The expression ‘the works of law’ (lit. ‘works of law’; NIV: ‘Observing the law’) occurs eight times in Paul’s writings:

Gal 2:16 – We know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 3:2 Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?

Gal 3:5 Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?

Gal 3:10 All who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”

Rom 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

The phrase in question has been understood in several different ways.

1. Some think, because the definite article is lacking, that ‘law’ is meant in its most general sense.

But, as Wilson observes:

‘To the Jewish mind there was only one law, and that was the law which God had given them through his servant Moses.’

2. Others think Paul is referring to works done by the law.  Such works generated by the law cannot justify, because they are evil.  But the works required by God’s law are not bad, but good.

3. Still others think that the expression refers to legalism.  ‘The works of the law’ are intended, it is maintained, to commend the doer to God, whereas salvation due to divine grace, not human merit.

‘He understandeth by the law, not the whole doctrine delivered by Moses upon Mount Sinai; for the law, being so taken, was a covenant of grace, as appeareth from the preface and promises of the decalogue, and from the ceremonial law, which shadowed forth Christ and remission of sins through him, Heb 10:4,8,9; so that believers under the Old Testament may be said to have been justified, and to have had righteousness by the law in this sense: for it implieth no further than that they were justified according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, is it was wrapped up in that ancient legal dispensation.  The apostle therefore takes the law more strictly, and in the sense of his adversaries, for the mere precepts and threatenings of the law, as it requires perfect obedience, and curseth those who have it not, abstracting from Christ and grace, which were held forth (though but obscurely) in it; for in that sense his adversaries maintained justification by the law; and therefore the apostle, while he refuteth justification by the law, must be understood to speak of the law in the same sense also, which sometimes he clearly expresseth, while he explaineth his meaning by denying we are justified by the works of the law, v16 and Gal 3:5, 10.’ (Ferguson)

Timothy George objects:

‘Paul’s strictures against “the works of the law” cannot be understood as merely a condemnation of legalism…Paul did not contrast faith to legalism but rather faith to works. His point was that no human deeds, however well motivated and sincerely performed, can ever achieve the kind of standing before God that results in the verdict of justification.’

4. Advocates of the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’ maintain that these ‘works’ are the boundary-markers that separated Jews from Gentiles.

Garlington (quoting Dunn):

‘Stated simply, “the works of the law” have reference to “the obligations laid upon the Israelites by virtue of their membership of Israel,” whose purpose was “to show covenant members how to live within the covenant”.’

Dunn writes:

‘”‘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.”‘

Hansen thinks that Paul is referring to distinctively Jewish practices:

‘In the context of Paul’s account of the disputes at Jerusalem (vv. 3–6) and Antioch (vv. 11–14), the phrase observing the law refers to circumcision and the Jewish purity laws. The Jewish people were identified by their observance of these laws. So what Paul is denying in this context is that identification with the Jewish people through observance of these distinctively Jewish practices is not the basis of membership in the covenant people of God. Paul is appealing to the common affirmation of Jewish Christians themselves that believing in Christ Jesus, not following “Jewish customs” (v. 14*), is the basis of being justified.’

Timothy George finds this view inadequate:

‘It is true that Paul stood against the exclusivism of Jewish Christians at Antioch whose loyalty to a particularist culture led to segregation from their Christian brothers. It is also true that circumcision, and to a lesser extent Sabbath keeping and food laws, were prominent features of the crisis in Galatia. By Paul’s own witness, however, “works of the law” cannot be restricted to these three issues. As he would later tell the Galatians, circumcision implies an obligation to obey the whole law, and, moreover, the curse of the law will fall with equal weight on everyone who does not persevere in all of the commandments of the law (Gal 5:3; 3:10).’

In Rom 3:20, the expression ‘the works of [the] law has usually been understood to refer to anything that has been done in obedience to God’s law. However, Dunn has suggested that the ergoon nomou (works of the law) refer to those Jewish practices that marked them out as God’s people, i.e. circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of feasts.  But it would seem from the context that

‘when Paul concluded that no one will be justified by works of the law (3:20), this was because even the Jews who had the law failed to observe its requirements, and it was not their failure to practice circumcision, to obey food laws, or observe the Sabbath that he had in mind. The failure he highlighted was their failure in the moral area.’ (Kruse)

5. A further view is that the expression refers to the entire law and the actions required by it.  These include, but are not limited to, the  Jewish ‘boundary markers’ just mentioned.  This is the view of Schreiner (40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law; see also his article in DPL and other writings).

Seifrid adopts a similar view:

‘We may think of ‘works of the law’ in general terms as including adherence to the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, idolatry and the like, along with circumcision, Sabbath-keeping and food laws (cf. Rom. 2:17–24).’ (Christ, Our Righteousness)

Nevertheless, writes Seifrid,

‘Paul obviously regards the ‘works of the law’ as bearing an ethnic and national significance. Only a Jew may boast in ‘the works of the law’ or be identified as one who is ‘of the works of the law’. It was by ‘works’ that Israel vainly sought to establish its righteousness before God (Rom 9:30–10:3). Clearly, then, Paul rejects these works as markers of ‘religio-national’ identity, i.e. as signs of the people who are righteous, and not merely as signs of national privilege.’

Timothy George, similarly:

‘The “works of the law,” then, refer to the commandments given by God in the Mosaic legislation in both its ceremonial and moral aspects, precepts commanded by God and thus holy and good in themselves. Because of the fallenness of human beings, however, “no flesh” could ever be justified by observing the law.’

This is also the view of deSilva:

‘While works of the law such as circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance may be foremost on Paul’s mind as he remembers Antioch and addresses Galatia, Paul does not limit his understanding of the phrase “works of the law” to these markers of Jewish distinctiveness. Paul considers Torah as a whole throughout this letter, pointing out its indivisibility (Gal 5:3).’