Commentary of Galatians
Galatians, the Law, Paul's epistles, commentary, circumcision
There are many commentaries that elaborate on word definitions or various thoughts contained in the Epistle to the Galatians. It is the purpose here to mainly address the areas of the Epistle that those who hold to the traditional concept of the Law typically misinterpret, misunderstand or gloss over because of their flawed perspective of the Law. For this reason this commentary will not elaborate on every verse. In those cases others have done a sufficient job.
There are also many commentaries that provide a background of the Epistle to the Galatians in Asia Minor. Only the briefest summary of important points about the background of Galatians follows.
Galatia was a province of what is now called Asia Minor, generally Turkey. One or more congregations in the area were probably established on Paul’s 1st journey with Barnabas. Typically Paul visited the local synagogue on the Sabbaths (Acts 13:42). There he found a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles. The believers there were a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. This Epistle was probably written after 51 CE.
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1:6 “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,” Some in Galatia had fallen victim to teaching that was different from the true gospel of Christ. The word 'Christ' is of Greek origin, meaning Messiah. Although initially labeling it a different gospel Paul changes that assertion in his next statement. This ‘different’ gospel at least diminished the ‘grace’ of Messiah. This ‘grace’, used throughout the New Testament is more easily understood as ‘graciousness’. It is the good will, loving kindness and/or favor He extends to mankind in general and His followers in particular.
1:7 “which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” This ‘different gospel’ was not very different, so Paul rectified the perspective by affirming that it was not really a different gospel, but one with a slightly different twist. Although this epistle talks a lot about the Law, a careful examination shows that the law was not likely the specific twist that ‘troubled them’, although it was part of the problem. The problem was that some were pushing the practice of circumcision. Paul always comes back to this matter. Indeed his conclusion in chapter 6 clearly focuses on circumcision. He brings up the Law in order to put it and circumcision in their proper perspective. He brings up circumcision in connection with that, but also in connection with people pushing the practice. Circumcision was the issue being pushed. Of course, it was being pushed because it was expected of Israel in the Law (Lev 12:1-2, Josh 5:2-9).
The dissident group was called ‘those who were of the circumcision’ not ‘those who were of the Law’ (2:12). Everyone needs to understand the shortcomings and limitations of the Law, but the twist had to do with circumcision, not the Law per se. Undoubtedly those of the circumcision used the Law to add weight to their perspective. It undoubtedly did that, which is likely why the Galatians were swayed by this twist of the gospel. Messiah and the Apostles frequently cited the Law throughout the New Testament to reinforce and support some point they were making. The Law was held in high regard.
2:3 “Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised” This first direct reference to circumcision comes suddenly for no apparent reason except that it is the real focus of Paul throughout the rest of Galatians. It is central to the reason for this letter to the Galatians. The very next verse ties it with men who wish to implement a change. The change Paul referred to in 1:6, which certainly involved circumcision for the gentiles, and had evidently not been of any concern in the original teaching prompting the Galatians to believe in Messiah. The letter to the Galatians ultimately comes back to why circumcision was not necessary.
2:6 “But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.” Paul wasn’t overly impressed with the human leadership of the Jerusalem congregation. He evidently didn’t sense that any particular person dominated. If one of the Apostles was in charge it was not apparent after a lengthy visit. There was more than one who ‘seemed to be something’. In any case, as Paul explains in 1:12-17 & 2:1-2 the gospel he preached came by revelation from the Savior Himself. He did not learn it from men, even the Apostles. In this case he seems confident in his understanding of it.
2:7 “But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter” The leaders in Jerusalem evidently quickly recognized the gospel Paul was preaching. They did not try to control him, but agreed to continue what was already happening; Paul worked the gentiles, Peter and the others, the ‘circumcision’. This would indicate Peter was specifically directed to Jews, those of the southern kingdom. It is interesting that I Peter seems to be written from Babylon (I Pet 5:3). There were probably many more Jews in this area than in Judea. More stayed after the Babylonian captivity than returned to Judea.
2:9 “and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” The leadership in Jerusalem was not vested in one man. There were at least the three mentioned here. In any case, no one felt they owned the truth. Paul and Barnabas were welcomed as equals. They carved up the field by geography and/or ethnically and went about the Fathers business.
2:10 “They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.” The condition of the poor was high in their minds.
2:11 “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” Antioch was in southern Syria. The community was likely mostly Gentile. The congregation was likely mixed. Evidently without careful thought Peter gravitated to the Jewish custom of distancing themselves from Gentiles. Peter actually considered this to be law (Acts 10:28, see also John 4:9).
2:12. “for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.” We could assume that these men were simply from Jerusalem and not James directly. Earlier in the chapter Paul interacted with the leaders in Jerusalem. He did not identify anyone as being in charge (Gal 2:6, 9). Yet Peter deferred to these men from ‘James’. Consider that the Acts 15 council had not yet occurred. Cornelius’ family likely had been accepted by this time, but they were from Caesarea (Acts 10:1, 24) not Jerusalem where James likely was.
A while after Peter baptized Cornelius he went to Jerusalem( Acts 11:1-2). Some there felt Peter had not acted correctly regarding his contact with Cornelius family, so Peter explained what happened. They seemed to be satisfied that Peter was right and recognized that God had granted repentance to gentiles. These people are called ‘those of the circumcision’ (Acts 11:2). Likely that is a name they acquired later since this controversy was just developing. It was news that uncircumcised Gentiles might be granted repentance, so it was highly unlikely that there were any uncircumcised Gentiles in the Jerusalem congregation. Although the people were initially satisfied they evidently had not been fully convinced that circumcision was unnecessary for gentiles.
Out of habit and the absence of believing Gentiles there was not likely any significant change in the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the believer community in Jerusalem. Since there were probably few if any Gentiles in the Jerusalem congregation Jew-Gentile relations were not an issue. Although Peter baptized Cornelius’ family, there is no indication the leadership then went looking for more Gentiles. So those around Caesarea (assuming there were believers there) evidently didn’t see a need to press the issue. Those near James in Jerusalem may have felt the tug of the Law more clearly. At least some were still advocating circumcision, but not necessarily all.
It seems apparent this event of Galatians 2:12 occurred before the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15. Not only does the text indicate some from ‘James’ were of the circumcision, but there is no mention of the Acts 15 decision even though circumcision is a significant matter in Galatians. (Starting Gal 2:3 through 6:15) Peter explained what he did with Cornelius in the Jerusalem conference, but evidently not everyone heard or some were slow to grasp the significance (Acts 11:1-18). They may have grasped that Gentiles could repent and be accepted, but evidently still thought they should be circumcised, just like Peter assumed they should still be baptized (Acts 10:47). Of course James in Acts 15 obviously concluded that circumcision was not expected of the Gentiles.
2:13. “And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.” Peter set a bad example. The Jewish contingent of the congregation, including Barnabas, evidently easily fell back into the habit of separation from gentiles. Certainly as of Acts 10 Peter knew there was no difference between them requiring a separation (Acts 10:34, 28).
