Once more Paul asks a question which logically follows from his previous statements. If there is such a distinction between the Law and the promise, and if there is such a clear superiority of the promise over the Law, then does this mean that the Law is against God’s promises? This rhetorical question is immediately answered with a strong negative statement. The presence of this statement makes it possible in a number of languages to retain the rhetorical question. However, in some languages one may need to transform the question itself into a positive statement, for example, “The Law is certainly not against God’s promises.” This statement can then be followed by a further strong negative, “No, indeed.”
It may, however, be difficult in some languages to speak of a law being “against promises.” One can, however, often say “Does this mean that what the Law says is against what God has promised?”, or “… that the words of the Law are against the promises of God?”
Against means “contrary to.” Is against must be expressed in some languages as “say the opposite,” “speak against,” or “say something different from,” for example, “Do the words of the Law say something different from what God has promised?” This question may be introduced in some languages as “Is it true that the words of the Law are against God’s promises?”
For the plural form of “promises,” see verse 16. The expected answer, in the light of everything Paul has said so far, is in the affirmative. But Paul answers in the negative: No, not at all! (Phillips “certainly not”; Jerusalem Bible “of course not”; New American Bible “unthinkable!”; New English Bible “no, never!”). For this expression, see 2.17.
Paul is able to give a negative answer to this question because he not only allows that the Law has a function, but that function is even related to the fulfillment of God’s promise. Already he has said that the Law functions as showing what wrongdoing is (verse 19), and later he takes up other functions of the Law: as teacher (verses 23-25) and as guardian (4.1 ff.). But the function of the Law is not the same as the function of the promise. The function of the promise is to bring life. If the Law could do that, then it would be competing with the promise. But the Law cannot bring life, because it was not given for such a purpose.
Some interpreters understand law in the clause for if mankind had received a law to refer to the Torah or the Jewish law (New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible “if the Law we were given”). However, since in the Greek “law” is not preceded by the article, many exegetes have argued that Paul is here referring to any law, and particularly, as the context shows, any divine law (compare Phillips, Revised Standard Version, Knox). The expression if mankind had received a law may need to be made more specific in a number of languages, for example, “If God had given mankind a law.” However, it is essential to pay careful attention to the rendering of a law, for if this is to be understood in the sense of any divine law rather than merely any specific regulation, then it is perhaps necessary to use in some languages a phrase which would be essentially equivalent to “some special kind of law” or “some set of laws.”
Most translations simply render the expression bring life in the way Good News Translation does, without making the meaning of “life” clear in this passage. Basically there are two possible ways of interpreting the expression to bring life:
(1) “Life” may be interpreted as “eternal life,” “spiritual life,” or “moral life,” as opposed to physical existence. This kind of life is made possible by man being in a right relationship with God. What Paul is saying, then, is: If there is a law that could put men right with God, then eternal life could be achieved through law. In this sense one may often translate as “could cause men really to live,” or “could cause men to share the life that comes from God” (as a reference to “spiritual life”).
(2) “Life” may be interpreted simply as a state brought about by a right relationship with God. Previously, Paul has used “to live” as synonymous with “to be put right with God” (see verse 12), and here he may be doing the same thing. If this is the case, then “to bring life” could be understood as another way of saying “to be put right with God.”
Be put right with God is one word in the Greek, literally, “righteousness.” Many commentators and translators understand this to have the same meaning as its verb form “to justify” (compare Jerusalem Bible) and primarily refers to right relationship with God, acceptance by God. Another possible translation is “God would accept people in a right relationship to himself.”
The phrase by obeying it must often be expressed as “by doing what the law says people must do.” However, in this context the term “law” must refer back specifically to law mentioned in the beginning of this same sentence. If, for example, one has used at the beginning of the verse “a certain set of laws,” then at the end of the verse one may refer to “such a set of laws.”
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
From Rahul (guitarfrend@gmail.com)
The Greek text : εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι.
