When is something better than something else? How do you work out?
I remember back in infants school. I would walk around asking other kindy kids this question? Who’s better, ‘ABBA’ or ‘Sherbert’. For those who don’t know, they were popular bands in Australia in 1975. And it seemed all the kids were walking around doing it.
I would have a notepad to tally up the results. I’d never heard any Sherbert songs myself. But mum liked ABBA better. So I wanted ABBA to win. So I’d add some names to the ABBA side. Mum likes ABBA, so there’s one for ABBA. I’m sure Grandma would like ABBA. Chalk up another one for ABBA. Not exactly stastically rigorous. But what do you expect, I was five years old.
Holdens are better than Fords. How do you work that one out? Go off to Bathurst and see if the blue Fords beat the red Holdens round the mountain.
What’s better: a Harley Davidson motorbike or a Toyota Tarago people mover? Can you really compare them? Or are they just too different? Isn’t that just comparing apples and oranges? A Harley is for people who like speed and noise but don’t like people. It’s for people who want to be by themselves. It’s for people who want to draw attention to themselves. Men in their forties going through their midlife crisis. They're trying to escape the Tarago before it’s too late. The Tarago is boring by contrast. It won’t get you there fast. It looks decidedly 'tamed' and 'capitulated'. But wherever you go in it, you won’t be lonely. Because that’s what it’s built for: people.
AFL is better than NRL. Rugby Union is better than Rugby League. How do you work that out? Well, that’s a hard one. We can’t actually get the Sydney Swans to play St George Illawarra. We can’t get the Tahs to play West Tigers. What game would they play? We’d have to make up a new game to test their comparative skills. Perhaps we could tally up what big names have swapped codes lately. Or perhaps we could just say that Soccer is the Real Football. Soccer involves actually using your feet for the whole game. Soccer wins.
Or we might say, each has it’s place. We might as well argue whether apples are better than oranges. They’re different enough to each have their place.
We’ve come to Galatians chapter 3 verses 15 to 25. In this passage, Paul pits against one-another two great acts of God. In salvation history, there were two great moments. The Promise to Abraham. And the Law of Moses. And now Paul is forced to compare them. He doesn’t want to do this. In fact, it’s a bit silly. Like comparing apples with oranges, or ABBA with Sherbert, or a Harley with a Tarago, or Football with the Real Football.
But Paul has been driven to it. He has been driven to it by the teaching of the Judaizers. They have been saying to the Galatian Christians: “Look, we’re glad you know Jesus is the Christ. You’ve started with the promise. But you need to continue with the law. You’ve come in to God’s family by grace. But you need to stay in by works. Faith in Jesus is a good start. But now you need works of the law. Because without the works of the law, without obeying the Law of Moses, and circumcision, you cannot be saved" (see Acts 15:1ff).
And so Paul wants to put God’s good Law in it’s proper place. He wants to show the priority of the promise. The promise comes first. It cannot be set aside by the late-comer, law. And he wants to show the purpose of the law. Which is to show sin and smack sinning bottoms towards the Saviour.
Our first task is to further identify each of the things Paul compares.
In the Blue Corner is the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was that Code of Conduct Israel received at Mount Sinai. The Law of Moses was given to the whole nation of Israel. They trembled as they heard God’s voice from the foot of the Mountain. God spoke Ten Commands, which summarized God’s Law. Do you know these? [Test the congregation]
But God’s law required much more than the Ten Commandments.
It required circumcision of every male on the eighth day. Circumcision was necessary to be part of the people of Israel. (Galatians 2:3; 5:2-3) It required abstaining from certain foods – pork, lobster, and crab heading the list. It therefore required living separately from Gentiles. Because Gentiles thought it was OK to eat this food (Galatians 2:12-14). The Law of Moses also involved observing special days and months and season and years (Galatians 4:10).
But the Law is not just these religious and ceremonial things. The Law at it’s heart involves moral issues. “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Galatians 5:14). And so, the works of the Law are anything involved in obeying the law[1].
