Paul explains that the promises of God to Abraham preceded the Law of God given to Moses.

You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article provided that proper citation of authorship is included.

   Imagine a father sitting down at the breakfast table with his children one morning, and saying, "Children, because I love you so much, I am going to take you all to Disneyland in six weeks. You can ride all the rides. You can have all the sodas, hot-dogs and balloons you desire. It will be an enjoyable family day. I promise that we will all go together in about six weeks. What do you think of that, children?"

   The children's response would undoubtedly be one of excitement. "Oh Dad, you are such a great Dad. We love you. We can hardly wait until that day comes." Assuming that the children knew that their father was dependable and always kept his promises, there would be much anticipation in that household. The children would be receptive and available to the promise of their faithful father. They would have expectant hope of enjoying Disneyland.

   What if that same father were to sit down with his children a couple of days later, and say, "Children, I have a proposition for you. Let's make a deal. If each of you picks up his or her room every day, and puts away all their clothes and toys, and if each one of you will perform this list of chores that I have prepared for you, and if you all come home with good grades on your report cards, then I will take you to Disneyland in about six weeks."

   What would be the children's response to such a parental proposition? It would probably be something like: "But, Daaaad, you already promised to take us to Disneyland in six weeks. That's not fair, Dad, to come back and add those rules and requirements after you already made us a promise!"

   Would you agree with the children's reaction?

   A promise is a promise! Negotiated performance requirements are something altogether different. Even a child can detect the difference between a parental promise and the contingencies of performance expectations.

   What if I were to push this hypothetical scenario beyond all feasible and reasonable limits, and suppose that the children accepted and assented to the reciprocal deal that their father had proposed. (Not likely, but bear with me in this fictional story!) The children become so enamored with performing their duties and getting good grades that they forget the original promise of Disneyland. Or they come to believe that the rewards of good grades and fulfilled duties are, in themselves, better than going to Disneyland. Then, when the Disneyland trip is offered to them, they decline, preferring to maintain the regimen of performance. Or perhaps they accept the Disneyland trip, provided they can retain the self-satisfying, ego-enhancing rules of the home. Granted, this is so far-fetched as to be absurd, but the analogy with the physical peoples of Israel and the Judaizers of the first century plays out in such an outlandish portrayal.

   This foregoing analogy is an attempt to picture a contemporary situation that corresponds to some degree with the complicated issues that Paul is dealing with in the Galatian epistle, and to put them in terms that even a child can understand. In fact, Paul begins this section of the letter with just such an analogy of "speaking in terms of human relations," in order to assist in explaining the spiritual relations between God and men. As with all analogies (Paul's and ours included), the story in "human terms" is always inadequate to convey the fullness of divine truth. We know, for example, that God did not promise us a Disneyland, complete with Adventureland, Fantasyland and Tomorrowland. What God promised us is far better both qualitatively and quantitatively ­ the fullness of His life through His Son, Jesus Christ, both now and forever. And the availability of Christ's life is not acquired by the achievement of performance, but is available in the receptivity of His activity in faith.

3:15 ­ The neophyte Galatian Christians were being influenced by the legalistic Judaizers to misprioritize God's intentions and revert to performance of the old covenant Law in their Christian lives. Though they were gullibly being misled, Paul refers to them as "Brothers," regarding them to be "sons of Abraham" (3:7,14,29) together with himself in the family of God.

   Paul almost seems to make an advance disclaimer of the inadequacy of the illustrative analogy he is about to employ. "I speak in terms of human relations" (cf. Rom. 3:5), he writes, recognizing the imprecise parallelism between human contracts and God's covenants. Paul is playing off of the multiple meaning of the Greek word for "covenant," which can refer to (1) a contractual agreement between two human parties in a negotiated settlement with mutual conditions, (2) an individual's last will and testament to be effected as his death, or (3) a covenant arrangement that God as the greater party unidirectionally implements with mankind, the lesser party. "Even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it." When human contractual agreements have been ratified, validated and confirmed, i.e. "signed, sealed and delivered," then there is an authoritative definitiveness to the terms of the contract. Once you have "signed on the dotted line" the contract is legally binding, and the obligated parties cannot arbitrarily disregard, reject or nullify the contractual terms they agreed to, nor can they determine after the fact to individually or arbitrarily modify, alter or add contingencies to the agreement. There is a certain permanence and irrevocability to human contracts, but that is not to say that there are not arrangements for mutual modifications, amendments, and addendum.

   The popular interpretation which suggests that Paul is specifically referring to an individual's last will and testament is based on the synonymous usage of "testament" and "covenant." References to "promise" (16,17,18,19, 21,22,29), "inheritance" (18) or "heirs" (29), and "descendants" (16,29) also seem to correlate with this death-contract thesis. In this case the ratification of the "last will and testament" is effected irrevocably upon the death of the testator, and no one else is allowed to annul the will or add codicils. The analogy seems to break down in the recognition that God who effected the covenant of promise with Abraham cannot die, but then again, the death of Jesus Christ (cf. 2:21;3:1,14) and the "finished work" of Christ on the cross could suffice as the death ratification of the promised inheritance.

   It is obvious that Paul is attempting to make an analogy between a human contract or testament and the covenant of promise that God made with Abraham. But the Jewish response to Paul's legal argument of contractual irrevocability and inalterability would undoubtedly have been that God's covenant (Gen. 15:18; 17:2-21) with Abraham was indeed subsequently supplemented or replaced by the covenant of Law at Sinai (Exod. 19:5; 24:7,8; Deut. 4:13; 23:1,21). They would have been unconvinced by Paul's legal argument in the analogy of semantic variability in the word "covenant," and even more aghast at the semantic and grammatical variability that Paul employed as the basis of his next tenet.

3:16 ­ Specifically identifying his analogy, Paul explains that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed." He is referring to the promises of God to Abraham in Genesis 12-24, specifically cited in vss. 6 and 8 above, and linked with the promises of the Spirit (3:3,14) in Joel 2:28 and Ezek. 36:27. Paul viewed all of the promises of God to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ (cf. II Cor. 1:20; II Tim. 1:1; II Pet. 1:4).

   The startling part of Paul's interpretation of the promised "seed" (Greek word spermati), offspring or descendants of Abraham (Gen. 13:15,18; 17:7,8,19; 21:12; 22:18; 24:7) was his narrow focus on the singular number of the Hebrew noun for "seed." "He does not say, 'and to seeds,' as to many, but to one, 'and to your seed,' that is Christ." As in English and Greek, the singular Hebrew noun can refer to an individual "seed" or serve also as a collective singular of plurality. It can refer to a single offspring of Abraham (ex. Ishmael, Gen. 21:13), or all of the offspring of Abraham, both physically and spiritually (3:29). Despite the obvious references to innumerable multiplicity (Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 22:17) of descendants, thus obviating the collective singular interpretation of "seed," Paul chooses to focus on the individual singular interpretation in order to link such with Christ as the promised descendant of Abraham.

   Jewish theology would have found Paul's hermeneutic appalling and indefensible. The Jews prided themselves in their physical and racial ancestry from Abraham to form a multitudinous nation linked to "father Abraham." But even within Jewish interpretation Paul could have cited the precedent of God's covenant promise to David to "raise up your seed who will establish his kingdom forever" (II Sam. 7:12,13), which was interpreted within Jewish theology as the Messianic "son of David," and was thus used by Paul himself in his preaching in the southern Galatian city of Antioch of Pisidia, noting that "from the seed of David, according to promise, God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus" (Acts 13:23). Paul could also have referred to the earlier Messianic promise of the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15) defeating diabolic descendancy. Paul was certainly not out of line to employ this interpretation of the individual singular "seed," even though some have considered his argument as a weak diversionary documentation of semantic hair-splitting, or as a "spiritualizing" tendency.

   Paul's objective was not to engage in grammatical or semantic technicalities, but to reveal that the promised descendancy of Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and therefore in all who are identified with Christ as Christians. It is the Christological fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises that is important, not the physical and biological fulfillment in the Jewish race. Much Judaizing eschatology today could be put to rest by consistency with Paul's inspired Christological interpretation. In the physical genealogical lineage Jesus was the ultimate and preeminent descendant of Abraham (Matt. 1:2; Lk. 3:34), but as the promised individual Messianic "seed" He fulfilled the divine promises to Abraham, to allow the collective singular of Abrahamic "seed" to apply, as God intended from the beginning, to all Christians "in Christ" (3:29; Rom. 4:13-18). The ultimate intent of God's promises to Abraham were Christological rather than biological.

3:17 ­ Apparently recognizing that his argument is somewhat convoluted, Paul attempts to clarify by writing, "What I am saying is this:" ­ the point I am trying to make is that of precedent priority alluded to in the analogy of human contract (15). "The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." The Judaizers in Galatia retained the Judaic perspective that exalted the Mosaic Law even above the Abrahamic promise. Although they appealed to Abraham as their racial father, the patriarchal period was viewed primarily as a preliminary prelude to the Mosaic receipt of the Law. The tablets of the Law were tangible and concrete, giving definitive parameters of obligatory performance and providing a distinctive national identity as "the people of the Law." The Law was primary and preeminent in Jewish theology, regarded as eternal and immutable, and thus elevated as a deified idolatrous end in itself. That is why Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me..." (Jn. 5:39,40).

   Paul seeks to establish the precedence and priority of the Abrahamic covenantal promises in relation to the Mosaic covenant of Law. The promises preceded the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai by a chronological period of four hundred and thirty years according to Paul's calculation. Though many have debated the precise number of years, it is probably impossible and unnecessary to seek exact calculations. God told Abraham that his descendants would be "enslaved and oppressed four hundred years" (Gen. 15:13), as quoted by Stephen (Acts 7:6) in his recitation of Hebrew history. Exodus records that "the sons of Israel lived in Egypt four hundred and thirty years" (Exod. 12:40). The imprecision of annual calculations results from not knowing where within the series of God's promises to Abraham (Gen. 12-23) the calculation should commence. The interval of time is not the important issue, however, for Paul is emphasizing the precedence and priority of the divine promise to Abraham rather than the period of time between the promise and the Law. Since the "covenants of promise" (cf. Eph. 2:12) were duly ratified and validated by God unto Abraham, the later introduction of the Law covenant with Moses did not sever (5:4), abolish (5:11) or nullify (cf. Rom. 4:14) the earlier promise. Such illegitimacy of covenant practice (3:15) would cast God as a dishonest covenant broker, willing to break His fiduciary relationships through chicanery or sleight-of-hand by altering His agreements or conditioning His covenants, thus reneging on His promises and untrue to His Word. Paul obviously considered such contrariety of the character of God unthinkable.

