The Purpose of the Law - Galatians 3:13-29

3:13 - Just to recap Paul’s letter to the Galatians so far, the new Christian converts in the area of Galatia are mostly gentiles and Jewish Christian converts have come trying to convince these unsuspecting gentiles to incorporate the law of Moses into their new religion, specifically circumcision. Again, I don’t know what it is about circumcision that makes it the crux of Judaism for so many people, but here we are. Paul is trying to teach the new converts to Christianity, both Jew and gentile, that the law of Moses is not necessary for salvation, and at this point, it hinders it. Paul also gives his conversion story and talks about a disagreement that came up between himself and Peter in which Paul proved to be in the right concerning this very doctrine that they are discussing. At this point in the letter, Paul is showing the people how the law of Moses was used for a specific time with a specific people but is no longer needed. Verse 13 is complicated, and again, I don’t understand, but the word “cursed” is used a lot, and from what I can gather, the word “cursed” is used to describe someone who violates the law of Moses, which is everyone. “Cursed” can mean “must suffer the penalty for their sins,” so we can read verse 13 as “Christ hath redeemed us from the penalty of the law.” This actually is a really clear way of understanding the concept of atonement. Through Christ, we don’t have to suffer the penalty for our transgressions, but how? Paul tells us, because Christ was “took the penalty for us.” This is in my own words, of course, but the clarity here is incredible. We made a mistake, we broke the rules, therefore justice required that we pay the penalty, but Jesus paid the penalty for us. Paul supports his claim that Jesus paid our penalty with scripture, specifically referencing Deuteronomy 21:23 which says “his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God).” This ancient scripture is pointing to the time when Jesus will be “hanged” on a tree, literally, not as we associate “hanging” with today,” as a penalty for sin. The difference is that we are the ones who committed the sins and we are the ones who deserve to pay the penalty for them, but he does it in our place. However, it appears that there was a misunderstanding of this scripture because some Jews didn’t see this as Jesus taking our “curse” upon himself, but instead interpreted that scripture to mean anyone who was “hanged” on a tree was cursed. The IM explains that the misunderstanding Jews “referred to a passage in Deuteronomy stating that a criminal who was put to death by being hung on a tree was ‘accursed of God.’ According to this way of thinking, Jesus had to be regarded as cursed by God… (Paul) explained that Jesus willingly took our sins upon Himself in order to perform the work of redemption, thus becoming ‘cursed’ in our place.” 3:14 - It’s important to note that Jesus didn’t just accept punishment for the sins of Jews, but for all mankind. This might help the gentile converts see their own equality in the gospel, meaning that they don’t have to defer to the Jewish converts’ teachings. Verse 14 is very interestingly phrased. Paul says that Jesus accepted the penalty for our sins “that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.” Paul cites the covenant Abraham made with God, which refers to the reminder that Abraham was considered the Jew’s righteous father, even though he did not have the law of Moses. My interpretation of this verse is, “Christ sacrificed Himself so that the promises God made with a righteous man who didn’t live the law of Moses, could also be given to non-Jews.” This statement completely disconnects the blessings of Abraham from the law of Moses, which must be a mind-blowing concept for the Jewish Christians advocating for the law of Moses within the gospel. Paul continues, “that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith,” or in my words, “so that we can gain salvation through faith,” which implies, “instead of through ritual keeping in the Mosaic law. Just as a side note, the blessings of Abraham are given an overview in the IM which says, “Those blessings can be summarized as receiving a land of inheritance, having posterity as numerous as the dust of the earth, receiving the priesthood and the gospel, and ultimately receiving eternal life.” These promises were held so protectively by the Jews that even now, when they change religions, it’s difficult for them to accept that others might be just as entitled to salvation as them, and not even on their own terms. It’s one thing to allow someone to have access to something that you viewed as exclusively yours, but it’s another to allow them access to that thing without requiring that they sacrifice the same amount that you have, in order to receive it. That’s really kind of an interesting concept. For instance, my family is always trying to make money in business. We have our various different methods and my brother is pretty successful at one method, so, of course, we all want to copy what he’s doing. He has a list of products that would do well in a market and he doesn’t have the time or resources to do them all, so he said that we can have any of the ideas on there that we want. He did the work, or rather paid someone to do the work, but is happy to share any of the ideas with us. This is similar to what’s going on here with the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians spent their lives living the law of Moses believing that they would receive the blessings of Abraham for doing so. But now they are seeing those they despised given promises of the same blessings for doing things that they might not consider to be sufficient sacrifice. It’s like if my brother didn’t willingly share his business ideas, but we were just as successful as he was without all the sacrifices. That might be a hard pill for him to swallow, and I feel like this is the position of some of the Jewish Christians. 3:15-18 - I have to turn to the NIV version for the next part, which is very interesting. The NIV reads, “Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoke to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seed,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: the law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.” I don’t know if the “one person, who is Christ” means that the covenant was made between Abraham and Christ who was the God of the Old Testament, or if I missed the meaning altogether. Either way, this is an excellent point. When God made the covenant with Abraham, it promises weren’t contingent on Abraham’s obedience to the law of Moses, because of course it wasn’t a thing until 430 years afterward. How can a promise be made about stuff that hasn’t even happened yet? Also let’s remember that the promise was made to Abraham, meaning that Abraham had many children, only one being the ancestor to the Jews. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and was given the promise to become “a great nation.” The Wikipedia article about Abraham lists him as being the progenitor of “among others the Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Amalekites, Kenizzites, Midianites, and Assyrians.” Even those most of those names don’t mean a whole lot to us right now, this seems to be a large swath of ancient humanity, meaning that the people we have today almost certainly would have been descendant of one of these groups in some way, even if it is diluted. 3:19-25 - God’s covenant with Abraham was not contingent on his keeping the law of Moses, so how could God retroactively insert it into the promise? Legally and according to justice, He can’t do that. So what is the point of the law of Moses then? The Joseph Smith Translation is important here. Basically, the JST works with the Bible to tell us that “the law as added because of transgressions.” The IM explains, “the law was a temporary measure given to Israel by God because of Israel’s transgression. It was a ‘schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ’ and would last only until Christ came.” The article on this chapter from gospeldoctrine.com elaborates, “The JST helps us understand the Apostle Paul’s points: the law of Moses was not designed to stand for all time but until the coming of the promised seed (the Messiah); the law did contain the promise given to Abraham, including that of the coming Messiah; Moses was not the mediator of the covenant God made with Abraham; Christ alone mediated that covenant because it dealt with eternal life. It was this higher covenant that the Messiah instituted when he came.” The purpose of the law of Moses was to be “our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” So just like we concluded earlier, the law of Moses, was meant to be a pathway to Christ, not to replace him. The article says that the “schoolmaster” concept was to bring “dull regularity and consistency” to a group of people who were rebellious and disinterested in the less stringent version of the law. It says, “the schoolmaster was to administer ‘tough love’ for an unruly class of students.” Then it quotes Bruce R. McConkie as noting, “Men were still to worship and serve the Lord; they were still to love their neighbors as themselves; and the Ten Commandments retained their efficacy, virtue, and force; but under the law of Moses severe penalties were added for disobedience. The element of fear as well as love became a dominant incentive in doing the things that must be done if salvation is to be won.” Another excellent but long explanation in the article comes from James E. Talmage who says, “At the time of the Exodus the Israelites constituted the few whom the Lord could call His own; and they had to undergo a disciplinary probation- a course of intensive and purifying cultivation… But even Israel’s fields were full of tares; and the Lord mercifully suspended the fulness of the Gospel requirements, which, because of violation, would have been a means of condemnation; and the law of carnal commandments, generalized as the Mosaic Code, was given instead- as a schoolmaster, whose rigid insistence and compelling restraint, whose rod of correction would, in the course of centuries, prepare the covenant though recreant people for the reestablishment of the Gospel- as was effected through the personal ministry of the Redeemer.” These were excellent in helping me understand the differences between Jesus’ higher law and the law of Moses. It wasn’t that we are allowed to do things now that they weren’t allowed to do back then. In fact, we might consider ourselves required to live a law higher than that which was given anciently to Moses. However, it’s the motivation for our obedience that is different. It seems like, in addition to circumcision, the Jewish Christians might have wanted to re-institute the punishments that came with breaking the commandments. For instance, Christians now and anciently both were commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy, but the difference is that if we break that commandment now, we repent and do better, whereas previously perhaps a sin sacrifice was required which would cost you money and time and social status. So back then your motivation for keeping the Sabbath day holy might have been more that you wanted to avoid the punishment than that you wanted to please God. It really comes down to our existence being personalized for us and God’s recognition of our own personal circumstances. He sets us up for success by giving us the next step in the law that we are prepared for. There are so many times when people, myself included, want what they are not prepared to receive. We might not see it like that, because we want what we want and we want it now. But there are steps to blessings. Agency seems to be a fragile thing, in that our behaviors might be compliant, but inwardly we might hate the rules and those who gave the rules to us. Physically we might comply, but spiritually, we are not committed. And because it is our spirits not our bodies who must want to be with Jesus and Heavenly Father again when we die, then it is our spirit who must be converted, not just our physical behaviors. So, Jesus meets us where we are, he gives us what we need to more forward and even though the next step isn’t for us to become perfect, it is moving us along the road to the end goal of perfection. This was the same with the ancient Israelites, they were given what they needed to move forward as a people, even though it was different than what was needed by others. 3:26-29 - After explaining the true purpose of the law of Moses and why it doesn’t apply to Christians, Paul reminds his audience that “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” There are not differences between them in God’s view, no “Jew nor Greek… bond or free… male of female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” I don’t think that baptism was a required ordinance according to the law of Moses, so Paul again circumvents association with Christianity and the law of Moses. Now the requirement for membership in the gospel is something that Jews didn’t even do regularly. Interestingly, the phrase he uses, “out on Christ,” the IM tells us “comes from the Greek word endou, which means ‘to endow.’ The Greek word means to clothe oneself and, in this phrase, means to symbolically ‘put on’ the attributes and enabling power of Jesus Christ. Similarly, when faithful members of the Church receive their temple ‘endowment,’ they covenant to take upon themselves the attributes of a Christlike life.” So it’s the baptism and commitment that makes them Christians, not adherence to Mosaic punishments. The IM says, “Paul taught that the cultural separations that existed between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and masters, or men and women should no longer divide people in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each member’s covenant relationship with Jesus Christ creates unity among all members.” As far as Jewish Christians trying to make gentile Christians do different things, the IM quotes Dallin H. Oaks giving an excellent, modern day comparison, saying, “Jesus and His Apostles did not attempt to make Gentiles into Jews. They taught Gentiles and Jews, attempting to make each of them into followers of Christ. Similarly, the present-day servants of the Lord do not attempt to make Filipinos or Asians or Africans into Americans. The Savior invited all to come unto Him, and His servants seek to persuade all (people) to become Latter-day Saints.” When we look at it from this perspective, it sounds stupid because of course the gospel is open to all, being American of English or Indonesian is not what makes people part of the gospel. Being baptized and committed to living a Christlike life is the requirement. That puts some perspective on the problems that were occurring between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The requirement for discipleship back then is the same as it is now, faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. So to feel like one group of people are less entitled to the blessings of the gospel because of when or where they were born is ridiculous when we look at it from the multi-cultural lens. But we do have some people who believe similarly to this today. That’s why it’s so important to remember that we are all children of God and entitled to the gospel regardless of where we’re from, immigration status, addictions, political views, sexual orientation, etc. All are loved by God and entitled to His gospel.