But that’s not all. The principle of the Law is not just doing bits of it. Galatians chapter 3 verse 10 teaches that righteousness by works of the law involves keeping all of it.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the Law” (NIV)
Again, chapter 5 verse 3:
“I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” (NIV)
You cannot pick and choose which bits of the law to keep. As James says, the one who keeps the whole law yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10).
So the Law is not based on faith. Faith involves trusting God to do it for you. It is letting God do for you what you can’t do yourself. It is letting God do what he has promised, without getting in the way and offering your help.
But the Law is D.I.Y. The Law is the ‘Do-It –Yourself’ method of salvation.
Galatians chapter 3 verse12:
"The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” (NIV)
That is why Paul said in chapter 2 verse 21, that:
“if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.” (NIV)
That’s the Law over in the blue corner.
In the Red Corner is the Promise to Abraham. It is much older than the Law of Moses. It was given not to the nation of Israel. In fact, Israel did not exist yet. Israel was still, to use that quaint biblical phrase, in the loins of their father. This promise was given to Abraham and his ‘seed’. The promise is found in Genesis chapter 12 verses 1 to 3:
"1The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. 2"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:1-3 NIV)
In Galatians chapter 3 verse 8, Paul picks up on the last phrase. ‘All nations on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). And Paul says this promise was actually a pre-preaching of the gospel. God was really preaching the gospel of justification by faith. Justification by faith is the blessing God promised Abraham. And the Gentiles will receive this blessing, too. The Gentiles will be justified by faith in Christ. And so they will receive the inheritance promised Abraham.
It is important for us to see that Paul sees that the promised blessing to the nations is justification by faith in Christ.
Justification is being considered righteous in God’s sight. It involves having your sins forgiven and being given a gift of righteousness. And Paul elsewhere points out that this justification comes to a person through simply trusting in Jesus and his death and resurrection.
Abraham received an advanced-screening of this gospel. Not only did God promise that it would happen to the Gentiles through him. But also, it happened to him. Abraham himself received justification. Abraham’s own experience involved being justified by faith.
That is why Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Galatians 3:6:
“Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”. (NIV)
In other words, Abraham was justified, was declared right with God, by faith.
God did not declare Abraham righteous because of his many good works. By the time of Genesis 15:6, Abraham had done many good works. He could boast about a long list of righteous acts. They’re all written down for us in Genesis chapters 12 to 14.
Abraham obeyed God by going to a faraway land. Abraham worshipped God at the different places God appeared to him. Abraham called on the Name of Yahweh. When their servants had a disagreement, Abraham gave Lot the first choice of the best land. And then when his nephew Lot was captured as part of the cross-fire in a regional war, Abraham fought and rescued him, defeating the armies of powerful kings in the process. Abraham generously gives a tithe to Melchizedek. He returns all the people back to the defeated kings, despite what he might have claimed. Moreover, he returns all the captured goods to their original owners, despite what was expected. Abraham doesn’t want a thing in payment, even though he risked his life to rescue it all.
Yes, Abraham had many good works. Yet it is none of those good works that justified him, according to Paul. But it is when Abraham believes God’s promise, that he would have offspring as numerous as the stars in the sky, it is at that moment when God credits Abraham with righteousness, that is, that God justifies him.
That is when he is credited righteousness. When he receives God’s promise and believes it. When Abraham, named Father of Many, but who was actually the Father of None, believed that promise, then God considered or reckoned him righteous. Paul carefully observes from Genesis 15 that it is faith in God’s promise, and not his good works, that makes Abraham righteous. That's promise, in the red corner.
So now we need to understand why the Promise takes Priority over the Law.
And Paul’s first answer is that the Law was a late-comer. To make his argument, Paul first argues from a human rule.
Let me read from Galatians 3 verse 15. Verse 15:
"Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case." (NIV)
A covenant is a type of promise. It is a particularly solemn form of promise, like a modern deed. It involved symbolic actions and solemn words. It might involve swearing to God or taking an oath.
