Galatians 3

Evidence from the OT Scriptures

Galatians 3:1-5 (Personal plea)

Before continuing in his argument, Paul takes a moment to address the Galatians personally. He seems exasperated in this section and in Galatians 4:12-20 where he takes a similar excursus. It’s also possible to read this short section as an argument from experience. That is, the Galatians had a direct experience with the Holy Spirit through believing—not through works of the Law. So, this could be an additional argument that Paul is leveraging. Regardless, he is surely making a personal plea to these young Christians.

(3:1) “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

After making his extended case for the truth of the gospel, Paul now brings a poignant question: “Who has bewitched you?” Here, Paul moves from the defensive to the offensive, asking, “What is their authority, and how does it compare to mine?”

“Foolish” (anoētoi) implies more than just making a poor decision. It could be rendered “stupid Galatians.” It refers to “either an insufficient or mistaken use of mental powers or a deficiency in understanding itself.”[]

“Bewitched” (baskainō) means “to exert an evil influence through the eye, bewitch, as with the ‘evil eye’” (BDAG, p.171). The meaning of the word is “is to cast a spell by what is called the evil eye.”[] This was some form of occult practice whereby a person would use a spell to curse another. In this case, Paul is using this charged word to describe the influence of the false teachers.

“Publicly portrayed” (proegraphē) doesn’t mean that the Galatians saw Jesus hanging on the Cross, but that this was public in the sense that anyone and everyone could know about it. It would be similar to having a billboard on the street.

Because the “who” is singular, it’s possible that there was an “arch-Judaizer,” who was the ringleader of this heresy.[] It’s also possible that Paul is speaking of “the devil himself”[] who is ultimately behind all false teaching.

The fact that Jesus was “publicly portrayed as crucified” could refer to the public proclamation of the gospel by Paul (rather than seeing it in person). Or it could refer to the general knowledge of Jesus’ death in Galatia: “The word proegraphē, publicly portrayed, may mean either ‘portrayed’ or ‘placarded’, like some notice of civic interest. The huge hoardings that carry advertisements by roadsides today would be the best parallel in the modern world.”[] This latter view makes more sense. Jesus’ death was announced publicly.

(3:2) “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”

Believers receive the Holy Spirit at conversion through faith—not by good works. So, the Galatians would have to agree with the second half of the question: They started their relationship by faith, and therefore, they should continue their relationship through faith—not works. Regeneration is a miracle—no less than the miracles referred to in verse 5. Both occur through a supernatural agency—not naturalistic effort.

(3:3) “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

Both justification and sanctification are energized and effective through faith—not works. The believers’ growth is just as supernatural as the believers’ birth. By contrast, the Judaizers were trying to make sanctification naturalistic, rather than supernaturalistic.[]

(3:4) “Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?”

What suffering is Paul referring to?

(1) The suffering could refer to the persecution they already endured (cf. Gal. 6:12).[]

(2) The suffering could refer to circumcision—a repeated theme of the letter. Did they go through with circumcision—only to discover that their suffering was pointless or “vain”? (Ouch!)

(3) The suffering could refer to falling under law.

(3:5) “So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”

God’s miraculous work and power cannot be coaxed or manipulated. Only pagan deities can be coerced like this, but not the God of the Bible. God will either work a miracle because he is gracious, or he won’t. The term “provides” (epichorēgeō) literally means “to convey as a gift, give, grant” or “to provide (at one’s own expense), supply, furnish” (BDAG). In other words, Paul is asking, “Did God perform miracles because you worked for them? Of course not!” A gift cannot be earned.

Many believers think that if they act better, then God will start to move. But the key to releasing God’s power in our lives and in our churches is to exercise faith—not works. All of the good works in the world could be just a form of religious manipulation, trying to coerce God into giving us a blessing. This won’t do.

Argument #6: Abraham was justified by faith, rather than works.

Paul has already given evidence about the truth of the gospel from his testimony, the testimony of the churches, and the testimony of the other apostles. Here, he appeals to the testimony of OT Scriptures.

Thesis: Justification by faith

(3:6) “Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

Paul had already landed his argument in verses 2-5, but the matter wouldn’t be settled in his mind unless he cited Scripture as his authority. Paul cites Abraham as the premier model of faith (Gen. 15:6). Of course, Abraham didn’t work to earn God’s favor. Instead, the key to his “righteousness” was his faith (“Abraham believed God”).

Likewise, Scripture predicted that all the (Gentile) nations would be blessed through Abraham. Next, Paul cites Genesis 12:3 to show that the blessing to the Gentile nations would be through faith—not works.

(3:7-8) “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. ⁸ The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you.’”

