Roma 4:14

4:14 For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. ¹ 

Mazmur 119:126

119:126 It is time for the Lord to act –

they break your law!

Yeremia 8:8-9

8:8 How can you say, “We are wise!

We have the law of the Lord”?

The truth is, ²  those who teach it ³  have used their writings

to make it say what it does not really mean. ⁴ 

8:9 Your wise men will be put to shame.

They will be dumbfounded and be brought to judgment. ⁵ 

Since they have rejected the word of the Lord,

what wisdom do they really have?

Matius 5:17

Fulfillment of the Law and Prophets

5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. ⁶ 

Matius 15:6

15:6 he does not need to honor his father.’ ⁷  You have nullified the word of God on account of your tradition.

Galatia 2:21

2:21 I do not set aside ⁸  God’s grace, because if righteousness ⁹  could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing! ¹⁰ 

Galatia 3:17-19

3:17 What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, ¹¹  so as to invalidate the promise. 3:18 For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave ¹²  it to Abraham through the promise.

3:19 Why then was the law given? ¹³  It was added ¹⁴  because of transgressions, ¹⁵  until the arrival of the descendant ¹⁶  to whom the promise had been made. It was administered ¹⁷  through angels by an intermediary. ¹⁸ 

[4:14]  ¹ tn Grk “rendered inoperative.”

[8:8]  ² tn Heb “Surely, behold!”

[8:8]  ³ tn Heb “the scribes.”

[8:8]  ⁴ tn Heb “The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.

[8:9]  ⁵ tn Heb “be trapped.” However, the word “trapped” generally carries with it the connotation of divine judgment. See BDB 540 s.v. לָכַד Niph.2, and compare usage in Jer 6:11 for support. The verbs in the first two lines are again the form of the Hebrew verb that emphasizes that the action is as good as done (Hebrew prophetic perfects).

[5:17]  ⁶ tn Grk “not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Direct objects (“these things,” “them”) were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context, but have been supplied here to conform to contemporary English style.

[15:6]  ⁷ tc The logic of v. 5 would seem to demand that both father and mother are in view in v. 6. Indeed, the majority of mss (C L W Θ 0106 ˹ Ï) have “or his mother” (ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, h thn mhtera autou) after “honor his father” here. However, there are significant witnesses that have variations on this theme (καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ [kai thn mhtera autou, “and his mother”] in Φ 565 1241 pc and ἢ τὴν μητέρα [“or mother”] in 073 ˹³ 33 579 700 892 pc), which is usually an indication of a predictable addition to the text rather than an authentic reading. Further, the shorter reading (without any mention of “mother”) is found in early and important witnesses (א B D sa). Although it is possible that the shorter reading came about accidentally (due to the repetition of –ερα αὐτοῦ), the evidence more strongly suggests that the longer readings were intentional scribal alterations.

[15:6]  tn Grk “he will never honor his father.” Here Jesus is quoting the Pharisees, whose intent is to release the person who is giving his possessions to God from the family obligation of caring for his parents. The verb in this phrase is future tense, and it is negated with οὐ μή (ou mh), the strongest negation possible in Greek. A literal translation of the phrase does not capture the intended sense of the statement; it would actually make the Pharisees sound as if they agreed with Jesus. Instead, a more interpretive translation has been used to focus upon the release from family obligations that the Pharisees allowed in these circumstances.

[15:6]  sn Here Jesus refers to something that has been set aside as a gift to be given to God at some later date, but which is still in the possession of the owner. According to contemporary Jewish tradition, the person who made this claim was absolved from responsibility to support or assist his parents, a clear violation of the Mosaic law to honor one’s parents (v. 4).

[2:21]  ⁸ tn Or “I do not declare invalid,” “I do not nullify.”

[2:21]  ⁹ tn Or “justification.”

[2:21]  ¹⁰ tn Or “without cause,” “for no purpose.”

[3:17]  ¹¹ tc Most mss (D F G I 0176 0278 Ï it sy) read “ratified by God in Christ” whereas the omission of “in Christ” is the reading in Ì⁴⁶ א A B C P Ψ 6 33 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 pc co. The shorter reading is strongly supported by the ms evidence, and it is probable that a copyist inserted the words as an interpretive gloss. However, this form of the “in Christ” expression is somewhat atypical in the corpus Paulinum (εἰς Χριστόν [ei" Criston] rather than ἐν Χριστῷ [en Cristw]), a fact which tempers one’s certainty about the shorter reading. Nevertheless, the expression is used more in Galatians than in any other of Paul’s letters (Gal 2:16; 3:24, 27), and may have been suggested by such texts to early copyists.

[3:18]  ¹² tn On the translation “graciously gave” for χαρίζομαι (carizomai) see L&N 57.102.

[3:19]  ¹³ tn Grk “Why then the law?”

[3:19]  ¹⁴ tc For προσετέθη (proseteqh) several Western mss have ἐτέθη (eteqh, “it was established”; so D* F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec). The net effect of this reading, in conjunction with the largely Western reading of πράξεων (praxewn) for παραβάσεων (parabasewn), seems to be a very positive assessment of the law. But there are compelling reasons for rejecting this reading: (1) externally, it is provincial and relatively late; (2) internally: (a) transcriptionally, there seems to be a much higher transcriptional probability that a scribe would try to smooth over Paul’s harsh saying here about the law than vice versa; (b) intrinsically: [1] Paul has already argued that the law came after the promise (vv. 15-18), indicating, more than likely, its temporary nature; [2] the verb “was added” in v. 19 (προσετέθη) is different from the verb in v. 15 (ἐπιδιατάσσεται, epidiatassetai); virtually all exegetes recognize this as an intentional linguistic shift on Paul’s part in order not to contradict his statement in v. 15; [3] the temper of 3:1–4:7 is decidedly against a positive statement about the Torah’s role in Heilsgeschichte.

[3:19]  ¹⁵ tc παραδόσεων (paradosewn; “traditions, commandments”) is read by D*, while the vast majority of witnesses read παραβάσεων (parabasewn, “transgressions”). D’s reading makes little sense in this context. πράξεων (praxewn, “of deeds”) replaces παραβάσεων in Ì⁴⁶ F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec. The wording is best taken as going with νόμος (nomo"; “Why then the law of deeds?”), as is evident by the consistent punctuation in the later witnesses. But such an expression is unpauline and superfluous; it was almost certainly added by some early scribe(s) to soften the blow of Paul’s statement.

[3:19]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “the seed.” See the note on the first occurrence of the word “descendant” in 3:16.

[3:19]  ¹⁷ tn Or “was ordered.” L&N 31.22 has “was put into effect” here.

[3:19]  ¹⁸ tn Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesith"; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms.