Outline of Document (when I’m less lazy I’ll make these link to the right place)

1. What Does Paul Mean by “Circumcision”

2. What Does Paul Mean by “Law?”

3. How does Paul use the “law” or Sinai covenant and the term “covenant” in general?

4. The Meaning of “Under the Law”

5. What is “Works of the Law?”

6. Paul’s Use of Israel’s Covenant Breaking and Redemption:

7. The Corporate Nature of God’s Salvation for Israel and Hence Us

8. Paul Uses Israel’s Journey as an Analogy for Our Own.

1. What Does Paul Mean by “Circumcision”

The most important point is that Peter in Acts 15 and Paul in Galatians are talking about circumcision in the context of table fellowship with the church and salvation. The reason why table fellowship and salvation are associated will be made clear later:

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14)

You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace (Gal 5:4)

Paul prefixes Galatians 5:4 with the example of circumcision: “Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.” (Gal 5:3) However, Paul had Timothy circumcised and throughout all his letters criticizing “circumcision,” he never feels the need to give justification for why this well known apostle was circumcised at his behest. Therefore, Paul can’t be referring to just the act of circumcision when he is preaching against circumcision but something more. Paul rather seems to use circumcision (sometimes) in a nationalistic context like the following:

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

(Romans 2:25-3:2 emphasis mine)

I find myself close to J. D. G. Dunn’s views that:

Paul does not exclude “works of law” as the way to righteousness because such works were an attempt to earn salvation by amassing merit before God, or because such works could not be obeyed perfectly. Although “works of law” refers to the whole law, the term focuses on “identity markers” or “badges” of the covenant which separated Jews from Gentiles, vis. circumcision, food laws, and the observance of certain days. Thus when Paul speaks against “works of law,” he is not speaking against works in general, but against the particular works of the covenant which created a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s polemic is not against “activism” but “nationalism.” He attacks any Jewish notion of privilege because of her covenantal status. The Jews wrongly boasted in their nation privilege as God’s elect people, but they did not boast in their good works.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561358 (see page 6 (or 222 in the journal))

The only difference in my view is that particular things like not eating with gentiles and adult circumcision–that is circumcision not associated with eating the Passover or non-Passover-adult circumcision are not in the Torah.

While circumcision may be necessary in the Torah to be treated as native born and observe the Passover (Exodus 12:48) this implies that there was no requirement to circumcise yourself as an adult to sojourn in Israel. In fact, I think you could argue that the circumcision that Abraham and his household observed was a one time thing–afterward they were required to circumcise their children on the eighth day and anyone that was bought with money. However, these two requirements imply that other adults coming into the household–especially just traveling with the household wouldn’t need to be circumcised. And this is very similar to the issue Paul was dealing with–whether you could eat with or be around other Jews in the synagogue if you weren’t circumcised. However, this additional point (of adult circumcision not being required) is not necessary to argue that people who were uncircumcised could be in Israel–they just wouldn’t be able to own land. In the diaspora (which was the context Paul was writing in) and in the context of fellowship within the church (which was also Paul’s context for writing) circumcision would have been even less necessary and just an outward sign of Jewishness–hence why Paul compares a Jew inwardly and Jew outwardly.

The LXX confirms that the command to cut off anyone not circumcised was specifically for those on the eighth day:

And the uncircumcised male who shall not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin in the [2day 1eighth], [2shall be utterly destroyed 1that soul] from its race, for my covenant he effaced. (Gen 17:14 ABP)

Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Gen 17:14 NRSV)

Matthew Theissen even argues that this verse excludes Ishmael from the covenant and is why Abraham responds that “Oh that Ishmael might live in your sight!” to which God says that the covenant is for Isaac. Theissen uses the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and Jubilees (all of which specify the 8th day) to argue that this was the original writing. He also states that Arabs were historically circumcised after the 8th day which would explain part of the distinction between Isaac and Ishmael. (see the book “Contesting Conversion” pg 24-41) This further emphases the distinction Paul draws between the circumcision of the spirit and the circumcision of the flesh (which is not commanded after the 8th day except if you wanted to eat the Passover). Observe the statements in the verses right after Gen 17:14 to see whether this context fits

15 God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.’ 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ 18 And Abraham said to God, ‘O that Ishmael might live in your sight!’ 19 God said, ‘No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.’ 22 And when he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. (Gen 17:15-22)

In addition, every place that circumcision refers to a group in the new testament and the time is specified–it is on the eighth day:

22 Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise a man on the sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a man’s whole body on the sabbath? (John 7:22-23)

Then he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs. (Acts 7:8)

3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh— 4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh.

4 If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; (Philipians 3:3-5)

Furthermore, we see that in this eighth day context, one’s circumcision status because of a decision their father made has no effect on whether that person follows the commandments:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. (1 Corinthians 7:19)

It said Abraham received the promise before HIS adult circumcision.

10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Since Abraham is said not to have “law” at the time and his act of faith is contrasted with his adult circumcision it seems to be implying that adult circumcision is part of the “law” as Paul uses it. Yet Abraham came before the giving of the Passover sacrifice.

13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:13-14)

However, we know that adult circumcision (not for eating the Passover sacrifice) is not in the law of Sinai. So clearly the “law” (as Paul uses it) must be an analogy for something else. I argue later that it is an analogy for “works of law” which did include adult circumcision. The fact that it is an analogy for something else makes sense since if we look at it literally Abraham was given the covenant because he obeyed God’s voice and his laws:

4 I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen 26:4-5)

Again I will state that this restriction of the command to circumcise on the eighth day for descendants of Abraham is not necessary for my argument, it is just an additional strength or an a-fortiori. Even if adult circumcision is necessary we could ask the question: why would Paul be speaking against the act of circumcision in the Torah if the other things he groups together with it aren’t? That is, identity, salvation, and table fellowship. He his negating the whole and not the specific act of circumcision here in Galatians since he explicitly says that circumcision will cause you to be cut off from Christ and is a way of justifying yourself through works.

Summary: Paul preaches against circumcision that is meant to convey a nationalistic or racial identity and says this cannot lead to salvation. Rather, both Jews, and Gentiles can be saved. This should be obvious from the context but to make this argument even stronger you can observe that things like non-passover-adult-circumcision and not eating with gentiles are not in the Torah which means the context of what Paul is saying is about things not in the Torah at all. This then must mean that Paul is speaking about an issue not even related to commandments in the Torah.

2. What Does Paul Mean by “Law?”

So we have just seen that Paul sometimes uses “law” to refer to Sinai law, not other parts of the first five books. This is most clearly evident in Galatians:

My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. (Gal 3:17 NRSV)

Paul also does this in Romans: comparing the covenant of Moab with Sinai in Romans 10:5-10 with quotes from Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11-14. Since both things are quoted

5 Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say?

“The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart” (Romans 10:5-8)

As we previously saw Abraham is said not have law because he was before Moses even though Abraham had at least one of the instructions that was in the “law” which was circumcision on the eighth day. So we see here that in Romans “law” is clearly being used in covenant form and not in terms of individual commands. We see the context of “law” being Sinai law is setup a whole five chapters before Romans 10 in Romans 5:

13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:13-14)

Galatians as we have seen is an example where Paul uses “law” as “Sinai law” explicitly. In Romans it is heavily implied because of the contrast between Moab and Sinai and by replacing “the law” with Christ since he is the living Torah which also enables Israel to follow the law. 1 Timothy 1:9 is another example where “law” can’t just mean “law” but rather the condemnation of Sinai probably more in context of the putative legal system (see Galatians 3:19) than the corporate responsibility for breaking the Sinai covenant:

9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, (1 Timothy 1:9)

In addition, his comparison of the faith of Abraham (in Genesis) to “the law” wouldn’t make sense if he is using “the law” to refer to the first five books (Torah)–since Abraham is in those books.

Even today the ritual of circumcision is used in a nationalistic sense to convey Jewishness. I was told if I were to become Jewish I would need to “convert” (part of that ritual is to become circumcised). Interestingly enough, if my mother was Jewish I would not need to convert. Whether someone is Jewish today seems to depend on whether they are descended from someone who is Jewish as much as it does someone who goes through the ritual of conversion. So you have something that turns into a nationality or race once you enter into it. There was even a Jewish person who told me he got into an argument with a more conservative Jew about whether it was necessary to keep a really good track of your Jewish heritage and convert to Judaism if you couldn’t prove you were Jewish. This Jew he argued with was saying that Jewish souls lose their purity if they aren’t careful to make sure they are actually Jewish. This sounds related to at least righteousness if not salvation. This is also what E. P. Sander’s argued, that a major view in Judaism in the first century was that by keeping certain acts of purity like circumcision you would save yourself by being recognized by God as the covenant people of God, rather than a religion of more straightforward legalism:

[George Foot Moore] . . . pointed out that rabbinic Judaism was not a religion of legalism.

