by Angus Harley

This article is exclusively dedicated to answering the claim that Galatians 3 teaches, or at least implies, that Paul’s view of the Law of Moses is that it contained grace, or was a guardian of grace. There are a number of arguments that theologians cite. I will deal with the most prominent here, and put them in italics to separate them from my comments.

‘It was the Judaizers who misrepresented the Law of Moses, focusing upon the continuation of  “the works of the Law” that marked out Jewishness as special (circumcision, the clean-unclean distinction, etc.). Paul was not thereby denouncing the Law, or all its commandments.” 

First things first. Not a word is said in Galatians 3, or elsewhere in Galatians, that either the Galatians themselves, or the Judaizers, were misrepresenting the Law. This is a point that I have argued in my last two articles.1

Moreover, it is immediately evident in Galatians 3 that Paul does not consider the “works of the Law” to be a separate issue to the problem of “the Law” in and of itself. Indeed, Paul moves from “works of the Law” to the bare “Law” with consummate ease. Very clearly, he repeatedly draws our attention to “the Law” as the issue. Paul writes, ” “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” ” (3:10).  It is the Law in itself that is the problem. So,  Paul goes on to refer to the “curse of the Law” (3:13), not to “the curse of the works of the Law”. It is also why he refers to those attempting to be justified “by the Law” (3:11), and not “justified by the works of the Law”. And so it is that Paul contrasts the giving of the Law to the receiving of the Abrahamic Covenant-promise, the former being some 430 years after the latter (3:17). It is then Paul enters into a discussion of the purpose of “the Law” (3:19), not of “the works of the Law”. It is the Law that he compares to the promise (3:21). In other words, the very essence of the Mosaic Law as ‘law’ is counterproductive to life and righteousness. And so it is that, before the coming of Jesus Christ and faith, the heirs of Abraham were in custody under the Law (3:23), so that the Law served as a paidagogos  (3:24) (see ahead). 

Although the phrase “works of the Law” in Galatians 3 is highlighted at the beginning of the chapter (3:1-10), the rest of the chapter focuses on merely “the Law”. The “works of the Law” are the expression of the flesh (3:2), and are in direct contrast to the work of God by his Spirit in the form of miracles (3:5). The evidence is, therefore, that Paul is not thinking on the level of Jewishness as merely an ethnic class that the Galatian Gentiles tried to mimic by the “works of the Law”, that is, by adopting supposed ‘identity markers’. This was not, in other words, a superficial attempt by the Galatians to be Jews, by addition of a few Jewish ‘markers’; it was, rather, going the whole way, from head-to-toe, and embracing its core and controlling concept that the Mosaic Law must be kept to obtain righteousness. It was, in other words, to go back to the era of the Law that proceeded faith and Christ.

‘Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 cannot be against the natural, OT, context of Leviticus 18:5. It plainly refers to Israel already in a gracious covenant relationship with God. Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 and its concept of doing the works of the Law is not describing a form of legalism or salvation by works, therefore.  He is making a redemptive-historical argument that the time, or era, of the Law is over, and it is replaced with the time of Christ. The concept of ‘law’ is as important to the New Covenant as to the Old Covenant.’

There are a number of issues with this belief. The core problem from an NCT perspective is that it interprets the NT, and particularly Paul’s words here in Galatians, in the light of the earlier ‘dispensation’ of the Law. This is a huge hermeneutical error. Paul does not make Christ and his Gospel conform with Leviticus 18:5 or Deuteronomy 21:23, for example. On the contrary, they are read in the light of his victory in the cross and his ascension.  The NT has interpretive priority, not the OT.

In that light, the Mosaic Law is not a link of grace, a ‘dispensation of redemption’, that gives way to the Gospel, as if one era gives way to another in a line of positive continuity. Paul is not saying, ‘The Law had its day and role in the manifestation of redemptive grace; it was now time for faith and Christ.’ Contextually, the Law itself is described entirely negatively, and the only role it plays in redemption is that it provides the curse by which Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem Abraham’s heirs from that very curse of the Law (3:13). The tail must not wag the dog!

The Law is specifically circumscribed, in Galatians 3, as blocking faith, grace, salvation, and Christ (see ahead). It was created to bear the sole role of magnify transgressions (3:19). Thus the curse element. The contrary nature of the Mosaic Law is that it promoted works-of-the-flesh righteousness, which was a faux Gospel (see ahead). The true Gospel was not of the works of the Law, nor of the flesh, but was through faith in the Christ.

