Either Or
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh will be justified. Galatians 2:16 NASB
Faith in Christ Jesus – The translation of this verse depends on what you believe before you translate the verse, and what you believe before you translate it makes a very big difference. Let’s take a look.
In Greek, the phrase we want to examine first is pisteos Iesou Christou. The NASB translates this as “faith in Jesus Christ,” but Lloyd Gaston points out that these same words in Greek can just as validly be translated “faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” So the choice of translation does not depend on the words but rather on the presuppositions about the words.  Theological perspective governs the translation.  There is a significant difference between being justified through my faith in Yeshua or being justified through the faithfulness of Yeshua. The first suggests that I must make a choice about Yeshua. The second suggests that His obedience to the Father is the crucial element.
If Gaston’s view is correct, what does this imply about the opening thought? It says that no one is justified by what he or she has done with regard to the Torah but rather justification comes because of what Yeshua has done with regard to the Torah. It does not suggest that the crucial difference is between believing instead of doing. It suggests that the crucial difference is between Yeshua and me.
The other view, the one endorsed by NASB, suggests that the crucial difference is between my doing or my believing (essentially, my works vs. my beliefs). This view pushes the evangelical “decision” objective and supports a theology that divides “works” from “grace.” But now we realize that this translation is not required by the text. It is but one of two legitimate ways of reading this text. That means the correct translation of this crucial passage in Galatians must be determined by other considerations, like, for example, Paul’s other comments about the role of Torah. As far as a proof text for “law vs. grace,” this verse is insufficient. One might legitimately wonder how many other proof texts could be subject to similar criticism.
What do we learn from this little investigation? Hopefully, we learn that relying on the English translations as the basis of our theology, especially our understanding of the “law vs. grace” controversy, is a dangerous undertaking. Even in Greek what Paul says is subject to multiple interpretations. Theology can’t be done verse by verse. It requires a complete picture of the culture, the language, and the thought patterns of the authors. That means we need to take a deep breath when disagreements about the meaning of verses come to the fore. You never know what you might find in the details.
Topical Index:Â faith, faithfulness, pisteous, Galatians 2:16
This reminds me of a movie I saw last night about some magicians who were brought together by an unknown individual to perform an elaborate magic act that involved some crime. The one thing that they kept repeating was that a magician wants to draw you close because the closer you look the less you see. The movie was Now You See Me.
I think that it is the same with the Bible. I have studied under people who take each book, each chapter and then go verse by verse, translating it and explaining what each word means in such intricate detail that it is almost impossible to understand what the overall picture is that is being portrayed.
If one does not start with “in the beginning” and tie everything else back to that, stepping back and looking at the longer view of what has come before to get to the point being addressed in the moment it is likely that one will totally miss the point or worse yet, believe what they are told, feeling that because it has been explained to them in such excruciating detail, and backed up with years of questionable theological scholars (that are touted as being the “authority” on the subject) it must be accurate. It is sad really.
Skip, As so many times, you word for the day was exactly what I needed. I am meeting with on a regular basis two brothers who are theologians and written books. I have been dialoging with one for 8 weeks on your book “God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience”. So theology IS very important in that one needs to know what theologoy is being applied for a commentary or tanslation of Scripture to make sure you do not live your life day by day with the “wrong” understanding. God help us!!
Dennis
There is a significant difference between being justified through my faith in Yeshua or being justified through the faithfulness of Yeshua.
Yes, let us all (please) look for the “big picture.” (It’s all good though, “both” the forest and the trees- and yes!- even the leaves on the trees!)
My faith in Yeshua
or
the faithfulness of Yeshua.
It’s NOT either/or- it’s both!
Yes, my faith IS totally in Yeshua , His atoning Sacrifice and in His finished work on the tslav, not on “my goodness”- or “my obedience or good works.
It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. ~ Not the blood of bulls and goats- those annual sacrifices were done away with by the “one and done” Sacrifice of the Son. ~ for as much as you know (or do you know?) you were NOT redeemed with the blood of bulls and of goats.. BUT.. by whose blood?
We were redeemed, renewed and restored (and regenerated and rejoicing!) by the precious blood of the Lamb!
Here is a link for those who might be interested in further study or exploration:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2012/20120606.htm
As early as the Garden of Eden, blood was shed as an atonement for sin. Both Adam and Eve were covered with the skin of an animal. Remember Abraham and Isaac? God stayed the hand of Abraham and Provided a Ram for the sacrifice. (and yes, many years later, God did provide Himself the Lamb).
