Galatians 3:21
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
English Standard Version (ESV)
This page isn't yet indexed by search engines.
Paul is essentially saying that the Law wasn't designed to give life; if it could have done that, then justification through the Law would make sense. The crucial, often missed point is that the Law's inability to grant life is precisely why it points us to the promises, not away from them.
Paul addresses a potential misunderstanding: that because the Law was given after the promise to Abraham, it might somehow cancel out God's earlier promise. He emphatically denies this, arguing that if the Law could have provided life and righteousness on its own, then maybe it would have been in opposition to the promise. However, since the Law's purpose was to reveal sin and its inability to truly give life, it actually points towards the promise, not against it.
Does the Law condemn God's promises, or does it actually help us get there? Paul tackles this head-on.
Paul faces a tough question: if God made promises to Abraham, why even bother with the Law? It might seem like they're at odds. Paul says, absolutely not! The Law wasn't given to be the source of life or righteousness.
Think of it this way: If you have a cure that could bring life, and that cure is the Law, then righteousness would come through the Law. But the crucial point is, the Law can't actually bring life. Its job is different.
The Law's real power is in revealing our sinfulness. It shows us just how far we fall short. It makes sin 'exceedingly sinful,' as Paul puts it elsewhere. This exposure is vital, not to crush us, but to drive us to the very promises of God that do bring life and righteousness through faith in Christ.
If the Law can't give life, what is its role? It's a powerful, yet temporary, assistant.
Paul's argument is that the Law and God's promises aren't enemies. Instead, the Law serves a specific, subordinate purpose that actually prepares us for the promises.
He asks, 'if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.' This conditional statement is key. It implies that if the Law had this power, it would be the way to righteousness. But since it doesn't have that power, it can't be the ultimate source.
The Law was like a tutor or a schoolmaster, as Paul mentions elsewhere. It was added 'because of transgressions' to make us aware of our sin and inability. Its purpose was to be temporary, 'till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.' This shows that the Law's administration was meant to point forward, not to be the final destination. It was a signpost, not the destination itself, guiding us toward the fulfillment found in Christ and the promises.
Understand the original words
nomos · Greek Noun
A divine rule or system of regulations, often referring to the Mosaic law given at Sinai, which serves to reveal God's standard of holiness and human sinfulness but cannot provide salvation.
epaggelia · Greek Noun
A declaration or oath of God expressing His gracious commitment to act on behalf of His people, culminating in the fulfillment found in Christ.
dikaiosynē · Greek Noun
A state of moral uprightness or conformity to God's standard; in the New Testament, it is often used as a status given to believers by God through faith in Christ rather than by works.
This passage highlights how the law, intended for life, instead revealed sin and led to death, directly supporting Paul's argument that the law itself cannot provide righteousness or life.
Romans 8:3This verse explains that God condemned sin in the flesh through Christ, offering a solution the law could not provide, which is essential for understanding why righteousness cannot be 'by the law'.
Hebrews 7:11This passage discusses the inadequacy of the Levitical priesthood and law for achieving perfection, reinforcing the idea that a different, superior way (through Christ's priesthood and the promise) is necessary for righteousness and life.
Deuteronomy 27:26This verse is a strong Old Testament statement about the impossibility of fulfilling the law perfectly, directly supporting the idea that 'righteousness' cannot truly come 'by the law' because no one can perfectly keep it.
Romans 5:20This verse explains that the law was added to increase wrongdoing, which is key to understanding Paul's point here: the law's function wasn't to give life, but to reveal sin and drive people to God's promise.
vincentGalatians 3:21: "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."
Against the promises (κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν)Does it follow from the difference between the law and the promises that they are in antagonism? Paul supposes this objection on the part of a Jewish Christian.God forbid (μὴ γένοιτο)See on Romans 3:4. This could only be true in case the law gave life, for life m…
barnesGalatians 3:21: "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."
Is the law then against the promises of God? - Is the Law of Moses to be regarded as opposed to the promises made to Abraham? Does this follow from any view which can be taken of the subject? The object of the apostle in asking this question is, evidently, to take an opportunity to deny in the most positive ma…
Paul is essentially saying that the Law wasn't designed to give life; if it could have done that, then justification through the Law would make sense. The crucial, often missed point is that the Law's inability to grant life is precisely why it points us to the promises, not away from them.
Paul addresses a potential misunderstanding: that because the Law was given after the promise to Abraham, it might somehow cancel out God's earlier promise. He emphatically denies this, arguing that if the Law could have provided life and righteousness on its own, then maybe it would have been in opposition to the promise. However, since the Law's purpose was to reveal sin and its inability to truly give life, it actually points towards the promise, not against it.
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
Ask a follow-up
Ask Sola things like:
Live chat about Galatians 3:21 is available in the Sola app.
Paul addresses a potential misunderstanding: that because the Law was given after the promise to Abraham, it might somehow cancel out God's earlier promise. He emphatically denies this, arguing that if the Law could have provided life and righteousness on its own, then maybe it would have been in opposition to the promise. However, since the Law's purpose was to reveal sin and its inability to truly give life, it actually points towards the promise, not against it.
"Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law." — Paul is essentially saying that the Law wasn't designed to give life; if it could have done that, then justification through the Law would make sense. The crucial, often missed point is that the…
