Paul argues finally from the promise of the inheritance made to Abraham:

v. 15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

v. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Christ.

v. 17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

v. 18. For if the inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

The apostle here offers the mystery of God in a human parable, incidentally addressing the Galatians in a kind and captivating manner, to win them by his confidential tone: After the manner of man speak I. In his endeavor to show that the promise alone brings salvation, he uses a comparison taken from the ordinary practice in regard to the last will or testament of a man, by which he disposes of his goods: Though it be hut a man’s, yet if it is ratified, no man sets aside a testament or adds thereto. If a man’s last will and testament is duly witnessed and sealed, the disposal of his property is commonly regarded as being consummated: how much more, then, ought this to be true of the testament of God by which He made Abraham and all his children heirs of the evangelical blessing! See Heb 6:17-18. Of this testament of the Lord the apostle now says: But to Abraham were spoken the promises and to his Seed. God’s testament consists of promises of grace and blessings which are not connected with any legalistic demands and conditions, such as Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8; Gen 22:18. The testament of God was, moreover, not exclusively for Abraham, was not exhausted in him, but included his Seed as well. The blessing in this Seed of Abraham is in force today, is applicable to all true children of Abraham up to the present time, for they represent all nations of the earth. For that reason Paul argues from the singular form of the noun in the Hebrew test, Gen 12:3: He does not sap. And to seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ. In all the divine promises concerning the Seed, as early as Gen 3:15, where the Messiah, through whom God wants to bless all nations, is designated, the Lord always speaks in the singular. In this one descendant of Abraham, in Jesus of Nazareth, all nations are blessed. Note that the argument of Paul, being based upon a single word in the Old Testament, is a powerful argument for the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

The statement of v. 16 had been made by way of parenthesis. The apostle now names the point which he intended to emphasize by his comparison: But this I say, A testament, ratified by God to Christ, the Law, which came into being four hundred and thirty years later, does not render void that it should invalidate the promise. The testament and will of God, the evangelical promises, were by God sealed to Abraham and therefore to Christ, who was expressly mentioned in the blessing. Some four hundred and thirty years later, Exo 12:40, counting from the journey of Jacob into Egypt to the exodus of the children of Israel, the Law was given by God from Mount Sinai. It is self-evident that this later revelation cannot annul or invalidate the promise given to Abraham. The Mosaic Law is not a codicil which sets aside the testament of the Lord, the Gospel promise given to Abraham. For, as the apostle argues: If out of the Law the inheritance, then no more out of promise: but to Abraham through promise God has freely granted it. If the spiritual inheritance, the grace and mercy of God, were actually obtained through the keeping of the Law, then the promise would no longer be in power, for obviously the two cannot be in force at the same time, that the inheritance is a free gift, and that we are still under obligation to earn it by works. But now the inheritance was a present to Abraham by the promise, by the testament of God; therefore the other assumption as to the earning of its blessings by works cannot stand. It is all free grace on the part of God, and His promise is a means of grace which does not speak of a possible good fortune which might come to Abraham, but of a transmission of the inheritance by virtue of the testamentary disposal; it is not a dead letter, but it is spirit, life, and power. Thus Paul has proved the inferiority, the subordinate character, of the Law.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Gal 3:15 . [132] ] Expressive of loving urgency, and conciliating with reference to the instruction which follows. Comp. Rom 10:1 . How entirely different was it in Gal 3:1 ! Now the tone of feeling is softened.

] not to be placed in a parenthesis (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others), points to what follows to that which he is just about to say in proof of the immutability of a divine . The analogy to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view; for the apostle does not wish to adduce it from his higher standpoint as one enlightened by the Spirit, according to the measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but he wishes thus to accommodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of adducing examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible to his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin thinks). Comp. and (Dem. 639. 24, 1122. 2; Rom 6:19 ). See generally on Rom 3:5 ; 1Co 9:8 ; and van Hengel, Annot . p. 211 f.

] yet . The logical position would be before . A , although human , no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the (which here intimates a conclusion minori ) is not unfrequent in classical authors, and again occurs in the case of Paul, 1Co 14:7 . See on this passage. There is therefore all the less reason for writing it , in like manner (Morus, Rosenmller, Jatho), which would be unsuitable, since that which is to be illustrated by the comparison only follows (at Gal 3:17 ). Rckert (so also Olshausen and Windischmann) takes it in antithetical reference to . : “I desire to keep only to human relations; nevertheless,” etc. This would be an illogical antithesis. Others, contrary to linguistic usage, make it mean yet even (Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies), or quin imo (Wolf), and the like.

] ratified , made legally valid, Gen 23:20 ; 4Ma 7:9 ; Dem. 485. 13; Plat. Pol . x. p. 620 E; Polyb. v. 49. 6; Andoc. de myst . 84, p. 11; comp. on 2Co 2:8 .

] not testament (Heb 9:16 f.), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many others, including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to the context; nor, in general, voluntary ordainment, arrangement (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Hofmann: “destination as to anything, which we apply for one’s benefit,” Holsten, following earlier expositors); but in the solemn biblical signification of , covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others; also Ewald: “ contract ”), as in Gal 4:24 and all Pauline passages. The emphatic prefixing of points to the majus , the of God; and God had entered into a covenant with Abraham, by giving him the promises (Gal 3:17 . Comp. Gen 17:7 ; Exo 2:24 ; Lev 26:42 ; Luk 1:72 ; Act 3:25 ; Mal 1:2Mal 1:2 ; Sir 44:20 ; Sir 44:22 ). The singular ( ) is not opposed to this view; on the contrary, since is put as analogue of the of God (which God has established), there could, in accordance with this latter, be only one contracting party designated: a ratified covenant, which a man has established . The ratification , as likewise follows from the of God , is not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third party; but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal conclusion of the parties themselves who make the agreement with one another.

.] viz. no third party. Such an interference would indeed be possible in itself, and not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as Hofmann objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, in the general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be left unnoticed. On ., to do away a covenant, irritum facere , comp. 1Ma 15:27 ; 2Ma 13:25 ; Polyb. xv. 1. 9, iii. 29. 2, xv. 8. 9. That is not the same subject as (Holsten [133] ), is evident both from the expression in itself, and from the application in Gal 3:17 , where the corresponds to the and the (personified) , which comes in as a third person, to the .

] or adds further stipulations thereto , which were not contained in the covenant. That the in the word (not occurring elsewhere) denotes contra (Schott), is inconsistent with the analogy of , , , and so forth (comp. Joseph. Bell . ii. 2. 3, , Antt . xvii. 9. 4); in that case must have been used. Erasmus, Winer, Hauck, and others wish at least to define the nature of the additions referred to as coming into conflict with the will of the author of the or changing it; but this is arbitrary. The words merely, affirm: no one prescribes any addition thereto; this is altogether against the general rule of law, let the additions be what they may.

Chrysostom aptly remarks: , .

[132] As to vv. 15 22, see Hauck in Stud. u. Krit . 1862, p. 512 ff.; Matthias, d. Abschn. d. Gal. Br . iii. 15 22, Cassel, 1866. As to vv. 15 29, see Buhl, in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1867, p. 1 ff.

[133] “Yet in the sphere of the human no one cancels his voluntary disposition, which has become legally valid.” Matthies also identifies the subject in with the founder of the .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Gal 3:15-18 . What Paul has previously said concerning justification, not of the law, but of faith, with reference to that promise given to Abraham (Gal 3:8-14 ), could only maintain its ground as true before the worshippers of the law, in the event of its being acknowledged that the covenant once entered into with Abraham through that promise was not deprived of validity by the subsequent institution of the law, or subjected to alteration through the entrance of the law. For if this covenant had been done away with or modified by the law, the whole proof previously adduced would come to nothing. Paul therefore now shows that this covenant had not been invalidated or altered through the Mosaic law .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

b. Demonstration from the chronological relation of the Lord to the Covenant of Promise.

(Gal 3:15-18.)

(Gal 3:16-22. The Epistle for 13th Sunday after Trinity)

15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a mans covenant, yet if it be [when it has been]26 confirmed, no man disannulleth [annulleth]27 or addeth thereto. 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. [Now to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed.]28 He saith not, And to seeds, as of 17many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And [Now] this I say, that the covenant, [A covenant]29 that was confirmed before of God in Christ [that has been before confirmed by God to Christ]30, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul [does not invalidate]31 that it should make the promise of none effect [make void the promise]. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave [hath freely granted]32 it to Abraham by [through] promise.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.

Gal 3:15.[Brethren.An affectionately pathetic address. How different from Gal 3:1! The tone is greatly softened.Meyer. Here is a pause, at which the indignant feeling of the Apostle softens, and he begins the new train of thought which follows with words of milder character, and proceeds more quietly with his argument (Windischmann).R.]

I speak after the manner of men. . Paul thus excuses himself for comparing a mans with a of God, he will not (he says) regard the matter from a higher point of view, but simply according to the analogy of human relations. [Calvin: By this expression he intended to put them to the blush. It is highly disgraceful and base that the testimony of God should have less weight with us than that of a mortal man.R.]

is not to be taken here in the sense of covenant (although approved by Meyer and Wieseler). [See below.R.] The sense is that of Testament. It is true God made with Abraham a covenant, hence Gods covenant of promise with Abraham is here spoken of. But in these verses, Paul takes up this covenant in the aspect of a Testament, in order to emphasize the fact that in it God has made a free promise (of an inheritance) in contrast with the law, which imposes injunctions, making everything depend on merit. This character of the covenant of promise reminds him of a human Testament, and the principles of jurisprudence which are valid with respect to such an instrument, furnish the basis of his argument. [The majority of modern commentators take the other view. The reason here advanced is based upon the idea of inheritance, which belongs to a covenant as well as to a Testament. The usage of the LXX. is decidedly in favor of the rendering covenant. So the New Testament usage (the exceptional case, Heb 9:15-17, beginning with this idea also). So that while doctrinally considered it is not of much moment (Calvin, who however prefers the meaning covenant), the order of the words and the comparison require this meaning (Ellicott). Comp. Bagge, Meyer, Lightfoot. The influence of the Vulgate in substituting Testament for covenant in the name of the two parts of the Bible is perhaps to be deplored.R.]

No man annullethi. e., of course, legitimately. [ belongs here logically. But the sense is well preserved in the E. V.R.]Addeth thereto = adds specifications to it, of any kind whatever.From what is true of a human Testament [or covenant], Paul now argues as to the Testament [or covenant] of God; this also no one annulleth or addeth theretono one and hence not the law either. But before he draws this conclusion (Gal 3:17), he furnishes (Gal 3:16) the necessary premises for it (Wieseler). He does this, by showing that the referred to the time after as well as before the giving of the law, and in substance remains still in force, without which necessary link the demonstration, that the law made no change in the character of the , would be without value or meaning. For if the had been of limited duration, confined to Abraham for instance, if the promise had been made only to him, it would, when the law came, have been long before fulfilled and thereby done away; the two would not have come in contact. But this is not the case.

Gal 3:16.Now to Abraham were the promises made [lit., were spoken], and to his seed.This, as shown by were spoken, and still more by what follows refers to particular passages, and such moreover as contain the clause and to thy seed as also the promise of an inheritance; not, therefore, such as Gen 22:18[?], but Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8 (and according to the LXX. also Gen 24:17). The sense is therefore: not merely to Abraham was there in the a promise, sc., of an inheritance, made by God, but also to his seed; the was not exhausted in him, but was valid also for his seed. But especially must it be shown that it has validity even now. Therefore, says Paul, inasmuch as these promises were given also to the seed of Abraham, they were given also to Christ. This seed of Abraham (he says), is indeed no other than Christ. This, he says, follows from the very fact of the singular form his seed being used. In order to explain this emphasizing of the singular form in the exegesis of Paul, appeal has been made to the fact that the Rabbins of his time also now and then strain the singular or plural to serve an exegetical turn, and in the passages Gen 4:25; Gen 19:32, themselves explain of the Messiah. This comparison is admissible, if only we do not overlook the extraordinary contrast which exists between ordinary Rabbinical caprice, and Pauls exposition in this passage. That in the Abrahamic promise the idea of the Messiah is concealed, and that the seed of Abraham may be actually understood of the Messiah, is unquestionably the true view, on which the whole exposition of Paul rests, and which he has a little before demonstrated from the connection of Scripture and the deepest reality of the fulfilled truth. But the form in which he, in this passage, rather casually than otherwise, expresses this view, correct in itself, namely, that it is already indicated by the use of the singular in the text which gives the Abrahamic promise, appears to demand the explanation given by most interpreters, as derived from the Rabbinical training of his youth. Wieseler.

[The ground of this assumption of Rabbinical method in his argumentation is this: that the stress of the argument rests on a grammatical error; the Hebrew word, which he renders , having no plural answering to or seeds. Granting this, it must yet be remembered that the consequences involved in an admission of such playing with Divine truth, in a writer, who claims to speak for God, are too grave, to permit us to make such an admission hastily. Is there no other reasonably satisfactory explanation, which denies any Rabbinical influence, implying the slightest quibbling? If there be, justice to such a writer as Paul, aside from any reverence for this Epistle as inspired, should lead us to adopt it. Jeromes application of to this verse is hardly allowable. He would not intentionally weaken his own cause thus. Lightfoot well says: It is quite as unnatural to use the Greek plural with this meaning as the Hebrew. This fact points to St. Pauls meaning. He is not laying stress on the particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective term, is employed, where or , for instance, might have been substituted. Avoiding the technical terms of grammar, he could not express his meaning more simply than by the opposition not to thy seeds, but to thy seed. The singular collective noun, if it admits of plurality, at the same time involves the idea of unity. Ellicott: We hold that there is as certainly a mystical meaning in the use of in Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8, as there is an argument for the resurrection in Exo 3:6, though in neither case was the writer necessarily aware of it. As the word in its simple meaning generally denotes not the mere progeny of a man, but his posterity viewed as one organically-connected whole; so here in its mystical meaning it denotes not merely the spiritual posterity of Abraham, but Him in whom that posterity is all organically united, the , the even Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly to convey to his Greek readers by the use of and . Comp. Wordsworth, Olshausen in loco. How Pauline this conception is, will appear to every student of the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Pauls Rabbinical training undoubtedly made him quick and close in discrimination respecting the Old Testament; that it ever made him quibble, and institute false distinctions is against his character as well as against his inspiration.R.]

That any explanation of the passage which maintains that Paul does not mean to interpret seed of the person of Christ is incorrect, needs no proof. [Against this, see Alford in loco.R.] Doubtless, secondarily, those who are of Christ are also the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29), but it is only because, primarily, Christ is this seed. This reference of seed to the person of Christ is not disproved by alleging that thereby the , the inheritance would be promised to Christ as well as to Abraham. But, it may be asked, is then the inheritance promised to Christ; is He designated as the Heir, and not rather as the Mediator and Bringer of the inheritance? Doubtless the latter, but primarily He is Himself the universal Heir; therefore in Gal 3:19 he is called distinctly the universal Heir: the seed to whom the promise was made. Let us only vividly apprehend the course of prophecy that sketches the history of redemption. The Messiah Himself, according to it, is He who occupies the promised inheritance, that is, who takes full and abiding possession of it, and by this very fact, brings in the time of salvation and of Gods kingdom. The conception is therefore one somewhat different from that in Gal 3:14, but both are equally according to truth, and the two modes of conception are most intimately connected. For Christ is certainly the Heir, only, He is the Heir in order to procure for His people the participation of the inheritance and therewith the blessing of God. And, as is self-evident, it is this truth, namely, that He in turn brings the inheritance into the possession of His people, which is here mainly in mind. Inasmuch as the had reference to Him, it had and has reference also to those that are Christs; the question as to them therefore still remains to be answered; nay, it is as to them that it occurs, how they become partakers of the inheritance promised in the covenant. For that the covenant with the promise of the inheritance is valid also for the Christian dispensation, that it is confirmed by God to Christ, is only one side of the truth. On the other side it was maintained with reference to the law that had come between, that the attainment of the inheritance had now become encumbered with the condition of the fulfilment of the law, that it came now of the law and no more simply of promise. This assertion Paul now opposes, by applying what was said in Gal 3:5 about a covenant in general, to the covenant of God.

