The implication being that it is NOT
enough to be a Jew; one must be obedient to Torah, just as Yeshua stated when
asked what must one do to enter eternal life (remember, he was asked this
question by those who were already Jewish and therefore knew God and Torah). I
would think most Torah observant people would then agree with Paul and this
statement.
The second use of this phrase in Romans, Romans
3:28 states: “For we hold that one is justified by faith
apart from ‘works of the law’.”
(ESV).
Here we see that Paul is effectively saying the
same thing by stating ‘justification’ comes through the obedience of faith[3]
and therefore is separate or at least not dependent only on the ‘rites’ of
Jewish identity. Again, this makes perfect sense.
Thus, using this understanding of the phrase, we
have a logical, consistent and Torah-affirming statement.
Now let’s turn to the alternative view presented
and assume ‘works of the law’ means
‘doing the commandments of Torah’, or ‘obeying Torah’ (not just the rites/rules
of Jewish identity).
So let’s again re-word Romans 3:20 with this
understanding and see what we get:
“For we can state that no-one can be made right before God
(justified) by doing the commandments of Torah, since through knowing Torah
(law), we know what sin is, that is, what it means to act un-righteously.”
Clearly the first section, the conclusion or
‘for’ part is incorrect. So if we didn’t have the ‘since’ section, the cause or
reason, we could read the phrase and state, as some anti-Torah preachers do, that
obeying God will not justify us (and they might even argue that that’s because
of original sin).
But look closer, we need to arrive at this
version via the cause or reason, the ‘since’ section. So this statement now
simply reads: ‘Because Torah brings a knowledge of what is sin, we can not be
justified by obeying Torah’!
Read that again, mediate on it: ‘Because Torah brings a knowledge of what is
sin, we can not be justified by obeying Torah”! This is a nonsensical
statement, only a fool, a very confused and totally illogical person could
write such nonsense. Such nonsense would never have stood any test of time. The
Apostle Paul, whatever he was, was not this foolish!
Consider in the same manner Gal 3:2 “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive
the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?”.
Appreciate, that to a Hebrew, ‘hearing with
faith’ means doing. To hear is to obey; the Sh’ma begins ‘Hear O’Israel, …’,
meaning OBEY. To ‘hear with faith’ means to ‘obey through trusting God’ or to
‘trust God and His Word and obey’, that is ‘to trust Torah and obey’.
So, again substitute ‘doing the commandments of
Torah’ for ‘works of the law’ in Gal 3:2 and you get:
“Did you receive the Spirit by doing the commandments of Torah, or
by trusting God and obeying (the Torah).”
To put it even more simply, it would read: ‘Did you receive the Spirit by obeying
Torah or by obeying Torah!!”. This is clearly wrong, as there is no
contrast here. It makes no grammatical sense to say ‘Did you receive A by doing
B or by doing B’!
Instead, replace ‘works of the law’ by
‘undertaking the rites required for Jewish proselytizaton’ in Gal 3:2 and you
get: “Did you receive the Spirit through
‘undertaking the rites required for Jewish proselytizaton’ or by obeying
Torah”.
This makes sense. Undertaking circumcision et
al, whether at 8 days old or as a Gentile proselyte does not give anyone the
Spirit of God; it is doing His will (obeying Torah) that bestows His favour and
Spirit. So this version of Gal 3:2 gives us a phrase with a true contrast and
real choice to make.
Therefore we again see that of the two alternative
understandings for ‘works of the law’
contrasted, the understanding that it means ‘‘undertaking the rites required
for Jewish proselytizaton’ fits both logically and biblically.
There are other alternative understandings for
‘works of the law’ such as David Stern’s version in the Complete Jewish Bible
where he has translated it as ‘legalistic observance of Torah commands’. I
think you will find that this phrase does not work if you try the same process
with it. You may also have serious difficulty determining the reality of what
‘legalistic’ means from an Hebraic perspective as well.