Humans do this sort of thing. They do it in marriage. They make promises to love one another until they are parted by death. There are symbolic actions, like holding hands and exchanging rings. The marriage promises are unconditional promises. They don’t say, ‘If you love me, then I’ll love you’. Each says, ‘For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until they are parted by death. And to this I pledge my word’. And the point is, God did something like this, in Genesis 15.
Now, when someone tries to change a promise they’ve already made, we cry foul. We recognize it is unjust and unfair to go back on promises.
So in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, when Han and Princess Leia and Chewbacca are in Cloud City, Darth Vader alters his bargain with Lando Calrissian.
Darth Vader: “Take the Princess and the Wookie to my ship”. Lando Calrisian: “That was never part of the agreement, nor was handing Han over to this Bounty Hunter!” Darth Vader: “I’m altering the arrangement. Pray I don’t alter it any further. Lando Calrisian (under his breath): “This agreement is getting worse all the time!”
The question is, has God been like Darth Vader? Has God altered the arrangement? And with Paul, we cry ‘Absolutely Not!’
Let me read verses 16 and 17:
"16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," [Gen 12:7, 13:15; 24:7] meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise." (NIV)
I will leave the issue about Abraham’s ‘seed’ until we look at verse 19.
For now, let’s just see that the law is a ‘Johnny-come-lately’. The Law comes over 430 years after the promise to Abraham[2]. So it cannot add to the promise and it cannot take away the promise.
God cannot freely promise, ‘I will make you the Father of many and give your seed this land’, and then 430 years later put a condition on it. But only if you get circumcised. But only if you keep the food laws. But only if you keep the special days. But only if you sacrifice your son. But only if you keep the whole law.
The time for the condition was the time of the promise. And at that time, God unilaterally, by himself, off his own bat, said, ‘I will give this land to you and your seed’ (Genesis 12:8) and ‘All nations will be blessed through you’ (Genesis 12:3). No-one made God do it. Even Abraham did not make Yahweh do it. It was God who promised it. And because God doesn’t lie or change his mind, God will make it happen.
The inheritance is graciously promised, not earned through law (verse 18). And so the point in verse 18 is that the inheritance is graciously promised. The inheritance is a free gift. It is not a wage that Abraham earns by keeping the law. The Law hasn’t even been given yet. The inheritance of land and children and blessing is a free gift. It depends wholly on God’s generosity and kindness. Verse 18:
"18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave[3] it to Abraham through a promise."
You cannot say, it is by both law and promise. That was what the false teachers said. A little bit of promise, and a little bit of law. But Paul said no. If it is by Law, then it cannot be by promise. But if it is by promise, then it cannot be by law. The two are mutually exclusive, when it comes to justification.
Likewise, you cannot say the inheritance is by both works and grace. Either it is by works of the law, or it is by grace through faith. It is either earnt, or it is a free gift. It cannot be both (compare Romans 11:6).
Now, the question then arises, verse 19:
What, then, was the purpose of the law?
Why does God complicate things, then, and give the law? The Law was God’s idea. God gave it to Israel through Moses. Why did he do that, if the inheritance was to come through the gracious promise?
And there are two purposes given in verse 19.
The first purpose of the law is given in the first part of verse 19:
It was added because of transgressions…
The law makes sin known. In fact, law turns sin into transgression. Sin is falling short of God’s mark (Romans 3:23). But once a law is in place that says, ‘Don’t do this’ or ‘Make sure you do this’, then when you disobey it, it’s not just a sin. It’s also a transgression. You’ve not just fallen short. You’ve also crossed a clear boundary. You are not just unlike God and therefore ungodly. (But hey, you probably didn’t know any better.) You are now a transgressor against knowledge. You’ve broken God’s law. You have disobeyed God’s revealed will and command. So law turns garden variety ‘sin’ into out-and-out ‘transgression’.
In this way, the Law makes us aware of our many sins. Through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20). Because law turns sins into transgressions.
The second purpose of the law is given in the last part of verse 19:
…until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
The law had a job to do from the time of Moses to the time of Christ. Because of human sin, the law had to rule over God’s people. And this rule was for a particular period of time. The law was filling a gap.
