Is the prepositional phrase έξ έργων νόμου used

adverbially or adjectivally in Galatians 2:16?

by

Todd A. Engstrom

Burlington, Iowa

A PAPER PRESENTED

At the Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Region of the

Evangelical Theological Society on the theme

“The Church And Its Call to Sexual Holiness”

Moody Bible Institute Chicago, Illinois

April 10-11, 2015

2

A jigsaw puzzle is defined as “a puzzle consisting of a picture printed on

cardboard or wood and cut into numerous interlocking shapes that have to be

fitted together.”1 Richard Hays describes the central “theological” section of

Galatians as “a vexing exegetical puzzle.”2 Within the letter of Galatians, there

is general agreement that verses 2:15-16 are of crucial importance because it is

Paul’s “thesis” of the letter.3 Caneday points out that “Paul’s terms and

categories in Galatians 2:15-16 are dense, full, and redundant,”4 which

constitutes a thesis statement Paul intends to unpack.5 However, the density,

fullness, and repetition of this thesis statement make it a challenge to fit

together the pieces of this exegetical puzzle.6 Paul’s thesis reads, Ἡμεῖς φύσει

Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου

ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα

δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ

δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.7 The purpose of this essay is to rethink Paul’s thesis

1 Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2 Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2002), p. 163. 3 Timothy George refers to it as Paul’s “central thesis” that he wanted to impress upon the Galatians. Galatians NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), p. 187. 4A. B. Caneday, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ, eds. Bird and Sprinkle (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), p. 191. 5 Ibid., p. 192 6 William Walker cites Thomas C. Geer, Jr. who points out that both the translation and the interpretation of Gal 2:16 are fraught with difficulties. See “Translation and Interpretation of ἐὰν μὴ in Galatians 2:16” JBL 116 (1997), p. 515. 7 Eberhard Nestle et al., The Greek New Testament, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), Ga 2:15–

16.

3

statement by examining two pieces that are often overlooked by interpreters.

The first piece is the meaning of ἐὰν μὴ. The second piece is the placement of

the prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. After fitting these two pieces into the

exegetical puzzle, we will apply the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου to the ἐὰν μὴ

debate and end with a plausible interpretation of Galatians 2:15-16.

ἐὰν μὴ

D. R. Goodwin noticed the English revisers have substituted “save” for

the “but” of the Authorized Version and have relegated “but only” to the

margin.8 His essay examines the propriety of this change, and in the process

he makes some interesting observations that lead to a climactic conclusion.

According to Goodwin, if we translate εἰ μή or ἐὰν μὴ as except, it requires

an ellipsis to be supplied in order for the statement to make sense to an

English reader. Without the ellipsis, the English reader would notice a painful

contradiction. However, if we use but, it gives the exact sense of the original

without requiring any ellipsis to be supplied. His work is governed by this

exegetical principle:

Let it be remembered, therefore, that it is not modern Greek scholarship that is to settle the question whether it should be rendered but or save or

except; but that question is to be determined by the logic of the case and the exigencies of English usage.9

Goodwin’s problem is with the “English revisers” who have substituted

save for the but of the Authorized Version, yet he fails to identify these “English

8 D. R. Goodwin, “ἐὰν μὴ, Gal. ii. 16” JBL 6 (1886), 122-127.

9 Ibid, (emphasis original).

4

revisers.” Whoever these “English revisers” are, he is arguing against their

substitution of save for but because it requires us to insert the ellipsis in

English for it to make sense, thus: “A man is not justified by the works of the

law; nor is he justified at all, save through the faith of Jesus Christ.”10 By

substituting save for but, the English revisers actually make Paul say: “A man

is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, —

and then he is justified by the works of the law, — for by the works of the law

shall be justified’!11

This is where Goodwin’s article gets interesting. He offers a possible

counter argument with reference to the contrast of the two prepositions ἐκ and

διὰ, used respectively with ἔργων and πίστεως, so that the meaning may be that

“a man is not justified from, or out of, or on the ground of works of law, except

through the medium of faith.”12 If this were true, it would have its special

application to those who have the law (i.e., Jews) and those who do not have

the law (i.e., Gentiles). To those without the law, they may be justified from, or

out of, or on the ground of faith, ἐκ πίστεως; but those who have the law are

justified from, or out of, or on the ground of works, ἐκ ἔργων, but that only

through the medium of faith, διὰ πίστεως.13 However, this possible counter

10 The ellipsis being “nor is he justified at all.” 11 Ibid., pp. 125-126. This is what Dunn argues below. 12 Ibid., p. 126 (emphasis original). 13 Ibid. (emphasis original).

5

argument does not work because of what Paul says in Romans 3:30 where he

declares that God shall justify the circumcision ἐκ πίστεως, and the

uncircumcision διὰ πίστεως. Clearly Goodwin thinks Paul’s use of ἐκ πίστεως and

διὰ πίστεως in Romans 3:30 refers to the instrument of human faith. Whose faith

is Paul referring to in Romans 3:30? Is the Jews and Gentiles justification

achieved on the ground of their faith or on the ground of Jesus’ faithfulness?

Goodwin reveals some wrinkles he needs to iron out when he says:

As to the English prepositions in connection with justification, if they were confined to strict propriety of usage, we should say ‘justified by God

or by his grace’ (it is God that justifies); ‘justified [not] from, out of, or on the ground of works’; ‘justified through or by the instrumentality of faith’; ‘justified in Christ, or for the merits of Christ, in his name, or for his

name's sake.’14

Paul’s use of ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ πίστεως in Romans 3:30 is directly tied to his use

of πίστις in Romans 3:21-26, which is the ground of justification. Since this

paragraph is the heart of the letter,15 it is essential we correctly interpret πίστις

because this is the ground of justification. Whose πίστις is the ground of God’s

justification in Romans 3:21-26? This is important to determine because this

directly influences how πίστις is interpreted in Galatians 2:15-16.16 Goodwin is

correct that it is God that justifies, but there can only be one ground of God’s

14 Ibid., p. 126. 15 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 178. 16 The conflict between Paul and Peter is about this πίστις.

6

justification. Is the ground of God’s justification the instrumentality of human

faith or Jesus’ faithfulness?17

To teach the instrument of human faith is the ground of God’s

justification is a major problem when applied to Romans 3:21-26. An actual

translation of Romans 3:21-26 is:

21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been

revealed, though being testified to by the Law and the Prophets, 22even

the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Jesus Christ unto

all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23all have sinned and persist

in falling short of the glory of God, 24being freely declared righteous by

his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God

publicly set forth as propitiation through the faith which is in his blood

for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s

forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, 26for

the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, that he

might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous the one who

is of the faith of Jesus.