Another problem is that above view conflates the OT’s depiction of fleshly Israel  of the Old Covenant with the spiritual assembly of the New Covenant. Even from an OT perspective, it is simply not the case that Israel experienced salvific grace as a nation. A few, the remnant, the elect, were truly saved and experienced a different- spiritual- form of salvation, which had nothing to do with being delivered from Egypt. It is perplexing that some baptists are alert to the NT’s teaching that circumcision is not continued into the New Covenant, and that Israel are not the assembly of the New Covenant, yet they insist that ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’ of fleshly Israel (of circumcision) was of-a-piece with the spiritual deliverance of God’s New Covenant people.

The next error springs from the former: plainly, Yahweh’s ‘gracious’ dealings with Israel of the fleshly were on the ‘earthly’, this-world, level, and were not about spiritual salvation and redemption. This should be apparent from the very nature of the Old Covenant and its Law: it was an earthly, fleshly, Law and Covenant, given to an earthly, fleshly, people (2 Cor.3). Any attempt to equate the OT/OC form of grace given to Israel with the New Covenant grace in Christ Jesus inevitably renders Christ and his Gospel a form of salvation of the flesh. Which was, irony or ironies, the very thing that the Judaizers and the Galatians were doing!

Another failure is that the above view of a gracious Law of Moses flattens out terms to create a common-denominator theology. ‘Grace’ is reduced to God’s kind dealings with humans- whether the Israelites of the flesh, or Jews and Gentiles of faith in Christ. They are all lumped together in ‘grace’. Likewise for the terms ‘redemption’, ‘salvation’, etc.. Paul does not participate in a form of theological Platonism. Plato taught that there was a perfect world of forms, and normal life approximated to it, but could never capture it. So, the world of forms contained the perfect chair, or perfect horse, and so on. Earthly chairs and horses reflected the perfect, but did not ever attain to it. So, the common-denominator view of ‘redemption’, ‘salvation’, ‘covenant’, and so forth, are essentially a version of Plato’s perfect forms,.

Focusing on ‘law’ as such, sadly, the term is similarly compromised. We are told that both covenants had ‘law’, and that ‘law’ is not the problem, therefore. Indeed, in the BT model, there is the one supra-law that binds many laws together: the moral law, the Garden law, the laws given to Abraham, the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments, and the New Covenant law. (And one could insert ‘covenant’, ‘redemption’, and so forth, into this Platonic calculation.) Yet, this model could not be further from Paul’s mind. There are two laws only in Galatians, and one is contrasted, and opposed, to the other: the Old Covenant Law vs the New Covenant law (see ahead). As to the OC Law, Paul writes, “However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them” ” (3:12). The Mosaic Law was utterly incapable of accommodating faith, nay, was opposed to it by its legalistic call to perfect obedience. Paul also writes in 3:18 that the inheritance is not “based on law”. Some maintain that the anarthrous ‘law’ in 3:11- in the Greek it is not “the Law”, but ‘law’- is put there to shut down the idea that ‘law’ itself, as a concept, gives rise to God’s righteousness.

It is said in counterargument to this theology that Paul refers to the New Covenant “law of Christ”, and that it is the expression of faith and love. This fact, it is said, demonstrates that law and faith are connected.

No doubt! But Paul is referring to the New Covenant law and to New Covenant faith! Ironically, the view that puts so much emphasis on the changes in eras in redemptive history does not pay enough attention to the purpose and role of these eras, as stated in Galatians 3. Paul’s references to the New Covenant “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2 is based entirely on the two-age theology of Galatians that states that Christ belongs to the “ages of ages” and its world. In other words, just as the risen Christ of the ages unto ages brings with him a new creation, new Israel, new covenant, and new world, so he also founds a new ‘law’ in himself. It is identified as Christological, “law of Christ”. It does not derive from this world, therefore, or from the flesh, or within Israel. It is a new, other-worldly ‘law’ that is utterly unique, for it is heavenly. Indeed, it springs from the victory of the crucified and ascended Christ, and is, for that reason, called the “law of Christ”. Put another way, the “law of Christ” is not in a line of continuity with the Mosaic Law, and cannot, therefore, reflect its supposed ‘gracious’ nature. Earth does not lead to heaven. The negative form of ‘law’ that Paul rejects is the Mosaic Law, or any generic form of ‘law’, tied to this earth, the flesh, and its religion. All are opposed to the New Covenant and the “law of Christ” from ascended Christ above, from the ages unto ages. Put another way, in the New Covenant of the “ages unto ages”, the “law of Christ” functions entirely differently to that of the OT/OC Law of Moses.

