19Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made, and it was ordained through angels by a mediator.
Apali: “God’s one with talk from the head” (“basically God’s messenger since head refers to any leader’s talk”) (source: Martha Wade)
Michoacán Nahuatl: “clean helper of God” (source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
Noongar: Hdjin-djin-kwabba or “spirit good” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Wè Northern (Wɛɛ): Kea ‘a “sooa or “the Lord’s soldier” (also: “God’s soldier” or “his soldier”) (source: Drew Maust)
Iwaidja: “a man sent with a message” (Sam Freney explains the genesis of this term [in this article ): “For example, in Darwin last year, as we were working on a new translation of Luke 2:6–12 in Iwaidja, a Northern Territory language, the translators had written ‘angel’ as ‘a man with eagle wings’. Even before getting to the question of whether this was an accurate term (or one that imported some other information in), the word for ‘eagle’ started getting discussed. One of the translators had her teenage granddaughter with her, and this word didn’t mean anything to her at all. She’d never heard of it, as it was an archaic term that younger people didn’t use anymore. They ended up changing the translation of ‘angel’ to something like ‘a man sent with a message’, which is both more accurate and clear.”)
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) is used as in mi-tsukai (御使い) or “messenger (of God).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Following are a number of back-translations of Galatians 3:19:
Uma: “So, perhaps a person will say like this: "If it’s like that, then just what is [emphatic] the purpose of the Law of Musa?" God gave the Law of Musa at a later time than his promise to Abraham, and his purpose was to make-clear to mankind that they sin transgressing his will. God’s purpose was for mankind to follow that Law of Musa until the arrival of the descendant of Abraham that was foretold in the promise of God long ago, that is Kristus. God charged his angel to deliver his Law to Musa, and that Musa became the middleman who delivered the Law of the Lord to the crowd/people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then, if it is like that, what is the use of the law? I tell you, the law was simply added by God so that the people would know as to what their sins are. And God wanted that this law would be followed/obeyed as long as that descendant of Ibrahim, Isa Almasi had not yet come here. The law was given by God to the angels who were told to give it to Musa. Then Musa also gave it to the Yahudi.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And it that’s the case, what is the value of the Law? I’ll tell you what it’s value is. God added the Law so that He might explain to us what evil behavior is and it is His desire that the observance of the Law lasts until only the arrival of the descendant of Abraham, who is Christ who is the one to whom God made the promise. God commanded His angels to come from Heaven so that they might give the Law to Moses. And as for Moses, he became an in-between chief (a mediator) because he also gave the Law to the people.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “What then is the function/use of the law? Why did God cause-it-to-follow what he promised? God gave his law in order that people would come-to-know that they were consistently-sinful because of their breaking that law. His purpose was that the law would continue until the coming of Abraham’s descendant Cristo whom his promise was talking about. It can be seen that what he promised is more-valuable than the law, because as for the law, there were angels whom God sent to tell it to Moses, and-then he would tell it to the collective-people,” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Well since it’s like that, why did God give his laws? What do they achieve? Well, it’s this, he made known these laws of his so that people would be enlightened concerning just what sins they were doing in their lives. People were in-subjection-to these laws until that descendant of Abraham would arrive, in whom was the fulfillment of the promise. When God gave his laws, angels and Moises were like his go-betweens.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Then why is it that there was the law? God gave the law in order for the people to know about the sins they did. And the law was in force until there was born the descendant of Abraham who was destined to do what was promised. The law was spoken from the angels and then Moses told the people what the angels said.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Greek that is translated in English as “Law” or “law” is translated in Mairasi as oro nasinggiei or “prohibited things” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Noongar with a capitalized form of the term for “words” (Warrinya) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
In Yucateco the phrase that is used for “law” is “ordered-word” (for “commandment,” it is “spoken-word”) (source: Nida 1947, p. 198) and in Central Tarahumara it is “writing-command.” (wsource: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, ko-rare-ru (来られる) or “come” is used.
It is quite logical, therefore, to ask, What, then, was the purpose of the law? The literal form “What then (is) the Law?” or “Why then the law?” (Revised Standard Version) can be understood as a question regarding the nature of the Law. Primarily, however, it is a question about the law’s purpose (Good News Translation, Knox, Jerusalem Bible), its function (New English Bible “then what of the law?”), its relevance (New American Bible), and its significance.
In order to indicate purpose, it is necessary in some languages to indicate what is to be accomplished, for example, “Then what could the Law accomplish?”, or “What were the laws given by Moses supposed to do?” There is, however, a difficulty in some languages with this type of rhetorical question, since there is no specific answer to it except through an expression of purpose, as in Good News Translation, joined to the statement concerning the Law having been added. For languages in which such a rhetorical statement would be either misleading or awkward, it may be possible to change the question into a statement, for example, “But the Law did have a purpose,” or “But the Law did accomplish something.”