This point was not sufficiently driven home, however, until the publication in 1977 of E. P. Sanders’ book Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A New Testament scholar with a good grasp of rabbinic literature, Sanders drove the final and most powerful nail into the coffin of the traditional Christian caricature of Judaism. Sanders’ extensive treatment of the Tannaitic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha was designed, like the efforts of Montefiore and Moore, to describe and define Palestinian Judaism on its own terms, not as the mirror reflection of Christianity. Unlike Montefiore and Moore, Sanders has been immensely successful in convincing New Testament scholars. Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.

https://academic.logos.com/a-summary-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul/

Becoming circumcised was not required for sojourning with Israel which is closer to the type of association Paul is speaking of with table fellowship and salvation. Not even James believed you had to become part of national Israel to be saved as he states in Acts 15:17. So even if the Torah required adult circumcision without the Passover sacrifice the idea that it wouldn’t have required it for salvation goes without saying.

However, if the Torah did not require adult circumcision without Passover observance then Gentiles in the first century might have had to become Jews first (at the very least they had to go to stay in an outer court and couldn’t offer their sacrifices in the same way Jews could) This contradiction between what the Torah stated and what Judaism taught at the time is evident in these quotes:

“. . . in the Torah a Gentile was permitted to bring a sacrifice in the same way any Israelite does, presumably right to the altar of the Tabernacle (Num 15:14-16). . . .

Did Jews of the first century consider Gentiles impure and therefore exclude them from the inner courts of the temple? There are several Second Temple texts which indicate eating with Gentiles was a serious problem for some (many? most?) Jews. Joseph and Asenath 7:1, “Joseph never ate with the Egyptians, for this was an abomination to him”

Jubilees 22:16: And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.”

Tobit 1:10–12: After I was carried away captive to Assyria and came as a captive to Nineveh, everyone of my kindred and my people ate the food of the Gentiles, 11 but I kept myself from eating the food of the Gentiles. 12 Because I was mindful of God with all my heart,”

Judith 12:1–2: Then he commanded them to bring her in where his silver dinnerware was kept, and ordered them to set a table for her with some of his own delicacies, and with some of his own wine to drink. 2 But Judith said, “I cannot partake of them, or it will be an offense; but I will have enough with the things I brought with me.

Although Gentile exclusion was not a “core belief” of Judaism in the Second Temple period, it is clear that by the first century Judaism was not a particularly open religion nor were Gentiles welcome to participate fully in worship of the God of Israel.

https://readingacts.com/2017/04/06/core-beliefs-of-second-temple-judaism-gentiles-and-the-temple/

There is also some indication that bringing Gentiles near the temple like Paul did was in fact polluting it according to some Jews:

Details about the pilgrimage of diaspora Jews to the Jerusalem temple also come up in a few places in the narrative about the life and ministry of Paul later in the book of Acts. After Paul had arrived in Jerusalem, he met with the Christian community there and received advice about how to demonstrate his faithfulness to Judaism in order to disprove criticisms leveled against him by his opponents. The leaders of the church recommend that he accompany and assist certain individuals in fulfilling a vow (Acts 21:17–24). After the required purification process, Paul would enter the temple with these men. Apparently, the Jews from Asia were also in Jerusalem and at the temple at this time (21:27), it is likely during the celebration of Pentecost (cf. 20:16). These Jews knew that Paul had traveled to Jerusalem with Gentiles. So, they assumed that Paul had brought these men into the temple with him and polluted it (21:28), especially in light of the rumors of his slack teaching regarding the Jewish laws (21:21). The text simply notes that these Jews were from Asia. It does not specify that they had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to worship at the temple, but this is a reasonable possibility since they apparently were present in Jerusalem during a festival.

The Jerusalem Temple in Diaspora: Jewish Practice and Thought during the Second Temple Period, pg 76–110, 3 Acts of the Apostles

Later this inconsistency between what Judaism taught and what the Torah taught was changed:

The Rabbis say (Hullin13b): ‘Sacrifices are to be accepted from Gentiles as they are from Jews,’ although this saying dates from after the destruction of the Temple.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/sacrifice/

Many Jews who lived far away in the diaspora didn’t observe the Passover at the temple where they could eat the Passover sacrifice probably because of travel expenses and the massive amount of time it would take:

All of these sources reaffirm the essential popularity of making pilgrimage to Jerusalem among diaspora Jews in general. In other words, during a given festival in Jerusalem it is very likely that many diaspora Jews could be found in Jerusalem who had travelled from all over the world.

Yet, at the same time, there are few indications that this practice was common among all diaspora Jews. It is likely that many, if not most, diaspora Jews never went to Jerusalem during one of the festivals.5 However, as was the case with the financial contributions of diaspora Jews, we will highlight the possibility that diaspora Jews vicariously participated in pilgrimage to Jerusalem through the representatives sent from their community. The Jerusalem Temple in Diaspora: Jewish Practice and Thought during the Second Temple Period, pg 76

The Jerusalem Temple in Diaspora: Jewish Practice and Thought during the Second Temple Period, pg 76

The Torah says to celebrate Passover for seven days, but Jews in the Diaspora lived too far away from Israel to receive word as to when to begin their observances and an additional day of celebration was added to be on the safe side.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/holydays/passover_1.shtml

In addition, there may have been a different view about the need to travel to Jerusalem specifically during the Passover if this Mishnaic tradition was followed during the time of Paul:

Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up for the feast, according to the custom of the feast. When they had fulfilled the days [of the feast], his parents started home, unaware that the boy Jesus had stayed behind in Jerusalem. (Luke 2:41-43)

Three times a year—on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Booths—all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place that he will choose. They shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed. (Deut. 16:16)

During the Second Temple period these verses were not understood to mean that one was obliged to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, but rather that pilgrimage was associated with these festivals. Pilgrimage was considered a commandment that “has no measure,” as stated in Mishnah, Peah 1:1: “The following are the things for which no definite quantity is prescribed…appearing [before the LORD]….”

Thus, the commandment to “go up” to Jerusalem might be observed once every few years or perhaps only once in a lifetime.

https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2392/

My point in saying all this is that if the Torah only required adult circumcision for the Passover sacrifice then it would not be relevant for people living in many of the far away places to which Paul was writing and may not have even been able to participate in eating the sacrifice until they converted to Judaism.

Summary: Paul can’t be referring to “law” as the “Torah” because he seperates “law” from Abraham and from Moab. He also uses “law” in a way that would include adult circumcision but this could only be argued to be part of the covenant of Abraham–not the covenant of Sinai since Sinai does not mention adult circumcision except in context of the Passover which Abraham did not have. In addition, all cases in which adult circumcision is commanded by Sinai were not relevant to the people Paul was talking to.

3. How does Paul use the “law” or Sinai covenant and the term “covenant” in general?

He sometimes uses them metaphorically to refer to a soteriologies–that of works of law in contrast to accepting grace:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Gal 4:21-Gal 5:5 NKJV)

In the cultural/political context all the definitions of these concepts in Paul’s letter are readily apparent:
A. “Flesh”
B. “Spirit” the group that is persecuted by those of the flesh.
C. “the letter” (of the law) not mentioned here but “the letter” is used in opposition to “the spirit” of the law in 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Romans 7:6
D. “Faith” and “works”

First “flesh” in Galatians seems to refer to the zealot ideology who persecuted early Christians and wanted to overthrow the roman empire through violence as opposed to those of the spirit which were associated with Hillel:

Flusser discussed the political aspect of the rabbinic concept of the Kingdom of Heaven, arguing that originally “the Kingdom of Heaven” was an anti-Zealot slogan. At the end of the Second Temple period there were various groups of militant Jewish nationalists who advocated armed revolt against the Roman Empire. These insurgent groups believed that national liberation could be achieved through violent means. They believed that their armed struggle would provoke divine intervention on Israel’s behalf and the eschatological events of the final redemption would be set in motion as a result of their terrorist activities. It seems likely that at least one stream of militant Jewish nationalism emerged from the School of Shammai. This militant Jewish nationalist ideology was countered by the Hillelite stream of Pharisaic Judaism with the concept of the Kingdom of Heaven. According to Hillelite ideology, violent militant insurgence can only replace the Roman Empire with a kingdom of flesh and blood: . . .

https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13546/

Rabbi Abbahu (Third and Fourth Century) said: Jerusalem was destroyed because its citizens intentionally “omitted recitation of Shema morning and evening” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 119b). Rather than reciting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6: 4-9), a prayer indicating one’s total devotion to God and spiritual values (“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources”), the people were drinking wine and liquor. This is probably the Talmud’s way of describing how the people became materialistic and pleasure seeking and lost interest in living a moral life.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3226583 Lessons Learned from the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple:
How to Truly Make America Great Again, by Hershey H. Friedman

The school of Shammai’s emphasis on the letter of the law is probably why Paul associates the persecutors of those of the spirit with the letter.