2:14. ‘But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?’ The conduct in Galatians 2:12 evidenced an assumption of superiority or greater purity on the part of the Jews. Peter and the others became respecters of persons not reflective of how brothers should relate. Paul indicates this feeling of superiority was typical of Gentiles, but should not have been the mentality of a Jew circumcised in the heart. So even though acting like a Gentile, Peter was trying to teach them to live like Jews. Oh really! Why not like Christians? Simply because there was no great distinction in Paul’s mind that a Jew should be conducting himself differently than a Christian. Christians were to be living as a true Jew should. The habit of separating from Gentiles was not what a true Jew should be doing.
Peter had to learn that lesson in a vision (Acts 10:28). Although Peter was with Messiah for over three years, He had not clarified the status of Gentiles. Peter was still locked into many Jewish traditions.
2:15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles”. Peter, living as a sinner, lost the high ground. High ground was to live as a Jew should, but with the fear of God, not men or their traditions that cause division or ill will. Peter didn’t advocate circumcision directly. Peter was bowing to the Jewish tradition of the time (John 4:9, Acts 10:28). Even those of the circumcision were not advocating another gospel (Gal 1:7) but a twisting of the truth.
Likely Paul is being somewhat tongue in cheek when he distinguishes between sinner Gentiles and Jews. However, this distinction of Gentiles as lost to God shows up repeatedly in the New Testament (I Thes 4:5, Gal 4:8-9, I Cor 10:20). The authors of the New Testament did not consider the Jews to be lost to or ignorant of God.
2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but<3362> by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” Jews, knowing faith in Messiah will make them clean before their Savior, choose that way. Works of the Law (Gr. ergon nomou) do not justify. This is not to say keeping the Law will not justify someone. “for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.” (Rom_2:13) However, as we will see if one chooses that option one must keep the whole law.
Greek 'eanme’ (Str. 3362) literally means ‘if not’ and is most frequently translated ‘except’ in the KJV. It also carries the meaning of ‘unless’. This verse is not putting works of the Law in direct opposition to faith. Works of the Law are not necessarily mutually exclusive with faith in Christ. Faith in Christ and looking to Him enables one to discern how to handle things that aren’t specifically addressed in the Law. Even works of the Law can contribute to justification if they are done in accord with the spirit of Christ.
“Works of the Law” is not another way of saying keeping the Law. There is no instruction in the Law regarding the need to separate from Gentiles. Peter’s separating from Gentiles was not keeping the Law, but bowing to Jewish tradition. This was a tradition that had come about over time because of various religious leader’s ideas of how things ought to be done, not what was intended by the Creator. Greek: 'ergon nomou' (Works of the Law) is a religious technical term referring to various traditions or decisions of Jewish leaders which intended to clarify details not directly covered in the Law.
Confusion on this matter is also eliminated by the Dead Sea scroll known as 4QMMT, which is the only other document we have roughly contemporary with Paul that uses a phrase similar to ‘works of the law’ (Gr. ergon nomou). Although 4QMMT is written in Hebrew, (Paul remember was a Hebrew) it clearly indicates the phrase refers to extra-scriptural customs practiced or encouraged probably by the Qumran community. Actually their ‘miqsat ma'ase HaTorah’ 'works of the Law', were intended to keep them in compliance with the covenant as they understood it and separate from other Jews, probably especially the Pharisees and Sadducees.
This document refers to various subjects like the construction of pots and jugs, the handling of liquids, treatment of bones, and unborn animals. It clearly says 'we think' such and such and 'we consider' such and such and 'we say' such and such. It also says "And you know that we have separated from the masses of the people… and from mingling with them in these matters and from being in contact with them in these matters." This indicates they have separated themselves from other Jews, not in issues of the Ten Commandments, or even the Law of Moses, but because of their own ideas on details of how to handle clean and unclean things.
They call these matters of the Law. "We have also written to you (sing.) concerning some of the observances of the Law (miqsat ma'ase ha-torah), which we think are beneficial to you and your people." (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p227 some reference markings not included) They are not appealing to the Law, but expressing their opinion on peripheral issues. The equivalent Greek phrase (ergon nomou) is used in other places in Galatians. As with the Hebrew, it refers to traditions outside of scripture.
Referring back to verse 16: ‘Faith’ in the Jewish mind is a living active thing. It is not just a perception of something, but assumes the conduct that flows from the belief. I Peter 2:7 contrasts belief with disobedience. Believing faith assumes obedience… not to our standard, but that of the Creator.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds (works) of the law (Gr. ergon nomou) no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The works of the law do not define sin, but the Law describes sin. These are two different things. The Jews actually broke the law by their tradition. The Creator loves the stranger and underprivileged (Deu 10:17-18). He provides for them and expected His people to do the same (Ex 22:21, 23:9). This was not the mentality behind the tradition of the Jews that legislated a separation from Gentiles.
2:17-18 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” The Jewish tradition of separation did not support what the Law expected (John 4:9, Acts 10:28). In fact, sin can come by doing the traditions/works of the Law. Whether or not sin comes that way, going contrary to the way of the Creator is sin. A master is responsible for the actions of His servant (Ex 21:4). If someone claims his Savior is Yeshua the Messiah he is claiming to serve Him. Even if he thinks he’s doing right, if he is not, our Savior doesn’t necessarily own or absorb that sin. The sinner has made himself a transgressor. It taints the believer and potentially separates him from his Savior. Messiah does not cohabit with darkness. He is not its servant and will not own sinful practice. (See also 4:1, II Cor 6:14-7) True repentance goes a long way with our Savior.
2:19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.” Death satisfies the law. Through symbolic death with Messiah we renounce our old ways in favor of the ways of Messiah. Our debt to the law is paid, the slate wiped clean & we move on to live to the Father’s higher standard. The law referred to in this verse is really a second hand reference to the Law of Moses. The definite article which indicates a specific law is not used in the original Greek text of this verse. The point Paul is making is that we don’t live just to the standard expected in any law, but that we live to the standard of the Creator.
2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” The old man is dead or should be. The typical pursuits of the flesh should have been rejected for the values of Yeshua our Savior. We trust Him to provide our needs instead of providing for ourselves, often at the expense of others.
Rom 6:6 “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.”
Eph 4:22 “that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts”.
1Pet 4:2 “that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God”.
Our focus on protecting, providing for and caring for ourselves should fall to the ground. Our dependence is on our Master. We live to His standard and the life in us represents His. (see also: 1John 2:16, Gal 5:24, 2Co 6:18-7:1, Rom 13:14, Rom 8:13-14)
This doesn’t mean we quit our jobs and wait around for someone to feed us. We need to provide for our self, but in complete accord with the example and instruction of our Savior. Total honesty and transparency are expected.
2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." This approach is dependent on the graciousness of God. Law here is a general reference, not specifically focused on the Law. The definite article does not appear in the text. If laws could bring righteousness Messiah’s death was unnecessary. However, legislation and laws do not create righteousness. No matter how many laws are written men will find the loopholes or just ignore the law when it suits their purpose. Christ’s death was intended to inspire people to seek what is right in all its facets and thus to promote righteousness. The focus is not on compliance with a written standard, but with what is right and good.