‘God is the One who gave the Mosaic Law (3:19). The Law was obviously a positive thing, therefore, and surely was in a positive line of continuity with the Abrahamic promise (Exo.2:24; Lev.26:42, etc.).‘ 

Again, we have to repeat that the OT does not determine the NT’s interpretation; it is the other way round. Whatever connection there was between the Law of Moses and Abraham’s promise and seed as recorded in the OT, we must deal with what Paul states and not be distracted.

To that end, let’s quote Paul in Galatians 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.” Neither God, nor Christ, are mentioned in a positive line of continuity with the Law. This is no mistake, for the entirety of Galatians 3 distances God and Christ from the Law of Moses. Jesus is linked to the Mosaic Law only negatively, as the one who bore the curse of the Law. We can add to this that the whole of Galatians contrasts God and Christ to the Law of Moses. The presence of the passive voice in 3:19- “It was added”- is not to draw attention to God as the giver, but the Law as an addition, in the sense of something that is built on. God gave the promise to Abraham and his Seed. This is the control. The Law was “added”, with no mention of God as the source. Paul goes straight onto the Law’s purpose to reveal transgressions (proving that it was not of grace and the promise). Then he refers to the nature of the addition of the Law: it was ordained through angels, and passed on by a mediator. In other words, not only is God distanced from this Law, but the Law itself, as an addition, came through different stages creating an enhanced form of distance: first by the angels, and second through a human mediator (Moses); yet, not just “through a mediator”, but “through the hand [Gk., cheir] of a mediator”, reinforcing the concept of distance. The Law of Moses is abstracted from, and contrasted to, God and Christ, and shown in its true light as opposed to the Gospel.

Upon this theology, Paul goes on in 3:20 to say, “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” Here, God is contrasted to a mediator, God to Moses. A mediator (Moses) is not for one; yet God is One.” What is the point being made, here? It is the ‘distance/addition’ aspect I just mentioned. To Paul, God and his Christ were one (1:1, 3) in the economy of salvation. It is as the ascended Christ that the Son brings as one all of the true heirs of Abraham to God (see 3:23-29; John 17:11). This form of oneness and unity begins in the Father who raised his Son, the Christ, from the dead (1:1), and is diametrically contrasted to the un-sourced “Law” that went from angels, to a mediator, and then on to the Israelites- addition and distance, the very nature of the Mosaic Law itself, but contrasted to the oneness of the Gospel of Christ (Eph.2:11-22).

As the Law was added through layers of division, why would Paul compare it favorably to the Gospel promise in Abraham and to the coming of faith and Christ, as if in a straight-line of positive continuity? He wouldn’t, and doesn’t.

Many dispute my reading, given that Moses was a good guy, the Law was holy, righteous, and good (Rom.7:12), and angels were God’s servants.

But in terms of God’s promise, Moses was not a good guy. He was the mediator of a covenant that killed, a Law that enslaved (2 Cor.3). In 2 Corinthians 3, once more, Christ and God, and the Spirit too, are abstracted from, and contrasted to, Moses and the Law. Moses mediated the Law-covenant. Furthermore, the angels were part and parcel of this set up. God revealed his Law to Moses, and his angels were involved intimately in its deliverance to Moses (and by him to Israel). Moses could not see God except as surrounded by a host of angels; he could not receive the Law except a myriad of holy ones encamped around him. The depictions of the cherubim in the tabernacle everywhere display this order, especially as shown in the mercy seat. The multiple stages or divisions of the tabernacle (outer court, holy place, holy of holies) were all marked by the presence of multiple cherubim, even on the outer ‘walls’ or curtains, proving that the Law was ‘hedged in’ by the angelic order. Angels = separation and division. As to Romans 7:12, it is referring to the Law’s innate nature: it was not in itself evil, or nasty. Quite the opposite! But it’s holiness, righteousness, and goodness were expressed in one standard: keep the Law of God perfectly. Thus, under the mastery of sin, and in the hands of the flesh, this Law enslaved sinners. This is why, incidentally, Paul writes that when the Law of Moses works as ‘law’, that is ‘lawfully’, its goodness exposes sin and evil (1 Tim.1:8).

‘The Law was obviously positive in nature, for Paul explicitly says that it was not against the promise.’ 

