This is a response to a question a friend of mine asked me about this passage of scripture, a passage that is used very often to question the validity of observing the Torah (the Mosaic Law). My response was written in an attempt to clarify what I see Sha'ul as saying. It is posted here because I think that it is an important topic that deserves some attention. Enjoy and please feel free to comment!

---------------------------------------------

First, we must remember that Paul is discussing the issue of justification and specifically, the problem of the Judaizers teaching that in order to be justified in G‑d’s sight everyone must follow the Torah perfectly. This legalism was beginning to take root in the congregation in Galatia, and Paul was hoping to show how wrong it is.

3:1-9

Paul relates justification to the promise G‑d gave Abraham, saying that Abraham’s faith was what justified him before G‑d, and that the Torah, which came 430 years later, could not change that fact. We can understand from that something very important about the Torah: it is not built on the premise of works righteousness. It did not change the setup that G‑d had instituted with Abraham; G‑d just created a system whereby mankind would be able to see their sinfulness and be led to him. The justification for that sin still came from faith.

3:10-13

Now, about verses 10-12... Young’s Literal Translation says (emphasis mine):

¹⁰ for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, “Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law--to do them,” ¹¹ and that in law no one is declared righteous with God, is evident, because “The righteous by faith shall live;” ¹² and the law is not by faith, but--“The man who did them shall live in them.” ¹³ Messiah did redeem us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse, for it hath been written, “Cursed is every one who is hanging on a tree,” ¹⁴ that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Messiah Yeshua, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.

Notice a few things about this passage and the words I emphasized. First, Paul leaves out the definite article “the” when using the word “law” in verses 10 and 11 (I checked this in the Greek, as well). This is not the case in verses 12 and 13 where he uses the article. Why is this? I believe that he is making a distinction between legalism and the Torah. He says, “You cannot be justified through legalism; as a matter of fact, if you are trying to do so you are only putting yourself under a curse.”

Let’s delve a little bit deeper. Paul goes on to say (in verse 12) “and the law is not by faith.” This verse says in Greek: ὁ δὲ νόμος (literally, “this moreover law”) using the nomitive-singular-masculine article ὁ. Verse 13 says: τοῦ νόμου (“the law”) using the genitive-singular-neuter article τοῦ. I am not a Greek scholar, but I think that there is a reason (beyond normal grammar rules) for Paul using different cases of the article “the”, different cases of the word for “law” (νόμος and νόμου), and even placing the article in front of “moreover” (verse 12). I believe that in verse 12 Paul is continuing his thought from 11, saying that legalism (“this law”) does not exist out of faith. Then, in verse 13 he says that Messiah has redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the Torah (which he quoted in verse 10).

3:14

Referring back to the point he made in verse 8, Paul then reminds the reader of his overall topic: “...that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Messiah Yeshua, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.” Don’t forget that Paul is pursuing this line of thought to make it clear that the legalism being taught by the Judaizers has no place in the plan of G‑d.

3:15-18

Paul makes two important points here. First, he says, “Even covenants made by men are not subject to being voided or rewritten.” Kal v’chomer, a covenant made by G‑d cannot be voided or revised. Paul is applying this statement to the Abrahamic covenant, but it is just as easily applied to the Mosaic covenant, both of which are related to us in the Torah.

This is strengthened by Paul’s second point: “A covenant confirmed before by God to Messiah, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise.” (That is the literal translation of verse 17, unlike the translation found in many Bibles.) If so, then kal v’chomer the Torah cannot be set aside by the giving of another covenant by Messiah.

Paul then says that legalism (νόμου with no article) cannot bring the inheritance (that is, justification) because that would be in opposition to how G‑d dealt with Abraham.

3:19-23

Now, on to verse 19. Young’s again: “Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made...” The question about this verse revolves around the use of the word “until.” Does Paul mean to say that the Torah only had power until Messiah came? Obviously not, given his other teachings. I think that the explanation for this is found in Romans 7:

⁷ What, then, shall we say? the law is sin? let it not be! but the sin I did not know except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the law had not said: ⁸ “Thou shalt not covet;” and the sin having received an opportunity, through the command, did work in me all covetousness...

This ties in with what Paul says in Gal 3:22: “but the Writing [i.e. Scripture] did shut up the whole [i.e. everything] under sin, that the promise by faith of Yeshua Messiah may be given to those believing.” What is Paul’s point? That the legality of determining what is and is not a transgression was added to G‑d’s system for the purpose of leading everyone to His promised justification while waiting on that promised justification to be fulfilled in Messiah (which would make it freely available to everyone -- see verse 8 and verse 28).

However, something happened to G‑d’s system--legalism got in the way. Verse 23 says that “before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed.” That phrase “under law” is ὑπὸ νόμον, and it refers to being underneath a legal system, i.e. legalism. It is not saying (as most translations put it) that we were held under THE Law (the Torah), since the definite article is not present in the Greek.

Conclusion

The overarching point of this whole passage (3:1-4:7), and indeed the entire book of Galatians, is that G‑d wanted to make justification freely available to the Gentiles (3:8). He gave the Torah to increase the ability of all people to see the need for this justification. Then, in Messiah, He brought us to that desired goal. He gave us the ability, through the faith Abraham had, to obtain the same justification Abraham had.

This removes from the conversation the issue of the Torah’s validity. That is not the issue on Paul’s mind, and it is not even a discussion in which he engages (as we can see in his other writings). He is only concerned with showing (in a slightly round-about way) what role the Torah played in G‑d’s plan to bring justification to the entire world, but specifically, how the legalism being taught by the Judaizers was not the path G‑d intended for anyone to take to Him.

In 3:25, Paul says that the Torah acted like a “pedagogue” (from the Greek word παιδαγωγόν) to lead us to Messiah. However, now that the faith Abraham had has been made readily available to anyone, we no longer need the Torah to act in that way. That is because through the faith we have access to in Messiah we are free from legalism and finally able to serve G‑d by following His Torah. Just as Jeremiah 31:33 says, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it,” we now have the ability to follow G‑d’s instructions with perfect clarity because he has given mankind a change of heart. We do not need the Torah to act as a pedagogue any more because we have the commands written inside us and we are not going to stray off the path into legalism again. The Rules are still there, the directions on how to live are still in place. The difference is in that one area: the defense against legalism.

Since this is the case, the argument that someone who follows the Torah is being legalistic can be seen in a whole new light. I think that this passage is the best defense against that assertion, because it shows that legalism is not an issue for those who are following Messiah and who have allowed Him to write the Torah on their hearts.

Labels: Messianic Judaism