What does it mean that the law was added because of transgressions?

Explanation:

Paul has explained that it is faith and not the law that justifies one before God. Of course, this naturally raises the question, What is the purpose of the law? Paul explains the purpose of the law in Galatians 3:19–25. He begins with a general summary by saying, It was added because of [χάριν] transgressions. The preposition χάριν can be taken in a causal or telic sense. If the preposition is taken in a causal sense, we would take it that the law causes transgression. If we take χάριν in a telic sense, we might take it to mean that the law offers some purpose. The following verses help us see that Paul likely wants us to understand χάριν from a telic perspective.⁵ That is, he is explaining to us the purpose of the law, and its purpose has to do with transgressions.

We can deduce that Paul has the purpose of the law in mind because in what follows, he explains that the law was given as a guardian until Christ (Galatians 3:24). He then says that because faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. If the law acts as a guardian until Christ, does it make sense to interpret χάριν (because of) in a causal sense? Not obviously. For then Paul would be saying that the law was added to increase transgressions because the law acts as a guardian. How could a mechanism that increases transgressions act as a guardian?⁶ On the other hand, if the law was meant to be a guardian, then it makes sense to take χάριν in a telic sense. In this case Paul is saying that the law was added because of transgressions in order to act as a guardian. In other words, the law was added to make Israel aware of their sin, with a view to lessening sin until Christ.

Counterargument:

We should not think that the term guardian is used in Galatians 3:23–25 in a positive sense. Rather, Paul says that all things are confined to sin (Galatians 3:22), and those who rely on the works of the law are cursed (Galatians 3:10). Thus, when he says that the law was given as a guardian, he is saying that the law confined Israel to sin so that they were cursed.⁷ That the law confined Israel to sin and therefore a curse implies that the preposition χάριν (because of) ought to be taken as causal. The law caused transgressed and therefore placed Israel under a curse.

Response to counterargument:

The above interpretation does not specify whether Paul has in mind a negative or positive function for the law in Galatians 3:19. Rather, the argument is that the law makes sin known. That the law makes sin known aligns with Paul’s statement that the law confined Israel to sin and therefore a curse. For by becoming aware of their sin Israel became aware of the fact that they had transgressed and offended God. Paul writes something similar in Romans 3:20 where he says, For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Thus, that the law made the Israelites aware of sin is consistent with Galatians 3:22 and Galatians 3:10, which explain that all who are under law are under a curse.

That said, it makes sense to characterize the law as a guardian more so in the way of making sin known than in the way of causing sin. For if the law causes sin, it is not a guardian but a means of judgment. Thus, whether the law is a guardian in a positive or negative sense is not the point. The point is that the law is a guardian (whether positively or negatively) in that it makes sin known.

Explanation:

Paul has explained that no one will be justified by works of the law, for those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10). Rather, it is faith in Christ that saves. The question arises, Why then the law? Paul says that law was added because of transgressions. What does it mean that the law was added because of transgression? If we look to Romans 4:15 we find our answer. First, in Romans 4:13, Paul writes that the promises to Abraham came not through the law but by faith. This shows that Paul has a similar theme in Romans as the theme he expounds to the Galatians. We are justified by faith, not works of the law. Paul goes on to write that where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). Paul’s point here is to say that without the law, the Israelites would not be aware of sin, so the law was added so that they would understand that their natural behaviour was to sin against God.⁸

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it depends on a specific interpretation of Romans 4:15. There is more than one way to interpret that passage. For example, when Paul says where there is no law there is no transgression, we could take him to mean that when there is no law, whatever sins people commit is not considered transgression. This implies that sin and transgression are not precisely the same. To sin is to offend God, knowingly or not, while to transgress is to knowingly offend God. That’s why Paul writes in Galatians 5:13 that sin is not counted where there is no law. With this in mind, we can see what Paul means in Romans 4:15. His point is not that the law brings knowledge of sin, but that the law transfers the status of sin to the level of a transgression.

Response to counterargument:

This attempt to counter the interpretation only strengthens it. In Romans, Paul writes that sin was in the world even before the law was given (Romans 5:13). Sin is an objective offence against God, whether we are ignorant of the offence of our sin or not. What God graciously granted the Israelites through the law was knowledge of sin. Through his law the Israelites became aware that their behaviour was sinful. And when one knowingly sins, one is a transgressor. Thus, the law itself did not cause Israel’s sin to move from sin to transgression. Their sins offended God in either case. Still, the law gave the Israelites the knowledge that their behaviour was sinful and offensive to God.

The weakness of this view is that the Old Testament law played a far more substantial role in the life of Israel than simple knowledge. God upheld his covenant through the law, which included the Ten Commandments, societal laws, laws for cleanliness, sacrifices, legal requirements and more. God’s law was not only about knowledge but was about teaching the people how to live and act in order for them to be in a relationship with the holy God. This view runs the risk of reducing the rich and multifaceted Mosaic law so that we lose some insight into the purpose of God’s law.

Explanation:

Paul has explained that no one is justified before God by works of the law, but by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:1–18). So why then the law? We might suspect that because we are not justified by the law, Paul has a wholly negative view of the law, so that it functions negatively. But this is not the case. In fact, Paul sometimes has a positive view of the law, and so he may have a positive view in mind when he explains why the law was added.

For example, in Galatians 5:14 he seems to have a positive view of the law in mind when he says that the whole law is fulfilled in one word, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.⁹ Thus, the law was given to show Israel how to love their neighbours. Also, in Romans 3:1–31 after Paul explains that we are justified by faith and not by works of the law, he asks, Does justification by faith mean that we overthrow the law? His answer is, By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. So in both Galatians 5:14 and Romans 3:31, Paul has a positive view of the law.