Paul quotes from the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:3 and Gen. 22:18). He cites this for a couple of reasons:

First, Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6 shows that Abraham was accepted before he did any works, including circumcision (Gen. 17) or his willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22). From this, Paul draws the conclusion that “sons of Abraham” likewise are accepted before doing any works. To paraphrase, Paul is saying, “You agree that Abraham was considered fully righteous by God before he did any works of the Law, correct? Well then, the same is true for you Galatians who are ‘sons of Abraham.’ You are fully accepted by God because of your faith—not your works of the Law.” George paraphrases, “Although [Abraham] became the father of the Jews, he was justified when he was still a Gentile!”[]

Second, Paul’s citation of the Abrahamic Covenant demonstrates that this isn’t simply for Jews, but for the “Gentiles” who would receive this blessing through Abraham. This verse does not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant for ethnically Jewish people (i.e. replacement theology). After all, Paul only quotes from the portion of the Abrahamic Covenant that was literally fulfilled in the Gentiles (“All the nations will be blessed through you,” Gen. 12:3). Paul does not abrogate the rest of the Abrahamic Covenant as being fulfilled in the Church. Indeed, to state the obvious, Paul isn’t addressing eschatology, but soteriology.

In biblical thinking, a person was a “son” of the person they imitated. Since believers imitate Abraham’s faith, this shows that they are his “sons.” This shows that justification by faith was God’s plan all along—even as far back as the Abrahamic Covenant.

(3:9) “So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”

Gentiles are “blessed” through the Abrahamic Covenant, because they follow in the footsteps of Abraham—namely, they exercise faith. According to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Gentiles will be blessed apart from circumcision. Indeed, nothing about circumcision is mentioned. They are only blessed because of their faith.

Antithesis: Justification by works

(3:10) “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’”

Why does Paul cite Deuteronomy 27:26? Paul is showing that God’s “blessing” does not come through Law, but through the promise of Abraham. Deuteronomy 27 insists that a “curse” comes on people who are law breakers. Do the Galatians really want to go back under Law, when this only brings a “curse”?

Why does Paul add the word “all”? Paul adds the word “all” when he cites Deuteronomy 27. However, this is the implication of this text—namely, we cannot simply follow some of the OT laws. Such a concept would be unthinkable to a first-century Jewish person—particularly Paul. Moreover, the very next verse in Deuteronomy uses the word “all” to describe God’s commands: “If you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth” (Deut. 28:1).

Paul is alluding to the “blessing” and “cursing” motif of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. He appeals to Abraham’s promise to show that only “blessing” comes from the promise—not “cursing.” Yet, the way of the law brings both “blessing” and “cursing.”

(3:11) “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’”

Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4 to show that “righteousness” comes from faith—not Law.[] Multiple NT passages cite this verse (Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, and Heb. 10:38). The NT authors cite this so frequently because it shows how to get out from under the judgment of God. In Habakkuk’s day, he wondered why God would use the Babylonians to judge the nation of Judah. He learned that the way out from under this judgment was not through being the “proud one,” because “his soul is not right within him” (Hab. 2:4). Instead, Habakkuk writes that the “righteous shall live by his faith.”

(3:12) “However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.’”

Paul next cites Leviticus 18:5 to show that Law and faith are mutually exclusive. If believers really want to go the route of Law, then they need to take on the entire mantle of the law—not just certain parts. It isn’t enough to simply adopt circumcision; they need to follow the entire law. Paul will later write, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:3). Jesus cited this passage to the young religious lawyer who was trying to “justify himself” as righteous (Lk. 10:28-29). Jesus told him the parable of the Good Samaritan to show that this man could not justify himself through good works.

(3:13) “Christ 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.’”

“Christ redeemed us” (exagorazō). The word “redeemed” or “redemption” comes from the root word agora, which referred to a marketplace. This was “the site of the slave auction where everyday in ancient Rome human beings were put up for sale to the highest bidder.”[] Paul is saying that Jesus purchased our freedom—not through “silver or gold,” but through his own “precious blood” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). In other words, our redemption cost Jesus everything.

Why does Paul cite Deuteronomy 21:23? Paul cites this passage to show that Jesus—the only One who ever followed the Law perfectly—took up the Cross so that he could be our “Curse Bearer.” The original text states that the hanged person is “accursed by God” (Deut. 21:23). This means that Jesus took our “curse” for us (hyper hēmōn), which strongly supports the view that the Cross was both penal and substitutionary. We deserved the “curse” of the Law (v.10), but Jesus took the “curse” of the Law for us. Likewise, Jesus followed the Law perfectly and deserved “blessing,” but he gave us his “blessing” (v.14). The One who deserved to be blessed was cursed, and the ones who deserved to be cursed were blessed.