Out of all the arguments in favor of the positive nature of Moses’ Law in Galatians 3, this is perhaps the one that takes the greatest contextual liberties. The whole of Galatians 3 contrasts the Law as a negative to the Abraham Covenant-promise, the Gospel, faith, and Christ. So, when Paul states that the Law is not against the promise, he does not at all mean that they are one in purpose, nor imply that Law’s covenant carries onward the grace given to Abraham, which is then consummated in the Gospel. Far from it! Paul’s sole point is that in the divine plan of God, the Law served the purpose for which it was created: to expose transgressions. This had to happen for the heirs of Abraham to put their faith in the Christ who dealt with the curse. Sin and the curse had to be exposed. This was the role of the Law. The Law era had to happen to that end. There is in this no notion of the Law in itself as a positive, or as containing a Christological purpose or message (a point I will come back to). The Law provides the curse ‘on a plate’, as it were, so that the Son could come to break the power called ‘Sin’ that through the Law held all men in bondage (see Rom.3:9-20).

If a positive line of continuity were on Paul’s mind, he would have answered by saying something like this, “May it never be! The Law was a means of grace that taught the Jews the invaluable lesson that sin could not produce righteousness, only a Messiah could.’ Yet, Paul answers his own question as follows:

“21 For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 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.”

Paul’s reply is to magnify the condemning nature of the Law. In fact, he draws out the OT Scripture not only as a witness to this state of affairs but as sealing it, “the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin” (see Rom.3:9-20). 

It is only after affirming, through the OT, the enslaved status of Abraham’s heirs that Paul then adds the clause, “so that….” The Christological aspect does not flow out of the condemnation of Abraham’s heirs who are under sin, but it is stated to be after this condemnation is established and pronounced. In the plan of God, the Law had one job, one role, and it was temporary: it was to reveal the transgressions of all the Abrahamic heirs, so that the fulfillment of the promise to the Seed would come to pass. There is entirely no need to inject into the Law itself a Christological role of any sort, therefore.

It is said, in counterargument to my view, that the book of Hebrews plainly teaches that the Law was Christological; it had many types and shadows of Jesus.

I could simply ignore this argument, as well as the one based on Romans 7:12, for neither deals with the context of Galatians, especially Galatians 3. However, as many will conflate these passages, I will make a quick response to this reading of Hebrews. Hebrews is not at all based on a line of continuity between the OC and the NC. As NCTers, we dare not say that Hebrews 8-9, for example, teaches that the NC continues the OC in some line of positive continuity. The NC replaces the OC hook-line-and-sinker because the OC failed and the NC was needed. The parallels between both covenants that give rise to the concepts of shadows and types and images are based entirely on the heavenly vs earthly paradigm. The earthly was doomed to fail precisely because it was a model, shadow, type, and so on. It dealt only with flesh, not with spirit. It was earthly, not heavenly. It did not, nor could not, therefore, contain a Christological ‘code’ of some sort. You will not find one example in Hebrews of something as follows, ‘The sacrifices offered by priests were teaching us about Jesus to come, because he was a priest who offered himself up.’ This view makes the OC innately Christological, the Law of Moses completely heavenly in nature; and in doing so, it destroys the writer of Hebrews’ teaching that the earthly does not lead to heavenly. Rather, the heavenly is the only true way. So, the true temple in heaven is the only one which is Christological in Hebrews. As with Paul, the heavenly dimension controls, and reigns over, the earthly. The earthly does not contain aspects of the heavenly, nor does the earthly lead to the heavenly.

‘The Law was a paidagogos (3:24), a positive influence upon Abraham’s heirs, leading them eventually to Christ.‘ 

The above view takes various forms. The paidagogos  is, after a positive fashion, considered a tutor, or schoolmaster, or guard, or guardian, or guide.

Is this positive interpretation correct? Let’s look again at the context of 3:24:

22 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. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 

The overall imagery is that of containment and prevention. The Scripture “shut up” (Gk., sugkleio) all men, perhaps enclosed or locked in (see Luke.5:6;  Rom.11:32). The Scripture is here personified, as is sin and the Law. The Scripture’s testimony to the fact of mankind’s sinfulness, and to the sinfulness of Abraham’s heirs in particular, contains everyone in the status of being “under sin”. Paul then adds that Abraham’s heirs were “kept in custody” (Gk., phroureo) (3:23). The idea is that of being guarded, most likely, not in a positive sense as found in 2 Corinthians 11:32, Philippians 4:7, or 1 Peter 1:5, but in a negative manner, as those kept from something. Paul, then, using sugkleio again, says that the heirs were “shut up to the faith”, kept from it, guarded so as not to get to it. In other words, the role of the paidagogos was not positive but negative. Paul’s huper (“under”) phrases confirm this: “under sin”; “under the Law”; “under the paidagogos” (NASB, “tutor”). 

