The Law and the Promise Galatians 3:15-25

The Law and the Promise Galatians 3:15-25 As we return to chapter 3 of the book of Galatians this morning Paul continues to expound the truth of the gospel: Salvation is a free gift of God received through faith and it is not dependent on any human effort. As you and I stand here with faith in Christ s payment for our sins, we can be confident that the Judge of all the heavens and the earth has declared us not guilty. We will be not guilty on the future day of judgment and we are not guilty right now. That is a huge deal. That you and I can be confident today about our destiny after we die That you and I can be confident that through our faith in Christ s sacrifice on the cross, we have God s favor, we have his smile so to speak, we can be assured that His holy wrath has been averted That you and I can be confident that nothing can separate us from his love All of that confidence comes from the doctrine of salvation by faith alone or salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Augustus Toplady said it well in the hymn Rock of Ages: Not the labors of my hands can fulfill thy law's commands; could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, all for sin could not atone in other words the labors of my hands, my zeal, my tears all for sin could not atone thou must save, and thou alone. Now as we have reentered the book of Galatians weekly, we ve said that it was the Judaizers who were stirring up problems in the Galatians churches. (And the word Judaizer means those who emphasized that it was important to live like Jews to win God s acceptance) The Judaizers didn t believe in the true gospel. They preached a different gospel, a gospel that said that faith in Christ was not enough. They argued that true acceptance by God came from trusting Jesus sacrifice for sins plus involvement in the works of the law presumably orienting their lives around the Jewish food guidelines, observing certain special days and most prominently, circumcision. For the Judaizers it was faith in Christ plus the works of the law which brought acceptance with God. And so Paul in Galatians is challenging that false gospel and he seeks to put the Law in its place, he seeks to clarify the purpose of the Law and steer the Galatians away from their new found fascination with Law as something that could give them acceptance with God, as something that could help them along in their Christian journey. Let me briefly review where we ve been in Galatians 3 In the first five verses of Galatians 3, Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions such as Was it works of the law that brought you the blessed Holy Spirit? 1

Was it works of the law that caused God to supply the spirit and work miracles among you? The answer he expects is, No! Of course not! And then in verses 6-7 he basically asks, Was it works of the law that saved Abraham? Again the answer is No. Abraham was declared righteous before the law even came. He was declared righteous because he believed God s promise, Genesis 15:6 6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. It s by faith that we become children of Abraham; we don t become children of Abraham by works of the law. In fact, Paul goes on to communicate in verses 10-14 of Galatians 3 that the law only brings a curse because no one can keep it fully. And furthermore Christ was given to us to redeem us from the curse of the law. As so as we pick up in Galatians 3:15 today, Galatians 3:15, Paul will continue to drive home the fact that a focus on the Law, keeping the works of the law, is a really a distraction, it s a digression from what s most important, the promise. The law has its limits. The law has a different purpose than the promise. The law was always intended to be a temporary guardian and custodian until Christ came. Let me use an illustration to communicate what Paul will do in Galatians 3 today. Imagine a landscape of three mountains 1 POWERPOINT Three Mountains in God s Redemptive Plan Paul will be suggesting that the way to really understand the Old Testament history is to see redemptive history as if there is a beginning to it and if there is an end to it and how God has worked with his people over time. The point is that redemptive history unfolds over a continuum. And remember that the Judaizers, focused on Moses and the Law were focused on the middle mountain. Basically, Paul will argue that of the three mountains in the panorama, the middle mountain is not the most important mountain of all. 1 Stott makes reference to this idea on page 92 2

