You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you... Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Galatians 3:1,3).

Paul rebukes the Galatian believers, who were entertaining the notion that their salvation needed to be "perfected" (i.e. completed) by keeping the stipulations of the Law. What they failed to understand was that righteousness could not be gotten through the Law either at the beginning or in the middle or at the end. Righteousness from beginning to end could only come through faith in the death of Christ:

For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last (Romans 1:17).

In fact, Paul goes so far as to say that if it was even possible for anyone to be righteous by means of the Law, then Christ died needlessly (cf. Galatians 2:21).

Friends, let us understand Paul's meaning here. Paul is saying that neither before nor after conversion is anyone able to be righteous by means of the Law. Why? Neither before nor after conversion can anyone keep the Law perfectly. What can we logically infer from this? Christian perfectionism is a myth. Just because you are a believer does not mean that you now have the power to be perfect. Believers have the Spirit's leading and are motivated by Christ's love; however, this is far different from saying that believers now have the power to perfectly obey God's Law. No one does and no one can. To the end of our lives, we will always be absolutely dependent on the cross of Christ for our salvation, our sanctification, and our glorification.

The present experience of the believer until we are glorified is captured in these passages:

For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me (Romans 7:22–23).

For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want (Galatians 5:17).

We are still partially in bondage to sin until our bodies are redeemed in glory (cf. Romans 8:23), but we have the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing the glory that is surely to come (cf. Ephesians 1:13–14).

Therefore, friends, let no one tell you that you now have the power to obey God whereas you did not have this before. You have the motivation, you may have the knowledge, but nowhere in Scripture does God promise that you will perfectly obey Him now that you are saved. Surely, if we really had God's power to obey, wouldn't we always obey Him? Or do we sell short God's power? Do we limit His power to the strength of our will? If this is the case, is it really God's power or our will power that achieves righteousness? No, dear friends, from first to last, our righteousness rests purely and completely on the cross of Christ. Soli deo gloria!

AI-Expanded Reflection

Galatians 3:1–5 challenges the attempt to complete by flesh what began through the Spirit. In context, the Galatians are being drawn toward law observance as necessary to their standing and belonging. Paul directs them back to the crucified Christ and the reception of the Spirit through hearing with faith. The issue is not whether Christian conduct matters, but whether the basis of their life in Christ must be supplemented by a different principle of acceptance. His answer protects the sufficiency of Christ rather than reducing the importance of holiness.

The original is right that believers never outgrow dependence on the cross. Growth does not create an independent righteousness that makes grace unnecessary. Yet the conclusion that believers lack power to obey goes beyond the rejection of sinless perfection. Romans 8:13 speaks of putting sinful deeds to death by the Spirit, and Galatians 5:16 calls believers to walk by the Spirit. Philippians 2:13 attributes both willing and acting to God’s work. These are not descriptions of motivation alone; they concern actual conduct made possible within grace.

The inference that genuine divine power would necessarily produce uninterrupted perfect obedience also needs examination. Scripture presents God’s enabling together with commands, warnings, and the believer’s responsibility. It does not define every instance of empowerment as the elimination of all resistance or failure. A person can be genuinely helped without thereby becoming impeccable. Denying sinless perfection and affirming real Spirit-enabled obedience are therefore compatible positions. The distinction preserves both the believer’s continuing need for mercy and the reality of transformation.

Romans 7 is interpreted in different ways regarding the identity and situation of the speaker. Even if one understands it as Christian struggle, it should be read alongside Romans 6 and 8, which speak of freedom from sin’s dominion and life in the Spirit. The whole argument cannot be reduced to continuing captivity. Galatians likewise proceeds from the conflict of flesh and Spirit to the fruit of the Spirit and concrete instructions for communal life. Paul expects love, patience, gentleness, and self-control to become visible, not merely desired but permanently inaccessible ideals.