What were the instructions of YHWH preceding the original Passover? ~ when I see the blood I will Pass Over you ~ Lamb’s blood was applied to the entrance of the dwelling place.
Years later, the announcement of John the Immerser, one who prepared the way of the LORD, was “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” John knew. – But even John, the one whom Jesus said ~none is greater than John the Immerser. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is! ~ had his doubts.. ~ Are you the One?- or should we look for another? ~ (Matthew 11.3)
And the response of our Redeemer? ~ Go and tell John (remind him) of what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers[a] are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news (the gospel) proclaimed unto them ~ (Luke 7.22)
~ Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life ~ (Revelation 2:10)
Love the discussion on how presuppositions color interpretation. Have you done anything on the Hebrew word ‘if’? I have heard that there are numerous meanings for it that were all condensed into very basic definitions in Strong’s and then dropped altogether.
I’m curious. How do the Aramaic and Hebrew New Testaments render this passage? Skip or anyone in the community that have the resources could you contribute.
*does
AENT – Galations 2:16
For we know that the sons of men are not made righteous by the works of Torah, but by faith in Y’shua the Mashiyach. Even we who believed in him know that it is from the faith in Mashiyach that we will be made righteous and not from the works of Torah. For from the works of Torah no flesh will be made righteous.
The English translation seems to say faith in. Could the underlying Aramaic be rendered “the faithfulness of Yeshua” like Skip is saying for the Greek?
Luis, Here is another translation by David H. Stern in The Complete Jewish Bible.
Gal 2:15 – We are Jews by birth, not so-called ‘Goyishe sinners’; 16. even so, we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through the Messiah Yeshua’s trusting faithfulness. Therefore, we too have put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of the Messiah’s trusting faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of Torah commands. For on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, no one will be declared righteous.
Thanks Darlene!
Sterns translation is from Greek manuscripts. What I am seeking is how Aramaic manuscripts might read.
Hi Luis,
The AENT is the Aramaic version as posted above by Darlene. It says “faith in” and not Yahshua’s faithfulness, as it ought to be. 🙂
But the underlying isn’t Aramaic. It’s Hebrew.
I agree. Although my understanding is Aramaic source documents are more prominent, more complete and closer inline to Hebrew understanding then Greek sources. My understanding is that we have limited NT Hebrew manuscripts.
So Skip, what I was curious to see was if the Aramaic and or Hebrew manuscripts confirmed your position or not. Do the manuscripts support a variant reading as your post says of the Greek. And I mean the manuscripts in the original language, not the English translations that could be biased by existing traditional Christian understandings.
Shalom my friend, Keep doing what you do!
Skip, thank you so very much (BUT I thought you and your Ezer were on vacation. This isn’t a “re-run,” is it?)
In this day when many sincere people have been deceived by centuries of man’s teachings and manipulated translations of (supposedly) YHVH’s WORD, you are a breath of fresh air… not that you have all the answers but that the answers you do have raise more questions that only the HOLY SPIRIT can guide us through!
Ditto what Dennis said: “GOD HELP US!”
“It suggests that the crucial difference is between Yeshua and me.”
Hmmm
Makes me think of the movie, Repo Man
Ordinary people, on their own, tend to avoid tense situations
On the other hand, the Repo Man or woman “seeks” tense situations
Yeshua, as we know from his “siege” of the Temple Mount
Was an advocate of enforcing the Law with intensity
However great the cost to himself
One could argue that his faith was the Works of the Law
Please elaborate on statement :the crucial difference is between Yeshua and me.
The one thing I know is that I could not have my faith in Christ if it were not for the faithfulness of Christ.
My goodness! Lloyd Gaston’s book “Paul And The Torah” has some very interesting things in it!
So…how can we English speaking sort of folk really understand what Shaul is saying in his letters if we don’t really know about or what the genitive case in Greek means?
Good question. But much to hard, complicated and troublesome.
Dismissed.
Please stand as we sing Hymn #32, “How Firm A Foundation.”
The Recessional Hymn will be “We’ll Undertand It Better By and By”.
Second verse:
“By Thy proof texts will I walk”
I haven’t read Gaston’s book but I’ve seen Skip recommended it in the past. So, as I was looking for it online, I came across a review from a prominent US Seminary. The concluding paragraph began with this sentence:
“This book does not represent an evangelical approach to an inerrant biblical text. Consequently, it offers no exegetical value for the evangelical.”
Translation: Don’t read the book. It questions the paradigm of how we read the text. Stick with these pre-approved books. Move along.
Hi Curtis, Love your translation!
Curtis,
Mind if I ask where you got that review or what seminary?
