The law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come — But which law is it?

[Sam Jer]

From Galatians chapter 3:

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

This passage quite confuses me, and not for the first time.
Basically, it seems to treat the uniquely Mosaic parts of the law and the moral law in one. It would not surprise me if this is a popular passage among antinomians, though such an interpretation would contradict other passages.

So, how should we read this passage? What is it saying? Where does an antinomian interpretation go wrong other than failure to read the rest of the bible, and would it be right to use this passage against the people who believe aspects of the ceremonial law are still in force?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'd say a good starting point is to read Paul charitably, believing he wants to be self-consistent across his own corpus. Grant that, and then bring back to this passage a reading of Paul that understands he loves the law (like David) in its proper context, he understands how good the law is when used lawfully, and the law in a certain light or viewed from the angle of the Mosaic Covenant is correctly contrasted with the post-Mosaic covenant moment.

Also, take into account the specific circumstance to and for which Paul pens this letter. He speaks bluntly and sets up his argument without compromise or nuance, because there is no room or time to wait to deal with the crisis precipitating the letter. Don't expect to find Paul parsing the Sinai constitution and legislation here, when the enemies of the gospel are trying to persuade gentile converts to adopt the obsolete covenant in order to be complete Christians. You don't go through Moses to get to Jesus, nor do you go through Jesus to get to Moses.

Paul argues that the covenant with Abraham was prior and superior to Sinai, which promises carried right through, even while the temporary (designedly so) covenant of law and obedience, blessing and cursing, performed its majority function, governing the people until the Fulfillment should appear. That Law can be and has been set by, whereas the promise covenant is simply brought out in its full character.

One is not bound to see morality as if Moses defined it, and once Moses, covenant is history, there goes morality. The 10Cs are a summary of the moral constitution of mankind from creation, and the cornerstone of the Isarelite constitution. All the commands of the 10 may be gleaned from Genesis, just as we find them once more in the NT. Therefore, Paul is free to inveigh against the Judaizers, and treat the Law in toto as obsolete. He is addressing the old covenant as such, not pausing to affirm this or that which truth remains.

 

[arapahoepark]

The best way to understand this in my view is that the Law is a synecdoche for the Mosaic covenant, not just a set of morals. T. David Gordon and Brian Rosner have really helped me to understand it, though they do have their problems. I'd recommend them.

 

[Aretha]

I see "the law" as the whole Torah, including both moral and ceremonial aspects. Jesus fulfilled this law. When Paul talks about "the law" in Galatians, he means the full set of commandments and regulations, not just the Ten Commandments.

For Jews, the Torah is central and guides their religious and ethical life. Messianic Jews also value the Torah but view it through the lens of belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Paul distinguishes between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. He opposes imposing Jewish laws on non-Jewish Christians but followed those laws himself (Acts 21). Many Torah commandments are echoed in the New Testament, especially the moral ones, showing their ongoing relevance.

I read that the New Testament has more commandments than the Torah, focusing on living under the New Covenant. Paul's teachings support the moral principles of the Torah but place them in the context of faith in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. For instance, in Ephesians 6:2-3, Paul cites the commandment to honor parents, demonstrating the continuity of moral law.

 

[Sam Jer]

Messianic Jews also value the Torah but view it through the lens of belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Paul distinguishes between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. He opposes imposing Jewish laws on non-Jewish Christians but followed those laws himself (Acts 21). Many Torah commandments are echoed in the New Testament, especially the moral ones, showing their ongoing relevance.

This rhetoric is a little too familiar for me...
God has broken down the wall of seperation (Eph 2:11-19). Peter, a Jew, was told to "rise, kill, and eat", (Act 10:13) and lived after the manner of the gentiles (Gal 2:14), as did Paul (1 Cor 9:20-21). When Paul warned against circumsission (Gal 5:2), he did not differentiate blood from blood (which would be inconsistent for God anyway, as God shows no partiality, Act 10:34).

I really hope I misunderstood what you're saying.