The Talmud describes an incident that occurred before the destruction of the Temple. The students were asked to go up to the upper chamber of the house of Channaniah b. Chizkiyah b. Garon. Unfortunately, the students from the School of Shammai took out spears and swords and killed (most commentaries cannot accept that Shammaites killed Hillelites and interpret this passage to mean threatened to kill) any Hillelite that was about to climb the steps and vote. Lau (2007: 223-224), cites evidence from the Cairo Geniza that there was an actual civil war between the two schools. It appears that the Shammaites did kill the Hillelites. Needless to say, the Shammaites were in the majority and passed religiously stringent laws known as “The Eighteen Articles” (Jastrow and Mendelsoh, 2002). The Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbos 1:4) notes that “this day was as grievous for the Jewish people as the day on which the Golden Calf was made.” These measures erected a ritualistic barrier between Jew and Gentile making it difficult for the two groups to socialize (Schmidt, 2001: 140-141).

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3226583 Lessons Learned from the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple:
How to Truly Make America Great Again, by Hershey H. Friedman

Paul even refers to himself as previously being a zealot or zealous and that that caused him to persecute Christians:

The article explores Gal 1.14 and Acts 22.3, two statements where Paul is said to be a ζηλωτη´ς. The term is a noun, meaning ‘Zealot’. However, interpreters and commentators have always interpreted the term as an adjective, meaning ‘zealous’. By understanding Paul’s statement as an adjective, interpreters and commentators have dissociated Paul from the Zealot movement which was emerging during this period of time within Judaism. However, Paul appears in these passages to claim that the Zealot movement was a powerful influence upon his formative Jewish life and theology and was a motivating factor in his persecution of the Christians. This article proposes that we seriously consider Zealot influences in the formative years of Paul.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S002868859800099X

In Phil 3:6 and Gal 1:13-14 Paul describes his persecution of the church as an expression of zeal; it was as a “zealot for the traditions of [his] fathers” that he “persecuted the church and tried to destroy it.” While the concept of zeal in first-century Judaism requires careful consideration, in general terms it referred to the use of force to defend the Torah against a perceived threat. Paul’s use of the term with reference to his persecution, then, indicates that he perceived the Christian movement as posing in some way a threat to the Torah.

But in what way? What was it about the church that Paul found objectionable? How in his view did it represent a threat to the Torah? The question is of interest for its own sake, of course, and Pauline scholarship has suggested a range of answers….

and [Zealot] was by no means restricted to opposition to foreign oppression (e.g., 2 Apoc. Bar. 66:1-8). In this later connection it might be mentioned that not until the war with Rome was “Zealot” taken over as a self-designation for a party advocating armed rebellion against Rome. Prior to that time–and in particular, when Paul described himself as a zelotes (Gal 1:14)–the term (contrary to popular belief) did not designate one as a member of an identifiable party.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717961?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A3bd0dcd839d324c209a8af8dc7d73155&seq=19#page_scan_tab_contents

This factionalism associated with the zealots and Shammai was so much a problem that the Talmud and other sources state that divisions among Jews were the major reason that the Temple was destroyed:

While the First Temple was destroyed due to idol worship, illicit relationships and murder, our Sages attribute the destruction of the Second Temple to the baseless hatred that prevailed among the Jews. If the Jews had been united, they would have merited G‑d’s protection. They would have withstood the Romans. It was the factionalism among Jews that ultimately brought about the destruction of the Second Temple.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/953558/jewish/The-Four-Factions.htm

However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.

https://www.sefaria.org/Yoma.9b.11?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

These divisions were so bad that the Zealots fought against each other during the siege and even destroyed the grain supplies in order to provoke the populace to break the siege against the Romans:

Spurning all overtures for peace, the Zealots inside Jerusalem fought amongst themselves as much as against the Romans, while Titus surrounded the city with a siege wall and simply waited.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/not-one-stone-left-upon-another

The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them.

These three wealthy people offered their assistance. One of them said to the leaders of the city: I will feed the residents with wheat and barley. And one of them said to leaders of the city: I will provide the residents with wine, salt, and oil. And one of them said to the leaders of the city: I will supply the residents with wood. The Gemara comments: And the Sages gave special praise to he who gave the wood, since this was an especially expensive gift. As Rav Ḥisda would give all of the keys [aklidei] to his servant, except for the key to his shed for storing wood, which he deemed the most important of them all. As Rav Ḥisda said: One storehouse [akhleva] of wheat requires sixty storehouses of wood for cooking and baking fuel. These three wealthy men had between them enough commodities to sustain the besieged for twenty-one years.

There were certain zealots among the people of Jerusalem. The Sages said to them: Let us go out and make peace with the Romans. But the zealots did not allow them to do this. The zealots said to the Sages: Let us go out and engage in battle against the Romans. But the Sages said to them: You will not be successful. It would be better for you to wait until the siege is broken. In order to force the residents of the city to engage in battle, the zealots arose and burned down these storehouses [ambarei] of wheat and barley, and there was a general famine.

https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.56a.8?lang=bi

These divisions were only solved afterwards by Gamaliel who was of the school of Hillel:

The guiding principle in all of Gamaliel’s actions is set forth in the words which he spoke on the occasion of his quarrel with Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (B. M. 59b): “Lord of the world, it is manifest and known to Thee that I have not done it for my own honor nor for that of my house, but for Thy honor, that factions may not increase in Israel.” The ends which Gamaliel had in view were the abolition of old dissensions, the prevention of new quarrels, and the restoration of unity within Judaism. To attain these objects he consistently labored to strengthen the authority of the assembly at Jabneh as well as his own, and thus brought upon himself the suspicion of seeking his own glory. His greatest achievement was the termination of the opposition between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, which had survived even the destruction of the Temple. In Jabneh, says tradition (Yer. Ber. 3b; ‘Er. 13b), a voice from heaven (“bat ḳol”) was heard, which declared that, although the views of both schools were justifiable in principle (as “words of the living God”), in practise only the views of Hillel’s school should be authoritative.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6495-gamaliel-ii

In addition to this reason, the Talmud also states that the adherence to just the letter of the law was another reason Jerusalem (and hence the Temple) was destroyed:

Rabbi Yochanan (c. 180-279 CE) avers that Jerusalem was destroyed because the judges established their rulings on the basis of Torah law without going beyond the letter of the law (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 30b). The Talmud sees going beyond the requirements of the law — lifnim mishurat hadin (literally, inside the line of the law) — as a Torah requirement; obeying the strict letter of the law is not enough.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3226583 Lessons Learned from the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple:
How to Truly Make America Great Again, by Hershey H. Friedman

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, an elderly person and it was not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item? Why did he purchase the wood and render it ownerless in order to absolve himself of the obligation to lift the burden if he had no obligation to do so in the first place? The Gemara answers: In the case of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, he conducted himself beyond the letter of the law, and he could have simply refused the request for help.

The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. “And you shall teach them,” that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; “the path,” that is referring to acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that is referring to visiting the ill; “wherein,” that is referring to burial; “and the action,” that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; “that they must perform,” that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.
. . .
It was taught in the baraita: “That they must perform”; that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Jerusalem was destroyed only for the fact that they adjudicated cases on the basis of Torah law in the city. The Gemara asks: Rather, what else should they have done? Should they rather have adjudicated cases on the basis of arbitrary decisions [demagizeta]? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on the basis of Torah law and did not go beyond the letter of the law.

https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.30b.13?lang=bi

The Judaisms at the time where generally tolerant; but to “strain the limits of tolerance with respect to Israel’s identifying symbols and boundary markers was to pose a socio-theological threat” … Persecution arises not because a group holds ideas at variance with the norm, but because it does so in ways that threaten social cohesion” Paul most probably saw the early Christians as representing such a threat, and acted as a zealot, “trying to destroy” their groups (Gal 1,13.23)
. . .
Hence the evidence of fervent zeal present in the works of Philo as demonstrated in the present study is interesting for understanding zeal in the first century CE; as such it is also illuminating when considering the nature of the zeal of the young Saul’s persecutions of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614399?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A0eedbe2137f04ffc7eed4da8013f731c&seq=22#page_scan_tab_contents

In this talk the Sacarii are assumed to be part of the Zealots:

Now, here is a very, very important point. And if you don’t understand this, it’s going to be hard to read the book of Galatians. Christians did not agitate in the Roman Empire. They did not put forward their position to an extent that the Romans would persecute them. The ones who were really the agitators were what were called the Jewish zealots. These Jewish zealots were fierce, like Paul to a certain extent. Even in some ways worse than Paul — were fierce for maintaining the principles of Judaism. There was actually a name for some of them. It was called Sacarii, which is the name of a long knife with a curved blade. This knife was used by these Jewish zealots to actually go into a crowd when there was a great feast and they would just slip that knife into those people who they thought were not holding to the principles of Judaism. And it was a frightening thing. This is the kind of terrorism that we even see today in the Middle East. It seems to be part of the character of the Middle East. But these Jews not only caused trouble in Israel and Palestine but all over the empire. And the Roman Empire in seeing how this agitation was disturbing and causing turmoil in their big cities not only persecuted the Jews but in the process persecuted Christians, as well. And there was this kind of confusion as to what a Christian was. Was he a Jew? Was he a Christian? Jewish Christian? We’re going to see that that confusion was part of the persecution that was significant in the early Christian communities. The emperor you perhaps know in the year 50 expelling the Jews from Rome was Claudius. And Jewish Christians not only were part of the persecution by Romans but — and this is a key point — the Jewish zealots, these Sacarii, were targeting Christians. Because they perceived them as being somewhat Jewish because they were holding to the Old Testament. And yet like Paul because they were no longer believing in circumcision and works of the law, they were considered to be betrayers of the Jewish faith. So here we see a combination of Romans and Jewish zealots persecuting Christians. From 50 until the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70, these Sacarii, these Jewish zealots were causing great difficulties in the church. 

https://media.ctsfw.edu/Item/GetFullText/1213

Interestingly enough, the principles that lead to the rebuilding of the temple relate to things in the teachings of Hillel and later of Jesus.

Hillel said: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah.” Jesus said: “Do unto to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

Hillel said: “Pass not judgment upon thy neighbor until thou hast put thyself in his place.” Jesus said, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” (Luke 6:37)

Hillel said: “Whoever would make a name loses the name… whoever makes use of the crown perishes.” Jesus said: Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.” (Luke 32:33)

In addition, several of Hillel’s general attitudes were similar to those of Jesus, for example his openness to discourse with Gentiles, his emphasis on the spirit of the law over the letter of the law, his humility and gentleness of spirit, and his compassion for the poor. This has led some to speculate that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of Hillel, if not directly, at least through the sayings popularized by Hillel’s school.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hillel_the_Elder

Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089- 1167), philosopher, poet, biblical commentator, highlights that the remedy that will lead to the restoration of the Temple is stated in the verse “You shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3226583 Lessons Learned from the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple:
How to Truly Make America Great Again, by Hershey H. Friedman

Apocalyptic Pharisees, firmly believed that only God could rule over people. They were opposed to violence and preached love and, according to Zeitlin, were the “forerunners of Christianity” (Zeitlin, 1961)

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3226583 Lessons Learned from the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple:
How to Truly Make America Great Again, by Hershey H. Friedman

There is a clear contrast between the house of Shammai, the Zealots/Sicarri, and the people who wanted peace:

Politically, there were Jews that were friendly with Rome, those that were anti-Roman but did not feel that the Jews were strong enough to defeat the Romans, and those that opposed Rome. The Zealots were extremists, who wanted total independence from Rome and were quite willing to go to war; they became active around 6 C.E. The Sicarii used terror tactics and killed anyone who sympathized with Rome. The word sicarii means short dagger in Latin; the Sicarii’s favorite weapon was a short dagger which they concealed in their clothing and used to murder their victims in public places. The Zealots and the Sicarii joined forces to fight the Romans. The rebellion against Rome started in 66 C.E. and ended with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. The Shammaites supported the Zealots and did not want to yield to a foreign power (Jastrow and Mendelsohn, 2002).

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3226583

The few references to the Sicarii in the Talmud already belong to the period of the war itself. First there is the Mishnah (Makhshirim 1:6): “It once happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig-cakes in the water because of the Sicarii, and the sages declared them not susceptible [to ritual uncleanness].” Similarly in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (7 p. 20, version (b), ed. Schechter, 19452): “When Vespasian came and surrounded Jerusalem… the Sicarii took the initiative and set fire to all the granaries.” In Eccles. R. to 7:12 there is mention of Ben Batiaḥ, “the head of the Sicarii in Jerusalem,” and to the same category of information belongs the story of *Abba Sikra, the leader of the biryonim, the son of the sister of Rabban *Johanan b. Zakkai (Git. 56a).

As is evident from the interchange of Sicarii and Zealots (Kanna’im) in the text of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, and as one can also infer from the use of the name Sicarii in Acts, it is by no means certain that in the talmudic passages the word necessarily refers to the Fourth Philosophy and to the adherents of the Galilean dynasty. It is possible that the word is sometimes used more flexibly than in Josephus.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/zealots-and-sicarii

In the year 66, Florus, the last Roman procurator, stole vast quantities of silver from the Temple. The outraged Jewish masses rioted and wiped out the small Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem. Cestius Gallus, the Roman ruler in neighboring Syria, sent in a larger force of soldiers. But the Jewish insurgents routed them as well.

This was a heartening victory that had a terrible consequence: Many Jews suddenly became convinced that they could defeat Rome, and the Zealots’ ranks grew geometrically. Never again, however, did the Jews achieve so decisive a victory.

When the Romans returned, they had 60,000 heavily armed and highly professional troops. They launched their first attack against the Jewish state’s most radicalized area, the Galilee in the north. The Romans vanquished the Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery.

Throughout the Roman conquest of this territory, the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem did almost nothing to help their beleaguered brothers. They apparently had concluded—too late, unfortunately—that the revolt could not be won, and wanted to hold down Jewish deaths as much as possible.

The highly embittered refugees who succeeded in escaping the Galilean massacres fled to the last major Jewish stronghold—Jerusalem. There, they killed anyone in the Jewish leadership who was not as radical as they. Thus, all the more moderate Jewish leaders who headed the Jewish government at the revolt’s beginning in 66 were dead by 68—and not one died at the hands of a Roman. All were killed by fellow Jews.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-great-revolt-66-70-ce (emphasis mine)

This idea of preventing divisions that Judaism took away from this is pretty well summed up in the general background of the story of the Oven of Akhnai in the Talmud:

There are many different themes in the story of the Oven of Akhnai. In the backdrop of the story is the status of Judaism prior to Rabban Gamaliel and the views that developed among the late Pharisaic or early Rabbinic Jews. During the Second Temple period there existed numerous forms of Judaism. Jewish factions during the Second Temple period harshly denounced one another and sometimes were violent towards each other. Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Rabbis pondered why the destruction occurred. The Rabbis concluded that the Second Temple was destroyed due to “baseless hate” (Yoma 9b). In their retelling of the destruction, they point to divisions and a lack of empathy for one another.

The Rabbis under Rabban Gamaliel sought to unify Judaism and end wanton sectarianism. Rabban Gamaliel’s school recognized a degree of validity in varying statements, but chose to follow the more lenient philosophy of the school of Hillel. Jewish leaders like Rabban Gamaliel sought to create a cohesive Jewish community where major issues were settled, a system was in place to decide divisive issues, and minor issues could be tolerated. Rejection of this cooperation and an embrace of sectarianism was condemned in the strongest terms. Rabban Gamaliel himself was known to at times be too forceful in humiliating those who formed divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai#Interpretations

As we have already mentioned, Paul uses a comparison of the covenant of Moab with Sinai to refer to different soteriologies in Romans 10:5-10 which quotes from Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11-14 using it to compare works with faith. I will later argue that Christ being the “end” or “culmination” of the law also fits into this:

1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Romans 10:1-5)

I think why Paul contrasts works of the law to faith is that “faith” (as it is used) is more of an attitude than an individual set of actions. It’s not our own work that saves but our reverence of God’s commands and hence of God that causes God to save us. This is why Jesus answers with the commandments to someone who asks what he must do to inherit eternal life Mark 10:17-19. Right after he says that he has “kept” all these things, implying there was an understanding that reverencing or guarding the commandments lead to eternal life. Jesus’s response implies he agrees with this. This is the opposite of what Israel did with the law in the past. Keil and Delitzsch comment on the meaning of “faith” in Paul’s quotation from Habakkuk:

(from ‘âman, to be firm, to last) firmness (Exodus 17:12); then, as an attribute of God, trustworthiness, unchangeable fidelity in the fulfilment of His promises (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 33:4; Psalm 89:34); and, as a personal attribute of man, fidelity in word and deed (Jeremiah 7:28; Jeremiah 9:2; Psalm 37:3); and, in his relation to God, firm attachment to God, an undisturbed confidence in the divine promises of grace, firma fiducia and fides, so that in ‘ĕmūnâh the primary meanings of ne’ĕmân and he’ĕmı̄n are combined.. . .It is also indisputably evident from the context that our passage treats of the relation between man and God, since the words themselves speak of a waiting (chikkâh) for the fulfilment of a promising oracle, which is to be preceded by a period of severe suffering. “What is more natural than that life or deliverance from destruction should be promised to that faith which adheres faithfully to God, holds fast by the word of promise, and confidently waits for its fulfilment in the midst of tribulation? It is not the sincerity, trustworthiness, or integrity of the righteous man, regarded as being virtues in themselves, which are in danger of being shaken and giving way in such times of tribulation, but, as we may see in the case of the prophet himself, his faith. To this, therefore, there is appended the great promise expressed in the one word יחיה” (Delitzsch). And in addition to this, ‘ĕmūnâh is opposed to the pride of the Chaldaean, to his exaltation of himself above God; and for that very reason it cannot denote integrity in itself, but simply some quality which has for its leading feature humble submission to God, that is to say, faith, or firm reliance upon God.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/habakkuk/3.htm

This matches up with God requiring them to repent and accept their sin but not to start doing everything perfectly:

40 But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors, in that they committed treachery against me and, moreover, that they continued hostile to me— 41 so that I, in turn, continued hostile to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land shall be deserted by them, and enjoy its sabbath years by lying desolate without them, while they shall make amends for their iniquity, because they dared to spurn my ordinances, and they abhorred my statutes. 44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God; 45 but I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God: I am the Lord.
46 These are the statutes and ordinances and laws that the Lord established between himself and the people of Israel on Mount Sinai through Moses.

(Lev 26:14-46)

Summary:

A. “Flesh” is the zealot ideology that Paul clearly refers to himself being in at one time persecuting those of the spirit
B. “Spirit” is a focus heavenly things and not on earthly things like wars and power struggles. Jesus contrasts his kingdom of heaven with a kingdom of this world. The kingdom of heaven was a Hillelite slogan against the kingdom of flesh and blood by the zealots:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36) (emphasis mine)

In addition, Jesus previously has associated those of the “spirit” with his kingdom. In the literature around the time this is associated with followers of Hillel and being opposed to a violent overthrow of the Roman empire which could only result in a kingdom of “flesh and blood”

3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ (John 3:3-7)

The word for “world” he uses “kosmos” in the Greek has the sense of “world system” as well as other things like “evil age” in the following diagram:

While the corresponding Hebrew has the idea of military or wealth:

C. “the letter” (of the law) not mentioned here but “the letter” is used in opposition to “the spirit” of the law in 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Romans 7:6. The letter of the law is in reference to the school of Shammai.

D. “Faith” and “works” are two different ways of relating God and salvation. “Faith” cannot be completely different than “guarding the commandments” since Jesus says this leads to salvation in (Mattthew 19:16-19) but rather is a different way of relating to God and salvation. More will follow on this in the following section.

4. The Meaning of “Under the Law”

Paul did not view being obligated to follow the law as the same as being under the law. Here he claims that he is not under the law but still with the law. Hence he won’t have to face the consequences or penalty of the law but still believes he should follow the law:

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. (1 Corinthians 9:20-21)

In fact, if “under the law” means “required to follow the law” then Jesus contradicts Paul.

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 18 Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.”’ (Mark 10:17-22)

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26 He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ 27 He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ 28 And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’ (Luke 10:25-28)

Matthew includes the statement “which ones” however this is related to the weight of commands and not an abrogation of them since Mathew 5:17-19 talks about none of the commands passing away:

16 Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions. (Matthew 19:16-22 NRSV)

One resolution to this apparent contradiction is that Jesus was meaning to say that keeping the law 100% is impossible and said “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments” to the rich young ruler as sort of a reductio ad absurdum.

This is necessary if you believe that “under the law” and “with the law” are the same because of what Paul says in Galatians:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.(Galatians 2:15-21 NRSV)

One problem I have with this idea is that I don’t think it was ever expected for people to keep the law perfectly–there was atonement given in the law itself. Also, many people are called “righteous” or even “blameless” in the Bible. Paul calls himself “blameless” with regards to the law Philippians 3:6, Zechariah and Elizabeth are called “blameless” with regards to the law as well: Luke 1:6, God tells Abraham to be “blameless” and he will establish his covenant with him: https://studybible.info/interlinear/Genesis%2017:1-2 or “perfect”/”complete” in the corresponding Hebrew https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8549&t=KJV I think these statements are either hyperbole or an assertion that they had done all the discrete works in the law commanded of them–but my point is that it is reasonable for the rich young ruler to assert that he “kept” https://studybible.info/search-interlinear/strongs/G5442 the commandments. “kept” doesn’t even rise to the level of being “blameless” but just to “value” or “guard.”

For more information see this article:

https://hebrewroots.communes.org/2020/07/19/paradoxes-of-poverty-and-salvation/

In addition, it is also stated that Israel would eventually keep the law:

6 Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies and on the adversaries who took advantage of you. 8 Then you shall again obey the Lord, observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today, 9 and the Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all your undertakings, in the fruit of your body, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, just as he delighted in prospering your ancestors, 10 when you obey the Lord your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.

(Deut 30:6-14)

Even in the old testament they were supposed to be under grace: Daniel 9:18; Gen. 6:8; Ex. 33:12, 17; Judges 6:17f; Jer. 31:2. All of Paul’s arguments about “faith” are in fact from Genesis about Abraham or from Habakkuk.

There are many people referred to as righteous in the old testament even though Paul says that no one is justified by law. So I don’t think it makes sense to say that they were ever expected to do everything in the law perfectly all the time or that a proper reading of the Torah would ever lead you to the idea that doing some of the law as an individual would lead to salvation.

So there are a lot of problems with “under the law” meaning “required to do the law.” Under the law means subject to the penalty for sin by the law–which falls on everyone because Paul is referring to people groups as a whole and Israel broke Sinai while the gentiles committed idolatry in Romans 1. Paul says in Romans 3 that the following passages charge Jews and Gentiles with being “under sin” 

1 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” 3 Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? . . . 

9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. 12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. (Romans 2:1-9)

14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. (Romans 2:14-16)

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
. . . 
28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. (Romans 3:25-28)
. . .  

He then asks what advantage the Jews have if they sinned like the Gentiles and quotes from Psalm 51 about asking God to have mercy because of inherent sin. This matches with Sinai being broken for all Israel from the time of birth like in Galatians it says Jesus was “born under law”

1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are justified in your sentence
and blameless when you pass judgment.
5 Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:1-5)

Paul then asks what advantage has the Jew if they all are under sin, and the answer he has is that they know the law which shows he is not making an anti-nomian argument:

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written,

“So that you may be justified in your words,
and prevail in your judging.”

5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved! (Romans 3:1-8)

Comparing this with Romans 3:9 we see this is about charging Jews and Gentiles as being under the power of sin. In addition afterwards in Romans 3:10-23 says that being under the law is being under sin (specifically compare v. 9 with v. 19) So we have a “power of sin” sandwich with “under the law” for bread. This clearly means that being under law is being under sin and hence the penalty of the law for sin which the previous passages have already made clear. This fits the idea of sin bringing death because Israel broke the covenant which promised life because of idolatry, compare the following:

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

10 As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,(Romans 3:9-23)

“. . . the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant that I made with their ancestors” (Jer 11:10)

“She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.” (Jer 3:8)

2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. 4 My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. 5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord. (Lev 18: 1-5)

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. (Deuteronomy 30:15)

This fits with the idea of “result” or “penalty” of the law if we have the idea that sin results in death. Other examples follow where Paul seems to be almost equating under law and under sin, at the very least “under law” must lead to being “under sin” and vice versa since he has stated the whole world is under sin. In this next paragraph we can that Paul parallels living under law with being under sin and contrasts that with grace. If the law was no longer in effect there would be no need for grace. (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13) However he is also talking to believers. If being “not under law” meant that some of the law is done away Paul is introducing a double standard for some people. This distinction wouldn’t make sense since all the people he is writing to believe in Christ. Paul even refers to sin here as “lawlessness.” Clearly Christ is parallel with not sinning and not being under the curses of sin rather than not having any sort of law. If there was no law there would be no need to redeem us from since where there is no law sin is not accounted. Also, note Paul here is mixing together the idea of being redeemed from the curse of the law and also being made righteous. This is the analogy of Israel’s journey to righteousness with the new covenant applied to individuals (which we will discuss later).

