Galatians 3:19-29
I. 3:19-22
a. V. 19
i. Paul is making a very novel argument for a 1st century Jew, that the law was always intended as a temporary measure
ii. Cf. Acts 7:53 & Heb. 2:2 for angelic mediation of the law
iii. The law codifies sin, expressly stating what is wrong
iv. The law can increase the trespass when we misuse it (i.e. use it for purposes of self-justification or self-righteousness)
b. V. 20
i. The law is a contract between two parties, thus the reference to a mediator. In other words, the promise is grace, because it is a unilateral action by God bestowing blessing. The law is multilateral, and makes requirements of the other party, in this instance Israel (or to a greater degree humanity)
c. V. 21
i. The law is not contradictory to the promise, because it serves a different function. (i.e. it cannot bestow life)
ii. Refer back to 2:21 where we also see that Christ’s death would be for nothing
d. V. 22
i. The law does not contradict the promise, but rather serves its interest (by forcing us to appeal to the promise as our only hope)
ii. When it comes to the law its “true effect…is to nail man to his sin. As the prison holds the prisoner…so man is shut up by the Law under sin…Rightly understood, then, the Law prevents any attempt on man’s part to secure righteousness before God in any other way than…that promised to Abraham.” – W. Gotbrod
e. The law is important because without it, the NT makes little to no sense.
f. “Christ is the climax of a story which includes Sinai” – Charles B. Cousar
II. 3:23-25
a. V. 23
i. Whereas in v. 22 we are prisoners of “sin”, here we are prisoners of “law”
ii. The revelation of faith. Abraham has demonstrated faith already, prior to the law, so this must refer to something more, i.e. Jesus Christ’s faith
iii. Cf. Rom. 6:14 to find the same thing stated in the opposite way
b. V. 24
i. Paidagogos- the slave who was responsible for a child in his youth, conducting him or her to school, etc.
ii. Paul sees the law as having a custodial, not educational function
c. V. 25
i. When a child reached maturity, the paidagogos role became obsolete. In the same way, when Christ comes the law’s role becomes obsolete.
ii. Paul’s argument that not even Jewish Christians are under the law since Christ has come would be controversial, and is a bold statement
III. 3:26-29
a. V. 26
i. Cf. Ex. 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1-2; Hos. 11:1 for references to Israel as being sons of God. Paul is extending the title to include Gentiles
ii. “Sons” is a reference to legal maturity, an age at which a child becomes an adult capable of inheriting an estate, and coincidently an age where they are no longer in need of a paidagogos
b. V. 27
i. Paul is showing that what defines us is not our birth, but our rebirth, not our creation, but our recreation
ii. Some argue that the clothing imagery was possibly related to the practice of Christians disrobing for baptism (divided by gender of course), and then putting on new clothes afterward, but there is no evidence that this practice had begun in Paul’s day
iii. More likely, changing clothes represents a change of situation, or life stage
c. V. 28
i. Could Paul be referring to male and female in such a way as to abolish their being defined in relationship to one another?
ii. Circumcision was for males only, but baptism was offered to males and females
iii. Union with Christ abolishes all distinctions, or the privileging of some over others. It does not erase our differences, but merely means they no longer matter. A pious Jew would thank God daily that he was not a Gentile, and slave, or a woman. Here Paul is saying that these groups to receive the promise. Cf. Ephesians 2 where Paul speaks of the breaking down of the wall that divides us
d. V. 29
i. This supersedes the idea of becoming Abraham’s heir through circumcision
ii. Via our relationship with Christ, we become heirs of the promise to Abraham, just as He is
e. Christ is mentioned in some way 5 times in the four verses spanning vv. 26-29. The emphasis here is impossible to miss