The problem of human faith as the ground of God’s justification is highlighted

by the following six exegetical decisions: First, Νυνὶ δὲ (“but now”) is a temporal

dimension of Paul’s argument, which indicates a salvation-historical shift

between the old covenant and new covenant.18 Paul’s use of “Law” refers to the

“Mosaic Covenant” that belonged to an era of redemptive history that has now

17 Goodwin’s appeal to Romans 3:30 opens the door to rethink how Romans 3:28 should be translated. What would happen to Goodwin’s article if we translated v. 28 as: “For we consider a man apart from works of the law to be declared righteous by faithfulness.”? His counter argument would have greater weight then he realized for it would indicate that God shall justify the circumcision ἐκ πίστεως (from faithfulness), and the uncircumcision διὰ πίστεως (through faithfulness). 18 Schreiner, Romans, p. 180. Moo agrees saying, “. . . ‘but now’ marks the shift in Paul’s focus from the old era of sin’s dominion to the new era of salvation. This contrast between two eras in salvation history is one of Paul’s most basic theological conceptions, providing the framework for many of his key ideas.” Romans, p. 221.

7

passed away.19 This shift in redemptive history is not caused by human faith.

Second, Paul uses δικαιοσύνη θεου ̂(“righteousness of God”) for the third time in

3:21.20 Paul uses it the same time in all three instances. It refers to God’s

character. Third, God’s righteous character is “testified to by the Law and the

Prophets,” which is a reference to the Old Covenant as a whole. Fourth, Paul’s

fourth use of δικαιοσύνη θεου̂ (“righteousness of God”) refers to God’s character.

Fifth, God’s righteous character is revealed διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. When our

English translations say, “through faith in Jesus Christ” it means God’s

righteous character is revealed on the ground of human faith, which is

impossible. The act of God proving his righteous character by sending Jesus to

die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later is not grounded on

human faith. Sixth, God publicly set forth Jesus as propitiation through the

faith which is in his blood “for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness

because of God’s forbearance in passing over sins that were previously

committed.” With “righteousness” referring to God’s character, which is

characterized in verse 26, God proves his righteous character in two ways: (1)

he is righteous in condemning sin by pouring out his wrath on Jesus. (2) He is

righteous in declaring righteous the one who is ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (“from faith of

Jesus”). God’s declaration is not dependent upon human faith for it to be

declared.

19 Ibid. 20 Romans 1:17, 3:5, 3:21

8

Goodwin’s conclusion is climatic because he sets the stage for the

current πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. He is emphatic that if ἐὰν μὴ may ever be rendered

by but instead of save, then Galatians 2:16 is the very case when it should be

done. He continues:

The logical sense of the passage itself, the argument of the immediate context, the strain of the entire epistle, the whole tone and character of St. Paul's teaching elsewhere, combine to require it. In view of the whole

history of English translations and of the revisers' own precedents, their rendering here may certainly be called strange.21

There is no doubt in Goodwin’s mind that further consideration will satisfy all

parties that the American revisers are right in proposing to substitute but for

save in the revised text. Goodwin is confident he is not wrong because if that is

the case:

. . . we shall simply return to the authorized version of the whole

passage; for, as to ‘the faith of Jesus Christ,’ it is as intelligible as ‘faith in Jesus Christ,’ and probably was never misunderstood. Moreover, it is a more literal rendering than the other, and it is supported by the

authority of the revisers themselves, who, at Rev. xiv. 12, have rendered τὴν πίστιν Ἰησοῦ ‘the faith of Jesus.’22

With Goodwin’s essay ending there, the current πίστις Χριστοῦ debate picks

up where he left off. He is correct that Paul’s readers would not have

misunderstood πίστις Χριστοῦ, but have Goodwin and the majority of our English

versions correctly captured the meaning, based upon its context, by

interpreting it as “faith in Jesus Christ?” If Goodwin interpreted ἐὰν μὴ

incorrectly, then that means he could have interpreted πίστις Χριστοῦ incorrectly,

21 Iblid., p. 127 (emphasis original). 22 Ibild.

9

which would force him to rethink the conclusions of his paper.23 And after

further consideration, Dunn is not satisfied that the American revisers are

correct in proposing to substitute but for save in the revised text.

A problem with Goodwin’s essay is his exegetical principle of not relying

upon modern Greek scholarship to settle the question of how ἐὰν μὴ should be

translated. Since our English translations are dependent upon the Greek, it is

Greek usage based upon its context that determines the translation of ἐὰν μὴ –

not English usage. Thus, James D. G. Dunn argues that ἐὰν μὴ should be

translated as except.24

Dunn sets up his argument by calling our attention to the works of

Stendahl25 and Sanders.26 If Stendahl cracked the mold of twentieth-century

reconstructions of Paul’s theological context by showing how much it had been

determined by Luther’s quest for a gracious God, Sanders has broken the mold

by showing how different the Reformer’s reconstructions are from what we

know of first-century Judaism from other sources.27 Sanders has given us an

unparalleled opportunity to look at Paul afresh, “to shift our perspective back

from the sixteenth century to the first century, to do what all true exegetes

23 The problem would not stop with Goodwin, for it would reveal that we have been inaccurately reading Paul’s letters of Romans and Galatians ever since the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. 24 James D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990). 25 Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West”, HTR, 56 (1963), pp. 199-215. 26 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 27 Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” p. 186.

10

want to do – that is, to see Paul properly within his own context, to hear Paul

in terms of his own time, to let Paul be himself.”28

Another problem with Goodwin’s essay is that he starts his exegesis from

the Reformation presupposition that Paul was attacking the idea of earning

God’s acquittal, the idea of meritorious works, or the idea of works-

righteousness. When we base our exegetical work on this premise, we start off

on the wrong foot.29 Dunn indicates that the Jews observe the law because it is

a basic expression of covenant loyalty. It would be impossible for a Jew to

conceive of participating in God’s covenant apart from observing these works of

the law.30 When Paul denies the possibility of “being justified by works of the

law” he is attacking the basic Jewish self-understanding that God’s covenant

requires obedience from the works it demands.31 He provides two corollaries to

clarify what Paul means by “works of law”:

First, “Works of law”, or “works of the law” are nowhere understood by

Paul or his Jewish interlocutors as works which earn God’s favor, as merit-

28 Ibid. 29 Though Martin Luther was an expert in sixteenth-century Catholicism, he was not an expert in first-century Judaism. The Judaism of Paul’s day was not a cold, calculating legalistic system of “works-righteousness” wherein salvation is earned by the merit of good works. The problem is that Paul has been understood as the great exponent of the Reformation’s central doctrine of “justification by faith.” As Krister Stendahl warned us in his seminal essay, it is deceptively easy to read Paul in light of Luther’s agonized search for relief from a troubled conscience. Since Paul’s teaching on justification by faith appears to accurately reflect Luther’s subjective troubles, it was a natural analogy to see Paul’s opponents in terms of the unreformed Catholicism which opposed Luther. The problem is that to understand first-century Judaism as synonymous with the sixteenth-century Catholic system of merit is historically inaccurate. (ibid., p. 185). 30 Ibid., p. 193. 31 Ibid., p. 194.

11

amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what

the people do to demonstrate their covenant status. They are a proper response

to God’s covenant grace, the minimal commitment for members of God’s

people, what Sanders calls “covenant nomism.” What Paul denies is that God’s

justification depends upon “covenant nomism,” that God’s grace extends only

to those who wear the badge of the covenant. This is a historical conclusion of

some importance because it begins to clarify with more precision to identify the

continuities and discontinuities between Paul, his fellow Jewish Christians,

and his own Pharisaic past, so far as justification and grace, covenant and law

are concerned.32

Second, and more important for Reformation exegesis, i.e. the corollary

that “works of law” do not mean “good works” in general, “good works” in the

sense condemned by Luther and his heirs – works performed for self-

achievement, legal works, or “works-righteousness.”33 What Paul means by

“works of law” is “ – those regulations prescribed by the law which any good

Jew would simply take for granted to describe what a good Jew did.” To be a

Jew was to be a member of the covenant, and as a member of the covenant he

obeyed the works required by the law.34

32 Ibid. (emphasis original). 33 Dunn quotes Bultmann’s definition: “man’s self-powered striving to undergird his own existence in forgetfulness of his creaturely existence.” (Ibid.) 34 Ibid.