Specifically, God s dealings with Abraham and Moses were based on two different principles and Paul is out to show in verses 15-18 that the promise to Abraham (mountain 1) is to have priority over the law given to Moses (mountain 2) We could imagine Paul saying, Galatians you re mesmerized by the second mountain thinking it can help win acceptance with God.. You re mistaken. It s actually the first mountain, the mountain of God s promise to Abraham that should have priority over the second mountain. The promise to Abraham should be given priority over the law because the promise to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ (HIT ENTER- Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham) and since Christ has come the third mountain is really the only mountain that deserves your attention. Here s the logic that Paul will argue in verses 15-18: To Abraham, God gave a promise I will give you an offspring, I will bestow on that offspring a land, and in that offspring all the families of the earth will be blessed. But to Moses, God gave the law What s the difference between the promise and the law? In the promise to Abraham, God said I will I will I will. But in the Law of Moses God said, Thou shalt Thou shalt Thou shalt not John Stott expresses the contrast between the law and the promise this way The promise sets forth the religion of God God s plan, God s grace, God s initiative. But the law sets forth a religion of man man s duty, man s works, man s responsibility. The promise (standing for the grace of God) had only to be believed. But the law (standing for the works of men) had to be obeyed. God s dealing with Abraham were in the category of promise, grace, and faith. God s dealings with Moses were in the category of law, commandments, and works. 2 Again, you see the Judaizers were focused on the middle mountain. But Paul wants to challenge the Galatians to take their eyes off the middle mountain and to focus on the first (it s the priority of the first two) but ultimately since Christ has come, their focus should be on the third mountain, Christ. We ll be looking at verses 15-25 of chapter 3 this morning. And I think theses verses hang together under this simple outline. POWERPOINT The Law and the Promise 1. The priority of the promise over law (vs. 15-18) 2. The purpose and function of the law (vs. 19-25) 2 Stott, page 86-87 3

Well let s look at the first point on the outline I. The priority of the promise over the law (vs. 15-18) 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Notice in verse 15 Paul calls the Galatians brothers. 3 I was struck by this. He is frustrated with them. He is exasperated with them. He is perplexed by their behavior but they are brothers. I was surprised to see how often Paul interjects the word brothers in his letter to them. (Galatians 1:11, 1:19, 2:4; 3:15; 4:12; 4:28; 4:31; 5:11; 5:13; 6:1 and 6:18) In fact listen to how the book ends Galatians 6:18 (ESV)-- 18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen. What a model for dealing with each other in the church! Yes we struggle with each other and yes we are confused about what each other is doing at times but we are brothers and sisters in Christ! Well look at verse 15. Paul mentions a human example, To give a human example, 4 he begins, a man-made covenant that no one annuls or adds to it once it is ratified. Basically Paul says, Let me give you an everyday illustration. Now what is Paul talking about? The word that he uses (diatheke) can be translated covenant or will (as in last will and testament). Which does Paul have in mind? Does he have in mind a covenant between men like the ones we see in the bible? (Gen. 21:22-32; 26:26-31; 31:44-45; I Sam. 18:3; 20:8; 22:8, 23:18; 2 Sam. 3:12) 5 Abraham made a treaty with Abimelech in Genesis 21 for example. Or does he have in mind a will (or last will and testament) that someone draws up to give directions for how an inheritance will be split by those left behind? 6 Scholars are all over the board in answering that question. Part of the problem is that Egyptian, Roman and Greek wills could be altered and changed just like the way it is for us in the United States. 7 Don t you often use this line around your house? I m going to write you out of the will if you don t behave! But Paul is talking about a will or covenant that couldn t be altered. 3 Brothers appears almost always in the epistolary seams: at the start of a major section (Gal. 1:11; 3:15; 4:12; 5:13); at the start of a subunit within a section (Gal. 3:15; 6:1); at the end of a unit of material (4:31; 5:11), or as the final word in the letter, (Gal. 6:18, not counting amen Longenecker, page 126 4 This reference appears three other times; To give a human example Romans 3:5 I speak in a human way ; Romans 6:19 I am speaking in human terms ; I Cor. 9:8 Do I say these things on human authority) Longenecker, page 127 5 Schreiner gives us this list, page 227 6 Josephus, for example, who was both a man of his day and one trained in Jewish thought always used diatheke to mean testament or will and never in the 32 appearances in his writings to mean covenant Longenecker, page 128 7 LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS: Ryken argues that Greek law was slightly different from Roman Law. According to the Greeks, a will could not be repealed or revoked. It could not even be modified. Once it had been properly registered and deposited at the public-record office, a Greek testament could never be altered (from FF Bruce) Was Greek law the secular background for Paul s analogy? (William Ramsey for example) Was Roman law the secular background for Paul s analogy? (See Bammel and Taylor as quoted by Longenecker) It is an established fact that a Greek or Roman will was revocable by the maker (Burton as quoted by Longenecker) Egyptian wills were revocable too. 4