3:18 ­ Continuing his argument of the precedence, priority and primacy of the promises of God over the subsequent Law of God, Paul explains that "if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise: but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." This is Paul's first introduction of the theme of "inheritance," which in correlation with the concept of "heir" will later become a prominent emphasis in the epistle (3:29; 4:1,7,30). Within God's promises to Abraham there was the promise of "heirs" (Gen. 12:7; 13:15,16; 15:15; 17:8,19) and "inheritance" (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:7,8; 17:8), but these were based on the uni-directional promise of God, not on performance requisites from the Law. The promises were not contingent on keeping the Law which was introduced later. Inherent in the very concept of "inheritance" is the idea of promised giftedness. Inheritances are not earned. If something is inherited, then it is not merited. Inheritances comes by way of promise, whereas merits are earned through performance. Since God's character is that of absolute faithfulness, His promises to Abraham were completely fulfilled when by His grace He redeemed and restored humanity in His Son, Jesus Christ, making available the inheritance (cf. Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:11,18; Col. 1:12) of all things (I Cor. 3:21-23; Eph. 1:3; II Pet. 1:3) in Christ, that Christians might be the heirs of God's promises (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; Eph. 3:6; Titus 3:7; James 2:5; I Pet. 3:7). True to His promises ­ true to His Word ­ God freely gave (the Greek word is the verb form of "grace") the promised blessings and inheritance to Abraham by faith, even though the spiritual fullness of Christ was "seen from a distance" (Heb. 11:9-16). The fulfillment of God's promises is not conditioned on legal performance merit, but solely on receptivity to the promised blessings and inheritance in Christ.

3:19 ­ With the foregoing emphasis on the precedence and priority of promise over Law, Paul recognizes that some will inevitably question, "Why the Law then?" Contrary to the Jewish perspective, retained in large part by the Judaizers who had infiltrated the Galatian churches, Paul did not regard the Law to be preeminent and primary in the over-all plan of God. In reaction to what they regarded as denigration of the Law, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem later accused Paul of "teaching against the Law" (Acts 21:28). But in promoting the primacy of the Abrahamic promise, was Paul implying that the Law was impertinent, irrelevant, superfluous or redundant? No. The Law was an essential part of the Torah (as was the promise), and Paul was not advocating that Exodus through Malachi be expunged from the Old Testament record. The Law had a legitimate purpose in the complete economy of God that was not inconsistent with the purpose of the promise, though it was incidental, auxiliary, subsidiary and subordinated. Paul had previously pointed out that the purpose of the Law was not justification (2:16; 3:11), or righteousness (2:21), or life (2:19; 3:11), or receipt of the Spirit (3:2,5), or Christian perfection (3:3), or blessing (3:10,13), or the energizing dynamic of God (3:5). What then was the purpose of the Law? In verses 19 through 25 Paul will explain that the Law was devoid of divine immediacy (20), devoid of divine vitality (21), devoid of divine righteousness (21), and devoid of divine salvation (22); but it did serve as a temporary treatment of transgression (19), a temporary custodial confinement (23), and a temporary disciplinary directive (24,25).

   Paul begins by noting that "It was added because of transgressions." At least four hundred and thirty years (17) subsequent to the promises to Abraham, the Law was introduced through Moses as an extra, though not extraneous, work of God. The Law was implemented within the gracious purposes of God to deal with the persistent Israelite propensity to transgress the character of God in sin. This does not appear to mean that the Law had a preventative purpose to prevent people from sinning, to keep them in check and prevent them from getting "out of hand," even though law can have such a moralistic purpose of social constraint (I Tim. 1:8-10). Nor does Paul mean that the Law had a promotional purpose to promote, produce and increase sin, for God has no desire to promote that which is contrary to His character. It has been suggested that the Law had a provocative purpose to provoke frustration at the human inability to avoid sin and its continued increase (Rom. 5:20), but such an interpretation does not seem to derive from Paul's words in this verse. Perhaps Paul is indicating a prescriptive purpose of the Law whereby the character of God in human behavior is clearly prescribed and clarified, making transgressions obvious in order to awaken and acknowledge the guilt of sinfulness (Rom. 4:15). Or Paul may be positing the provisional purpose of the Law, whereby God provided a pictorial pre-figuring of His intent to deal with the sin of man in Jesus Christ, and provided a temporary means of atonement in the Hebrew sacrificial system which pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The Law, however, during its provisional period of jurisdiction over the Israelites, did not provide the provision of God's dynamic, enabling grace necessitated to express His character and avoid sin. In addition, Paul will subsequently add the protectional purpose (23) and preparational purpose (24,25) of the Law.

   In another apparent thought-digression, Paul notes that the Law "has been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator." That the Law was ordained, arranged, appointed or administered by God through angels is a fact not recorded in the original records of the Law's introduction in Exodus 19. It was a well-established Rabbinical interpretation, however, derived from such texts as Deut. 33:2 and Ps. 68:17. Stephen obviously accepted such, for before the Jewish Council in Jerusalem he said, "You received the Law as ordained by angels, and did not keep it" (Acts 7:53), and the writer of the Hebrews refers to "the word spoken through angels" (Heb. 2:2). How the hosts of angels served God in the transmission of the Law is not known. It is certainly a fallacious interpretation, though, that denies the origin of the Law in God, and ascribes its origin to demonic angels.

   That the Law was "by the agency of," or more literally, "by the hand of" a mediator, no doubt refers to Moses who served as the human intermediary, the "middle-man" who stood between God and the Israelite people (cf. Deut. 5:5) and received the tablets in his hands (Lev. 26:46; Exod. 32:19). The point Paul is making, as amplified in vs. 20, is the secondary and indirect transmission of the Law, as compared to the primary and direct revelation of the promise.