Gal 3:17. A covenant that has been before confirmed by God to Christ.This passage, as Wieseler says, is rightly understood only by considering that the assertion which Paul undertakes to refute is not the assertion of an entire abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant by the law, but only that of a modification in the Judaistic sense by the law of an invalidating, so that it should make void the promise (which would be an invalidating, because thereby the character of the covenant as a promise given by grace, and thus its specific peculiarity would be taken away). This alone gives the sense of Gal 3:18 : I have a right to say: it does not invalidate that it should make void the promise; for if the inheritance is obtained by law, it no longer comes of promise; but of promise it is to come, for it was assured by God to Abraham through promise, and of grace. We cannot therefore concede an invalidating, so that the promise is made void through the law, for this would take away something essential to the covenant; but, according to Gal 3:15, this cannot be.[Various interpretations of have been suggested. The simplest and most obvious one is: unto Christ, i.e., as the second party to whom the covenant was ratified. Ellicott suggests to be fulfilled in Christ, and renders for Christ. Perhaps that of Wordsworth is implied: unto Christ: so as to tend toward, and be consummated in Christ as its end, who, as man, sums up all Abrahams seed in Himself. But on the whole it is best to reject the words as a gloss.R.]

The law which was four hundred and thirty years after.Paul has taken the number from Exo 12:40, but apparently from the text of the LXX. which adds thus including the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan (as do also the Samaritan text and Josephus Ant., 2, 15, 3), while according to the Hebrew text this number covers only the duration of the sojourn in Egypt. Therefore it is hardly to be said, that Paul has here made a mistake of memory, but only that, on account of his Greek-speaking readers, who used the Septuagint, he has here, as commonly in his Old Testament citations, adhered to the tradition of the LXX., which he could the more easily do, because the precise numbers of the years was a matter of no moment. Wieseler. [Though the precise number is of no moment as respects Pauls argument, the chronological difficulty is a grave one. The period from the call of Abraham to the departure of Jacob into Egypt is fixed at two hundred and fifteen years. The question is: must we compute the sojourn there as extending over four hundred and thirty years, or only two hundred and fifteen years. The Hebrew text, Exo 12:40, seems to demand the former term (and also Stephen, Act 7:6, four hundred years, as in the prophecy Gen 15:13, both of which passages give round numbers). The latter term is that of the commonly received chronology. If it be adopted, the difficulty is thrown mainly upon the passage, Exo 12:40, to which the LXX. add as above. Alford and Ellicott suggest this strong point in favor of the shorter term, viz., that from the data respecting ages and births, the longer term would make the age of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, at least two hundred and fifty-six years when Moses was born. So that the longer term makes the accurate statement of numbers overthrow the accurate statement of genealogies and events, which was far less likely to be tampered with. The gloss, if it be a gloss, of the LXX. affords the easiest solution of the difficulty, and Gen. 15:40, Act 7:6, are then to be explained in the same way. Comp. Usher, Windischmann, Hales.R.]

Gal 3:18. But God hath freely granted it to Abraham through promise.Prominence is to be given to the fact that God has .not limited His promise, which He gave to Abraham, by conditioning it on a fulfilment of the law, but that it was a promise of pure grace; therefore, says Paul, God has, out of grace, by means of promise, bestowed, s. c., the inheritance on Abraham, i. e., not put him in actual possession, but assured it to him. The two expressions, freely granted, and through promise, are conjoined to exclude most definitely the idea of the law.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Epochs of Revelation. In the preceding section, as well as this, Paul has not cared to conduct a Scripture demonstration merely by the citation of isolated passages, but has used a freer and nobler method with the Scriptures. He showed in the revelation of God to Abraham a prophetic setting forth of the perfect revelation of God exhibited in Christ (especially at the close of Gal 3:14 had this become evident), and thus placed the Scripture in the light of a history of the revelation of redemption. This view of it has become, in the present section (as far as to Gal 4:2), the controlling one. The law also here constitutes for him an epoch of the revelation of God, so that there are three of these epochs represented by Abraham, Moses, and Christ. They are not, however, simple stages of development, but the first and the third belong essentially together in one order, as germ and fruit; for the middle epoch, so diverse in character, a false claim is made, which it is his endeavor to refute, and to assign and establish its just position.The suggestions which Paul here gives are important starting points for a just historical apprehension of Revelation, and at the same time an example of a proper adjustment of relations and reconciliation of apparent contradictions in it.

2. The Law is not a complement of the Covenant of Promise. It is not till in the next section that the purpose and meaning of the law, and its relation to the covenant of promise, are expounded positively. The negative proof, however, here adduced, is of itself important; viz.: That the law is not, and is not to be regarded or treated as a complement and rectification of the Covenant of Promise, so that whatever at first was freely promised as a boon should be now encumbered with a burdensome condition. Or rather, this was so, indeed, but only for a time, for a definite season (as is shown afterwards). In this way, however, the inheritance was not actually attained, but as it was originally assured purely by promise, so is it now attained only through faith, the subjective correlative of the promise; and only this is required.

[3. The sum of the Apostles argument. This, then, is the sum of the Apostles argument: A ratified, unrepealed constitution, cannot be set aside by a subsequent constitution. The plan of justification by believing was a ratified and unrepealed constitution. The law was a constitution posterior to this by a long term of years. If the observance of the law were constituted the procuring cause or necessary means of justification, such a constitution would necessarily annul the covenant before ratified, and render the promise of more effect. It follows, of course, that the law was appointed for no such purpose. Whatever end it might serve, it could not serve this end; it could never be appointed to serve this end.Brown. What end it serves, the Apostle states in the section immediately following.R.]

4. Christ the Seed of Abraham. Seed, comprehends posterity generally, and therefore of course a plurality. But among this posterity one nevertheless was found upon whom the whole expectation of faith was directed, and through whom also all promise first received its fulfilment. As Christ at His actual coming into the world humiliated Himself to live as a man among men, and had to be discovered and sought out by means of the words and works that were His alone, in like manner was He in the promise also concealed, as it were, among the seed, or among the collective posterity of Abraham, so that only when the time was fulfilled could any plainly distinguish Him and say: This is Christ, this is He who sanctifies and blesses, who yet is of the same descent with those that are sanctified and blessed; therefore also He is not ashamed to call them brethren, and it was not unbefitting Him, that all should be comprehended in the one Seed.Rieger.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.

Gal 3:15.Brethren.Rieger: By this address the Apostle noticeably softens the sharpness used in the first verse. Nothing calls for so much consideration, for so thorough a mingling of sharpness and gentleness, as when men fall back under the law and the blindness as to the gospel conjoined therewith. For the bewitching arts of the prince of this world, which are implied therein, and the mischief to be feared therefrom, demand sharpness; the hunger and thirst after righteousness yet alive in the conscience, and the love to the truth, demand to be appealed to with the utmost possible tenderness.In the word of God throughout there is much condescension to our weakness, or much that is presented in human style, suitable to our power of comprehension. God has also actually so arranged it, that between the visible and the invisible, between the ordinances in the realm of nature and in the realm of grace there is much that is similar, and we therefore through the images furnished us by our experience in human life, obtain a true conception of the ordinances of grace. The Incarnation of the Son of God has such an influence on the whole economy of God forward and backwards, that God everywhere deals with us after the manner of a man.Lange:Human ordinances and institutions, which in themselves serve for the outward well-being of human and civil society, are in themselves not to be contemned. Since God counts them worthy that His apostles should therewith make clearer the economy of His kingdom.In Starke:If a great lord gives us his hand and seal, we are satisfied and believe, that the heavens will fall before such a promise will be broken. Why do we not rather trust the sealed handwriting of our God who cannot lie.Addeth thereto.In divine things the human addition is often discernible, but very improperly, often causing that nothing pure is left.[So the annulling by the addition of the law would make void the promise.R.]

Gal 3:16.Spener: In the Holy Scripture all is written with Divine wisdom, therefore no word, no letter, no arrangement of the words is settled at random.Divine truth must be found in the Holy Scripture itself and the letter of it, and may not be expected by separate communication from the Holy Ghost. Else Paul could not insist upon a little word and thereupon rest his argument.[Paul, who takes such a broad view of the Scriptures as the one great history of Redemption, is the one who notices the truth in the least details of the word. One need not be a loose expositor, in order to have broad views; the accurate reader is not contracted by his accuracy.R.]

Gal 3:17. STARKE: Sacred chronology gives a great light, for a more accurate insight into the ways of God.[How many read their Bibles, as if the whole were written at one time. They acknowledge a history there, but it sheds no light for them upon the great truth of God as a whole.Abraham and Moses. How prominent, how related.How often the followers of Christ stop at Moses, when they ought to go back to Abraham!The covenant was confirmed of God to Christ. Through Abraham, indeed, yet It is essentially a covenant between God and our Redeemer. So the Old Covenant is the new and everlasting Covenant.R. ]

Gal 3:18. Starke It is impossible to have righteousness and salvation partly from the works of the law, and partly from grace. For these are opposing things, that destroy one another. It must either be of works alone or of grace alone; now it is not of works, therefore it is of grace alone.Rieger:So long, indeed, as the human heart in falsehood still parts its love between light and darkness, nothing were more pleasing, than if it could thus turn from side to side between the promise and its own merit, that is, if, so far as might be, it could boast itself of merit and the law, and where these were too scant, could put forward, under cover of the promise, the grace and merit of Christ. Then, moreover, there would be in this way no great need of going deep in either quarter; it would only be to bend a little to the law, and as to the appropriation of grace, it need not call for any very special humility. But with such a divided heart, one has neither access to grace, nor entrance into the everlasting inheritance.

All that we have from the Gospel or from the promise, is a gift, a free gift of grace, and nothing is attained by obedience as a condition. We are not, therefore, to regard a godly life as a condition of obtaining the blessings of grace, but as a part of the grace itself which the Lord shows us[How old this method of grace by covenant of promise ! Older than Moses. Yet how new! for we never apprehend it until God reveals it to us by His spirit, and then it seems as though it were a revelation of something entirely new.The benefits of the gospel are all through promise. Hence all of grace, all to faith, all for the glory of the Promiser!R.]

2. The law had undoubtedly its value, and that for the attainment of salvation itself, but only a preparatory, and therefore also a transitory value. Believers are free from it.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(15) Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. (16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (18) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

No form of words could have been more happily chosen, than what is here done, to show the unchangeable nature of the Covenant in itself; and to manifest at the same time, that it is all completed in Christ. The Covenant being from everlasting, partook of all properties suited to its everlasting nature; and as such, was ordered in all things and sure. And nothing could possibly arise, from which provision was not made. Consequently nothing could counteract the whole design. And when this Covenant was made and confirmed, by all the Persons of the Godhead; nothing could be added to, or taken from. Even a man’s covenant, (with Paul,) once stamped and sealed, is not to be rescinded. Now as the Almighty Covenanters engaged for all the parts of this Covenant, it is plain, that no respect was had either to the good works, or, to the evil works, of those, who were to be the highly favored objects of the bounty this Covenant promised. The Church of Christ, was considered as in need, of this rich mercy. And the Church of Christ had nothing to do, but to be the receiver of it. Jehovah, in his threefold character of Person, was neither constrained by the Church’s deservings, nor restrained by her undeservings. All was of grace. And the whole result was all along intended, to be to the praise of the glory, of His grace, who hath made the Church accepted in the Beloved. Eph 1:6 .

And, as the Covenant itself was, in its very nature, fixed, unalterable, and everlasting: so Christ, in whom the whole centered, and by whom the whole was to be accomplished, and who in fact was the whole of the Covenant, became the sole Security, on the part of his Church, for the fulfillment. Now, to Abraham (saith Paul) and his seed, were the promises made: (that is, were given, or deposited). He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one: and to thy seed, which is Christ. Nothing can more strongly define, both Christ, and his seed. For Abraham, had many children beside Isaac. But, in Isaac the line of grace ran. And to show at the same time, even in this line, that the children of promise were all of Christ; while, in the generations, from Abraham to Christ, all pointed to Christ: and the promised seed, Christ himself, came in with the fall. The very first promise of the Bible, proclaimed Christ: when it was said, the seed of the woman. Gen 3:15 . And, without all question, or doubt in that holy portion of our nature, which the Son of God took into union with himself, was contained, all the spiritual seeds of holiness, from whence the nature of his Church should be formed; and become partaker with him, of all that she is capable of receiving, of grace here, and glory forever. He is the Head of his body the Church, the fullness of Him which filleth all in all Eph 1:22-23 .

And, to confirm this point still more, the Apostle refers to the great distance in point of time, after which the law was given from that period, when God confirmed the Covenant to Abraham. Four hundred and thirty years ran out, before the law was heard of. And how, in the nature of things, could this be supposed, to counteract the Lord’s original purposes, revealed to Abraham? And besides this, it was at least two thousand years, from the first, and original promise at the fall: yea, the Covenant itself, and all the promises, were in Christ, before the world began. Psa 89:3 ; 1Ti 2:9 ; Tit 1:2 . Reader! do not fail to observe these things! A Covenant formed between the Persons of the Godhead, from all eternity; formed in Christ, depending wholly for accomplishment by Christ, and all the blessings of it placed with Christ could have no respect to merit, or undeserving, in the objects of the proposed grace, either before, or after receiving the unspeakable mercy. For, as the Apostle elsewhere concludes; if it be by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. Rom 11:6 .

And if, from this unanswerable, and conclusive reasoning, the question should arise in any man’s mind, wherefore then serveth the law? The answer (saith Paul) is direct: It was added because of transgressions, until Christ the seed should come. That is to show the heinousness of sin, and the holiness of God: and thereby more fully prove, the infinite importance of redemption by Christ. And nothing could so effectually manifest, the desperately wicked state of man’s nature by the fall, as when held forth in the glass of God’s holy law. For, precepts to holiness, act as a bridle upon our corrupt affections, and we thereby discover our propensities the stronger to offend: just as pent up waters, swell, and grow more violent, the more they are restrained. And hence the law was added, to show poor fallen man, the awful state, to which by sin he is reduced; and the more powerfully to show, the necessity of Christ. Reader! it would be always blessed, if men so viewed the holiness of God’s law, and their total inability to perform it. Jesus, and his complete salvation, would then be valued, as the one only ordinance of heaven, whereby we must be saved.

On the subject which the Apostle next treats of, respecting the law being ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator; I am free to confess, that after the numberless times I have read this Scripture; I know not, whether my apprehension of the Apostle’s meaning is correct. No Commentator that I have seen, hath afforded me any satisfaction upon it. And the greater part of their opinions I differ from. Under these circumstances, I shall venture to give the Reader what appears to me to be the most probable sense of the passage, without determining upon the correctness of it: and I pray God the Holy Ghost, to be the Teacher on this occasion, both of the Writer, and Reader, of this Poor Man’s Commentary.

