Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 3:17

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 3:17” utilice nuestra app.

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.

17. And this I say ] This is what I mean. St Paul here reverts to, and continues the argument of Gal 3:15, which had been interrupted by the explanatory words, ‘He saith not is Christ’.

confirmed before of God ] Confirmed by oath (see Heb 6:17-18). This does not refer to the repetition of the promise to Isaac and Jacob, although by such repetition the promise may be regarded as extending over the patriarchal period down to the going down into Egypt. This makes the four hundred and thirty years agree with the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, as recorded Exo 12:40. Into the difficulty of reconciling this with the period arrived at by a calculation of the genealogies, it is not necessary to enter. (See Alford’s and Lightfoot’s notes.) For St Paul’s argument it is only necessary that the giving of the law should have been long after the announcement of the covenant promise.

in Christ ] These words are probably a gloss; and are properly omitted in R.V. If retained, they should be rendered, “unto (i.e. with a view to) Christ”.

The covenant, ratified before by God, the law, having come into existence after the lapse of 430 years, cannot cancel so as to invalidate the promise.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The covenant which was confirmed before of God – By God, in his promise to Abraham. It was confirmed before the giving of the Law. The confirmation was the solemn promise which God made to him.

In Christ – With respect to the Messiah; a covenant relating to him, and which promised that he should descend from Abraham. The word in, in the phrase in Christ, does not quite express the meaning of the Greek eis Christon. That means rather unto Christ; or unto the Messiah; that is, the covenant had respect to him. This is a common signification of the preposition eis The law. The Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Which was four hundred and thirty years after – In regard to the difficulties which have been felt respecting the chronology referred to here; see the note at Act 7:6. The exact time here referred to was probably when Abraham was called, and when the promise was first made to him. Assuming that as the time referred to, it is not difficult to make out the period of four hundred and thirty years. That promise was made when Abraham was seventy-five years old; Gen 12:3-4. From that time to the birth of Isaac, when Abraham was a hundred years old, was twenty-five years; Gen 21:5. Isaac was sixty when Jacob was born; Gen 25:26. Jacob went into Egypt when he was one hundred and thirty years old; Gen 47:9. And the Israelites sojourned there, according to the Septuagint Exo 12:40, two hundred and fifteen years, which completes the number: see Doddridge, Whitby, and Bloomfield. This was doubtless the common computation in the time of Paul; and as his argument did not depend at all on the exactness of the reckoning, he took the estimate which was in common use, without pausing or embarrassing himself by an inquiry whether it was strictly accurate or not.

His argument was the same, whether the Law was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, or only two hundred years. The argument is, that a law given after the solemn promise which had been made and confirmed, could not make that promise void. It would still be binding according to the original intention; and the Law must have been given for some purpose entirely different from that of the promise. No one can doubt the soundness of this argument. The promise to Abraham was of the nature of a compact. But no law given by one of the parties to a treaty or compact can disannul it, Two nations make a treaty of peace, involving solemn promises, pledges, and obligations. No law made afterward by one of the nations can disannul or change that treaty. Two men make a contract with solemn pledges and promises. No act of one of the parties can change that, or alter the conditions. So it was with the covenant between God and Abraham. God made to him solemn promists which could not be affected by a future giving of a law. God would feel himself to be under the most solemn obligation to fulfil all the promises which he had made to him.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.

Gods covenants with men

A covenant is an agreement or contract, in which the parties to it solemnly bind themselves to the fulfilment of certain conditions. When we speak of a covenant as entered into by God, we understand that He, who has no rule of action but His own will, has been pleased to bind Himself, in His dealings with men, to the observance of certain specified conditions; whilst those with whom the covenant is made are hound to fulfil the obligations imposed upon them, under pain of forfeiting the promised blessings, and incurring the attendant penalties.

1. The covenant under which all men are born is that of works; in other words, the moral law, the law of Adams nature, written in his heart, and afterwards republished from Mount Sinai, The terms of this covenant are, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and mind, and soul, and strength, and thy neighbour as thyself. The sanctions by which it is enforced are, on the one hand, This do, and thou shalt live, and on the other, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. This covenant is one by which an unfallen being, continuing in his obedience to it, might merit life; but to creatures such as we are, it can only be a dispensation of death. Of mercy to transgressors it knows nothing. It is law for man, as God made man–perfect–and to man in that condition, and in that only, is it a law that can give life. We ask, therefore, is there any other covenant whereby (letting go the first, and laying hold on this) we may have that eternal life which we have forfeited by the covenant of works?