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, so we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, so that you obey their desires. 13 No longer present your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that, if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that you who were slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted 18 and that you, having been set free from sin, have become enslaved to righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of your limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness, leading to even more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, leading to sanctification. 20 When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 So what fruit did you then gain from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the fruit you have leads to sanctification, and the end is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:1-23)

Here again he is talking about making Israel righteous through the new covenant (which the promises of Abraham alluded to)

21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith (Gal 3:21-25)

7 What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived 10 and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

13 Did what is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. (Romans 7:7-20)

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” 12 But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— (Galatians 3:10-13)

There were provisions in the law for sacrifices to cover transgressions of it–so transgressions alone wouldn’t mean that they broke the covenant as a whole people. However,–I think–that they broke it by not continuing to reverence or guard it over all:

14 But if you will not obey me, and do not observe all these commandments, 15 if you spurn my statutes, and abhor my ordinances, so that you will not observe all my commandments, and you break my covenant, 16 I in turn will do this to you: I will bring terror on you; consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. (Lev 26:14-16)

For “under” in “under the law” I actually get my interpretation of “under” from Maccabees 7:36 which talks about the results of God’s covenant “everlasting life” this might seem opposite to how Paul uses “under the law”–but the difference is that Maccabees is referring to the whole law including Abraham and Moab which promised to fix Israel’s transgressions return them to the land and give them life.

Here I give some of my sources for the meaning of “under the law” and show that “under” can be interpreted in various ways depending upon what is metaphorically “on top” therefore I think Maccabees 7:36 comes closest to “law” with “covenant” that I could find. For example let’s look at Galatians 4:21

Tell me, ye who are willing to be under G5259 law, the law do ye not hear? (Gal 4:21 YLT)

For “under G5259 law G3551” Paul earlier compares “works of the law”–which is an Essene teaching that one could be justified by keeping certain laws–to the work of Christ. Paul argues against “works of the law” and contrasts it with faith in many different places. Gesenius connects H8478 to G5259 “under” in Greek and lists places when it can be used to designate being under to “authority” for instance “under her husband” means “under the authority of her husband”

Gesenius says:

Prep. below, beneath, under (ὑπό) . . . Of a woman it is said, she commits whoredom, adultery, under her husband, Nu. 5:19; Eze. 23:5, i.e. she commits whoredom who ought to obey the authority of her husband.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8478&t=KJV

In addition Luke 7:8 and Matthew 8:9 clearly make this connection of being “under” someone to being “under the authority of” someone.

8 For I also am a man set under G5259 authority, G1849 with soldiers under G5259 me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” (Luke 7:8 New Revised Standard Version)

9 For I also am a man under G5259 authority, G1849 with soldiers under G5259 me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” (Matthew 8:9 New Revised Standard Version)

Gesenius gives Nu. 5:19 and Eze. 23:5 as examples which both have the context of punishment for the wrong-doing while “under” the husband.

19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. (Numbers 5:19 NRSV)

19 `And the priest hath caused her to swear, and hath said unto the woman, If no man hath lain with thee, and if thou hast not turned aside [to] uncleanness under thy husband, be free from these bitter waters which cause the curse;(Num 5:19 YLT)

19 And [3shall adjure 4her 1the 2priest], and he shall say to the woman, If no one has gone to bed with you, if you have not violated to be defiled being under [2husband 1your own], be innocent from [2by the 3water 4of rebuke 1this accursing]! (Num 5:19 ABP)

Gesenius’s usage in Ezekiel 23 may relate to “consequences” or “power” from doing something while “under” an authority

5 And go a-whoring doth Aholah under Me, And she doteth on her lovers, On the neighbouring Assyrians, (Ezekiel 23:5 YLT)

5 And Aholah fornicated from me, and doted upon her lovers, upon the Assyrians being next to her; (Ezekiel 23:5 ABP)

However, what does it mean to be “under authority?” If we go with this meaning I would suggest it means close to “under power” which is actually the first listed meaning for the word “authority” used in Luke 7:8 and Matthew 8:9 “under G5259 authority, G1849 with soldiers under G5259 me”

G1849

ἐξουσία,-ας+ N1F 0-1-0-39-39=79
2 Kgs 20,13; Ps 113(114),2; 135 (136),8.9; Prv 17,14
power, authority 1 Ezr 4,28; control over [τινος] Ps 135(136),8; permission [+inf.] 1 Mc 11,58; office,
magistracy Dn 3,2; ἐξουσίαι (the) authorities (personification of invisible, angelic powers) DnLXX
7,27
see ἀρχή
Cf. CARAGOUNIS 1986 68-70 (DnLXX 7,27); HORSLEY 1982 83-84; SCHOLTISSEK 1993, 85-88;
→NIDNTT; TWNT

http://www.glasovipisma.pbf.rs/phocadownload/knjige/greek%20lexicon%20for%20the%20septuagint.pdf

In addition, the usage of this word in the new testament seems to fit better with “power” than plain “authority.” See Usage of “authority” (G1849):

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=KJV

After all, what good is authority if you don’t have the power to carry it out? The meaning of “under” seems to depend on what is metaphorically on top.

Compare the following usages of “under” with alternate translations, it seems the meaning of “under” is related to what is metaphorically on top, see the following. I have decided that “under covenant” is the closest parallel to “under law” and is in the book of Maccabees:

Gen 9:2:

2 And the fear of you and trembling will be upon all the wild beasts of the earth, upon all the winged creatures of the heaven, and upon all the things moving upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Under your hands I have given them to you. (Gen 9:2 ABP)

2 The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. (Gen 9:2 NRSV)

Esther 8:13:

. . . to the future, that we may maintain the government in undisturbed peace for all men, adopting [needful] changes, and ever judging those cases which come under [our] notice, with truly equitable decision. . . . (Esther 8:13 Brenton Translation of the Septuagint)

. . . In the future we will take care to render our kingdom quiet and peaceable for all, by changing our methods and always judging what comes before our eyes with more equitable consideration. . . (Esther 8:13 NRSVACE)

Bar 1:12:

And the Lord will give us strength, and lighten our eyes, and we shall live under the shadow of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, and under the shadow of Balthasar his son, and we shall serve them many days, and find favour in their sight. (Baruch 1:12 Brenton Septuagint Translation)

The Lord will give us strength, and light to our eyes; we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and under the protection of his son Belshazzar, and we shall serve them for many days and find favour in their sight. (Bar 1:12 NRSVACE)

2 Maccabees 7:36:

36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of ever-flowing life, under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. (2 Maccabees 7:36 NRSVACE)

For our brethren, who now have suffered a short pain, are dead under God’s covenant of everlasting life: but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. (2 Maccabees 7:36 Brenton Septuagint Translation)

Deuteronomy 33:3:

3 And he spared his people, and all the ones being sanctified by your hands; these [2under 3you 1are]; and he received of his words (Deuteronomy 33:3 ABP)

3 Indeed, O favorite among peoples,
all his holy ones were in your charge;
they marched at your heels,
accepted direction from you. (Deuteronomy 33:3 NRSV)

3 Also He [is] loving the peoples; All His holy ones [are] in thy hand, And they — they sat down at thy foot, [Each] He lifteth up at thy words. (Deuteronomy 33:3 YLT)

Esther 3:6:

6 But he thought it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. (Esther 3:6 NRSV)

6 And he took counsel to remove all [2under 3the 5of Artaxerxes 4kingdom 1the Jews]. (Esther 3:6 ABP)

6 and it is contemptible in his eyes to put forth a hand on Mordecai by himself, for they have declared to him the people of Mordecai, and Haman seeketh to destroy all the Jews who [are] in all the kingdom of Ahasuerus — the people of Mordecai. (Esther 3:6 YLT)

6 and took counsel to destroy utterly all the Jews who were under the rule of Artaxerxes. (Esther 3:6 Brenton)

The closest I could find to being under “law” in the Greek Septuagint was in 2 Maccabees 7:36 which speaks of dying “under (God’s) covenant” i.e. ὑπὸ διαθήκην (θεοῦ). The result or consequence of dying while “under God’s covenant” is “everlasting life.”

hypó, hoop-o’; G5259 example usage in the Septuagint:

For our brethren, who now have suffered a short pain, are dead under God’s covenant of everlasting life: but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. (2 Maccabees 7:36 Brenton Septuagint Translation)

36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of ever-flowing life, under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. (2 Maccabees 7:36 NRSV)

 

ὑπό+ P 61-42-43-140-212=498
Gn 9,2; 16,9; 18,4.8; 19,8
[τινος]: by (with a pass. verbal form indicating the agent) Gn 26,29; from Ps 73(74),22; under, in (indicating reason) Jb 30,4; under Jb 8,16