I see no difficulty, however, in apprehending what is said on the subject, in relation to the angels. They are no more than servants, or messengers, upon the occasion. And certainly, nothing can be intended by what is here observed, than that their services were used at the giving of the law. Ordained by angels, means not, that they had a hand in forming, or framing, the law. This was (and is expressly said to be) in the hand of a Mediator. The Apostle elsewhere useth a different word, to what he here names ordained; and saith, the word was spoken by angels. Heb 2:2 . And Stephen, in his defence before the council, terms it, disposition of angels. Act 7:53 . The sense, therefore, is plainly this, and no more: that the Lord was pleased, as he did upon various other occasions to the Church, to make use of the services of angels, in ordaining, or speaking, or disposing; that is, delivering, the law. Heb 1:6 ; Gen 32 ; Joh 1:51 ; Mat 25:31 , etc.

But the great difficulty, to the full, and clear apprehension of the passage, relates to the Person of the Mediator here spoken of. The question is, whom doth the Holy Ghost mean? The general opinion of Commentators, decidedly declare it to be Moses. But to me, I confess, nothing appears to be more improbable. For, not to remark, how unsuitable so high an office of dignity, must be, for the exercise of any, that is but merely man and no more; the terror, and apprehension of Moses at this scene of Sinai, totally disqualified him from it, had nothing beside been unfavorable to this opinion. And though some, to lessen the force of this objection, have observed, that Moses only acted here, as a type of Christ; yet this was altogether unnecessary, when, as is evident from other Scriptures, Christ was himself present. And although Moses, as the servant, and minister of the Lord Jesus, went in, and out, before Christ’s Church; (Deu 5:5-27 .) yet no where through all the Bible is he ever called mediator. But, on the contrary, God the Holy Ghost tells the Church finally, and fully, by Paul, that there is One Mediator (and the very expression implies that there is no other) between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. 1Ti 5 . See Commentary on the passage.

And moreover, on the supposition that Moses was here meant, as personating Christ; then, in this case, there was only one party present, at the delivery of the law, namely, God. And the Holy Ghost by Paul saith, that a Mediator is not a Mediator of one; for there must be two parties at least in every Covenant: for otherwise he cannot be called a mediator, where there is nothing to mediate, or come between. Whereas, if Moses be considered on this occasion as a mediator, where was the other party to form the Covenant? In this sense, I should be rather inclined to consider Moses as the representative of the Church, than a mediator, or the representative of a mediator; for then, both parties might be said to be present.

According, therefore, to every view which can be taken of the subject, we can look nowhere for this Mediator, but to the Lord Jesus Christ. And, although a difficulty seems to arise, (and who is there taught of God, but must expect continual difficulties to arise in our perception of divine things, in the present twilight of knowledge?) how Christ should be the Mediator, at the giving of the law, when the Holy Ghost declares him to be the Mediator of a better Covenant established upon better promises: Heb 8:6 . yet difficulties are less, in reconciling this apprehension of things together, than in the former. Though the law be called the ministration of death, when compared to the Gospel; and Christ himself is the source of life, to his people: yet the law is said to be spiritual also; and was intended to act spiritually in the Church, unto the coming of Christ. And, it should seem to be the more probable conclusion, that Christ is the Mediator on this occasion, in whose hand the law was ordained, than any other: though I beg it may be understood, that I presume not to speak the least decidedly upon the subject.

But the Reader will indulge me yet a little farther I hope, to bring before him a few more Scriptural testimonies (as they appear to me) in confirmation of it; and as the subject is in itself so highly interesting.

The Prophets who have noticed the solemn transaction, of the giving of the law, at Mount Sinai, appear to have uniformly considered Christ, as the manifested Jehovah, on this occasion. Thus the Psalmist: He first speaks of the Lord’s descension on the Mount; and immediately connects with it his ascension when redemption-work was finished. And, that the Psalmist considered the splendid acts, to have been accomplished by one and the same Person, the smallest reference to the Scripture he hath given on the subject, will fully prove. See Psa 68:17-18 . and Poor Man’s Commentary there.

In like manner, the Prophet Habakkuk, when speaking of God, coming from Teman; and the Holy One, from Mount Paran: (a well-known name of the Lord Jesus Christ:) he connects the subject of this glorious One, going before Israel in the Wilderness, with Him as one, and the same Person, which went forth for the salvation of his people; even for salvation with his anointed ones. (For so the words may be rendered.) See Hab 3:3-13 . compared with: Mic 5:2 . and Poor Man’s Commentary in both places.

And still further. It is worthy remark, that Stephen, when under the full influence of the Holy Ghost, as he stood before the Sanhedrim, expressly calls Christ, the Prophet foretold by Moses; and then as expressly added: This is He that was in the Church in the Wilderness, with the Angel, which spoke to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the lively Oracles to give unto us. Act 7:38 and Commentary. A plain proof, that Stephen, as well as the Prophets, considered Christ present at those solemn transactions, in the Mount.

And what should seem to be the fair, and probable conclusion, from the whole, in reference to this most interesting subject; (for I still beg it may be considered I am not speaking decidedly, but rather in a way of enquiry,) but that Christ, who in his office-character as Wisdom-Mediator, saith himself, that he was set up from everlasting; Pro 8:22 was, and is, the same in all ages of his Church, who hath come forth from the invisibility of the divine essence, to make known, all that can be made known, of the purpose, and will of God. In the early ages, by glorious manifestations of his divine presence. In the after days of his flesh, in open revelation. But in all, as the only visible Jehovah. Hence, all things are in his hand, as in the hand of a Mediator. He reveals the law, in the Shechinah glory before his incarnation. He fulfills the law, in the days of his tabernacling among his people. And He was, and is, and will be, to all eternity, the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. Rom 10:4 . And hence, so considered, we enter into some apprehension of that sweet, and precious Scripture of Christ himself; which seems, as far as we can at present judge, not to be explained in any other way. No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven; even the Son of Man, which is in heaven. He who in his Covenant office and character, after redemption-work was finished, ascended up to heaven, is the same which came down from heaven; having stood up from everlasting in heaven, in the Covenant Council of chosen God-Man-Mediator: even the Son of Man; who in the same Covenant-character represented is in heaven. Joh 3:13 and Commentary there.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

IV

JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER BEFORE GOD (CONTINUED)

Gal 3:15-22 .

This discussion commences at Gal 3:15 , thus: “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.”

There is no reference to that in either the Sinaitic covenant or the grace covenant. Man’s law concerning a covenant between men requires that the agreement be kept according to its terms, whether verbal or written. Nothing not expressed can be added or substituted. A mental reservation on the part of either of the makers of the covenant, nor any afterthought on the part of either can be considered in human law. So long as the covenant is tentative, i.e., under consideration, terms of agreement may be modified, but when it is consummated and ratified it must stand on the terms expressed. This applies not only to all trades between individuals but to all treaties between nations. Even in human judgment Paul means to say that the character of man or nation stands impeached when a ratified covenant is broken. Disgrace attaches to the covenant breaker. See in Paul’s terrible arraignment of the heathen the odious place and company of “covenant breakers” (Rom 1:29 ). Here he is showing the immorality of the heathen life in that they have refused to have God in their knowledge. God gave them up, “Being filled with all unrighteousness) wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers.” If we notice the place that covenant breakers occupy in that, and also notice the company in which they are placed, we get a conception of how even human law judges a man that breaks a covenant. The brand of infamy burned on the covenant breaker derives its odium, not merely from the fact that all social order depends upon the keeping of faith according to compact, but from the fact that ratification involves an appeal to God as witness to the compact made in his name and under oath expressed or implied. See Heb 6:16 , and compare the covenant between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21:22-32 ). There is a covenant between two men. After clearly staling the terms of the covenant, sacrifices are offered, and the oath to God is taken that they will keep that covenant. Then turning to Gen 31:44-53 , we read the covenant between Jacob and Laban, his father-in-law. There again is an oath and a memorial called Mizpah: “God shall witness between thee and me as to how we keep this covenant.” The brand of infamy burned on the covenant breaker derives its significance from the customs among nations of regarding a compact of that kind as being made under witness of God and under oath to God. It is in this light that we understand the famous scripture describing the citizen of Zion, in Psa 15 : “Lord who shall ascend unto thy holy hill? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart and that sweareth to his own hurt and that changeth not,” that is, a man makes a trade with his fellow man and afterward finds put that the trade is very disadvantageous to him; he must not take it back; he swore to his own hurt but he didn’t change; he stood up to his word, that is, having made the compact he sticks to it, no matter how disadvantageous to him, and in this light we understand the reproach cast upon the Carthaginians by the Romans in the proverb, “Punic faith,” because, as they alleged, the Carthaginians violated solemn treaties ratified by oath and sacrificed to the gods. I am explaining in giving this illustration what Paul means by saying, “I speak after the manner of men.” Luther, in his comment on this verse, is mistaken in limiting the meaning of the diatheke (covenant) to man’s last will and testament. In only two verses in the New Testament is diatheke to be rendered a ”last will and testament,” viz.: Heb 9:16-17 , where the author finds a resemblance on one point between a covenant’ which becomes binding when ratified by the blood of the sacrifice and a will which becomes binding on the death of the testator.

But Paul’s argument here is from the lesser to the greater. If man’s law will not permit the annulment of a covenant ratified between men by any subsequent emergency or after thought, how much more God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 12:1-13 ) concerning all nations could not be annulled by the Sinaitic law covenant with one nation.

The force of the argument is overwhelming as Paul develops it:

1. The Sinaitic covenant was 43o years after the solemn promise of God concerning all nations.

2. The “seed” of the promise in Abraham’s case is one; he says, “of seed” not seeds; not many as in the law covenant; there the seed of Abraham with which that covenant was made is plural, about 3,000,000 of them standing there. A covenant of one kind made with the multitude cannot annul a promise which is given to one person.

3. The promise carried a blessing through the one seed, Christ, to all nations, whereas the law covenant, while it was with the fleshly seed of Abraham lineal descendants (plural), a great multitude concerned one nation only.

4. The first was by promise and not by law; hence a vast difference in the terms or conditions of inheritance. An inheritance by promise cannot be an inheritance by law, and vice versa. It will be noticed that this section says in the next place that this promise to Abraham was confirmed before of God. When was it confirmed and how was it confirmed? It was confirmed when Abraham offered up Isaac as set forth in Gen 22 . It was given before, but it was confirmed then and it was confirmed by an oath. Men confirm what they say by an oath. Witnesses go into court concerning a pending murder trial, and every man and woman of them has to swear to the evidence given. Men confirm their testimony by an oath. In the letter to the Hebrews the author says “For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater; and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Or, as Paul expressed it in Rom 4:16 : “For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Mark the reason that the promise might be sure to all seed. The law covenant could not make things sure, it could not in its time, for it had to be repeated every day, every week, every month, every year and so over and over again. It could not be made sure, because if they kept the law one day, or one year, or one hundred years and then violated it in one particular the next year, they were out; it could not be sure. But the inheritance by promise is absolutely sure, because it is based on a promise.

Now, I will give an explanation of the last clause of Gal 3:17 of this chapter and of Gal 3:18-20 , of which no commentary known to me has ever given a satisfactory explanation. I might cite many different explanations. In Gal 3:17 Paul distinguishes between the grace covenant confirmed of God and announced to Abraham and the promise of that covenant given to Abraham, and argues’ that the law covenant given 430 years later for quite another purpose and to different persons could not disannul that promise. In the verses following, up to Gal 3:20 , he is not contrasting the grace covenant with the law covenant but the promise of the grace covenant with the law covenant. Just here come the words hard to be understood: “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one.” How are these words to be construed relevantly with the argument? I am able to see but one way. The law was given through a mediator because there were two distinct parties between whom Moses should be the “go-between” or mediator. But in the case of the promise there was only one party. God, who of grace freely promises. Hence, there is no need of a mediator in the case of a promise. “God is one,” not two. God promises of himself. In the law covenant there were two, God and the people. His point is just this, that the law covenant had two parties to it, and these parties being at variance, a mediator, Moses, was employed to bring them into agreement. In Order to have the mediator there must be two parties, but in a promise, there is only one and that is God, no mediator, but a promise. An inheritance by promise cannot be inheritance by law, and vice versa.

5.The nature of the inheritance was different. The object of the promise was to secure spiritual blessings and a heavenly country; the object of the law was to secure earthly blessings and an earthly Canaan.

6. In a naked promise of pure grace there is no mediator because there ‘is only one, not two, and he, of pure grace in himself, not from obligation of a compact with nations, promises a blessing to all nations, but as there were two in the law covenant there was a necessity for the mediator, Moses, the “go-between” of the two parties. It is impossible to interpret intelligently the last clause of Gal 3:17 and Gal 3:18-20 , if we ignore the fact that Paul in these particular passages is contrasting, not covenant with covenant, but promise with covenant. He does indeed in this last clause of Gal 3:17 and throughout Gal 3:18-20 , contrast promise with covenant in order to show how inheritance comes. There is no mediator in a promise, because there is only one party, God, who of pure grace in himself, promises, and not of a compact obligation. At Sinai were distinctly two parties; God, the party of the first part, proposes a covenant to the Jewish nation, the party of the second part, through a mediator, Moses. But when he promised that in Abraham’s seed, singular number, meaning Christ, all the families of nations, nations of the earth, should be blessed, God, who is only one, was indeed present, but the nations, thousands of them yet unborn, were not present. Hence there was no compact between God and the nations, and hence no mediator was necessary. The nations assumed no obligation. A promise relates to the future, and this promise was not given on any assumed condition hereafter to be performed by them. The blessing of the promise was not in them nor conditioned on what they would be in meeting compact terms. It was in Christ, and on the condition of what he would do. In saying that there is no mediator in a promise to men given freely by one party alone, it is not said that there is no grace covenant whose benefits Christ mediates to men. That covenant does have parties to it. But man is not one of the parties, for in a strict sense it was not made with Abraham, but only the promise of its blessings given to him. The parties to the grace covenant were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it was made in eternity before the world was, and each of these parties had stipulations to perform in behalf of men who were to receive the blessings of the covenant, the Father to give his only begotten Son to become the sinner’s substitute in death and judgment, and then to give him a spiritual seed, the Son to do the Father’s will in an assumed nature, in obedience unto death on the cross, and the Spirit to apply the vicarious sacrifice of the Son and to regenerate and sanctify those to whom the application is made. And from this eternal covenant, arise in eternity election and predestination, calling, justification, and regeneration on earth, and glorification in eternity after the Lord’s final advent. I say this covenant was not made with Abraham, but the promise of its blessings was made to him; made to him, however, in his one promised seed, even Christ. The law covenant was temporary; it was only, as the text says, to last until the promised seed comes; it was transitory. The law covenant, because inferior, was given through the disposition of angels. It was subsidiary. I use the word, “subsidiary.” I will show what I mean. Our text says that the law covenant, 430 years after the promise, was superadded. What is meant by “superadded”? It was added to something that went before. What is it that went before? The grace covenant and the promise of the grace covenant. The law covenant did not come in to annul what preceded it, but it came in to be subsidiary to what preceded.