12

According to Dunn, there is a contrast between righteousness

understood in terms of works of the law and righteousness through faith in

Jesus Christ – not just faith as such, but faith in Jesus Christ, Jesus

Messiah.35 The debate between the two Jews Paul and Peter, is an internal

Christian debate over who are genuine believers in Jesus. Paul appeals to what

was obviously the common foundation of belief shared by the two men. What

distinguished Peter and Paul from most of their fellow Jews was their belief in

Jesus as the promised Messiah, not their belief in “justification by faith,” which

has so often been assumed. Given Sanders’ findings, it appears that the typical

first-century Jew would not have denied “justification by faith” because the

biblical emphasis on God’s electing grace, his covenantal mercy, and “the

righteousness of God,” drawn directly from the Old Testament. This begs the

question:

What is the point at issue here? If not ‘justification by faith’ as God’s

initiative in declaring in favour of men, if not ‘works of law’ as merit-earning good works, then what? What precisely is involved in Paul’s

contrast between being justified by works of law and being justified by faith in Jesus Messiah?36

Dunn thinks Galatians 2:16a reveals the common ground between Paul and

Peter which is that “a man is not justified by works of law except through faith

in Jesus Christ.” He emphasizes how Paul expresses the last phrase – “except

through faith in Jesus Christ” and argues:

35 Ibid., p. 195 (emphasis original). 36 Ibid. (emphasis original)

13

According to the most obvious grammatical sense, in this clause faith in Jesus is described as a qualification to justification by works of law, not

(yet) as an antithetical alternative. Seen from the perspective of Jewish Christianity at that time, the most obvious meaning is that the only restriction on justification by works of law is faith in Jesus as Messiah. The only restriction, that is, to covenantal nomism is faith in Christ. But, in this clause, covenantal nomism itself is not challenged or called in question – restricted, qualified, more precisely defined in relation to Jesus as Messiah, but not denied. Given that in Jewish self-

understanding covenantal nomism is not antithetical to faith, then at this point the only change which the new movement calls for is that the

traditional Jewish faith be more precisely defined as faith in Jesus Messiah. This is evidently the accepted view of Jewish Christians to which Paul appeals.37

Dunn’s point is that the common ground from which Paul’s argument

advances does not need to be understood as an antithesis between covenant

nomism and faith in Christ. Peter’s conduct and the conduct of the rest of the

Jewish believers at Antioch make it clear, from a Jewish Christian standpoint,

that belief in Jesus as Messiah did not require him to abandon his Jewish

culture and traditions derived from the works required by the law (i.e.,

“covenant nomism”) which are still a necessary response of the Jew to God’s

gracious covenant. Why should a Jewish belief in a Jewish Messiah make any

difference to these long-established works that the law requires?38

Paul, however, followed a different logic – the logic of justification by

faith. From Paul’s standpoint, that which is of grace through faith cannot

depend in any sense or degree upon a particular ritual response. “If God’s

verdict in favour of an individual comes to effect through his faith, then it is

37 Ibid., pp. 195-196 (emphasis original). 38 Ibid., p. 196.

14

dependent on nothing more than that.”39 Why does Paul repeat the contrast

between justification by works of law and justification through faith in Jesus

Christ? He repeats it to “alter it significantly: what were initially juxtaposed as

complementary, are now posed as straight alternatives – ‘. . . knowing that a

man is not justified from works of law except through faith in Jesus Christ, we

have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from faith in

Christ, and not from works of law . . . .’”40 Moreover, in describing justification

by faith, Paul “varies the formula slightly: we are justified not only through faith

in Christ but also from faith in Christ.”41 The implication being, from Paul’s

point of view, that faith in Christ is the only necessary and sufficient response

that God looks for in justifying anyone.

Dunn understands Galatians 2:16 as Paul beginning with a qualification

of covenant nomism (i.e., works required by the law) and ending with an

outright antithesis. “If we have been accepted by God on the basis of faith, then

it is on the basis of faith that we are acceptable, and not on the basis of

works.”42 Dunn concludes that perhaps for the first time in this verse faith in

Jesus Messiah begins to emerge an “alternative” definition of the elect of God. A

39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. (emphasis original). 41 Ibid. (emphasis original). 42 Ibid.

15

person could be justified43 by works required by the law (i.e., “covenant

nomism”) as long as these works are accompanied by faith in Jesus Messiah.

With Dunn translating ἐὰν μὴ as except, he embraces what Goodwin

thinks is inconceivable. (See chart below)

Goodwin – this is inconceivable Dunn – this is conceivable

By substituting save for but, the

English revisers actually make Paul say: “A man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith

in Jesus Christ, — and then he is justified by the works of the law, — for by the works of the law shall be

justified’!

A person could be justified44 by works required by the law (i.e., “covenant

nomism”) as long as these works are accompanied by faith in Jesus

Messiah.

Both men agree that when ἐὰν μὴ is translated as except it simply reflects the

fact that is precisely what Paul means to say. Dunn, however, does not

embrace the idea that works of the law by themselves justify a person. Instead,

Dunn insists that the works of the law must accompany faith in Jesus Christ

in order for justification in the forensic sense to occur.

A problem with Dunn’s essay is his description of the debate between

Paul and Peter. He provides only two possible options for what marks Peter and

Paul off from many of their fellow Jews: 1) Their faith in Jesus as Messiah, or

2) Their belief in justification by faith. Yet what is the difference between these

two options? And is there not a significant amount of overlap between them?

43 In the sense of forensic justification. 44 In the sense of forensic justification.

16

Both options have human faith in common. Is it correct to interpret πίστεως

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as “faith in Jesus Christ”? Perhaps there is a third option to

consider namely, to translate πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as “the faith of Jesus Christ.”

This third option clearly does not appeal to Goodwin or Dunn, but should they

not consider it? After all, Goodwin does admit that in context, “faith of Jesus

Christ” is as equally intelligible as “faith in Jesus Christ” and is a more literal

translation to boot.

A second problem with Dunn is he opens himself up to embracing a

contradiction. He would interpret Galatians 2:16 to say that the law justifies as

long as there is faith in Jesus and while at the same time mentioning that faith

alone justifies and works of the law play no role in justification. This

inconsistency is precisely what Goodwin thinks is implausible.