Like when an Anglican Parish loses their minister. And while their looking for a new one they get an Acting Rector. A locum. That’s what the Law was. It held the fort until Christ came.
Note, the promise was always there. When the law came, the promise didn’t disappear. It was out of sight, out of mind, although everyone who would actually be justified was only ever justified by the promise. But the promise was waiting for it’s fulfillment with the coming of Jesus Christ.
But note that the promise was also made to Abraham’s ‘seed’. Paul makes the point that the form of the word ‘seed’ is singular, not plural. And this is quite a correct grammatical point.
For Paul is aware that the whole book of Genesis is about a search. It is a search for the ‘seed’ (singular) of the woman. And this seed of the woman will be the ‘serpent crusher’ The seed of the woman will bruise the serpent’s head. But the seed will himself have his heel bruised in the process. And this singular ‘seed’ of the woman, is also the seed of Abraham. And Paul says that this seed is Christ. God makes the promise of inheritance to Abraham AND to his seed, Christ.
So God’s promises to Abraham are also promises that Jesus Christ would inherit. Jesus Christ would inherit the land, Jesus Christ would have a famous name, the name above all names, Jesus’ Christ’s people would shine like stars in the sky, and be as innumerable as the sand of the seashore, Jesus Christ would be a blessing to the nations.
That is why, in Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (Galatians 3:28). Because together we are ‘all one’ in Christ Jesus. Collectively, we are the one seed, Christ. We are the body of Christ. We are in Christ, members of Christ. And just as Christ was in Abraham as his descendant, in the loins of his ancestor Abraham, so to speak, So we are in Christ, united to him and in him, joined to him and hidden in him.
The promises to Abraham are also to Jesus Christ. And so the promise of inheritance made to Christ is also to us who are in Christ. Christ will inherit, so we will inherit in Christ. Christ is the Son of God, so we are sons of God in Christ Jesus.
So Paul says, Galatians 3:26:
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus
And in Galatians 3:29:
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
A further argument showing the promise’s superiority is it’s simplicity. The simplicity of the promise shows it is superior to the Law. Verses 19b to 20:
The law was put into effect through angels [lit, in the hand of] a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one [party to the promise, implied]
By adding ‘God is one party to the promise’ at the end of verse 20, I think the meaning becomes clear. Paul here is saying that ‘The Law of Moses’ had two ‘middlemen’ or ‘go-betweens’. On God’s side, the law was put into affect by angels (compare Deut 33:2; Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2). On the human side, Moses mediated the law to the people (see for example Exodus 20:18-19; Deuteronomy 5:23-31; 18:16-17).
Thus, the administration of the law was two steps removed from the two parties. The two parties are God on one side, and the people on the other. And the two go betweens are the angels on God’s side, and Moses on the people’s.
So the fact that there are these go betweens shows that the law is in the nature of a contract between two parties. It will only be kept as long as both parties fulfill their side of the bargain.
Think of some sort of negotiation. Something like a wage dispute. Or perhaps the recent health ministers negotiations.. There are the two or more groups who are trying to sort out their differences. And each of these two groups have two sets of lawyers. It’s no wonder there can be no agreement reached. There are all these parties and middlemen.
Think of Mr Rudd going to all the State Premiers. He is trying to get agreement on a new health plan. The multiplication of parties shows that much more can go wrong. And that is the nature of the Law.
But the promise is different. God directly gave the promises to Abraham. These promises are given in unilateral and unconditional form. The fulfillment of these promises depends on God’s word alone. It doesn’t require the people to obey, as does the law [although of course obedience is good and demanded by God]. But the nature of the promise is that it is not an agreement. Only one party, God, needs to keep his side of the bargain. Because there is only one side of the bargain – God’s. The fulfillment of the promise depends wholly and soley on God.
Recently, I saw on the news that the Westfield’s boss, Mr Frank Lowy, paid for a large new Cancer Research centre at the University of New South Wales. What did that involve? Pretty much, the agreement of just one party. A rich, generous-hearted benefactor. It required Mr Lowy to say he would give the money, and then give the money. No agreement between all the state health ministers, just one person being faithful to their promise and coughing up all the money. That’s all a promise requires: Someone able to make the promise and willing to keep his word.