We come now to one of the greatest questions in the Bible, and Paul raises it squarely, “What then is the law?” Or as King James Version reads, “Wherefore then serveth the law?” If the law does not annul the grace covenant or its promise, what is it for? A man is a theologian who can answer that question scripturally. Here I give some scriptures to study and which must be interpreted before one can answer the question, “What then is the law?” I answer first negatively. Our text says it was not given as a law by which life could come. If we think a moment we see why; these people were sinners, already under condemnation. How could any attempt on their part to keep the law in the future bring them life? Suppose the sinner should say, “I want to obtain life from the law,” and the law should put on its spectacles and say “Were you born holy, or did you start right?” That question knocks him out at the start. If there was not anything else he is gone. In Romans we see how Paul elaborates this. Our case was settled before we were born. Suppose we waive this question of starting right, can we perfectly keep this law? Let us assume that we say, “Yes.” Now, what part of our life is absolutely perfect? If we are guilty of one point, we are guilty of all. If we should obey the law perfectly thirty years and then fail on one point we are gone. “What then is the law?” or “Why the law?” It certainly was not intended to confer life. And it was not intended to bring us the Holy Spirit, for I have already proved in the beginning of the chapter that the Spirit was received by the hearing of faith Take the great blessing forgiveness of sins and justification was the law intended as the way of justification? It was not intended as a way of life; it was not intended to justify, for “By the works of the law shall no flesh in thy sight be justified.” What then is the law? Here are the scriptures to be read: Galatians 3-4; Rom 7:1-14 ; Rom 5:20 ; Rom 3:31 ; Rom 4:15 ; 2Co 3:6-9 . When one can expound these scriptures he can answer the question, “What then is the law, or why: the law?” What purpose does it serve? Paul says it was superadded to the grace covenant and subsidiary to the promise. Why was it added? Because of transgressions. But what the import of this reason?

The object of the law is not to prevent in, but to discover sin, t is a standard of right living, but it is not a way of life.

A man is a sinner and does not seem to know it. In order to serve a certain purpose of the grace covenant, the law must be superadded. Let us hold this standard right up before the man’s life, and whenever the life does not conform he is shown to be lawless. What is the purpose? To discover sin. I am sure we cannot set the man into the grace covenant, who has not discovered sin. Again the law was given to provoke to sin, to make sin abound, to provoke it to a development of all its potentiality, that sin may be seen as exceedingly sinful. So that the standard of the law not merely discovers sin, but by provocation develops it to its utmost expression. Sin must be made to appear exceedingly sinful. If we want to find what is in a boy, let us pass a law that he should not stand on top of a pole on one foot, and we shall see the boys climbing that pole and doing that very thing. It shows the lawless spirit that is in a child, even now. We thus see how law is subsidiary to the grace covenant, because one must realize sinfulness before we can bring him in touch with the promise of grace. Again, it is the object of the law to condemn and not to justify. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. If a man doesn’t feel that he is condemned, why should he seek to be justified? A great many people are quite sure that they are not under condemnation and therefore they do not need to be justified by the hearing of faith. What else? The law was added for wrath, to reveal the penalty of the sin. The law was added to gender bondage and death, to make a man see that he is a slave and doomed to death. The subsidiary nature of the law appears again in this expression of the context: “The law is a pedagogue unto Christ.” What is a pedagogue? Let us get back to the etymology of the word. The Greek word “pedagogue” originally did not mean a schoolmaster, but meant the slave that carried the little boy to the school that the teacher might teach him. The law does not teach a man the way of life, but it is the pedagogue the slave in whose charge he puts his little son before that son is grown, and the duty of that slave is to accompany that little boy to school. Why? If there were not somebody along the little boy might play truant and go fishing or hunting. This slave’s business was not to teach; it was to take him to the school where the teacher was to teach him. Now, says Paul, the law was intended to be our pedagogue to Christ. So we see the point and force of the “superadded.” The law is subsidiary; it does no saving itself, but it brings the sinner to one who can do something for him. An old preacher said, “When I find a perfectly hardened sinner that thinks he can stand on own record I take him to Mount Sinai and turn him over to it, smoking and thundering and let the hell-scare get him and when that hell-scare gets him he will look out for relief. He will know that he is a sinner.” The law is a pedagogue I unto Christ. An old Presbyterian preacher once said that he I sent Moses after a sinner, and by the time Moses knocked him down a time or two he would be ready to take the Saviour.

QUESTIONS

1. Expound Gal 3:15 , “though it be but a man’s covenant’ showing (1) The requirements of a man’s covenant. (2) The extent of their application. (3) The disgrace attached to a covenant breaker. (4) From what the brand of infamy on a covenant breaker derives its odium. (5) Old Testament examples of covenants so regarded. (6) The reproach cast upon the Carthaginians. (7) Luther’s mistake. (8) The nature Paul’s argument in this verse.

2. Give the force of Paul’s argument under the following heads; (1) The difference of time. (2) The “seed” of the promise. (3) The “all nations” versus one nation. (4) The condition of inheritance. (5) The promise confirmed when? (6) The purpose of the promise. (7) The nature of the inheritance. (8) The mediator of the covenant versus no mediator of the promise, expounding particularly Gal 3:17-20 .

3. In saying that there is no mediator in a promise to man given freely by one party alone, what is not said?

4. Who is the mediator of the grace covenant, who its parties, when made, and what the stipulations? From this covenant what great doctrines arise, (1) in eternity, (2) in time, (3) in eternity after the Lord’s advent?

5. What, then, Abraham’s relation to it?

6. What the argument based upon the fact that the law covenant was given by the disposition of angels?

7. How long was the law covenant to last?

8. Wherefore, then, the law, under following heads: (1) What scriptures to be studied here? (2) Meaning of “superadded” added to what? (3) Why added? (4) How does law (a) discover sin, (b) provoke to sin, (c) condemn sin, (d) gender to bondage and death, (e) reveal wrath or penalty?

9. How is the law a pedagogue unto Christ?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Ver. 15. I speak after the manner ] I set the matter forth to you by a familiar comparison.

Though it be but a man’s testament ] William Tracy, Esq., of Gloucestershire, made in his will, that he would have no funeral pomp at his burying, neither passed he upon a mass. And he further said, that he trusted in God only, and hoped by him to be saved, and not by any saint. This gentleman died, and his son as executor brought the will to the bishop of Canterbury to be proved, which he showed to the Convocation; and there most cruelly they judged that he should be taken out of the ground and be burnt as a heretic, A. D. 1532. Dr Parker, chancellor of Worcester, executed the sentence, and was afterwards sent for by King Henry VIII, who laid high offence to his charge, &c. It cost him 300 pounds to have his pardon. (Acts and Mon.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15 18 .] But what if the law, coming after the Abrahamic promise, abrogated that promise? These verses contain the refutation of such an objection: the promise was not abrogated by the law .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

15 .] . ; . Chr. But (see 1Co 15:32 ) the expression refers not only to the character of the example chosen, but to the temporary standing-point of him who speaks: I put myself for the time on a level with ordinary men in the world.

is out of its logical place, which would be after ; see on ref. 1 Cor. To make it ‘ even ’ and take it with , is contrary to its usage. A (mere) man’s covenant (not ‘testament,’ as Olsh., after Aug., al.; for there is here no introduction of that idea: the promise spoken to Abraham was strictly a covenant , and designated in the passages which were now in the Apostle’s mind, see Gen 15:18 ; Gen 17:7 . On the general meaning, see Mr. Bagge’s note) when ratified (reff.), no one notwithstanding (that it is merely a human covenant) sets aside or supplements (with new conditions, Jos. Antt. xvii. 9. 4 describes Archelaus as , ‘in his father’s subsequent testament:’ and again says of Antipas, B. J. ii. 2. 3, , . Nothing is implied as to the nature of the additions, whether consistent or inconsistent with the original covenant: the simple fact that no additions are made , is enounced).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 3:15-18 . GOD’S WORD WAS PLIGHTED TO ABRAHAM THAT HE WOULD BESTOW THE INHERITANCE ON HIS SEED (NOT ON ALL HIS DESCENDANTS, BUT ON ONE PARTICULAR SEED), AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE SET ASIDE BY SUBSEQUENT STIPULATIONS IN THE LAW.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Gal 3:15 . . . This preface indicates that the argument which it introduces is founded on the principles of human law and custom. . The meaning testament affixed to this word in classical Greek belongs to the Greek practice of testamentary disposition, other covenants being designated by , etc. But no such law or custom existed among the ancient Hebrews, so the LXX employed the word to express the Hebrew conception of a covenant between God and His people. As this was the outcome of God’s sovereign grace and bounty, and not a matter of mutual arrangement, it could hardly be described by any of the Greek terms for covenant ; it was, on the other hand, analogous to a disposition of property by testament, and was accordingly designated by the term . Thence it was extended also to covenants between man and man in the LXX. The same sense of covenant is attached to the word apparently throughout the N.T. Here, at all events, the distinct reference to the covenant with Abraham leaves no doubt of its meaning. . This phrase (= ) intimates that even men are bound by a contract duly ratified: a fortiori , God is bound by His plighted word. Two distinct methods of superseding a contract are suggested by and : it might be expressly annulled, or it might be overlaid by new stipulations.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 3:15-22

15Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Gal 3:15-17

NASB, NKJV”a man’s covenant”

NRSV”a person’s will”

TEV”that covenant”

NJB”If a will”

Paul proceeds with his argument by means of a common human illustration. He uses a term in Koine Greek which may be translated as either “will” or “testament,” in connection with one’s inheritance. In Classical Greek it is translated “covenant.” In the Septuagint this term is always used of a covenant between God and humanity. Due to this ambiguity, Paul used this legal metaphor as an example for God’s covenanting or contracting with Abraham and his descendants. This contract cannot be changed! The same type of argumentation using the concept of a last will and testament is found in Heb 9:15-20.

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

Gal 3:15

NASB”yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it”

NKJV”yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it”

NRSV”once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it”

TEV”when two men agree on a matter and sign a covenant, no one can break that covenant or add anything to it”

NJB”has been drawn up in due form, no one is allowed to disregard it or add to it”

Paul responds to the Judaizers’ claim that the Mosaic Law superseded the Abrahamic promise. The promise to Abraham in Genesis 15 was ratified by both God’s promise (i.e., the Exodus) and a sacrifice in which Abraham had no covenant responsibilities, only faith (i.e., an unconditional divine covenant, cf. Gen 15:12-21).

Gal 3:16 “the promises” “Promises” is plural because of the number of times God repeats His promise to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1-3; Gen 13:14-18; Gen 15:1-5; Gen 15:12-18; Gen 17:1-14; Gen 22:9-19).

“his seed” The use of “seed” is a word play on a common idiom for descendant. Although singular in form, it can be singular or plural in meaning. In this case, Paul used it as a reference to Jesus, not Isaacthus, God’s promise was not linked to the Mosaic Covenant. “Seed” could be understood in the corporate sense of God’s children by faith, like Abraham (cf. Rom 2:28-29).

Gal 3:17 “the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later” Paul gives another reason for the superiority of the Abrahamic promise, it preceded the Mosaic Law in time. There has been much discussion about the number four hundred and thirty years, which comes from Exo 12:40-41 and relates to the Egyptian captivity. Some scholars use the Septuagint translation and the Samaritan Pentateuch of Exo 12:40 which adds “and in the land of Canaan” (F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 170). Gen 15:13 and Act 7:6 record that Israel was in captivity in Egypt for 400 years. Others assert, however, that the promise was not to Abraham alone, but was repeated to all of the Patriarchs, and simply refers to the time from the last repeated promise to the Patriarchs to the time of Moses’ receiving the Law. In context, Paul’s explanation concerns not the duration of time, but the long interval between the promise to Abraham and the Law to Moses.

“as to nullify the promise” This word (katarge) is translated so many different ways but its main meaning is to make something useless, null and void, inoperative, powerless but not necessarily non-existent or destroyed.

SPECIAL TOPIC: NULL AND VOID (KATARGE)

“by God” This is the reading of the best ancient manuscripts (P46, , A, B, C, P) to which UBS4 gives an “A” rating (certain), but wait, several tenants of biblical criticism come into play.

1. on the positive side

a. usually the shorter reading is to be preferred (scribes tended to add and clarify, not remove)

b. the older and most widespread geographical reading is probably original. The longer reading is first found in MS D (sixth century)

2. on the other side

a. the most unusual reading is probably original. Paul normally has “in Christ” (en Christ), not “into Christ” (eis Christon)

b. the author’s normal usage affects how one views a variant. However, Paul uses the same unusual form in Gal 2:16; Gal 3:24.

See Appendix Two: Textual Criticism.

Gal 3:18

NASB”but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise”

NKJV”but God gave it to Abraham by promise”

NRSV”but God granted it to Abraham through the promise”

TEV”However, it was because God had promised it that he gave it to Abraham”

NJB”and it was precisely in the form of a promise that god made his gift to Abraham”

This perfect middle (deponent) indicative emphasizes what God Himself has done in the past with results that abide into the present. The basic root of “granted” (charizomai) is “gift” or “grace” (charis). It emphasizes the free nature of God’s acts, solely on the grounds of His character through the work of the Messiah.

Gal 3:19

NASB, NRSV”Why the Law then”

NKJV”What purpose then does the law serve”

TEV”What was the purpose of the Law, then”

NJB”What then was the purpose of adding the Law”

Paul returned to his rhetorical style of Gal 3:1-5. He began with two questions through which he tries to explain the purpose of the Mosaic Law in the plan of God (cf. Gal 3:19; Gal 3:21). He engages in this contrasting approach because he had so devastated the purpose of the Law in his previous argument that some readers might think he was advocating antinomianism. The OT still functions in sanctification but not (and never did) in justification!

SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL’S VIEWS OF THE MOSAIC LAW

“It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made” There are several different readings in the MSS tradition, but the one printed in NASB is rated “A” by the UBS4. Four elements regarding the Law’s inferiority to the promise may be discerned here.

1. it was added later

2. it increased transgressions

3. it was only until the Messiah, “the seed,” came

4. it was given through an intermediary

The phrase “increased transgressions” can be interpreted “limit transgressions.” This translation is possible syntactically. However, according to Paul’s full exposition in the early chapters of Romans (cf. Rom 3:20; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:1), the Law was given to clearly show humans their sins. Before the Law sin was not counted (cf. Rom 4:15; Rom 5:13).

Php 3:6 and Rom 7:7-11 pose a paradox. Paul felt that he had fulfilled the requirements of the Law in his life. However, covetousness, which was later made obvious to him, showed him that he was a sinner and in need of spiritual salvation.

The rabbinical view of angels as agents in the mediation of the Law can be seen in the translation of Deu 33:2 in the Septuagint. The angel(s) who are related to the giving of the Law are also discussed in Act 7:38; Act 7:53 and Heb 2:2; Josephus’Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.3; and the non-canonical Book of Jubilees, 1:27-29. Paul may have had in mind the Angel of the Lord who continued with the people when YHWH did not (cf. Exo 23:20-33; Exo 32:34; Exo 33:2).

Gal 3:20

NASB”Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one”

NKJV”Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one”

NRSV”Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one”

TEV”But a go-between is not needed when there is only one person; and God is one”

NJB”Now there can only be an intermediary between two parties, yet God is one”

This verse presents the interpreter with many different possibilities. In context, an obvious reading would be that the order of the Law’s transmission was from God, through angels, to Moses, to the people. Therefore, the promise is superior because it was given face-to-face between only two persons, God and Abraham, while the Mosaic covenant involved four parties. The promise to Abraham required no mediation.

It could also refer to God’s unconditional promise to Abraham in Gen 15:12-21. Only God participated in its ratification. Now, although God’s initial contact with Abraham was conditional (cf. Gen 12:1), Paul is using the Genesis 15 passage to make his point. The Mosaic covenant was conditional for God and mankind (see Special Topic at Gal 3:15-17). The problem was that since the Fall (cf. Genesis 3) mankind was incapable of performing their part of the covenant. The promise, therefore, based on God (i.e., “God is One”) alone, is superior!

Gal 3:21 “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God” The Greek text does not have the article with the term “law,” which would have implied the Mosaic Law. The use of “law” with no article occurs three times in Gal 3:21; Gal 4:5. Often “law” in Galatians does not have the article in which case it refers to mankind’s attempt to earn God’s favor by means of the performance of religious guidelines or cultural norms. The key is not which guidelines, but the belief that a human being cannot earn acceptance with a holy God (cf. Eph 2:9). Here is where a careful reading of Romans 7 is crucial.