A third problem with Dunn is his statement that a person is accepted by

God on the basis of faith. It is on the basis of a person’s faith that he is

acceptable, not on the basis of works. It is highly problematic, however, to

insist that a person’s faith is the ground of his acceptance by God. Since Dunn

interprets πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as “faith in Jesus Christ,” he probably does not

see a problem. Yet why is saying that a person’s faith is the basis of his

acceptance by God acceptable whereas saying that a person’s works are the

basis of his acceptance by God unacceptable? What is the fundamental

difference? Are not both options human centered? It seems to me that Goodwin

and Dunn should seriously consider the possibility of translating πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ as “the faith of Jesus Christ” because they expose themselves to

17

embracing the idea that the revealing of God’s righteousness in Romans 3:21-

26 is grounded on human faith.

Both Goodwin and Dunn agree that when ἐὰν μὴ is translated as except it

means that the law justifies as long as there is faith in Jesus and while at the

same time faith alone justifies and works of the law play no role in justification.

By embracing what Goodwin rejects, Dunn has aroused the debate over the

proper translation of ἐὰν μὴ. But despite this ongoing debate, a satisfactory

solution continues to elude New Testament scholars.

William Walker declares the usual translation of the Greek phrase ἐὰν μὴ

to be if not, unless, or except. In Galatians 2:16, however, it is almost always

translated as but only or simply but. Walker cites Ernest de Witt Burton who

articulated the rationale for this grammatical decision.45 According to Burton,

εάν μή is properly exceptive, not adversative, though it may introduce an

exception to the whole preceding statement or to the principal part of it.46

Walker, then, agrees with Dunn that it is technically correct to insist that ἐὰν

μὴ in Galatians 2:16 does carry the usual reference of the exception introduced

by ἐὰν μὴ. The exception refers to “a person is not justified,” not to “a person is

not justified by works of law.”47 Therefore, Walker argues that Paul is not

45 William O. Walker, Jr., "Translation and Interpretation of εάν μή in Galatians 2:16," JBL 116 (1997), p. 515. 46 Burton opts for the latter because the former would yield the thought that a man can be justified by works of law if this be accompanied by faith, a thought never expressed by Paul. But since the word "except" in English is always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic translation "but only.” 47 Ibid., p. 516.

18

saying that “a person is not justified by works of law except through faith in

Jesus Christ”; rather, he is saying (in this part of the verse) that “a person is

not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ.”48

How does Walker explain the syntax of Galatians 2:16 to make this

clear? He suggests there is an example of an “ellipsis” in verse 16. He would

render Galatians 2:16 as follows with the added words in brackets:

... knowing that a person is not justified by works of law ([a person is not justified] except through faith in Jesus Christ), we also have come to faith in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ

and not by works of law, because by works of law no one is justified.49

He provides two suggestions: 1) The ellipsis “a person is not justified” is

intended to serve “double duty” by introducing both “by works of law” (i.e., a

person is not justified by works of law”) and “except through faith in Jesus

Christ” (i.e., a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ) and

2) Paul intends “a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ”

to be a parenthetical aside which is included to clarify and amplify the

statement, “a person is not justified by works of law.” Therefore, Walker agrees

with Goodwin that if ἐὰν μὴ is translated as except, an ellipsis is needed in order

for Paul’s statement to make sense.50

The benefits of Walker’s essay are twofold: 1) The ellipsis preserves the

usual translation of the Greek phrase ἐὰν μὴ as except. 2) It preserves the

48 Ibid., pp. 516-517. 49 Ibid., p. 517. 50 For the sake of clarity, Goodwin’s ellipsis is “nor is he justified at all” while Walker’s ellipsis is “a person is not justified.”

19

consistency of Paul’s thought because πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is interpreted as

“faith in Jesus Christ.”

However, there are also two problems with his essay. First, if ἐὰν μὴ can

only relate to the entire statement – “a person is not justified by works of law

except through faith in Jesus Christ” – then is not Paul understood in precisely

the way Dunn has interpreted him? Walker, however, views the relationship

between faith in Christ and observing the law as antithetical whereas Dunn

views this relationship as complimentary.51 Second, Walker declares that his

reading of Galatians 2:16 “provides a clear and consistent picture of Paul’s

views regarding the basis for justification (i.e., justification is based not on

works of law but rather on faith in Christ.”)52 Thus Walker reaches the same

conclusion as Dunn regarding the basis for justification. The basis for

justification in the forensic sense, he maintains is a person’s faith. This

illustrates the importance of interpreting πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ correctly. When it

is interpreted as “faith in Jesus Christ,” then it supports the idea that a

person’s faith is the ground for justification, which we argued above to be

highly problematic.

A. Andrew Das summarizes the possible translations for ἐὰν μὴ with the

following chart: 53

51 It should be mentioned that Walker reasons from Paul’s standpoint, whereas Dunn reasons from the position of Paul’s opponents. 52 Ibid., p. 519 (emphasis mine). 53 A. Andrew Das, "Another Look at έαν μή in Galatians 2:16," JBL 119 (2000), p. 530.

20

Translation of ἐὰν μὴ Relationship between justification

by faith and justification by the law

Adversative (“but,” “but only”)

Antithetical (the two modes of justification are mutually exclusive)

Majority Position

Exceptive (“except,” “If not,” “unless”)

Antithetical Walker (Burton)

Exceptive Complementary (justification by the works of the law with faith)

Dunn

He notices two problems resulting from this debate: translation and

understanding. He continues:

Έὰν μὴ may be translated as introducing an exception, or it may be

translated adversatively. If one accepts the adversative translation, then

an antithetical understanding of the relationship between faith in Christ and the observance of the law in justification necessarily results. If one accepts the exceptive translation, one may still understand the

relationship between faith in Christ and law observance in an antithetical manner (with Walker) or in a complementary manner (with

Dunn). Hidden beneath these layers of scholarly debate is a rare glimpse into the mind-set and presuppositions of early Jewish Christianity with regard to justification and the Mosaic law.54

Since Walker and Dunn advocate for the exceptive translation, Das sees the

need for a plausible understanding of the exceptive ἐὰν μὴ. According to Das, it

is crucial to any solution that we properly identify the “we Jews” in verse 15.

With the discussion in verse 16 about “faith in Christ,” this indicates that the

“we Jews” must be limited to Jewish Christians. Galatians identifies two

54 Ibid.

21

different Jewish Christian perspectives: 1) Paul’s law-free gospel to the Gentiles

and 2) Galatian teachers’ law-observant message.55 These two options do not

exhaust the diversity and breadth of early Jewish Christianity as represented

in the letter of Galatians. He uses the Jerusalem apostles as an example of how

they do not neatly fit into either of the options above and then provides a

summary of three perspectives in early Jewish Christianity as represented in

Galatians: 1) Gentile Christians are not obligated by the law but should

observe certain portions of it (or its entirety) if they are to enjoy table fellowship

with Jewish Christians (Jame’s Party). 2) All Gentile Christians are obligated to

observe the Mosaic law (Paul’s Galatians opponents). 3) Gentiles need not

observe the law at all (Paul).56

When we harmonize the variegated Jewish Christianity of verses 1-14

with the “Jews” of verses 15-16, we are able to identify the “we Jews” in verses

15-16. Paul addresses Peter: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not

like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Identifying

where Paul’s speech begins and ends is beyond our scope,57 but it is obvious

Paul is retelling the events at Jerusalem (2:1-10) and Antioch (2:11-14) with an

55 Ibid., p. 534. 56 Ibid., p. 535. 57 Todd Scacewater argues Paul’s quotation to Peter does not extend beyond 2:14. “Galatians 2:11-21 and the Interpretive Context of ‘Works of the Law’” JETS 56 (2013), p. 309. Contra Scacewater, I place Paul’s quotation from 2:14-21.

