In
the first entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on Galatians, I
discussed introductory matters concerning the founding of the churches to the
Galatians, the situation when Paul wrote to them, when the letter might have
been written and the type of letters which Paul wrote, based on the common
Greco-Roman letters of his day.
In
the second post, I considered the basic content and breakdown of a Pauline
letter. I noted the major sections of the formal letter structure and, in the
context of each section, outlined the theological and ethical (as well as
other) concerns of Paul, including some Greek words which will be examined more
fully as we continue with the commentary.
In
the third entry, I looked at the salutation, which is long for Paul’s
corpus (only Romans 1:1-7 is longer) and briefly commented on the lack of a
Thanksgiving, the only letter of Paul’s which does not have one.
The
fourth entry discussed the opening of the body of the letter, a significant
part of the letter especially in light of the absence of a Thanksgiving.
In
the fifth entry, I examined the beginning of the opening of the body of the
letter, in which Paul describes his background in Judaism and I placed this in the
context of Judaism in the Hellenistic period. In
the
sixth post in the online commentary, I continued to look at Paul’s
biographical sketch of his life, this concerning his earliest life as a
Christian.
In
the seventh post, I examined what Paul says about his subsequent visit to
Jerusalem to see the apostles and the Church in Jerusalem
.
In the eighth entry, Paul confronts Cephas about his hypocrisy in
Antioch.
The
ninth blog post started to examine the theological argument in one of
Paul’s most important and complex theological letters.
In
the tenth entry, Paul makes an emotional appeal to the Galatians based on
their past religious experiences and their relationship with Paul.
In
the eleventh chapter in the series, Paul began to examine Abraham in light
of his faith.
The
twelfth blog post continued Paul’s examination of Abraham, but also claims
that Christ “redeemed” his followers from the “curse” of the Law.
In
the thirteenth study in the Galatians online commentary, we looked at Paul’s
claim that God’s promises were to Abraham and his “offspring,” with a twist on
the meaning of “offspring.”
The
fourteenth entry examined Paul’s question, in light of his claims about the
law, as to why God gave the law. The fifteenth chapter in this commentary,
found below, examines the function of the law.
4. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
d) Body of the Letter (1:13-6:10):
iv) Theological Teaching (2:15-5:12): Why
then the law? (3:21-24) part 2.
21 Is the law then
opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that
could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But
the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what
was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to
those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded
under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our
disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. (NRSV)
Paul answered the question “why then the law?” (Galatians
3:19)
in
the previous entry, which discussed the law’s purpose; in the following
section, Paul focuses more thoroughly on how the law functioned in fulfilling
its purpose and whether the law was opposed to God’s promises.
Paul begins by
asking whether “the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For
if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed
come through the law” (Galatians 3:21).
Joseph Fitzmyer rightly states in the NJBC (787) that the Law of Moses tells people what to do, but that
it was not able to give life; this, however, still skips over the most
important question raised by this verse: why could the law not give life? Was
it not intended to give life since it functioned as a sort of “bridge” to the
“offspring” to come? Could God have given a law that could make alive? “If a
law had been given” suggests that God did not give a law that was to “make
alive,” but could have if that had been the divine plan. E.P. Sanders explains
it in this way:
God sent Christ; he
did so in order to offer righteousness; this would have been pointless if
righteousness were already available by the law (2:21); the law was not given
to bring righteousness (3:21). That the positive statement about righteousness
through Christ grounds the negative one about the law seems to me self-evident.
(Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People,
27)
Paul, says Sanders, understands the limited function of the law precisely
because of the saving action of Jesus. Righteousness (or justification: dikaiosynê) was never intended to be
through the law. As such, the law cannot be opposed to the promises of God
since it was not a part of that promise, which was always intended to come
through Christ and be attained through faith.
“What was promised” comes
“through faith in Jesus Christ” so that it “might be given to those who believe”
(Galatians 3:22).
This was always God’s intention. The first part of the verse, however, suggests
another reason for (or understanding of) the giving of the law. Paul writes, “but
the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what
was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe”
(Galatians 3:22). What exactly does it mean for “scripture” to “imprison all
things under the power of sin”?
The first thing to
note is that the reason “scripture” imprisons “all things” is so that or in order that the promises are fulfilled by faith. The Law of Moses, that is, is ordered
to Christ not itself. This helps, but it does not necessarily make it easier to
understand what it actually means for “scripture” to “imprison” “all things under
the power of sin.” Two clarifications might help untie this knot. First, Sanders
believes that “scripture” here is the equivalent of “law” (PLJP, 66, 87), so we can say that “the law imprisons all things.”
