Under the Law or in Christ?
Galatians 3:23-29
The whole of chapters 3-4 of Galatians, as we have repeatedly reminded you, are dedicated to Paul's presentation of salvation, his presentation of righteousness. The issue is simply this: how does a man get right with God? How does a sinful man make himself right with a holy God? There are only two possible ways; either by his own good deeds, he merits, or earns, righteousness, or God freely gives it to him. Those are the only two possibilities. Either God gives righteousness as a gracious gift, or man earns it by his own merit.
One is the view of works; the other is the view of faith. The works view says that a man must contribute something toward his own salvation. In other words, by certain good works, God looks at him and says, "You have merited forgiveness; you have merited righteousness, I grant you salvation." Most people who believe that you're saved by works would include faith, but would add works to faith. But the view that we believe is Biblical, and the view of faith, says that God has done everything. You don't need to do anything; in fact, you couldn't do anything. All that is required is that you receive all that God has done and offered to you freely. One view says, "Good works bring salvation." The other view says, "Salvation results in good works."
This is exactly the controversy that existed in Galatian churches. Paul had originally taught them, "You're saved by faith plus nothing, simply believing what God has done and accepting it." But some false teachers, who represented themselves as sent from Jerusalem (and probably represented themselves as having the apostolic faith), came along and said, "No, you must believe and be circumcised and keep all the laws." So they offered a faith plus works salvation. That's the controversy to which Paul writes in the book of Galatians.
The Galatians were confused. In Galatians 3:1, Paul uses the word 'bewitched.' They were troubled. So Paul writes this letter, to be circulated among the several churches of the area known as Galatia, to straighten out the issue. His thesis is pretty clear. His thesis is that salvation is a matter of God's grace, and all men need to do is accept by faith what God has done; no works are required, no good deeds, nothing can merit salvation. It is offered as a free gift; you can only take it, you can't earn it.
In chapters 3-4, Paul supports this doctrine. You'll remember, in chapters 1-2, he supported his apostolic authority because if he didn't have any authority, he didn't have anyone who would listen to him. So he established that he was rightfully an apostle, and now he gives to them his doctrine in chapters 3-4. His doctrine is that a man is made right with God, he is justified, that is, set in right standing before God, only by believing and receiving the gift that God provides, not by his own works.
He uses two things to support that. The first is experience. In 3:1-5, he says to the Galatians, "Your own experience should show you that you were saved by faith." Because they had already believed, they had already been redeemed, and some of these Johnny-come-latelies had come in with this doctrine of salvation by works, so he says, in effect, "How could you possibly believe that when you've already received everything by faith?" I mean, if they'd never heard anything but the works salvation, it would have been understandable, right? But when they had already known all that salvation could give by faith, why would they want to superimpose a works system? So he says in 3:3, "Are you so stupid? You're going to begin in the Spirit and be made perfect by the flesh?"
The second area of reasoning, or support, for his thesis is Scripture. Incidentally, Biblically, these two are often used. There will be support for a certain doctrinal statement from experience and immediately following it, a stronger support will come from Scripture. Paul supports his view of salvation by faith alone from Old Testament Scripture. That's very important, because the Judaizers (the false teachers) were using the Old Testament to support their own view of salvation by works. Of course, they had twisted the Old Testament.
So from 3:6-4:7, Paul marshals all kinds of Old Testament texts to argue against salvation by works, and to argue for salvation by faith. The key one that he uses is in verse 11. "But that no man is justified by the law or by works in the sight of God it is evident." Why? Because the Old Testament says, Habakkuk 2:4, "The just shall live by faith." So he says, "Your own Old Testament says that salvation, right living, righteousness, justification is by faith." Incidentally, that's only one of six different Old Testament texts that he uses in verses 6-13 or so. He has marshaled many Old Testament texts and that would be the key one.
Now, follow my reasoning so that we can move right into the narrative beginning in verse 23. All through this discussion, Paul's example is Abraham. He is continually saying, "Abraham, your father, to whom you trace everything, the one who really began the whole of the Judaistic line, he was justified by faith." That is made clear in verse 6. "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness." He came by faith. "Now God," Paul is saying, "Hasn't changed anything. God is still redeeming men by faith, just as He did Abraham." This is a potent argument, because the Judaizers would probably use Abraham as their argument. At least they could say, "You see, Abraham had to be circumcised. That proves that you have to be circumcised."
You'll remember that I told you last time that Abraham wasn't circumcised until 14 years after God had already said he was righteous, so that's not a problem. But Paul shows that Abraham was justified by faith. Circumcision was a physical identification; faith was that which justified him before God. So he has used Abraham to show that way back at the very start of Judaism, God justified by faith.
What's the obvious argument that's going to come from the Jew? This is what he's going to say, "Alright. I'll buy that. Let's say you're right, that, starting with Abraham, they were justified by faith. That was good. But, when the law came in with Moses, many years after Abraham, everything changed and from then on, men are justified by keeping the law." See, that would be the Jewish argument. "OK, so Abraham was by faith. When the law came, it changed all that, and God changed His approach to salvation." Well, Paul wants to answer that question, which surely will arise in the mind of the Jew. He tackles the issue in verses 15-22. We studied that three weeks ago.
In verses 15-22, he shows that the coming of the law never changed God's pattern. The coming of the law never nullified faith. No. In fact, in verse 15, he uses a simple human illustration. He says, "If it be a man's covenant, even a human covenant, if it be confirmed, no man can annul it or add to it. If that's true of men's covenants, that they cannot be annulled or added to, then much more God's covenant. Even though the law came, it did not annul the covenant of faith, or the promise of faith, and it didn't add works to the promise of faith." He goes on to defend this through verse 22.
He says in verse 17, for example, "This I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law, which was 430 after that covenant, cannot annul." In other words, the law, which came later, cannot change the promise of salvation by faith. Well, that's an interesting statement. Because if you follow that closely, then your next question will be this. "OK, if the law didn't change the promise of salvation by faith, then what good was the law?" That's the next, most obvious question. Did the law have any purpose at all?
Verse 19. Yes! "It was added because of transgressions." In other words, the law was given that men might see their sinfulness. The law is like a mirror: it doesn't make you ugly, it just shows you that you are. God's law was a mirror dropped down in front of humanity to reveal to them what they were. That's all. But it had a great purpose. Because it isn't really until a man faces the fact of what he is, and the inadequacies of his life, that he will come to Christ, right? It's not until the law bruised us, it's not until the law crushed us, that we began to say, "We hurt," and allow Christ to bind up our wounds. It wasn't until the law arrested us, and imprisoned us, that we longed for Jesus to set us free. It wasn't until the law condemned us and killed us that we were able to look to Jesus for life. The law had a purpose, and it still does.
Believe me, people, today, there is the same reality. Men do not come to a savior until they feel the need. That's what Jesus meant when He responded to the people who criticized Him for hanging around with drunks and prostitutes and all of that. He said, "Well, I have come to take care of those who have need. I have come to heal the sick." He was very sarcastic. "You that are well, you have no need of a physician." Remember that statement? That's sarcasm. "You people that have no need, that feel no pain, that have no anxiety, that feel no guilt or inadequacy, that have no terrible fear of your own sin, you don't need Me. I've come to those who have seen what they are, and are in despair, to those who want an escape." So the law did have a purpose: it was added because of transgression. It was given to reveal sin.
In our text, in verses 23-29, Paul carries his argument further. He continues to contrast the works of the law and the promise of faith. When I mention the promise of faith, just keep this in mind. The promise of faith was this: it was simply the promise given to Abraham that, "Abraham, I'm going to send a Redeemer. I'm going to send the Seed. Do you believe that?" Did he? Yes. God gave a promise, Abraham believed it, and God said, "That's all I ask. You're righteous."