Galatians 3 (top)
3:1 “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?” The Galatians were being deceived regarding the full understanding of the Gospel. They were accepting something not in full accord with truth, but a twisted version. The true gospel is to be followed completely; 'obey the truth'. It is not just a matter of perception, but of action. It must be obeyed. Messiah was crucified. His death was independent of the Law.
3:2 “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, (Gr. ergon nomou) or by the hearing of faith?” They received evidence of a living Messiah by receipt of the spirit of God, not by keeping the traditions of men. How did they receive the spirit, seeing that Messiah died? He was resurrected because of faith just like they received evidence of His movement by their faith. He trusted His Father. We should release our tight grasp on self-preservation and trust Him.
3:3 “Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?” Being introduced to the Gospel by a change and commitment of the mind, is completion attained by a carving of the body in circumcision?
3:4 “Have you suffered so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?” Evidently their belief led to trials and/or persecution that would not have come had they fallen in line with this warped gospel they were hearing. Hopefully those problems were not wasted, but they will learn and continue in the faith of the Gospel.
3:5 “Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law (Gr. ergon nomou), or by the hearing of faith? --” The spirit and miracles came from Messiah because they believed, not because they improved their adherence to works of the Law. Note that the Law itself is not mentioned here, but various traditions that surrounded it (see 2:16 above).
3:6-7 “just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.” Abraham’s belief was accounted as righteousness. Even so others who believe will be accounted righteousness. This does not eliminate a need to obey. The Hebrew mind did not separate belief from obedience. In fact, Genesis states that Abraham received the promises “Because that Abraham obeyed ... ” (Gen 26:5). This was an ongoing reality with Abraham. He regularly demonstrated his loyalty to the ways of God in his conduct.
If we go back to the source of Paul’s quote we find it in Genesis 15:6. Abraham wondered how his children could inherit anything since he had no children (vs.2-3). At that point the Creator promised him as many children as there were stars in the sky. Abraham believed (vs. 6). That was specifically what was accounted as righteousness. At that point Abraham could do little else, but live with his wife.
Heb 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
The Gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness. The fundamental message is the same. They didn’t get it. One can hear the Gospel and even say they agree, but if they don’t evidence that belief by their continual conduct it becomes evident they don’t really believe. Worse still, if people hear an incorrect gospel, even if they walk in that way it is unlikely to result in conduct representative of the Savior living in them. A wrong gospel is unlikely to produce a right result.
Paul was making apparent with this example that the mind must be fully convinced and respond. To be ones child was to conduct themselves as that father (John 8:39). The handling of physical things is not the gauge of righteousness.
3:8 ‘And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."’ Abraham’s consistent faithful conduct based on his belief in the Creator would provide blessings for many others. Note though, that all nations were to be included because of Abraham’s obedience. Paul’s quote is from Genesis 22:18, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." Abraham’s faith, trust and belief in the Creator enabled his obedience.
Fundamentally the Creator is interested in those that emulate His own conduct and walk in His way. Gen 18:18 "since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."
The ways of the Creator are clarified in Deuteronomy 8:6 as keeping His commandments. Hebrews 3:10 & 12 refer to these same ways, but bemoans that Israel didn’t get it and exhorts us all to not depart from that way.
3:9 “So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.” So, those with solid faith will respond appropriately. Those who trust the Creator to stand by His word will be enabled to obey also. They will truly be the children of Abraham (John 8:39) and will be blessed with him.
3:10 ‘For as many as are of the works of the law(Gr. ergon nomou) are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."’ Those who depend on the works of the law are under the curse of the law: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (Deu 27:26) Note it is not those who do the law that are under the curse of the law. It is those who don’t do ‘all things’ in the Law. Those who depend on the works of the Law end up breaking the Law. The curse comes on those that break the law, not those who do it. In fact those who depended on the works of the law, broke it. They did not love their neighbor, but separated from him (Gal 2:12).
Paul’s comments in chapter 2:12-16 regarding Peter and those from Jerusalem illustrate this perfectly. Peter withdrew from fellowship with the gentiles. This is not required by the Law. Peter wasn’t keeping the Law. Withdrawing, as Peter did broke the law that does require “you shall love your neighbor as yourself:” (Lev 19:18c). By respecting the traditions of the Jews, the instruction of the Law was cast aside.
3:11 ‘But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."’ It should be evident, law doesn’t justify anyone. Paul is talking about any and all law since the definite article does not precede law in this verse. Laws are typically made because people aren’t doing what ought to be done. They are generally a minimum standard. The Hebrew Scriptures state clearly that the just live by faith (Hab 2:4). Faith enables the consistent obedient higher performance of the servants of the Eternal. In fact, those who do the Law are justified (Rom 2:13). They can put themselves at risk and consistently do what is right and more because they trust the Savior to cover their back side.
Hopefully by now it is evident that one must read Paul very slowly and very carefully. Indeed all scripture needs to be read that way and considered as a whole. Traditional Christianity has flourished by encouraging sloppy reading. Consequently it has missed the point of the authors and created a lukewarm gospel. That gospel allows that if one occasionally thinks good thoughts there is no need to maintain good conduct. The purpose of faith is to enable consistently good conduct.
3:12 ‘Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."’ The law was not created because of the faith of Israel nor to engender faith in them. It was created to set a standard allowable for Israel to live and to enter into the Promised Land (Deu 4:1). The Law was created for sinners and the ungodly (I Tim 1:9). The notion that they would be a nation fully representative of the Creator was abandoned after the episode of the golden calf. The alternative to this compromise of His standard was death, since they had egregiously broken His Covenant which He made with them (Ex 22:20, 32:7-10).
3:13 ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree")’. Without faith it is unlikely anyone would fully live to even the standard of the Law. Consequently, everyone falls under the curse of the Law. As our Creator, our Savior can take responsibility for our failures and through His death, atone for them. He endured the curse of disobedience for us (Deu 27:26, 21:23).
3:14 “that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Our Saviors death can atone for the sins of all He created. As such the Gentiles can be included. Consequently, the promises to Abraham and his ‘seed’ can be passed along to all those the Savior judges fit. Those who trust, have faith in Him, are enabled to live to His standard. Those who obey to His standard will be given His spirit (Acts 5:32). Those who have His spirit will also be given real life (Rom 8:11, 17).
3:15 “Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.” Blood covenants are very serious matters (Jer 34:18-20). Abraham’s covenant was a blood covenant (Gen 15:9-18). The default penalty for breaking them was death. So even covenants of men could not be added to (amended) or annulled. How much more a covenant involving the Creator? This is also reflected in the -at least three- opportunities Israel had to discuss the terms of the Sinai Covenant (Ex 19:7-8, 24:3, 7).
