OET interlinear GAL 3:21

3:21a

Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God?: This is a rhetorical question. It emphasizes that the law is not contrary to the promises. Paul used this rhetorical question to correct a wrong conclusion that some readers might have drawn from what he had just said.

The words opposed to mean that the law is not “contrary to” or “against” the promises.

Some ways to translate this emphasis are:

• As a rhetorical question. For example:

  Is the law then against the promises of God? (RSV)

  Well then, is there a conflict between God’s law and God’s promises? (NLT96)

• As a statement. For example:

  Now then, the law is certainly not opposed to the promises of God.

• As a command. For example:

  Do not think/conclude that the law is against the promises of God.

Use whichever form is most natural in your language to emphasize something.

then: The Greek conjunction that the BSB here translates as then can also be translated as “therefore” (as in the NIV). This conjunction introduces a conclusion. Here the idea is, “Can we conclude that the law is against the promises of God?”

Some other ways to translate this conjunction are:

Does this mean (GNT)

therefore (NET)

So

3:21b

Certainly not!: The Greek clause that the BSB translates as Certainly not! is a strong response “No!” to the rhetorical question.

Some other ways to translate this clause are:

Never!

Absolutely not!

No, no, no! But it is different.

This clause also occurs in 2:17. You can translate it in the same way here.

3:21c–d

For: Verse 3:21c–d explains why it is wrong to conclude that the law is against the promise (3:21a). It explains more about the relationship between the law and the promise. They do not have the same function. They are both part of God’s plan, but the law does not give life. The Greek introduces this explanation with a conjunction that the BSB translates as For.

In some languages, it may be necessary to make this more explicit. For example:

They are not opposed, but they are different, because

The purpose of the law is different than the purpose of the promise. I say this because

(In the Display, this implicit information has been put in 3:21b.)

if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the law: This sentence has a special type of “if” clause. In this “if” clause, Paul stated the opposite of what is true. The truth is that there is no law given that can give life.

Some languages have a special way to translate this type of “if” sentence. Some examples are listed below. After the examples, each part of this verse is discussed.

Some ways to translate this sentence are:

• As an “if” sentence. For example:

  if human beings had received a law that could bring life, then everyone could be put right with God by obeying it (GNT)

• As a true statement followed by the conclusion. For example:

  Righteousness certainly does not come by means of the law that was given, so the law cannot give life.

• By stating the conclusion first and then stating the conditional clause. For example:

  The law that was given cannot give life. If it could give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by means of obeying the law.

• As a rhetorical question followed by the consequence. For example:

  Do you think that the law that was given can give life? Then righteousness would certainly come by means of the law. But it does not.

3:21c

if a law had been given: The verb had been given is passive. Some ways to translate this clause are:

• Use a passive verb. For example

  if a law had been established

• Use an active verb. For example:

  if God had given a law

  if human beings had received a law (GNT)

that could impart life: This clause refers to spiritual life, not physical life.

Some other ways to translate this clause are:

that could give eternal life to us

that could give life that never ends

3:21d

righteousness would certainly have come: The word righteousness refers to the character trait of being “upright,” “straight,” or “blameless.”

Some other ways to translate this clause are:

we could become acceptable to God (CEV)

everyone could be put right with God (GNT)

we could be made right with God (NLT)

It is the same word as in 2:21b. See also righteous in the Glossary.

from the law: This phrase means “by obeying the law.”

Some other ways to translate this phrase are:

because of the law

because we obeyed them (GW)

if we obeyed it