What are the “works of the law”?

Explanation:

Paul says that he knows that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. So, what are works of the law? Paul uses the phrase works of the law six times in Galatians (Galatians 2:16 [3x]; Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:5, Galatians 3:10) and each time he contrasts the works of the law with faith.¹² So what is faith? Paul explains in Galatians 3:6–7 that Abraham was a man of faith because he believed God. He goes on to explain that people of faith are blessed along with Abraham (Galatians 3:9). So faith has to do with believing in God and brings blessing, while all those who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10).  Why does faith bring blessing, and works of the law bring a curse? Paul explains that if one seeks to be justified by the works of the law, then one must do all that is written in the book of the law (Galatians 3:10). If one relies on the law for justification, and cannot live by all that is written, one is cursed rather than justified. Paul’s point is obvious. No one will be justified by works of the law because the works of the law include all that is required in the Mosaic law. The fact is, humans are sinful, and it is impossible for sinful humans to live according to all the works of the law. Still, God provides a solution. Jesus Christ is righteous before God because he upheld the law perfectly. Therefore, those who place their faith in Jesus Christ are grafted into Christ’s righteousness. 

Counterargument:

It is important for us to understand each phrase from Paul based on the immediate context. Thus, we should try to understand the phrase works of the law in the context of Galatians 2:16 rather than using other verses to inform Paul’s meaning. When we do this, we find that Paul says he knows that a person is not justified by works of the law but [ἐὰν μὴ] through faith in Jesus Christ. Here Paul uses the conjunction ἐὰν μὴ to infer some connection between the works of the law and faith in Jesus Christ. The conjunction ἐὰν μὴ is often taken to be exceptive; that is, we should translate the phrase a person is not justified by works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ.^13,14 The exceptive translation implies that works of the law are in addition to faith in Christ. In other words, one is not justified by works of the law alone, but by works of the law combined with faith in Christ. Given the context, and the exceptive use of ἐὰν μὴ, Paul most likely has in mind the specific aspects of the law that differentiated Jews from Gentiles. This would include things like dietary restrictions and circumcision. Paul is saying that faith in Christ is enough to justify, so there is no good reason to force the Gentiles to partake in the works of the law such as dietary restrictions and circumcision.¹⁵

Response to counterargument:

There are several problems with this counterargument. First, the conjunction ἐὰν μὴ can be used with exceptive or adversative force. If it is taken with adversative force, the proper translation is but (as in the ESV). Thus, Paul says a person is not justified by works of the laws, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This is an entirely different meaning and suits the immediate and broad literary context. Paul says in Galatians 3:10 that all who rely on the works of the law are cursed. Why? Because if one is going to be justified by the law one must do all that is written in the law. Paul is not introducing a new concept in Galatians 3:10 but he is extending what he already said in Galatians 2:16. No one is justified by works of the law, but by faith in Christ, because if one tries to be justified by works of the law, one is bound to the whole Mosaic law. Since it is impossible to uphold the whole Mosaic law, one is under a curse. Paul makes a similar statement in Galatians 5:3 where he explains that every man who is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law.

As for the fact that Paul exhorts Peter in relation to dietary laws, the fact is that the Mosaic law included both spiritual and bodily requirements, and these are tightly interwoven. That Peter withdraws from the Gentiles over the bodily requirements of the law suggests that Peter seeks to be justified by the law, and therefore is bound to the whole law (Galatians 3:10).

Explanation:  

In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he makes the equivalent point that people are not justified before God by works of the law but by faith. Given that Paul wrote both Galatians and Romans, and that he expounds the same themes in both letters, we can use Paul’s work in Romans to inform what he means by works of the law in Galatians.¹⁶ So what are the works of the law? Are they specific Jewish laws such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, or the whole Mosaic law?

In Romans 3 Paul explains that indeed, the Jews had the benefit of receiving the law and oracles of God (Romans 3:1–2), but that because Jews are under sin as much as Gentiles (Romans 3:9), the laws and oracles, while being of value, do not justify the Jews. Why not? Because it’s not the laws that make one righteous before God but the ability to live according to them. Since Jews are sinful, they break God’s law, and therefore cannot be justified by the works of the law. The law is not an arbitrary set of rules, but rather the means by which we come to a knowledge of our sin (Romans 3:20). This implies that the law is a prescription for holy living that humans cannot attain. Of course, if the law were merely the ceremonial aspects, it’s hard to see how these would bring knowledge of sin. Further, if a human was especially careful, there is no reason she could not keep all the requirements of a ceremonial law. And if justification before God were the reward, this would provide ample motivation to be especially careful to keep the ceremonial law.