Second, the word panta, which is
translated as “all things,” might refer either to “all people” or “all
creation.” Romans 11:32 indicates that human beings are intended. There
Paul writes that “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be
merciful to all.” In fact, Romans 11:32 also allows us to see that “scripture”
is the equivalent of “law,” since both indicate the will of God and the
purposes of God which are directly referenced in Romans. What is finally so
difficult about this verse, then, is understanding that God’s purposes for the
law were to imprison people under the power of sin, that is, this was not a bug
but a feature.
One question
remains: What does “imprison” under the power of sin actually mean? The verb
found here is sygkleiô, which refers
to something or someone being “hemmed in,” or “enclosed,” or “confined.” It
might be that “imprison” raises too many negative connotations about the
function of the law that do not fit. Imprisonment is generally seen as
punishment, less rarely to protect someone from outside forces which are worse
than confinement. It seems, though, that the function of the law was to confine
human beings from the worst ravages of sin by protecting them or guarding them
under the law until Christ came. That this is the intention, I think will be
borne out by Galatians 3:23-24.
Before we examine
those verses, though, we should return to the second half of Galatians 3:22 and
a significant translation question. It is clear that the promises come through
“faith,” not the law, but whose faith or what faith? This was discussed earlier in the online
commentary. There I stated
that I would not try to settle the debate at that time, but allow it to play
out in the context of the letter itself. The primary issue, I said then, is
whether it is Christ’s faith(fulness) that saves us or the Christian’s faith in
what Christ has accomplished. The phrase in Galatians 3:22 is the same as it
was in Galatians 2:16: pisteôs Iesou
Christou. Does this refer to the
subjective genitive (faith of Christ)
or objective genitive (faith in Christ).
In one case the accent is on the person’s faith (objective) and in the other on
the faithfulness of Christ (subjective). I must say that depending upon context
I think both the objective genitive and the subjective context are possible. So
what is the case here?
As found in the
NRSV, the law functioned as it did “so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (or those who have
faith). This objective genitive places the accent on the believer’s faith as
necessary for obtaining the promise, even though “those who believe/have faith”
are already referenced at the end of the verse. The subjective genitive would instead
render this phrase, “so that what was promised through the faith of Jesus Christ
might be given to those who believe/have faith.” In this case, the phrase pisteôs Iesou Christou would emphasize
Jesus’ faith as the means by which the promise is realized and the faith of
Jesus’ followers as the means by which they share in the promise through
Christ’s faithfulness. It is a difficult choice, frankly, but in this case, I
do think the subjective genitive makes the best sense of this passage.
The next two verse
continue the explication of the purpose of the law and support the contention
that the “imprisoning” function of the law was for the benefit of humanity.
Paul writes that “before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the
law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian
until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:23-24).
The language of
“before faith came,” “until faith would be revealed,” and “until Christ came” indicates
that the subjective genitive in Galatians 3:22 makes the best sense of the
phrase pisteôs Iesou Christou there.
“Faith” functions in Galatians 3:23-24 as a locution for Christ, and is
contrasted with the law, whose purpose was to guard, protect, and discipline.
The law functioned as a sort of prison guard “before faith came” (Galatians
3:23) and as a “disciplinarian” (paidagôgos)
(Galatians 3:24). It is the word paidagôgos
that is most interesting, since it is impossible to translate into a concept in
English that makes sense of the functions of the “custodian,” “disciplinarian,”
or “guardian” of ancient Greco-Roman school boys.
The paidagôgos was a man, usually a slave,
whose job was to oversee a boy prior to his reaching maturity. The task of the paidagôgos was to function as a guardian
for the boy when he went to school, making certain he did not get into trouble,
and to make certain as well that the boy learned his lessons at school. The paidagôgos actually had authority to
discipline the boy physically, within limits, even though he was a slave. More
will be said about the paidagôgos in
the next entry, but important here to
stress is that freedom came for a boy from his paidagôgos when he reached the age of majority (usually around 17)
and gained the freedom to leave the home without his guardian. This, Paul, says
was the function of the law, to protect those under its care so that they could
then “be justified by faith” when Christ came. For Paul, this function of the
law is now complete.
Next entry, the end of the role of the paidagôgos
John W. Martens
I encourage you to
“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
