Works of Flesh/Of Law

Martinus de Boer argues in his Galatians commentary that while “the expression ‘the works of the flesh’ . . . is reminiscent of the expression ‘works of the law,’” they are not equivalent. In fact, they aren’t grammatically parallel at all:

“whereas the works of the law are the deeds required by the Mosaic law . . . the works of the Flesh are the deeds, or activities, caused by the flesh, here conceived of as a malevolent cosmic power that has come to determine the course and the character of human life in a malignant way. . . . Through his choice of words Paul, here as elsewhere in Galatians, intimates an unholy alliance between the Flesh and the law.” Far from being a solution to the works of the flesh, the demands of the law are “part of the problem” in that “the law is a tool used by the Flesh, or by Sin . . . to increase and solidify its hegemony over human beings” (357-8).

This is, I think, nearly right. It’s certainly the case that the Flesh or Sin commandeers the law to its own purposes, bringing death and condemnation. Where I think de Boer fails is in not pursuing the grammatical equivalence of the two phrases. Both, I suggest, are subjective genitive phrases; both are about “causation”: The works of the law are the deeds that the law provokes when it is given to people who are dominated by flesh, and hence the works of the law are, in practice, identical to the works of the flesh. This is why Paul’s list of the erga tes sarkos in Galatians 5 so closely resembles the charges against the Jews in Romans 2 (implicitly also in Romans 1).