Galatians 3:23-28; A Struggling Apostle (II)

Paul will return to his Abraham story in Romans 4. In that passage, Paul will argue in a much more sophisticated way than he does in the early Gal. 3. He still emphasizes the priority of faith in that later passage, but he isn't so quick to dismiss the value of the law or of Jewish tradition. In a sense, Paul thinks himself from clarity (in his mind) to confusion. By the end of his ministry he has fully recognized the confusing, and basically, insoluble nature of the problem he faces. But in Galatians things are still "easy" for him. Faith and law are opposites. You either accept one or the other. Paul's eager categorizations in his early ministry will, sooner or later, give way to mature nuance, but we don't have that here.

Then, on his second point, that the Scriptures show that those who do the works of the law are under a curse, as was Christ, Paul argues on the basis of a chain of obscure OT passages that Christ was the fulfilment of the OT by becoming a "curse" for us. He realizes that his argument isn't going anywhere, and so he changes it to the notion of a will (3:15-18). But this argument also doesn't work for him because the basic principle is not true (at least in our legal system). His argument is based on the notion that a will is unchangeable. Perhaps it was in ancient Israel. But it certainly isn't the case in common law countries. In fact, we encourage people to change their wills when new circumstances come into their lives. Paul's argument in 3:15-18 is a stretch both because we don't have a similar legal category that would help us understand him and because Paul then has to argue that the Torah is like a will. The argument falls apart.

Paul's Words in 3:23-28

No worry. Paul does what every ambitious person who is prosecuting an agenda has to do. You leave behind the arguments that really don't "work" for you, and you press on. You can't worry too much about bad arguments, because you have other dragons to slay, other fish to fry. That is what takes us, then, to our passage for the morning. In it Paul makes two arguments: (1) that the Law is a sort of temporary tutor or disciplinarian; and (2) that our new life in Christ eliminates the "old rules" of distinctions between people. Let's take each point in turn.

I have argued above that Paul's black and white mentality in Galatians has forced him to a "Christ/Law" opposition. Christ is the one we want. He represents freedom and new life and salvation. The Jewish Law, on the other hand, represents death and bondage. Well, what was the purpose of the law, then, if it was seemingly only a "bad" thing? Paul has painted himself into a bit of an intellectual corner, because he is on the verge of arguing that the Law is bad. But since it is a gift of God, it can't be bad. How can he, then, "redeem" the Law? He does so in Gal. 3:23-25 by calling it a "disciplinarian." Earlier translations of this word (paidogogos) render it as a "tutor" or a "schoolmaster" (KJV). Thus, Paul will argue that the Law is a "temporary expedient." But it really, from Paul's words, especially in v. 23, isn't a very positive thing. The Greek of v. 23 is especially vivid. Before faith came, we were, literally, "kept under guard" by the law, "locked up under key" until the coming of faith. Then, in v. 24, Paul says that the Law was our "paidogogos," which in the Roman world was a slave boy who would lead a person to a teacher. Thus, even in these two verses Paul gives pictures of the law that are slightly in tension with each other. On the one hand the law is something that "holds us back" or almost "imprisons" us; on the other hand it is something that "leads us" to the real teacher--who is Christ. Paul is gamely trying to give a somewhat positive "read" of the Law, but even his words testify to the conflicted state of his mind. He is in the "no rules" of the new religion, where you have to "throw out" the old almost completely, and he isn't yet ready to try to understand how Law and Christ are either compatible or mutually complementary. The best he can do in Galatians (i.e., the most "gracious" he can be to the Law) is to say that it is a paidogogos.

So, now that he has put the Law in its place, he can go on to the latter half of the passage. We who are in Christ now have clothed ourselves with Christ (3:27). And, because of this new relationship, all things are new. Indeed, the former categories of life, the categories in which people lived their lives for all of their previous existence, don't matter anymore. Christ is the one who breaks down all barriers between people. Paul never explains how it is true that there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ or how differences of male and female fade away, but this is a classic "no rules" type of statement. Every category from the past, from the "old system," is no longer relevant. There were Jews in the old world; in the new world "in Christ," there are no Jews. There were females back then; but now "in Christ," there are none.

Conclusion

The statement in Gal. 3:28 is so true and so false at the same time. It is false in that we know, of course, that categories of people continue to exist in our world. But it is true in a sense that strikes the heart deeply--that somehow there ought to be a time, a place, a movement where social and gender distinctions, and where the predictable conclusions, prejudices, roles and biases arising from those distinctions just won't be the last word anymore. Paul's words in Gal. 3:28 are like a lazer of light, like a penetrating sword, to cut to the marrow of our own hearts, to make us long for the day when these easy and predicatable human distinctions will not be the "last word" in defining human relationships. From that perspective, Paul's word in Gal. 3:28 is brilliant and ahead of his time. He envisions a world where all the traditional categories of human division will no longer define us.

So, my final word is that Paul, despite tying himself up in argument and being in his "black and white phase" of Christian faith, has managed to make even the most jaded person sit up and take notice. The way he can move from stumbling argument to a zinger of a statment in the course of a few verses is almost overwhelming. He makes me almost dismiss him but then, in a crucial moment, Paul pulls another brilliant rabbit out of the hat, and sends us back to all our schemes for social justice and human melioration and inspires us to do better at it. What a fascinatingly brilliant (and frustrating) Apostle. I hope I have brought out both in these essays.

2715