In the promise, therefore, there are not two contracting parties, with their respective counsels. There is only one party, and that party is God. And the fact that the law was mediate shows it is inferior to the promises God made directly to Abraham beforehand[4].
Then another possible objection arises. Perhaps the law and promises are at war? Perhaps the law is opposed to the promise of God.
And Paul again says, ‘No way!’ They are not opposed, they just have different purposes. An apple is not an orange. A Tarago is not Harley. Rugby League is not a Football.
And the Law is not designed to make sinners alive and give them righteousness. Only the promise of justification by grace through faith can do that. Verses 21 and 22:
"21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."
Paul is saying, the purpose of the law is not to give righteousness. If there could be a law that could give righteousness, that is how righteousness would have come. As Paul says, in chapter 2 verse 21: If righteousness could be gained through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
No, what the law does is lock up Law-breakers. The Law imprisons disobedient people. Verse 23:
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
The law does the job of a prison guard.
There are two ways you can look at being imprisoned by the Law. First, that it is good. Prisons are good. Because when all those law-breakers are behind bars, we are much safer. And that is true. Society is safer with all those criminals locked up in jail.
But also it is a bad thing. It is a bad thing that we need to be imprison people in the first place. Because it says that people are dangerous. They do not love their neighbour as themselves. And so they need to be under 24 hour guard. And that is what Paul says the Law does. We are guarded, indeed, we are beseiged[5] by the law.It locks us away. It doesn’t give us freedom.
But the law is not only a prison guard. It is also a paidagogos. Verses 24 and 25:
24So the law was put in charge [literally, our paidagogos[6]] to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law [literally, under a paidagogos]
What is a paidagogos, you ask? It is sometimes translated as tutor, or schoolmaster. But that translation doesn’t give us the right idea.
Upper class Roman boys used to have a companion slave. They couldn’t go anywhere without their paidagogos. The etymology of the word is that it is a ‘slave on go’. A paidagogos was a trusted slave that went everywhere with a boy from an upper class family. This slave was the boys daily and hourly guardian and guide. He might carry the boy’s slate to lessons. He will sit with him and make sure he learns his lessons. Drilling him, not letting him goof off.
But there was another important job. This slave was charged with supervising the life and morals of the boy. He was a bit like Jiminy Cricket to Pinochio. He was his conscience: judge, jury and executioner if the boy misbehaved. Otherwise the slave would be the one who endured the beating.
So they weren’t teachers in our sense. The Paidagogos was chaperone meets security guard. And the Paidagogos was also a strict disciplinarian. The Paidagogos was delegated the responsibility of corporal punishment. The Paidagogos would if necessary beat his misbehaving charge. For if the child got out of hand, the beating would go to the slave. In ancient Greek plays, you always knew the paidagogos. He was the actor carrying the rod[7]. And it was not for decoration. It was for beating naughty boys bottoms. By contrast with the paidagogos, the father’s discipline was seen as mild[8].
And that is what the law is described as. A loved and trusted, yet strict and exacting disciplinarian. The Law is a slave that bears the rod.
Now, when a boy reached maturity, he didn’t need the paidagogos. The boy was now a man. His character was now formed. Discipline would not be exercised from without. Discipline would be exercised from within.
So Paul says, ‘You Galatians shouldn’t go back to the Law. That’s like going back to primary school. It’s an adult putting a dummy in it’s mouth.'
Think about Year 12 kids going off to the end of year ‘Schoolies’ week. They’ve finished the HSC. They are free. No more studies, no more exams. No more being told to go in your room. They are no longer under the discipline of school or parents.
So what is the danger? How will they act? How should they use that freedom?
And the same question faces us as Christians. We are no longer under the supervision of the law. How then shall we live? If the bottom smacking paidagogos is not motivating us, what will?