[τι, τινα]: under (with verb of motion) 1 Mc 6,46; under (place) Gn 18,8; under, at the foot of Ex 24,4; under (in geogr. sense) Dt 3,17; beyond Ex 3,1; about (time) Jos 5,2; little before Jon 4,10; in the course of, during 3 Mc 7,12; under (as subordination) 1 Ezr 3,1; under, in the hand of 2 Mc 3,6; under (reason) Ex 23,5 ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν under heaven, on earth Ex 17,14; ὑπὸ τὴν ὄψιν under (our) notice Est 8,12i; ὑπὸ χεῖρας in (your) hands Gn 9,2; ὑπὸ τὴν σκιάν in the shadow Bar 1,12; ὑπὸ διαθήκην (θεοῦ) under (God’s) covenant 2 Mc 7,36; ὑπὸ φόρον under tribute 1 Mc 8,2; ὑπὸ καιρόν within the space of one day 2 Mc 7,20; ὑφ’ ἕν at one stroke Wis 12,9
Cf. DORIVAL 1994, 56; JOHANNESSOHN 1910 1-82; 1926 174-184; →NIDNTT

http://www.glasovipisma.pbf.rs/phocadownload/knjige/greek%20lexicon%20for%20the%20septuagint.pdf

Summary: Paul says not being under the law is not the same as being without the law, he also says all who under the law are under the penalty of the law for sin. Israel was always under grace in the old testament and has prophecies to have God help them “keep” the law. There is nothing that Paul is saying to contradict this and there are many problems with the idea that Jesus was issuing a reductio ad absurdem for not being able to follow the law perfectly–rather he was just saying to keep/guard the commandments. To say that he is contradicts with what we know about first century Judaism and what is said in the old testament, while to say that under the law is the same as obligated to follow the law introduces a contradiction between Jesus and Paul. There are serious problems with all the views presented except for the idea of “under the law” meaning “under the result” or “under the penalty” of the law. This has been positively argued for with the only parallel I have found of under “law” or covenant in Maccabees. In addition “under covenant” fits with Paul’s usage of “under law” in that he is speaking of the specific covenant of Sinai.

5. What is “Works of the Law?”

It is a concept related to Essene teaching that you were justified by certain acts of following the law mostly related to ideas of purity. However, (in Essene thought) the acts of purity would distinguish you from the nations and allow God to save you by grace. Judaism mostly did not believe in salvation by works (see E. P. Sanders “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”) but in your works distinguishing you from the nations and allowing God to save you. Paul seems to argue this is basically the same thing as works:

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

(Romans 4:4-5)

“The topic of the work is reflected in the phrase tohorat haqodesh, “the purity of the holy.” Stated simply: “Do not allow the holy to be profaned by what is impure.”

“The issues include bringing Gentile corn into the Temple, the presentation of Gentile offerings, and the cooking of sacrificial meat in unfit (impure) vessels. Other rulings concern cleansing of lepers, admitting the blind and the deaf into the Temple; and permitting intermarriage with Ammonite and Moabite converts, long forbidden to enter the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). Other issues involve the transmission of impurity by a flow of water (musaq), the intermixture of wool and linen (sha‘atnez), plowing with diverse animals (qilayyim) and perhaps the climax of the discussion: the intermarriage of priests with the common people.

“Most of the rulings espoused by the author of MMT are based directly upon Biblical law (for example, the prohibition against plowing with unlike animals in Deuteronomy 22:10). A few others are interpretations or amplifications of Mosaic prescriptions (for example, bans on Gentile offerings and dogs in the Temple). The list clearly reflects a conservative reaction against a relaxation of Torah precepts.”

http://www.sabbathreformation.com/article-paul-works-of-the-law-and-mmt-118800746.html

1) Paul’s έργων νόμου “works of the law,” Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16 [trs]; 3:2, 5 10) is likely a translation of מעשי התורה, found in all of ancient Hebrew literature only at 4QMMT C 27 (4Q398 14-17 ii 3). . . .

2) 4QMMT C 27 also echoes the languages of Gal. 3:6b where Paul quotes Gen 15:6 and argues that righteousness is reckoned on the bases of faith. The Qumran writer posits righteousness on the bases of works of the law.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193122 (pg. 1)

In addition it appears highly likely that Paul was reacting to a position that was espoused in 4QMMT by the Qumran covenanters, namely, that a person was reckoned righteous by keeping “works of the law.“

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193122 (pg.2)

Paul is not against works but against works for the purpose of salvation through identity. Also interestingly Dunn agrees with the idea that Paul is speaking of a subset of the law which included circumcision:

Dunn provides a coherent framework for both Paul’s positive statements about the law and his negative statements. It was not the law itself which Paul criticized, but rather its misuse as a social barrier. This misuse of the law is what Paul means by the term “the works of the law”:

‘Works of law’, ‘works of the law’ are nowhere understood here, either by his Jewish interlocutors or by Paul himself, as works which earn God’s favor, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what mark out the Jews as God’s people;…in other words, Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls ‘covenantal nomism.’ And what he denies is that God’s justification depends on ‘covenantal nomism,’ that God’s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant.

The “badges” or “works” particularly at issue were those of circumcision and food laws, not simply human efforts to do good. The ramifications of this observation for traditional Protestantism are far-reaching:

More important for Reformation exegesis is the corollary that ‘works of the law’ do not mean ‘good works’ in general, ‘good works’ in the sense disparaged by the heirs of Luther, works in the sense of achievement….In short, once again Paul seems much less a man of sixteenth-century Europe and much more firmly in touch with the reality of first-century Judaism than many have thought.

Dunn also emphasizes the ramifications for the traditional dichotomy between faith and works:

We should not let our grasp of Paul’s reasoning slip back into the old distinction between faith and works in general, between faith and ‘good works’. Paul is not arguing here for a concept of faith which is totally passive because it fears to become a ‘work’. It is the demand for a particular work as the necessary expression of faith which he denies.

https://academic.logos.com/a-summary-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul/

You can see an example of how works of law and flesh is contrasted with works to righteousness, faith, spirit, promise, freedom, or salvation. This has already been apparent from previous quotations but may be worth going over with this new focus:

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” 12 But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal 3:10-14 NKJV)

Here Paul sets up the analogy of Galatians 4 by first saying that God’s covenant cannot be annulled which would include the law. It is interesting that a lot of people view Paul as saying the old covenant is done away with when Paul actually uses a kal vachomer argument to say that if a covenant by man cannot be annulled then a covenant by God certainly cannot be annulled:

15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. . . . the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. (Gal 3:15-18)

15 Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ. 17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, (Gal 3:15-25)

Here again Paul makes it clear that works of the law put you under the law, showing that it is a false soteriology of justification by certain works of the law rather than the law itself since he just said that God’s covenants cannot be annulled. Rather Paul is using the broken law at Sinai as an analogy for this false soteriology because Sinai brings death without grace (since it was broken) and because you need the grace of the new covenant to get the blessings of Sinai:

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.
. . . 

21 Tell me, you who desire to be [under the law], will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
than the children of the one who is married.”

28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.” 31 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman.

1 For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.

6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.

. . . 
17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not [under the law].

(Gal 4:4-5:5 changed to be consistently translating the Greek words for “under the law”)

I think argue from this that, works doesn’t just refer to the law itself. since these ideas of purity in “works of the law” were not actually specified in the Torah–nor do I think it was the intention. The intention of the law was to keep Israel separate (it calls them to be a separate/holy people) according to their actions and behavior but Israel had no immigration laws. Certain people weren’t allowed to be in Israel without accepting God (Deuteronomy 23:1-9) However, once you accepted the God of Israel you were considered an Israelite. Ruth was a Moabite and was on the list of people in Deuteronomy 23 that could not enter into Israel–yet when she accepts God she is considered an Israelite

In the ancient world, Paula Fredriksen observes, “gods really did run in the blood. Put differently: cult, as enacted and as imagined defined ethnicity”

The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism pg xiv

The Moabites are also referred to as “the people of chemosh” Numbers 21:29 for example and “chemosh” was the god they worshipped:

11 But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. 12 May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!” (Ruth 2:11-12)

Compare with:

. . . your people shall be my people,
and your God my God. (Ruth 1:16)

So, “under the law” means figuratively–“under the result” or under the punishments of the Sinai law–if it weren’t to be fixed by the prophecies in the covenant’s of Abraham and Moab that point to Christ. This is used as an analogy for the purity oriented “works of the law” which focused on nationality and outward appearance rather than inward matters of the heart. These distinctions are necessary in order to avoid a contradiction because it seems that Jesus endorses salvation by law elsewhere–I would just add that “keep the commandments” seems to mean “guard” or “cherish” which is different than wrote observance:

And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17)

In addition, Jesus restates the love command in the law “love your neighbor as yourself” through his example: (it was common for Jewish teacher’s to restate commandments in the Torah with their own interpretation as their own commandments–getting this from David Bivin)

34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)

He even makes reference to his father’s commandments:

10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. (John 15:10-14)

I think Christ’s teachings focused on weightier matters of the law and his interpretation was light on purity issues or issues of outward appearance. Compare Christ’s description of himself with his description of of the other teachers of the law:

28 “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. (Matthew 23:4)

There’s no “work” that can be summed up as “loving your neighbor” therefore it is impossible for the law as a whole to be completely works orientated–which I think also helps resolve this potential contradiction.

