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 .