2. The Scriptures reveal to us the covenant of grace, so called, inasmuch as it is grace which especially distinguishes it from the former covenant of works. The terms of this covenant are contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ: by it God is graciously pleased to bind Himself to bestow all spiritual blessings upon those who give up entirely their hope of life by the works of the first covenant, and, embracing this, plead the gracious provisions of it as the ground of their acceptance with God. But besides these two covenants, which form the groundwork of all Gods dealings with men, there is a third–that, viz., which was entered into with Israel at Sinai.

3. The Sinaitic Covenant was

(1) national, as made only with one people, the Jews;

(2) temporary, as designed to fulfil certain special ends, and to cease when those ends were accomplished;

(3) mixed, as partaking in part of the covenant of works, while containing certain provisions which had in them an echo, and something more than an echo, of the covenant of grace. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)

The Abrahamic covenant

I. The Abrahamic covenant viewed in itself (Gen 13:15; Gen 17:7). The prominent feature in it is grace, and it clearly looks forward to Christ. Its chief blessings are–

(1) Divine forgiveness;

(2) Divine reward;

(3) Divine adoption;

(4) Divine illumination.

II. The Abrahamic covenant viewed in its relation to the Covenant of Sinai. The covenant of grace was announced to Abraham in the promise made to him and his seed, Christ, long before the giving of the covenant of Sinai; its conditions were fulfilled by Christ during the Incarnation, at a period long subsequent to the giving of that covenant, it was therefore independent of and superior to it; it was designed for the benefit of the whole human race, whereas the Sinaitic covenant was confined to a single nation, was limited in its application, imperfect in its provisions, and, as far as the Jews were concerned, a failure in its results. We may conceive of the covenant of grace as stretching through time like some vast geological formation, having its beginning in the ages that are past, and reaching onward to the ages that are to come. As such formation, however, displays itself upon the surface of the earth, there is at one point a depression, a sinking of its outline, and that depression or valley is filled up by a formation of more recent growth, an overlying stratum which conceals the older formation from view, but does not destroy it. Such older formation crops up on the one side, and on the other of the later one, and in fact underlies it in all its parts; the one being limited and partial as contrasted with the other, which is comparatively unlimited and universal. Thus the covenant of grace stretches through the entire period of mans history; but at one point in its course it becomes overlaid by a covenant of recent growth, the national covenant of Sinai. But the older covenant is neither lost nor superseded; it recedes for a while from view; it gives place in the history of man to an intermediate covenant; but it does not vanish from our history. It had shown itself in Abrahamic times; it was to display itself yet more gloriously at the coming of Christ; but yet even during the period of its seeming obscuration, its operation was not suspended: the pious Jew looked through his own covenant to the covenant of grace–he dug, as it were, through the mixed and local deposit of his own economy, to the rock beneath him. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)

The everlasting covenant

I. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham long before the law was given on Sinai.

II. Abraham was not present on Sinai, and therefore there could have been no alteration in the covenant made there by his consent.

III. Abrahams consent was never asked as to any alteration in the covenant, without which the covenant could not have been set aside.

IV. The covenant stands firm, seeing that it was made to Abrahams seed as well as to Abraham himself. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The supremacy of faith

I. To be the true seed of Abraham the gentiles are to seek justification, not by the law but by faith.

II. Faith has precedence of the law, and consequently is not disannulled by it. It rests on promises given to Abraham.

III. The purposes of the law are subservient to conviction and preparation (V. 19), and, therefore, were not designed to disannul it.

IV. The inferiority of the law is marked by its being in the hands of a mediator, and not personal, as was the promise to Abraham.

V. Nevertheless faith and law do not clash. There is harmony between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic law. (Canon Vernon Hutton.)

The immutability of the covenant

I. Time cannot disannul it: neither the time before the law nor the time which has elapsed since.

1. Some covenants run out in the course of time, or are annulled through non-fulfilment within a given time, or are abrogated in the very fact of their fulfilment.

2. The Christian covenant is independent of time.

(1) No time was specified.

(2) In a sense its fulfilment began at once.

(3) It cannot pass away till the last of Abrahams seed has enjoyed its provisions.

II. The unfaithfulness of one of the contracting parties did not disannul it.

1. During the four hundred and thirty years.

(1) The obliquities of Jacob.

(2) The evil conduct of his sons.

(3) The religious apathy of the Egyptian sojourn.

(4) The perversities of the wilderness wandering.

2. During the following years till the advent.

(1) In spite of Divine revelation.

(2) Notwithstanding repeated chastisements, Israel grieviously sinned; yet the covenant was not withdrawn.

III. The intermediary dispensation did not disannul it.

1. The law itself did not.

(1) It was intended to help on its fulfilment.

(2) It was one part of Gods remedial plan of which the covenant was another part.

2. The infraction of the law did not.

(1) Sin led men to yearn for its fulfilment.

(2) Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.

III. It rests on the immutability of God.

1. Of His wisdom. He saw when the time would be ripe.

2. Of His mercy: He knew when it would be best to work in the interests of mankind.

The covenant, then, was not disannulled by the law.

1. Because then the blessing promised by the covenant would not have depended upon that promise.

2. Because then in vain is any mention made of the seed of Abraham, that is, of Christ.

3. Because those who died before the law was given on Sinai, amongst others, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would have no claim to partake of the Divine blessing, no share in the promised inheritance. (W. Denton, M. A.)

The covenant in Christ

I. Its nature–a covenant of promise–of mercy:

II. Its antiquity–older than the law–old as the first promise.

III. Its Immutability–confirmed to (Gal 3:16) and in Christ–cannot be disannulled. (J. Lyth.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 17. Confirmed before of God in Christ] i.e. The promise of justification, c., made to believers in Christ Jesus, who are the spiritual seed of Christ, as they are children of Abraham, from the similitude of their faith. Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him for justification the Gentiles believed in Christ, and received justification. Probably the word Christ is to be taken, both here and in the preceding verse, for Christians, as has already been hinted. However it be taken, the sense is plainly the same; the promise of salvation must necessarily be to them who believe in Christ, for he is the promised seed, Ge 3:15, through whom every blessing is derived on mankind; and through his spiritual seed-the true Christians, the conquests of the cross are daily spreading over the face of the earth. The present unparalleled dispersion of the sacred writings, in all the regular languages of the universe, is a full proof that all the nations of the earth are likely to be blessed through them; but they have nothing but what they have received from and through Christ.

Four hundred and thirty years after] God made a covenant with Abraham that the Messiah should spring from his posterity. This covenant stated that justification should be obtained by faith in the Messiah. The Messiah did not come till 1911 years after the making of this covenant, and the law was given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, therefore the law, which was given 1481 years before the promise to Abram could be fulfilled, (for so much time elapsed between the giving of the law and the advent of Christ,) could not possibly annul the Abrahamic covenant. This argument is absolute and conclusive. Let us review it. The promise to Abraham respects the Messiah, and cannot be fulfilled but in him. Christians say the Messiah is come, but the advent of him whom they acknowledge as the Messiah did not take place till 1911 years after the covenant was made, therefore no intermediate transaction can affect that covenant. But the law was an intermediate transaction, taking place 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, and could neither annul nor affect that which was not to have its fulfilment till 1481 years after. Justification by faith is promised in the Abrahamic covenant, and attributed to that alone, therefore it is not to be expected from the law, nor can its works justify any, for the law in this respect cannot annul or affect the Abrahamic covenant. But suppose ye say that the law, which was given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, has superseded this covenant, and limited and confined its blessings to the Jews; I answer: This is impossible, for the covenant most specifically refers to the Messiah, and takes in, not the Jewish people only, but all nations; for it is written, In thy seed-the Messiah and his spiritual progeny, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. This universal blessedness can never be confined, by any figure of speech, or by any legal act, to the Jewish people exclusively; and, as the covenant was legally made and confirmed, it cannot be annulled, it must therefore remain in reference to its object.

In opposition to us, the Jews assert that the Messiah is not yet come; then we assert, on that ground, that the promise is not yet fulfilled; for the giving of the law to one people cannot imply the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, because that extends to all nations. However, therefore, the case be argued, the Jewish cause derives no benefit from it; and the conclusion still recurs, salvation cannot be attained by the works of the law, forasmuch as the covenant is of faith; and he only, as your prophets declare, who is justified by faith, shall live, or be saved. Therefore we still conclude that those who are only under the law are under the curse; and, as it says, he that doeth these things shall live in them, and he that sinneth shall die, there is no hope of salvation for any man from the law of Moses. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ, proclaiming salvation by faith to a sinful and ruined world, is absolutely necessary, nor can it be superseded by any other institution, whether human or Divine.

How we arrive at the sum of 430 years may be seen in the note on Ex 12:40. Dr. Whitby also gives a satisfactory view of the matter. “The apostle refers to the promise made, Ge 12:3, since from that only are the 430 years to be computed, for then Abraham was 75 years old, Ge 12:4; from thence to the birth of Isaac, which happened when Abraham was 100 years old, (Ge 21:5,) 25 years; from his birth to the birth of Jacob, 60 years, for Isaac was 60 years old when Rebecca bare him, Ge 25:26. From Jacob’s birth to the descent into Egypt, 130 years, as he said to Pharaoh, Ge 47:9. The abode of him and his posterity in Egypt was 215 years; so that, with their sojourning in Canaan, was 430 years;” the sum given here, and in Ex 12:40, where see the notes.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The covenant, that was before confirmed of God in Christ: the word translated covenant, is the same as before; ordinarily signifying ones disposal of things in his last will and testament. Which name is given to the covenant of grace, with respect to the death of Christ; for though Christ as yet had not died, yet he was, by virtue of the covenant of redemption, and in Gods counsels: The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 13:8. This (he saith) was in Christ, ( as Abrahams promised seed), confirmed of God to Abraham, by Gods oath, Heb 6:17,18; by frequent repetitions of it; by such solemn rites as covenants use to be confirmed by, Gen 15:17,18; by the seals of circumcision, Gen 17:11; Rom 4:11; by a long prescription, &c.; though it received indeed its final and ultimate consummation by the death of Christ, yet it was before many ways confirmed.

The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul: the law was given four hundred and thirty years after the giving this promise to Abraham: though, Gen 15:13, the round number of four hundred years only be mentioned, which are to be counted from the birth of Isaac; yet, Exo 12:40, they are reckoned (as here) four hundred and thirty years, from Abrahams going out of Canaan, Gen 12:4; from whence to the birth of Isaac were twenty-five years, Gen 21:5, compared with Gen 12:4; from the birth of Isaac till Jacob was born, sixty years, Gen 25:26; from thence till Jacob went down into Egypt, one hundred and thirty years, Gen 47:9, where they abode two hundred and fifteen years. Hence the apostle concludes, that it was impossible that the law, which was not given till four hundred and thirty years after the confirmation of the promise,

should make the promise confirmed

of no effect.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

17. this I say“this iswhat I mean,” by what I said in Ga3:15.

continued . . . ofGod“ratified by God” (Ga3:15).

in Christrather, “untoChrist” (compare Ga 3:16).However, Vulgate and the old Italian versions translate asEnglish Version. But the oldest manuscripts omit the wordsaltogether.

the law which wasGreek,“which came into existence four hundred thirty years after”(Exo 12:40; Exo 12:41).He does not, as in the case of “the covenant,” add “enactedby God” (Joh 1:17).The dispensation of “the promise” began with the call ofAbraham from Ur into Canaan, and ended on the last night of hisgrandson Jacob’s sojourn in Canaan, the land of promise. Thedispensation of the law, which engenders bondage, was beginning todraw on from the time of his entrance into Egypt, the land ofbondage. It was to Christ in him, as in his grandfather Abraham, andhis father Isaac, not to him or them as persons, the promise wasspoken. On the day following the last repetition of the promiseorally (Ge 46:1-6), atBeer-sheba, Israel passed into Egypt. It is from the end, not fromthe beginning of the dispensation of promise, that the interval offour hundred thirty years between it and the law is to be counted. AtBeer-sheba, after the covenant with Abimelech, Abraham called on theeverlasting God, and the well was confirmed to him and his seed as aneverlasting possession. Here God appeared to Isaac. Here Jacobreceived the promise of the blessing, for which God had calledAbraham out of Ur, repeated for the last time, on the last night ofhis sojourn in the land of promise.

cannotGreek,“doth not disannul.”

make . . . of none effectThepromise would become so, if the power of conferring the inheritancebe transferred from it to the law (Ro4:14).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And this I say,…. Assert and affirm as a certain truth, that is not to be gainsaid;