It is also informative to consider one other
place where the Apostle Paul uses this term and that is, its use in Galatians
3:10: ‘For all who rely on works of the law are
under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all
things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”’
Here we begin to see the hand of the redactors (the
editors), as the phrase quoted as being from the Tanakh (the Old Testament), is
not actually in the Tanakh. However, there is an instruction given through
Moses, where God did tell the Jewish people that that needed to do ALL the
commandments, not just some, not just the rites of Jewish identity for example,
or they would face some curses.
“If you are not careful to do all the words
of this Torah that are written in this Book, that you may fear this glorious
and awesome name, the Lord your God, then the Lord will bring on you and your
offspring extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and
sicknesses grievous and lasting.” - Deut
28:58-59
I would recommend you again try the substitution
approach we have been using and it should be very clear here as well, that it
makes perfect sense to say that to JUST do the ‘rites of Jewish identity’ rather than ALL the commandments
(mitzvoth) is not enough.
Now, the most vital thing to DO, if you are
convinced that the understanding of ‘works
of the law’ I have put forward it correct, is to read all of Galatians in
one sitting replacing ‘works of the law’
by ‘rites of Jewish identity’ as you
read.
You will now, no longer see any real hint of an
anti-Torah bias in this epistle. You should also now appreciate that this whole
epistle focuses on this very question of ‘should Gentiles who have come to
believe in Yeshua as the Messiah become Jews?’ and the Apostle Paul’s answer,
and the consequential answer of the Jerusalem Council was NO.
While I hope this logical analysis of competing
understandings for the phrase ‘works of the law’ has convinced you both of the
helpfulness and validity of this approach and the conclusions we have arrived
at it, is not all plain sailing.
For example, I may have convinced you regarding
Galatians 3:10, but in this context, the next section of this chapter; the two
verses are problematic and have confused many a serious Bible student!
Consider Gal 3:10-12
“10 For as many as are of the works of the
Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not
abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”
11 Now
that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident;
for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.”
12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the
contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”
I think there has been some redaction here. For
example, if you have followed and agreed with my argument regarding Gal 3:10,
you may appreciate that in verses 11 & 12 the phrase ‘works of the law’
(that was most likely originally here), has been altered and reduced to ‘Law’.
How can we know this?
Because the two passages from the Tanakh, which
Paul quotes here (Habakkuk 2:4 & Leviticus 18:5 – see below), both speak
emphatically to the righteousness found through obeying Torah! If Paul did use
the term ‘Law’ here (meaning Torah) then it appears he was attacking the
efficacy of Torah obedience.
If so, then he was totally schizophrenic, as in
trying to support such anti-Torah sentiments, he has used pro-Torah references
from the Scriptures!
“ … But the righteous will live by his
faithfulness” - Hab 2:4
“So you shall keep My statutes and My
judgments, by which a man may live if he does them;
I am
the Lord.” - Lev 18:5
Sadly, this is not the only place where subtle
redactions and interpolations have made it much more difficult to uncover the
true Paul and his intended message.
Once we appreciate what the Apostle Paul meant
in his use of the phrase translated ‘works of the law’, we can then recognize
that the whole of Galatians is about the question of Jewish proselytization for
these new Gentile believers in Yeshua.
There still remains a couple of significant
issues with Galatians though, even once we remove the misunderstanding and
application of ‘works of the law’.
These are Galatians 3:16 and Galatians 4:22‐31:
I won’t go into any detail here on Gal 3:16 but suggest you read Frank Selch’s ‘The Seed of Abraham in Galatians 3:16 and Other Issues’.
Let me touch a little on Gal 4:22-31:
Almost universally commentators and most readers
would be easily led to believe that the two covenants contrasted here are the
Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant through Messiah Yeshua.
While this is a possible understanding, the
issue is that it seems so at odds with so much of Paul’s letters such as Romans
and in particular Romans 9 where he speaks so strongly of Gentiles being
grafted into the cultivated Olive Tree and becoming part of the Commonwealth of
Israel.
Are we to read that here in Galatians, Paul has
had a change of heart and now wants to denigrate the cultivated Olive Tree and
equate it to Ishmael’s son‐ship? This seems highly unlikely!