This balance is pastorally important. Perfectionism can drive people to denial or despair, while a denial of enabled obedience can make change seem impossible and excuse harmful habits. The gospel offers another course: confess sin without concealment, trust Christ without adding merit to his work, and take active steps of obedience in reliance on the Spirit. Growth may involve accountability, changed habits, restitution, and repeated repentance. None of these actions purchases justification; they belong to the life grace is forming. Glory goes to God not only because he forgives what we cannot undo, but also because he works in people who could not make themselves new. Dependence on the cross is the ground for hopeful effort, not a reason to deny that such effort can bear real fruit.

Before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed; so the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus we are all sons of God through faith (a paraphrase of Galatians 3:23–26).

The Law, called here a "guardian" or "tutor," held sway over believers only until "faith" — the promise of righteousness we have in Christ Jesus — came. Just as a guardian is only temporary, so the Law was meant to be temporary. Paul clearly declares that "we are no longer under a guardian," which is to say, we are no longer under the Law. Just as a guardian instructs, so the Law also gave instruction. But I believe the instructive role of the Law is no longer necessary, for we have the fullness of knowledge revealed in Christ. This is what the apostle John meant when he wrote, "the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

The Law revealed humanity's need — the need for a Savior. It showed people that they were sinful and fell short of God's holy standard. Paul says he would not have known sin except through the law, and that sin, through the commandment, was shown to be sinful beyond measure (cf. Romans 7:7, 13). By works of the law no one will be justified, "since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (a paraphrase of Romans 3:20).

In other words, the Law could not save anyone. It only revealed their need.

The proper response to this revelation was not to redesign the Law so that the impossible became possible, or to reinterpret it so that its perfect standard was lowered enough to be reached by honest effort. The proper response was faith that recognizes one's absolute helplessness to meet God's standard by any amount of human effort, and that one's only hope is God's free, unmerited, and all-sufficient gift in Jesus Christ.

Many of Paul's Jewish contemporaries did not perceive this way of salvation. That is why Paul wrote that his heart's desire and prayer to God for them was that they be saved; they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness, "for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (a paraphrase of Romans 10:1–4).

Therefore, friends, let us not try to revive what Paul says we have died to (Galatians 2:19). Let us stop trying to put the yoke of the Law on fellow believers by coaxing or threatening them with the obsolete blessings and curses of the Old Covenant.

Let us also be careful not to partially resurrect what the Law was given to destroy: the belief that we have any power to meet God's standard of righteousness. When people defend the necessity of "free will" in salvation, I believe they are trying to retain some measure of power, if not credit, for themselves in salvation. They go beyond the place Scripture gives to the act of believing. When a child is born, do we say the child was born of its own free will? Clearly not! So why do we insist that when we are "born again" by the Spirit, we were reborn of our own free will? Yes, the child participates in birth, but it is not the child's will that makes it happen; the child could neither cause nor prevent it. Likewise, in the new birth, Christians can neither take credit for it nor block it. All is of God's sovereign grace. Just as a newborn begins in helpless dependence, so we begin in spiritual death and utter depravity.

When are we truly saved? Is it not when we abandon all hope in ourselves and trust wholly in God? Many in Israel fell short because, although they believed in God and were zealous for His name, they thought they could reach His perfect standard by their own effort. This is why Paul wrote that the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained it — a righteousness by faith — while Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not succeed in reaching it, because they did not pursue it by faith but as if it were by works, and so stumbled over the stumbling stone (a paraphrase of Romans 9:30–32).

Friends, I am concerned that emphasizing "free will" in salvation risks a similar stumbling — trusting our own ability to believe rather than God's grace. Just as the Law demanded perfect obedience, the writer of Hebrews warns against shrinking back from faith: "my righteous one shall live by faith," and God has no pleasure in the one who shrinks back (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:38). If we are honest about our frailty, we will stop believing that our faith comes from ourselves rather than from God. Then we can say with confidence, "we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed," but of those who have faith (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:39).