It was added is intended to show the position of the law in relation to the covenant: it is both supplementary and subordinate to it. It impossible in some languages to speak of something being “added” without indicating to what it is added, and so one must make clear that the Law was added to the covenant. This may be stated in some languages as “the Law was given in addition to the covenant in order to show that….”
Furthermore, the Law was added for a specific purpose, to show what wrongdoing is. This particular expression (literally, “on account of transgressions,” or “because of transgressions”) is not easy to interpret, and the difficulty is reflected in the various ways of rendering it in modern translations (some examples: Jerusalem Bible “to specify crimes”; Knox “to make room for transgression”; New American Bible “in view of transgressions”; New English Bible “to make wrongdoing a legal offence”; Phillips “to underline the existence and extent of sin”; Moffatt “for the purpose of producing transgressions”).
We have two clues as to the interpretation of this expression. First, the expression literally rendered “on account” or “because of” is sometimes used to show cause or purpose. If we take cause as primary (because people were sinning), then the clause may mean that the Law’s function was to check, correct, or restrain transgressions. This meaning may be expressed in some languages as “to keep people from sinning,” or “to stop people from doing what was bad.” If “purpose” is primary, it could mean that the Law’s immediate function is to define transgression, to show its real nature, or even to produce and multiply it, by specifying the reality of guilt. This interpretation of purpose (which is far more common) may be expressed as “in order to show people what sin really is,” “in order to tell people that they were really doing wrong by doing certain things,” or “in order to show that the bad things people were doing were really sin.”
A second clue comes from the word literally rendered “transgressions,” which means not simply wrongdoing (Good News Translation), but wrongdoing as a result of willfully violating an existing law. If this is the case, before the Law was given there could not have been any transgressions. There were, of course, wrongdoings or evil deeds, but these were not in violation of any law, since the Law did not exist. The Law, therefore, made it possible for these wrongdoings to be recognized as “transgressions,” thereby exposing their sinful character.
The statement that the Law was meant to last until the coming of Abraham’s descendant involves some rather subtle problems for the translator. The verb to last must be understood in the sense of “to remain valid” or “to remain in force.” For one thing, it must not be understood merely in the sense that the paper on which the laws were written continued to the time of Jesus. A more difficult expression, however, is involved in the passive form was meant. Often this must be changed into an active expression, for example, “God purposed the Law to continue in force,” “God designed the Law so that it would remain valid until…,” or “… would say what people could or could not do until….”
The phrase until the coming of Abraham’s descendant must be made more specific in some languages: “until the time that Abraham’s descendant would come.” This is a specific reference to Christ, and in some languages it is necessary to say “that special descendant of Abraham,” or “that descendant of Abraham already mentioned.”
The final clause of this sentence, to whom the promise was made, must be made a completely new sentence in some languages, for example, “God had made the promise to that descendant,” or “God had promised that descendant.” This is, of course, a reference to the descendant mentioned in verse 16. Since in the same verse he is specifically identified as Christ, it may be necessary even in verse 19 to employ some appositional expression, for example, “until the time that Christ, the descendant of Abraham, would come; it was about that descendant that God made the promise.” In translating the clause to whom the promise was made, it is important not to rule out what has already been said in verse 16, namely, that God made his promises to both Abraham and his descendant.
The last part of verse 19 along with verse 20 shows the inferiority of the Law in terms of the way it was given and administered: it did not come directly from God, but it was handed down by angels and with a man acting as a go-between. That the angels played a part in the giving of the Law is part of Jewish tradition, and recorded in Scripture (Deut 33.2 [Septuagint]; Heb 2.2; Acts 7.38,52 f.). The go-between (literally “mediator”) is evidently Moses.
In translating the Law was handed down by angels, it is important to indicate clearly that the angels were only secondary agents; they were not the source of the Law. This may be expressed in some languages as “the Law was handed down with the help of angels,” or even “God used angels in passing on the Law to Moses.”
The phrase with a man acting as a go-between must be expressed in some languages as “and a man acted as a mediator between God and the people.” It is often essential to indicate clearly the role of a mediator, especially since in the immediately preceding clause the angels have been mentioned.
In some languages there may be a problem involved in the indefinite use of the phrase a man, since it might be interpreted as simply “any man.” That may be particularly so in this context, since it may already have been necessary to indicate that the Law related in some way to Moses in some such phrase as “the Law given to Moses,” or “the Law given by means of Moses.” Hence, one may be required to render this last phrase of verse 19 as “while the man Moses acted as a go-between.”