that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul; by “the covenant” is meant, not the covenant made with Adam, as the federal head of all his posterity; for this was made two thousand years before the law was given; nor that which was made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, for that itself is the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after this covenant; nor the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham, for that was not so long by some years, before the giving of the law, as the date here fixed: but “a covenant confirmed of God in Christ”; a covenant in which Christ is concerned; a covenant made with him, of which he is the sum and substance, the Mediator, surety, and messenger; and such is what the Scriptures call the covenant of life and peace, and what we commonly style the covenant of grace and redemption; because the articles of redemption and reconciliation, of eternal life and salvation, by the free grace of God, are the principal things in it. This is said to be “in Christ”, , “with respect to Christ”; though the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions leave out this clause, nor is it in the Alexandrian copy, and some others; meaning either that this covenant has respect to Christ personal, he having that concern in it, as just now mentioned, and as it was made manifest and confirmed to Abraham, was promised in it to spring from him; or rather that it has respect to Christ mystical, as before, to all Abraham’s spiritual seed, both Jews and Gentiles: and this is said to be “confirmed of God”, with respect thereunto; which must be understood, not of the first establishment of the covenant, in and with Christ, for that was done in eternity; nor of the confirmation of it by his blood, which was at his death; nor of the confirmation of it in common to the saints by the Spirit of God, who is the seal of the covenant, as he is the Spirit of promise; but of a peculiar confirmation of it to Abraham, either by a frequent repetition thereof, or by annexing an oath unto it; or rather by those rites and usages, and even wonderful appearances, recorded in Ge 15:9 and which was “four hundred and thirty years before” the law was given, which are thus computed by the learned Pareus; from the confirmation of the covenant, and taking Hagar for his wife, to the birth of Isaac, 15 years; from the birth of Isaac, to the birth of Jacob, 60 years, Ge 25:26, from the birth of Jacob, to his going down into Egypt, 130 years, Ge 47:9, from his going down to Egypt, to his death, 17 years, Ge 47:28 from the death of Jacob, to the death of Joseph in Egypt, 53 years, Ge 50:26 from the death of Joseph, to the birth of Moses, 75 years; from the birth of Moses, to the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt, and the giving of the law, 80 years, in all 430 years. The Jews reckoned the four hundred years spoken of to Abraham, Ge 15:13 and mentioned by Stephen, Ac 7:6 from the birth of Isaac; but they reckon the four hundred and thirty years, the number given by Moses, Ex 12:40 and by the apostle here, to begin from the confirming the covenant between the pieces, though somewhat differently counted; says one of their chronologers f, we reckon the 430 years from the 70th year of Abraham, from whence to the birth of Isaac were 30 years, and from thence to the going out of Egypt, 400 years; and another g of them says,

“they are to be reckoned from the time that the bondage was decreed, in the standing between the pieces; and there were 210 years of them from thence to the going down to Egypt, and these are the particulars; the 105 years which remained to Abraham, and the 105 years Isaac lived after the death of Abraham, and there were 10 years from the death of Isaac, to the going down to Egypt, and it remains that there were 210 years they stayed in Egypt:”

another h of their writers says,

“that from the time that the decree of the captivity of Egypt was fixed between the pieces, to the birth of Isaac, were 30 years; and from the birth of Isaac to the going down of the children of Israel into Egypt, 400 years; take out from them the 60 years of Isaac, and the 130 years that Jacob had lived when he went into Egypt, and there remain 210.”

Josephus reckons i these years from Abraham’s coming into the land of Canaan, to the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and makes them 430, agreeably to Ex 12:40 and to the apostle here, and to the Talmud; [See comments on Ac 7:6]. However, be these computations as they will, it is certain, that the law, which was so long after the confirming of the covenant to Abraham, could not make it null and void: or that it should make the promise of none effect; the particular promise of the covenant, respecting the justification of Abraham and his spiritual seed, by faith in the righteousness of Christ.

f Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 7. 1. g Juchasln, fol. 156. 2. h Jarchi in T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 9. 1. i Antiqu. l. 2. c. 15. sect. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Now this I say ( ). Now I mean this. He comes back to his main point and is not carried afield by the special application of to Christ.

Confirmed beforehand by God ( ). Perfect passive participle of , in Byzantine writers and earliest use here. Nowhere else in N.T. The point is in and (by God) and in (after) as Burton shows.

Four hundred and thirty years after ( ). Literally, “after four hundred and thirty years.” This is the date in Ex 12:40 for the sojourn in Egypt (cf. Ge 15:13). But the LXX adds words to include the time of the patriarchs in Canaan in this number of years which would cut the time in Egypt in two. Cf. Ac 7:6. It is immaterial to Paul’s argument which chronology is adopted except that “the longer the covenant had been in force the more impressive is his statement” (Burton).

Doth not disannul ( ). Late verb , in N.T. only here and Matt 15:6; Mark 7:13 (from privative and , authority). On see 1Cor 1:28; 1Cor 2:6; 1Cor 15:24; 1Cor 15:26.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

And this I say [ ] . Now I mean this. Not strictly the conclusion from vv. 15, 16, since Paul does not use this phrase in drawing a conclusion (comp. 1Co 1:12, and touto de fhmi, 1Co 7:29; 1Co 14:50). It is rather the application, for which the way was prepared in verse 16, of the analogy of verse 15 to the inviolable stability of God ‘s covenant.

Four hundred and thirty years after. Bengel remarks : “The greatness of the interval increases the authority of the promise.” 63 To make of none effect [] . See on Rom 3:3.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

THE LAW DID NOT ADD TO THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT OF FAITH

1) “And this I say,” (touto de lego) “Even, and, or also this I assert,” or affirm as I set it forth to you very clearly!

