The law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come — But which law is it?

[Sam Jer]

From Galatians chapter 3:

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

This passage quite confuses me, and not for the first time.
Basically, it seems to treat the uniquely Mosaic parts of the law and the moral law in one. It would not surprise me if this is a popular passage among antinomians, though such an interpretation would contradict other passages.

So, how should we read this passage? What is it saying? Where does an antinomian interpretation go wrong other than failure to read the rest of the bible, and would it be right to use this passage against the people who believe aspects of the ceremonial law are still in force?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'd say a good starting point is to read Paul charitably, believing he wants to be self-consistent across his own corpus. Grant that, and then bring back to this passage a reading of Paul that understands he loves the law (like David) in its proper context, he understands how good the law is when used lawfully, and the law in a certain light or viewed from the angle of the Mosaic Covenant is correctly contrasted with the post-Mosaic covenant moment.

Also, take into account the specific circumstance to and for which Paul pens this letter. He speaks bluntly and sets up his argument without compromise or nuance, because there is no room or time to wait to deal with the crisis precipitating the letter. Don't expect to find Paul parsing the Sinai constitution and legislation here, when the enemies of the gospel are trying to persuade gentile converts to adopt the obsolete covenant in order to be complete Christians. You don't go through Moses to get to Jesus, nor do you go through Jesus to get to Moses.

Paul argues that the covenant with Abraham was prior and superior to Sinai, which promises carried right through, even while the temporary (designedly so) covenant of law and obedience, blessing and cursing, performed its majority function, governing the people until the Fulfillment should appear. That Law can be and has been set by, whereas the promise covenant is simply brought out in its full character.

One is not bound to see morality as if Moses defined it, and once Moses' covenant is history, there goes morality. The 10Cs are a summary of the moral constitution of mankind from creation, and the cornerstone of the Isarelite constitution. All the commands of the 10 may be gleaned from Genesis, just as we find them once more in the NT. Therefore, Paul is free to inveigh against the Judaizers, and treat the Law in toto as obsolete. He is addressing the old covenant as such, not parsing to affirm this or that which truth remains.

 

[arapahoepark]

The best way to understand this in my view is that the Law is a synecdoche for the Mosaic covenant, not just a set of morals. T. David Gordon and Brian Rosner have really helped me to understand it, though they do have their problems. I'd recommend them.

 

[Aretha]

I see "the law" as the whole Torah, including both moral and ceremonial aspects. Jesus fulfilled this law. When Paul talks about "the law" in Galatians, he means the full set of commandments and regulations, not just the Ten Commandments.

For Jews, the Torah is central and guides their religious and ethical life. Messianic Jews also value the Torah but view it through the lens of belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Paul distinguishes between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. He opposes imposing Jewish laws on non-Jewish Christians but followed those laws himself (Acts 21). Many Torah commandments are echoed in the New Testament, especially the moral ones, showing their ongoing relevance.

I read that the New Testament has more commandments than the Torah, focusing on living under the New Covenant. Paul's teachings support the moral principles of the Torah but place them in the context of faith in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. For instance, in Ephesians 6:2-3, Paul cites the commandment to honor parents, demonstrating the continuity of moral law.

 

[Sam Jer]

Messianic Jews also value the Torah but view it through the lens of belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Paul distinguishes between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. He opposes imposing Jewish laws on non-Jewish Christians but followed those laws himself (Acts 21). Many Torah commandments are echoed in the New Testament, especially the moral ones, showing their ongoing relevance.

This rhetoric is a little too familiar for me...
God has broken down the wall of seperation (Eph 2:11-19). Peter, a Jew, was told to "rise, kill, and eat", (Act 10:13) and lived after the manner of the gentiles (Gal 2:14), as did Paul (1 Cor 9:20-21). When Paul warned against circumsission (Gal 5:2), he did not differentiate blood from blood (which would be inconsistent for God anyway, as God shows no partiality, Act 10:34).

I really hope I misunderstood what you're saying.

 

[Aretha]

This rhetoric is a little too familiar for me...
God has broken down the wall of seperation (Eph 2:11-19). Peter, a Jew, was told to "rise, kill, and eat", (Act 10:13) and lived after the manner of the gentiles (Gal 2:14), as did Paul (1 Cor 9:20-21). When Paul warned against circumsission (Gal 5:2), he did not differentiate blood from blood (which would be inconsistent for God anyway, as God shows no partiality, Act 10:34).

I really hope I misunderstood what you're saying.

It may be that we do not understand each other, and I think that is largely due to me English is not my native language, and it takes me quite some time to find the right simple words that precisely convey what I want to say. Sometimes I need a whole story of words, but English does not say what the Dutch in my head says.

Zo nog een keer, Galatians 3:17-25 teaches that the Law was a temporary guardian leading to Christ, and justification comes through faith. Antinomianism misinterprets this by dismissing the Law's value, whereas a balanced interpretation acknowledges the Law's role in moral guidance and its fulfillment in Christ. Insights from theologians like Martyn Lloyd-Jones help me to maintain this balance, avoiding the extremes of legalism and antinomianism.

- Fulfillment in Christ: Jesus fulfills the Law, realizing its ultimate purpose.
- Moral Guidance: The Law continues to provide moral guidance, even though it cannot justify.
- Faith and Obedience: Justification is by faith, but this faith naturally leads to obedience to God’s moral commands.

I grow up in a church that followed replacement theology, seeing itself as the Israel of the West. Israel itself was no longer relevant. Now I am learning differently, but I still have much to learn. Can you explain what you mean by your response: 'This rhetoric is a little too familiar for me'? I feel unsure. Am I going too far to the other side? What do you mean by 'familiar'?"

 

[Sam Jer]

It may be that we do not understand each other, and I think that is largely due to me English is not my native language, and it takes me quite some time to find the right simple words that precisely convey what I want to say. Sometimes I need a whole story of words, but English does not say what the Dutch in my head says.

Zo nog een keer, Galatians 3:17-25 teaches that the Law was a temporary guardian leading to Christ, and justification comes through faith. Antinomianism misinterprets this by dismissing the Law's value, whereas a balanced interpretation acknowledges the Law's role in moral guidance and its fulfillment in Christ. Insights from theologians like Martyn Lloyd-Jones help me to maintain this balance, avoiding the extremes of legalism and antinomianism.

- Fulfillment in Christ: Jesus fulfills the Law, realizing its ultimate purpose.
- Moral Guidance: The Law continues to provide moral guidance, even though it cannot justify.
- Faith and Obedience: Justification is by faith, but this faith naturally leads to obedience to God’s moral commands.

I grow up in a church that followed replacement theology, seeing itself as the Israel of the West. Israel itself was no longer relevant. Now I am learning differently, but I still have much to learn. Can you explain what you mean by your response: 'This rhetoric is a little too familiar for me'? I feel unsure. Am I going too far to the other side? What do you mean by 'familiar'?"

I grew up in (a relatively moderate globally speaking) part of the Messianic movement. This movement teaches that there is a difference between Christians of Hebrew ethnicity and Christians without it as far as obedience to the law. Specifically, it seeks to put the duty of obedience to certain parts of the ceremonial law on any Jew. Usually, it happens to be the exact same parts secular Jews keep, in the exact same ways (other versions are more extreme, in either placing this on gentiles too, or adding more parts of the law, or often both).
This would be contrary to the word of God. In my reply above included some references that show this. I am sure other people here would be able to chime in as to why this is wrong.
This is actually part of my why I posted my question. Originally, this verse was part of what got me out of that, though once it was done there was no going back as I got out of the habit of wresting Paul in almost every chapter of his books (he really does not have patience with these things!)


Now, regarding Replacement Theology, this is a different matter.
Dispensationalists, while not going to the extremes of the Messianic movement, do seperate Hebrew Christians from Christians of other ethnicities in more intangible ways, and especially eschatologically. This, too, is an error. Consider that once ingrafted into Christ, we are all grafted into Christ's people on earth, Hebrew or not (Romans 11 makes this quite clear). There is no seperation between Jew and gentile. While I believe God will bring about the national repentance of my people (Lord, may you do it quickly!), he will be simply regrafting them to the tree. There is enough space for Jews and gentiles.

Consider how Issiah describes the ingrafting of the gentiles in chapters 53-54:

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Consider Christ's words too in Matthew 21:

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Regarding the importance of Israel: Israel as God's people is indeed the church. It includes people of Hebrew ethnicity, but also Scotsmen, Dutchmen, Americans, Germans, Arab Palestinians, Zulu, Han Chinese, Indo-Aryans, and many more nations.
Israel according to the flesh will (in my opinion, Reformed views differ) be grafted into the root, and convert as a nation, and it would seem to me God taking us to the middle east does serve towards that end though this would be a controversial statement in Reformed circles.

However, the Israeli government and people, like any other non-Christian nation, got lots of problems. While opposing the Iranian-led octupus is a nice opinion to hold, too many dispensationalists take it a few steps too far. It is more important to annoy us by preaching the gospel than to build another random tent in the West Bank that almost definitely creates more problems than it solves.

Am I going too far to the other side?

It seems to me that you are

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Efraim,

As a Jew this issue is of importance to me. Early in my Christian life a "Messianic Jewish pastor" said that Jews who come to Jesus should keep the Mosaic Law even though it did not pertain to their "righteousness". Yet they were still bound to it.

I understood that while Jesus fulfilled all the strictly Mosaic laws — including the Levitical worship — the 10 commandments (which predated Moses) were still to be obeyed, yet as we could not do so in that perfection required, if we trusted in Christ — were born of His Spirit — His obedience, and us in Him, sufficed (Rom 8:3, 4).

Myself, when I look at the various parts of the OT, including the Mosaic, I look at Torah (generic for law) as instruction to edify and guide, not a mandate obedience to which makes me righteous. For Christ is my righteousness.

The Mosaic laws — including the Levitical worship — were designed to show the Jews they could not keep the law in that perfection required, and it schooled them in how to discern their need for the Messiah-Christ as the only Saviour possible in light of those requirements.

 

[timmopussycat]

While it is true that the law has shown all men our inability to keep it, it also tells us many things about our heavenly Father, what he approves of and what he detests, what is sin and what is not.

Yet Moses' law was first and foremost a covenant — a covenant God made with Israel, which has been replaced by the new covenant in Christ. (Heb. 8:13)

Christians who long to please their heavenly father and increase their joy in him will do well to discern what parts of Moses' teaching remain morally valid today and to do or avoid those points as appropriate. We can find this out by comparing Moses' teaching with pre-Sinai materials on the one hand (See Philip Ross: "From the Finger of God") and the NT on the other.

I suggest your Messianic Jewish pastor acquaintance was in error when he said Jews remain bound to the Mosaic covenant.