So if wills back then generally could be altered, what is Paul talking about? There is an intriguing option from Jewish inheritance law. The Jews had a special procedure for making an irrevocable testament prior to death. 8 And it shows up in a very familiar story, the story of the Prodigal son. The younger son asked for his inheritance before his father died. In other words he was asking for an irrevocable testament that could be neither added to nor annulled. 9 Whatever the precise legal background for Paul s comment may be, it s clear that in verse 15, Paul is arguing from the lesser to the greater. If even human covenants are irrevocable and cannot be supplemented, how much more a covenant given by God! Continuing in verse 16 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. We won t take the time to review the promises made to Abraham and his offspring in Gen. 12, 15, 17, 22 and 24. 10 But what s surprising is what Paul says next in verse 16 It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. Now Paul knew full well that offspring was a collective noun, like the noun family (a family is one unit but it can have several people) The word offspring is like that. And in fact, Paul uses the word offspring collectively down in verse 29. Look there: Galatians 3:29 (ESV) 29 And if you are Christ s, then you are Abraham s offspring, (he is talking about many here) heirs according to promise. So Paul is very aware that the term offspring can be a collective noun. He also knew that Abraham s offspring were to number as many as the dust of the ground (Gen. 13:16) or as many the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:6). But Paul goes out of his way to explain that God s covenant promises to Abraham ultimately referred to someone in particular, one person Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the true offspring promised to Abraham He is the party to the covenant that God made with Abraham. That s why Paul could claim, just a few verses earlier, Galatians 3:8, 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed. Stott counters, In ancient Greek law, once a will was executed and ratified, it could not be revoked or even modified (Stott, page 88) Greco- Egyptian testaments were revocable. The right to revoke a will was provided by the insertion of a special clause. The first testament could not be revoked by the drawing up of a new one. The revocation of the first had to be made either in the form of a special clause in the new testament or by a separate legal act, or by the withdrawal of the document from notaries Raphael Taubenschlag as quoted by Longenecker 8 mattenat bari (Ryken) But there was another way to dispose of property within the family in which ownership was transferred while the donor was alive. donation mortis causa The donor retained right of use and enjoyment. Since this was considered a gift these kinds of promises were irrevocable. 9 Ryken, page 121 10 Gen. 12:2-3; 7; 13:15-16; 15:4-6, 18; 17:4, 7-8; 22: 17-19; 24:7. 5