If you believe you received your faith from God, you have no reason to fear losing it or shrinking back. If you believe God sustains your faith, you need not worry about wavering. You can claim the promise that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 1:6).

Praise God that we are saved not by our own good works but by the perfect work of Christ. Praise God that we are not saved by our own faith but by the perfect faithfulness of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul declares three times, "God chose... God chose... God chose" (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27–28), and then concludes that it is because of Him that we are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord" (a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 1:30–31).

Soli Deo gloria!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The Greek word translated "guardian" in Galatians 3:24 (paidagōgos) did not mean a teacher in the modern sense. In Greek and Roman households, the paidagōgos was usually a trusted slave who supervised a boy from about age six until adolescence — walking him to school, carrying his books, keeping him out of trouble, and disciplining him. The role was protective and restrictive, and it ended when the child came of age. Paul's point is that the Law served a real but temporary purpose in God's plan, until the arrival of Christ, when believers become full "sons" and heirs (3:26–4:7).

Christians have understood the ongoing role of the Law in different ways. Lutheran and Reformed traditions speak of the Law's continuing uses — revealing sin, restraining evil in society, and (especially in Reformed teaching) guiding believers in the moral life — while agreeing that the Law cannot justify. Others, like the comment, hold that the Mosaic Law as a covenant has ended and that believers now live under "the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). See the note at #1733.

On the comment's discussion of free will: Christians in every major tradition agree with its central affirmation — salvation is entirely by God's grace, and no one can boast. They differ on how God's grace relates to human response. Reformed believers, like the comment, hold that regeneration precedes and produces faith; Lutheran, Wesleyan, Arminian, Catholic, and Orthodox believers hold that God's grace enables a genuine human response. See #1779 and #1838. All share the comment's closing doxology: soli Deo gloria.

Paul reconciles the Mosaic Law, the Abrahamic covenant, and the covenant of grace in Christ.

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed — Scripture does not say "seeds," meaning many, but "seed," meaning one, who is Christ. The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established and do away with the promise. If the inheritance depends on the law, it no longer depends on the promise; but God in His grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith — and now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian (a paraphrase of Galatians 3:16–25).

This is a remarkable reconciliation of three covenants. Paul starts with the promise to Abraham, an unconditional covenant. A key component was that all peoples on earth would be blessed through him, fulfilled in his descendant Christ. The Mosaic covenant, 430 years later, was conditional, requiring obedience.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Paul's chronological argument is the load-bearing one and repays attention. The promise to Abraham came first and was unconditional — God alone passed between the divided animals in Genesis 15, binding only Himself. A covenant already ratified cannot be annulled by a later arrangement, which is Paul's point about the 430 years. Whatever the law added, it did not replace what was already given.

The guardian image carries a nuance modern translations struggle with. The Greek term names a household slave who escorted a child to school and supervised his conduct — not a teacher, and the role ended entirely when the child reached maturity. Paul is not saying the law taught us things we now apply differently; he is saying its period of custody is over. That is a stronger claim, and it is why Galatians reads as urgently as it does: for Paul, returning to the law as a basis for standing with God is not a conservative choice but a regression to childhood after coming of age.

Friends, we read in Galatians 1:15–16 something about the nature of Paul's conversion:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles...

Paul testifies that God's calling upon him happened prior to his birth. And in the course of time, when he did come to faith, Paul writes that God by grace simply revealed Jesus "in him." The sense is that the substance of salvation was already in Paul and God simply had to make him aware of it. Now, Paul is certainly a unique case, because he had a special role as an apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–9); however, for those that argue against the fairness of God in sovereign election, they would have to explain how God was fair in choosing Paul, who became a persecutor of Christians, rather than choosing many other "worthy" people. The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a "worthy" person; therefore, God's sovereign election is both fair to the many and exceedingly generous to a few. Paul would certainly testify that the grace shown to him, a persecutor of Christians, was exceedingly generous.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Galatians 1:15–16 describes Paul’s calling in language that recalls prophetic vocation, especially Jeremiah’s consecration before birth and Isaiah’s servant called from the womb. This connects Paul’s commission to a scriptural pattern of divine initiative. The former persecutor did not gradually make himself an obvious candidate for apostleship. His changed life displays a grace that interrupts opposition rather than rewards prior suitability.