2) “That the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,” (diatheken prokekurmenen hupo tou theou) “(that) a covenant having been previously ratified of God,” The term “in Christ” is not in the more reliable manuscripts. The covenant was confirmed or ratified long before the law of Moses was given, Rom 4:9-10; Rom 4:13-14.

3) “The law which was four hundred and thirty years -after, cannot disannul” (ho meta tetrakosia kai triakonta ete gegonos nomos ouk akuroi) “The law, four hundred and thirty years afterward, having come into being, does not disannul,” Exo 12:40-41. The last day of the 430th year of Israels wanderings and sojourneyings God led them out of Egyptian bondage, liberated them; by the passover they memorialized their deliverance by the blood, Exo 12:42-51.

4) “That it should make the promise of none effect,” (eis to katargesoi ten epangelian) “So as to abolish the promise;” The law emphasized the need of a Savior, a redeemer. It did not set aside, disannul or supplant the promise to Abraham, Rom 3:19-20; Gal 3:19; Gal 3:22; Gal 3:24.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

17. The law which was four hundred and thirty years after. If we listen to Origen and Jerome and all the Papists, there will be little difficulty in refuting this argument. Paul reasons thus: “A promise was given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the publication of the law; therefore the law which came after could not disannul the promise; and hence he concludes that ceremonies are not necessary.” But it may be objected, the sacraments were given in order to preserve the faith, and why should Paul separate them from the promise? He does so separate them, and proceeds to argue on the matter. The ceremonies themselves are not so much considered by him as something higher, — the effect of justification which was attributed to them by false apostles, and the obligation on the conscience. From ceremonies, accordingly, he takes occasion to discuss the whole subject of faith and works. If the point in dispute had no connection with obtaining righteousness, with the merit of works, or with ensnaring the conscience, ceremonies would be quite consistent with the promise.

What, then, is meant by this disannulling of the promise, against which the apostle contends? The impostors denied that salvation is freely promised to men, and received by faith, and, as we shall presently see, urged the necessity of works in order to merit salvation. I return to Paul’s own language. “The law,” he says, “is later than the promise, and therefore does not revoke it; for a covenant once sanctioned must remain perpetually binding.” I again repeat, if you do not understand that the promise is free, there will be no force in the statement; for the law and the promise are not at variance but on this single point, that the law justifies a man by the merit of works, and the promise bestows righteousness freely. This is made abundantly clear when he calls it a covenant founded on Christ.

But here we shall have the Papists to oppose us, for they will find a ready method of evading this argument. “We do not require,” they will say, “that the old ceremonies shall be any longer binding; let them be laid out of the question; nevertheless a man is justified by the moral law. For this law, which is as old as the creation of man, went before God’s covenant with Abraham; so that Paul’s reasoning is either frivolous, or it holds against ceremonies alone.” I answer, Paul took into account what was certainly true, that, except by a covenant with God, no reward is due to works. Admitting, then, that the law justifies, yet before the law men could not merit salvation by works, because there was no covenant. All that I am now affirming is granted by the scholastic theologians: for they maintain that works are meritorious of salvation, not by their intrinsic worth, but by the acceptance of God, (to use their own phrase,) and on the ground of a covenant. Consequently, where no divine covenant, no declaration of acceptance is found, — no works will be available for justification: so that Paul’s argument is perfectly conclusive. He tells us that God made two covenants with men; one through Abraham, and another through Moses. The former, being founded on Christ, was free; and therefore the law, which came after, could not enable men to obtain salvation otherwise than by grace, for then, “it would make the promise of none effect.” That this is the meaning appears clearly from what immediately follows.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(17) The fulfilment of the promise is thus to be seen in the Messianic dispensation now begun. The Law, which was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, had no power to cancel it.

This verse contains the direct inference from the argument stated in Gal. 3:15. When a document has been sealed, no subsequent addition can affect it. The Law was subsequent to the promise; therefore the Law cannot affect it.

And this I say.Now, what I mean to say is this; the inference that I intend to draw is this.

Confirmed before of Godi.e., confirmed by God before the giving of the Law.

In Christ.These words are omitted in the group of oldest MSS., and should certainly be struck out. If retained, the translation should be: unto Christi.e., with a view to Christ, to find its fulfilment in Christ.

