Galatians 3:19-29 – Pondering Legalism and Faith

As usual, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁹Then what is the law? It was added on account of the deviations, until the Seed to whom it was promised should come, being arranged through angels in hand of a mediator. ²⁰But the mediator is not of one, but God is one.”

²¹Therefore, [is] the law against the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law was given [which was] able to impart life, then truly the righteousness would have been out of law. ²⁰But, on the contrary, the Scripture bound together the all under sin in order that the promise might be given to the ones believing out of faith of Jesus Christ. ²³But we were all being kept under guard [as] ones bound under law before that faith came, kept for that faith about to be revealed; ²⁴so that the law became our pedagogue into Christ that we might be justified out of faith, ²⁵but we are no longer under a pedagogue coming of that faith.

²⁶For [you] all are sons of God through that faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷For whoever of you were baptized into Christ have clothed themselves with Christ. ²⁸There is not Jew nor Greek. There is not slave nor free. There is not male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus; ²⁹but if you [are] of Christ, then you are seed of Abraham, heirs according to promise.

Up to this point, Paul has been arguing forcefully for the superiority of faith over law, of the Abrahamic promise over the Mosaic law. One might rightfully start to wonder, then what good was the law at all? Or perhaps Paul’s opponents could make the case that he was denigrating the Mosaic Law, in spite of the fact that it came from God Himself.

So Paul wisely anticipates these questions and pauses to address them. “Then what is the law?” he asks.

If someone wants to trace the flow of logic through these verses, there are of course thousands of commentaries. Of the ones I read, I found William Hendriksen the best. He explains the truth of this passage in a very clear yet reasonably short presentation.

The short of it all is that the purpose of law was to show people their need of a Savior. It was never intended to be that Savior. It served the Jewish people in much the same way John the Baptist served them in Jesus’ day. “Are you the Christ?” they asked him. “No,” he replied, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord!’” To know God’s law is to see that I fall hopelessly short. My response should then not be, “I’ll try harder,” but rather, “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there not another way?” Obviously I need a way of salvation that can somehow supersede the law I cannot keep. Enters the Savior, “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” “You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.”

The law and faith become rivals only when law itself is viewed as a means of salvation. But the law was never intended for that. When it is seen in its rightful place, that of, like John the Baptist, pointing people to Christ, then law can be seen as a very good thing.

Since this is my blog and since other far more able men have provided commentaries on these verses, I will record some of my own perhaps random thoughts.

All this discussion of law and its place raises a question I would like to ponder. It concerns the whole matter of legalism. I believe over the years I have heard men assert that the issue of legalism in Galatians concerns only the event of salvation itself. In other words, they would hold that this book and all it says is only applying to how one becomes a born-again Christian to begin with, that it has nothing to do with Christian living. Such men would typically be those of the fundamentalist camp who particularly like the whole gamut of rules for which they are known. They feel there is great value in all the rules they teach and so they can’t accept that Galatians is calling such teaching legalism and that Paul is actually arguing against it.

So is Galatians only addressing legalism in the event of salvation itself?

I would suggest the answer is no, that the problem of legalism is not only present in salvation but it continues to compete with faith all through a believer’s life. The principles being presented apply not only to salvation itself but to the totality of a believer’s existence. The passage says, “… the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law … you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according the promise.”

We are “no longer under the supervision of the law.” And what does Paul say later in the book? “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

The true life of faith is not a life of “keeping the rules.” It is a matter of faith. It is a relationship. It is a business of promises. Here is what I’m thinking: Every time my mind ponders what is the “right” thing to do, it should be a matter of faith. First of all, since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, I ought to be asking myself where in the Bible is this matter addressed. If I can’t find it in the Scriptures, then I need to admit that it isn’t a matter of “right” and “wrong” but simply some other human invention that I may or may not choose to embrace. If there is a Scriptural directive involved, then I ought to immediately realize I cannot do it myself. I need a Savior. I need my Savior, my God, my Jesus to help me choose the right and do the right. I can in fact do the right because of the promises of my God. I want to do the right because I love Him.

Do you see what has happened? We moved from the typical legalistic cold “right and wrong” to a matter of relationship and love – faith.

That is, in a sense, why we are all “one in Christ.” No one can “do” faith any better than anyone else. All who own Christ should be filling their minds not with “the rules” but with a real, living relationship of faith in Him and His promises.