Two structural readings are possible, each producing a different emphasis:
1. Traditional Verbal-Phrase Analysis
[[εἰ γὰρ] [ἐδόθη] [νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι]]
Syntactic Labeling:
[εἰ γὰρ] [ἐδόθη]Predicate [νόμος]Subject [ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι]Modifier
In this reading, the main predicate is the passive verb ἐδόθη (“was given”). The conditional force falls partly on the act of giving itself. This yields the common translation: “If a law had been given that could give life…”
2. Preferred Contextual / Noun-Phrase Analysis
[[εἰ γὰρ] [ἐδόθη νόμος] [ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι]]
Syntactic Labeling:
[εἰ γὰρ] [ἐδόθη νόμος]Backgrounded Subject NP [ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι]Predicate
In this reading, νόμος (“law”) functions as the nominal center — that is, the main noun around which the conditional revolves. The word “given” (from ἐδόθη) functions adnominally — meaning it acts as a modifier attached to the noun νόμος, providing background information rather than carrying the primary force of the clause.
Definitions:
Nominal = centered on a noun as the main reference point.
Adnominal = modifying a noun (functioning like an adjective or reduced relative clause).
Thus, the preferred English rendering is: “If the given law can give life…” or “if the law that was given can give life” (see NLT).
Here, the main predicate of the conditional is the law’s ability (ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι), while “given” is backgrounded, non-essential information attached to the noun.
This reading is preferable because:
The Mosaic law has already been clearly identified earlier in Galatians 3.
As Meyer points out, the articular participle highlights “the definite quality” of the law (its ability or inability to give life), which is “the point of this conditional sentence.”
Bengel states explicitly that “the conditional force does not fall upon was given, for the law was certainly given, but upon was able.”
If Paul had wanted the focus to rest on the hypothetical giving of a life-giving law, we would expect a different word order with a clear attributive construction tied directly to νόμος before the verb. The actual structure supports evaluating the known law’s current capacity.
The noun-phrase reading better reflects Paul’s argument. By treating “given” as an adnominal modifier and shifting the predicate to the law’s ability, we see that the real question is not whether a life-giving law was given, but whether the law that was given possesses life-giving power.
The phrase (ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι) is in present tense, hence treating it as present tense “can give or impart life” would be best. This removes the potential confusion that the law could never give life prior to the coming of the superior covenant in Christ. The temporal markers like until, now, no longer, must be emphasized and various participles should be treated as temporal, as done by LEB in Gal 3:15 and 25 [*when* the covenant has been ratified; *after* faith has come]. This is to demonstrate that the end of the ability of law has only occurred in time, on a temporal scale due to the event of coming of the new covenant.
We should notice the logical implication of the argument if Paul had written that the law could never justify; this would certainly go against his and whole bible’s consistent promise by God, that the law was source of life. Gal 3:12, Rom 10:5. If Paul had argued that the law was always ineffective, and only gave curse instead of life, then he would be calling God a liar and deceiver for giving the holy law. Paul does not indicate any such argument.
The traditional reading has confused many commentators, particularly because it seems to contradict the Jewish association between Torah and life that Paul himself references elsewhere [(Leviticus 18:5, Galatians 3:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018%3A5%2C%20Galatians%203%3A12&version=LEB))
As M. I. Cha explains in , *Misunderstanding Galatians* 2001, p. 118
> The Gal 3:21b phrase εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι has confused many commentators. Dunn explains,
>> “This line of argument has caused commentators difficulty, since it seems to deny the established Jewish association between the Torah and life, to which Paul has already referred (Gal 3:12; e.g. Lev. 17:5; Deut. 6:24; Prov. 3:1–2; 6:23; Sir. 17:11—“the law of life”; Bar. 3:9; 4:1; Pss. Sol. 14:2)” (Dunn, Galatians, 192; similarly Douglas Moo, “how are we to square Paul’s reference to the typically Jewish view that the one who does [the commandments of the law] will find life by them’ [Lev 18:5] with his claim here that no law can make alive?” (Galatians, 238))
>
> The point of tension is that the phrase (Gal 3:21b) appears to contradict the apostles citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12: “the law is not of faithfulness; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them” In other words, for some interpreters, the apostle seems to be accusing God of giving a faulty or deficient law.