Law Vs. Promise

Greetings, everyone.

As we have been looking at Galatians 3, and Paul's arguments for the Promise made to Abraham as lasting, and the Law given to Moses as temporary. We will continue on now with verses 18-20.  In this passage, Paul asks what seems to be next obvious question:  If the Law is temporary, why have the Law at all?  Here is my translation:   

18 If the inheritance came from the Law, then it no longer came from the Promise, but God graciously gave Abraham a promise. 19 So then, why have the Law? The Law was added because of transgressions, until the one offspring should come, the one for whom the promise had been made, having been put in place by angels by the hand of an intermediary.  20 Now, an intermediary implies that more than one party is involved, but God is one. 

In verse 18, Paul begins talking about inheritance.  Being children of Abraham, we share in that inheritance. In Old Testament times, inheritance involved the land, becasue in an agricultural society, land is wealth.  Now, in this new paradigm, the inheritance is not land, but rather, it is Jesus, and all of the blessings that he provides.  So, as we continue, we will see more of Paul's contrast of The Promise and The Law. We see that The Promise supersedes the Law, and it is better, because the Promise brings Jesus and grace.  

In verse 18, Paul uses the Greek word κεχάρισται (kecharistai), a form of the word χαρίζομαι (charizomai), to talk about how God gave the Promise to Abraham.  Notice the resemblance to the Greek word for grace - χάρις (charis), the word for grace.   Κεχάρισται is often translated as “graciously given.”  God, in His grace, gave the promise to Abraham. So, the Promise is rooted in God’s grace.  Whereas, the Law is rooted in obedience.  

In verse 19, Paul goees ahead and asks the inevitable question, “If the Promise is binding, then why institute the Law?”  Then he answers it.  The Law was given because of transgressions.  In other words, the Law was given because we are, by nature, sinful.  The Law was necessary.  It had to be given, and very clearly plays a part in God’s redemptive plan. Without the Law we would not recognize our own sinfulness.  Without the Law showing us our inadequacies, would we recognize our need for God? In other words, the Law shows us our sinfulness, and therefore our need for God. 

The amount of transgressions that occur under the Law make it obvious that the Law is not the answer to our transgression problem. The Law certainly did show humanity's sinfulness, and it still does, but Paul makes the point that its function was to show this sinfulness until The One would come. The One, obviously Jesus, is the one of whom the Promise had been made.

Douglas Moo comments that throughout this series of verses Paul makes the case that the Law was in effect for a limited time and for a specific purpose. (Moo, 232.)  Later, when Paul writes the letter to the Romans, he says, “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” (Romans 7:12 NIV) Paul is not being anti-law.  He simply understood better than others the meaning and purpose of the Law.  He also understood our inability to live according to the Law, which makes God’s grace such important and fantastic news for us.  

The argument being made against Paul, a position held by many Jews of Paul's day, was that the Law was eternal. Paul is saying that the Law was temporary and the Promise, eternal, and that the Law, being temporary, concluded with the arrival of the one offspring, Jesus.  

The last phrase of verse 19 and verse 20, Paul talks about angels and a mediator that are involved in the giving of the Law, and ends with the statement that “God is one.” Paul’s meaning is not exactly clear. A quick look at Deuteronomy 32 might help us.  

Deut. 33:2 says, “The Lord came from Sinai
   and dawned over them from Seir;
    he shone forth from Mount Paran.
He came with  myriads of holy ones
    from the south, from his mountain slopes.

The words, “Holy ones” imply, as Paul also does, that there were many angels involved in the giving of the Law. 

Also, You might ask, “Who is this mediator that paul is speaking of?” There are different ideas, but the one that makes the most sense to me, since we are talking about the giving of the Law, is that the mediator is Moses.  Thomas Schreiner states that Paul’s meaning here is that “the law was given to Moses through angels, and Moses in turn mediated the law to the people.  (Schreiner, 243.) Schreiner's thoughts make sense here.  

Paul continues, explaining indirectly what mediators do: They mediate between two parties.  So the fact that there is a mediator implies that two parties are involved.  However, Paul concludes the argument with the statement, “but God is one.”  It seems like a clear reference to the Shema in Deut.6:4 “ hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”  Paul's point? God did not mediate the Promise to Abraham, He simply gave it.  Schreiner suggests here that Paul’s point is that the fact that the Law had a mediator shows that it is inferior to the Promise, which needed no mediator.  (Scheiner, 243.)

Paul has consistently used the Old Testament to prove his points, turning the various arguments of the Judaizing teaching on their respective heads.  He has been using Abraham, one of their great heroes.  He used the prophet Habakkuk, and now Moses and the Shema. he uses them effectively to point out that the Promise, grace, faith and Gentile inclusion into His inheritance have always been God’s plan for our salvation.  This is good news for us.