   Paul continues to explain the temporal historical parameters of the Law, added (19) four hundred and thirty years (17) after the Abrahamic promises, and valid only "until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made." Luke's record that "the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John the Baptist" (Lk. 16:16) is entirely consonant with Paul's chronology of the terminus of the Law. The Law, though not essential to the fulfillment of the promise served as an expedient and instrumental means to enhance the implications of the promise within the temporal and transitory period between Moses and the Messiah. The Law was designed as an interim arrangement with planned obsolescence to serve only during the provisional period of Israelite history before Christ (B.C.); only until the singular, individual "seed" of Abraham "that is Christ" (16) would come "in the fullness of time" (4:4) in the incarnation and fulfill His redemptive purposes. The temporality of the Law (cf. II Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13; Rom. 10:4) is being emphasized by Paul to reveal to the Galatian Christians the preposterous illegitimacy of reverting back to legalistic performance standards which have been terminated. The Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ, was the One concerning whom the promise had been made to Abraham, serving as the eschatological terminus of the Law, the "Last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45) inaugurating the final solution of God for man in the "last days" (Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2; I Pet. 1:20). If there was an historical parenthesis in God's plan, as some have maintained, the historical parameters of the Law age would be parenthetical rather than the "Church-age," as often indicated.

3:20 ­ Returning to the previously mentioned idea of the Mosaic mediator (19), Paul attempts to explain that "a mediator is not for one; whereas God is one." The ambiguity of his explanation has confounded commentators through the centuries. A mediator by definition is a go-between who stands in the middle of the negotiations between two other parties. When a mediator serves as a third-party negotiator he is an indirect intermediary link between the other parties. Paul's argument is apparently based on the fact that when Moses served as the mediator between God and the Israelites in the introduction of the Law, the indirect and secondary mediation of creaturely agencies (angels and man) posits the inferiority of the introduction and administration of the Law as compared to the promise. The promises were introduced by direct revelation of the one God to Abraham (Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1), and the fulfillment of the promises in Jesus Christ was a demonstration of the monotheistic oneness of God (cf. Deut. 6:4) expressing the divine unity of God's promise and action, the direct homoousion unity and immediacy of God's Being in His action. Indeed, the man, Christ Jesus, was the "one mediator between God and man" (I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), but God is one with the mediator since Jesus was one with the Father (Jn. 10:30). Jesus was not a separated mediator, nor a substitute or surrogate for God, but God Himself incarnate functioning singularly (yet distinctly) and directly in the ontological dynamic of divine grace. The underlying Trinitarian presuppositions must be recognized for any legitimate understanding of this verse, as the old Mosaic covenant of Law is being contrasted to the new covenant in Christ in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.

3:21 ­ Paul has been contrasting promise and Law, thus indicating some sense of disjunction and discontinuity between promise and Law, but he does not want to leave the impression that promise and law are antagonistic or antithetical. He poses the expected questioning of his thesis by asking, "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God?" And his answer to his own question is, "May it never be!". The one God (20), immutable and faithful, is the source and origin of both the promise and the Law. He cannot contradict Himself, or violate His singularly absolute consistency of Being and character. The Law was not contradictory to the promises, but concomitant. The Law was not inconsistent with the promises, but incidental to the promises. The Law was not antithetical to the promises, but ancillary. The Law was not competing against the promises, but was complementary. The Law was not an antagonist of the promises, but was auxiliary to the promises. The Law did not subvert the promises, but was subsidiary to the promises. The Law did not stand opposite to the promises, but had a parallel and provisional objective in the Christological purposes of God. The one ultimate objective of God was fulfilled in Jesus Christ in accord with the Abrahamic promises, and the Law served a subordinated objective to reveal more precisely the character of God, to reveal man's inability to produce the character of God, and to reveal the coming Messiah who would be the divine dynamic of expressing the character of God. When understood within the parameters of its historical contingencies to the ultimate fulfillment of the promises in Jesus Christ, the Law is not contrary or contradictory to the promises. But when the Law is interpreted outside of its temporal and supplemental purposes within the context of the old covenant, and when the performance of the Law is superimposed supplementally as an incentive to Christian vitality and holiness subsequent to the receipt of God's grace in Jesus Christ (as the intrusive Judaizers were advocating to the Galatian Christians), then such abuse and misuse of the Law is contrary and contradictory to God's grace-fulfillment of the promises.

   The promise and the Law had different functional purposes, and the Law was incapable of providing what God had promised to Abraham. The Law was not a variation of the promise, nor was it a vehicle to implement the promise, but it was, nonetheless, a valid and valuable diversion orchestrated by God in the provisional interim period of the old covenant, intended to cause the Israelites to recognize their sinfulness so that they could appreciate God's grace fulfillment of the promise in Jesus Christ. The inadequacy and inferiority of the Law compared to promise is noted in Paul's statement: "For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law." If God had given a law that had the power or dynamic to activate divine life in man, then the righteous character of God which is entirely implicit in His own Being and character could have been derived out of legal performance of the law. But this is impossible, because God's life and righteousness can only be derived out of Himself by the dynamic of His grace - never in detachment from His own Being in action. Paul later explained to the Corinthians that "the letter of the Law kills" (as man dies trying to perform perfectly, only to be condemned all the more), but "the Spirit gives life" (II Cor. 3:6). To the Romans he explained that the Law was an instrument of death (Rom. 7:9,10,13), whereas "the Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead gives life to the Christian as the Spirit of Christ indwells us" (Rom. 8:11). This obviates Paul's repeated contrasting of Law and Spirit (3:2-5; 4:4-6; 5:13,16,18). There was no inherency of life in the Law. It was impotent. The Law carried with it no dynamic, no provision, no resource to perform its demands, much less restore and invest divine life in fallen man. It could not regenerate, and because it could not enliven man with the life of God it could not justify or impart God's righteous character to man either objectively or subjectively. Paul's point? Though the Abrahamic promises and the Mosaic Law are not contradictory, there is nevertheless an impotency and inferiority of the Law in reference to the promise. Old covenant Law was unable to provide what fallen man needed, unable to fulfill the divine promises, able only to expose man's need and the inability of man to acquire or achieve such, thus setting mankind up for the life (Jn. 1:4; 14:6; 10:10; I Jn. 5:12) and righteousness (I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 5:21) that are derived from Jesus Christ alone in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.