I’m curious.
Your translation is similar to what I have posted previously regarding a former ‘bible study’ I attended. The host asked what books we could study. She specified only books that had been ‘vetted!’
Only approved books were worthy.
I kind of fell out of favor with that group after I sort of offered a challenge to that mindset.
Just short of fireworks. Oh, my!
Well, never mind, Curtis.
Just found it . . . dear, dear Dr. John, right?
Curtis,
I wrote a short response to a class assignment in one of Skip’s online classes regarding Dr. MacArthur. The observation I noticed was regarding the evolution of his sermons over the years from his beginning days to the present. It certainly wasn’t exhaustive, but one of summation in how he portrayed the Hebrew foundations of Christianity.
His sermons in the beginning has a flavor reflecting that not unlike much of the Hebrew roots mindset these days. He was positive in regards to the Judaic background that preceded the historical Christianity picture. If I remember correctly, one of his sermons even emphasized that we needed a good understanding of the Hebrew background to truly understand what Jesus was teaching. As his sermons progressed, that favored Judaic approached waned and transformed more toward a replacement theological bent.
When I first noticed it, it was like . . . whaaaaaaaaat? He was transmogrifying. It was an interesting realization of him.
One thing MacArthur is known for is changing his views on incarnational/eternal sonship and recanting what he earlier taught. Interesting study you did. I don’t see changing ones views publicly as anything negative in and of itself–we just saw a humbling example in Skip’s post on Irene and “History of Shame”. Of course it’s what they change to that’s important. God knows how much I’ve changed. I remember the point of realizing the implications of my changing views/life. More than a few tears were shed.
I have an aquaintance (old friend from my Bible school days) who just finished Masters and was quite involved at MacArthurs church. He’s a committed dispensationalist. Educated guess: so is MacArthur.
On another note, this summer we travelled to visit family and I brought along a few books to read–two of them being “Guardian Angel” and “Meet the Rabbis”. They caused a few sparks. I don’t know if I’m seeing something that was always there, but here’s one comment I received during a goodbye: “I don’t know about those books you’re reading.” Whaaat!?!
Just a small observation….I used to LOVE to listen to John MacArthur. Had a bunch of his books too. As Y-H has taught me of Himself and my journey continues towards being a child of obedience I find that I have a hard time listening to him. It gets my soul a bit aggravated as I sit and listen to stuff that just isn’t true according to Scripture (ALL of it).
I was speaking to a friend of mine yesterday and he has been observing how there are many professing Christians who don’t even believe in the Resurrection. He heard one of our local Baptist preachers say that Jesus rose from the dead because he was G-d! He said this in a sermon to his flock. He gets pretty testy about the ownership of the flock too. Crazy but common.
I suspect MacArthur would be in the same camp.
Sure appreciate the comments here.
True we are not ‘saved’ by works alone, but through faith/emunah of what YHWH has done in sending His Son as the Door, as an example of how we ought to walk in obedience to our faith/trust in HIM even to the death-this should CLEAR all doubts of “not being justified through works of Torah”!
If, (as bp above said, carry many implications 🙂 ), Gal 2:16 is correctly translated, and not according to theological perspective, then the Book of Yaccov/James does not apply in our walk-either our faith, or Yahshua’s faithfulness applies instead?!
That is likened to forcing a piece of jig-saw puzzle into place!
Indeed, Daria, Skip brings such pure mountain air that invigorates! 🙂
To Michael, yes His faith is the works of the law. The words of the Torah are Him, He is those words made flesh. He is the Torah made flesh. Those words ARE His character, His very nature, His mind. He calls us to walk in them, to walk in Him, to walk as He walks and has always walked.
AFTER we come to have faith in His faithfulness to His own character, He calls us to walk with Him in His ways that are eternal in every way.
To Michael C., YEAH! Hilarious! Honest questions and observations aren’t usually welcome because they’re inconvenient to our presuppositions.
To Daria, if it’s a rerun, it is just as fresh today as ever!
The “good news” – the gospel, is “all about” the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, intercession, return and reign of the sinless, saving, Sovereign Lamb of God.
~ *In Him* was (is) life, and that life was (is) the light of all mankind ~
~ “I, The Light, have come to the world, that no one who believes in Me shall abide in darkness.” ~
~ If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you.. ~
~ and He wore a garment soaked with blood, and His Name is The Word of God ~ (Revelation 19.13)
~ Yeshua said to her, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Resurrection and The Life; whoever trusts in Me, even if he dies, he shall live.” ~ (John 11.25)