The Fullness Of Time
Chapter Six
"For The Sake Of Transgressions"
From what we have seen thus far, it appears that the major purpose for which the law was given was to prepare the way for the righteous bestowal of God's promises to those in Christ. We now need to consider, in greater detail, how the law fulfilled this preparatory function.
In answer to the question that he has raised--"Why then the law"--Paul responds, "It was added for the sake of transgressions. . . ." (3:19). The problem that faces the interpreter at this point is that the Greek preposition charin (because of, or for the sake of) is capable of more than one translation. It could be used in the antecedent sense (having a relationship to that which exists already) or the telic (tending toward an end or purpose) sense. If Paul intended it in the antecedent sense, then his meaning would be that the law was intended to suppress transgressions already in existence--"It was added because of transgressions." If he intended it in the telic sense, then his meaning would be that the law was added to bring about transgressions or to give sin a special character, i.e., the transgression of a boundary--"It was added for the sake of transgressions."
The answer to this problem lies in the meaning of the word translated "transgressions." The word parabasis is used consistently in all of Greek literature for an overstepping or transgression of a boundary. In the Papyri literature it is used in the sense of "contravention" or "violation of an agreement" (Moulton &. Milligan 1963,543). It is used only four times in the Septuagint; all in the sense of transgression or turning aside from the right path (Hatch &. Redpath 1954,1221-2).
In the New Testament, the word is always used of sin in relationship to a clearly defined boundary. Thayer defined it and distinguished it from hamartia as follows, ". . . absolutely the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law, Rom. 4:15; 5:14, but is wrongdoing which even a man ignorant of the law may be guilty of. . . ;" (Thayer 1886, 478-9).
Although sin was in existence long before the Mosaic economy began, it did not take on the character of transgression until that boundary was erected. In Rom 4:15, Paul wrote, ". . . where there is no law, neither is there transgression."
Once the nature of parabasis is understood, it becomes clear that Paul could not have meant that the law was given to limit or prevent transgressions. Transgressions would not have existed at all had not the law been laid down as a clearly defined boundary. The phrase must, therefore be taken in the telic sense, i.e., the law was added for the sake of, that is to produce transgressions.
John Brown, in his commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, has argued that this could not possibly be Paul's meaning (Brown's reason for rejecting this view is somewhat obscure). He argued rather that the purpose of the law was to limit Israel's "criminal conduct" (transgressions) and preserve them as a distinct and peculiar people until the Messiah should come. He wrote,
`The transgressions,' on account of which the law was added refer, I apprehend, to the criminal conduct of the Israelites, which rendered the introduction of such a system of the law necessary in order to the attainment of the great object of the covenant about Christ, and justification by faith through him. . . . To prevent the utter extinction from among mankind of the knowledge of God and the way of obtaining His favor, Abraham was called, and a plainer revelation made to him of the Divine purposes of mercy, and his descendants by Isaac and Jacob chosen as the depositaries of this revelation, till He should come to whom the revelation chiefly referred (Brown n.d.,61).
It is true that the law produced this effect in some of those who were the recipients of it, and if such an effect was produced, it must have been produced in accord with the purpose of God. He certainly did not give the law to Israel in order that they might sin more. His express purpose in giving them the law as He did was that "the fear of Him may remain in them so that they may not sin" (Exo 20:20). But, how was such a purpose to be accomplished? God's purpose in giving the law to Israel was that sin might take on the character of transgression. Thus, it was not His purpose in giving the law to cause Israel to commit more acts of sin but to bring into bold relief the true character of sin as an act of rebellion against God. The design of such an arrangement was not only to increase Israel's awareness of sin's character as a violation of God's holiness, but also to increase her awareness of her own culpability and liability to God's righteous judgement. Thus, despite the fact that the purpose of the law was to produce transgression, the effect of the law was to curb external transgressions of its precepts. Lenski has written,
While it is latent, sin stirs but slightly. It is like a lion who is asleep or is moving about quietly. Apply the stick of the law to it, prod it a little, and its fangs flash, it rages and roars, it tries to rend and tear, it displays what a wild beast it really is. That stick does not make the beast a beast; all it can do is to make it show what it is. That is true even when the stick is heavy enough to subdue the beast for the time being; the very subdual is brought about by overpowering force alone (Lenski 1961,167,8).
We are not to understand from this that the law was effective in subduing the sin that was latent in the hearts of the Israelites. This was a task that the law was incapable of performing (Rom 8:3). It was only an external "stick" which forced them into outward compliance with God's will. The law could never produce the righteousness which it demanded. In fact, when God's holy law was applied to the unregenerate Israelite, it had the opposite effect--though perhaps restraining outward transgression, it produced inward rebellion.
God instructed His prophets to proclaim the law to His people in order to call Israel back to her duty. The motive for the obedience that they demanded should have been love for God, but since this was so seldom in evidence, God used the threat of punishment to keep Israel within bounds and separate from the pagans around them. Thus, the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15) became the dividing wall between Israel and the other nations of the world. It is in this sense that Israel was "guarded under the law"(Gal 3:23) until God had fully revealed His redemptive purpose in Christ.