God made a promise to Abraham, a promise about Jesus Christ. And like a human will, this divine promise by God about Jesus Christ was unalterable. It is still in force today, for it has never been rescinded. And this shows how God s covenant with Abraham has something to do with the Galatian believers (and with us). Philip Ryken writes this Once we understand that God s promise to Abraham is a promise to Christ, then the fact that the word offspring is a collective noun, makes perfect sense. A collective noun can refer to a single individual or to a group of individuals, or to both. So it is with the offspring of Abraham. The promise (given to Abraham) refers first of all to a single individual Jesus Christ. But it also refers to a collection of individuals, namely everyone who belongs to Christ. The party to the covenant is Christ and all who are in him. God gave the promise to Abraham. The promise was Christ. Since we are in Christ the promise is for us. 11 Isn t that what Galatians 3:29 says, And if you are Christ s, then you are Abraham s offspring. In the words of the Puritan William Perkins, The promises made to Abraham are first made to Christ, and then in Christ to all that believe in him 12 So again think about the context. The Judaizers are troubling the Galatian congregation saying that they need to take on works of the law to be accepted by God. And Paul is saying No a promise was given to Abraham and his offspring. And that offspring is Christ. If you are in Christ you are Abraham s offspring And Paul moves on in verse 17 and 18 to show that the special promises made to Abraham are a priority over the law. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. What is Paul saying in verse 17? He is saying that the Mosaic covenant which came 430 years 13 after the promise to Abraham did not annul the promise to Abraham or make it void. The promise is still binding even though the law came in the middle. It s conceivable that the rabbis didn t read the scripture in terms of its overall story line but that they mined the Old Testament for truths whereever they found them. 14 But Paul argues that the story line matters. The chronology in which the story unfolds is fundamental for reading scripture rightly 15 11 Ryken, page 124 12 Ryken, page 124 13 Schreiner, In Genesis 15:13 the time in Egypt is 400 years, but Paul depends here on Exodus 12:40 which says that the time period was 430 years. The difference in time is of no consequence for the substance of Paul s argument. Longenecker notes how Josephus and the rabbis resolved the difference between the two numbers, seeing the 430 years as the span of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12- Exodus 19?) and 400 years as the period Israel spent in Egypt. 14 Schreiner, page 230 15 Schreiner, page 230 6

So you have the promise to Abraham and then 430 years later, the law through Moses. Some might argue that the law (which came much later) superseded the promise. Or some might argue that the law (again came much later) supplemented the promise. 16 But Paul says the covenant with Abraham takes precedence and priority over the law and the law functions as a subordinate and interim covenant. So for the Galatians to go back and try to live under the Mosaic covenant was to try to live at the wrong time in salvation history. 17 Verse 18 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, (and just a quick note, this is the first appearance of the word inheritance in Galatians) For if the inheritance comes by the law it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Now think about what we said back in verse 15 where Paul mentioned a human example which could have been a last will and testament. And here in verse 18 Paul mentions an inheritance. God gave the inheritance to Abraham by a promise I will, I will, I will. See the word gave in verse 18? If you were to see the word in Greek you d see that it s a variation of the word charis or grace. The inheritance was a gracious gift to Abraham. God gave it to Abraham by a promise..and it was given for good (the perfect tense). 18 And so to the Judaizers, Paul would say, The promise of an inheritance does not depend on observing the Mosaic law or being circumcised. Rather the promise is a gift of God s grace and is freely bestowed in Christ Jesus. Why go back to the Law? So in verses 15-18, Paul has argued that the promise to Abraham has priority over the law given through Moses. And that would naturally raise the question, What is the purpose of the law then? If the promise has priority over the law in salvation history, what is the purpose of the law in salvation history? Or considering all that Paul has said up to this point in Galatians 3 If we re not justified by the law, if our receiving the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the law, if Christ was cursed because of the law, if our very inheritance depends on grace and promise and not works and law, then why did God give the law? 19 We could hear the Judaizers saying, Paul, your theology so fuses Abraham and Christ together that you squeeze out Moses and the law together. There s no room for the law in your gospel! 20 And it s to that question that Paul turns next in verses 19-25 16 These ideas by Ryken, page 126 17 Schreiner, page 231 18 Stott, page 89 19 George, page 252 20 Stott page 89 7