With his positive view of the law in mind, we can understand what he says about the law in Galatians 3:19. Why was the law added? Paul says, because of transgressions. What Paul likely has in mind here is the fact that Israel’s transgressions got in the way of their relationship with God.¹⁰ God graciously gave his laws, including the sacrificial system, as a means of atonement and reconciliation until Christ.¹¹

Counterargument:

It is unlikely that Paul says the law was added because of transgressions in the sense that it was added to provide a means of reconciliation. That is because Paul has just explained that if justification were possible through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (Galatians 2:21).¹² Thus, given that Paul is opposing the Judaizers’ notion that the law is beneficial, and that his main point is that justification is through faith in Christ, it is hard to see why he would explain the law in a positive light in Galatians 3:19.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it mischaracterizes Paul’s positive view of the law, and thus argues against a straw man. The argument here is not that Paul is saying the law is a means of justification. Paul is adamantly clear that the law is not a means of justification (Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:10). Still, if the law is not a means of justification, the question arises, Why did God give his laws to the Israelites? Paul knows his Old Testament, and we know from the Old Testament that the law of God was intended to function positively in the life of Israel (Deuteronomy 28:1–14). Reconciliation and atonement were possible, at least as a temporary measure, until Christ, through the sacrificial system (see Leviticus; Hebrews 9:10). That the law was meant to function positively in the life of Israel does not mean that the law was a permanent solution to sin or a means of justification. It means that God established the law as a temporary measure to deal with Israel’s sin until Christ.

Explanation:

We want to know what Paul means when he says that the law was added because of [χάριν] transgressions. Does he have a positive or negative view of the law in mind? We can deduce that he has a positive view of the law in mind by his use of the preposition χάριν.¹³ The preposition can be used to indicate the reason for something.¹⁴ In other words, the law was added for the reason of transgressions; that is, Israel was sinning, so God added the law as a means to deal with sin.

Counterargument:

There is a problem with this argument. The preposition χάριν (because of) can be taken to indicate a reason as stated above or a goal.¹⁵ If we take the preposition to indicate the goal of the law, the goal of the law is transgression.¹⁶ What does it mean for the goal of the law to be transgressions? With the law comes knowledge of sin, so the goal of the law was to produce knowledge of sin in the Israelites.

Response to counterargument:

Just because there is more than one way to take the meaning of a preposition does not help us decide which way to take it. In other words, the mere fact that the preposition χάριν (because of) could be taken to suggest that the goal of the law was transgression, does not mean that we should take it that way. In fact, there is good reason not to take Paul to mean that the law was meant for transgression. That is because it’s unreasonable to think that God gave the Israelites the law for the purpose of transgressions for over a millennium, without offering some mitigating solution for sin until Christ. It is far more natural to think, given the loving nature of God, that God added the law as an interim measure that dealt with sin until Christ.¹⁷

The possible weakness of this view is that it holds the law in a positive light. Paul is opposing the Judaizers, who have a high view of the law, and it seems as though Paul concedes to their position by characterizing the law as positive. On the other hand, if it is right that the law was given in order to lessening sin until Christ, Paul is simply answering this burning question: if the law does not justify, what is its point?

Explanation:

Paul says that the law was added because of sin [τῶν παραβάσεων]. When Paul uses the term παράβασις, he always has a special view in mind. In particular, Paul distinguishes this term from ἁμαρτία (sin). Παράβασις has to do with acting in a way that offends God (Romans 2:23; Galatians 4:15; Galatians 5:14), while ἁμαρτία has to do with knowingly acting in a way that offends God.²² Since Paul says that the law was added because of transgression [τῶν παραβάσεων], he is not saying that the law was added because of sin, because for Paul, transgression is not the same as sin.

With this in mind, we should also note that the preposition χάριν can be taken in two ways. It can mean because of or for the sake of. Since Paul says that the law was added χάριν transgressions, we should take χάριν in the sense of for the sake of. Thus, Paul is not saying that the law was added because of sins, but that the law was added for the sake of transgressions.²³ In other words, the law was added to increase the punishment on the Israelites because transgression has to do with known sins, and not just sins.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this view. For one, it is a mistake to press Paul for a precise difference between transgression and sin in this context. Paul says that the law was added because of transgression (Galatians 3:19), and then follows this up by saying that the Scripture has consigned everyone under sin (Galatians 3:22). It seems that in this context, Paul uses the terms transgression and sin, if not interchangeably, then close to it.

Second, even if we grant that Paul has a strict distinction between transgression and sin in mind, this view collapses into interpretation 1. For let us assume that Paul does have in mind the fact that sin is an offence to God, while conscious sin is a transgression. Given the difference between sin and transgression, we can ask, What does it take to move something from the status of sin to transgression? The answer: knowledge. If the difference between sin and transgression is that transgression has to do with knowing that one sins, then if the law was added for the sake of transgression, this means it was added so that Israel would know that their behaviour was sin. But this is simply to repeat interpretation 1; that is, the law was added so that the Israelites would know that they sinned against God.

The problem with this view is a lack of clarity. It is all well and good to say that the law increased sin, but what does that mean except that the law exposed natural behaviour as sinful through knowledge of sin? In other words, this view does not do enough to distinguish itself from interpretation 1. Thus, a stronger case must be made for what it means that the law increases sin in a way that does not have to do with producing knowledge in the Israelites.