THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN GALATIANS 3:19-25
In his epistle to the Galatians, the apostle Paul is writing, as would a father to a wayward child. The Galatians have turned away from the faith of Christ, to a false gospel. He writes not only rebuke them in their error, but also to correct the problem by encouraging them to remain in the true faith. Paul spends a great deal of time in the early chapters of his letter telling the Galatians what the true gospel is and where it came from.
The great offence on the part of the Galatians is that they have forsaken justification by faith in Christ alone and turned to the Jewish law of circumcision for their justification before God. Paul had preached his gospel to them beforehand, they had accepted it as truth, and now they were being led astray to something that was not what Paul preached. Apparently there were false teachers among the churches of Galatia who were preaching this false gospel. In response to this, Paul begs an appropriate question of the Galatian Christians; ejnarxavmenoi pneuvmati nu'n sarki; ejpitelei'sqe—having begun by the Spirit, are you now being completed by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3). Paul questions them so as to point out to them the error of being set free from the law in Christ and then supposing to go back to the slavery of it for the living out of the Christian life. If the Galatians had indeed “begun by the Spirit,” then it logically followed that they should continue in the Spirit rather than turn to the Jewish law. Paul warned them of the curse of attempting to be justified by the law; ejpikatavrato" pa'" o}" oujk ejmmevnei pa'sin toi'" gegrammevnoi" ejn tw'/ biblivw/ tou' novmou tou' poih'sai aujtav (Gal. 3:10). So Paul asserts boldly, ejn novmw/ oujdei;" dikaiou'tai para; tw'/ qew,'—by the law no one will be justified before God (Gal. 3:11).
Paul’s argument here is that justification comes by faith in Christ, not by works of the law. Those who have received Christ by faith have received the promise made to Abraham through the offspring of Abraham, that is Christ. So, in light of this, it is foolish for the Galatians to suppose that they may be justified by works of the law, when the law has nothing to do with the promise made by God to Abraham. The promise was by faith from the beginning, and the law did not come until later, so it had no bearing on the promise already made, the covenant God ratified with Abraham. Paul declares in verse 17 that the novmo" does not cancel a diaqhvkhn prokekurwmevnhn uJpo; tou' qeou', neither does it nullify the ejpaggeliva, the promise made to Abraham. The law came 430 years after the covenant ratified by God, and so it has no effect on the promise made to Abraham. So for Jew and Gentile alike, it is foolish to trust in the law to bring about justification before God when the promise of God’s grace is by faith and has always been by faith.
The question then remains: Tiv ou\n oJ novmo"—why then the law (Gal. 3:19)? If the promise of justification comes by faith and has been such since the covenant made to Abraham, what was the purpose of the law? Why did God give the law to Moses? Why did the law serve such a prominent role in Jewish history? The law, as Paul will show was given to serve a temporary role in salvation history, and would be rendered invalid at the coming of faith in Christ. Paul shows how the law was inferior to the promise in that the law could not give life, was given indirectly from God to humans by the hands of mediators, and that the law was a guardian in charge of keeping or imprisoning people under sin. On the other hand the promise of Christ that is by faith gives life and justification apart from the law.
Paul’s answer to the question of the law’s purpose, in short, is that the law was given tw'n parabavsewn cavrin—because of transgressions. BDAG remarks that the law was given in the interest of transgressions or for their sake; the purpose of the law was to make sins possible and readily apparent.[1] In this view, the law was added (prosetevqh) to the revelation of the promise of God to Abraham in order to make sins knowable and visible to the people of God, a view which is consistent with other Pauline texts such as Romans 3:20; 5:13, and 7:7. The law was added to “reveal”[2] transgressions.
The law surely served in this capacity, but it also served to multiply, even provoke sins. Ronald Y. K. Fung suggests that the use of cavrin indicates the purpose of the law, not its cause. In other words, the law was not added because of transgressions in the sense that God added the law in response to the existence of sin. No, the law was added with a specific purpose in mind for its existence, something that Paul will explain further throughout Galatians 3, and also something he illustrates in other texts his letters. The law then served a negative role rather than a positive one.[3]
Richard N. Longenecker remarks, in opposition to Fung’s position, that the law was added simply to bring the knowledge of sin. He completely rejects the notion of the law provoking or multiplying transgressions, seeing no reason for God desiring to increase sin before the coming of the Messiah.[4]
Both Fung and Longenecker agree, however that the law served a specific purpose in the history of redemption, but was only temporary. The law served its purpose a[cri" ou| e[lqh/ to; spevrma w|/ ejphvggeltai—until the seed to whom the promise had been made should come. The word a[cri" used with the relative pronoun ou| simply means until, denoting the extent of time[5] in which the law will serve its purpose. The law was given a role in history up until the time that the seed, the offspring of Abraham, should come to whom the promise of Abraham had been made. That seed is Christ (v. 16).