Having conceded that the law did, to some extent, keep Israel within bounds, we must insist that the primary purpose of the giving of the law, at least as far as the teaching of Gal 3:19 is concerned, is that the true character of sin and the rebellious nature of man might be revealed, thus shutting out every hope of receiving God's blessing apart from the promised Messiah. This purpose of the law is set forth clearly by F.F. Bruce who writes,
A written law-code was an inadequate vehicle for communicating the will of God; the will of God was given that form only for a temporary purpose--to make quite clear to man the inability and sinfulness to which he was prone in the flesh--that is, in his creaturely weakness (Bruce 1975, 276).
In fact, instead of restraining sin in the hearts of rebellious men, the law actually produces it.19
Another effect of this underscoring of the nature of sin as an act of rebellion against a gracious God is that it defined the work of the Messiah in whom alone the blessings of God are to be obtained. God sent forth His Son, not only made of woman in fulfillment of the words spoken to the serpent (Gen 3:15) and to deal with the general curse placed on all mankind as a result of Adam's transgression, but also made under the law that He might obey the more specific injunctions of that law and redeem believing Israel (them that were under the law (Gal 4:5) from its curse (Gal 3:13).
Although Paul's distinction between "we" (Israel) and "you" (Gentiles) is not always as tidy as one might wish, it does appear, from a careful study of the Epistle to the Galatians, that such a distinction was in his mind as he wrote. For example, when he wrote, "but before faith came, we were jailed under the law, shut up unto the faith that was about to be revealed," he was not making a general reference to the condition of all men prior to the experience of saving faith, but to the experience of Israel prior to the full-blown revelation of the faith (the body of truth concerning the redemptive purposes of God, in Christ) at Christ's first advent (see also 3:13 cf.3:14 esp. the emphatic position of the words "in order that on the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come . . . ."; 3:23-25 cf.3:26-29; 4:3-5 cf. 4:6-9).
Dispensationalists like to talk about a parenthesis in God's plan for the ages. During this parenthesis called the "Church age," "the age of grace," or the "age of the Holy Spirit," Israel is on a "side-track," and "God's prophetic clock has stopped ticking." Things will not really get under way again until God has finished dealing with the Gentiles and has again begun to deal with Israel. In reality, if there is a parenthesis in God's program it is that period of time during which God dealt exclusively with Israel under the Mosaic covenant. He used Israel as an object lesson for the rest of the world. In revealing the true character of Israel's sin and depravity, He demonstrated what every man would do if placed under the same circumstances. Furthermore, He demonstrated, in a carefully articulated law that now stands on record for all to read, the absolute holiness of His own character. I do not mean by this that each law in the Mosaic covenant reflected God's holiness, but that the covenant as a whole reflected the fact that God is holy. This law never was, nor should it now be, imposed on Gentiles, but it does reveal to all who read it what God thinks about sin. If you want to know how seriously God regards the rebellious disobedience of children, read Deut 21:18-21. If you want to know what God thinks about homosexuality, read Lev 20:13. Does He hate these sins any less when they are committed by Gentiles? Of course not! He drove the nations out of the land of Canaan because they committed these very sins (Lev 18:26-28; 20:23). God does not hate these sins any less now than He did when they were committed by members of Israel's covenant community. The righteous underpinning of these laws is the same now as it was "under the law" and even before the law was given. But, it is clear, even from a cursory reading of the OT law that its requirements, as well as its curses and blessings, were intended for the covenant nation alone. The only exception to this is that the stranger who sojourned in Israel was also required to submit to these laws while he remained within Israel's borders (Lev 18:26; 24:22).
We may conclude, then, that God's primary purpose in giving the law to Israel was to reveal the true character of sin. The presence of clearly revealed commandments gave sin the character of transgression, thus exposing the awful plight of sinful rebels. Israel's reaction to that covenant reflected the attitude of every sinner when confronted with God's holy character and unbending demands. Since the law disclosed the awesome perfection of God's holy character, it completely cut off all hope of sinners ever seeing God's face in peace, apart from the faithfulness of Christ in fulfilling its unalterable demands.
19 In support of this position, Herman Ridderbos has written, "Interpreters have often chosen to understand the pronouncement in this way: that the law has been given by God in order to bring man noetically to the knowledge of his transgressions. Although this element of the knowledge of and insight into sin is, of course, not lacking, the real meaning has not thereby been laid bare. "For the sake of the transgressions" is intended to say not only: in order to make them known, but also and indeed in the first instance: in order to bring out, to "pro-duce" the transgressions. . . It had to bring sin, which already existed but was not yet committed under the law (cf. [Rom] 5:13), to its utmost development in order to accentuate the more clearly the grace of Christ in its all-transcending significance (v.21). In this train of thought, therefore, the law is necessary for placing sin and thereby grace over against each other, as it were, in their full measure and most extreme tension (Ridderbos 1987,150).