I’ve been reading and reviewing both Nijay Gupta and Matthew Harmon’s commentaries on Galatians. I thought I would write a bit on some areas where they disagree. One of those areas has to do with the law, specifically what Paul means when he writes about the works of the law. After arguing against living by works of the law, in Galatians 3 Paul points to Abraham as one who “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? (Gal 3:6). Those who live by faith, like Abraham, are blessed and considered sons of Abraham.
In verses 10–13, Paul argues from four places in the Old Testament against living under the law.
- Gal 3:10 // Deut 27:26;
- Gal 3:11 // Hab 2:4;
- Gal 3:12 // Lev 18:5;
- Gal 3:13 // Deut 21:23.
To flesh this out some more:
- All who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10), for “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them” (Deut 27:26; see how 28:58 refers to all the words of “this law” in Deuteronomy).
- No one is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11), for “The righteous shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4).
- The law, on the other hand, is not of faith (Gal 3:12), rather “The one who does them shall live by them” (Lev 18:5).
- Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13)—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Deut 21:23).
What are the “works of the law” Paul writes about? Were they only those acts that marked Jews off Gentiles (circumcision, food or table purity, and Jewish holy days), understood by New Perspective on Paul advocates? Or were they all the actions and rituals prescribed in the law, understood by Old Perspective on Paul advocates?
Galatians 3:10 and Deuteronomy 27:26
Deuteronomy 27 offers a list of curses for various sins:
dishonoring one’s father or mother (v16), misleading a blind man (v18), perverting the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow (v19), having sex with anyone who is not your spouse (v20–23), killing one’s neighbor (v24), taking a bribe to shed innocent blood (v25), and, finally, not confirming the words of this law by doing them (v26). This does not merely mean the list of these laws, but of the law book of the law.
OT scholar Daniel Block writes that this “appeal to establish the words of the Torah ‘by carrying them out’ [or confirming them] reminds the Israelites that the Torah was given not as an external badge of identity or an artifact to be analyzed and dissected, but as a document to govern conduct” (636). It was not merely something to study or memorize, but to do and follow. Yahweh confirmed a covenant in 8:18, which “declared Yahweh’s fidelity to his covenant commitments, this imprecation calls for Israelite fidelity to him” (636). Israel was to give their full allegiance to Yahweh, just as he showed it to them. They ought to follow the law, yet even when they wouldn’t (or couldn’t), there was provision through the tabernacle sacrifices (cf. Leviticus 1–7).
Perfect Obedience?
In his Galatians commentary (which I reviewed recently), Nijay Gupta believes Paul was not thinking of perfect obedience to the whole law. He writes, “Paul’s concern in this part of Galatians is not with whether or not someone could perfectly follow the law; rather, it is that the law way and the faith way are mutually exclusive; you can’t have it both ways” (116). But that seems to seriously lower Paul’s understanding of the law and how it referred to its own authority: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them” (Deut 27:26; cf. 28:58). One must do all the things written in the law!
Impossible to Keep the Law Perfectly
Israel could not keep the law perfectly, but they, like David, should have kept Yahweh as their God instead of turning to other gods. They ought to have made it their aim to obey the instructions of the true God. While they would do it imperfectly, those who were faithful were considered to be so based on their faith and allegiance to God. Luke tells us that both Zechariah and Elizabeth “were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly” (Luke 1:6). They did not obey the law perfectly, but blamelessly, as required in Deuteronomy 18:13, “You must be blameless before the LORD your God.”
The law was never given to make Israel righteous, only to act as a fence to hedge in their sinfulness (Gal 3:19, 24) until the coming of the Messiah.* The Messiah came and lived as the perfect man and Israelite, died on the cross, and took Israel’s covenant curses upon himself as the perfect Israel. God had passed over former sins (Rom 3:25), and the curse of sin was placed on Jesus as he worked redemption on the cross.
No Other Way of Atonement
That also means that outside of Christ’s work there is no other way to receive atonement, not even in the temple sacrifices. I believe Paul is arguing that since Jesus the Messiah has come, if the Galatians search for righteousness through the law, then they must keep the whole law. Now that the Old Covenant and its temple sacrifices were abolished, there is no other way to receive repentance except through Jesus. His death and resurrection made true atonement and brought an end to the need for temple sacrifices. In his Galatians commentary, Tom Schreiner writes, “Hence, those who return to the law are restricted to the law covenant and its sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. Now that Christ has come, however, no atonement is available under the law or its sacrifices. Therefore, the only way to gain life under the law is to keep every provision of the law” (205).
It seems to me that the best way to understand the “works of the law” is that it includes the whole law. While the Galatians were tempted to be circumcised (and follow the other boundary markers), this would then mean that they would have to keep the whole law, something no one can do. They would also have to do it outside of Christ’s redemptive work and forgiveness, because they would be seeking righteousness through adding the law. This is confirmed in Gal 5:3 where Paul adds that those who adopt circumcision are required “to do the whole law.”
In his comments on Gal 5:3, Schreiner notes,
“Insofar as the animal sacrifices of the OT do not avail now that Christ has come, the Galatians’ only hope if they place themselves under the law is to keep every part of it without fail. Such obedience is, of course, impossible, and hence the Galatians must not adopt circumcision, for to do so places them in the impossible situation of needing to keep the whole law to be saved.” (314)
This isn’t a knock-down argument against the interpretation that the “works of the law” are Jewish boundary markers, but I think this makes much more sense of the text.
Next week I’ll look at how Paul quotes Habukkuk 2:4 in Galatians 3:11—No one is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11), for “The righteous shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4)—and a few ways how we can understand Habakkuk 2:4. Could Hab 2:4 be a messianic text?
Find Gupta and Harmon’s commentaries on Amazon.
Amazon Affiliate Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
spoiledmilks 