22

eye toward the Galatian opponents. Verse 15's "we Jews by birth" harkens back

and includes the various "Jews" identified in 2:1-14.58

In Galatians 2:16 Paul’s use of knowing and first person plural pronouns

indicates that what Paul is about to say is an undisputed shared affirmation in

early Jewish Christianity. This affirmation must be satisfactory to all the

adherents of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians, regardless of their

differences. Thus, Das considers the affirmation of v. 16—ου δικαιούται άνθρωπος

εξ έργων νόμου έάν μή δια πίστεως Ίησοΰ Χριστού—from the perspective of the two

most extreme and opposing Jewish Christian positions on the law (Paul's vs.

his opponents').59 The Galatian Jewish Christian teachers would have

interpreted the affirmation along the lines of Dunn’s approach. This affirmation

would be the basis for law-observant mission to the Gentiles. Paul, on the other

hand, would have interpreted the shared affirmation along the lines of Walker’s

approach. His perspective is that a person is justified by faith in Christ and not

by the works of the law, so the Gentiles do not need to obey the law in order to

be justified.60

The problem with the traditional antithetical understanding of Galatians

2:16a, including the modified form adopted by Burton and Walker, is that it

supposes a complete agreement between Paul and his Jewish Christian debate

partners as to the very point that he will then argue. While James and Peter

58 Das, "Another Look at έαν μή in Galatians 2:16," p. 536. 59 Ibid., p. 537. 60 Ibid.

23

agreed with Paul that the Gentiles do not need to observe the law in order to be

justified, Paul’s opponents in Galatia disagreed with this contention. Dunn’s

view ignores the fact that Jewish Christians such as Paul and Barnabas

contended that the Gentiles were not required to undergo circumcision and

observe the Law61 in order to be justified. Walker’s view ignores the Jewish

Christianity represented by Paul’s Galatian opponents. The problem with both

Walker and Dunn is that neither one considers the possibility that the entirety

of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians could accede to this common

affirmation simply because it was ambiguous regarding whether observance of

the law is a factor in justification.62

Therefore, Das concludes that Galatians 2:16a is an ambiguous

statement because it does not clearly articulate a position on the role of

observance of the law in justification. On this understanding, Paul interpreted

the statement one way and his opponents another way. With each one claiming

support from Jerusalem, the ambiguity forces Paul to restate the affirmation in

clearly antithetical terms later in the verse: ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ

οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. Paul’s closing clause ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ

reveals that he wants to interpret the affirmation in a way that excludes the

Mosaic law.63

61 The Law being the Torah that governed Israel in the Old Covenant. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid., pp. 537-538.

24

Why does Paul use a shared affirmation if it does not clearly support his

own position? “One possibility is that Paul’s opponents were using the

affirmation in their teaching. Like the Jewish scriptures, the statement of

affirmation would represent a foundational understanding for nascent

Christianity.”64 With the Jewish scriptures of Deuteronomy 27:2665 and

Leviticus 18:566 supporting the teaching of Paul’s opponents while weighing

heavily against his own position, Paul must reinterpret these texts to support

the nonobservance of the law, the very opposite of what the texts themselves

urge. He counters the Deuteronomy text's admonition with the somber warning

of a curse upon those who fail to do what the law requires. Paul challenges

Leviticus 18:5 by juxtaposing it with a passage that indicates that a person is

justified on the basis of faith.67 Therefore, Das concludes that “Galatians 2:16a

is a grammatically ambiguous affirmation in early Jewish Christianity that

could be interpreted in two different ways.”68 Paul’s opponents interpret the law

like Dunn while Paul interprets the law in accordance with Walker’s

reconstruction.

Das’s attempt to finding a solution by identifying the “we Jews” is

helpful. His summary of the three perspectives in early Jewish Christianity is

64 Ibid., p. 538. 65 Cited in Gal. 3:10 66 Cited in Gal. 3:12 67 Hab. 2:4 cited in Gal. 3:11; Ibid., p. 538. 68 Ibid., p. 539.

25

thought provoking, but it does not solve the problem because it is not

historically accurate. Das is correct in observing: 1) that Paul is retelling the

events at Jerusalem (2:1-10) and Antioch (2:11-14) with an eye toward the

Galatian opponents; 2) that the mention of "we Jews by birth" in verse 15

harkens back to include the various "Jews" identified in 2:1-14; 3) that Paul’s

use of knowing and first person plural pronouns indicates that what Paul is

about to say is an undisputed shared affirmation in early Jewish Christianity.

The problem with Das’s attempted solution is that Paul is not ambiguous as to

whether observance of the law was a factor in justification. Rather, he is quite

clear that the works which the law requires do not result in justification.

Galatians 2:16 is not ambiguous, for it clearly articulates Paul’s position on the

role the works of the law play in justification. Peter is wrong because of what

Paul clearly said in verse 16. In other words, since Paul clearly understood the

implications of the gospel, he could rebuke Peter with confidence.

Another problem with Das’s proposed solution is the same problem faced

by Dunn and Walker’s views regarding the basis of justification. How can a

person’s faith be the basis of his justification? Does Paul even teach that one’s

faith is the basis of one’s justification? He can be so construed only if πίστεως

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is translated as “faith in Jesus Christ.”

Debbie Hunn states the ἐὰν μὴ debate hinges on whether to interpret it as

adversative or exceptive. If it is adversative, then it sets έργα νόμου and πίστις

Χρίστου in antithesis. On this view, the idea is that one is not justified through

works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if

26

ἐὰν μὴ is exceptive only of the main point, then Paul says that one is not

justified at all except by faith. The two views differ more in emphasis than in

essence, and both are consistent with 2:16b.69

Hunn’s problem is with Dunn, who reads ἐὰν μὴ as exceptive of the entire

preceding statement, οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, so that justification is

not by works of the law unless faith in Christ attends the works. Although she

believes that other scholars have rightly criticized Dunn’s analysis, she has not

found in their criticisms the grammatical evidence necessary to support other

positions. She acknowledges that ἐὰν μὴ as exceptive of an entire statement is

the rule both inside and outside the NT. If Paul does not use it as exceptive of

the whole preceding statement (including εξ έργων νόμου) in 2:16, she wonders,

does the grammar of his time permit him the options some scholars suggest?70

To answer this question Hunn’s essay seeks to supply what has been missing

in the argument for the traditional position: grammatical proof that ἐὰν μὴ does

not have to take exception to an entire statement.

She cites examples from ancient Greek literature to show how ἐὰν μὴ can

be used as a partial exception, or as an adversative, and applies her findings to

Galatians 2:16. She concludes that ἐὰν μὴ in Galatians 2:16 cannot be exceptive

of the entire main clause. To see whether it is adversative or whether it allows a

partial exception, she considers the phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in verse 16a to see

69 Debbie Hunn,“ Έάν μή in Galatians 2:16; A Look at Greek Literature” Novum Testamentum 49 (2007), p. 282. 70 Ibid., p. 283.