What some scholars instead argue is that this
discussion is a comparison between 2 different groups of gentile proselytes and
two different pathways or attempts to become son’s of The Most High God.
Contextually, it is important to appreciate that
the Apostle Paul in this letter, is primarily addressing Gentiles. Josephus
[Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia [but
that] the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles.
A number of passages help establish this
historical fact.
Gal 1:13‐14 For you have heard of my
former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried
to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among
my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.
Here Paul appears to be informing his Galatian
listeners regarding his previous state and in using terms like ‘among my
people’ it seems clear he is speaking to others who are ‘not my people’, that
is to Gentiles.
Gal 4:18‐19 It is always good to be
made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, my
little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Messiah
is formed in you!
Note here also that Paul refers to his readers
as ‘my little children’ – as apostle to the Gentiles, this also indicates that
those he is addressing are Gentiles.
Gal 4:8‐9 Formerly, when you did not
know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that
you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back
again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose
slaves you want to be once more?
Again, the phrase ‘formerly, when you did not
know God’ would also appear to indicate that his listeners were not Jews and
had therefore previously been ignorant regarding Yahweh.
I recommend that you read the whole of Galatians
in one sitting and see that the context both before and after the challenging
section of Gal 4:22‐31 is focused on circumcision and, as already indicated, is
speaking to gentiles about the issue of circumcision which is representative of
‘keeping the law’ (not just the written Torah but the Oral Torah as well) and
becoming a Jewish proselyte.
In Galatians 4:22–31, the Apostle Paul makes a
commentary on the story of Ishmael and Isaac.
22 For it is written that Abraham had two
sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
23 But the son of the slave was born
according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through
promise.
24 Now this may be interpreted
allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing
children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she
corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she
is our mother.
27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O
barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in
labour! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one
who has a husband."
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are
children of promise.
29 But just as at that time he who was born
according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so
also it is now.
30 But what does the Scripture say?
"Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman
shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
31 So, brothers, we are not children of the
slave but of the free woman.
Unfortunately, this Galatians passage is often
misunderstood as a contrast between the new covenant and the old covenant,
between Christians and Jews.
What I believe Paul is doing here is comparing
Ishmael to the Galatian Gentiles who are accepting the dogma that they must
undergo a ritual proselyte conversion through means of circumcision in order to
be reckoned covenant members with Israel. Like Ishmael, Paul says that they are
“born according to the flesh;” (Galatians 4:23) specifically, the circumcision
of their flesh. That is, there entry into the Kingdom is via a ritual, via a
work rather than via faith in the saving power and redemptive act of the
Messiah.
According to the rabbinic dogma, a proselyte
through ritual conversion is called a “son of Abraham.” Ishmael was indeed a
son of Abraham, but he was not the promised son of Abraham. Instead, he was a
son by nature and by law. Paul compares those Galatian proselytes to children
birthed from the covenant at Mount Sinai, where the Torah (law) was given. They
are sons of Hagar and “under the law” because they have predicated or based
their salvation upon observing a “work of the law;” that is, circumcision.
In this analogy, the Apostle Paul compares Isaac
to the believing Gentiles who predicate or base their salvation and covenant
status upon faith. Isaac is the son of the promise and God’s chosen heir of
Abraham. As such, these believing Gentiles are the sons of Sarah, Abraham’s
“son by the free woman through the promise.” (Galatians 4:23)
They are sons of Sarah in that they have based
their salvation upon faith in the promise of God.
Therefore, the two covenants being contrasted
are not the New Covenant and the Old Covenant. They are the Abrahamic covenant
and the Sinai covenant, both of which are parts of Torah.
Furthermore, the contrast is not between Jews
and Christians, it is between Gentile believers who choose to undergo ritual
conversion to Judaism and Gentile believers who do not.
Paul says of those who rely on faith, “And you
brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.” (Galatians 4:28)
Note that most of the older manuscripts and even
most of the newest translations read ‘these women are two covenants’, NOT
‘these women are the two covenants’. The difference here is that the addition
of the word ‘the’ implies a contrast is being made between the Mosaic covenant
and the Covenant through the Messiah.