3:22 ­ Eliminating any possibility of self-justification for any person, Paul adds that "the Scripture has shut up all men under sin..." As in 3:8 the "Scripture" is seemingly personified as it represents the written revelation of God's activity. God's actions as recorded and presented in the Scriptures have consigned and confined all men universally, both Jew and Gentile (Rom. 3:9), in the consequences of their sin, stemming as it does from their Adamic solidarity in the Fall. "God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all" (Rom. 11:32). Paul does not seem to be referring to any particular passage of Scripture, but may be referring to the collective whole of the Old Testament Scripture message, or to a general collection of Scripture citations similar to those he later quoted in Romans 3:10-18. The solidarity of humanity's sin with the choice of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21) and the universality of man's condemnation (Rom. 5:16,18; I Cor. 11:32; II Cor. 3:9) "under sin," being "made sinners" (Rom. 5:19) in spiritual condition, and locked into sin as "slaves of sin" (Jn. 8:34; Rom. 6:6) behaviorally, serves to demonstrate that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23) and "all the world is accountable to God" (Rom. 3:19). The entirety of the human race in their fallen spiritual condition are under the condemnation of sin objectively before God, and under the power of sin subjectively, which includes imprisonment in the bondage of religious and humanistic performance standards.

   This plight and predicament of mankind in the condition and consequences of sin allows God purposes to be served "that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Not that God predestined man's sin, but He certainly foreknew the occasion of such and His solution for such in His Son. His promises to Abraham of a blessed solution to the stalemate of sin in His own action of redemptive and restorative grace in Jesus Christ, made known the only antidote to the universality of man's sin. Jesus Christ as the Redeemer, Deliverer, Savior and Lord sets the human prisoners of sin free from their bondage and imprisonment, allowing them the liberty (5:1,13) to function as God intended. The promised blessings of divine life and righteousness can only be received by faith, as was prototypically portrayed by Abraham (3:6-14). They are not earned by meritorious performance of the Law. They are not detached benefits dispensed by a Deistic benefactor. But everything that God has to give to man is in the ontological dynamic of the Person and work of Jesus Christ by His Spirit. Christian faith is not a singular and punctiliar event of consent, but is the continuous dynamic process of our receptivity of His activity, as we "keep on believing."

3:23 ­ Returning to the explanation of the purpose of the Law, Paul states that "before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed." Prior to the coming of the availability of the life of Jesus Christ received by faith, Paul and all of the Jewish peoples were guarded by a guard (Greek word contains this repetition) under the jurisdiction of the Law for a prolonged period in the past (imperfect tense in Greek). The negative sense of being held under the custody of a guard would imply that the Jews were held in subjection under the sentence of condemnation. But in the positive sense in which the Greek word is used elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Phil. 4:7; I Pet. 1:5), Paul's meaning is probably that the Jewish people were watched over and kept in God's protective custody. The Law was not an oppressive and abusive jailer, but it did serve a custodial purpose of providing moral parameters which kept the physical peoples of God corralled and thus guarded and protected from the ramifications that could have befallen them in rampant and unrestrained rebellion.

   Remaining "shut up under sin" (22), the Hebrew peoples were also "shut up to the faith," the availability of Jesus Christ, which was yet to be revealed. Contained within God's protective custody, they were still constrained from all the promised blessings of God in Jesus Christ, until God "in the fullness of time" (4:4) would reveal the fullness of His redemptive and restorative purpose in His Son. The advent of Jesus Christ, the fullness of the revelation of God in the new covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, was at the same time the terminus of the old covenant arrangement allowing for the liberation of the physical Israelites from the protective custody of the Law in order to participate in the grace-provision of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

3:24 ­ Employing a correlative metaphor that transitions from the protective to the preparational purpose of the Law, Paul explains that "Therefore the Law has become our governor until Christ, that we may be justified by faith." The thought moves from the protective custody of a guard to the preparational custody of a child-attendant during the provisional period of the Law's purpose. The Greek word that Paul uses (paidagogos) has been employed in English as the pedagogical discipline of education and teaching. Various English translations have translated Paul's reference to the Law in this verse as a "schoolmaster" (KJV) or "tutor" (NASB). However, the Greek word that Paul used did not refer to a schoolteacher, but to the first-century practice of a slave who served as a supervisory guardian to attend to and escort minor children in their upbringing. After the wet-nurse in infancy and the nanny for young children, the male children in particular were served by a governor who attempted to govern their behavior, made sure they were escorted to school, and directed them in the development of adult social skills. In the process of preparing these adolescent children for adulthood the governor often had to use corrective discipline to enforce the guidelines and keep the young boys in line and on schedule. This discipline was often stern, harsh and oppressive. The paidagogos is depicted in ancient drawings with a rod in his hand, meting out abusive corporeal punishment. He was often like a dictatorial drill-instructor using physical force to direct the young boys into manhood. The importance of understanding the first-century meaning of paidagogos becomes clear when the analogy to the Law is interpreted. The Law did not serve as an educatory instructor teaching the Jewish people how to perform morally and religiously so they could live better Christian lives after the Messiah came. (That would have been consistent with the Judaizers' emphasis.) Rather, the Law served as a corrective and disciplinary governor over the Hebrew peoples during the adolescent phase of their history prior to the availability of full adulthood privileges as "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (26). The Law did not prepare Israel educationally or tutorially for the Messiah, nor was its purpose primarily to escort them to Christ, but it was an oppressive disciplinary measure that was designed to make the promised blessings of adulthood in Christ all the more desirable. It served such a purpose until Christ came, at which time it was revealed that righteousness, both objectively imputed and subjectively imparted, could only be experienced by faithful receptivity of the activity of the Righteous One, Jesus Christ.