II. The purpose and function of the Law (vs. 19-25) 19 Why then the law? POWERPOINT The Law and the Promise I. The priority of the promise over the law (vs. 15-18) II. The purpose and function of the law (vs. 19-25) HIT ENTER- A.The law reveals/increases sin (vs. 19a) Look at verse 19a It was added 21 (and as I understand it the word added here carries with it a nuance of disparagement) it was added because of transgressions Now why was the Law added because of transgressions? We could offer three reasons and all three have a biblical justification. The question becomes Which of the reasons does Paul have in mind here in the context? Let s explore that briefly. First, some argue that the law was added to restrain sin. There is a sense in which law can have a deterrent effect in society. When wrongdoers are punished quickly, the fear of punishment helps restrain evil. Just as a rope or chain prevents a wild animal from attacking an innocent bystander, so to the law with its thou shalt nots prevents sinful humanity from going on a rampage and completely destroying itself. 22 Down in verse 24 and 25, Paul will tell us that the Law is like a Greek pedagogue or guardian or custodian and often that person helped to restrain evil in the teenager that was in their care. More on that later. A second possible reason that the law could have been added because of transgressions was to bring an awareness of transgressions. Listen to Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes the knowledge of sin. Or Romans 4:15, where there is no law there is no transgression. Still a third possible reason that the law could have been added was to increase transgressions. As counterintuitive as that sounds, listen to Romans 5:20, Now the law came in (and the word there means it entered by a side road) Now the law came in to increase the trespass. You re kidding! Here s the point. The law has a way of making people want to break it. It provokes sin in a sense. It s the old Wet paint! Don t touch! sign. Don t you want to touch it? And doesn t Paul say as much in Romans 7 7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet. 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies 21 Longenecker, page 138 The fact that the augmented prostithamai (add to something present) and not the simple verb tithamai (place, set up) signals a nuance of disparagement and suggests that the law was not of the essence of God s redemptive activity with mankind. 22 George, page 253 8

dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. So which of these three reasons does Paul have in mind here? To restrain transgressions? To bring an awareness of transgressions? To increase transgressions? Given the context--a group of people who have become fixated on the positive aspects of the law- -Paul probably had in mind the latter two: the law brings an awareness of transgressions and increases transgressions. But look at the bottom line there? Will the law help the Galatians win God s acceptance? No! Quite the opposite. The law helps them see how much they sin! The function of the law was not to bestow salvation however, but to convince men of their need of it. Well Paul moves to a second emphasis in the rest of verse 19 and 20 HIT ENTER- The law has its limits (vs. 19b-20).until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. I think Paul makes two points in the second half of verse 19 and verse 20: 1) the law was always designed to be temporary and 2) the law is inferior because it came through an intermediary. The Mosaic Law, for Paul, was intended by God to be in effect for Gods people only until the coming of Christ until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made. And we read back in verse 16 that the offspring is Christ. What Paul says here would suck all the oxygen out of the room for a Jew (and for the Judaizers who were trying to get the Galatians to go Law. For the Jew, the law was immortal, eternal. Jewish writers said as much. Philo, the Jewish philosopher wrote The law won t change as long as the sun, moon, heavens, and earth continue to exist. 23 Paul, the former Pharisee, says no. The law was added because of transgressions until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made. Paul s second point in verses 19 and 20 is that the law was inferior because it came through intermediaries. The inference is that something is superior if it comes from God directly like the promise came from God to Abraham directly. and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Now who was intermediary or mediator? 24 given from the hand of Moses. 25 There are a host of scriptures that say the law was 23 These are quoted by Longenecker, page 138 And Josephus if not their wealth and their cities, at least the law given the Jews remain immortal. 24 Origen, Luther, Calvin, Chrysostrom, Jerome understood it to be Christ. 25 Leviticus 26:46; Num. 4:37, 41, 45, 49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 17:5; 33:1; 36:13; Josh. 21:2; 22:9; Judges 3:4 9

But what about the angels? 1) There are verses that seem to emphasize that angels were present in the giving of the law Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalm 68:17, Hebrews 2:2, and Acts 7:53 for example Steven says You received the law as delivered by angels. 2) By itself the presence of angels wouldn t necessarily communicate inferiority. In fact the presence of angels was a favorite bit of embroidery (just add some angels to the picture and it s more beautiful) in rabbinic tradition and was meant to enhance the glory of Sinai. 26 3) But the context seems to indicate that Paul suggests that the law was inferior because it came through intermediaries. We could illustrate what Paul is saying this way Well in verse 21, Paul argues that the law has a different function that the promise POWERPOINT The Law and the Promise I. The priority of the promise over the law (vs. 15-18) II. The purpose and function of the law (vs. 19-25) A.The law reveals/increases sin (vs. 19a) B. The law has its limits (vs. 19b-20) HIT ENTER- C. The law has a different function than the promise (vs. 21) The more Paul talks about the limits of the law, the more it sounds as if the law stands in contradiction to, or opposed to, or contrary to the promise. So Paul goes there next in verse 21. 21 Is the law then contrary to (opposed to, in contradiction to) the promises of God? Certainly not! May it never be! By no means! God forbid! (KJV) How could the law and the promise be inherently opposed to each when God originated them both! 26 Longenecker, page 140 10