The phrase “of God” has some variations in the Greek manuscripts.

1. some have “of God” MSS , A, C, D, F, G

2. some later minuscule manuscripts (104, 459) have “of Christ”

3. some omit the words MSS P46, B

The UBS4 cannot decide on the wording (“C” rating) and puts “of God” in brackets, which fits the context best.

“For if a law had been given” This second class conditional sentence which expresses a concept “contrary to fact.” An amplified translation would read: “if a law had been given that was able to impart life (which there never was), then right standing would have come through law (which it does not).” The Law was never the way to be right with God. It is a true revelation from God (Mat 5:17-19; Rom 7:12). The Law is inspired revelation and valuable but not in the area of right standing or salvation.

“righteousness” See Special Topic at Gal 2:21.

Gal 3:22

NASB”But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin”

NKJV”But the Scripture has confined all under sin”

NRSV”But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin”

TEV”But the Scripture has said that the whole world is under the power of sin”

NJB”Scripture makes no exceptions when it says that sin is master everywhere”

To which OT text Paul was alluding is uncertain, though one possibility is Deu 27:26, referred to earlier in Gal 2:16; Gal 3:10. The fall of humanity and their estrangement is the first point of Paul’s gospel (cf. Rom 3:9-18; Rom 3:22-23; Rom 11:32).

Literally this is “all things” (neuter), not “all men” (masculine). Some see here the cosmic significance of Christ’s redemption (cf. Rom 8:18-25; Eph 1:22 and the entire book of Colossians whose theme is cosmological redemption in Christ). However, in this context, it refers to all mankind, including Jews, Judaizers, and Gentiles.

“that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” This is a summary of the entire discussion that God’s grace and favor come through His promise to Abraham and his “Seed” (i.e., Messiah), not through human merit or performance! Notice the repetition of the term, pistis, translated as “faith” and “believe.” See Special Topic at Gal 3:6.

For a discussion of how to understand and translate “by faith in Jesus Christ” see note at Gal 2:16.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

after the manner of. Greek. kata. App-104.

covenant. Greek. diatheke, See Mat 26:28.

if it be = when.

confirmed, Greek. kuroo. See 2Co 2:8.

disannulleth. Same as “frustrate”, Gal 2:21.

addeth thereto. Greek. epidiataesomai. Only here.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15-18.] But what if the law, coming after the Abrahamic promise, abrogated that promise? These verses contain the refutation of such an objection: the promise was not abrogated by the law.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 3:15. ) yet; although it be only a mans testament or covenant, from which the comparison is taken.-, of a man) whose purpose it is of far less importance to maintain.-, confirmed) when once all things have been ratified, for example, by the death of the testator, Heb 9:16. So , , Gen 23:20.-) no man, not even the author himself, unless some unexpected cause either in his own mind or from without should happen (such a cause as cannot occur to God): much less any other person [since he is here indeed speaking of a point of equity (the matter of right), for in point of fact testaments or bequests made by men are sooner or later infringed not without incurring heavy guilt.-V. g.]; and to that other person the law corresponds in the Apodosis. For , the law, is here considered also, as a second person distinct from the promise of God, as it were by personification, in the same way that sin and the law are opposed to God, Rom 6:13; Rom 8:3; and Mammon, as if it were a master, is opposed to God, Mat 6:24 : and the elements of the world are compared with the tutors, and the law is called a schoolmaster, presently after, Gal 3:24, ch. Gal 4:2-3. The promise is looked upon as more ancient, and as spoken by God: the law, as more recent, and as distinguished from God the lawgiver; because the promise more peculiarly belongs to God; the law is, as it were, something more extraneous; see Gal 3:17-18; Gal 3:21-22.- , disannuls or adds to it) in whole or in part: by abolishing, taking away legacies, or adding new charges or conditions. Makes of none effect, Gal 3:17, corresponds to both words.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 3:15

Gal 3:15

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men:-He speaks of what is regarded as sacred among men to illustrate the certainty and sanctity of Gods covenant with Abraham.

Though it be but a mans covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.-If a covenant be but of man, if it be confirmed, no man adds to or takes therefrom. Much more, the conclusion is, if God makes a covenant and confirms it, it will stand unchanged. Now such a covenant was made by God with Abraham: For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. (Heb 6:13-18). Now God had confirmed the covenant with Abraham by his own oath and it could not be added to or taken from.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Chapter 16

Salvation

The Promised Inheritance of Free Grace

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

(Gal 3:15-20)

Pauls purpose in Galatians 3 is to show us that salvation, in its entirety, is the inheritance of free grace, the result of Gods absolute and unconditional promise through the blood of Christ. He is showing us that no part of the inheritance can be obtained by the works of the flesh, by obedience to the law. Paul, writing by divine inspiration, uses argument after argument to demonstrate the fact that this is not some new doctrine, but that it is the doctrine of Holy Scripture, constantly taught throughout the Old Testament. In this passage he shows us that the blessing of Abraham, the blessing of salvation by the blood of Christ and the operation of Gods omnipotent grace is an eternal, covenant blessing.

An Illustration

Paul has already shown us that the promise God made to Abraham was the promise of the gospel. That promise is an eternal, covenant promise. Here the apostle shows us the steadfastness of that covenant and the certainty of the promises of grace and salvation in the covenant, using earthly things as illustrations of heavenly things. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto (Gal 3:15). Because the promise was given to Abraham 430 years before the law was given on Mt. Sinai, it should be obvious that the law can never nullify the promise.

It is a matter of common knowledge that once a covenant has been ratified, it cannot be changed. Its terms cannot be altered. Pauls point is this: Because the promises of grace and salvation were made before the law was given, the law cannot alter or in any way nullify those promises. Therefore, justification, salvation, sanctification, and eternal life cannot come by the law. All the blessings of the gospel come by Gods free, unalterable promise, through the merits and efficacy of Christs redemptive accomplishments to all who, like Abraham, believe the gospel.

Pauls Argument

If a mans covenant cannot be overturned by something that happens after the covenant is ratified, you can be sure Gods covenant cannot be. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ (Gal 3:16). The promises of the gospel were given long before the law and cannot be annulled or modified by the law that came later. The word translated covenant in Gal 3:15 refers to what we would call last will and testament. There is no doubt that Paul uses the word in that sense here to illustrate his point. Yet, he is using it to refer to something far greater than a mans last will and testament. He is using it to refer to Gods everlasting, immutable, unalterable covenant of grace, and the promises of it made with his Son as our Surety before the world began.

Paul stresses the fact that the promise God made to Abraham was totally wrapped up in one person, Abrahams Seed, the Lord Jesus Christ. The promise was, from the beginning, based upon the work that Christ accomplished from eternity as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and would accomplish in time as our Surety, Redeemer, and Covenant Head. Therefore, as it has been from the beginning of time, so it is now. Grace, salvation, forgiveness, and eternal life flow to believing sinners freely through the sacrifice of Christ.

That which God confirmed to Abraham in Christ by the gospel that was preached to him cannot be nullified by the law given at Mt. Sinai. And that which God gave us in Christ from eternity, before the world began, which has been confirmed to us by the gospel (2Ti 1:9-10; Eph 1:3-7; Eph 1:13-14), cannot be nullified by anything that appears in time. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect (Gal 3:17).

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect (Gal 3:18). The inheritance Paul speaks of is an eternal inheritance, everlasting life and happiness in heaven. This is the gift of God in, by, and through Christ. It is not gained by obedience to the law, but by the gift of grace. This inheritance of grace includes all the blessings of grace and glory (Eph 1:3; 1Co 1:30-31). Paul is distinctly asserting that this inheritance includes justification and sanctification in Christ, the distinct blessings of grace promised in the covenant to Abraham and his spiritual Seed, that is to all Gods elect, both Jews and Gentiles, in Christ, Abrahams Seed.

These bounties of grace do not belong to those who seek them by the deeds of the law. They are not the heirs of the promise (Rom 4:14). These promises are obtained by faith alone, without works (Rom 4:16). And there can never be a mixture of faith and works, of grace and law, of mercy and merit. If salvation comes by promise, it cannot come by law. If it comes by law, it cannot come by promise. Salvation is the free gift of God by grace in Christ, without the works of the law. As John Gill states it, God gave it, freely, without any consideration of the works of the law, to Abraham by promise; wherefore justification is not by works, but by the free grace of God, through faith in the righteousness of Christ; and in this way men become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

430 Years

The fact that Paul speaks of the space between Gods promise to Abraham as being 430 years sometimes causes confusion. There were considerably more than 430 years between the time Gods covenant promises were given to Abraham (Genesis 12) and the giving of the law on Sinai (Exodus 20). Actually more than 600 years elapsed between the two events.

Did Paul make a mistake? Is there an error found in the Bible? Of course not! I am certain that Paul understated the space of time on purpose, taking the 430 years from Exo 12:40-41, which refers to the time of Israels sojourn in Egypt. He was simply using the event as an illustration. Without question, Paul chose this figure by the direction of God the Holy Spirit. Using this figure, he dates the covenant promise, not back to Abraham alone, but to the last of the patriarchs to whom the Lord successively renewed the promise (Jacob Genesis 28), lumping them all together as one. By writing this way, he both gives the goats a can to chew on and the sheep something else to rejoice their hearts. Just as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were one before God and all blessed with the same covenant blessings, freely and fully by grace alone, so all Gods elect are one in Christ and are all blessed with all the blessings of grace in the covenant, because we are one with Christ, our Covenant Head.

Gods Covenant

That which Paul obviously has in mind, when he speaks of Gods covenant with Abraham and the blessings of it, is the everlasting covenant of grace, so often spoken of in the Book of God (Jeremiah 31; Psalms 89; Hebrews 8; Hebrews 12; Ephesians 1; 2 Timothy 1). John Gill tells us that, The covenant of grace is a compact, or agreement made from all eternity among the divine Persons, concerning the salvation of the elect.

This covenant of grace is an eternal covenant. Before there was a star in the sky, before the sun was fixed in its place, before there was an angel in heaven to sing the praises of the triune God, before there was a man on earth made in the image and likeness of God, the everlasting Father determined to have a people for himself, like his only-begotten Son. As he loved his Son, so he loved his people before the world was (Joh 17:23-24). It was a covenant of pure grace and free mercy, made for Gods elect in Christ our Surety (Heb 7:20).

These are the words of that covenant as they are given in Scripture. Mercy shall be built up forever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the heavens. I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto my servant. Thy seed will I establish forever, and build thy throne to all generations. My mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him (Psa 89:2-4; Psa 89:28). The Psalmist declared, The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting (Psa 103:17).

This covenant of grace, and redemption, and life, was made between the sacred Persons of the blessed Trinity before the world began. Man had nothing to do with it. The foundation of the covenant is the love of God and his sovereign pleasure. The covenant was entirely free. The grace of God is its only cause. This everlasting covenant is the basis of all of Gods decrees and works. It is his own purpose according to which he brings all things to pass (Rom 8:28-30). He made the angels to be the servants of those whom he had appointed heirs of salvation. He made the earth as the abode of his elect. He created a race of men to call his people from among them. He ordained the fall of that race in order to show the fullness of his love in redeeming his people from the ruins of the fall. He gave the law to show us the terror we deserved. He gave his Son into the hands of the law to magnify the law and make it honorable, to satisfy its holy justice, and to display his great love for us in redeeming us. He ordained every step of our lives so that each of his elect might show forth most brilliantly the riches of his grace and glory forever. He sent his Spirit to fetch us to himself.

What does all this mean to believing sinners, to poor, weak, worthless sinners who look to Christ alone for salvation and eternal life? It means, All things are yours, for ye are Christs, and Christ is Gods. It means, all things work together for good to you. It means that no evil shall happen to you. It means that you shall never perish. Gods covenant encompasses all things for us. I remind you, too, that this is an immutable covenant. It is ordered in all things and sure. God will never break his covenant. Of our God it is written, he is a God keeping covenant (Neh 9:32). His faithfulness, which he will never allow to fail, is engaged in the covenant. My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee (Isa 54:10). My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips (Psa 89:34). This covenant is never to give way to another. It was hidden in ages past, under the law, in types and shadows; but it stands forever. God hath sent redemption to his people: He hath commanded his covenant forever: holy and reverend is his name (Psa 111:9).

It is just this point for which Paul is arguing in Gal 3:15-20. In Heb 13:20 he calls it the everlasting covenant. The law, as a covenant of works, has waxed old and vanished away. It has been replaced by the full revelation of the covenant of grace, which will continue until the end of the world when Christ shall give up his mediatorial kingdom unto the Father and God shall be all in all (1Co 15:24).

The Laws Purpose

In Gal 3:19-20 Paul shows us that the law was given, not as a system by which sinners should seek to be saved, not as a rule of conduct by which believers are to measure their spiritual might and superiority over others, but it was added as a temporary thing to restrain wickedness by the threat of punishment, until Christ came and brought in the fulness of Gods covenant promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

The law was given long after the promise of eternal life was made (Tit 1:2). It was given to reveal and expose the sin and guilt of men, to constantly remind and make men conscious of their sin. The law was given at Sinai to show sinners their need of a Substitute and to reveal Christ, the Messiah, the Redeemer, in types and pictures until he came (Heb 10:1-9). Even as God gave his law on Mt. Sinai, he graciously showed Christ as the Mediator between God and men, typically, in Moses mediation. Moses stood as the mediator between sinful Israel and the holy Lord God (Exo 20:18-19). The angels of God were messengers and instruments God used in the giving of the law.

Christ Our Mediator

As Moses was mediator between God and Israel on Sinai, the Lord Jesus Christ, our God-man Savior, is the Mediator between God and men (1Ti 2:5; Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24; Act 4:12). A mediator has to do with more than one party. There can be no mediator if only one person is involved. Yet, God is only one person; he is the one offended, standing off at a distance, giving the law in the hands of a mediator, revealing their alienation. Therefore, justification cannot be expected through the law. Someone must step in, take up our cause, and satisfy the law for us, or we must perish. That Someone is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Mediator and Surety. He took up our cause from eternity, assumed total responsibility for our souls before the world began, and has sworn to his Father that he will bring his own elect safe to glory at last in the perfection of his righteousness and holiness (Joh 10:16; Heb 2:13), according to the terms of the covenant (Eph 1:3-6), presenting us before the presence of his glory holy and without blame before the holy Lord God.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

I speak: Rom 6:19, 1Co 15:32

it be: Heb 9:17

covenant: or, testament

Reciprocal: Gen 15:18 – made Gen 21:27 – made Deu 4:2 – General 1Ch 16:16 – which he made Job 40:8 – disannul Psa 111:9 – he hath Isa 42:6 – and give Luk 1:72 – and Act 7:8 – the covenant Rom 3:5 – I speak Gal 3:17 – cannot Gal 4:24 – the two Heb 7:18 – a disannulling Heb 8:9 – the covenant

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 3:15. , -Brethren, I speak after the manner of men-I am going to use a human analogy, or to propose an illustration from a human point of view. Brethren, yet beloved and cared for, though they are censured as senseless in their relapse; affectionate remembrance naturally springing up at this pause in the argument. The phrase has various shades of meaning, as may be seen by comparing Rom 3:5, 1Co 9:8 with 1Co 3:3; 1Co 15:32, Gal 1:11. See Wetstein on Rom 3:5. The point of the statement is, that if it be true beyond doubt of a human covenant, it applies much more to a divine covenant-a minore ad majus.

-though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it has been confirmed, no one annulleth or addeth to it-imposeth new conditions. is rightly rendered covenant, for the context demands such a sense. Such is its constant meaning in the Septuagint, and its uniform use in the New Testament- Heb 9:15; Heb 9:17 being no exception. The classical meaning of the plural form of the word and the testamentum of the Vulgate have given currency to the other translation of testament, which is adopted here by Luther, Erasmus, and Olshausen. The Hebrew , H1382, as a name both of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, is always represented by it. Suidas defines it by , a covenant in the strictest sense; but it has a wider significance than this allied term. Yet the meaning is not so general as dispensation or arrangement-dispositio (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Hofmann, Hauck, and virtually Brown); the usual sense fits in to the illustration. The participle is applied to the ratification of a bargain, Gen 23:20; of a public measure, Thucyd. 8.69; of a treaty of peace, Polyb. 1.6; and of laws, Andocides, De Myster. p. 27, ed. Schiller. The confirmation might be effected in various ways, as by an oath, Heb 6:13-18, or by the erection of a memorial or witness, Gen 31:44-53. The adverb is not to be taken as , in like manner (Morus, Jatho), but it signifies yet, or though,-not doch selbst (Zachariae, Matthies) nor quin imo (Wolf). Windischmann, Olshausen, and Rckert refer it to , and take it as tamen or certe-I speak only as a man-one certainly cannot abrogate a man’s testament; but the point is missed in this exegesis. Some connect it with -yet even a man’s covenant no one annulleth (Gwynne, Matthias). Bagge lays the emphasis on the participle , and connects with it-no one sets aside a covenant, although ratified by man. But the illustration is broader in its basis, for logically belongs to , and is out of its order by an idiomatic displacement. 1Co 14:7; Winer, 61, 4. This trajection happens oftenest with participles-participio suo praemitti solito. Stallbaum, Phaedo, 91, C; Plat. Opera, vol. i. p. 155; Xen. Cyrop. 5.4, 6; Thucyd. 6.69. The sense then is, though it be a man’s covenant, when it is confirmed no one yet or notwithstanding annuls it or adds to it. The last verb signifies to add or to supplement (superordinat, Vulgate), and by its composition–it hints what the supplement is, or insinuates that it is contrary to the contents of the covenant or purpose of its author (Erasmus, Winer). Joseph. Bell. Jud 2:2-3, where means a second will; Antiq. 17.9, 4. After a man’s covenant has been duly ratified, no one dares to set aside or supplement it with any new matter or any additional stipulations. It stands good beyond strife and cavil against all opposition and argument. is emphatic, to mark the contrast; for if it be so with a mere man’s covenant, how much more so with God’s, which was also a ratified covenant! To add to a covenant is virtually to annul it; the Judaistic dogma, under the guise of a supplement, was really an abrogation of the original promise or covenant.

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Gal 3:15. I speak after the manner of men. For an illustration, Paul is using the usual customs of mankind regarding covenants or legal agreements, and the rules followed in observing them. To confirm means to ratify by some formality under the supervision of the proper authority. Hence Paul says that though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it has been confirmed it cannot be lawfully dis-annulled, although it must be confirmed to make it sure.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 3:15. Brethren. Winning address, contrasting with the severe rebuke, Gal 3:1; comp. Gal 4:31; Gal 6:1. There is a touch of tenderness in the appeal here, as if to make amends for the severity of the foregoing rebuke (Lightfoot).

After the manner of men, refers to the following illustration taken from human relations. An argument a fortiori. If even changeable men keep legal contracts sacred, how much more the unchangeable God. The Judaizers altered the covenant with Abraham by adding new conditions, and thus virtually set it aside.

Covenant. Such was the nature of the promise of God to Abraham (Gen 15:18; Gen 12:7). The translation will, testament (in the margin of the E. V.), is unsuited to the connection, and the translation promise is ungrammatical. In the Septuagint and in the Greek Testament, the word always means covenant, except in Heb 9:15-17, and the rendering of the E. V. testament (from the Vulgate, and in accordance with classical usage) in Mat 26:28, and other passages should be corrected. The designation of the Old and New Testament (instead of Covenant) arose from this mistranslation, and is especially improper in the case of the Old Covenant (since God cannot die), but has become so well established that it must be retained.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. An argument drawn from contracts among men, to prove the fixedness and stability of the covenant made by God: if one man makes a covenant with another, signs it, seals it, and delivers it before witnesses, it becomes irrevocable and irreversible; much more then must the covenant of grace and mercy made with us by God, be perpetual and immutable, since it is a covenant established by oath; and when God swears, he cannot repent.

Observe, 2. The apostle proves, that the covenant of God can never fail, in regard of the wisdom and invariableness of him that made it: so it can never expire for want of parties that have interest in it, and advantage by it, for want of a seed to whom it is made: for as long as Christ hath a church and members upon earth, so long shall the promise be of force: not only to Abraham, but to his seed, were the promises made: not to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ; where, by one, we understand one mystically, and in the aggregate; not only personally and individually: And by Christ, the whole church, consisting of head members, believing Gentiles, as well as Jews.

Observe, 3. That the apostle having confirmed the truth of his doctrine by arguments in the foregoing part of the chapter, comes now, in the latter part of it, to answer objections which some might be ready to make against his doctrine. The first we have, Gal 3:17, This I say, that the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul. The objection lies thus: Some might say, “when two laws are made, whereof the one was expressly contradictory to the other, the latter doth, in common presumption, abrogate and disannul the former: But here we find, that four hundred and thirty years after the promise made to Abraham, there was a law published extremely contrary to that promise, a law without mercy or compassion, a law both impossible and inexorable, a law which can neither be obeyed nor endured, a law which denounces a terrible and severe curse to the transgressors and breakers of it: therefore, it should seem as if some cause had happened, to make God repent and revoke his former covenant promise made to Abraham.”

To obviate this objection, our apostle shews, first, what the purpose of the covenant promise to Abraham was; namely, to give life and salvation by grace and promise. Secondly, what the purpose of the latter covenant by Moses was not; namely, to give the same life by working, since, in those respects, there would by a contradiction and inconsistency in the covenants, and so by consequence, instability and unfaithfulness in him that made them. That, therefore, which the apostle here drives at, is this, that the coming of the law hath not voided the promise, and that the law is not of force towards the seed to whom the promise is made, in any such sense as carries contradiction to, or implies abrogation of, the promise before made: from whence it follows, if it be not to stand in contradiction to, it must stand in subordination to the gospel, and so tend to evangelical purposes.

Learn hence, 1. That although God might have dealt with mankind as an absolute Lord and Sovereign, yet he doth not govern them barely by a law, but by a covenant, which has promises and threatenings annexed.

Learn, 2. That after the covenant of works, made with man, before the fall, was broken by Adam, God was pleased to enter into a covenant of grace with fallen man, to deliver him out of an estate of sin and misery, and to bring him into a state of salvation by a Redeemer.

Learn, 3. That though the former and latter covenant did differ in some considerable circumstances, yet they are one and the same in substance, and do fully agree in all the essential parts of both.

Learn, 4. That God’s intent in giving the law, and urging exact obedience to it, under the penalty of the curse, was not to take us off from seeking righteousness and life only by the promise, but to encourage us to seek it; for, says the apostle here, The law could not disannul the covenant made with Abraham, nor make the promise of no effect.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Gal 3:15. I speak after the manner of men I illustrate this by a familiar instance, taken from the practice of men: or, I argue on the principles of common equity, according to what is the allowed rule of all human compacts: Though it be but a mans covenant That is, the covenant of a man with his fellow-creature: yet if it be confirmed Legally, by mutual promise, engagement, and seal; no man No, not the covenanter himself, unless something unforeseen occur, which cannot be the case with God; disannulleth What was agreed to by it; or addeth thereto Any new condition, or altereth the terms of it, without the consent of the other stipulating party.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Gal 3:15-21. The promise having once been given, no subsequent enactment like the Law can interfere with it. (Similarly Heb. emphasizes the priority in time of Melchizedek to Aaron.) Even in human affairs, a scrap of paper which records an agreement is not torn up without tragic and memorable consequences. (It has been thought that a will is specially referred to, and in the Gr. rather than the Rom. form; perhaps confirming the view that the epistle went to S. Galatia.) Elsewhere (Gal 4:24) there are two covenants and (2Co 3:14) one is old (cf. Jer 31:31, and often in Hebrews). Here, the CovenantOT promise or NT fulfilmentcontrasts with the alien institution of Law. (2) The very language of Gen 12:3 (Gen 18:18) points to Christ; seed in the singular, not seeds (plural); a rabbi-like subtletythe Heb. language never speaks of seeds. For the figure 430 cf. (Gen 15:13) Exo 12:40 (LXX, however, reads 215). (3) If the Law was the way of life, the promise falls to the ground; which is unthinkable. The true purpose of the Law is to increase human guilt [(a) by provoking more sins, Rom 7:7 ff., (b) by completing the conditions of account-ableness]. For a Jewish mind this is the hardest of all Pauls hard sayings; it occurs also Rom 5:20, 1Co 15:56. (4) In a sense, the Law bears the mark of inferior agencies. According to later Jewish theology it came primarily from angels rather than from God (Deu 33:2 [Heb. text, not LXX], Act 7:53, Heb 2:2); hence the need of a human mediator (Moses) to act for the crowd of angels as single representative of their joint endeavour; God, being one, would have no similar need of an intermediary. (This is Ritschls explanation. Heb. and 1 Tim. from a different point of view call Jesus mediator of the new covenant between God and man.) [Ritschls view, which had been put forward by others, is very attractive, since it is that naturally suggested by the words, and it may be correct. It is open to the objection that Moses is not regarded in the OT as mediator between the angels and Israel. But this is perhaps not insuperable (cf. Act 7:38). Lightfoot takes the first clause to mean that the very idea of mediation implies two parties for whom the mediator acts. The Law is a contract between two parties, valid only while both fulfil its terms. It is accordingly contingent, not absolute. The second clause asserts that God, the giver of the promise, is one; there are not two parties, it depends on God alone. He is all, the recipients nothing. The promise is therefore absolute and unconditional. This gives a fairly good sense, but Paul would probably have expressed it more clearly and in a different way. The passage is extremely difficult. B. Jowett says it has received 430 interpretations (Meyer says above 250). No confidence can be felt in any interpretation. Lcke regarded the verse as a gloss, and this view has been revived by Bacon and Emmet.A. S. P.] (5) Yet the Law, though temporary and imperfect, is part of Gods plan. It is in no antagonism to the promise. The suggestion shocks Paul; his words have given it no warrant! If one held that law saved, one would be undermining the promise. No; law drives to despaira second strange harmony between the rival religious systems.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 15

Though it be, &c. The meaning of this and the following verses is, that even human covenants, once made and confirmed by the usual forms, are not affected by subsequent transactions; and the promises made to Abraham being conditioned originally on faith, these conditions could not subsequently be altered by the giving of the law, centuries later.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 12. YET THE LAW CANNOT SET ASIDE THE STILL EARLIER PROMISE.

CH. 3:15-18.

Brethren after the manner of men I say it. Even a mans confirmed covenant, no one sets aside or adds conditions to. Now to Abraham were spoken the promises, and to his seed. He does not say, And to seeds as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. But this I say, a covenant before confirmed by God, the Law proclaimed four hundred and thirty years afterwards does not annul, in order to make of no effect the promise. For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise. But to Abraham God graciously granted it by promise.

The Law is not a later-imposed condition: for, if it were, it would prevent fulfilment of the promise, which was earlier than the Law and had reference not only to Abraham but to Christ. Paul will thus prove that the Law (which cannot save: 11) cannot hinder salvation.

Gal 3:15. After the manner of men (literally, according to man, as in Gal 1:11)

I say: Rom 3:5; 1Co 9:8 : taking human nature and its customs as my standard. Hence, Paul goes on to speak of a mans covenant. He thus appeals to the principles of human morality in proof of what God will do. Cp. Mat 7:11. This implies that what is wrong in man cannot be right in God.

Covenant: an engagement in which men mutually bind themselves to do certain things on certain conditions. See my Romans pp. 136, 266.

Confirmed: ratified, and thus made legally binding. Same word in Gen 18:20. Although it be only a mans engagement, yet, when ratified, no one sets it aside. Nor, when a man has bound himself to do something on certain conditions, does he add other conditions and require their fulfilment before he performs his part of the engagement. For he would thus practically set aside the covenant.

Gal 3:16. This verse applies to Abraham, and through him to Pauls readers, the principle stated in Gal 3:15. They would remember that Gods words to Abraham were the well-known promises; and that in the day of Abrahams faith (Gen 15:18) these were confirmed by a solemn covenant. This familiar historical connection is the historical link binding Gal 3:16, and Gal 3:15. Cp. Gal 3:17, and Eph 2:12 the covenants of the promise. Nearly all the many promises to Abraham have the conspicuous addition, and to thy seed: Gen 13:15, (and in LXX. Gen 13:17,) Gen 17:8; Gen 17:19. These words are quoted here to prove that on the principle asserted in Gal 3:15, persons still living can claim the promises to Abraham. To complete this proof, Paul will show in Gal 3:16 b that these added words pertain to Christ.

To Abraham and to (or for) his seed: the Greek dative includes both him to whom, and those for whom, the promises were spoken; a latitude which no English rendering can reproduce.

He does not say: probably God; for the words referred to are in the promises spoken by Him. Instead of thy sons(as in the frequent phrase sons of Israel: Exo 1:13; Exo 12:37; Exo 12:40) God says always (even in Gen 26:24) thy seed; using a singular noun. This proves clearly that He looked upon Abrahams descendants as one organic whole. The plural of the Hebrew word rendered seed denotes in 1Sa 8:15, where alone in the O. T. it is found, (cp. a similar word in Isa 61:11; Dan 2:12; Dan 2:16,) not persons but grains of seed; and therefore could not have been used to denote descendants. But the plural of the corresponding Greek word was sometimes, though rarely, so used: e.g. Plato, Laws p. 853c. Paul therefore adopts it here as the easiest way of describing popularly a grammatical construction conspicuously absent from the promises to Abraham. The exact words and to thy seed are found in (LXX.) Gen 13:15; Gen 13:17; Gen 17:8. The word and recalls a conspicuous addition in the promises to Abraham.

Which seed, looked upon as one organic whole, is Christ: a concisely expressed deduction from Gal 3:14 a.

Is; denotes coincidence or practical identity, as in 2Co 3:17; 1Co 10:16, ( 1Co 12:12,) Rom 2:12; Rom 2:16. The promise to Abrahams seed is fulfilled, by Gods design, in those united to Christ, in them only, and in virtue of their union with Him. The personality of Christ enfolds them: (for they have put on Christ, Gal 3:27 🙂 and His relationships and rights are theirs. Thus the personality of Christ is in some sense co-extensive with the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. And, since this was originally designed by God, and since the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham will set up the kingdom of Christ, Paul does not hesitate to say in Gal 3:19 that He was the seed to whom the promise was made, and to say here that the seed is Christ. The profound truth thus expressed, viz. the practical identity of Christ and His people, has many applications and is worthy of careful study. The expression itself was suggested by the form, conspicuous by its uniformity, of the promises to Abrahams descendants.

Gal 3:17. But this I say, or mean: practical bearing of Gal 3:15-16 on the matter in hand. Gal 3:15 states a universal principle of human morality: Gal 3:16 proves that Gods relation to Abraham and to his spiritual children comes under it: and Gal 3:17 shows how the principle applies to them. God bound Himself (Gen 15:18; Gen 17:2) by a covenant to fulfil the promises to Abraham.