I suppose it is an advantage to me that my own children are grown and gone, but I think this whole matter would be worth some deep thought as it bears on child-rearing. I wonder if it isn’t easy to simply teach children “the rules” and hope they grow up to be “nice” Christians, rather than, even in our own minds, be realizing that all “rules” should be pointing to Christ, pointing to faith and a relationship? It is of course important to understand “the rules” and to grow up able to live under rules. But Jesus is a redemptive God. And simply seeing “the rules” so easily misses seeing Him. Hmmmm. I think I’m glad my children are raised. This seems to me a very deep, but very important business.

I guess I can turn it all even from family and let it bear on how I see the whole world around me, how I see other people and the choices they are making. Do I simply see whether people are keeping “the rules” or do I see people as ones desperately needing redemption? Of course they break “the rules.” Since the Fall, we humans are broken “rule-keepers.” Like the Prodigal, we die a thousand deaths breaking “the rules.” People should keep “the rules.” The world would be a better place if people kept “the rules.” But God has something far better for them (and us). He wants to redeem them, reclaim them, restore them. And that is not a business of rule-keeping. It is a business of faith and love and a real relationship with the Redeemer.

I hope as I try to learn these things myself, as I see it’s not about “the rules,” but about myself embracing the Redeemer, I hope I can more and more see people through His eyes. I hope it can be true of me that I really have a redemptive heart.

That is what I think. I think the issue of legalism, and all that is said here in Galatians, goes far beyond the simple (though eternally important) matter of salvation itself. It is the very life of a child of God. Faith, not law, is the heart of a true believer.

This brings me to the end of chapter 3. I think it is a good place to take another break. I think I’ll go study a Psalm then come back.

“Oh to be like Thee, blessed Redeemer.”

Galatians 3:15-18 – A Day in Court

As usual, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁵Brothers, I am speaking according to man. No one annuls or adds to a covenant even though having been ratified of man. ¹⁶And the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It is not saying, “…and to your seeds” as upon many, but “…and to your seed” as upon one, who is Christ. ¹⁷But I am saying this: The law, which came into existence after four hundred and thirty years, is not invalidating a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, so as to void the promise. ¹⁸For if the inheritance [is] out of law [it is] no longer out of promise. But God had graciously granted [it] to Abraham through a promise.

Paul’s obvious point here is that God’s blessing is a grace-gift not merit-pay. He’s using normal human contract standards to prove his point, thus his “…I am speaking according to man... even though having been ratified of man.”

But his logic has always puzzled me. I’ve always found this passage very hard to follow. Once again, I just figured that one of these days I’ll get to actually study this carefully and perhaps then it will make sense to me. Well, here I am and I actually think it does make sense.

First, before I get into that, I think it’s worth noting that Paul begins with “Brethren …” He started the chapter by addressing them as “foolish Galatians.” Clearly that was intended as a appellation of fact, not an immature anger-driven denigration. Paul never loses sight of love, even for people who are clearly being foolish. Lord help us to never lose sight of love, even when we’re dealing with people’s foolish behavior.

Back to the logic of the passage. Here is my thought: The reason this passage at first seems logically elusive is because we read it in a theological mindset. Granted, Galatians is an intensely theological book. It’s like a little Romans. But the passage before us is not primarily theological. The context is secular contract law. Human contract law. In the ancient world they called it a covenant, but, in modern secular language we call them contracts. Again, Paul clearly identifies this distinction: “I am speaking according to men.” I would suggest that fact is critical to understanding this passage.

I spend an enormous amount of time immersed in contract law. As an engineer, that is one of the most important functions we provide for clients. We design a project for them, then help them put it out to bid, then help them compare the bids and select a contractor with whom they wish to enter into contract for the work. Then we provide them with a proposed contract to consider. Their attorney reviews it, the contractor’s attorney reviews it, sometimes changes are made, and when it is agreeable to both parties, they each sign it and they are thereafter legally bound to its terms. You almost couldn’t believe the legal minutiae that has to be spelled out, beginning with the dollar amount of the contract (of course), the time in which it must be completed, and working all the way down to the requirement that the contractor has to provide a porta-john at the job-site! One of the very important aspects of the contract is identifying exactly who are the parties involved. As you can imagine, if there is going to be a contract, it is of paramount importance to identify exactly who is involved in this legally binding document. More on this later.

As long as projects go well, you don’t hear too much about the contract. But the minute there is a problem, that contract becomes like God Himself. Everyone rushes back to it because it carefully and specifically defines the obligations of each party. The contract, once signed, is very, very important.

That is all contract law in the human sense. What Paul is doing is arguing from the lesser to the greater. He’s saying, “If human contracts are so clearly spelled out and binding, how much more would be a contract (or covenant, in theological terms) ratified by God Himself?

