In the last post, I commented on the scriptural argument by which Paul affirms the relevance of the blessing of Abraham to all Christians, through the Holy Spirit, at the same time that he declares the impossibility of the Law to bring such a blessing.
In the text that we are now analyzing, he presents more details, seeking to resolve any doubts that may still exist. There is also a concern not to deny the historic role of the law. Such a theme is sensitive since the Law was central to the Judaizing opponents of Paul in the region of Galatia.
The text can be divided into three segments. In the first (3:15-18), Paul makes use of human logic (“I speak as a man,” v. 15) to develop his argument. In the second (3:19-25), he opens a parenthesis to clarify the role of the law. Finally, he makes an application of the discussion to the lives of Gentile Christians (3:26-29).
The use of logic in the first part is related to the field of laws. Probably the choice is made because it is a terminology known among the members of the Roman Empire and that becomes a basis with a good dose of security for the development of the argument. The reasoning begins in a rather calm way to be intensified in the next block.
Paul uses the terminology referring to testaments. Although the Greek term used in v. 15 is diatheke (covenant), usually translated as “covenant”, as Almeida Updated does, the word also means “testament”. In this sense, it was used several times by Josephus in his writings (cf. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 41, Gal. 3:15, CD).
There is a discussion among commentators about the statement that “[...] a covenant/testament [...] once ratified, no one revokes it or adds anything” (v. 15). The point is that Roman legislation allowed the alteration of the contents of a will, as long as it was the will of its proponent. Given this, it seems that Paul bases his logic on the idea that, if it is not the will of the testator, no one can alter the will.
The initial logic is that the contracting parties were God, Abraham, and Jesus Christ, “the” descendant (v. 16). The Pauline interpretation of Gen 12:2-3, 7; 13:15-16ff sounds strange, since the singular term “offspring” that occurs in Genesis, from which Paul derives “seed,” clearly refers to the collectivity, that is, to the many. But Paul takes advantage of grammar to generate a spiritual sense that identifies the descendant with Jesus Christ. This is essential for him. After all, only the parties involved in the will – God, Abraham, and Jesus Christ – could revoke it, which does not happen.
The consequence of this, highlighted by the apostle, is that the Law, important as it was, could not alter the testament. Even because it came four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham (v. 17).
Paul ends his argument with the conclusion: the inheritance does not come from the Law but the promise (v. 18). Of what heritage does he speak? Probably from all the legacy that Abraham's example of faith left for future generations. This is his will. And the origin of the inheritance is the promise made by God to him. The Law failed to do that, the apostle recalls. He repeats, in other words, what he has already said in 3:14, and the emphasis is on the Judaizers, according to whom the Abrahamic heritage was, above all, circumcision, a sign of the covenant and, therefore, necessary for all who believe.
Well, since he again speaks so negatively about the Law, he feels obliged to clarify it. This is the second block of text (3:19-25). It seems that it would be logical to ask: “What, then, is the raison d'être of the law?” Since it was held by Judaism as the foundation on which they built their relationship with God, as a covenant people. Paul's words were shocking to any pious Jew, as well as to Judaizing Christians. He deems it necessary to make some clarifications.
The first is that the Law was “added”, added. Again a shock. That was not how she was conceived. But for Paul, it arose out of a need. It was added because of the "transgressions" of the people. The idea is that, despite the promise and inheritance, the Israelites engaged in practices contrary to what God intended. This made an update necessary, a complement to the heritage that made it possible. But when the descendant came, to whom the promise was made, this addition would no longer make sense and should be taken away.
That is why Paul can answer the question that perhaps still exists: “Is the law contrary to the promises of God? Not at all!" (v. 21). Sure! If it emerged as a compliment, as the viability of the inheritance at another time, it is at the side, it helps the promise, never being its opponent.
He recalls, as he will do in the letter to the Romans, that the Law made sins explicit and evident. In a general way, the apostle affirms that the “Scripture”, the Old Testament, ended everything under sin so that the promise would become valid through faith in Jesus (v. 22).
But historically, before the manifestation of faith, the Law was a kind of tutor (v. 23). She served as a “schoolmaster” (paidagogos in Greek). Perhaps the best translation from the Greek term is teacher, instructor. The Law exercised the function of caring for the faithful and leading them to Christ. This is a very beautiful and positive image of the Law. But once Jesus and faith come, the teacher is no longer needed (v. 25).
in v. 26 the completion of the block begins. If the Law is a teacher, an instructor, only Jesus makes us children of God (v. 26). Obviously, this is a categorization that would not be welcomed by Jews and Judaizers, who used a series of classifications to determine who was spiritual and faithful to God.
Noteworthy is the pronoun change. If in the previous verses Paul used the first person plural – “we” (v. 23-25), therefore, including himself in what he wrote about, now he changes to the second person plural – “you”. Therefore, he excludes himself from his argument, applying what he says directly to the Galatians. Does this mean that what is said does not apply to him? Is he not the son of God? Had he not been baptized into Christ? Of course yes! But the strategy of putting oneself aside, to highlight the readers, seeks to make the application to them clearer.
He wants to make it clear that the Galatians are no longer under the care of a tutor, as they have, by faith, acquired the spiritual majority. They relate to God as children (v. 26). An unmistakable sign of this was they're being baptized into Christ (v. 27). The result is that there are no more categorizations and differences between people (v. 28), a central element of the Jewish religion, and one of the criteria by which Judaizing Christians were trying to convince the Galatians about the need for the Law. Now, in Christ, and through him alone, they become Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promise (v. 29).