Ratified: the legal obligation by which God condescended to bind Himself. Possibly Paul has in mind (cp. Heb 6:17 f) the solemn oath in Gen 22:16. The prefixed word before emphasizes the fact that this confirmed covenant was earlier than the Law.

Does not annul: an unchangeable principle. For God to attach to the promises, centuries after He had confirmed them by oath, an impracticable (Gal 3:10) condition, would be in effect to set aside His own covenant.

In order to make-of-no-effect (see under Rom 3:3) the promise: the only conceivable purpose of God for annulling the covenant by adding a later and impossible condition, viz. to avoid fulfilling His own promise, i.e. to make it practically inoperative. To denote a mere result, another familiar Greek phrase would have been used, as in 1Co 2:7; 1Co 5:1; 1Co 13:2. All inevitable results of Gods action, being foreseen, are taken up into His plan, and are therefore His definite purposes. Consequently, had God afterwards made His promises to Abraham conditional on obedience to the Law, He would have done so with a deliberate purpose of evading His own promises. For God to plot this, and to accomplish it by giving the Law at Sinai, is inconceivable.

Gal 3:18. Explains how the Law, if it were a condition, would neutralise the promise.

The inheritance: the benefits to Abrahams children, bodily and spiritual, in virtue of their relation to him. It is a constant designation of the land of Canaan given to Israel as descendants of Abraham: Deu 4:38; Deu 15:4; Deu 19:10, etc. But Canaan was only an imperfect firstfruit of the infinite blessing which comes and will come to all who walk in the steps of the faith of their father Abraham. Thus will he become (Rom 4:13) heir of the world.

By law: cp. Gal 3:21 : derived from a rule of conduct, i.e. by obeying it.

No longer: logical result, as in Rom 11:6; Rom 7:17.

By promise: derived from an announcement of good things from God to us. As shown in Gal 3:11-12, these modes of derivation, viz. mans exact obedience to words of command, and Gods fulfilment of His own promise, are utterly incompatible. We must therefore choose between them. Which alternative is the true one, the following historical statement determines.

By promise: more fully, by means of promise. Before giving the inheritance God gave a promise, and made belief of it the condition of fulfilment. The promise was thus the instrument and channel through which the inheritance came.

Graciously-gave it, or gave it as an act of grace: Rom 8:32; 1Co 2:12 : akin to gift-of-grace, in Rom 1:11; Rom 5:15 f, etc.; and to the word grace in Gal 1:3; Gal 1:6; Gal 1:15, etc. It suggests an argument. For the promises to Abraham were evidently undeserved favour. Therefore the inheritance does not come through law: for then (Rom 4:4 f) it would be matter not of favour but of debt. [The Greek perfect directs attention to the abiding results of Gods word of grace to Abraham, reminding us that it created an era in his history and in that of the world. But since Paul refers to a definite event or events in the past, the use of English tenses requires the preterite. The R.V. hath granted it does little or nothing to reproduce the force of the Greek perfect; and is very uncouth.]

REVIEW. In proof that the benefits of the Gospel are obtained by faith and not by obedience to law, Paul has appealed to his readers spiritual life, and has shown that it accords with the story of Abraham. Not otherwise can the blessings promised to Abrahams children be obtained: for the Law pronounces a universal curse, from which we are rescued only by the curse which fell upon Christ. Now if, hundreds of years after giving the promises and confirming them by a covenant, God had made their fulfilment conditional on obedience to law, He would have set aside His covenant, thus violating a recognised principle of human morality; in order to evade fulfilment of His promises. The evasion would be complete: for obedience as a condition of benefit is quite different from the undeserved favour manifested in Gods promises to Abraham. This last verse opens a way for the argument of 13 which rests upon the total difference between law and promise.

Pauls appeal in Gal 3:16 to a small grammatical distinction reveals his confidence that the Book of Genesis is a correct record of Gods words to Abraham. His argument rests, however, not on one passage, but on an expression used some fifteen times and forming a conspicuous feature of the narrative. In this, Paul is a pattern to us. Appeal to general usage is the only safe method of Biblical theology. Moreover, the point in question is only a detail confirming an argument already conclusive, by an interesting coincidence which cannot be explained except on a principle involved in the argument. This allusion to a grammatical detail thus differs altogether from the childish word-play of the Jewish writers.

THE PRECISE STATEMENT of time in Gal 3:17, 430 years, recalls Exo 12:40-41, where (and there only) the same period is given twice, yet not as the time from Abraham to the Exodus, as Paul here says, but as the duration of the sojourn in Egypt. This discrepancy is evidently derived from the LXX., which Paul usually quotes, and of which the Vat. MS. reads which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, while the Alex. MS. adds further they and their fathers. With this last agrees the Samaritan Pentateuch. But the Hebrew text (given in the A.V.) is open to no doubt. For it is supported not only by the Peshito Syriac and the Latin Vulgate but also by internal evidence: for the Vatican reading betrays a clumsy attempt to shorten the stay in Egypt, perhaps to bring it into harmony with the genealogy in Exo 6:16-20; and the Alex. reading looks like a correction of the other. Moreover, it is much more natural, in reckoning the time of the departure from Egypt, to give the length of the sojourn there than the period elapsed since Abraham entered Canaan. It is also difficult to suppose that in Gen 15:13 the land not theirs, in which Israel was to dwell 400 years and which seems to be contrasted with the land promised to Abraham, includes both Egypt and Canaan, countries so different in their relation to Israel. The word rendered generation in Gen 15:16 is an indefinite term for a human life or the men living at one time, e.g. Num 32:13; and is different from the word used in Gen 11:10; Gen 11:27, etc. The shorter chronology seems to be supported by the genealogy in Exo 6:16 ff: but this is neutralised by the longer genealogies in Num 26:29; Jos 17:3; #Rth 4:18 ff; 1Ch 2:5 f; 2:18; 7:20ff. For it is more likely that names have fallen out of the shorter list than been inserted fictitiously into the longer one. Moreover, if taken as a complete list, Exo 6:16-20 does not give the length of the stay in Egypt: for in this case the lives would overlap to an extent which is not specified, leaving us without any exact chronological data. The aggregate of these lives, viz. 487 years, rather suggests that they are in the main consecutive, and that these four lives represent the four centuries or generations which God foretold should live and be spent in Egypt. We find therefore no reason to suspect corruption in the plain historical statement of our best authority for the Old Testament, the Hebrew text.

The above discrepancy is found also in Josephus who in Antiq. ii. 15. 2 follows the LXX. by interpreting the 430 years to include Abrahams sojourn in Canaan, yet in ch. 9. 1 and Wars v. 9. 4 speaks of the bondage in Egypt as lasting 400 years.

Against the foregoing historical arguments the cursory allusion in Gal 3:17 has no weight. About trifling discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts, Paul probably neither knew nor cared. And they have no bearing whatever upon the all-important matter he has here in hand. He adopted the chronology of the LXX. with which alone his readers were familiar; knowing, possibly, that if incorrect it was only an understatement of the case.

The above discussion warns us not to try to settle questions of Old Testament historical criticism by casual allusions in the New Testament. All such attempts are unworthy of scientific Biblical scholarship. By inweaving His words to man in historic fact, God appealed to the ordinary laws of human credibility. These laws attest, with absolute certainty, the great facts of Christianity. And upon these great facts, and on these only, rest both our faith in the Gospel and in God and the authority of the Sacred Book. Consequently, as I have endeavoured to show in my Romans Diss. i. and iii., our faith does not require the absolute accuracy of every historical detail in the Bible, and is not disturbed by any error in detail which may be detected in its pages. At the same time our study of the Bible reveals there an historical accuracy which will make us very slow to condemn as erroneous even unimportant statements of Holy Scripture. And, in spite of any possible errors in small details or allusions, the Book itself remains to us as, in a unique and infinitely glorious sense, a literary embodiment of the Voice and Word of God.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man’s covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

This covenant was “confirmed” – the verb is in the perfect tense – something that will be carried forward “as is” till completion yet future. The question is what covenant we are talking about. Is it the covenant with Abraham, the covenant of the coming Spirit or what?

The context is clear that this is related to the promise to Abraham that has been fulfilled by Christ – the blessing of Gentiles.

It is of note to me that the passage seems to be telling us that the blessing of all nations is done, is set and nothing more is to come. Not that future generations of Gentiles won’t have access to salvation, but that there are no other conditions to be met, in other words, there is no way that the Gentiles are to benefit from the promise of the Land or any other promise other than salvation.

There is the question of Paul’s terminology. Most scholars make great mention, when studying the Old Testament, of the fact that this covenant with Abraham was God’s covenant with Abraham, not Abraham’s covenant with God. How does this relate to our passage, or does it?

First of all, yes, this is God’s covenant, He made the promise, and it is on Him to see to its fulfillment, not Abraham. Having said that, it is a covenant WITH a man, the man Abraham. It is a covenant with man, thus Paul’s terminology only calls to the thought that God made the promise to a man, and that there is no man that can disannul it – in short, this passage backs up the thought that God has the responsibility to fulfill it and that no man, no matter how powerful and smart can do anything to stop God from doing His promised work.

The phrase “if it be” is in brackets meaning that it is not in the original, only added for understanding. I might add that it is to be understood as “if and assumed so” rather than “maybe it will and maybe it won’t” – a much different view. The American Standard Version states “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.”

Paul, when he speaks “after the manner of men” is simply saying, from man’s point of view – a covenant once ratified (by God) is not made void or changed by man. Again, how arrogant for a man to assume that he can make void or change the covenant that God has set into motion.

I might clarify my own statement – Paul specifically says no man will ADD to the covenant – and we see another clear, concise lunge to the heart of the Judaizers teaching. Paul isn’t even nice about his little comments here and there that had to inflame the false teachers. No wonder he had so much trouble with them, they must have hated his every word.

At the same time, how sad to see that truth brings hatred from the false teacher. Often this is the case in reality.

Heb 9:17 gives a little insight to the thought of a covenant or testament. “For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

Kind of relates to why Christ had to die – the covenant was dependant on God and his Word and really His death to put the covenant into effect. This is the seeming conclusion to this passage. A good deal of study could be done on this subject if one had the desire to dig deeper.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

3:15 {17} Brethren, I speak {i} after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man’s covenant, yet [if it be] {k} confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

(17) He puts forth two general rules before the next argument, which is the seventh in order. The first is, that it is not lawful to break covenants and contracts which are justly made, and are according to law among men, neither may anything be added to them. The other is, that God did so make a covenant with Abraham, that he would gather together his children who consist both of Jews and Gentiles into one body (as appears by that which has been said before). For he did not say, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his “seeds” (which thing nonetheless should have been said, if he had many and various seeds, such as the Gentiles on the one hand, and the Jews on the other) but that he would be the God of Abraham, and of his “seed”, as of one.

(i) I will use an example which is common among you, that you may be ashamed that you do not give as much to God’s covenant as you do to man’s.

(k) Authenticated, as we say.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. The logical argument 3:15-29

Paul continued his argument that God justifies Christians by faith alone by showing the logical fallacy of relying on the Law. He did this to answer the legalists and to clarify the distinction between works and faith as ways of salvation (i.e., justification, sanctification, and glorification). He continued to base his argument on the biblical revelation of Abraham.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The continuance of faith after the giving of the Law 3:15-18

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Paul now turned to the objection that when God gave the Law He terminated justification by faith alone. He reminded his readers, with a human analogy, that even wills and contracts made between human beings remained in force until the fulfillment of their terms. Likewise the covenant God made with Abraham remains in force until God fulfills it completely. The promises made to Abraham extended to his descendants as well as to him personally. They even extend to Christ, the descendant of Abraham who became the greatest source of blessing God promised would come through Abraham’s descendants. Paul did not mean that Christ fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant completely. He meant that through Christ, the descendant of Abraham, God continued to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant. The Mosaic Law did not supersede (take the place of) the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Hebrew word for "seed" or "offspring" (zera, Gal 3:16) is a collective singular that can refer either to one descendant or many descendants. An English collective singular, for example, is "sheep" that can refer to one sheep or many sheep. Both "seed" and "offspring" are also collective singulars in English. Paul explained that the seed God had in mind in Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8 was the one descendant, Christ. [Note: See Robert A. Pyne, "The ’Seed,’ the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):214-16.]

"The term seed not uncommonly denotes all the descendants of some great ancestor, but it is not normally used of one person. Used in this way it points to the person as in some way outstanding; the seed is not simply one descendant among many but THE descendant." [Note: Morris, p. 110.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 13

THE COVENANT OF PROMISE.

Gal 3:15-18

GENTILE Christians, Paul has shown, are already sons of Abraham. Their faith proves their descent from the father of the faithful. The redemption of Christ has expiated the laws curse, and brought to its fulfilment the primeval promise. It has conferred on Jew and Gentile alike the gift of the Holy Spirit, sealing the Divine inheritance. “Abrahams blessing” has “come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus.” What can Judaism do for them more? Except, in sooth, to bring them under its inevitable curse.

But here the Judaist might interpose: “Granting so much as this, allowing that God covenanted with Abraham on terms of faith, and that believing Gentiles are entitled to his blessing, did not God make a second covenant with Moses, promising further blessings upon terms of law? If the one covenant remains valid, why not the other? From the school of Abraham the Gentiles must pass on to the school of Moses.” This inference might appear to follow, by parity of reasoning, from what the apostle has just advanced. And it accords with the position which the legalistic opposition had now taken up. The people of the circumcision, they argued, retained within the Church of Christ their peculiar calling; and Gentiles, if they would be perfect Christians, must accept the covenant-token and the unchangeable ordinances of Israel. Faith is but the first step in the new life; the discipline of the law will bring it to completion. Release from the curse of the law, they might contend, leaves its obligations still binding, its ordinances unrepealed. Christ “came not to destroy, but to fulfil.”

So we are brought to the question of the relation of law and promise, which is the theoretical, as that of Gentile to Jewish Christianity is the practical problem of the Epistle. The remainder of the chapter is occupied with its discussion. This section is the special contribution of the Epistle to Christian theology-a contribution weighty enough of itself to give to it a foremost place amongst the documents of Revelation. Paul has written nothing more masterly. The breadth and subtlety of his reasoning, his grasp of the spiritual realities underlying the facts of history, are conspicuously manifest in these paragraphs, despite the extreme difficulty and obscurity of certain sentences.

This part of the Epistle is in fact a piece of inspired historical criticism; it is a magnificent reconstruction of the course of sacred history. It is Pauls theory of doctrinal development, condensing into a few pregnant sentences the rationale of Judaism, explaining the method of Gods dealings with mankind from Abraham down to Christ, and fitting the legal system into its place in this order with an exactness and consistency that supply an effectual verification of the hypothesis. To such a height has the apostle been raised, so completely is he emancipated from the fetters of Jewish thought, that the whole Mosaic economy becomes to his mind no more than an interlude, a passing stage in the march of Revelation.

This passage finds its counterpart in Rom 11:1-36. Here the past, there the future fortunes of Israel are set forth. Together the two chapters form a Jewish theodicy, a vindication of Gods treatment of the chosen people from first to last. Rom 5:12-21 and 1Co 15:20-57 supply a wider exposition, on the same principles, of the fortunes of mankind at large. The human mind has conceived nothing more splendid and yet sober, more humbling and exalting, than the view of mans history and destiny thus sketched out.

The Apostle seeks to establish, in the first place, the fixedness of the Abrahamic covenant. This is the main purport of the passage. At the same time, in Gal 3:16, he brings into view the object of the covenant, the person designated by it – Christ, its proper Heir. This consideration, though stated here parenthetically, lies at the basis of the settlement made with Abraham; its importance is made manifest by the after-course of Pauls exposition.