That’s what chapter 5 is all about. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. We are not to use our freedom to indulge the sinful nature, but to serve one another in love. And when we walk by the Spirit, we will find, lo and behold, that we’ve fulfilled the law. Love of neighbour is the fulfillment of the law. But that very important lesson is for later. But for now, understand your privilege. Our inheritance, justification by faith apart from works, comes from the promise, not from keeping the law.
Let’s pray.
15Brothers, according to man I say, though a covenant [be] ratified by man, no-one sets [it] aside or add something to [it] [present tense forms]
16Now to Abraham the promise was spoken [aorist passive], and to his seed [sing, sperma]. It does not say, ‘and to the seeds’, as upon many, but as upon one [ntr, antecedent, ‘seed’], ‘and to your seed’, who is Christ.
17Now I say this thing: The law coming about after four hundred and thirty years does not unratify/revoke [present, gnomic] a covenant ratified beforehand by God to abolish/cease/bring to nothing/void the promise.
18For if the inheritance [originates] from [the] law, [it] no longer [originates] from promise. But to Abraham through [the] promise God freely/graciously gave [Pf, charizomai[9]] [it].
19What reason, then, [is there for] the law [masc]? It was added alongside[10] in favour of/for the pleasure of[11] transgressions, until he who [ntr? Masc?] would come [Aor Subj], the seed to/for/by/through [dat] whom it was promised, being commanded [masc] through angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one [party only], but God is one [party to the promise]
21Then [is] the law against the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law was given, the one able to make alive, indeed, [originating] from law would have been righteousness.
22However, the scripture shuts up/encloses/confines/imprisons all things under sin, so that the promise [originating] from faith of [in] Jesus Christ might be given to the ones who believe 23Now before the faith came, we were being guarded/protected/beseiged[12] by law, being shut up/enclosed/confined with a view to the about-to-be-revealed faith,
24so that the law became our paidagogos[13] with a view to Christ, so that [originating] from faith we might be justified. 25But when the faith comes, we are no longer under a paidagogos.
Note on verse 22: 'The promise [originating] from faith of [in] Jesus Christ might be given to the ones who believe'. This raises the question, ‘Does the fact of the promise originate from faith?’ or ‘Does the benefit of the promise originate from faith?’ That is, is Paul saying here that God makes the promise because he foresees faith in the person? Or does the benefit of the promise come through the instrumentality of faith. I think the second is correct. It is not being said here that God give the promise to Abraham because he foresees his faith. Rather the instrumentality of faith is the way that the benefit of the promise is received. Thus ‘promise’ serves as a merismus for ‘the benefit of the promise’ or ‘inheritance’. So much seems clear from verse 18: ‘For if the inheritance originates from the law, it no longer originates from promise.’ The inheritance is the benefit of the promise. Therefore, in verse 22, promise most likely stands for the ‘inheritance promised’, that is, the benefit of the promise.
[1] I am fully aware of the patristic and ‘New Perspective’ view, found, among others, in Origen, Dunn, Wright, and also among certain Roman Catholics particularly at the time of the reformation (and refuted by Calvin), that ‘works of the law’ only consist of the ‘ceremonial law’ (the language of the time of the reformation) or ‘boundary markers’ (the New Perspective languagbe). For the reasons presented by Moo, Dunn, Schriener, Carson, O’Brien, Fitzmyer, Westerholm and others, I unequivocally reject it as smuggling good works into justification through the backdoor, and adopt the traditional Lutheran, Reformed, and Evangelical view that ‘the works of the law’ are those things done in obedience to the law.