The reason that the law was not at odds with the promise is that it had a totally different function. Unlike the promise, the law could not give life. If it could have done so, then the promise would have been unneccessary. Look at verse 21 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. What Paul is saying here would again suck the oxygen out of the room for any Jew and (given our context, the judaizers.) The judaizers believed that the law brought life. They probably would have agreed with the oral tradition around the time, Lots of Torah, lots of life, If he s gotten the teachings of Torah, he s gotten himself life eternal 27 But Paul says NO! No law gives life! John Bunyan wrote a little ditty that captures the difference between the law and the gospel: Run, John, run, the law commands But gives us neither feet nor hands Far better news the gospel brings It bids us fly and gives us wings. 28 Well how can we bring harmony to the ideas of promise and law? If they are not contrary to one another, how do we bring them together? Only by seeing that men inherit the promise because they cannot keep the law, and that their inability to keep the law makes the promise all the more desirable, indeed indispensable. 29 And to that Paul turns in verses 22-23 HIT ENTER- The law is like a prison guard (verse 22-23) 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. In the ESV the word Scripture is capitalized. What does Paul mean when he says that the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin By scripture does Paul have in mind the law? Or does he have in mind a specific scripture like Deuteronomy 27:26 or Psalm 143:2? 30 I think we can be helped by Romans 11:32 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 27 Mishnah Aboth 2:8, quoted in Scot McKnight, Galatians. 28 As quoted by Schreiner, page 234 29 Stott, page 91 30 Longenecker thinks Deut. 27:26 is most likely because it would be more meaningful given that it s a verse from the first 5 books of the bible. 11

So I think Paul is using a figure of speech 31 here and in using the term scripture, he s speaking of God. God has imprisoned (shut up, completely enclosed) everything under sin so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came (and by that he means before the era of personal faith in Christ) we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming era of faith in Christ would be revealed. The law is like a prison guard. The Greek word for imprisoned (you ll see it used in both verse 22 and 23) means to hold in custody, to kept under constraint It means to hem in or coop up (Liddell and Scott) The Greek word for held captive in verse 23 means to protect by military guards. When applied to a city it was used both of keeping the enemy out and of keeping the inhabitants in, lest they should flee or desert. 32 The law is like a prison guard. So both verbs emphasize that God s law and commandments hold us in prison, and keep us confined, so that we cannot escape. The NEB translation is that we were close prisoners in the custody of the law 33 One other observation in verses 22-23 is worth noting. To be under law is to be under sin Follow me as I glide between verse 22 and verse 23 and you ll see that. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. To be under the law is to be under sin. The law is like a prison guard Two quotes to drive home this point The first by the great reformer Martin Luther The law with its function does contribute to justification not because it justifies, but because it impels one to the promise of grace and makes it sweet and desirable. Therefore we do not abolish the law; but we show its true function and use, namely, that it is a most useful servant impelling us to Christ.for its function and use is not only to disclose the sin and wrath of God but also to drive us to Christ Therefore the principle purpose of the Law in theology is to make men not better but worse; that is it shows them their sin, so that by the recognition of sin they may be humbled, frightened, and worn down, and so may long for grace and for the Blessed Offspring 34 And then this second quote by a guy named Findlay in his commentary 31 metonymy 32 Stott, page 97 33 Stott, page 97 34 As quoted by Ryken, page 137 12