27

whether it serves as a contrast to διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ or whether it is an

extraneous phrase simply to be skipped over (as in Plutarch). According to

Hunn, stating the problem almost solves the problem. Paul clearly contrasts

ἔργα νόμου and πίστις Χριστοῦ in 2:16b. In 2:19, 21 he continues writing about the

law and in 3:2, 5 he contrasts ἔργα νόμου with ακοή πίστεως. Έργα νόμου is not an

extraneous phrase in Gal. 2-3 but an integral part of the context. Therefore, ἐὰν

μὴ in Gal. 2:16 is adversative.71

The benefit of Hunn’s essay is that she correctly points out the need for

Dunn’s critics to provide grammatical evidence to support other positions. She

is also helpful in pointing out Paul’s clear contrast of ἔργα νόμου and πίστις

Χριστοῦ in 2:16b. Yet is Paul’s clear contrast between “works of law” and “faith

in Christ?” She assumes it is. Perhaps because she is looking for grammatical

evidence to support other positions, there is a grammatical argument she has

overlooked.

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου

The decisive piece to solving the ἐὰν μὴ debate is the placement of the

prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. Does Paul use the prepositional phrase ἐξ

ἔργων νόμου adverbially or adjectivally in Galatians 2:16? This question is

glossed over by Goodwin, Dunn, Walker, Das and Hunn because they assume

Paul uses it adverbially. Since every English version from the Authorized

Version to the present day translates the prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου

71 Ibid., p. 289.

28

adverbially, it is understandable why its use in Galatians 2:16 has not been

questioned.72 Adding to the difficulty is the fact that numerous commentaries

on Galatians do not say a word about the syntax.73 They all proceed as if there

is nothing about which to comment here. Is this an exegetical non-issue that

does not warrant comments from scholars? Or is this a major exegetical issue

in plain sight that begs for attention from scholars?

Mark Seifrid is one scholar who thinks the prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων

νόμου is used adjectivally and that this interpretation provides a “neat solution”

72 Note the numbering of the word order in various interlinear Greek New Testaments, e.g. Thomas Newberry and George R. Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2004), Gal. 2:16 and J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1990), Gal. 2:16. When two Greek interlinears have the prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου modifying the

negated verb οὐ δικαιοῦται, it is naturally understood that this is how the Greek reads. 73 Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae: Galatians-Ephesians, vol. 17 (London: Holdsworth and Ball, 1833); J. B.

Lightfoot, ed., St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations., 4th

ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1874); Marvin Richardson Vincent,

Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 4 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887); H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed.,

Galatians, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909); William Hendriksen and Simon J.

Kistemaker, Exposition of Galatians, vol. 8, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–

2001); Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, UBS Handbook

Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1976); F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the

Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); James Luther Mays,

ed., Harper’s Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word

Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word; 1990); James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New Testament

Commentary (London: Continuum, 1993); Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary

(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994); Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton:

Victor Books, 1996); Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the

Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997); Robert James Utley, Paul’s First Letters:

Galatians and I & II Thessalonians, vol. Volume 11, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons

International, 1997); Max Anders, Galatians-Colossians, vol. 8, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville:

Broadman & Holman, 1999); Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010); Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013).

29

to the perplexing problem presented by the ἐὰν μὴ clause.74 When used

adjectivally, verse 16a reads: “knowing that a man from works of law is not

declared righteous.” Therefore, we will apply this solution to the essays

presented above to see its impact on the ἐὰν μὴ debate.

The Application of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου Used Adjectivally

Hunn’s problem with Dunn’s reading of ἐὰν μὴ as exceptive of the entire

preceding statement, οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, means that

justification is not by works of the law unless faith in Christ attends the works.

Despite this problem, she acknowledges that ἐὰν μὴ as exceptive of an entire

statement is the rule both inside and outside the NT. Although she believes

that other scholars have rightly criticized Dunn’s analysis, she has not found

in their criticisms the grammatical evidence necessary to support other

positions. With ἐξ ἔργων νόμου used adjectivally, she now has grammatical

evidence to support other positions.

However, the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου jeopardizes her conclusion

that ἐὰν μὴ in Galatians 2:16 cannot be exceptive of the entire main clause. In

her eyes, the only two options to solving the ἐὰν μὴ debate are to understand

the phrase as adversative or to view it as partial exception.

Hunn is correct when she states that Paul clearly contrasts ἔργα νόμου

and πίστις Χριστοῦ in 2:16b, but Paul is not contrasting human works of law and

74 Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 2:15-21” WTJ 65 (2003), p. 217. Another scholar who thinks it is used adjectivally is Ardel B. Caneday. Read his essay “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians.”

30

human faith in Christ. This contrast helps her to correctly see that ἔργα νόμου is

not an extraneous phrase in Galatians 2-3 but rather is an integral part of the

context. Yet her interpretation of “Paul’s clear contrast” leads her to the

incorrect conclusion that ἐὰν μὴ in Galatians 2:16 is adversative. If it is seen

that ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is used adjectivally, then ἐὰν μὴ in Galatians 2:16 can be

understood as exceptive of the entire main clause.

Das sees the need for a plausible understanding of the exceptive ἐὰν μὴ.

His solution regarding the proper identification of “we Jews” in verse 15 is

correct. Paul’s use of knowing and first person plural pronouns indicates a

shared affirmation in early Jewish Christianity, thus this affirmation must

have been satisfactory to all the adherents of Jewish Christianity represented

in Galatians, regardless of their theological differences. Das’s summary of the

three alleged perspectives in early Jewish Christianity, though inaccurate with

respect to the historical context in which Paul is writing, leads him to correctly

read the affirmation of v. 16—ου δικαιούται άνθρωπος εξ έργων νόμου έάν μή δια

πίστεως Ίησοΰ Χριστού—from the perspective of the two most extreme and

opposing Jewish Christian positions on the law, those of Paul on the one hand

and the Galatian opponents on the other. He believes that the entire spectrum

of Jewish Christianity represented in Galatians would have affirmed this

statement simply because it was ambiguous regarding whether observance of

the law plays a role in justification. Therefore, Das concludes that the most

plausible understanding of Galatians 2:16a is an ambiguous statement

31

because it does not clearly articulate a position on the role of observance of the

law in justification.

If ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is used adjectivally, then the plausible understanding of

the exceptive ἐὰν μὴ that Das needs is provided. In addition, the adjectival use

of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου obliterates Das’s conclusion that verse 16a is an ambiguous

statement. It also clearly articulates Paul’s position on the role that works of

law play in justification.

Walker thinks Paul is saying in 16a that “a person is not justified except

through faith in Jesus Christ.” He explains the syntax by suggesting that there

is an example of an “ellipsis” in verse 16. He would render Galatians 2:16 as

follows:

... knowing that a person is not justified by works of law ([a person is not justified] except through faith in Jesus Christ), we also have come to

faith in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, because by works of law no one is justified.

When ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is used adjectivally, the need for an ellipsis is eliminated. It

also forces Walker to reconsider his understanding of Galatians 2:16 wherein

Paul provides “a clear and consistent picture” regarding the ground for

justification, which is not human faith.

The adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου confirms that Dunn is correct to read

ἐὰν μὴ as exceptive of the entire preceding statement, οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ

ἔργων νόμου. He also correctly sees Paul appealing to what was obviously the

common foundation of belief that Peter and Paul shared. In Dunn’s view, the

shared belief is that, “a man is not justified by works of law except through

32

faith in Jesus Christ.” And yet, he provides only two options as to what

separated believing Jews from their unbelieving countrymen: faith in Jesus as

Messiah, or belief in justification by faith. He does not provide a third option

because:

According to the most obvious grammatical sense, in this clause faith in Jesus is described as a qualification to justification by works of law, not

(yet) as an antithetical alternative. Seen from the perspective of Jewish Christianity at that time, the most obvious meaning is that the only restriction on justification by works of law is faith in Jesus as Messiah.75

What Dunn describes as “the most obvious grammatical sense” and “the most

obvious meaning” must be reconsidered. We are not limited to the two options

he provides because the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου presents a third option.

The shared belief of “a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except

through the faith of Jesus Christ” requires Dunn to concede that “faith in

Jesus Christ” is an interpretation of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, just as “the

faithfulness of Jesus Christ” is an interpretation of the same phrase. A third

option that separates believing Jews from their unbelieving countrymen is the

faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Does the πίστις refer to human faith or to Jesus’

faithfulness? If this refers to Jesus’ faithfulness, then the belief in “justification

by faith” needs to be adjusted to “justification by Jesus’ faithfulness.” Thus,

according to Paul, is the ground of justification human faith or Jesus’

faithfulness?

75 James D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," p, 195 (emphasis original).

33

Goodwin’s exegetical principle of not relying upon Greek scholarship

must be reassessed. The adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου invites Greek

scholarship to settle the question of the ἐὰν μὴ debate rather than the

“exigencies of English usage.” Additionally, the need for an ellipsis to avoid the

absurdity of the exceptive interpretation evaporates.

Goodwin is confident that further consideration will convince all parties

that the American revisers are right in proposing to substitute but for save in

the revised text. After further consideration, however, the adjectival use of ἐξ

ἔργων νόμου reveals that this substitution is incorrect. This fact is a serious blow

to Goodwin because if he is wrong, then it requires us to simply return to the

Authorized Version of whole passage and interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ as “the faith of

Christ.” Much to his chagrin, this is exactly what needs to be done!

A Plausible Interpretation of Galatians 2:15-16

With the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, Paul’s thesis actually reads:

15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through the faith of

Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from the faith of Christ and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared

righteous.

From this actual translation, six observations are in order. First, “Jews by

nature” and “a man from works of law” describe a Jew whose whole life is

defined by obeying the Law (the Old Covenant). These are idioms that denote

34

origin, not “works-righteousness.”76 What Paul means by “works of law” is

“works required by the law.”77 The undisputed shared affirmation between Paul

and Peter is that a Jew is someone who possesses Torah and obeys the works it

requires. This distinguishes Jews from “Gentile sinners” who stand outside the

covenant of Torah. Paul confronts Peter because he is resorting to relying on

“the works required by the law” instead of trusting solely in Messiah Jesus.

76 Caneday, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians,” p. 194. Thus, F. F. Bruce is incorrect to interpret ἔργων νόμου as “legal works.” The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 136. 77 Dunn is correct by defining “works of law” this way. He is not alone in holding this definition. Cranfield defines τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in Rom. 2:15 as “the work which the law requires.” He successfully corrects Dunn’s definition that parts of the law separate Jews and Gentiles, particularly circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws. Paul denied righteousness by works of law because such works separated Jews from Gentiles. C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 (1991), p. 94. Schreiner says, “. . . the term works of law designates all the deeds or actions commanded by the law.” Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), p. 113 (emphasis original). Seifrid says, “Paul’s subsequent argument in Romans 4:1-8 reveals that the term ‘works’ represents deeds of obedience, so the conclusion lies at hand that ‘works of the Law’ were deeds of obedience to the Law’s demands which were thought to secure or confirm divine favor.” Mark A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18-3:20” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 141. Moo asks, does Paul think of the Mosaic Law as demanding faith? His answer, “My reason for thinking that he may not is rooted in his own language: in Galatians 3:12, for instance, he cites Leviticus 18:5 to demonstrate that ‘the law is not of faith.’ I take this to mean that the law, by its very nature, is something to be ‘done’: it calls for works and not faith. This basic distinction appears to hold true throughout Paul’s teaching. It might appear, however, that Romans 9:31-32 is an exception, revealing that the dichotomy is not as strict as some have supposed.” Douglas J. Moo, “Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 215. (emphasis mine). Silva says, “Moreover, we can safely interpret the genitival construction along the lines of ‘acts of obedience prescribed or required by the law.” Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 221. Contra Scacewater, “These ‘works of the law’ were not simply ‘what the law required of Israel as God’s people,” as Dunn puts it. These ‘works of law’ were being pitched as a supplement to the gospel, thereby distorting the apostolic message that Paul and Peter preached.” “Galatians 2:11-21 and the Interpretive Context of ‘Works of the Law’”, p. 322.

35

Paul contends that “a man from works required by the Law is not justified

except through πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” The context of Paul’s confrontation is

covenant. The Torah was designed by God to point to the coming Messiah, so

obeying the Law was synonymous with obeying Jesus. The Torah by design

separated Jews from Gentiles to create Jewish ethnocentrism. Being “Jewish”

was a crucial yet temporary aspect of the Old Covenant because of the

messianic typology embedded into the Torah. Any Jew or Canaanite who

believed the Law’s promises and feared its curses could find eternal life by

obeying the Law. With the resurrection of Messiah Jesus, the Law’s promises

concerning Messiah were fulfilled.

Crucial to the maturity of the New Covenant was the establishment of

the New Man consisting of Jews and Gentiles78 united in their worship of Jesus

Messiah. In the age of the New Covenant, Jewish ethnocentrism embodied by

Peter’s refusal to eat with Gentiles is explicitly overruled and superseded. Peter

was forgetting that the Mosaic Law was never intended to be permanent, and

explicitly points to the age of Messiah when it would be fulfilled.

In the Old Covenant, faithfulness to God and Messiah was demonstrated

by obeying the works demanded by the Mosaic Law. In the New Covenant,

Jesus Messiah fulfilled the Law by bearing the curse on the cross and

providing deliverance with his resurrection. The insistence of the Jews to keep

the ethnocentricity by demanding obedience to the Mosaic Law became a blind

and damnable heresy because the Law is viewed as an end to itself. Jesus is

78 Ephesians 2:15

36

presented in the Mosaic Law in the forms of earthly shadows and types that are

discovered by believers who obeyed the Law. When Jesus Messiah rose from

the dead, it superseded the Torah’s jurisdiction.

Second, Paul’s clear contrast of ἔργα νόμου and πίστις Χριστοῦ is

unmistakable. What is Paul’s noticeable contrast?79 If we interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ

as “faith in Christ,” then this phrase refers to human faith. And if we interpret

ἔργα νόμου as “legal works” or “works-righteousness,” then Paul’s intention is to

highlight the contrast between “doing” and “believing” or between “works-

righteousness” and “faith.” On the other hand, if we interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ as

“the faithfulness of Christ” and ἔργα νόμου as “works required by the Law,” then

the contrast is between two covenants – the covenant of Torah versus the

covenant of Messiah. This contrast requires that a person is bound by one

covenant or the other. In light of Peter’s inconsistent behavior, Paul was

reminding him that he is no longer bound to the covenant of Torah. The

covenant of Messiah has ended the Torah’s jurisdiction, so he is to stop giving

allegiance to something that is legally dead. Messiah Jesus shares no

jurisdiction with Torah.