The phrase about revealing the Son “in me” should not be pressed into the idea that Paul already possessed salvation before coming to faith and merely became aware of it. The wording can emphasize an inward revelation or a revelation manifested through his transformed life and subsequent ministry. Either way, the passage describes a decisive divine action with a purpose: proclamation among the Gentiles. Being set apart before birth and being called through grace are related within God’s purpose without becoming identical moments in Paul’s experienced history.

The original applies this to the fairness of election. It is right that grace cannot be treated as a wage owed to the most promising applicant. Paul’s own account excludes boasting in merit. Yet his particular commission does not, by itself, establish every detail of a general doctrine about how all people are brought to faith. Readers should distinguish what the narrative unmistakably illustrates—God’s initiative and undeserved mercy—from conclusions that require additional passages and argument. The comparison with allegedly more worthy candidates should also lead toward humility rather than speculation about which people God ought to have chosen.

The practical force is liberating. A history of serious wrongdoing need not define the final usefulness of a person whom God transforms. At the same time, Paul’s calling is not a shortcut around accountability or formation for anyone claiming a similar experience today. The proof of grace emerges in truthful witness, repentance, and service over time. The author’s amazement at God’s generosity can therefore become a posture toward others: neither deny their past nor assume that their past exhausts what God can make of their future. Grace does more than improve a résumé; it redirects a life toward Christ and the good of people once outside its concern.

Wow, I was wondering how Paul learned about Jesus — what it all meant, how it all tied together. I assumed he must have gone and learned from the other apostles, but not so! It came through Jesus alone, and only later did he go out preaching, then later still meet with Cephas for just fifteen days before going out again. Fantastic!

AI-Expanded Reflection

Paul is remarkably specific about this timeline in the very next verses — he didn't consult with anyone, didn't go up to Jerusalem to meet the earlier apostles, but went instead to Arabia, only returning to Damascus, and only meeting Peter three full years later, for those fifteen days (a paraphrase of Galatians 1:16–19). This level of specific detail isn't incidental — Paul is building a legal-style case for his own independent apostolic authority, since his opponents were apparently questioning whether his gospel was secondhand, borrowed from the Jerusalem apostles rather than given to him directly. The fifteen-day visit this comment finds so striking was Paul's own evidence, offered under oath-like insistence (Galatians 1:20), that his gospel didn't originate with human teachers at all.

Friends, Galatians 2:16 teaches that no one is justified by the works of the Law (a paraphrase) — referring to the Mosaic Law with respect to salvation. Paul teaches here that no one can be saved through the Mosaic Law, in part because no one can actually keep it, and unlike faith, the Law's governing principle is perfect obedience. This is behind the strange-sounding statement that whoever practices its commands will live by them (a paraphrase of Galatians 3:12; cf. James 2:10; Galatians 5:3) — and anyone who fails falls under a curse: eternal separation from God. This is exactly what Christ took from us, bearing the Law's curse Himself (cf. Galatians 3:13). Romans explains this even more fully — there's now no condemnation for those in Christ, since the Spirit's law of life has set us free from the law of sin and death; what the Law couldn't do, weakened as it was by our sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son as a sin offering in human likeness, condemning sin in the flesh, so the Law's righteous requirement might be fully met in us, who live not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit (a paraphrase of Romans 8:1–4).

Jesus fulfilled the Law's righteous requirements for us, taking its curse upon Himself and paying our price as a fully righteous, acceptable sin offering to God. Hebrews tells us this offering's benefits are once for all (cf. Hebrews 9:12, 26; 10:2, 10), so our sins — past, present, future — are completely covered under Christ's one sacrifice.