3:25 ­ "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a governor." The availability of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises meant that the Hebrew people no longer required a disciplinary governor. They no longer needed a baby-sitter, a child-escort, or a disciplinary drill-instructor. The slavish purposes of the Law were no longer required. They could go beyond the restrictive supervision of childhood immaturity by receiving the ontological presence of Jesus Christ in their spirit, in order to enjoy the full privileges of adult sonship in the Christian family of God. No longer were they to be led around by the legal guardian, but they could be "led by the Spirit" (Rom. 8:14) as mature sons. "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (5:18). "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4). Paul was affirming the cessation, the historical terminus of all the instrumental purposes of the Mosaic Law, and advising the Galatian Christians of the impossibility of going back to adolescent discipline when the age of mature adulthood had been made available by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. To even attempt to revert to legalism as the Judaizers were encouraging, would be to deny all the privileges of God's promised grace.

3:26 ­ The reason why no one in the Galatian churches needed a legal governor was "because you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Verses 15 to 25 were a digression that considered the precedence of the promises and the purpose of the Law, and now Paul draws that premise together with the conclusion to the point he was making in verses 6 to 14 about Christians being the sons of Abraham by faith. It must be remembered that the Jewish peoples claimed to be the exclusive "sons of Abraham" by physical descent, as well as the exclusive "sons of God" in special relationship with God. Paul counters such exclusivism by indicating that all of the Galatian Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile heritage, are completed sons of God with a direct, spiritual relationship with God through the receptivity of Christ in faith. While emphasizing the universality of the availability of the gospel in Christ, Paul is not espousing the universal inclusivity of universalism, for such a personal relationship with God is conditioned by the receptivity of faith. Such faith is not just the cognitive assent of believism, but is the ontological reception of the Spirit of Christ whereby a spiritual union is effected with His divine life. In this new covenant fulfillment of the divine promises, the physical connections of the Jewish claim to be the "sons of Abraham" and the "sons of God" have been superseded by the privileges of all Christians to participate in the spiritual "family of God," as the "chosen race, the holy nation, the People of God" (I Pet. 2:9,10).

3:27 ­ In additional explanation of such a relationship of spiritual union "in Christ Jesus," Paul writes, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." The contextual setting of his argument disallows any sacramentalistic interpretation of baptismal regeneration which might imply that being "sons of God" was essentially contingent on the external act of water baptism. Paul had no intent to replace the external rite of circumcision with the performance of the external rite of water baptism. Instead, Paul affirms that every genuine Christian who has been overwhelmed into, and identified with, Jesus Christ is now encompassed, enveloped, enclosed and enclothed with His life and character. Notice, there is no reference to being "baptized into water," but only the figurative concept of being "baptized into Christ," i.e. into His name (cf. Matt. 28:20), His Person, His Being, His presence, His nature, His life, His character, His family relationship. To the Romans, Paul would later write that "all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death" (Rom. 6:3); overwhelmed in identification with His death, "buried with Him in baptism...raised up with Him through faith" (Col. 2:12). The overwhelming of the human spirit by the Spirit of Christ in regeneration enacts a spiritual union that creates an entirely new spiritual identity as a "Christ-one," a Christian. "If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new" (II Cor. 5:17). This regenerative spiritual overwhelming is the spiritual baptism that Paul refers to when he writes that "by one Spirit, we were all baptized into one Body, whether Jew or Gentile, slaves or free, being made to drink of one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). The physical act of water baptism has always been regarded by orthodox Christianity as the external, visible, public representation and expression of the internal, spiritual reality of being overwhelmed into Christ and the Spirit's overwhelming of the human spirit. That being true, the Galatian Christians might well have remembered their water baptism as pictorially representative of their overwhelming into Christ.

   When we use such language of being "baptized into Christ" or "clothed with Christ" in "spiritual union," there is no implication of becoming "little Christs" or of being absorbed into Christ to the extent that there is no distinction between Christ and the Christian. Such mystical absorption theories extract Christianity from the time and space actualities of human life on earth. Spiritual realities are admittedly difficult to express in human language, but Paul uses the metaphor of being enclothed or invested with Christ, in consonance with the concept of "putting on the new man" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This should not be conceived of in terms of theatric role-playing by the putting on of a costume, but instead as the investiture of Christ in order to express the character of Christ in Christian behavior. Many commentators have mentioned the Roman practice of toga virilis, the occasion when a Roman boy put on a toga to indicate that he had "come of age" and entered manhood. Though the picture corresponds with Paul's reasoning about becoming mature sons in Christ, there is nothing in the text that would indicate that he had this in mind as he wrote these words to the Galatians.

3:28 ­ Continuing to emphasize the universality of the gospel in contradistinction to Jewish exclusivism, Paul declares that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If all Christians have put on the same Christ-clothing, the same Christ-investiture, the same Christ-identity, then all human class distinctions have been transcended and superseded in Christian unity. The major physical differentiations that create divisive segregation among men are (1) racial, ethnic and cultural differences, (2) social and economic differences, and (3) sexual gender differences. Paul indicates that all exclusivism and discrimination based on these three major areas of race, money and sex are eliminated for those who are overwhelmed in Christ and clothed with Christ (27).