All of this implies that when Paul discusses the works of the law in Romans 3, he has the whole Mosaic law in mind. Paul writes, But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law…the righteousness of faith through Jesus Christ…. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:21–23). First, it is hard to see why God would send his Son as a sacrifice on the cross because humans were unable to maintain the ceremonial requirements of the law. Second, Paul here implies that the law has to do with the glory of God. Since we do not keep the law, we fall short of the glory of God. This suggests that Paul has the whole Mosaic law in mind because the glory of God has to do with justice, righteousness, and holiness, not circumcision and dietary restrictions.

Paul goes on to explain that all boasting is excluded, not by a law of works, but by the law of faith. Finally, he concludes that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28). Here, Paul contrasts works of the law with faith in Christ, just as he does in Galatians.

Paul goes on in Romans 4:1–25 to explain that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works of the law. He even explains that if Abraham was justified by works of the law, this justification would be his due (Romans 4:4). That’s because the works of the law are more than ceremonial exercises, like circumcision and dietary laws, but include the whole Mosaic law summed up in the command to love God with all one’s heart and one’s neighbour as oneself. Of course, Abraham is justified not by works but by faith (Romans 4:5), because as Paul has already explained, all are under sin, so no one is able to keep the requirements of the whole Mosaic law.

Thus, by saying that the law brings knowledge of sin, that failing to keep the law is to fall short of God’s glory, and that if Abraham could keep the works of the law, justification would be his due, Paul’s works of the law are more than ceremonial requirements such as circumcision and dietary restrictions but must include the whole Mosaic law.

Counterargument:

It could be that when Paul uses the phrase works of the law he has the whole Mosaic law in mind. Of course, he never says as much in his letter to Romans. On the other hand, in Romans 3:1 he specifically mentions circumcision. Further, when we reach the end of Romans 3, Paul characterizes the difference between Jews and Gentiles in terms of the ceremonial law, calling the Jews circumcised and the Gentiles uncircumcised (Romans 3:29–30). Thus, while he never states that the works of the law include the whole Mosaic law, he does infer that he has circumcision in mind. Of course, circumcision has to do with the ceremonial aspects of the law, which would also include dietary restrictions. When we look at the context of Galatians 2:1–21, we see that Paul is recalling a confrontation between him and Peter over dietary restrictions (Galatians 2:10–11). Thus, Paul likely has the ceremonial aspects of the law in mind.

Response to counterargument:

The fact that Paul specifically mentions circumcision in Rom 3 does not rule out that he had the whole Mosaic law in mind. Rather, we can detect that Paul has the whole law in mind because he calls out specific aspects of it. First, in Romans 3:1 Paul includes the ceremonial law in the phrase works of the law by asking, What is the value of circumcision? Of course, in the context he uses circumcision as a catch phrase for covenant people of God. In other words, Paul rhetorically asks about the value of being the covenant people of God. We know this because Paul equates circumcision with receiving the oracles of God (Romans 3:2). In other words, the Jews were circumcised to demarcate them as God’s covenant people, and the value of being God’s covenant people is the oracles of God. So Paul has the ceremonial aspects in mind, insofar as they demarcate God’s covenant people.

But Paul goes on to explain that he also has the moral law in mind. He says that Jews and Greeks are on equal footing because all are under sin (Romans 3:9). If works of the law simply refers to the ceremonial aspects of the law, sin would have to do with not partaking in circumcision and dietary restrictions. Of course, this is not what Paul has in mind when he explains sin, but rather, sin has to do with the fact that no one is righteous, no one seeks God, and no one does good (Romans 3:10–12). Each of the violations has to do with the moral law, so that humans are convicted because they do not uphold the ceremonial or moral aspects of the law. In other words, no one is justified by the works of the law because the works of the law is the whole Mosaic law, and humans cannot keep these because of sin.