Summary: works of the law is a false soteriology of justification by keeping certain boundary markers. 

6. Paul’s Use of Israel’s Covenant Breaking and Redemption:

Israel broke the covenant which promised life:

“. . . the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant that I made with their ancestors” (Jer 11:10)

She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. (Jer 3:8)

2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. 4 My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. 5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord. (Lev 18: 1-5)

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. (Deuteronomy 30:15)

As I showed before there were provisions in the law for sacrifices to cover transgressions of it–so transgressions alone wouldn’t mean that they broke the covenant as a whole people but rather a failure to reverence it.

Later it sums up the effects of the law by saying: (also note the associating of loving God with obeying his commandments)

15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess.
(Deuteronomy 30:15-19)

The covenant of Moab predicts they would break the law and prophecies that God would cause Israel to follow the law and be his people again

…Then you shall again obey the Lord, observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today… (Deuteronomy 30:8)

This is the same promise as Jeremiah 31:31-37 where he says he will write the law on their hearts and make them a nation again in their own land (reuniting the house of Judah and Ephraim) Ezekiel also refers to the same thing:

25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. 28 Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

This was to fulfill what God promised Abraham and hence why Paul uses the connection to the Abrahamic covenant:

It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is dispossessing them before you, in order to fulfill the promise that the Lord made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob (Deuteronomy 9:5)

And this is the reason the holy spirit was sent–as a down payment for the promises of Abraham:

20 For in him every one of God’s promises is a “Yes.” For this reason it is through him that we say the “Amen,” to the glory of God. 21 But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, 22 by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment. (2 Corinthians 1:20-22)

5 He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . . 13 In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14 this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:5-14)

Similarly, Jason Staples explains: (in a response to a comment on his blog about how to translate Romans 10:4)

Good question. This is a very difficult and controversial verse, as the word telos can mean a range of things, including “goal,” “end,” “culmination,” “climax,” etc.

I think the verse is best translated “For Christ is the culmination of the law for righteousness in everyone who trusts.”

What Paul’s referring to here is that Christ’s death and subsequent sending of the spirit has enabled righteousness in those who put their trust in Jesus, facilitating the righteousness the prophets had promised God would grant to Israel (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31–34, Ezek 36:24, Deut 30:1–10). That’s why he proceeds to explain that Jesus is the “one who does these things” and thereby lived by them—the resurrection is the proof that Jesus is the righteous one of the Torah, and it’s why he then quotes Deut 30 to explain that those who believed Israel needed to be sufficiently righteous to bring the messiah had things backwards—it’s not that Israel’s righteousness would bring the messiah, it’s that the messiah came to make Israel righteous.
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/paul-never-says-by-faith-alone/

Essentially the prophecies in the covenant of Moab and promises of Abraham fix the rest of the covenant(s) (including Sinai) which were broken–and enable Israel to obtain the blessings of those covenants (life). The prophecies in Moab and the promises of Abraham are similar in this regard (and both point to Christ and his sending of the holy spirit in John 16:7). The importance of this in Paul’s writing will be shown later.

7. The Corporate Nature of God’s Salvation for Israel and Hence Us

We are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel Ephesians 2:12-13. In addition Israel is a priesthood to the world (Exodus 19:5-6) (1 Peter 2:5-9) and hence they can be said to carry God’s redemption to the nations. (compare Isaiah 42:6-7, Deuteronomy 4:5-8) Similarly Adam was a priest as Christ is a priest being the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-48) If something goes wrong with Israel’s relationship with God it effects the whole world–just as Adam’s sin and Christ’s sacrifice have consequences for everyone. One example of this type of corporate non-individualist thinking appears in the prayer that Daniel makes for Israel in Daniel 9 where he confesses Israel’s sins as if they are his own.

Hence, Paul is often not speaking to people as individuals but people as part of Israel and God’s people in the greater historical context. One example of this is in Romans 1-3. Here specifically he groups Jews together with the nation of Israel throughout history:

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1-2)

He also seems to group Israel and the nations together and say they are both collectively guilty. The nations for idolatry despite the witness of nature and Israel for committing that same idolatry despite the witness of the law. This is thinking that seems to be prevalent in the Bible and hence Israel’s particular tribal culture. 

This isn’t to say we are collectively guilty for things, just that the consequences of that sin unfortunately still do affect us–just like someone might have a bad childhood out of no fault of their own and be effected by the sins of their parents. For more details so Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible by Joel S. Kaminsky.

8. Paul Uses Israel’s Journey as an Analogy for Our Own.

Paul speaking corporately says:

30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (Romans 9:30-33)

While Paul speaking individually says the same of Christ in our lives redeeming us from the curse of the law:

1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during that person’s lifetime? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.

4 In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. (Romans 7:1-6)

I think the reason Paul uses the analogy of the Sinai covenant for “works of law”–is that justifying yourself through the Sinai covenant is bound to fail since Israel has already broken the law as a whole and Israel is a priesthood to the world. If something goes wrong with Israel’s relationship with God it affects the whole world–just as Adam’s sin and Christ’s sacrifice have consequences for everyone. God’s plan is actually to cause Israel to follow the law by writing it on their hearts (Jer 31:31-33)

However, in contrast to the Sinai covenant, the Covenant of Moab in Deuteronomy 30 (which Paul contrasts in Romans 10:5-10 which quotes from Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11-14) and the Abrahamic covenant that Paul contrasts with Sinai in Galatians 4 and Galatians 3:10-14 promised a fix. The Abrahamic and Moab covenants prophesied to fix the brokenness of the covenant by God’s action–based on God’s promises and not based on the acts of man.

It’s not that Israel’s righteousness would bring the messiah, it’s that the messiah came to make Israel righteous.”
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/paul-never-says-by-faith-alone/

Paul often uses the idea that the law brings death and knowledge of sin which allows Israel to accept grace and life under the new covenant. Paul seems to apply this idea to individuals in these passages using crucifixion as analogous with death and life in the new covenant as analogous with Israel’s and our righteousness/justification by faith. Essentially our failure to keep the law (similar to Israel) makes us aware of our need for grace and allows us to be humble and accept it–we have faith in God and his grace and practice the law in thankfulness for being saved, rather than rely on the law itself:” Here is another example of Paul using the journey of Israel to speak to individuals. Observe the first quote which is corporate:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.(Gal 2:15-21)

Now right after he uses it in a more individualistic way:

23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:21-26)

Similarly Paul speaks in a corporate way here:

12 and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is [those] of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.

16 For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to [those] of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, (Romans 4:12-16)

Compare this with the more individualistic statements:

1 What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11)

Note the following is corporate even more than talking about people raised in Judaism. It is about the Jewish people throughout history. It is even more corporate than using circumcision literally for being circumcised on the eighth day and therefore growing up as Jewish:

25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

(Romans 2:25-3:2 emphasis mine)

So in summary Galatians and Romans are often using “law” for “Sinai law” or “Sinai covenant.” Paul is not comparing the “old” and “new” covenants there but the unconditional-blessings given to Abraham with conditional-blessings at Sinai (which Israel broke). He’s using the covenant of Abraham as an analogy for repenting and accepting mercy (Jeremiah 3:12-14) with the work of Christ and grace compared with justifying yourself through “works of law” and being susceptible to Sinai curses: Gal 3:16-18, Gal 3:10-12, Deuteronomy 27:26. Likewise in Romans 10:5-10 Paul compares the Moab covenant to Sinai with quotes from Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11-14. Some Jewish tradition considers Sinai lacking and hence the need for Moab: https://www1.biu.ac.il/indexE.php?id=15430&pt=1&pid=14638&level=0&cPath=43,14206,14376,14638,15430 Paul uses a similar analogy in Galatians 4:21~.

Essentially the promises of Abraham and the prophecies at Moab fix the deficiencies of the covenant of Sinai–since Sinai didn’t have provisions to make the people righteous. Sinai was broken not because it was a bad covenant–it just didn’t have the ability to make the people not rebellious–unlike the work of the holy spirit (sent by Christ, promised to Abraham, and prophecied at Moab). The consequences of breaking Sinai are death but Moab and Abraham’s covenant point to Christ who will enable Israel (through his sending of the holy spirit) to keep the law and intercede for the nations also grafting us into their commonwealth. This is also why Jesus can say “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” but Paul in Galatians can say that we not justified by works of the law (Galatians 2:15-21) The meaning of “keep” is different than “do perfectly” and the “works of the law” is in the context of purity observances that don’t touch the weightier matters of attitude like “love your neighbor” or “love God” In addition “law” is being used to refer to “Sinai covenant” which without the promises would lead to death on it’s own.