“Hangs on a tree.” This doesn’t refer to the modern practice of being hanged with a rope. There is more than one way to hang from a tree. This was a common way to describe crucifixion (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet 2:24). The original text simply refers to being on display in a public execution: “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, ²³ his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day” (Deut. 21:22-23). So, this passage applies to Jesus’ crucifixion.

(3:14) “[Christ redeemed us…] in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Because Jesus took our “curse,” the Gentiles can now get the “blessing.” Of course, all of this means that the Gentiles should not go back under Law, because this would only result in a further “curse.”

Does the Law override the Abrahamic Covenant?

Paul’s adversaries probably argued that the Law abrogated or revoked the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. That is, the Law of Moses set conditions on God’s promise to Abraham. But Paul argues just the opposite: The Law cannot override the Abrahamic Covenant, because this original covenant was unconditional and cannot be added to.

(3:15) “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.”

Paul appeals to the practice of everyday covenants (or contracts). Once a contract is signed, it cannot be altered. For instance, if you signed a mortgage with the bank, the bank cannot change the interest rates, timeline, or rules of the mortgage after it is signed. Once it is signed and notarized, the contract cannot be altered.

(3:16) “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.”

Paul applies this illustration to the promise given to Abraham and his “seed” (i.e. Jesus). Once God made this unconditional promise, he stood by it—never revoking it or altering it.

(3:17-18) “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.”

Was it 400 or 430 years? Some texts place the amount of time at 400 years (Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6), while other texts place the figure at 430 years. This is an example of the Bible using round numbers. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) states that inerrancy shouldn’t imply “modern technical precision,” and it should allow for the use of round numbers (CSBI, article 13). One number is more precise than another, but this doesn’t imply that one number is, therefore, incorrect. After all, if I said, “I live a mile from the highway,” this wouldn’t be an error if we discovered that I lived 1.2 miles from the highway. The same concept should be applied to Scripture’s use of round numbers.

The Law came 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant. Imagine signing a lease to rent a house, only to have the landlord double the rent six months later. This would be unthinkable! What is the purpose of signing a contract if the terms can be changed on a whim? Paul uses this same logic to show that the Law did not change God’s original promise of blessing the nations through the Abrahamic Covenant. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant, but not a legal condition on an unconditional covenant. Originally, God gave circumcision as a way to signify his people.[]

If the Law doesn’t bring a blessing, then why did God give us the Law?

We can imagine Paul’s opponents raising this question: If the Law only brings a curse and it came four centuries after the promise, then what was its purpose? Why did God give it at all?

(3:19) “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.”

The Law had a purpose, but that purpose was not to abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant. Instead, the purpose was to point us to the Promised Seed: Christ. The NASB states that we have the Law “because of transgressions,” but what does this mean? This could be taken in two ways:[]

• If this is taken as causal, then it would look backward. This would indicate that it was meant to curb sin.

• If this is taken as telic, then it would look forward. This would indicate that it was meant to inflame sin.

The telic use is in view here according to Timothy George[] and Martin Luther.[] This fits with the immediate context where Paul needs to explain how the Law is not opposed to the promises of God. If the Law curbed sin, he would have no need to write about this. Moreover, elsewhere, Paul writes, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase” (Rom. 5:20). This fits nicely with Paul’s message here.

“Added” (pareisēlthen) literally means to come “in by a side road.”[] In other words, the main road was the Abrahamic Covenant, but God brought in a side road to support the main line.

“Ordained through angels.” This is recorded in the OT, NT, and in Jewish tradition (Deut. 33:2, LXX; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb. 2:2). Implicitly, Exodus 19:16-19 describes thunder, lightning, and a cloud surrounding Mount Sinai during the giving of the Law. Later passages explicitly teach that these referred to angels (Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:17). Paul could be contrasting the Law with the Abrahamic Covenant by mentioning these angelic mediators. After all, Abraham received his message directly from God, while the people received the Law through angels and Moses.

(3:20) “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.”

This is admittedly a difficult passage to interpret. Our best attempt is that Paul is stating that there need to be two parties for a contract. (It would make no sense for me to make a contract with myself!) However, since this was a unilateral and unconditional contract, Paul is emphasizing that “God is only one.”[] Instead of having an angelic mediator or a mediator through Moses, we have a mediator through the God-man, Jesus Christ. George writes, “In Jesus Christ, God did not send a substitute or a surrogate, no angelic mediation, no merely human go-between. In Jesus Christ, God, the one and only God, came himself.”[]

(3:21) “Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.”

