What does it mean that we were held captive under the law?

Explanation:

Paul says that before faith we were confined under the law. It is not right away clear what it means to be confined under the law until Paul explains what he means in Galatians 3:24. There Paul says that the law was the Israelites’ παιδαγωγός (guardian). This term is only used three times in the New Testament, and each time by Paul. Still, the term was widely used in antiquity, and we can get at its meaning by looking at its use in extra-biblical Greek and Jewish sources. Generally, the term refers to a slave, who was nonetheless an important person in a household. That is because the role of the παιδαγωγός was to supervise the conduct of one or more sons in the family. Thus, the παιδαγωγός was not a διδάσκαλος (teacher), but a guardian. Still, as a custodian over the children he taught indirectly through his supervision and discipline.⁵ In the Republic, Plato explains that the παιδαγωγός was a man of age and experience who was qualified to serve as leader and custodian of children.^6,7 Aristotle also alludes to the custodial function of the παιδαγωγός.⁸ Aristotle argues that the appetitive part of us should be ruled by principle, just as a boy lives in obedience to his παιδαγωγός.^9,10

With this understanding of a παιδαγωγός in mind, we can see what Paul means when he says that Israel was confined under the law. His point is that just as a child is confined to the watchful eye of a παιδαγωγός, so Israel was confined by the watchful eye of the law. The παιδαγωγός is not the boys’ teacher but plays a disciplinary function until the boys come of age. Similarly, the law showed Israel her sin and confined her until the era of Christ.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it makes too much of the meaning of the term παιδαγωγός. While it is true that the παιδαγωγός functioned in a variety of roles in ancient times, we want to understand Paul’s use of the term in the context of Galatians. In Galatians 3:23 Paul explains that the Israelites were under law until faith. Thus, he has a particular period of time in mind. There was a time when Israel was under the custodian of the law, until Christ. Similarly, the παιδαγωγός was only a guardian until the boy reached maturity. Thus, there is a temporal aspect to the παιδαγωγός, and this temporal aspect is what Paul is focused on. His point is not that the law protected and disciplined Israel, but that the law was temporary until the time of Christ, just as a παιδαγωγός was temporary until maturity.¹¹

Response to counterargument:

There are at least two problems with this counterargument. First, we know that παιδαγωγός is rarely used in the New Testament, and then only by Paul. When a word is used rarely, we should suspect that the author has a particular reason for choosing that word over some other word. In the case of Galatians 3:23, if all Paul meant to say was that the law was temporary until the time of Christ, there would be no need to use the specialized term παιδαγωγός. The fact that the παιδαγωγός was only a temporary custodian is only a small feature of the overall role of the παιδαγωγός. If all Paul intended was to argue for the temporality of the law, he could have simply stated that the Israelites were under law temporarily under the time of faith. Instead, Paul is focused on explaining the function of the law. That is because the Judaizers want to understand why hundreds of years of tradition are suddenly being overturned by faith in Christ. And what was the function of the law? It functioned as a παιδαγωγός and all that entails until the time of Christ.

The second problem with the counterargument is that when we read the Old Testament, we find that the law did seem to function as a παιδαγωγός in a fuller sense that goes beyond mere temporality. God made a covenant with Abraham, but because of sin God gave the laws to Israel. God explains that if Israel could keep the laws they would be blessed (Deuteronomy 28:1–6), and if they could not, they would be cursed (Deuteronomy 28:15–19). God did not say that the laws would make Israel righteous, but he used the laws as a παιδαγωγός in the life of Israel until the time of Christ.

Explanation:

Paul says that we were held captive under the law, imprisoned, until the time of Christ. We can deduce what he means by comparing this statement with Galatians 3:22. As for similarities, Paul uses the same verb, to confine, in both Galatians 3:22 and Galatians 3:23. In Galatians 3:22 Paul says that the Scripture confined everything under sin. In Galatians 3:23 Paul says that we were confined until the coming of faith. Further, Paul uses the same preposition, under, in both Galatians 3:22 and Galatians 3:23. In Galatians 3:22 he says that everything is confined under sin. In Galatians 3:23 he says that we were held captive under the law. So, there are parallels between Galatians 3:22 and Galatians 3:23.