Since the Law's righteous requirements are fulfilled in Christ, we too have died to the Law (cf. Romans 7:4) — we no longer follow the old written code, but live by the new way of the Spirit (cf. Romans 7:6). The Mosaic Law is now obsolete to us (cf. Hebrews 8:13); its mandates and curse have been canceled, nailed to the cross (cf. Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:13–15). It's been replaced for Christians by "the Law of Christ" (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:21) — not destroyed, but fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:17; cf. Romans 10:4) and rendered ineffective as a rule of life (cf. Ephesians 2:15). Yet, echoing Paul's rebuke to the Galatians, if we still try to rely on it, we place ourselves back under a curse (cf. Galatians 3:10). Paul's main point is that no one should rely on the Mosaic Law for salvation — but many other Scriptures suggest his broader point is that the Law has been entirely replaced by a "law of faith," as he writes elsewhere that those led by the Spirit aren't under the Law at all (a paraphrase of Galatians 5:18), and that through the Law he died to the Law so he could live for God, crucified with Christ, no longer living himself, but Christ living in him, the life he now lives lived by faith in the Son of God who loved him and gave Himself for him (a paraphrase of Galatians 2:19–20).

Why does this matter? Understanding that the Old Covenant, embodied in the Mosaic Law, is now obsolete as a rule of life for Christians should stop us from pushing its specific tenets onto one another — tithing (properly understood), Sabbath-keeping (Saturday or Sunday), or any number of other Old Testament commands tied specifically to that Law. These have been eclipsed by New Testament instruction. Some principles do carry over between the covenants, but shared principles don't mean the Old Covenant itself remains in effect.

This should also sharply rebuke prosperity theologians, who frequently appeal to Old Testament covenant promises of prosperity for obedience — all tied to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. Many Old Testament passages do promise health, wealth, and prosperity for obeying the Law of Moses, but it would be empty to claim the same promises for Christians today, since we're no longer under that Law — just as we're not obligated to its commands, we can't claim its blessings either. Thankfully, we also don't need to fear its curses for disobedience. It's telling that prosperity theologians make so much of the blessings while barely mentioning the far longer list of curses — death by sword, famine, plague, exile, even sevenfold punishment for persistent sin. Israel was constantly disobedient and constantly cursed, except for a remnant preserved not by the Law of Moses, but by the promise to Abraham, which would culminate in the New Covenant fulfilled in Christ.

Many ministers today fail to understand the distinction between the covenants and the shift from Old to New, teaching the Bible as though the Old Covenant were still in force. While I pray God gives these leaders much-needed clarity, don't use their confusion as an excuse for your own ignorance — read and understand this for yourselves, so you can judge rightly and avoid placing undue burdens on fellow believers. In the transitional book of Acts, the disciples debated this very matter and resolved it (cf. Acts 15:5–11), choosing not to place the Law's burden on Gentiles, only asking a handful of things (picked from over 600 laws) to preserve peace with Jewish believers — and even those few requirements wouldn't remain binding much beyond the apostolic era. As Hebrews 8:13 teaches, what's obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. Let's not try to restore what God Himself has already removed and replaced.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Two small citation corrections worth noting: the "he who practices them shall live by them" quotation is Galatians 3:12 (which itself quotes Leviticus 18:5), not Galatians 2:12, which concerns a different episode entirely — Peter withdrawing from eating with Gentile believers. Similarly, "the curse of the Law" that Christ took upon Himself is described in Galatians 3:13, not 2:13. Both are easy transpositions given how close the verse numbers sit to each other, but worth having correctly labeled. Beyond that correction, this comment's larger argument — that specific Old Covenant blessing-and-curse promises don't transfer wholesale to New Covenant believers — is a useful, consistent principle worth carrying forward whenever an Old Testament promise gets appealed to as though it applied automatically and directly to Christians today.