Four hundred and thirty years after.The giving of the Law from Mount Sinai is thus placed four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham. This would include the two periods of the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan and the sojourn in Egypt. According to another system of chronology, the sojourn in Egypt alone occupied four hundred and thirtyor, in round numbers, four hundredyears. Thus, in Gen. 15:13, Abraham is warned that his seed is to be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and to be afflicted four hundred years. In Exo. 12:40 it is expressly stated that the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. In Act. 7:6 the prophecy of Gen. 15:13 is quoted: the people were to be entreated evil four hundred years. It is noticeable, however, that in Exo. 12:40, which is the least ambiguous of the three passages, the L.XX. and Samaritan Pentateuch add, and in the land of Canaan, so as to make the four hundred and thirty years cover the whole of the two periods, in agreement with the present passage. It has been thought that an examination of the genealogy of Levi favours the same reckoning. It would seem, however, that there were two systems of chronology really current. Josephus adopts both in different parts of his writings (comp. Ant. ii. 15, 2, with Ant. ii. 9, 1; Wars, v. 9, 4), and both are represented in other writers of the period, or not very much later. It is possible that the shorter reckoning may have arisen from difficulties observed in the longer, though it may be questioned whether it does not raise greater difficulties itself.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

17. And this I say And the point I here make is this. In Christ, is rejected by the best critics as a false reading.

Four hundred and thirty years On the chronological discrepancies here, (with which St. Paul’s reasoning has nothing to do,) consult note on Gen 15:13.

Law cannot disannul Through the whole period of the law the promise holds valid, tying Abraham to Christ. The law overlies the promise, but does not supersede or abolish it.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now this I say. A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, so as to make the promise of no effect.’

To put it another way. God, in His unmerited love and favour, gave the inheritance to Abraham and his seed by irrevocable promise. He promised that through them all the nations would be blessed. This was confirmed by God (repeatedly) and, as it were, put on record by Him. The Law came four hundred and thirty years afterwards (see Exo 12:40 in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint). It cannot therefore set aside this irrevocable promise made to Abraham, for such a covenant is irrevocable. And the promise was established long before the Law was given, so its fulfilment cannot depend on fulfilling the Law, for the Law was another, later, covenant made in another context with another man, who also represented a whole, the whole of Israel.

Indeed Moses himself differentiated the two covenants in Deu 5:3. For he said, ‘Yahweh did not make this covenant (of the ten words at Sinai) with our fathers but with us, even us who are all of us here alive this day’. The covenant of Abraham had reference to the whole world. The covenant of Sinai had reference to the people gathered at the Mount and their seed. It was therefore more exclusive, and not so all-embracing.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Gal 3:17. Four hundred and thirty years after, The first celebrated promise was made to Abraham when he was 75 years old, Gen 12:3-4 and from this date of it, to the birth of Isaac, when Abraham was 100 years old, Gen 21:5 was 25 years.

Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born, Gen 25:26. Jacob went into Egypt at 130, Gen 47:9 and the Israelites sojourned there (according to the LXX. Exo 12:40.) 215 years; which completes the number. See Act 7:6.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gal 3:17 . Result of Gal 3:15-16 , emphatically introduced by , but this which follows (see on 1Co 1:12 ) I say as the conclusion drawn from what is adduced in Gal 3:15-16 : A covenant which has been previously made valid (ratified) by God, the law does not annul. What covenant is here intended, is well known from the connection, namely, the covenant made by God with Abraham, through His giving to him, and to his included along with him, the promises in Gen 12:3 ; Gen 18:18 (Gen 3:8 ), Gen 13:15 , Gen 17:8 (Gen 3:16 ). The (comp. on Gal 3:15 ) is not any separate act following the institution of the covenant, but was implied in the very promises given: through them the covenant became valid. The in . is correlative with the subsequent , and therefore signifies: previously, ere the law existed .

. . .] cannot be intended to denote a comparatively short time (Koppe), which is not suggested by the context; but its purport is: The law, which came into existence so long a time after , cannot render invalid a covenant, which had been validly instituted so long previously by God and consequently had already subsisted so long. “Magnitudo intervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem,” Bengel. According to Hofmann, the statement of this length of time is intended to imply that the law was something new and different , which could not he held as an element forming part of the promise . But this was obvious of itself from the contrast between promise and law occupying the whole context, and, moreover, would not be dependent on a longer or shorter interval. With regard to the number 430, Paul gets it from Exo 12:40 (in Gen 15:13 and Act 7:6 the round number 400 is used); but in adopting it he does not take into account that this number specifies merely the duration of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt . Consequently the number here, taken by itself, contains a chronological inaccuracy; but Paul follows the statement of the LXX., which differs from the original text the text of the LXX. being well known to and current among his readers without entering further into this point of chronology, which was foreign to his aim. In Exo 12:40 the LXX. has . . (the words . . . . are wanting in the Hebrew), . This text of the LXX. was based upon a different reckoning of the time a reckoning which is found in the Samaritan text and in Joseph. Antt . ii. 15. 3. See Tychsen, Exc . X. p. 148. The interval between God’s promise to Abraham and the migration of Jacob to Egypt an interval omitted in the 430 years cannot indeed be exactly determined, but may be reckoned at about 200 years; so that, if Paul had wished to give on his own part a definition of the time, he would not have exceeded bounds with 600 years instead of 430. The attempts to bring the 430 years in our passage into agreement with the 430 years in Exo 12:40 are frustrated by the unequivocal tenor of both passages. [138]

] is not said ad postponendam legem , (see, on the contrary, Joh 1:17 ), as Bengel thinks (“non dicit data , quasi lex fuisset, antequam data sit”); for every law only comes into existence as law with the act of legislation.