[2] In verse 17, Paul mentions ‘the law happening after four hundred and thirty years’. This is problematic only if Paul is saying that it is 430 years between the time the promise was first give to Abraham and the time of the giving of the Law. That time span would be more like 645 years: G L Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 403. But Paul doesn’t say that. He says that the law ‘happened after 430 years’. This is an allusion to Ex 12:40. The MT (Hebrew) says that the length of time the Israelites lived in Egypt was 430 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX (Greek) reads ‘Egypt and Canaan’. However, the MT is to be preferred. Archer is quite correct when he reasons: ‘The promises of the covenant of grace were repeated several times to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as well. Essentially these later covenant renewals were identical with the original pronouncements in Genesis 12, with only minor variations from Abraham to Jacob.‘: Archer, 403. Therefore, the following can be adopted as a timeline of Old Testament events referred to in Galatians 3:15-18:
[3] charizomai only in Lk/Acts and Paul. Describes Jesus’ freely granting sight (Lk 7:21), the gracious forgiveness of the lender in the parable told at Simon the Pharisees house (Lk 7:42, 43), the free gift of Barabbas instead of Christ (Acts 3:14), the free giving up of Paul to the murderous Jews (Acts 25:11, 16), the free gift of all who were sailing with Paul and who would survive the shipwreck (Acts 27:24), the free gift of everything that will be given to those for whom God gave up his Son (Acts 8:32); the things given us by God which are to be understood by the Spirit (1 Cor 2:12); the free forgiveness to be granted to the sinner who might be overwhelmed with excessive sorrow (2 Cor 2:7, 10); sarcastically, Paul asking for forgiveness for not being a burden to the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:13), the gracious giving of forgiveness Christians should give to one another in light of what God has given them (Ephesians 4:32; Col 3:13); the free gift of suffering on behalf of Christ given to the Philippian church (Philippians 1:29), the gracious giving to Christ of the name that is above every other name; (btw, which he earned and merited: Philippians 2:9); the gracious giving of Paul to Philemon in answer to Philemon’s prayers (Phm 1:22)
[4] See the commentaries on Galatians by Lightfoot, 146-7, Ridderbos, 140, and Stott, 90.
[5] Used of protection by a military invasion. Paul uses it of the guarding of the city of Damascus to prevent his escape (2 Cor 11:32; cf Acts 9:24), thus almost besiege. Also used of the guarding of the hearts of Christians praying by the peace of God (Phil 4:7); and the shielding of God’s people by God’s power (1 Peter 1:5)
[6]Thayer
[7] See Betz, Galatians, 177. Though Longernecker is critical of Betz’s overly negative view of the law, he doesn’t fault his information.
[8] Thayer
[9] charizomai only in Lk/Acts and Paul. Describes Jesus’ freely granting sight (Lk 7:21), the gracious forgiveness of the lender in the parable told at Simon the Pharisees house (Lk 7:42, 43), the free gift of Barabbas instead of Christ (Acts 3:14), the free giving up of Paul to the murderous Jews (Acts 25:11, 16), the free gift of all who were sailing with Paul and who would survive the shipwreck (Acts 27:24), the free gift of everything that will be given to those for whom God gave up his Son (Acts 8:32); the things given us by God which are to be understood by the Spirit (1 Cor 2:12); the free forgiveness to be granted to the sinner who might be overwhelmed with excessive sorrow (2 Cor 2:7, 10); sarcastically, Paul asking for forgiveness for not being a burden to the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:13), the gracious giving of forgiveness Christians should give to one another in light of what God has given them (Ephesians 4:32; Col 3:13); the free gift of suffering on behalf of Christ given to the Philippian church (Philippians 1:29), the gracious giving to Christ of the name that is above every other name; (btw, which he earned and merited: Philippians 2:9); the gracious giving of Paul to Philemon in answer to Philemon’s prayers (Phm 1:22)
[10] Prostithemi: Added to, added alongside other thing[s] that have preceded it, supervened upon
[11] charin as an accusative of the substantive, in favour of, also on account of/for the sake of.
[12] Used of protection by a military invasion. Paul uses it of the guarding of the city of Damascus to prevent his escape (2 Cor 11:32; cf Acts 9:24), thus almost besiege. Also used of the guarding of the hearts of Christians praying by the peace of God (Phil 4:7); and the shielding of God’s people by God’s power (1 Peter 1:5)
[13] A tutor, a guide and guardian of boys, trustworthy slaves charged with supervising the life and morals of upper class boys. Boys were not allowed to step out of the house without them before arriving to the age of manhood. They are not teachers. Paidagogoi carries the idea of severity and a stern censore and enforcer of morals. The father’s discipline was usually milder than that of the paidogogos: Thayer.