Conclusion: Galatians is Consistent With The Written Torah-Law

In conclusion then, we know that much of Galatians is about explaining that since Acts 10 and Cornelius' baptism without circumcision it is now not necessary to circumcise gentile proselytes because of Exodus 12:48 (so that they become adopted sons of Abraham) under Genesis 17.

Those "of the circumcision" who were trying to compel the gentile proselytes in the Galatian synagogues to be circumcised were wrong to do so. That's the primary theme of the Book of Galatians.

A more careful study gives us a lot of vital background about the second theme in Galatians which most Christian commentators fail to get to grips with - the subject of Jewish Torah law In the first century when Paul wrote Galatians the written Torah represented a miniscule part of Jewish Law, albeit the most important. By far the largest part of first century torah was the Oral Torah law.

When we examine his life before and after his conversion on the road to Damascus, we significant differences in Paul's views about the Oral Torah law. Before conversion he was exceedingly zealous of the "traditions of the fathers". After conversion in Acts 24:14 he doesn't mention his belief in them at all. This fits well with our knowledge that Christ criticises some aspects of the oral torah-law but in the sermon on the mount upholds the written Torah Law and indeed curses those who teach that it is "done away".

Matthew 5:17-20
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. NKJV

So when Paul talks about being "under law" (remember it's not "under THE law", just "under law" and when he talks about "works of law" (not "THE works of THE law") he can be talking about ANY aspect of first century Jewish law.

Whilst Ephesians makes it clear that salvation is never by works but through by the grace of Christ's sacrifice:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. NKJV

...some still think that there is some sort of conflict between Paul's criticism of "works of law" and James' endorsement works (of faith).

James 2:18-26
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. NKJV

This can be explained if Paul was criticising the oral additions and traditions of the Fathers that the Pharisees believed in, but the Sadducees didn't, which eventually was codified in the thirty six volume Talmud.

We know from Deuteronomy 4:2 that additions to the written Torah that God gave were entirely prohibited by God. We ALSO know that for the oral/Talmudic additions and traditions Deuteronomy 27: adds a curse - which is referred to by Paul as the curse of the Law.

We also know that when Paul criticized Peter and Barnabus in front of the entire Antioch church it was because they were complying with the traditions of the elders and shunning their uncircumcised gentile brethren - something that he HAD to put a stop to quickly.

Finally then, given that a more balanced understanding of what Paul is writing in Galatians arguably like any religious Jew Paul believed the written torah law was a great blessing , but he was CRITICAL of an approach which tries to achieve righteousness by illegally adding and keeping ever more laws, because no amount of law keeping can bring righteousness. Only Christ's blood sacrifice can.

This means that when Paul criticises "works of law" or being "under law" in Galatians he's mostly criticising the keeping of more and more oral/talmudic additions and traditions. He's not necessarily contradicting James' positive emphasis on works at all.

We also checked to see if the bit where Paul condemns keeping "Days months times and years" might also refer to even more unlawful Jewish additions and traditions. We concluded that it probably does.

So with an understanding that:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. NKJV

...and...

Malachi 3: 6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change. NKJV

...with a little more understanding about the context in which Paul wrote the book of Galatians and more specifically some background about the Oral Torah, we've learned that Galatians welcomes uncircumcised gentiles into the family of God (as opposed to the family of Abraham) and far from criticizing it, upholds the written Torah law, and criticizes at least some aspects of the burdensome Oral Torah law.

Return to the start of Galatians, Paul, The Torah-Law and Legalism a Judianity website ?

One small and predictable change to an "Old Testament" law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts caused massive turmoil in the predominantly Jewish first century church. If most of the other Old Testament laws were "done away" - why then isn't any comparable fuss recorded in the New Testament? Why also do many christian theologians believe even after the crucifixion, that Paul kept Nazirite vows & offered sacrifices at the temple?