Paul says that the law was ordered through angels—diatagei;" di j ajggevlwn, by the hand of a mediator—ejn ceiri; mesivtou. Apparently, Yahweh used his angels to give the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, who would in turn give the law to the people of Israel. J. B. Lightfoot notes that there was a two-fold mediation from God to the people: the angels between Yahweh and Moses, and Moses between the angels and the people. Lightfoot makes the comparison between the law, which was not given directly by God to the people, and Christ who came directly from God to mankind, with no mediator between the two parties but himself, who is God in flesh.[6] Paul posits the idea of angelic mediation here to illustrate the superiority of the covenant of promise over the covenant of the law.[7]
In verse 20, Paul explains that the fact that the law was given through mediation implies that it was a contract between two parties, Yahweh and Israel, both of which must keep their end of the bargain for the covenant to remain in effect.[8] The ESV translates oJ de; mesivth" eJno;" oujk e[stin, “an intermediary implies more than one” (Gal. 3:20, ESV). So there was more than one party involved in the covenant the law, but God, who made the promise to Abraham and swore to uphold it is one—oJ de; qeo;" ei|" ejstin. DeV here is meant as a contrast between the former statement and the later. There is then a contrast between the law, which was dependent on two parties, and the promise of Abraham, which is dependent on God alone who had sworn to uphold it. In other words the law was contingent, but the promise is absolute and unconditional.[9] God is one (Deut. 6:4), and the promise is built on and depends on his character and power alone.
At this point the contrast between the law and the promise has been so strong that Paul deals with an obvious question: oJ ou\n novmo" kata; tw'n ejpaggeliw'n[10] tou' qeou'—is the law then against the promises of God? It is easy to see why this question should be asked. If the law came 430 years after the covenant made with Abraham, and could not nullify the promise of God, and was only added multiply transgressions among God’s people, then it seems that it worked against the covenant of grace. Did the law then “take the place of”[11] the promise so as to bring justification apart from the promise? The apostle emphatically counters mh; gevnoito—may it never be!
Paul explains that if a law had been given that was able to give life—eij ga;r ejdovqh novmo" oJ dunavmeno" zw/opoih'sai, then righteousness would certainly be available ejk novmou—by the law. So in other words, if it were possible to obtain the righteousness of God by works of any law, then the law of Moses would have indeed been kata; tw'n ejpaggeliw'n tou' qeou'—against the promises of God. The promise of God was by faith—ejk pivstew" (v. 11), and the law was in no way contrary to the promise because the law could not produce righteousness. The participle oJ dunavmeno" is attributive to novmo", meaning the able law to put it woodenly, i.e. a law that was able zw/opoih'sai—to give life, or the able to give life law. As will be seen in the next verse, this was not that kind of law. The if/then construction in this verse is known as a second-class condition, or a condition contrary to the fact.[12] If there were such a thing as a law that could bring life and justification before God, which there is not, then the Law of Moses would indeed have produced righteousness in its adherents. Because there is no such thing as this kind of law, then the law only kills; it does not give life. It does not help; it just leaves one helpless. It does not deliver from sin; it simply keeps one locked in sin.
Rather than the law being able to give life and righteousness, the scripture has imprisoned all things—sunevkleisen hJ grafh; ta; pavnta under sin—uJpo; aJmartivan. BDAG suggests that all things were “locked in” under the “power of sin.”[13] Paul may have in mind a specific scripture, namely Deuteronomy 27:26. This would be consistent with Paul’s use of grafh; throughout his epistles. However, it may be the case that Paul is departing here from his usual use of grafh; and using the singular “scripture” to refer to the Old Testament as a whole. It seems that Paul’s case cannot be clearly deducted from the Deuteronomy passage or any other single passage, but it can be drawn out of the whole of Old Testament witness.[14] Paul has the scripture actually doing what it declares to have been done.[15] Scripture can be seen as the magistrate responsible for holding prisoners. Fung remarks that Paul is here equating the scriptures with God himself as the subject, the imprisoning agent.[16] This is a bold assertion, that Yahweh, by his word would imprison his people under the power and control of sin. This is similar to what is said in Romans 11:32: sunevkleisen ga;r oJ qeo;" tou;" pavnta" eij" ajpeivqeian—for God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience. God has locked everyone up in subjection to sin and its condemnation, offering them no way of escape through the law.[17]
What the law accomplished then was imprisonment and bondage. If the purpose of the law was to imprison, the purpose of the imprisonment was freedom—i{na hJ ejpaggeliva ejk pivstew" jIhsou' Cristou' doqh'/ toi'" pisteuvousin. The law imprisoned the Jews[18] so that the promise of Abraham might be given by faith to those who believe. At first thought this sounds absurd. However, God’s plan was to use Israel as a depository of the gospel of Christ in order to reconcile the world to himself.
