ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in Galatians 2:16; a man from the works of the law in Galatians 2:16?
Why did I raise the question concerning how we should read logizometha gar dikaiousthai pistei anthropon choris ergon nomou (λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου) in Romans 3:28? What prompted me to consider seeing Paul's word connections differently from the way translations and exegetes tend? What incited me to suppose that we should read choris (χωρίς) as connected to anthropon (ἄνθρωπον) as a modifier, retaining the word order anthropon choris ergon nomou (ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου), rather than take choris (χωρίς) adverbially connected to dikaiousthai (δικαιοῦσθαι)?
In another crucial passage Paul states, eidotes hoti ou dikaioutai anthropos ex ergon nomou (εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, Galatians 2:16). Despite the word order of the text, most exegetes and translations do not accept the word connections found in the text. Without adequate explanation they tend to disconnect ex ergon nomou (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) from anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) and connect the prepositional phrase to the negated verb ou dikaioutai (οὐ δικαιοῦται) instead. Some, such as the NRSV, even disconnect the negation (ou, οὐ) from the verb (dikaioutai, δικαιοῦται) and instead connect it to ex ergon nomou (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) as in "we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ." Most translations, however, read something like the following: "we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law" (e.g., ESV). Because of this translation decision exegetes and translations tend to take ean me (ἐὰν μή) not with exceptive force, as always elsewhere in Paul's letters, but with an adversative force. The ESV represents these decisions: "we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. . . ."
Accepting the word order as represented in the text has the advantage of preserving Paul's otherwise universal use of ἐὰν μή as except and has the added advantage of taking the prepositional phrase, ex ergon nomou (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου), as descriptive of anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), the word to which it is actually attached, rather than disconnecting the phrase's grammatical linkage and reconnecting it adverbially to the negated verb ou dikaioutai (οὐ δικαιοῦται). Other disconnections usually happen in 2:16 also, such as disconnecting the negation (ou, οὐ) from the third dik- (δικ-) verb (dikaiothesetai; δικαιωθήσεται) and reconnecting the negative to pasa sarx (πᾶσα σάρξ) as the ESV does: "because by works of the law no one will be justified."
So, what am I proposing should be our translation of Galatians 2:15-16? "We, by nature Jews and not sinners from the Gentiles, now know that a man-from-the-deeds-required-by-the-law is not justified except through πίστεως 'Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ and we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from pisteos Christou (πίστεως Χριστοῦ) and not from the deeds required by the law because all flesh shall not be justified from the deeds required by the law." Who is this anthropos ex ergon nomou (ἄνθωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου)? This is Paul's circumlocutionary reference to a Jew, but not just a Jew. Why so circumlocutionary? It seems that Paul's principal concern is to set up his whole argument concerning contrasting covenantal origin or pedigree.
Galatians 2:16 seems rather clearly to draw upon Psalm 142:3--hoti ou dikaiothesetai enopion sou pas zon (ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν, LXX). Of course, the same is true of Romans 3:20--dioti ex ergon nomou ou dikaiothesetai pasa sarx enopion autou . . . (διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. . . .) Part of the difficulty in translating this use of Psalm 142:3 is likely due to English idiom. As one attempts to translate the Greek into acceptable English idiom, it becomes apparent that English idiom prefers to negate the person rather than the verb. But by doing so, does one not alter the sense of the verse?
So, what is my point in all of this? It seems to me that if we take Paul's word connections, then we will receive the added advantage of recognizing that his argument does not antithetically set deeds versus faith but it sets the new covenant in Christ over against the old covenant in the law. Thus, his argument focuses upon Christ Jesus as the one who has rendered the former covenant old and passé by superceding that covenant as earthly copy and foreshadow gives way to heavenly original and reality.
For fuller discussion see my essay "The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul's Theology in Galatians" from The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird & Preston M. Sprinkle, (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 193-194.
Mark Seifrid takes Galatians 2:16 the same way that I do. See my essay for references.
Why did I raise the question concerning how we should read logizometha gar dikaiousthai pistei anthropon choris ergon nomou (λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου) in Romans 3:28? What prompted me to consider seeing Paul's word connections differently from the way translations and exegetes tend? What incited me to suppose that we should read choris (χωρίς) as connected to anthropon (ἄνθρωπον) as a modifier, retaining the word order anthropon choris ergon nomou (ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου), rather than take choris (χωρίς) adverbially connected to dikaiousthai (δικαιοῦσθαι)?