There is nothing wrong with the Law. There is only a problem with the way the Judaizers were using or applying the Law (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8). They were using it to gain and grow in “righteousness,” a concept that Paul flatly denies.

(3:22-23) “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ²³ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.”

In Greek, the order of the words shows emphasis. The word “shut up” (NASB) or “imprisoned” (ESV) or “declares… a prisoner of sin” (NIV) begins Paul’s sentence (sunkleiō). In the LXX, this term referred to being captured in a place or prison (Josh. 6:1; Isa. 45:1; cf. Lk. 5:6). Here is great irony! The Pharisees had created many extrabiblical laws as a “fence” to keep people from breaking the Law. Yet, Paul used “the metaphor of the fence, however, and radicalized it by turning it into a barbed-wire prison wall. Its purpose was not to make the unjustified sinner pure and holy, to ‘impart life,’ but rather to condemn, enclose, and punish.”[]

Law exists to convince people of their complete and total inability to attain righteousness on their own (cf. Rom. 3:9-20). Of course, the Judaizers were teaching the exact opposite message, claiming that these believers could gain righteousness and grow in righteousness through the Law.

“Faith” uses the article in each of the three cases in verses 23 and 25. It refers to “the faith.” This, of course, refers to the coming of Jesus, rather than a person’ personal faith. Paul already demonstrated that Abraham was declared righteous long before Jesus arrived in his earthly ministry (Gen. 15:6).

(3:24) “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.”

The Law is a like a teacher or “tutor” (paidagōgos) literally means “boy-leader” or “child-conductor.” This was a person who instructed us to come to faith in Christ. This “tutor” was not just an academic teacher, but more like a nanny, and the “dominant image was that of a harsh disciplinarian who frequently resorted to physical force and corporal punishment as a way of keeping his children in line” which even involved “tweaking the ear, cuffing the hands, whipping, caning, pinching, and other unpleasant means of applied correction.”[] In fact, one ancient author wrote, “Students are scared of their pedagogues.”[] The Law teaches us just how far we fall short of God’s standard. It leaves us in a helpless state, whereby we cry out to God for mercy.

(3:25) “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Once we meet Christ, there is no need to go back under the Law. After all, the teaching was successful. Going back under the Law would be like returning to Kindergarten: At best, it’s redundant, and at worst, it’s bizarre! When we realize our need for Jesus’ forgiveness, we have no need to go back under condemnation. Cole writes, “To return to Paul’s human analogy; once the child has grown up, it is no longer under the control of the slave escort.”[]

(3:26) “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

The entire flow of thought has been leading here: Gentiles and Jews have equal status if they come to God through faith. Then, once you’re in the family, you don’t need to continue to try to become a son. You are a son! Paul uses the universal language to drive this home (“you are all sons”). All believers have a new identity as a son of God—not just a select few. Some sons may be less righteous than others, but they aren’t any less sons. See our earlier article, “From Slaves to Sons: The Fatherhood of God and Spiritual Adoption.”

(3:27) “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Despite the fact that most commentators understand this to refer to water baptism, we disagree. This refers to spiritual baptism (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 6:3). We are sons of God “in Christ,” not in water (v.26). We were put “into Christ,” not into water (v.27). Paul even uses the provocative language of being “clothed” with Christ, which implies our identity with him. How these clear statements could refer to water baptism is beyond me.

Our identity “in Christ” is similar to an astronaut putting on a spacesuit. Once he’s inside the suit, we can only see the suit—not the astronaut. Similarly, now that we are placed into Christ, God sees Jesus when he looks at us.

(3:28) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This new identity has sociological implications, eliminating the strife of social status, race, and gender.[] Cole writes, “Some have seen here another thrust at the Judaizers. The Jewish male gave regular thanks to God in the liturgy that he was not born a Gentile or a woman.”[] Rabbi Judah ben Elai (2^nd c. AD) stated, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a foreigner… a slave… a woman.”

(3:29) “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”

The Abrahamic promise was given to the “seed” (singular). However, since we are all “in Christ,” we inherit the promise of faith given to Abraham. We become heirs “in Christ.”

Questions for Reflection

(1) Read verses 1-5. What do we learn about the history of the Galatian church from this section?

(2) Read verses 15-18. Paul is arguing that God’s blessing through Abraham couldn’t be negated by the Law. Explain how Paul makes this argument by using this text.

(3) Paul shows that God’s plan has always been about grace through faith and apart from works. Why is it so important that God’s purposes never change? (Heb. 13:8) What effects could this have if God’s promises could change on a whim?

(4) The Galatians had been falling back under law. What are some red flags might indicate a believer is falling back under law?

(5) Compare and contrast being (1) being rebellious, (2) being rule-based, and (3) being in a relationship with God under grace.