Verse 23 explains that before the coming of faith, or before faith came—Pro; tou' de; ejlqei'n th;n pivstin—that is, before faith in Christ came, the Jews were being guarded under the law—uJpo; novmon ejfrourouvmeqa. They were being kept as prisoners (sugkleiovmenoi) for a period of time, until the coming of the gospel of Christ—eij" th;n mevllousan pivstin ajpokalufqh'nai, until the faith that was destined to be revealed should come. The NEB translates well the phrase, “pending the revelation of faith.” The coming of faith and the coming of the Christ are one and the same.[19]
The law was meant for a specific and temporary role that would be rendered invalid once Jesus came on the scene. The law served as a guardian (paidagwgo;") until Christ came—eij" Cristovn. A paidagwgo;" was a slave of high rank charged with watching over a children until they came of age (Gal. 4:1-2). The term paidagwgo;" conveys the idea of stringent and guarded supervision of a child.[20] The Mosaic law then was not only a means of imprisoning the Jews in sin, but very imprisonment was used as a kind of custodian whose responsibility was to set boundaries for the Jews. Fung and Longenecker both agree that the law was not a teacher in the modern sense, one who instructs children to do good. Rather, the law was the slave guardian charged with keeping children in a certain condition or circumstance: to make sure they stayed safely where they were, much like a prison guard. The law served a disciplinary and custodial function, not an educational one.[21] Therefore the law was not designed to “lead us to Christ” (see Gal. 3:24, KJV, NIV).
The preposition eij" can signify motion towards something or motion into something, thus making possible the translation unto Christ, or to Christ. But it is more likely that it simply signifies here the temporal sense of the duration of the law. The law would be in effect, imprisoning the people until the coming of Christ when it would then be rendered invalid.[22] So the law was not Christ-ward, but simply until Christ. The law was not positive preparation for Christ, not a teacher or schoolmaster to lead people to Christ (KJV, NIV). Paul’s language simply indicates the temporary function of the law in the history of redemption.[23] That means that this passage has no direct application to the way a person comes to Christ today, but rather that Paul is just recounting historical facts. This does not mean that the law should not be used in preaching to bring knowledge of sin, but simply that Paul is speaking of something different in this passage.
Again in verse 24 Paul asserts that the reason for the law, the imprisonment under sin, and the moral imprisonment of the Jews was that they, and the rest of the world might be justified by faith—i{na ejk pivstew" dikaiwqw'men. It seems like Paul is being double tongued here. He first says that the law could not give life and that its purpose was to enslave under sin, but then he goes on to say that the reason for the law’s work in salvation history was in order that we might be justified by faith. Which is it? The law only served the direct role of prison guard and custodian. But in the end, it has served God’s ultimate purpose; the redemption of the world. So it was not the immediate purpose of the law to bring anyone to Christ, but God used the law to work toward his ultimate goal for his people.[24]
Paul next makes as bold a statement about the relationship of the law and the believer as one can make—ejlqouvsh" de; th'" pivstew" oujkevti uJpo; paidagwgovn ejsmen—but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. In other words, the law now has no bearing on the Christian life. This does not mean that the believer is free to commit lawlessness, but that those who believe are justified apart from the works of the law and are free from its bondage and requirements. Righteousness has come by faith in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law.
So then, the purpose of the law was only temporary, and it lasted only until the coming of the Messiah who would set free those who were imprisoned under its curse. The law came later than the promise given by God to Abraham, and is therefore inferior to the promise. The promise is of Abraham and his seed, i.e. Jesus Christ is by faith, and faith is superior to and in contrast to the works of the law. The law could never have given life, only it kept people imprisoned under the consequences of sin, waiting for the day when Christ would come to set the captives free. The Law of Moses did not directly influence anyone toward faith in Christ, but it did serve God’s ultimate purpose for the salvation of his people, according to the promise of faith in Christ to all who believe. To God be the glory!
[1] BDAG, 1079.
[2] J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, and Dissertations, 10th ed. Pradis Bible Software (The Zondervan Corporation), CD-Rom, 2002).
[3] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 159-160.
[4] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 41 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990), 138, 148.
[5] BDAG, 160.
[6] Lightfoot, Galatians.
[7] Fung, 162.
[8] Lightfoot, Galatians.
[9] Lightfoot, Galatians.
[10] Lightfoot remarks that the plural is used for the promise here, as well as in v. 16 because the promise was spoken to Abraham on several occasions. See Genesis 12:2-3, 13:15-16, 17:8.
[11] Lightfoot, Galatians.
[12] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, An Exegetical Syntaz of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 694.
[13] BDAG, 952.
[14] Fung, Galatians, 164.
[15] Lightfoot, Galatians.
[16] Fung, Galatians, 164. See Romans 11:32.
[17] Fung, Galatians, 164-165.
[18] Fung believes that the transition from the 1st person plural pronoun “we,” implied in ejfrourouvmeqa and sugkleiovmenoi, in verse 23 to the 2nd person plural pronoun “you,” implied in verse 26 (ejste) is incidental. He suggests that the “we” includes the later “you,” referring to and including both Jews and Gentiles alike as the recipients of the imprisonment under the law (Fung, Galatians, 167). This is consistent with other Pauline passages (Rom. 3), even though there are some scholars who would disagree with Fung’s position. However, regardless of whether it is incidental or not, the meaning is not much changed. The point here is that the law imprisoned, but the promise gives freedom and life.
[19] Fung, Galatians, 168.
[20] Lightfoot, Galatians.
[21] Fung, Galatians, 169, also Longenecker, Galatians, 146. See especially Longenecker’s reference to Plato’s use of paidagwgo;", 146.
[22] Longenecker, Galatians, 148-149.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Longenecker, Galatians, 149.
No comments:
Post a Comment