Summary of Galatians 3:1-22

Paul is still disturbed by the Galatians who want to go back to the law, to leave the setup of faith. So he asks: Who has put a magic spell on you to make you act this way? Jesus was pictured to you as crucified to rescue you -- the law could not save you.

So he appeals to the charismatic, miraculous gifts they received at Baptism -- these were routine in Paul's day, but became scarce later, certainly by 150 A.D. So he means: You could see by your experience that faith brought you such spiritual things, such mighty deeds. Was it then by keeping the law that you got them? No! It was by faith, by the "hearing (that is, obedience) that is faith."

Now Paul points to the example of Abraham, who was justified by believing (Gen 15:6) even before circumcision was ordered (Gen 17). So Abraham becomes the father of those who imitate his faith. Hence gentiles receive the blessing, as sons of Abraham. For God said to Abraham that all nations would be blessed in him (Gen 18:18). But anyone who depends on works, instead of on faith, will be under a curse, since the law (Deut 27:26) says anyone who does not keep the law is cursed. And no one can keep the law (in a focused picture).

But the Old Testament says, in contrast, "The just man will live by faith" (Hab 2:4). But, the law says: He who carries out this law will live by it. But Christ bought us from the curse of the law, by becoming a curse for us. For the law says that he who hangs on the tree, dies that way, cursed (Deut 5:14), so in that sense Paul could say Christ was cursed or a curse. But He overcame that curse. We as His members (cf. also 2 Cor 5:14: "One has died for all, therefore all have died") therefore also have overcome the curse.

Hence we receive the blessing of justification by faith through Him, not through the law.

Paul says there might seem to be a conflict: if anyone makes a will, that is valid, and is respected. God made such a will for inheritance to Abraham and to his "seed." Since "seed" is singular it must mean Christ. That was a valid will. Hence the law which came 430 years later does not make the grant by the will invalid. If our claim to inherit from the Father depended on law, it would no longer be an inheritance, it would be earned. But God made His pledge to Abraham by way of a promise or will, not by way of a law.

So there is a question: Why was the law added at all? It was in view of transgressions, until that descendant, Christ, should come, to whom the promise given to Abraham about his "seed" really referred.

We can see this fact also by noticing that there was a two-sided arrangement made with the law -- for there was a mediator, Moses, and the law was given through angels. But in a one-sided arrangement, like the will or promise given to Abraham, there is no mediator, there is just one party, God.

Did the giving of the law then go against the promise or will given to Abraham? Of course not. If the law had been able to give life, (that which was promised to Abraham), there would be a conflict. But the law could not give life. Rather, Scripture shows that all are caught under sin, but they will be rescued by the basis of faith in Christ.

Comments on 3:1-22

Paul thinks the Galatians must be either out of their mind (anoetoi) or under a magic spell. How else could they, for whom he pictured Christ as crucified to save them, now want to think He is not enough? How could they think they must add the old law, which has no power to save anyway! Furthermore, they should know by experience! By experience at Baptism they found they received miraculous gifts by the obedience that is faith (akoes pisteos). How could they now want to go back to the law?

Look at the case of Abraham, Paul says. God promised him a great progeny, and Genesis 15:6 says Abraham's faith justified him. Paul notes that this happened before Abraham was ordered to take on circumcision, (Gen 17) which stands for the yoke of the law. So Abraham was justified without the law. Why not the Galatians? God really promised all nations would be blessed through Abraham -- by being his children, not by carnal descent, but by walking in the steps of his faith.

So, those who depend on faith, receive the blessing promised to Abraham. In contrast, those who depend on the law, fall under a curse (they cannot keep the law -- cf. the focused picture described in chapter 2). And in Deut 27:26 we read: "Cursed is everyone who does not keep all the things written in the book of the law." The regime of faith however is also taught in the Old Testament -- in Habacuc 2:4, where we find that: "The just man will live by faith." (In the original context, Habacuc meant that those who trusted in God would be protected from the Chaldean invaders -- Paul adapts the saying to his own purpose, as Rabbis often did. But Paul does literally mean -- no mere adaptation -- that we are saved by faith).

We got away from the law because Christ paid a terrible price, the price of redemption! He even became a curse for us. This is vehement language. The law says (Deut 21:23) "Cursed is everyone who hangs on the wood," that is, everyone who is executed that way is cursed. That happened to Christ, so, He came under a curse. Paul makes it stronger, saying He was not just under a curse, but became a curse. This sounds like the kind of language we sometimes find in the Old Testament, where we meet a noun where we would expect an adjective, e.g., Psalm 147:14: "He makes our boundaries peace," instead of "peaceful."¹⁷ Besides, Hebrew is not at all rich in adjectives, hence such a usage as this becomes possible.

Paul uses similar language in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where he says that God made Christ to be sin for us. Please see comments there. (In 1 Corinthians 1:23-2 Paul said Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews, and nonsense to the gentiles. The Jews found it a scandal that their Messiah should die, and die under a curse; the gentiles thought it impossible that a god would associate with men, and still more impossible that he would die for men: Plato, Symposium 203; Aristotle, Ethics 8.7).

In saying, "Christ bought us," Paul refers to the price of redemption (cf. 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23). The Old Testament, Intertestamental literature, the New Testament, and Rabbinic literature see that sin is a debt which the Holiness of God wants to have paid. A comparison given by Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar is helpful¹⁸: "He [meaning anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe to him. He has tipped the scale to the side of debt for himself and for the world." The sinner takes from one pan of the two-pan scales what he has no right to take: the scale is out of balance. It is the holiness of God that wants it rebalanced. How? If the sinner stole property, he can begin to rebalance by giving the property back; if he stole a pleasure, he can begin to rebalance by giving up some corresponding pleasure. But we keep saying "begins," for even one mortal sin means an infinite imbalance, for the Person offended is infinite. The Father did not have to arrange for this rebalance, but in His holiness, or love of all that is good, He willed to do so. That He could do only by sending a Divine Person, His Son, to become man. A divine Person incarnate could generate an infinite value, to really rebalance the scale. That is what the redemption was. Christ by His horrible sufferings put back into the scales more than all sinners had taken.¹⁹

Further, in line with the policy of being all things to all men, as we saw above, Paul may at times use the language of mystery religions to help explain and sell Christianity. In those religions, one went through, ritually, the same experiences that a god went through, and so got the same result. Christ because a curse, and overcame it. We as His members have therefore overcome the curse of the law.

Next, in 3:15 and following, Paul asks if there is a conflict or contradiction between two events: 1) God gave something to Abraham unilaterally, that is, God took on an obligation by a promise. Abraham did not have to do anything (this was before circumcision was commanded, and before the law was given). 2) But then, 430 years later at Sinai, God promised the same thing, but then added strings, conditions to be fulfilled, i.e., the law.

About the first event: Paul compares the gift to that given in a valid will or last testament. We do not earn what we get through our parents' will. We get it because they are good, not because we are good. Further, in regard to the first event, Paul insists the promise was to Abraham and his seed, that is, his descendant. Paul makes an issue of the fact that the word seed is singular, not plural, and says therefore it refers to Christ.²⁰

As to the second event: This is the covenant of Sinai, in which God said (Ex 19:5): "If you really hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you will be my special people." So Paul means it seems that God went back on his promise -- of course He could not really do that -- by at Sinai adding conditions to what had been a stringless promise.

Paul solves it, in a rabbinic way, in 3:21: There is no conflict, since the law cannot give eternal life, while the promise, by faith, can do it.

We would solve it in a different way: What God promised to Abraham was not eternal life, but the land. At Sinai He promised the same, plus much more. Hence, no conflict. (As the Old Testament period went into its later part, there was a tendency to reinterpret things to mean eternal life, as Paul does. Please see comments on Philippians 1).

We need to comment on some details within this passage. In 3:19 Paul asks why was the law given (if it could not justify). He says the law was given "in view of transgressions." The phrase is very ambiguous, having three possible meanings. First, we could translate as purpose: the law was given for the purpose of turning ordinary sin (hamartia) into transgression (parabasis). Hamartia is the kind of sin one can commit even without having a revealed command of God. Sins between Adam and the time of the law were such. They were still sins, but not as evil as a sin committed after a revealed command. Paul often uses the word parabasis which we rendered "transgressions." (English does not always observe the distinctions of which we are speaking). But there are objections to this 'purpose' translation: Would God really want to make things worse, give a law to make it worse? Of course not. We could, however, recall that the Jews often said God directly did things when He only permitted them. But that would mean changing the purpose expression to mean result. We could also translate the words to mean cause: then it would be: the law was given because there were transgressions. But this does not seem good, for before the law, there were no transgressions, if we take that word in the strict sense. So we had better translate the words to mean result: "The law was given, with the result that ordinary sins were made into transgressions."

In 3:20, the next verse, Paul is not very clear. But we can see the sense: the Sinai covenant was bilateral, i.e., both God and the people took on obligations. We see this because there was a mediator, Moses and the angels. There is no mediator in a one-sided arrangement -- a mediator is used only with a deal between two parties.²¹

We need to comment too on the fact that Paul speaks of 430 years coming between the promise to Abraham and Sinai. Actually, the Rabbis of his time were discussing what that time was. The chief difficulty comes from Exodus 12:40: The Septuagint, the old Greek version of the Old Testament, said there were 430 years between the time of Abraham and the Exodus from Egypt. But the Hebrew text of Exodus 12:40 says the 430 years mean only the time spent in Egypt. Which is correct? They did not know in Paul's day. Neither do we. The date of the Exodus is much controverted. Paul of course does not pretend to solve the problem, he merely uses the figure given in the Septuagint text, for he normally quoted the Septuagint, for the benefit of his Greek readers.

We note the expression "valid will." The Hebrew word berith meant only covenant. But the Septuagint picked the Greek word diatheke which could mean either last will or covenant. It almost always means covenant in the New Testament. But a few times it is used in the sense of last will, as in this passage.