In another crucial passage Paul states, eidotes hoti ou dikaioutai anthropos ex ergon nomou (εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, Galatians 2:16). Despite the word order of the text, most exegetes and translations do not accept the word connections found in the text. Without adequate explanation they tend to disconnect ex ergon nomou (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) from anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) and connect the prepositional phrase to the negated verb ou dikaioutai (οὐ δικαιοῦται) instead. Some, such as the NRSV, even disconnect the negation (ou, οὐ) from the verb (dikaioutai, δικαιοῦται) and instead connect it to ex ergon nomou (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) as in "we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ." Most translations, however, read something like the following: "we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law" (e.g., ESV). Because of this translation decision exegetes and translations tend to take ean me (ἐὰν μή) not with exceptive force, as always elsewhere in Paul's letters, but with an adversative force. The ESV represents these decisions: "we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. . . ."
Accepting the word order as represented in the text has the advantage of preserving Paul's otherwise universal use of ἐὰν μή as except and has the added advantage of taking the prepositional phrase, ex ergon nomou (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου), as descriptive of anthropos (ἄνθρωπος), the word to which it is actually attached, rather than disconnecting the phrase's grammatical linkage and reconnecting it adverbially to the negated verb ou dikaioutai (οὐ δικαιοῦται). Other disconnections usually happen in 2:16 also, such as disconnecting the negation (ou, οὐ) from the third dik- (δικ-) verb (dikaiothesetai; δικαιωθήσεται) and reconnecting the negative to pasa sarx (πᾶσα σάρξ) as the ESV does: "because by works of the law no one will be justified."
So, what am I proposing should be our translation of Galatians 2:15-16? "We, by nature Jews and not sinners from the Gentiles, now know that a man-from-the-deeds-required-by-the-law is not justified except through πίστεως 'Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ and we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from pisteos Christou (πίστεως Χριστοῦ) and not from the deeds required by the law because all flesh shall not be justified from the deeds required by the law." Who is this anthropos ex ergon nomou (ἄνθωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου)? This is Paul's circumlocutionary reference to a Jew, but not just a Jew. Why so circumlocutionary? It seems that Paul's principal concern is to set up his whole argument concerning contrasting covenantal origin or pedigree.
Galatians 2:16 seems rather clearly to draw upon Psalm 142:3--hoti ou dikaiothesetai enopion sou pas zon (ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν, LXX). Of course, the same is true of Romans 3:20--dioti ex ergon nomou ou dikaiothesetai pasa sarx enopion autou . . . (διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. . . .) Part of the difficulty in translating this use of Psalm 142:3 is likely due to English idiom. As one attempts to translate the Greek into acceptable English idiom, it becomes apparent that English idiom prefers to negate the person rather than the verb. But by doing so, does one not alter the sense of the verse?
So, what is my point in all of this? It seems to me that if we take Paul's word connections, then we will receive the added advantage of recognizing that his argument does not antithetically set deeds versus faith but it sets the new covenant in Christ over against the old covenant in the law. Thus, his argument focuses upon Christ Jesus as the one who has rendered the former covenant old and passé by superceding that covenant as earthly copy and foreshadow gives way to heavenly original and reality.
For fuller discussion see my essay "The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul's Theology in Galatians" from The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, edited by Michael F. Bird & Preston M. Sprinkle, (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 193-194.
Mark Seifrid takes Galatians 2:16 the same way that I do. See my essay for references.
Thanks for these stimulating posts. I just put the mentioned book back on my shelf a few minutes ago but am only just now making the connection between your article there and this blog.
ReplyDeleteCan you expand on what exactly a "man-from-the-deeds-required-by-the-law" is? What exactly would an ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου be? That strikes me as a rather convoluted way to describe a Gentile.
And how do you take ἐξ ἔργων νόμου later in v. 16 and in Ps 142.3? Isn't the phrase adverbial there?
Ardel: Can you elaborate on the connections between Psalm 142:3 and Gal 2:16?
ReplyDeleteI see they share several words...
Psalm 142:3--ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πα̂ς ζω̂ν (LXX).
Gal 2:16-- 16ειδοτες δε οτι ου δικαιουται ανθρωπος εξ εργων νομου εαν μη δια πιστεως χριστου ιησου και ημεις εις χριστον ιησουν επιστευσαμεν ινα δικαιωθωμεν εκ πιστεως χριστου και ουκ εξ εργων νομου οτι εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται πασα σαρξ
Could you attempt a translation of Ps 142:3 that connects to Gal 2:16? English readers would never guess that connection.