Third, translating πίστις Χριστοῦ as “faith in Christ” means that it refers to

the believer’s faith. Is this an example of correct theology from the wrong text?

It is evident that Paul teaches a person must believe in Jesus because he says

79 Silva correctly identifies the problem saying, “The real issue, however, is not whether Paul contrasts πίστις and ἔργα νόμου – that he does so is simply incontrovertible – but rather whether we have properly understood the true nature of the contrast.” Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol. 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O’Brien (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), p. 217.

37

“we have believed in Christ Jesus.”80 This text, among many others, supports

the teaching that sinners are responsible for believing in Jesus. The advantage

of keeping πίστις Χριστοῦ ambiguous (“the faith of Christ”) is that it forces the

reader to make an interpretive decision regarding whose faith is being spoken

of. This is a crucial interpretive decision because the answer provided

determines the ground for justification.

What is the ground of the believer’s justification? There can only be one

basis for justification, but there are two possible interpretations of πίστις

Χριστοῦ: faith in Christ or Christ’s faithfulness. Michael Bird and N. T. Wright

illustrate the problem of determining the ground upon which sinners are

justified. Bird advocates for both the believer’s faith and Jesus’ faithfulness as

the dual basis for justification saying,

The basis upon which believers are justified is faith, as Paul makes quite

explicit in Philippians 3:9.81 . . . The basis of justification lies exclusively

in Jesus the Messiah, who is our substitute and representative, . . .82 In Romans 4, Paul contends that it is faith that comprises the basis of covenantal-vindication, for both Abraham and all believers.”83

Wright does the same thing. He identifies the basis of one’s justification before

God as human faith84 and Jesus’ faithfulness.85 Which one is it? With

80 Gal. 2:16, “. . . and we have believed in Christ Jesus . . .”. 81 Michael F. Bird, “What Is There between Minneapolis and St. Andrews? A Third Way in the Piper-Wright Debate” JETS 54 (2011), p. 308 (emphasis mine). 82 Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2007), p. 70 (emphasis mine). 83 Ibid., p. 75 (emphasis mine). 84 N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), p. 190. 85 Ibid., pp. 203-204.

38

“faithfulness” as metonymy for Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection, then

this is the basis for justification. Therefore, as believers in the gospel86 we put

our faith in Jesus’s faithfulness.87

Fourth, the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is not dependent upon the

πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. It does, however, help us identify with greater clarity the

obvious contrast between of ἔργα νόμου and πίστις Χριστοῦ. How should we

interpret Paul’s thesis statement?

15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through faith in Jesus

Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from faith in Christ and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared righteous.

Or

15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man from works of law is not declared righteous, except through Jesus

Christ’s faithfulness, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from Christ’s faithfulness and not from works of the law, because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be

declared righteous.

Neither option damages Paul’s gospel, but the contrast between them forces us

to determine whose πίστις is the ground of justification. Since context

determines the meaning of a text, it is best to interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ as “the

86 The gospel being Jesus died and three days later rose from the dead (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 1 Cor. 15:3-4). 87 Jesus’ faithfulness is the ground of our justification. Our faith in Jesus is the means by which we take hold of our justification.

39

faith of Christ” and let the reader decide what implications this has for Paul’s

theology of justification.88

Fifth, Matlock expresses his astonishment that seven ambiguous phrases

in Paul (Gal 2:16 [twice], 20; 3:22; Rom. 3:22, 26; Phil. 3:9) should be expected

to bear so much weight. Equally remarkable is the momentum the subjective

genitive reading has achieved.89 However, since Galatians 2:15-16 is Paul’s

thesis of the letter, the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate clearly goes beyond these seven

ambiguous phrases. Indeed, the debate impacts all of Paul’s subsequent uses

of πίστις by forcing the reader to pay closer attention to the context in which the

term is used. In Galatians, πίστις is used in 1:23; 2:16 (2x), 20; 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9

(2x), 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; 5:5, 6; 6:10. Since I am advocating for the

“subjective genitive” for πίστις Χριστοῦ, then I need to be consistent by

interpreting πίστις as “faithfulness” (i.e., metonymy for Jesus’ sacrificial death

and resurrection) in Galatians (2:16 (2x), 20; 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9 (2x), 11, 12, 14, 22,

23, 24, 25, 26.) I would interpret Galatians 5:5-6 in the following way:

5For through the Spirit, from faithfulness, we wait eagerly for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor

uncircumcision counts for anything, but faith working through love.

By relying on the context, I see πίστις as “faithfulness” in verse 5 as metonymy

for his sacrificial death and resurrection and “faith” in verse 6 as the

instrument of human faith. Are we to put our faith in Jesus? Yes, for Paul tells

88 For a detailed analysis about the options not harming Paul’s gospel, see Caneday “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians,” p. 191. 89 Matlock, “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and πίστις Χριστοῦ,” CBQ 64 (2002), p. 300.

40

us to in Galatians 5:6. Yet our goal is to have the right theology from the right

text. We must avoid the mistake of having the right theology but deriving it

from the wrong text.

Sixth, the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου solves the ἐὰν μὴ debate. It is

exceptive of the entire preceding statement, οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου,

regardless of how πίστις Χριστοῦ is translated.

Conclusion

We have assembled the exegetical puzzle of Galatians 2:15-16 by

examining two pieces that are often overlooked by interpreters. The first piece

was the meaning of ἐὰν μὴ. The second piece was the placement of the

prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. Having fitted these two pieces into the

exegetical puzzle, we have solved the ἐὰν μὴ debate. The Greek particle ἐὰν μὴ is

exceptive of the entire preceding statement, οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου,

because the prepositional phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is used adjectivally to modify

the noun ἄνθρωπος. This requires our English versions to be revised so that

Paul’s thesis reads as follows:

15We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners; 16knowing that a man

from works of law is not declared righteous, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous from the faith of Christ and not from works of the law,

because out of the works of the law every flesh will not be declared righteous.

41

For those who think we have a sufficient number of commentaries on

Galatians, or suppose there is nothing to say that has not been said before,90

the implications of the adjectival use of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου provides a compelling

reason to publish another commentary and provides a rationale for more

critical work to be undertaken. When ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is used adverbially, does

this reflect an exegetical bias rather than the syntax of the sentence?

90 Michael Burer begins his review of Moo’s recent commentary on Galatians saying, “I was recently discussing with a friend what I perceive to be the positive state of commentary publishing currently in the domain of biblical studies. As might be anticipated, she did not share my sentiment. In essence, her stance was one of pessimism: ‘Is there anything new to say that hasn’t been said before?’ My response was one of optimism: ‘There is always something new to discuss when the Bible is the topic.’” Michael H. Burer. Review of Galatians Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT, Douglas J. Moo. JETS 57 (2014): p. 832.