Fortunately, some modern writers are telling us, based on Roman literature, that the paidagogos, rather than being a tutor or the like, was a slave who was given the extremely narrow role of keeping his master’s son and heir under a super-strict regime of rules and expectations. This imagery is far more suitable to Paul’s theology in Galatians. However, caution must be exercised. Context determines meaning, not extrabiblical sources. Paul was very capable of taking secular images and terms and adapting and using them in a way that suited his own specialized theology. Still, it is undoubtedly the idea of a form of enslavement that Paul is getting at through the use of paidagogos (see ahead).

Some draw our attention to the only other usage of paidagogos in the NT, namely, 1 Corinthians 4:15. They interpret the term as ‘teachers’, or ‘tutors’, in context, and see this as reinforcing a positive view of Galatians’ paidagogos.

However, I doubt this is the proper meaning in 1 Corinthians 4:15; and even if teaching is implied, it is not Paul’s main point in the use of the term. The “countless” paidagogoi are contrasted to Paul as the one, true “father” of the Corinthians, a very similar contrast outlined in Galatians 4:1-7. The heavenly Father set the time for the sons and heirs to inherit the promise; but until that time came, the heirs were kept under a paidagogos, completely like slaves, “Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything” (4:1). Paul is using irony, in other words, in 1 Corinthians 4:15. He begins 1 Corinthians 4 by naming himself and the apostolic band “servants and stewards [Gk. oikonomia] of the mysteries of Christ” (v1). Oikonomia is the same term Paul uses in Galatians 4:2, “managers”. Paul was a true, proper, overseer and steward of the mysteries of Christ, who took real care of God’s people. He was in radical contrast to the many voices and influences that called themselves ‘apostles’ and ‘servants’ that said they made the Corinthians truly rich in blessing, but who merely engendered fleshliness. They were authors of an earthly wisdom, and were by no means superior to the apostolic band. They enslaved; Paul set free.

Let me illustrate Paul’s negative theology of the Law here in Galatians 3. Imagine the Dickensian poor house. It is sin, and it is run by the poor-house master. That’s the Law. Now, in true Dickensian style, there is a boy in this poor house who belongs to the lineage of a particular nobleman. The nobleman is Abraham. The boy is Abraham’s heirs. Mankind and Abraham’s heirs are shut up to freedom, to liberty; and Abraham’s heirs in particular cannot get near their inheritance, being locked up to it. Enter another relative (Christ). He has the power to break the detention and confinement of the heir. He exercises that power, and sets the heir free, so that he might receive his inheritance. Except, in a totally non-Dickensian twist, the lord and relative who sets free the heir must, as a condition, endure the bondage of the poor house. So, the relative endures this bondage, and totally against all odds breaks the power of the poor house and its overseer. He walks free, and he brings the heir with him. So Christ broke the power of sin and the Law that held the heirs of Abraham “under”, and took the heirs to be with himself and God.

Now, the above is an illustration only. It is not a theological statement, so I don’t advise the reader to press it too hard. The sin of Abraham’s heirs, and their bondage, had to be exposed and broken for the fulfillment of promise to happen (see Rom.5:12-14). Thus, Paul uses before-and-after,  chronological, imagery, “before faith came….later to be revealed….no longer….” There is no positive line of continuity, therefore, between the Law and the Gospel. The Law was required, indeed, was essential, in the divine plan of God, for the Son had to come to break the Law’s curse and fulfill the promise to Abraham and to himself.

One last point concerning the above argument. The NASB states, “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ”. The term “lead” is in italics, for it is not in the Greek text. It is contrary to the nature of Paul’s argument throughout Galatians to say the Law ‘led’ in any fashion. It shut up and held in bondage. That was its sole role. He himself says so. It was given that role “until” and “to” the point of the coming of faith and Christ. Then the Law’s job was done. 

1Angus Harley, “Hermeneutics and Galatians 3, Part 1”, All Things New Covenant, December 31, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/12/31/hermeneutics-and-galatians-3-part-1/; “Hermeneutics and Galatians 3, Part 2”, All Things New Covenant, January 1, 2024, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2024/01/01/hermeneutics-and-galatians-3-part-2/.