   Racism, culturalism, and nationalism have no part in the kingdom of God, for all Christians comprise a "chosen race" and "a holy nation" spiritually (I Pet. 2:9). Though Christians may be of different races having diverse ethnic heritage, such differences have no significance before God.

   Likewise, the differences of social class or economic privilege should have no bearing on value and worth within the interactions of Christian peoples. There should be no sense of personal superiority or inferiority; no sense of elevation or condescension; no sense of pride or embarrassment. It doesn't matter if one Christian is a blue-collar worker and another is an aristocrat, if one is a minimum-wage worker and another is a millionaire stock-broker. The identity of every Christian is found only in Jesus Christ. That is why slaves and masters could function together in the early church (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; Philemon).

   Even the gender discrimination so unfairly imposed by religion and cultures through the centuries is to have no place in the kingdom of Christ. God created mankind as "male and female" (Gen. 1:27), and husbands and wives are "joint-heirs of the grace of life" (I Pet. 3:7) in Christ. There are to be no second-class citizens in the kingdom of God, and it is a sad fact indeed that women have often been relegated to such in male-dominated ecclesiasticism.

   Paul is not advocating the annihilation of human differences, but is emphasizing the integration and interdependence of Christian people. His is no argument for absolute egalitarianism that refuses to recognize racial, social and gender differences. There are blacks and whites; Caucasians and Orientals. Subordinated function is necessary in social order. Paul is not promoting the extremisms of "liberation theology" or the feminist agenda that espouses an androgynist uni-sex. Paul's point is the interpersonal integration and cooperation of Christian people.

   The restoration of man in Jesus Christ restores the individual to a spiritual condition of union and relationship with God, but also creates the restoration of collective interpersonal relationships among Christians that constitutes a "new creation" (6:15), a "new humanity" (Eph. 2:15) as a "holy nation" (I Pet. 2:9) within the singular Body of Christ (Eph. 2:16; 4:4). This radical and revolutionary integration of people wherein "Christ is all in all" (Col. 3:11) was such a contrast to the predominant Jewish perspective expressed by the daily prayer of a Jewish male: "Thank you Lord, for not making me a foreigner, a slave, or a woman." Such attitudes were probably retained to some degree by the Judaizers who had come to Galatia. Paul did not want the young Galatian Christians to be swayed into thinking that Jewish blood, free birth, or male gender constituted any advantage in the kingdom of Christ.

   Paul reminds the Galatian Christians that they "are all one in Christ Jesus." This spiritual unity is established by God in Christ, and is not necessarily a structural unity of ecclesiasticism achieved through ecumenism (cf. Eph. 4:4-6). Christ in each Christian creates a collective identity and unity in the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:4,5; I Cor. 12:12-27; Col. 3:15).

3:29 ­ In conclusion of his careful argument that ties the blessing of Christ to the promises to Abraham, Paul writes: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." He wanted the Galatian Christians to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they did not have to submit to male circumcision or perform the requirements of the Jewish Law in order to participate in all that God intended for man, as expressed in His earliest promises of restoration. "As many as are the promises of God, they are affirmed and enacted in Jesus Christ" (II Cor. 1:20). If (since) you are "in Christ" (26,28), "of Christ" (29), "overwhelmed into Christ" (27), or "clothed with Christ" (27) ­ in other words, if you have received the Spirit of Christ and are identified as a "Christ-one," a Christian, then you are part of the promised offspring of Abraham. Abraham's descendants are no longer determined by the physical procreation of the Hebrew blood-line. Christians who are spiritually incorporated into the singular individual "Seed" of Abraham (16,19), i.e. Jesus Christ, are the collective spiritual "seed" of Abraham, and heirs of all that God promised to mankind in Abraham. "Those who are of faith are sons of Abraham" (3:7). The promised blessings of God are inherited by the grace of God, not merited by legalistic performance. This concept of Christians being the "heirs" of the promised "inheritance" will become the springboard for Paul's argument in the following chapter.

   The importance of Paul's argument in these verses cannot be over-estimated. Despite the difficulty of following the intricacies of his reasoning, and the danger of "missing the forest for the details in the trees," Paul was a master logician and a meticulous lawyer who crafted his arguments with precision. Using the same old covenant documents that the Judaizers were no doubt using to bolster their position of performance, Paul cites prior references to the Genesis promises employing a radical reinterpretation of Old Testament history from a new covenant perspective "in Christ," which he maintains was God's intended perspective from the beginning. He preemptively poses the questions (19,21) that might be raised by those of a different persuasion, and answers the questions before his opponents can ask the questions. Brilliant debate technique!

   His argument is for the "precedence of the promises" to Abraham over the Mosaic Law, arguing that the Abrahamic promises (1) precede in time or sequence, (2) have priority of importance or significance, and (3) have preference of superiority or supremacy. Though the promises and the Law are not contradictory, they do have contrasting purposes. The objective of the promises to Abraham reveal the comprehensive and essential purpose of God to restore mankind to His created intent by a direct and immediate expression of grace whereby the divine blessing of the inheritance of life and righteousness in Jesus Christ might be received by faith. The temporary and limited purposes of the Mosaic Law were subsidiary and supplemental, incidental and instrumental, serving to expediently enhance Israel's awareness of the need of God's grace, and thus to develop appreciation for such grace when it was historically incarnated in Christ. The Law prescribed behavior consistent with God's character, provided temporary atonement procedures for the failure to live perfectly in accord with God's character, protected the nation of Israel from the repercussions of total lawlessness, and prepared the physical people of God for the full blessings of God in the Messiah, as promised to Abraham. It is imperative that Christians in every age recognize the subordinated and auxiliary purposes of the Law within the context of the greater restorational purposes of God. Failure to understand the distinct and varied objectives of promise and Law impinges upon the character of God, making Him unfair and inconsistent like the hypothetical father who promised his children a visit to Disneyland and then reneged by attempting to implement a program of performance standards. Failure to understand the provisional parameters of the interim arrangement of the Law within the primary purpose of the Christological promises to Abraham allows Christian people to be susceptible to the performance incentives of the Judaizing legalists, who were not only present in the first-century world, but have spawned a myriad of religious relatives in every age.