Thanks for your question. Your comment reminded me that I had failed to include a paragraph which I have now inserted into my blog entry. That paragraph is as follows: Who is this ἄνθωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου? This is Paul's circumlocutionary reference to a Jew, but not just a Jew. Why so circumlocutionary? It seems that Paul's principal concern is to set up his whole argument concerning contrasting covenantal origin or pedigree.
ReplyDeleteThe expression, thus, is not depicting a Gentile but a Jew. And, yes, I readily acknowledge that it is a rather round about description of a Jew, but, of course, οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί also is a rather convoluted way of saying "Jew." This is Paul's circumlocutionary way of describing a Jew negatively as opposed to a Gentile. Thus, it seems reasonable to accept ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νὀμου as Paul's circumlocutionary way of describing a Jew positively in relation to the law covenant.
After all, Paul uses circumlocutionary descriptions throughout his argument. Already he has used οἱ ἐκ περιπατῆς (2:12), a circumlocution, to depict the Jew under the jurisdiction of the law covenant. In 3:7-10 he uses circumlocution to contrast οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (vv. 7 & 9) and ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν (v. 10).
As I endeavor to clarify in my essay, his use of circumlocutions, such as ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, is crucial to Paul's argument as he contrasts two covenants.
I failed to respond to this question: "And how do you take ἐξ ἔργων νόμου later in v. 16 and in Ps 142.3? Isn't the phrase adverbial there?"
ReplyDeleteYes, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and again ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ relates the prepositional phrases adverbially to the two δικαιόω verbs. This, however, does not determine that the earlier ἐξ ἔργων νόμου phrase in 2:16 connects to the δικαιόω verb adverbially. Syntactical placement is important. This is my point. I may have poorly expressed my point until now.
Could you attempt a translation of Ps 142:3 that connects to Gal 2:16? English readers would never guess that connection.
ReplyDeleteI should point out that the psalm from which Paul draws is Psalm 142 in the LXX but 143 in English translations.
Psalm 143:2--"Enter not into judgment with your servant, for not justified before you is anyone living."
This is a correction of an earlier note above. The statement should read as follows. After all, Paul uses circumlocutionary descriptions throughout his argument. Already he has used οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς (2:12), a circumlocution, to depict the Jew under the jurisdiction of the law covenant. In 3:7-10 he uses circumlocution to contrast οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (vv. 7 & 9) and ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν (v. 10).
ReplyDeleteI mistyped περιπατῆς instead of περιτομῆς. I'm sorry for the confusion I may have generated.
So, what is my point in all of this? It seems to me that if we take Paul's word connections, then we will receive the added advantage of recognizing that his argument does not antithetically set deeds versus faith but it sets the new covenant in Christ over against the old covenant in the law. Thus, his argument focuses upon Christ Jesus as the one who has rendered the former covenant old and passé by superceding that covenant as earthly copy and foreshadow gives way to heavenly original and reality.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me think of two texts:
(1) "Out of Egypt I called my Son." Where the nation of Israel is conceived of as a son which is a type of Jesus. Moses led his people out of Egypt, which forshadows Jesus leading the Israelites and the nations out of a deeper and more profound bondage.
(2) Romans 1:17 "from faithfulness to faithfulness": the Israelites through God's faithfulness obtained the land of Canaan. Israel and the nations are called to the new earth through Christ's faithfulness.
Who is this ἄνθωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου? This is Paul's circumlocutionary reference to a Jew, but not just a Jew. Why so circumlocutionary? It seems that Paul's principal concern is to set up his whole argument concerning contrasting covenantal origin or pedigree.
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble grasping the thought here. what do you mean by but not just a Jew? Who other than covenantally observant Jews could it refer?
To things by way of response.
ReplyDelete1. Paul's reference is not to a Jew ethnically speaking but to a Jew religiously or covenantally speaking. Thus the next point follows.
2. Given the fact that Gentiles could become proselytes under the jurisdiction of the law, Paul's description would encompass them also.
Doubly lost: 1st century Jewish Proselyte.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should have qualified my statement. Let me try again.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, ethnicity is significant in Paul's use of ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, but as crucial as ethnicity is, covenant is even more so. The issue, for Paul, is not principally ethnicity but covenantal. Why? It is because the Judaizers were willing to be inclusive concerning the Gentile Galatians as long as they would submit to the customs of Moses, including circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath, all distinguishing features of the law covenant that marked one as a Jew, whether derived by ethnicity and inheritance or by choice and proselytism.
I trust that this fills out the matter more fully.