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Why then was the law given?: This is a rhetorical question. Paul used this rhetorical question to begin a new section. He had just talked about the things that the law cannot do. Here he stated the purpose of the law.
Some ways to translate this rhetorical question are:
• As a rhetorical question. For example:
What purpose then does the law serve? (New King James Version) -or-
What, then, was the purpose of the Law? (Good News Translation)
• As a statement. For example:
So, here is the purpose/function of the law.
Use whichever form is most natural in your language to call someone to think.
then: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as then connects 3:19a to the previous section. The previous section shows that God blessed Abraham because of a promise. He did not bless him because he obeyed the law. (The law had not yet been given.) That being the case, the logical question is, “Why was the law given?” For example:
?Since God blessed Abraham because of a promise,? then what is the purpose of the law? -or-
So, ?if that’s the case,? what is the function of the law? -or-
So what was the law for? (New Century Version)
3:19b
It was added: This clause means that God gave the law in addition to the covenant/promise. It was added many years later.
Some other ways to translate this clause are:
The law was added ?to the covenant? -or-
It was given later (Contemporary English Version) -or-
?God? ?also? gave the law ?to people?
because of transgressions: There are several ways to interpret the phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as because of transgressions. Two of the main ways are:
(1) The purpose of the law is to define transgressions/sins. It identifies sin and tells us what sin is. For example:
in order to show what wrongdoing is (Good News Translation) -or-
to show people their sins (New Living Translation (2004))
(Good News Translation, New Living Translation (2004), God’s Word, Contemporary English Version)
(2) The purpose of the law is to deal with transgressions/sins. The law told the Jews what sacrifices to make to atone for their sins. It also told them what the punishment was for sin. For example:
to deal with crimes (New Jerusalem Bible)
(New Jerusalem Bible)
It is recommended that you choose interpretation (1). In the previous section, Paul told the Galatians what the law could not do. It is unlikely that he would now tell them that the law can deal with sin (interpretation (2)).
Some other ways to translate this phrase are:
to make known sin -or-
to tell us what sin is
transgressions: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as transgressions means “wrongdoing,” “disobedience,” or “sins.” For example:
sins (New Living Translation (2004))
3:19c
until the arrival of the seed: This clause indicates how long the law was in effect. It indicates that the law had an end point. It was in force until the seed (Christ) came. This statement would have surprised the Jews. They expected the law to last forever.
The word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as seed is the same word that Paul used in 3:16. It refers to Jesus Christ the offspring or descendant of Abraham. You should translate it in the same way here.
Some other ways to translate this clause are:
?And the law continued? until the descendant came -or-
?The law was valid? until ?Christ,? that descendant ?of Abraham? had come -or-
?God wanted people to obey the law? until ?Christ,? the descendant ?of Abraham? came
3:19d
to whom the promise referred: In Greek this phrase is more literally “to whom the promise has been made.” This clause repeats part of 3:16a, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.” This is a relative clause. In some languages, it will be necessary to make this a separate sentence.
This clause is passive in Greek. Some ways to translate it are:
• Use a passive verb. For example:
The promise had been made to this descendant.
• Use an active verb. For example:
?God? had made a promise to this descendant ?of Abraham? . -or-
This is the descendant to whom ?God? had made a promise.
3:19e
It was administered through angels: The pronoun It refers to the law. The words administered mean “commanded” or “ordered.” You should use a term that is natural to describe “establishing” a law.
This clause indicates how the law is inferior to the promise. God gave the law to men. But he did not give it directly. He gave it to angels. Then angels gave it to Moses. Then Moses gave it to the people.
This is a passive clause. God is the one who put the law into effect through the angels. Some ways to translate this clause are:
• As a passive clause:
The law was put in place through angels -or-
The Law was handed down by angels (Good News Translation) -or-
The law was given through angels (New Century Version)
• As an active clause:
God gave his law through angels (New Living Translation (2004))
through angels: It is not stated in Exodus that the law was given to Moses through angels. However, in Acts 7:38 and 7:53, Stephen mentions that the law was given through an angel speaking on God’s behalf.
The word angel first occurs in 1:8a. See also angel in the Glossary.
by a mediator: The word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as mediator refers to an “in-between person” or an “intermediary.” A mediator stands between two people. Moses was the mediator whom God used to give his law. The use of a mediator also shows that the law was inferior to the promise.
Some other ways to translate this phrase are:
by a middleman -or-
using a go-between -or-
who used Moses for a mediator to give the law to people (New Century Version) -or-
to Moses, and he gave it to the people (Contemporary English Version)
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.