The primary meaning of the Greek behind ‘covenant’ i.e., ‘diatheke’, is actually testament, as in a will. Certainly, once a will is confirmed by the death of the one who created it, there can be no changes. However, Paul does not have a will in mind in his statement. The translators correctly understood he was thinking of a covenant. The general context refers to the promises to Abraham and that a later covenant cannot change those promises. Clearly the promises came to Abraham by covenant in Genesis 15. The Hebrew word for covenant there, ‘beriyth’, has no connection with a will or testament.
Because the context of Gal 3:15 revolves around the covenant promises to Abraham, it is clear that Paul was not thinking of a last will and testament, but rather a covenant. Clearly, Paul is saying that even covenants of men don’t change. How much more unchangeable is a covenant with the Creator?
Apparently, based on historical Jewish understanding of ‘diatheke’, the New Testament writers frequently associated a meaning of ‘covenant’ with the word ‘diatheke’ even though Greek usage at the time overwhelmingly connected it with a will or testament. (see: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Covenant-New-Testament )
3:16 ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.”’ The promises were confirmed to Abraham in a covenant in Genesis 15:7-18.
Even though ‘seed’ appears to refer to more than one in many cases it is always singular in form in the Hebrew.
3:17 “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.” Four hundred and thirty years to the day after Abraham’s covenant was confirmed Israel walked out of Egypt. “And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” (Ex 12:40) The Septuagint is somewhat different in that it places the starting point in Canaan. “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.” (Ex 12:40, LXX). The covenant at Sinai was confirmed less than two months later. That would logically be “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later”, after the promises of Genesis 15.
Kohath, Moses grandfather was with Levi when they moved to Egypt (Gen 46:8, 11). Kohath lived 133 years (Ex 6:18). Amram, Moses Father, the son of Kohath lived 137 years (Ex 6:20). Moses was 80 when he talked to Pharaoh (Ex 7:7). Reasonably it would be difficult for Israel to have been in Egypt for more than about 300 years. Josephus specifically indicates they were in Egypt 215 years and Abraham entered Canaan 430 years from when they left Egypt (Ant 2.15.2).
In any case, the law confirmed shortly after Israel left Egypt doesn’t change what was promised to Abraham. That promise came earlier through a covenant. Covenants are not changed or annulled (vs. 15-16).
Many jump to the conclusion that this verse fixes the start of what was commonly called ‘the Law’. However, Paul is being specific in his wording. He is isolating the law confirmed in Sinai from all other law. The designation “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later” distinguished the law of the Sinai covenant from the second law (deutero nomos, Deuteronomy) that was added 39+ years later. "Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God" (Deu 31:26ab).
When people talked about ‘The Law’ the Sinai law was included, but what was generally understood as ‘the Law’ was given later. That Law was based on the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11), which didn’t exist as of the giving of the covenant at Sinai. (See: The Law According to Hebrews)
3:18 “For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” Again, the definite article is not included in the original Greek text before ‘law’. This verse is not being specific and ‘any law’ more accurately reflects the original text. If the inheritance is by law it is not of promise, but Abraham received it by promise. This non-specific meaning can be seen in the Twentieth Century New Testament, The Emphasized Bible, and The Englishman’s Greek New Testament. So this verse is using ‘law’ in a different way than the previous verse.
3:19 “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” The definite article is included before law here. So again ‘law’ is different than that intended in the previous verse. If laws don’t change promises “What purpose then does the law serve?” This reference is specific and reverts back to the standard definition of the day, i.e., the Pentateuch or Law of Moses. “It was added because of transgressions”. And indeed that is reflected in the historical account of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (Deu 31:24-26, 32:46, 29:1, 9-15). It was added over 39 years after the Sinai covenant and was confirmed almost 470 years after the promises to Abraham (Deu 1:1-5, Ex 12:40). It added to Israel, the Levitical priesthood, sacrifices that brought the promise of forgiveness, allowance for divorce, centralized worship at the house of God and many other things including national curses if their conduct deteriorated beyond what the Creator could stomach.
The timing cited in Galatians also reinforces the separateness of the Sinai covenant from the Moab Covenant. It specifically identified the law that was made at Sinai, 430 years after the original promise to Abraham. That was a very important law. However, what the New Testament Christians and Jews commonly called “The Law” was based on and delivered to the Levites and became law at the confirmation of the Moab covenant, almost 40 years after the Sinai covenant. (Heb 7:11, Deu 31:9, 1:1-5, 31:24-26, 32:46) That Law was added to deal with transgressions.
There is no promise of forgiveness in the Sinai covenant. Obedience was assumed. That covenant was not added because of transgressions, but so all Israel would represent their Creator (Ex 19:5-6). However, they didn’t obey. Indeed they deserved death. The Moab covenant, the Law, was added to handle their past, present and future transgressions. This reference (vs 19) is talking of the Law of Moses, the Moab Covenant of Deuteronomy. Although there are two distinct laws, typically the Jews did not distinguish since they were expected to obey both (Deu 4:1-2, 26:16-17). Clearly the context within and around the verse supports this.
Technically, the Law of Moses consisted of the terms of the Moab/Deuteronomy covenant, roughly chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy. Paul probably intended ‘the Law’ in verse 19 to carry the meaning the Galatians generally understood, i.e., the five books of Moses. However, Paul did not intend to include the instruction of the Sinai Covenant with it. That instruction was not added because of transgressions. The Sinai Covenant was given so the nation could properly represent their Creator (Ex 19:5-6). It was not really added because it was really a refreshing of the Creator’s covenant with Abraham (I Chron 16:15-18). Only the sign of compliance changed from circumcision to keeping of the Sabbaths (Ex 31:13-18).
This inability to amend covenants ought to make it clear the law was not a repeating or explaining of the Sinai covenant, which was made 430 years after the promises. The law was added 39+ years later to include provisions for handling transgressions of the Sinai covenant; transgressions that would have meant their death if handled strictly according to the Sinai covenant's original terms. One does not add to a covenant, (vs. 15). Therefore this new law had to be made into a second covenant as described in Deuteronomy 29-31.
The covenant of the Law was authoritative, “until the Seed would come to whom the promise was made”, i.e. until the Messiah. The coming of the Prophet whom Israel was to heed (Deu 18:18-19) did not void everything in their covenants. Neither does discontinuing the Law as the binding covenant on believers mean that it is “done away” as assumed by traditional Christianity. Within a few verses Paul will clarify the new relationship a true Christian will have with the Law. It is not absolute authority as it was before Messiah, but neither is it to be cast aside.
Covenants consisted of sections which communicated various aspects of the agreement. The introduction explained why a covenant was necessary. Roughly the first eleven chapters of Deuteronomy are doing exactly that. The technical terms of the Deuteronomy covenant (Law of Moses) probably consisted of the regulations of Deuteronomy 12-26:15. The sections following that provide for the administration, promises (blessings-curses) and continuance of the covenant. Within the terms of the Moab (Deuteronomy) covenant are references to things explained elsewhere in Moses writings. For instance: in order to know what the offerings made by fire were (Deu 18:1) one needs at least Leviticus 1-7 and numbers 28-29. Over time, evidently especially after the return from the Babylonian captivity, all Moses writings became known as ‘the Law’. Certainly Moses instruction in Deuteronomy assumed the existence of these earlier books (Deu 1:3).
Traditional Christianity sees Paul saying Messiah’s death voided the Law at least partly based on this verse. However, this verse claims the change in law came with the arrival of The Seed, “until the Seed would come”. At Messiah’s death He was about to leave. In fact, the change in status of the Law occurred when Messiah began His ministry. From the time He came His instruction was authoritative over the Law. In a few cases He diminished the Law (Mat 19:8-9, John 4:21-23), but the vast majority of the time He supported it. In many cases He made it even more restrictive (Mat 5:21-48).
The Law “was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” A mediator is a neutral or disinterested third party. Moses was a party to the covenant made at Sinai (Ex 34:27-28). He was bound by its terms like everyone else. However, he never went to the High Priest to get resolution of a difficult dispute as is required in the Law (Deu 17:8-10). He was not a party to the covenant of Deuteronomy made in Moab. Once the covenant was confirmed he was removed from responsibility. Soon he went up Mt. Nebo to die (Deu 32:48-50, 34:1-5).
The Greek word for ‘angels’ simply indicates messengers. Messengers speak on behalf of whoever they represent. The Sinai covenant appears to have been transmitted to Moses by a single messenger. Moses acted as a scribe to record and pass that message on to the people. The instruction that came to Moses after the last straw of the golden calf was apparently given at multiple times and in multiple places, i.e. on Mt. Sinai (Ex 34:32), in Moses tent far outside the camp(Ex 33:7, 34:34, Lev 1:1): and likely some from the Tabernacle (Num 7:89). All the instruction appears to come from Yahweh, but that doesn’t mean it was actually delivered personally by Him or only by a single messenger. Evidently, a number of messengers were used.
3:20 “Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.” Mediators by definition negotiate agreements between multiple parties. Moses may have contributed to some terms of the agreement between the Creator and Israel. In any case two parties are involved in this mediation.
Although the general understanding is that Moses was the mediator here, consider that might not be what Paul was thinking. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1Tim 2:5). The Logos may be the mediator of whom Paul is thinking.
Paul’s comment that ‘God is one’ seems disconnected from the point if Moses is the mediator. If the Logos were the mediator it highlights the fact that the one true God (John 17:3) is unique. The Logos was distinct from Him and on a different level. He wasn’t mediating for Himself even though the Logos was in the form of God and looked similar(Phil 2:6). It also conforms closely with I Tim 2:5. Both mention God as ‘one’. The mediator with men is Messiah, earlier, He was the Logos. The emergence of the New Covenant is attributed to the mediation of our Savior (Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). Why not the Old Covenant too?
3:21 “Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.” Paul already established that ‘the law which was 430 years later’ was not against the promises (vs. 17-18). Now He is asking about 'the Law' that was added, i.e. the Law of Moses, commonly known as ‘The Law’ in New Testament times. He’s not asking this question again about the same law that he already established was not contrary to the promises, but the same question of a different law.
Of course the answer is an emphatic ‘No!’ As in chapter 2:21 one cannot legislate righteousness. Law tells us what we ought to do. It doesn’t guarantee that we will do it. Only a selfless obedient mentality can do that. Also laws cannot foresee every possible circumstance in which a law would need to be applied.
So, laws don’t guarantee correct conduct. If they could Paul thinks that righteousness would have been through such a law. The Creator wants to give eternal life to everyone. If laws could guarantee obedience He would probably be perfectly happy to make it a function of such a law. He wants people to embrace His ways and will likely go with whatever accomplishes that. So far, it appears nothing has been as successful as He would like.
3:22 “But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." The Scripture witnesses to the fact that all have sinned (Rom 3:23). Everyone is in need of redemption or they are doomed. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). However, those who truly believe in God’s Messiah, recognize the faith He exercised and they respond appropriately. They can be assured of similar redemption from death as Messiah experienced.
Translations differ somewhat as to whose faith does what in this verse. ‘Jesus’ is in the Greek genitive case, which would typically mean that it is His faith that is under discussion. However, the ‘promise’ is really the subject. The ‘promise’ is available because of the faith of Jesus Christ. The promise can be made available to other believers as a result of Christ’s faith. Our Savior believed His Father and completed successfully the task His Father asked of Him. The same promise made to Messiah can therefore be made to those who believe Him and conduct themselves accordingly.
Belief is not just an acknowledgment of the mind, but includes action and conduct that reflects the understanding of the mind. Our Savior conducted Himself to the Father’s standards and was willing to put His life on the line because He believed His Father would support Him in His mission. The Father will also support others who seeing the example of the Savior also live to His standards.
3:23 “before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed." As Paul said earlier (3:12), the Law was not built on or expecting faith. Israel didn’t have the mentality to obey (Deu 5:29). So the Law was implemented to keep them within a tolerable level of obedience until the Savior’s example of faith would be seen and make its impression.
3:24 “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." The ‘tutor’ (Gr. Paidagogos) referred to here was a trusted slave that had care of a wealthy family's child. His function was to teach proper judgment and morals, not academics. This servant was responsible for preparing the child for responsible adulthood. (see NT Teaching Gal 3:24 for fuller explanation, also 4:2)
3:25 “But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." When the parents deemed it appropriate the slave was relieved of his charge. However, the slave and now adult child typically had a good relationship and the child would consult with his mentor slave in difficult matters just like an adult child today might consult with parents. Similarly, a believer is not under the direct authority of the Law, but might consult with it in difficult situations.
3:26 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." True sons conduct themselves as the father does (John 8:39). Faith in Messiah enables us to live to the Father’s standard. Seeing Messiah’s example enables us to conduct ourselves accordingly. Believers trust the word of Messiah, so they can conduct themselves to His standard.
3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Believers that have repented and committed themselves to the Savior have given up their will in order to conform to His (Luke 9:24). Putting on Christ does not consist of thinking positive thoughts, but conducting one’s self as the Savior did. Baptism assumes repentance from former ways. Those old ways are replaced with the mentality of our Savior. Fundamentally they are a new creation with a spiritually oriented mentality rather than a human/fleshly mentality. Believers' conduct should reflect that. They step into His shoes.
3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This doesn’t mean that we don’t have our roles and responsibilities in life, but that ethnicity, sex or station in this life is of no consequence. Believers are a mutually supportive organism: not focused on who’s in charge, but ‘how can I help?’ Rom 12:4 “For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function”. (See also Vs 5) The functions in the congregation are set in place to educate and prepare the congregation to support one another and witness to the outside world (I Cor 12:12-27, Eph 4:11-12). One believer is not set to dominate over another.
3:29 “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Verse 16 clarified who Abraham’s seed was. It is Messiah. As a member of His body with Him living in the believer, doing what He would do, believers share in His inheritance.
Believers are said to be slaves of Messiah in I Cor 7:22b “…he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.” A slave was an extension of the Master. As Messiah’s property, He may carry us into His inheritance. Much can be learned by understanding the place of slaves in Scripture.
Galatians 4 (top)
4:1 “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all." A child is under the authority of the parents just like a slave is responsible to his master. The expectation of the parents/master defines what is expected. Any who falls short is liable for discipline from the authority. Parents are responsible to correct their children and masters are responsible for the actions of their slaves.
We don’t always consider that in a similar way the actions of the child and/or slave reflect on the parents/master. The authority can be held responsible by the community if the child or slave does not live to the community standard. This situation is connecting with Galatians 2:17.
4:2 “but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father." This refers back to the ‘paidagogos’ of 3:24-25 and by extension the greater community. Wealthy people often chose to entrust a highly regarded slave with the proper upbringing of their children. This generally ended at the discretion of the parent when the child came of legal age.
4:3 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world." Though some try to exclusively connect 'elements of the world' with the Law, the Law is not an element of the world under which all live. Paul uses this same phrase in Colossians 2:8. He equates it to “philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men”. The Law was not a tradition originated by men. The traditions of the Jews attached to the Law could be considered ‘elements of the world’. So for the Jews there is a connection between the Law and the ‘elements of the world’ under which they lived. Of course, the gentiles also lived in societies which had their own standards and expectations of citizens.
Based on previous context ‘we’ seems to include all believers, the entire believing Galatian congregation (3:27-29), which included Gentiles that were not typically raised under the Law. However, based on verse 5 he seems to be limiting ‘we’ to Jews. The elements of those Jews in the group likely included their traditions, but certainly the Law was not part of the Gentile Galatian world.
Even though this seems to be talking of children, based on the context that follows it is using ‘children’ in the sense of all people. We were all children once. The intention is spiritual children or those not fully understanding the ways of the Eternal. This applied to all before Christ came to redeem us all and show the original intention of the Creator.
4:4 “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law" When the time was right the Eternal sent His Anointed One. He came at a time when the Law was the governing code where the Anointed resided.
4:5 “to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Our Savior came to redeem all who were under the authority of the Law to the Creator so that they could be made His full sons. Specifically, He was interested in those that were bound by the terms of the covenant of the Law confirmed in Deuteronomy. That covenant set Israel apart as the Creators special people (Deu 26:15-19, 27:9). It didn’t guarantee adoption to everyone under the Law, but it made that possible. ‘We’ in this case likely is intending only Jewish believers since they would be the ones typically under the Law.
(See, Adoption as Sons of God, by James Scott)
Consider that Hebews 7:11 tells us that the Law was enacted based on the Levitical priesthood (see NASB, NIV, Emphasized Bible, EGNT). The Levitical Priesthood is not mentioned and didn’t exist as of Exodus 20-24. The Law is not that covenant. The Levitical Priesthood did exist at the time of the Deuteronomy covenant. That covenant was administered by the Levitical priesthood (Deu 17:8-10, 18:1-2). The legal terms of the Law are the terms of the Deuteronomy covenant.
4:6 “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" It is interesting that Paul changes from ‘we’ to ‘you’ in addressing his audience. ‘You’ in contrast to ‘we’ would likely mean Paul is not including himself, although he certainly must consider himself a son too. Therefore he must have taken care of himself and the Jewish believers in verse 5… “that we might receive the adoption as sons.” So ‘you’ would be directed at the Gentile believers. By seeking the God of Israel and doing His will they would be considered His children too (vss 3:27-29). Once they see the example of the Savior and catch His vision they seek the Father’s will too. In order to be God’s sons it is expected they conduct themselves as God’s would (John 8:39).
4:7 “Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." The Gentiles are also no longer in bondage to the elements of the world. They also have become heirs through the Savior.
4:8 “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods." Even though the Jews had their problems it was the gentiles that were considered ignorant of God or serving non-gods. (I Thes 4:5, Gal 2:15, Eph 2:11-12) There is an understanding that after Jesus/Yeshua began to speak as Messiah it became apparent that many Jews did not recognize Him. Consequently they didn’t really know the Father either. (I Cor 1:21-24, II Thes 1:8, Tit 1:12-16, I John 3:1, 4:6, 8, 5:20) So it seems that the apostles recognized that ‘knowing the Father’ changed or was brought more clearly into focus with Messiah. Since the Apostles don’t really acknowledge that they didn’t know God before Yeshua, it is unlikely they would say that others who followed Judaism at the same time didn’t know God. Certainly they didn’t consider the Judaism of their day as serving “those which by nature are not gods.” So it is clear that verse 8 is focused on the Gentile believers.
4:9 “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?" Again Israel was still considered to be the special people of God (Rom 11:1-5). He always knew them. The connection between the Creator and the Gentiles was new. As of this writing they came to know Him and He them. Yet some were turning away from His way to former customs and practice. The Gentile Galatians history was not connected with Judaism, but with the customs of the Greeks. Although the general context of Galatians deals with a resurgence of Judaism and circumcision, there was evidently a resurgence of the local Gentile customs too. The Hebrew Scriptures are quoted frequently as a source of authority by Yeshua and the Apostles. Its instruction is not being called “weak and beggarly elements”. This is a reference back to elements of the world in verse 3 to which everyone was held.
4:10 “You observe days and months and seasons and years." The festivals enjoined by the Creator are not part of the history of Gentiles. They had their own festivals which were part of the ‘elements’ of the Gentile world. Of course ancient Greece was famous for its many gods. There were plenty of special occasions to celebrate.
4:11 “I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.” Paul put out effort, but he was afraid it was not going to turn the Galatians 100% to Christ. The problem here was not a perverted gospel (Gal 1:7), but a tradition devoid of any connection to Christ or the Creator. Paul is talking here of a return to traditions before they knew God. This would not indicate any connection with the Sabbaths the Creator instructed Israel to observe.
4:12 “Brethren, I urge you to become like me, for I became like you. You have not injured me at all.” In order to reach the Gentiles Paul evidently tried to minimize his nationality (I Cor 9:21). He’s hoping they will respond in kind.
The audience shifts to the entire congregation as Paul refers to ‘Brethren’. Likely the shift happens in the middle of this verse rather than at the beginning. In the Greek text ‘Brethren’ actually appears in the middle of our verse 12.
The Sinaiticus text, available at codexsinaiticus.org, shows an additional different intention from what is evident in most translations. There are sentence and/or paragraph breaks in this roughly 350 CE/AD text. The Sinaiticus text actually begins a new sentence/paragraph at 'Brethren'. The previous sentence/paragraph consists only of the first part of verse 12, ‘Be as I am, for I also am as you.’ This is apparently still at least somewhat connected with the earlier subject. Verse 12b begins ‘Brethren, you have not wronged me.’ and begins a new stream of thought which continues through verse 14. The next break in this early text begins with verse 15.
Although the common understanding is that the verse breaks were placed in the text in roughly 1300 CE/AD, our verse breaks conform closely to the breaks of the Sinaiticus text. There are just a few breaks in the Sinaiticus text that are not also a modern verse break in Galatians. There are more verse breaks in modern Bibles than there are breaks in the Sinaiticus text.
4:13 “You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. 14 And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. ”
It is not difficult to form preconceived ideas regarding what someone sent by the Creator will look like. John the Baptist evidently had a personality significantly different from that of Yeshua/Jesus (Luke 7:33-34). Moses was eighty years old when He was pressed into the Creator’s service (Ex 7:7). Jeremiah was fairly young (Jer 1:6). One sent must be evaluated on his conduct and his message. They both must be in accord with the Master’s word. Any assumptions people cling to will only get in the way of a correct identification of one sent from the Father. The Father has His reasons for choosing the one He does. Sometimes apparent weakness serves His purpose (II Cor 12:9).
4:16 “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? 17 They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them.”
Paul is getting back to the original issues. He reminds the Galatians of their original enthusiasm. That must have waned and been replaced with a feeling of disappointment or even anger, possibly because as of this writing; in their estimation, Paul had neglected to mention the need to be circumcised.
4:21 “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman”
The technical terms of the Law consist of only about a third of Deuteronomy, beginning with chapter 12. Nevertheless, in common usage the Law was considered to include all five books of Moses. The story of Hagar and Sarah and their children is only found in Genesis, so Genesis is part of what was commonly considered the Law. It provides background information valuable for understanding the Law. It is hardly a book of rules and regulations.
4:23 “But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—“
‘Symbolic’ is usually translated ‘allegorical’ or some form of that word. The Greek word is actually ‘allegoreo’, which is obviously what engendered the English. It is a method of teaching that relates unconnected people, things or events to try to make clear a lesson. In this case Paul is relating Hagar to a covenant from Mt. Sinai and the city of Jerusalem in their time (vs. 25). Sarah is being related to New Jerusalem (vs. 26).
Typically it is overlooked that there were two covenants that had their roots in Mt. Sinai. Paul’s subject is the Law, which is also called the Law of Moses (John 7:19, Luke 24:44). The Law of Moses is what Joshua wrote on the stones as Israel went into the Promised Land (Josh 8:31-32). Moses command to Joshua was to write the Law of the covenant that he spoke that day to Israel in Deuteronomy (Deu 27:1-2, 32:46, 29:1, 9, 12, 1:3, 5). That Law was also a covenant, the great bulk of which was given at Mt. Sinai, (Ex 34:32-34, Mal 4:4, Lev 26:46, Heb 7:19, 22), but after the Covenant of Sinai was confirmed and then destroyed by Israel’s conduct (Ex 32:7-10, Deu 9:12, 16-19, 24).
The Law is connected with bondage. Paul does not say the Law was bondage, but that it engendered bondage. It led to bondage in all the traditions of the Jews that sprang from it. Jerusalem at that time was occupied by Rome. The Law didn’t want this, but the lack of obedience moved the Creator to attempt to humble the people so they would turn to Him. Their lack of obedience resulted in bondage.
The Jews, represented by Jerusalem, were living under the Law, the Deuteronomy covenant, during Paul’s time. They were not under the covenant that we typically think of as the covenant at Sinai. The terms of the Deuteronomy covenant were also given to Moses from Sinai (Ex 34:32-34), but they were not confirmed as law until Deuteronomy was written and confirmed, just before Israel went into the Promised Land.
In this account, Paul is going back to his original subject of circumcision (Gal 5:2). The covenant in Exodus 20-24 does not require circumcision. In fact, Israel did not circumcise their sons while wandering in the wilderness (Josh 5:5). However, circumcision was required when Israel went into the Promised Land shortly after the Deuteronomy covenant was confirmed (Josh 5:2).
Paul connects Mt. Sinai with the bondage of the Jews because it is a convenient marker in opposition to the Jerusalem above and because the covenant in force in Jerusalem at that time came to Moses from that mountain and in that area. There is no connection between the Sinai covenant and circumcision or the Law administered by the Levites.
4:28 ‘Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."’
Paul wants to encourage the believers in Galatia that the Law does not hold the key to their relationship with Messiah. It is the example and teaching of Messiah that is the standard for believers. Consider that at least part of Messiah’s purpose was to redeem those under the Law, the old Covenant (Gal 4:4-5, Heb 9:15). They have great hope. Paul is making a point that the Law, does not provide salvation. The eternal inheritance is through Messiah (II Tim 2:10, Rom 2:6-7, John 17:2). This is why a new covenant is required. They didn’t change such a covenant. The Law cannot be changed to include the promise of eternal inheritance available through belief in Messiah.
Galatians 5 (top)
4:31 “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.”
As children ‘of the free’ believers conduct themselves as children of God. So they do what He and Messiah would do. His ways are briefly described as the Ten Commandments (Deu 8:6, 5:4-21). They are independent of and predate the Law (Deu 31:24-26).
Paul had Timothy get circumcised (Acts 16:3). It is highly unlikely that circumcision by itself eliminates any profit from Messiah. It is circumcision with the expectation that it is required for salvation, which was the perspective of some believers (Acts 15:1, 5). Paul’s statements throughout Galatians, but especially Galatians 5:2-4 must be understood in that context as is evident in the next verse.
5:4 “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”
Messiah provided a new covenant that is based on His example and the Law of God (Mat 26:26-28, John 14:6, Heb 8:10, Isa 49:8). The Law (of Moses) is a different covenant. It shares many values, but they are not the same covenant. Some stipulations in the Law are at cross purposes with Messiah’s new covenant as well as with the covenant at Sinai. The Levites administer the Law. Messiah administers His new covenant. The Levites obtained forgiveness for the people through animal sacrifice. Messiah accepts guilt for our past sins if we truly repent of our error. He then continues His life and example in those who follow Him. After offering an animal sacrifice people typically fell into sin again. Messiah lived His example of sinless selflessness, so we could see and attain to His stature (Eph 4:13, John 15:12, Gal 2:17-18). We don’t earn salvation, but we must prove worthy of our Saviors graciousness. Believers respond by conducting themselves according to His standards. As Paul says later, God is not mocked. We can’t accept His graciousness in covering our sordid past, but continue conducting ourselves as we have in the past. Believers must live to His standard.
5:5 “For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”
With the spirit of God that is given (John 14:15-16, Acts 5:32) to believers, comes the faith and trust that our Creator will make His promises good. Believers respond appropriately and righteously (I John 3:3) while they wait for their hope to be realized. The hope of righteousness by faith, eternal life, was not available through the Law.
5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”
The Law of God does not require circumcision. Abraham received the promises because He obeyed God’s laws (Gen 26:5), but he was uncircumcised when he received the promises and his covenant (Rom 4:9-13, Gen 15:7-8, 13-18, 17:24-25)). So circumcision is not required by the law of God.
Israel did not circumcise their children while wondering in the wilderness (Josh 5:4-5). There is no condemnation indicated in Scripture because of this. The covenant they made at Sinai shortly after leaving Egypt made no mention of circumcision. The sign of that covenant was the keeping of the Sabbaths, not circumcision (Ex 31:13). Circumcision was reimplemented with the Law of Moses (Lev 12:2-3) and Israel’s entry into the Promised Land (Deu 11:31-12:1, Josh 5:4-5).
The mind, the mentality, is important. The shape of the body is not. However, Israel needed all the help they could get. Circumcision was a reminder that they were supposed to be different; purged of arrogance and rebellion.
5:7 “You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?”
The Galatians evidently had a great start in their zeal for Messiah, but someone diverted them. They became focused on something other than the pure truth of the Gospel. As a result they got off track.
5:8 “This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you.”
Messiah is the teacher (Mat 23:8). Generally He upheld the Law, but He also showed it to be insufficient (Mat 5:21-39, 19:8, John 4:20-23). Worship depends on the state of the mind, the spirit. We are controlled by our mind. We conduct ourselves based on our thinking. If we are thinking correctly we will act correctly.
5:9 “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”
An imperfection in the thinking will result in wrong action. In order to justify wrong action truth is often compromised and the downhill spiral continues.
5:10 “I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.”
Although Paul earlier voiced concern over at least some of the Galatians (4:11), certainly he didn’t want to discourage them. He also knew that Messiah could make them stand (Rom 14:4). Those who think they know, but don’t and teach error will answer for their error (Jas 3:1).
5:11 “And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.”
Paul considered that the main bone of contention with the Jews revolved around circumcision. If he would teach the need for circumcision the persecution would cease. He is not attempting to teach that the whole Law is to be ignored. Circumcision would be a small matter if he were teaching against the Ten Commandments. Certainly that was not his intention (I Cor 7:19, Mat 19:17).
5:13 “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”
Liberty is not permission to do whatever we feel like doing. It involves ignoring or rejecting the typical desires of the flesh (vs. 5:24). It results in our release from all guilt and the problems associated with error. It relies on the faithfulness of Messiah to provide what we cannot unless we bend or break the standards of the Creator. It requires faith on the part of the believer. They must trust Messiah to provide rather than relying on their own cunning. It assumes one loves his neighbor as himself.
5:14 ‘For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."’
The Creator designed this universe assuming we would all work together in harmony. It was intended to be a place of peace. When we protect ourselves we often violate that harmony because we slight others. The more we do that the more likely is jealousy, contention and violence to erupt. Those come from loving the self at the expense of our neighbor.
Of course, the great commandment of the Law is to love the Creator with all the heart, mind and strength. Paul is not diminishing that, he is simply assuming everyone knows that. Those who assume Paul is against the entire instruction of the Old Testament evidently think he no longer sees it necessary to love the Creator.
5:15 “But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!”
The most is usually accomplished when we work together. Those wanting to be in charge sometimes play politics to attain supremacy. In the process some may be offended and cooperation suffers. Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, 'There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit'. True believers understand that the Creator knows what we do. There is no great need to seek the praise or admiration of men. The unbeliever who wants to make sure he is compensated will exhibit contention, jealousy and lack of cooperation in the process. Progress is undermined or halted.
5:16 “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”
If one is conducting himself in order to please his Creator, one is not greatly concerned about the comforts or glitz of this world. This world is passing. Many things that seem important will soon be forgotten and/or deteriorate into dust. Rom 8:5 “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” The mentality that is concerned about the improvement of conduct and pleasing the Savior will not be subject to the temporary desires of his flesh.
5:17 “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.”
The mentality that is focused on the spirit will not do what the flesh wishes to do. Rom 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” Normally the pulls of the flesh win, but if one walks in the spirit one will not cave in to the lusts of the flesh that are at the root of sin. (See NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV for improved translation of Gal 5:17)
5:18 “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”
1Tim 1:9 “knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, ..,” The person led by the spirit will be seeking and doing what is pleasing to the Creator. He will be walking in the ways of the Creator, which is evidence that His laws are etched into this person’s heart. The Law of Moses is not the standard for this person, but ‘the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (Eph 4:13c) is the standard.
Paul is not including the Covenant of the Lord, the Ten Commandments, in his
concept of ‘the law’. The covenant of the Lord, the Ten commandments were
intended to enable Israel to represent God to the world (Ex 19:5-6),
not because He considered them sinners at that time. However, Paul is
talking
about the Law that was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19). That
is the law confirmed with Deuteronomy (Deu 9:24).
5:19-21 “ Now the works of the
flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions,
jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and
the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past,
that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
These
are the works of the flesh that is contrary to being led by the spirit (vs 17). One led by
the spirit simply doesn’t participate in these things. Of course this is not a complete detailed
list, but hopefully we all get the point.
Selfishness and the baser conduct of humans is
simply unacceptable.
5:22 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23
gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.”
No
authority tries to prevent any of these actions. The spirit of God seeks to promote peace and
harmony (Rom 12:18).
5:24 “And
those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and
desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also
walk in the Spirit.”
Those
who truly believe ignore the glitz and glamour of the physical. Anyone who claims a relationship with Christ
will show evidence of that in his conduct.
It’s all part of wrapping ourselves up in Christ and valuing Him and His
way.
5:26 “Let
us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.”
Jealousy,
pride and subtle digs against others simply have no place in a believer. They only cause contention. These feeling and actions only exist where
one does not recognize Christ as a righteous judge. Believers are content with His
judgments. He doesn’t judge on a
curve. Someone else’s success will not
diminish our reward.
Galatians 6 (top)
6:1 “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any
trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness,
considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
Our
Savior has been patient with us. We
ought to be patient with others. As
indicated in 5:26 there is no room to think ourselves somehow superior to
someone else. Nor is it appropriate to
harass, berate, belittle or inflame contention in any other manner.
6:6 “Let
him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked;
for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of
the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit
reap everlasting life.”
One
who does not share his physical goods with someone who teaches him the ways of
God has a warped sense of value. By
hanging on tightly to the physical it is evident to the Savior that those
things are more important to the individual than are His instructions. By giving he is building his faith and trust
in his Savior. By withholding he is
reinforcing his trust in himself and the mammon of this world. One reaps what he sows.
6:12 “As
many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to
be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of
Christ. 13 For not even those who are circumcised
keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in
your flesh.”
Circumcision
was the generally respected way of showing conversion to Judaism. Unfortunately, Judaism of that day left a lot to be
desired. They put much faith in the
physical reminders of the law, but fell short in the human relationship
categories. So, circumcising someone
allowed them to count a convert. It looked
good, but without correct teaching didn’t really profit anyone (Mat 23:15).
Paul’s
closing remarks reinforce again that circumcision is the primary subject of
this epistle. His purpose is not to ‘do
away with the law’ or the law would figure much more prominently in his
conclusion. His conclusion reflects his
introduction, which revolves around circumcision.
6:15 “For
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision
avails anything, but a new creation.”
The
existence or lack of the male foreskin does not say anything about the
mentality of the man. Believers reflect
the graciousness of their Savior. He is
of a different Spirit, the image of the Father (Col 1:15). Making humans that look like He does was a marvelous
undertaking. Making beings that think and
act like He does rises to a whole different level. That is what the Creator is about at this
time. We can be part of the solution or
part of the problem.