So back to the passage. “No one annuls or adds to a covenant even though having been ratified of man.”  Once a contract is signed by both parties, its conditions are binding as written. The only way it can be altered is through a “change order,” which is a formal document which again must be signed by both parties. Paul’s point is that, even in human contracts, the terms are binding.

Then he says, “And the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It is not saying, “…and to your seeds” as upon many, but “…and to your seed” as upon one, who is Christ.” Now Paul is addressing the question of exactly who were the parties to the contract. Remember, this question is of paramount importance even in a human contract. Exactly who is bound by the terms of this contract? Certainly there was God and the promises (the covenant, the contract) were made between Him and Abraham. But then there is this matter of his “seed.” Gentlemen, the court is in session. We will now hear arguments to clarify that person or persons identified as “his seed.” Paul notes it was written in the contract as “seed” not “seeds.” At first glance that appears to be a very poor argument, since “seed” is a collective singular and never is written “seeds.” But I think Paul is writing like a lawyer. The opposition shouts, “That argument holds no water! The word is a collective singular!” “Ah, yes,” says Paul, “I agree. Now let’s consider how singular.” Did it include all of Abraham’s immediate seed? Well, no. Only Isaac. What about Ishmael and the sons of Keturah? Of course not. “Ah,” says the wily lawyer, “So it doesn’t refer to all of his seed.” Well, no. “Then your honor, I submit, that we must establish just how singular the word “seed” must be before we can conclusively determine the parties bound by this contract. “Sustained,” says the judge, “Proceed, counsel.” Paul could then work his way down through Jewish history to a continuous process of singularizing the singularity of “seed.” Jacob but not Esau. Judah but none of the other 11 brothers. Jesse, then David, but none of the other millions of Israelites. At some point, it becomes obvious that the “seed” included as a party in the contract was never intended to be all of Abraham’s seed and in fact, the winnowing process was obviously headed for the Messiah. I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, but I have no doubt Paul’s argument would hold up in any court of law. What appears to be a fallacious argument (that “seed” is singular) turns out to be a rather a crafty legal device to force the court to officially and legally scrutinize the singularity of “seed” and recognize that the third party of the Abrahamic covenant was not the Jewish people but rather the Messiah himself (and thus all that are found in Him).

The theological objection is offered that, in other places, the term “seed of Abraham” is, in fact, used to refer to the Jewish people collectively. Granted. But remember that those are not passages where the legal specifics of the contract are under consideration. In modern contract law, once the terms of the contract are specified, then things get capitalized. Suddenly there is the Owner, the Contractor, the Engineer, the Work, the Contract Times, even the Contract itself. Why do we do this? Because in common parlance, every one of those words has a general meaning. It is extremely important to realize when we are and are not speaking in terms of the Contract. That’s why today the words get capitalized when they are meant to be understood as referring to the legal aspects of the contract, not to their general meaning. In the verse before us, Paul makes it clear we are talking legal contract language. The fact that some of the terms get used more generally in other passages has no bearing on their use in this passage. Once again, I personally think seeing this passage theologically is what creates the confusion. It must be understood in its legal context.

Therefore, I would maintain that Paul is on entirely legally defensible grounds to assert that “seed” refers to Christ. The “parties” specifically included and bound by the Contract are God, Abraham, and the Messiah, Christ.

Once again, speaking of contract law, Paul states, “The law, which came into existence after four hundred and thirty years, is not invalidating a covenant confirmed beforehand by God, so as to void the promise.”  Whatever the Law meant, whoever it applied to, whatever legal grounds it may have held is legally irrelevant with regard to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant, the Contract, was ratified and continues binding. The Promise, as part of that Covenant, cannot be proffered on new terms just because someone introduces something new, even if it be Law from God Himself. The Contract has been signed.

Finally, the Contract involves a promise, not law: “For if the inheritance [is] out of law [it is] no longer out of promise. But God had graciously granted [it] to Abraham through a promise” “Promise” brings us back to faith. As I’ve noted before, faith requires a change of relationship and a change of heart. Part of the reason for that is the fact that it is all based on this thing of “promise.” That is the nature of a real relationship with God, building our lives around His promise(s). Salvation itself is to hang our very souls on a promise. “He that believes in me has everlasting life” (John 6:47). Law has nothing to do with promise. Faith has everything to do with it. God has given us “great and precious promises” whereby we “overcome the corruption that is in the world.”

Your honor, the defense rests its case.