At this point, where the discussion opens out into its larger proportions, we observe that the sharp tone of personal feeling with which the chapter commenced has disappeared. In verse 15 {Gal 3:15} the writer drops into a conciliatory key. He seems to forget the wounded apostle in the theologian and instructor in Christ. “Brethren,” he says, “I speak in human fashion – I put this matter in a way that every one will understand.” He lifts himself above the Galatian quarrel, and from the height of his argument addresses himself to the common intelligence of mankind.

But is it covenant or testament that the Apostle intends here? “I speak after the manner of men,” he continues; “if the case were that of a mans , once ratified, no one would set it aside, or add to it.” The presumption is that the word is employed in its accepted, everyday significance. And that unquestionably was “testament.” It would never occur to an ordinary Greek reader to interpret the expression otherwise. Philo and Josephus, the representatives of contemporary Hellenistic usage, read this term, in the Old Testament, with the connotation of , in current Greek. The context of this passage is in harmony with their usage. The “covenant” of Gal 3:15 corresponds to “the blessing of Abraham,” and “the promise of the Spirit” in the two preceding verses. Again, in Gal 3:17, “promise” and “covenant” are synonymous. Now a covenant of promise amounts to a “testament.” It is the prospective nature of the covenant, the bond which it creates between Abraham and the Gentiles, which the Apostle has been insisting on ever since verse 6. It belongs “to Abraham and to his seed”; it comes by way of gift and grace (Gal 3:18; Gal 3:22); it invests those taking part in it with “sonship” and rights of “inheritance” (Gal 3:18; Gal 3:26; Gal 3:29, etc.) These ideas cluster round the thought of a testament; they are not inherent in covenant, strictly considered. Even in the Old Testament this latter designation fails to convey all that belongs to the Divine engagements there recorded. In a covenant the two parties are conceived as equals in point of law, binding themselves by a compact that bears on each alike. Here it is not so. The disposition of affairs is made by God, who in the sovereignty of His grace “hath granted it to Abraham.” It was surely a reverent sense of this difference which dictated to the men of the Septuagint the use of rather than the ordinary term for covenant or compact, in their rendering of the Hebrew berith.

This aspect of the covenants now becomes their commanding feature. Our Lords employment of this word at the Last Supper gave it the affecting reference to His death which it has conveyed ever since to the Christian mind. The Latin translators were guided by a true instinct when in the Scriptures of the New Covenant they wrote testamentum everywhere, not faedus or pactum, for this word. The testament is a covenant-and something more. The testator designates his heir, and binds himself to grant to him at the predetermined time {Gal 4:2} the specified boon, which it remains for the beneficiary simply to accept. Such a Divine testament has come down from Abraham to his Gentile sons.

1. Now when a man has made a testament, and it has been ratified-“proved,” as we should say – it stands good for ever. No one has afterwards any power to set it aside, or to attach to it a new codicil, modifying its previous terms. There it stands-a document complete and unchangeable (Gal 3:15).

Such a testament God gave “to Abraham and his seed.” It was “ratified” (or “confirmed”) by the final attestation made to the patriarch after the supreme trial of his faith in the sacrifice of Isaac: “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” {Heb 6:17} In human testaments the ratification takes place through another; but God “having no greater,” yet “to show to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel” confirmed it by His own oath. Nothing was wanting to mark the Abrahamic covenant with an indelible character, and to show that it expressed an unalterable purpose in the mind of God.

With such Divine asseveration “were the promises spoken to Abraham, and his seed.” This last word diverts the Apostles thoughts for a moment, and he gives a side-glance at the person thus designated in the terms of the promise. Then he returns to his former statement, urging it home against the Legalists: “Now this is what I mean: a testament, previously ratified by God, the Law which dates four hundred and thirty years later cannot annul, so as to abrogate the Promise” (Gal 3:17). The bearing of Pauls argument is now perfectly clear. He is using the promise to Abraham to overthrow the supremacy of the Mosaic law. The Promise was, he says, the prior settlement. No subsequent transaction could invalidate it or disqualify those entitled under it to receive the inheritance. That testament lies at the foundation of the sacred history. The Jew least of all could deny this. How could such an instrument be set aside? Or what right has any one to limit it by stipulations of a later date?

When a man amongst ourselves bequeaths his property, and his will is publicly attested, its directions are scrupulously observed; to tamper with them is a crime. Shall we have less respect to this Divine settlement, this venerable charter of human salvation? You say, The Law of Moses has its rights: it must be taken into account as well as the Promise to Abraham. True; but it has no power to cancel or restrict the Promise, older by four centuries and a half. The later must be adjusted to the earlier dispensation, the Law interpreted by the Promise. God has not made two testaments-the one solemnly committed to, the faith and hope of mankind, only to be retracted and substituted by something of a different stamp. He could not thus stultify Himself. And we must not apply the Mosaic enactments, addressed to a single people, in such way as to neutralise the original provisions made for the race at large. Our human instincts of good faith, our reverence for public compacts and established rights, forbid our allowing the Law of Moses to trench upon the inheritance assured to mankind in the Covenant of Abraham.

This contradiction necessarily arises if the Law is put on a level with the Promise. To read the Law as a continuation of the older instrument is virtually to efface the latter, to “make the promise of none effect.” The two institutes proceed on opposite principles. “If the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise” (Gal 3:18). Law prescribes certain things to be done, and guarantees a corresponding reward-so much pay for so much work. That, in its proper place, is an excellent principle. But the promise stands on another footing: “God hath bestowed it on Abraham by way of grace” (, ver. 18). It holds out a blessing conferred by the Promisers good will, to be conveyed at the right time without demanding anything more from the recipient than faith, which is just the will to receive. So God dealt with Abraham, centuries before any one had dreamed of the Mosaic system of law. God appeared to Abraham in His sovereign grace; Abraham met that grace with faith. So the Covenant was formed. And so it abides, clear of all legal conditions and claims of human merit, an “everlasting covenant”. {Gen 17:7; Heb 13:20}

Its permanence is emphasised by the tense of the verb relating to it. The Greek perfect describes settled facts, actions or events that carry with them finality. Accordingly we read in Gal 3:15; Gal 3:17 of “a ratified covenant”-one that stands ratified: In Gal 3:18, “God hath granted it to Abraham”-a grace never to be recalled. Again (Gal 3:19), “the seed to whom the promise hath been made”-once for all. A perfect participle is used of the Law in Gal 3:17 (), for it is a fact of abiding significance that it was so much later than the Promise; and in Gal 3:24, “the Law hath been our tutor,” – its work in that respect is an enduring benefit. Otherwise the verbs relating to Mosaism in this context are past in tense, describing what is now matter of history, a course of events that has come and gone. Meanwhile the Promise remains an immovable certainty, a settlement never to be disturbed. The emphatic position of (Gal 3:18), at the very end of the paragraph, serves to heighten its effect. “It is God that hath bestowed this grace on Abraham.” There is a challenge in the word, as though Paul asked, “Who shall make it void?”

Pauls chronology in Gal 3:17 has been called in question. We are not much concerned to defend it. Whether Abraham preceded Moses by four hundred and thirty years, as the Septuagint and the Samaritan text of Exo 12:40-41 affirm, and as Pauls contemporaries commonly supposed; or whether, as it stands in the Hebrew text of Exodus, this was the length of time covered by the sojourn in Egypt, so that the entire period would be about half as long again, is a problem that Old Testament historians must settle for themselves; it need not trouble the reader of Paul. The shorter period is amply sufficient for his purpose. If any one had said, “No, Paul; you are mistaken. It was six hundred and thirty, not four hundred and thirty years from Abraham to Moses”; he would have accepted the correction with the greatest good will. He might have replied, “So much the better for my argument.” It is possible to “strain out” the “gnats” of Biblical criticism, and yet to swallow huge “camels” of improbability.

2. Gal 3:16 remains for our consideration. In proving the steadfastness of the covenant with Abraham, the Apostle at the same time directs our attention to the Person designated by it, to whom its fulfilment was guaranteed. “To Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed-to thy seed, which is Christ.”

This identification the Judaist would not question. He made no doubt that the Messiah was the legatee of the testament, “the seed to whom it hath been promised.” Whatever partial and germinant fulfillments the Promise had received, it is on Christ in chief that the inheritance of Israel devolves. In its true and full intent, this promise, like all predictions of the triumph of Gods kingdom, was understood to be waiting for His advent.

The fact that this Promise looked to Christ, lends additional force to the Apostles assertion of its indelibility. The words “unto Christ,” which were inserted in the text of Gal 3:17 at an early time, are a correct gloss. The covenant did not lie between God and Abraham alone. It embraced Abrahams descendants in their unity, culminating in Christ. It looked down the stream of time to the last ages. Abraham was its starting-point; Christ its goal. “To thee-and to thy seed”: these words span the gulf of two thousand years, and overarch the Mosaic dispensation. So that the covenant vouchsafed to Abraham placed him, even at that distance of time, in close personal relationship with the Saviour of mankind. No wonder that it was so evangelical in its terms, and brought the patriarch an experience of religion which anticipated the privileges of Christian faith. Gods covenant with Abraham, being in effect His covenant with mankind in Christ, stands both first and last. The Mosaic economy holds a second and subsidiary place in the scheme of Revelation.

The reason the Apostle gives for reading Christ into the promise is certainly peculiar. He has been taxed with false exegesis, with “rabbinical hair-splitting” and the like. Here, it is said, is a fine example of the art, familiar to theologians, of torturing out of a word a predetermined sense, foreign to its original meaning. “He doth not say, and to seeds, as referring to many; but as referring to one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Paul appears to infer from the fact that the word “seed” is grammatically singular, and not plural, that it designates a single individual, who can be no other than Christ. On the surface this does, admittedly, look like a verbal quibble. The word “seed,” in Hebrew and Greek as in English, is not used, and could not in ordinary speech be used in the plural to denote a number of descendants. It is a collective singular. The plural applies only to different kinds of seed. The Apostle, we may presume, was quite as well aware of this as his critics, It does not need philological research or grammatical acumen to establish a distinction obvious to common sense. This piece of wordplay is in reality the vehicle of a historical argument, as unimpeachable as it is important. Abraham was taught, by a series of lessons, {Gen 12:2-3; Gen 15:2-6; Gen 17:4-8; Gen 17:15-21; Gen 22:16-18} to refer the promise to the single line of Isaac. Paul elsewhere lays great stress on this consideration; he brings Isaac into close analogy with Christ; for he was the child of faith, and represented in his birth a spiritual principle and the communication of a supernatural life. {Gal 4:21-31; Rom 4:17-22; comp Heb 11:11-12} The true seed of Abraham was in the first instance one, not many. In the primary realisation of the Promise, typical of its final accomplishment, it received a singular interpretation; it concentrated itself on the one, spiritual offspring, putting aside the many, natural and heterogeneous. (Hagarite or Keturite) descendants. And this sifting principle, this law of election which singles out from the varieties of nature the Divine type, comes into play all along the line of descent, as in the case of Jacob, and of David.

It finds its supreme expression in the person of Christ. The Abrahamic testament devolved under a law of spiritual selection. By its very nature it pointed ultimately to Jesus Christ. When Paul writes “Not to seeds, as of many,” he virtually says that the word of inspiration was singular in sense as well as in form; in the mind of the Promiser, and in the interpretation given to it by events, it bore an individual reference, and was never intended to apply to Abrahams descendants at large, to the many and miscellaneous “children according to flesh.”

Pauls interpretation of the Promise has abundant analogies. All great principles of human history tend to embody themselves in some “chosen seed.” They find at last their true heir, the one man destined to be their fulfilment. Moses, David, Paul; Socrates and Alexander; Shakespeare, Newton, are examples of this. The work that such men do belongs to themselves. Had any promise assured the world of the gifts to be bestowed through them, in each case one might have said beforehand, It will have to be, “Not as of many, but as of one.” It is not multitudes, but men that rule the world. “By one man sin entered into the world: we shall reign in life through the one Jesus Christ.” From the first words of hope given to the repentant pair banished from Eden, down to the latest predictions of the Coming One, the Promise became at every stage more determinate and individualising. The finger of prophecy pointed with increasing distinctness, now from this side, now from that, to the veiled form of the Chosen of God-“the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham,” the “star out of Jacob,” the “Son of David,” the “King Messiah,” the suffering “Servant of the Lord,” the “smitten Shepherd,” the “Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven.” In His person all the lines of promise and preparation meet; the scattered rays of Divine light are brought to a focus. And the desire of all nations, groping, half-articulate, unites with the inspired foresight of the seers of Israel to find its goal in Jesus Christ. There was but One who could meet the manifold conditions created by the worlds previous history, and furnish the key to the mysteries and contradictions which had gathered round the path of Revelation.

Notwithstanding, the Promise had and has a generic application, attending its personal accomplishment. “Salvation is of the Jews.” Christ belongs “to the Jew first.” Israel was raised up and consecrated to be the trustee of the Promise given to the world through Abraham. The vocation of this gifted race, the secret of its indestructible vitality, lies in its relationship to Jesus Christ. They are “His own,” though they “received Him not.” Apart from Him, Israel is nothing to the world-nothing but a witness against itself. Premising its essential fulfilment in Christ, Paul still reserves for his own people their peculiar share in the Testament of Abraham-not a place of exclusive privilege, but of richer honour and larger influence. “Hath God cast away His people?” he asks: “Nay, indeed. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham.” So that, after all, it is something to be of Abrahams children by nature. Despite this hostility to Judaism, the Apostle claims for the Jewish race a special office in the dispensation of the Gospel, in the working out of Gods ultimate designs for mankind. {Rom 11:1-36}

Would they only accept their Messiah, how exalted a rank amongst the nations awaits them! The title “seed of Abraham” with Paul, like the “Servant of Jehovah” in Isaiah, has a double significance. The sufferings of the elect people made them in their national character a pathetic type of the great Sufferer and Servant of the Lord, His supreme Elect. In Jesus Christ the collective destiny of Israel is attained; its prophetic ideal, the spiritual conception of its calling, is realised, -“the seed to whom it hath been promised.”

Paul is not alone in his insistence on the relation of Christ to Abraham. It is announced in the first sentence of the New Testament: “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of Abraham, son of David.” And it is set forth with singular beauty in the Gospel of the Infancy. Marys song and Zacharias prophecy recall the freedom and simplicity of an inspiration long silenced, as they tell how “the Lord hath visited and redeemed His people; He hath shown mercy to our fathers, in remembrance of His holy covenant, the oath which He sware unto Abraham our father.” And again, “He hath helped Israel His servant in remembrance of His mercy, as He spake to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.” {Luk 1:54-55; Luk 1:68-73} These pious and tender souls who watched over the cradle of our Lord and stood in the dawning of His new day, instinctively cast their thoughts back to the Covenant of Abraham. In it they found matter for their songs and a warrant for their hopes, such as no ritual ordinances could furnish. Their utterances breathe a spontaneity of faith, a vernal freshness of joy and hope to which the Jewish people for ages had been strangers. The dull constraint and stiffness, the harsh fanaticism of the Hebrew nature, have fallen from them. They have put on the beautiful garments of Zion, her ancient robes of praise. For the time of the Promise draws near. Abrahams Seed is now to be born; and Abrahams faith revives to meet Him. It breaks forth anew out of the dry and long-barren soil of Judaism; it is raised up to a richer and an enduring life. Pauls doctrine of Grace does but translate into logic the poetry of Marys and Zacharias anthems. The Testament of Abraham supplies their common theme.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary