B. The Principle of Faith Illustrated in the Abraham Narrative (3:6-4:7)

Gal 3:6 is a quotation of Scripture that is followed by the apostle’s exegesis and application. Paul reminds the readers that it was because of Abraham’s faith that God blessed the nations through him. It was not good works but his faith that God counted as righteousness. He then declares that all who have faith are children of Abraham, not those who would attempt to do good works, including circumcision. Ridderbos says that to have faith meant “to surrender unreservedly to the word of the Lord, regardless of how incredible it seemed” (p. 118).

Paul insists that the covenant of faith was never set aside by the law. In his Notes on 3:11, Wesley wrote: “The man who is accounted just or righteous before God, shall continue in a state of acceptance, life, and salvation, by faith. This is the way God hath chosen.”

Wesley, in his sermon “Justification by Faith,” wrote: “Faith . . . is the necessary condition of justification; yea, and the only necessary condition thereof. . . . On the other hand, though a man should have everything else without faith. . . . He cannot be justified” (Sermons, 58-59).

Paul also saw in Ge 12:3 a prediction of God’s acceptance of the Gentiles when they too have faith in God. A sharp contrast with the Abraham illustration is introduced in 3:10. Those who live under the law (Burton, 443-74; Bruce, 158-61), depending upon obedience to it rather than being reconciled to God, are living under a curse. Arichea and Nida point out a specific contrast between the blessing in vv.8 and 9 and the curse in v.10 (p. 62). Instead of the joy of salvation by faith, there comes the threat of condemnation. Dt 27:26 is quoted to support Paul’s position that total obedience to the law had value, but such total obedience was not possible. Paul has been variously interpreted here. Some scholars maintain that “Breaking one law” equals “breaking the Law.” Others hold that Paul should be understood as saying that the very notion of trying to be justified by the law is liable to a curse.

V.11 is a quotation from Habakkuk. In its original context, the OT prophet’s complaint was that Babylonian cruelty as an agent of divine judgment was far more oppressive than any earlier injustices inflicted on Judah. As the prophet cries to God, God responds by telling him that ultimate vindication will come, but he must wait and have faith. (The point of Paul’s utilization of the verse here seems to be, not that the prophet was justified by faith, but that Habakkuk illustrates what it meant to put one’s complete trust in God.) Paul believed and preached that we must trust the way in which God had revealed himself in Christ Jesus. The opposite is to live by legalism. In support, he cites Lev 18:5.

In vv.13-14, referring to the OT tradition that the exposure of a corpse was the sign of a curse, Paul sees that tradition as an illustration of the experience of Christ on the cross. The whole OT sacrificial ceremony was an anticipation of Christ. This being true, now that Christ had died, the OT had been fulfilled. If indeed the OT had been fulfilled in Christ, then what was the need to revert to former practices? To do so would mean not only the rejection of Christ as the fulfillment of the OT but also, in actuality, a rejection of the hope of the OT.

Paul makes reference to other OT Scriptures in the paragraph beginning with v.15. He uses the illustration of adoption. The argument utilizes Paul’s understanding of what is entailed by a promise or agreement or covenant between two parties, which is unalterable when once ratified. Just so, Paul writes, God gave a spoken promise of a blessing to Abraham and his descendants. This promise extended to Paul’s day unaltered by the giving of the law to Moses. “The promise, with its method of faith was never changed or abrogated. It is Judaism, not Christianity, that has deviated from Old Testament revelation” (WBC, 5:347). It is not as though there is anything wrong with the law given to Moses. It did come from God. That law was given, however, not as a part of the redemptive plan, but to point out sin so that it could be recognized as such. The law was given as a paidagogos (v.24), a guardian or a teacher. The law, then, had a limited period of time in which to be in effect—only until the promise itself was fulfilled. Living under the law was like living under a tutor who keeps one from full freedom until maturity is reached.

Paul’s intriguing exegesis forms the core of the argument. God promised Abraham and his seed, a singular noun, his blessing (v.16). This reign true, it obviously could not possibly refer to all the descendants of Abraham, but only to Christ. The term translated “transgressions” in v.19 is also crucial here. The Greek word means “wrongdoing as a result of willfully violating an existing law.” Thus there could not have been transgressions before the giving of the law.

The law, then, was to be in effect only until Christ came. As Paul continues his argument, he points out the weakness of the law in that it did not come directly from God, but through angelic and human mediators. On the other hand, God himself gave the promises to Abraham and his descendants. This indicates that the New Covenant—the redemptive plan—came from God to be accepted by humanity without negotiations.

V.21 shows that in no way does this interpretation negate the value of the law, insofar as one does not forget that the law’s real purpose was to show wrongdoing. It was not the function of the law to bring life, i.e., eternal life. Even though the law was given, the world was still under the power of sin, thus revealing the need for Christ’s redemptive work. What the law has done is to keep us restricted till, recognizing the pressures of our sin, we would accept the freedom and forgiveness offered by Christ. Having served its purpose, the law can now be put aside, as the time for faith has come.

In the first paragraph in ch. 4 Paul compares the children of God under the law to a child who, though an heir, is no better than a slave until he comes of age. The child is cared for by others who look out for his needs until such a time as established by the father. So it is with a Christian who had been enslaved by forces of the world and then set free.

In baptism believers have borne witness to being reclothed in Christ. God himself has borne witness to their faith by sending the Holy Spirit into their hearts (Gal 4:6). They are now designated as the spiritual seed of Abraham and the heirs of God’s promises. Thus, since Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and master, all have the same experience, those distinctions are forever eliminated (BBC, 18:68).

It is God’s own Spirit in us that gives evidence of our adoption. This may reflect on what was intimated earlier: repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit are all aspects of one experience. Thus it is that by means of this multifaceted experience God bears witness to our deliverance from the law. It is the presence of the Spirit of God in our lives that makes it possible to call God our Father. John Wesley preached that “the testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression of the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly ‘witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God’; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God” (Sermons, 1:229).