Note also the reference in the quote “Rejoice,
o barren one …” is to Isaiah 54. This is a
psalm about the great restoration of the Jewish people to their God and to
their Land.
For Paul to use this reference to the future
blessing of Israel and then proceed to denigrate Israel just doesn’t make any
sense at all (if the traditional understanding is employed).
If rather, Paul is speaking of how Gentiles who
are ‘children of promise’ will share in this great blessing of Israel’s,
because they have been grafted into the cultivated olive tree, then it makes
sense that Paul would quote this uplifting and encouraging passage,
particularly to any believers facing persecution as the Philippians were and as
the Galatians at this time were also, most likely from Jews of the mind and
zeal that was in Paul before his recognition of the Messiah (Gal 1:23).
The further reference to Gen 21:10 and the
‘casting out’ of the slave woman also seems perhaps harsh and if directed at
Jewish people most inconsistent with Paul’s other epistles.
Instead, look at Gen 21 from where this quote
comes. Here we see that this quote is a statement of Sarah which Abraham
struggled with, yet God vindicated Sarah’s statement and also explained how He
would still support and bless the son of the slave woman.
In the same manner, if this argument is valid,
in quoting Genesis 21:10 and calling for the ‘casting out’ of those who call
for circumcision, Paul is saying not to have fellowship with these people who
would force both circumcision and the traditions of men onto these truth
seekers and in so doing blind them from the freedom and love that ensures when
the heart rather than the body; when the spirit rather than the flesh; is
circumcised (or dedicated) to Yahweh.
In conclusion then we see that in Gal 4:22-31
the Apostle Paul is also speaking about whether Gentile followers of Yeshua
should undertake the ‘works of the law’ and become Jewish or not. Thus, this
passage is contextually relevant and also re-iterates the Apostle Paul’s
argument aimed at Gentiles, that they should remain Gentiles. This argument
here does not address the Jewish people at all and thus does not speak either
against, or in favour of, their commitment to Torah obedience.
If you would like to consider the pro-Torah
message of the Apostle Paul a little more I would recommend you read my book
‘Defending the Apostle Paul: Weighing the Evidence’[4].
If you would like to consider further the
implications of Gentile pro-Torah followers of Yeshua remaining Gentiles, I
would recommend my article ‘The Tripartite Salvation Paradigm’ (see my
website).
Shalom!
Paul Herring
Dec 2012
Notes:
“Because the word law is incorporated in the meaning of Torah, translators have
opted for the simple solution to translate Nomos indiscriminately as law both
in the Old and New Covenant writings”
- Torah: Mosaic Law or Divine Instructions by
Frank Selch p 71
“The misleading translation of Torah as Law
entered Western thought through the Greek text (the Septuagint)” - Oxford
Companion to the Bible Editors B.M Metzger & M.D Coogan, p421
For more on the problem of using a Greek version
of the Tanakh see my book ‘The New
Testament: The Hebrew Behind The Greek’ - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009XO0NQU
-
[1] Greek versions of
the Bible translated the Hebrew word meaning ‘instructions’ (Torah) as ‘nomos’
and in turn this was translated to ‘law’ in English. Neither word is a good
choice as they both convey a much more limited and even legalistic meaning. It
is also important to recognize that the word Torah can also have several
meanings today as it is sometimes used to refer to the five books of Moses, or
to the whole of the Tanakh (OT) or it may even be used to refer to the ‘Oral
Torah’. Frank Selch explains this well in his ‘Torah: Divine Instructions or
Mosaic Law’
[2] The ‘New
Perspective’ makes the mistake of expanding the ‘rites of Jewish
proselytization’ such as circumcision to include other Biblical mandates such
as the Sabbaths and Festivals which are not really ‘rites of passage’, but have
a more universal application and relevance.
[3] See my article on
‘The Faith of Jesus’ to appreciate what ‘faith’ really means. Also discussed in
the Hebraic Mindset articles – see www.circumcisedheart.info
No comments:
Post a Comment