   From an historical perspective, it is important to note that God did not say to the Israelites, "If you do not keep the Law, you will not get the blessings of the promises to Abraham," i.e. Jesus Christ. The fulfillment of the promises was not contingent on Israel keeping the Law. Thank goodness! God did not threaten the abolition of the promises based upon the Jewish failure to keep the Law. That would have been unfair and inconsistent of God. He did indicate that the failure to keep the Law would incur individual and national consequences, but despite their failures God was committed to keep His promise to send His Son, who would "become the curse for us" (3:13), incurring upon Himself all the consequences of human disobedience and sin, taking our deserved death consequences that we might have His life.

   The problem that precipitated this letter was that the Galatian Christians had received the complete fulfillment of all the promises of God in Jesus Christ. They were cognizant of the grace-dynamic of Christ's life and righteousness. Why, then, were they prone to fall for the Judaizing insistence on performance of the Law? The Galatians still had the fallen, fleshly propensity to revert to the fallacious idea of human ability to perform and produce in order to please God. That temptation is always presented to Christians, contrary to the Spirit's grace motivations (5:16,17). In addition, the content of Paul's letter would indicate that the Galatians (and obviously the Judaizers) failed to apprehend the temporary purpose of the Law, terminated as it was in the advent of Jesus Christ, and failed to appreciate the complete restorational purpose of God in Jesus Christ. When one has received everything that God has to give in Jesus Christ (cf. I Cor. 3:21-23; Eph. 1:3,10; Col. 2:10; II Pet. 1:3), it is ludicrous to listen to the religious legalists and their preposterous propositions of performance in order to acquire what one has already received. Why would the Galatians go backwards to that which was obsolete and superseded? Why would they submit to the demands of a dead religious system of "dos and don'ts" and "dead works" (Heb. 6:1; 9:14)? Paul explains that such reversionism is a distortion of the gospel (1:7), a denigration of the cross (2:21), and a denial of the all-sufficient grace of God in Jesus Christ. Yet, to this day we observe innumerable forms of legalists advocating the experiential behavioral benefits of the Law for Christians, focusing, as they do, on sin-consciousness, brokenness, confessionism, suppressionism, crucifixionism ("dying to self"), and submission to moral and ethical guidelines. Many well-meaning teachers are inadvertently playing the role of the Judaizers as they teach so-called "Christian ethics" based on the Ten Commandments, and explain that everyone must first submit to the Law in order to understand grace.

   Christians in every age are obliged to ask, "Does the old covenant Law have any behavioral application to Christians? Are Christians expected to keep the Ten Commandments?" Despite the attempts of theological interpreters to arbitrarily subdivide the Law into ceremonial, civil and moral categories in order to make some requirements applicable to Christians and eliminate others, the specifically defined historical parameters of the Law between the time of Moses and John the Baptist (Lk. 16:16) or Jesus (3:19) explicitly indicate that the behavioral incentives of the Old Testament Law are not applicable to Christians. The Law, expressive of the character of God, is now "written in the hearts" (Jere. 31:33; Heb. 8:10; 10:16) of Christians, with all the provision, resource and sufficiency of the grace of God in the ontological dynamic of the life of Jesus Christ.

   Should the Law be utilized and incorporated into civil law to create moral and legal guidelines which serve as a social deterrent to lawless anarchy (cf. I Tim. 1:8-10)? Human government has an obligation to do so, but Christians must understand that such legal and ethical formulations serve no purpose in the function of the Kingdom of God. Should parents establish parental laws with defined parameters of expectation for their children? They are obliged to do so, but Christian parents should not expect such to be the conduit whereby their children become Christians and evidence Christian conduct. The failures of the children will be made evident to them by the consequences of their failure to abide by parental guidelines, governmental guidelines, or moral, legal and logical guidelines, and God will draw them to Himself by His grace. It is always illegitimate for Christians to attempt to extract the old covenant Law from its historical context, and attempt to implement the Law experientially and behaviorally in the Christian life.

   Allow me to conclude with another illustrative analogy "in human terms" (15). Who in his right mind (only a fool) would want to go back to "basic training" or "boot-camp," when he has already enjoyed the privileges of his rank as a soldier? Boot-camp is that horrible process of being pushed to one's limits, screamed at by the drill-sergeant, and humiliated until one's impudence and pride are quashed. It is a rigid, unforgiving and depersonalizing process. But it serves a temporary and expedient purpose in subduing a brash young man or woman, until they discover their identity and purpose as a soldier in the Armed Forces. There are, no doubt, a few militaristic masochists and sadists who think that real soldiers should function in boot-camp regimen all the time, but the majority of soldiers appreciate the fact that they do not have to do so. Despite the obvious limitations of this analogy, it serves to demonstrate the pathological perplexity of the Galatians reverting to the burdensome rules and regulations of the Law after having enjoyed the blessings of the fulfilled promises of God in Jesus Christ.