The law was all the while standing guard over its subjects, watching and checking every attempt to escape, but intending to hand them over in due time to the charge of faith. The law posts its ordinances, like so many sentinels round the prisoner s cell. The cordon is complete. He tries again and again to break out; the iron circle will not yield. The deliverance will yet be his. The day of faith approaches. It dawned long go in Abraham s promise. Even now its light shines into his dungeon, and he hears the words of Jesus, Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace. Law, the stern jailor, has after all been a good friend, if it has reserved him for this. It prevents the sinner (from) escaping to a futile and elusive freedom. 35 One final point HIT ENTER- The law is like a pedagogue or guardian or custodian (vs. 24-25) 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, The Greek word beneath the word guardian in the ESV is the Greek word pedagogue. What was the pedagogue and how was the law like a pedagogue? In ancient Greece and Rome, wealthy parents would often place their new-born babies under a wet-nurse who in turn would turn them over to an older woman, or nanny, who would care for their basic needs until the age of 6. At that time they would come under the supervision of another household servant, the pedagogue (guardian, custodian) who remained in charge of their upbringing until late adolescence. 36 So we re talking the ages of 6 to 18 when the pedagogue was involved. A pedagogue was typically a slave in the family but he could be free. 37 He was not a teacher. And therefore the translation schoolmaster is unhelpful. 38 He was more like a child attendant or baby-sitter. 39 He was in charge of discipline and ancient drawings usually depict him holding a rod or cane to administer corporal punishment. 40 As I said, the pedagogue was not a teacher, although he sometimes helped a child review his lessons. He was also in charge of getting the child to and from school. He helped to feed and dress the child and also to carry the child s tablet and stylus, book or scroll, and musical instrument. Once at school, there was a special room where the pedagogues waited for their young students to be done with school. 41 In chapter 4 of his book called Lysis 42, Plato gives a fascinating glimpse into the rearing of a son in a Greek family in this dialogue between Socrates and Lysis 35 As quoted by George, page 264 36 George, page 265 37 Schreiner, page 248 38 KJV 39 Schreiner, page 248 40 Ryken, page 139 41 Ryken, page 140 42 Lysis (Ancient Greek: Λύσις) is a dialogue of Plato which discusses the nature of friendship. It is generally classified as an early dialogue. The main characters are Socrates, the boys Lysis and Menexenus who are friends 13

Socrates: Do they (your mother and father) let you control your own self, or will they not trust you in that either? Lysis: Of course they do not he replied. Socrates: But someone controls you? Lysis: Yes, he said, my pedagogue here. Socrates: Is he a slave? Lysis: Why certainly, he belongs to us, he said Socrates: What a strange thing a free man controlled by a slave! But how does this pedagogue exert his control over you? Lysis: By taking me to the teacher he said. 43 One final thought. Sometimes the pedagogues were known for their kindnesses but one author suggested the dominant image was that of a hard disciplinarian who frequently resorted to physical force and corporal punishment. 44 So what is Paul driving at as he says the law is like a pedagogue? If the pedagogue is seen as a helpful person, is Paul emphasizing that the law served a helpful function as the pedagogue did? Helping the young person mature? Given that the pedagogue was often cruel and harsh, was he emphasizing that the law was a harsh taskmaster? Or could it be that just since everyone finally matures and moves on from their pedagogue, it was time for the Galatians to mature and move on from the Law? If so, his remarks were what they call a coup de grace. A blow of mercy to challenge his brothers in Galatia to leave the law behind. Salvation is a free gift of God received through faith and it is not dependent on any human effort. Run, John, run, the law commands But gives us neither feet nor hands Far better news the gospel brings It bids us fly and gives us wings. 45 If you have yet to put your trust in Christ as Savior, today would be a great day to take that step: Jesus I admit I am sinner. And I am held captive under the law and under sin. Through the bars of my prison I hear the sweet words of Jesus, Your sins can be forgiven.put your trust in me. I want to do that now. Take a moment before the Lord and then I ll close in prayer. 43 Longenecker, page 146 44 George, page 265 45 As quoted by Schreiner, page 234 14

15