I have a question on the translation of Galatians 3:22. Most English translations give something like the NIV gives:
But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. (NIV 2011)
However, I'm thinking this is not correct, for two reasons.
αλλα συνεκλεισεν η γραφη τα παντα υπο αμαρτιαν ινα η επαγγελια εκ πιστεως ιησου χριστου δοθη τοις πιστευουσιν (Robinson-Pierpont 2000 Byz-Majority Text)
(1) In context Paul is describing the Law as a sort of "guardian" in the next verse:
verse 23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (NIV 2011)
It seems obvious a "guardian" would not lock us up in sin or under the control of sin but would attempt to lock sin out or lock us up away from its control.
(2) The Greek seems to me to imply (by the presence of the article and the word order) that a "which are" or some such must be understood. Like:
But the scriptures shut up all things [which were] under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
i.e that it imprisoned or shut up those things which were already under sin, in order to protect the Israelites from overmuch sin which might prevent the coming of Christ (i.e. a complete intermixing with the heathen nations, for instance).
The closest to this translation is the ASV, which is often hailed as being super-literal to the Greek:
But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (ASV)
The only difference being the abiguity inherent in their rendering. The ASV can be taken to be in agreement with the NIV or with my understanding of the verse.
Anyway, I guess I'm asking for an evaluation of my rendering an interpretation of the context. I believe I'm right, and am not going to change my mind, but I'm curious what arguments would be made against it. And I'm sure someone holding a different position will be zealous to defend the "traditional" Protestant view against it.