There are also differences. For example, in Galatians 3:22 Paul says that everyone is under sin. In Galatians 3:23 he uses the first-person plural of the verb to hold captive when he says that we were held captive under law. The first-person plural we suggests that Paul has Israel in mind in Galatians 3:23, rather than everyone, as in Galatians 3:22.¹² Also, whereas Paul uses the same preposition under in Galatians 3:22 and Galatians 3:23, in Galatians 3:22 he says all are under sin, whereas in Galatians 3:23 he says that we are under the law. So there are both parallels and differences between Galatians 3:22 and Galatians 3:23. What are we to make of these parallels and differences?

Likely, Paul is drawing attention to two functions of the law. In one sense, the law functioned to put everyone under a curse, because the law reveals that humans cannot live up to the will of the holy God (Galatians 3:22). At the same time, the law functioned in the life of Israel as a guardian until the time of faith.¹³ Since the law condemns everyone, Israel too was condemned by the law, but the law also played a special role in Israel as a guardian (Galatians 3:24).

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it is not clear that when Paul uses the first-person singular form of the verb to hold captive, he has the Israelites in mind. Rather, given that he says in Galatians 3:22 that everyone is confined under sin, most likely he uses the first-person plural to refer to all humanity.¹⁴ Of course, if he refers to all humanity, then he does not have the special function of the law in the life of Israel in mind. Rather, he is saying that just as all are confined under sin, so Jews and Gentiles are confined under the law. To be confined under sin is equivalent to being confined under the law.¹⁵

Response to counterargument:

It is unlikely that when Paul uses the first-person plural of the verb to hold captive, he has in mind all people. We know that Paul is confronting the Judaizers who argue that the Gentiles should live according to the Mosaic law (Galatians 2:15). Paul explains to them that we are justified by faith in Christ, not the works of the law. Still, Paul anticipates objections; for example, what is the point of the law if righteousness is by faith? This is a particularly Jewish question, because the Jews have been expounding the Mosaic law for centuries. Paul offers both a specific and broad answer. In one sense, the law functioned in the life of Israel because of transgressions Gal (Galatians 3:19). In fact, it acted as a guardian for the Israelites until Christ came (Galatians 3:24). Generally, the law is not against the promises of God, but it functions to condemn all humans because it reveals that all fall short of the demands of the holy God (Galatians 3:21–22). Thus, Paul explains not only the broad purpose of the law but how the law applied specifically to the life of Israel.

Explanation:

Paul uses the verb to hold captive to explain that before faith came, the Israelites were held captive under the law. The verb behind to hold captive is used a total of four times in the New Testament, and on two of those occasions (aside from Galatians 3:23), it is used in a positive sense.¹⁶ For example, in Philippians 4:7 Paul says that the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard their hearts and minds. Further, in Philippians 4:7 we read that believers are being guarded by God’s power through faith. Likely, Paul uses the same verb in Galatians 3:23 in a similar fashion. His point is that while the law could not justify the Israelites before God, it guarded them by serving as a guardian until Christ (Galatians 3:24).

Counterargument:

That a verb is used in a positive sense in one place does not mean that it is being used in a positive sense in another place. The fact is, we must look to the context to decide the meaning of verb, and in the case of Galatians 3:23, we can detect that Paul does not have a positive view of the law in mind. We can deduce this because in Galatians 3:22 Paul says that the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin.¹⁷ Paul uses the same verb for to imprison in Galatians 3:23 in relation to the law. After writing that before faith we were held captive under law, he clarifies his meaning with the participle συγκλειόμενοι, which means, we were imprisoned. In other words, to be held captive under the law is to be imprisoned by the law, just as all things were imprisoned under sin. Since there is nothing positive about being confined under sin, Paul likely does not use the verb to hold captive in a positive sense.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that we need to look at the context, the context surrounding Galatians 3:23 does not rule out that the law functioned positively in the life of Israel. When the verb to hold captive is used to convey a theological point, such as God’s guarding our hearts, the verb seems to be used positively. Further, that the law played a positive role in the life of Israel does not imply that it was wholly positive. Indeed, the law confined Israel because it showed Israel her sin without providing a way of escape. Thus, Paul presents a nuanced view of the law. The law protected Israel as a παιδαγωγός (guardian), but it could not justify Israel before God.

It is hard to deny that the law functioned both positively and negatively in the life of Israel. Likely Paul walks this fine line in Galatians 3:23 when he explains the purpose of the law to the Judaizers. The weakness of this view is that because Paul defends faith in Christ against the works of the law, one would think that he would avoid characterizing the law as anything positive. Still, by saying that the law was a guardian, Paul shows that the law was both positive and negative.

Explanation:

We want to understand what Paul means when he says that we were confined by the law. Paul has explained that by the works of the law no one will be justified (Galatians 2:16), and that everyone who relies on the works of the law is under a curse (Galatians 3:10). Paul’s point is that to be under the law is not a good thing. Thus, when we reach Galatians 3:23 where Paul says that we were confined by the law, he means that the law brought Israel under servitude so that they were confined by the law. In other words, the law exposed the truth of Israel’s human condition, and because the law does not change, nor the human condition (without Christ), it was as though the law imprisoned the Israelites.²²

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it was sin that imprisoned the Israelites, not the law. The law reflects the goodness of God, and while it might show sin to be sin (Romans 3:20), it restrains, rather than imprisons. It is true that the law cannot make anyone righteous, but that does not mean that it imprisons in the sense that, without the law one would not be imprisoned. Rather, our sinful nature imprisons us, and the boundaries of the law expose the fact that we cannot escape our sinful flesh.

Explanation:

When Paul says that we were imprisoned by the law, he means that just as we are imprisoned by our sinful nature, so we are imprisoned by the law. We can deduce that Paul equates being under the law with being under sin from Galatians 4:21. There he says that those who want to be under the law are like the slave woman Hagar, and not Sarah. To equate being under the law with slavery is to equate being under the law with having a corrupt sinful nature. Likewise, when we reach Galatians 5:18, Paul says that if one walks by the Spirit one is not under law. His point is that those who are under law are under the dominion of sin.²³

Counterargument:

While there is a close correlation between being under sin and being under the law, it is hard to see how these two phrases could be equivalent. For one, sin has to do with offending God by acting contrary to his will. The law is a set of standards that reflect God’s will. It is true that once the Israelites received the set of standards that reflect God’s will, it became clear that they often did not obey his will. That is to say, the law showed the Israelites that they were sinful. Still, the set of standards that exposes sin is not the same as the corrupt human nature that compels one to sin. Of course, because the Israelites were corrupted by nature, the law essentially imprisoned them. It offered no solution to repair the corrupted nature, but simply set in stone the standards that sinful humans cannot attain. Still, Paul will explain, to be under the law is to be under a guardian (Galatians 3:24), not under sin.

The problem with this view is that it overlooks the positive function of the law in the history of Israel. It is true that the law could not make the Israelites righteous, but it was by the grace of God that he chose Israel to be stewards of his oracles (Romans 3:2). To the Jews belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law (Romans 9:4).

Explanation:

Paul says that before faith came, we were guarded under law. It is important to note that Paul does not include the article the before law. This indicates that Paul does not have the Mosaic law in mind. Instead, what Paul has in mind is a general principle of law that confines both Jews and Gentiles. The general principle of law confined all people, just as all people were confined under sin.²⁴

Counterargument:

There are multiple problems with this view. For one, the fact that Paul does not use the definite article in front of law does not mean that he does not have the Mosaic law in mind. When a noun is the object of a preposition, the article is often implied (for example, 1 John 2:7, ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (from the beginning); Acts 17:31, ἐκ νεκρῶν (from the dead)). Thus, it is a feature of Greek grammar, and not a hint that Paul has in mind a generic principle of law that confines all humankind, that the article is excluded from the prepositional phrase under the law.

Second, the context dictates that Paul clearly has the Mosaic law in mind. He has been contrasting the works of the law with faith in Christ throughout the letter (Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:2). That justification is through faith and not the law leads to the natural question, Why the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:19)? Paul explains that it was added because of transgression, that it was implemented by a mediator (Galatians 3:19), that it is not against the promises of God (Galatians 3:20), that it held Israel captive (Galatians 3:23), and acted as a guardian.

Third, Paul clarifies what he means when he says that the law imprisoned Israel by saying that it acted as a guardian (Galatians 3:24). And in case anyone is not sure if Paul has in mind the Mosaic law or a general principle of law, he includes the article the to refer to the law in Galatians 3:24.

Finally, the notion that a generic principle of law confines all human beings is foreign to Scripture.

The weakness of this view is that it shows a lack of understanding of Greek grammar. That forces the exegete to ignore the context and introduce the non-biblical notion that a general principle of law confines humankind. Koine Greek carries nuance, and it is important to know when and how to press grammatical clues.