The difficulty with assigning a meaning to the term works of the law is that it is only found within the Pauline corpus.¹⁷ This means we have no Old Testament references to correlate what he might mean. This has led some to use the term in a narrow intra-Jewish sense as we will see with Interpretation 2. Still, anyone who knows the Old Testament knows that God made a covenant with Israel by giving the law to Moses. If the Israelites obeyed the law things would go well, and if they did not things would not go well (Deuteronomy 28:1, Deuteronomy 28:15). Israel could not obey the law, so things did not go well. Of course, the New Testament reveals that God knew Israel could not obey the law but used it as a temporary measure to reveal knowledge of sin until Jesus Christ was born into the world (Galatians 3:19). Jesus obeyed the law perfectly. So while we are not justified by works of the law because we fall short of their requirements, we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means by works of the law, we need to understand Jewish thought during this period in history. While it is true that Jews understood works of the law as the whole Mosaic law, they also understood the phrase in narrower terms. During the Maccabean era, various sects of Judaism developed their own interpretations of the law, and thought that if other Jews did not prioritize the works of the law according to their standards, the other Jews were considered Gentile sinners. Thus, during the Second Temple period, works of the law could mean the whole Mosaic law, or a narrower interpretation of the law that distinguished specific Jewish factions.²³ The most frequent test cases used in these intra-Jewish debates to demarcate the boundaries of authentic Jews were circumcision and dietary laws. Of course, the requirements of circumcision and dietary laws are precisely what Paul combats in his letter. Thus, when Paul refers to the works of the law he has in mind the specific intra-Jewish debates.²⁴ Since these factions used circumcision and dietary laws as their main exclusion principles, when Paul uses the term works of the law he addresses these specific requirements of Judaism.

Counterargument:

If works of the law can mean all the deeds required by the law, why should we restrict Paul’s usage to a more limited scope that only included circumcision and dietary laws? The Mosaic law comprises many laws, including those pertaining to circumcision, dietary restrictions, and sacrifices, and many behaviour prescriptions such as not stealing or committing adultery. If all Paul had in mind were circumcision and dietary restrictions, we should expect Paul to be more specific in his letter.

This is not the only problem here. Our goal is to determine what Paul means by the phrase works of the law, not the particular aspects of the law that Second Temple Judaism tended to prioritize. And what does Paul mean by the phrase? In Galatians 3:10 Paul says that all who rely on the works of the law are cursed, because if one tries to be justified by the law, one must live according to the whole law. If all that this meant was that one had to be circumcised and obey Jewish dietary restrictions, justification through the law would be a straightforward task. Paul’s point is that the works of the law include far more than circumcision and dietary restrictions. Rather, the works of law are the entire Mosaic law. The implication is that because humans are sinful, they cannot obey the entire Mosaic law, and thus one is justified not by works of the law but by faith in Christ.

Thus, we have to understand Paul in light of the theological insight on offer. Even if the Jews thought that the law was used as a boundary marker to separate Jews from Gentiles, God’s intention for the law goes far deeper. Indeed, it was meant to separate the Jews from the Gentiles, but it was also given so that the Israelites would know what was required in order to live in a right relationship with God. If Israel could keep the commandments, they would be blessed (Deuteronomy 28:1), but if they disobeyed, they would be cursed (Deuteronomy 28:15). Unfortunately, the people could not keep the law because of sin, and so no one will be justified by the works of the law. On the other hand, Jesus Christ obeyed the law perfectly, and he offers forgiveness to all who put their faith in him. Therefore, we are justified not by works of the law but by faith in Christ.

Explanation:

The works of the law are the identity markers that distinguish Jews from Gentiles. Specifically, these markers include circumcision, dietary restrictions, and Jewish festivals.²⁵ This is confirmed by the context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where Paul confronts the need for circumcision and dietary restrictions.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it confuses a subclass of works of the law for the entire Jewish law. We know from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy that the Israelites were required to uphold many different laws. Some of the laws were ceremonial, such as circumcision and dietary restrictions. Others were moral and summed up by the command to love God above all else and one’s neighbour as oneself. Thus, it is a mistake to pick out a handful of Jewish laws and label them works of the law unless one has an argument to show that works of the law only denotes a specific subset of laws.

One might argue that because Paul is worried about circumcision, and Peter withdrew from the Gentiles over dietary restrictions, for Paul works of the law has to do with circumcision, dietary restrictions, and festivals. However, in the first place, Paul makes no mention of festivals in the letter. Second, the letter to Galatians is not a systematic theology but a response to church problems in Galatia. The Galatian Christians are resorting to Jewish customs, and Paul responds. So, while specific instances of Jewish law are what prompted Paul to write, Paul elevates the discussion with important theological insight. While the Jews might think that the issue is over circumcision and dietary laws, Paul’s point is that if these laws are required, then all of the laws are required (Galatians 3:10; Galatians 5:3). The problem is that no one can keep all the laws, which is why no one will be justified by the works of the law but by faith in Christ.

The problem with this view is that it tries to pinpoint what a Jew in the Second Temple period might consider the most important aspects of the law, and then it takes this as Paul’s meaning. This goes against the interpretative principle of determining the meaning of the text in its context. While it might help us to know what Second Temple Jews thought, our main concern is with Paul’s intention. Since Paul clearly makes known that he has the whole Mosaic law in mind (Galatians 3:10; Galatians 5:2), we should conclude that the works of the law include the whole Mosaic law.