On , invalidates, overthrows , comp. Mat 15:6 ; Mar 7:13 ; Mar 3 Esr. 6:32; Diod. Sic. xvi. 24; Dion. H. vi. 78; and , in more frequent use among Greek authors.

. .] Aim of the : in order to do away the promise (by which the was completed), to render it ineffective and devoid of result. Comp. Rom 4:14 . “Redditur autem inanis, si vis conferendae haereditatis ab ea ad legem transfertur,” Bengel. Observe once more the personification of the law.

[138] E.g . Grotius: The time in Exo 12:40 is reckoned from Abraham’s journey to Egypt. Perizonius, Orig. Aeg . 20; and Schoettgen, Hor . p. 736 The 430 years do not begin until after the period of the promises, that is, after the time of the patriarchs, and of Jacob in particular. Bengel, Ordo temp . 162: The terminus a quo is the birth of Jacob. Comp. Olshausen: Paul reckons from Jacob and his journey into Egypt. In like manner Hofmann: The terminus a quo is the time “at which the promise given to Abraham was at all repeated; ” also Hauck: “From Jacob, as far as the pure, genuine . reached.”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Ver. 17. Four hundred and thirty, &c. ] This space of time between the promise and the law, the Divine providence cast into two equal portions, of 215 before the people’s going down into Egypt, and 215 after their being there. (Lightfoot’s Har. Prolegom.)

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

17 .] Enthymematical inference from Gal 3:15-16 , put in the form of a restatement of the argument, as applying to the matters in hand. This however I say (this is my meaning, the drift of my previous statement): the covenant (better than a covenant, as most Commentators; even Meyer and De W.: the emphatic substantive is often anarthrous: cf. the different arrangement in Gal 3:15 ) which was previously ratified by God ( . being inserted by some to complete the correspondence with Gal 3:16 ; the fact was so , it was ‘ to Christ ,’ as its second party, that the covenant was ratified by God), the Law, which took place (was constituted) four hundred and thirty years after, does not abrogate, so as to do away the promise . As regards the interval of 430 years, we may remark, that in Exo 12:40 , it is stated, “The sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” (In Gen 15:13 , Act 7:6 , the period of the oppression of Israel in Egypt is roundly stated at 400 years.) But to this, in order to obtain the entire interval between the covenant with Abraham and the law, must be added the sojourning of the patriarchs in Canaan, i.e. to the birth of Isaac, 25 years (Gen 12:4 ; Gen 21:5 ), to that of Jacob, 60 more ( Gen 25:26 ), to his going down into Egypt, 130 more ( Gen 47:9 ); in all = 215 years. So that the time really was 645 years, not 430. But in the LXX (and Samaritan Pentateuch) we read, Exo 12:40 , ( ., A.) , ( ., A.) (A. adding ) : and this reckoning St. Paul has followed. We have instances of a similar adoption of the LXX text, in the apology of Stephen: see Act 7:14 , and note. After all, however, the difficulty lies in the 400 years of Gen 15:13 and Act 7:6 . For we may ascertain thus the period of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt: Joseph was 39 years old when Jacob came into Egypt (Gen 41:46-47 ; Gen 45:6 ): therefore he was born when Jacob was 91 (91 + 39 = 130: see Gen 47:9 ). But he was born 6 years before Jacob left Laban (compare ib. Gen 30:25 with Gen 31:41 ), having been with him 20 years (ib. Gen 31:38 ; Gen 31:41 ), and served him 14 of them for his two daughters ( Gen 30:41 ). Hence, seeing that his marriage with Rachel took place when he was 78 (91-20-7; the marriages with Leah and Rachel being contemporaneous, and the second seven years of service occurring after , not, as I assumed in the first edition, before, the marriage with Rachel); Levi, the third son of Leah, whose first son was born after Rachel’s marriage ( Gen 29:30-32 ), must have been born not earlier than Jacob’s 81st year, and consequently was about 49 (130 81) when he went down into Egypt. Now ( Exo 6:16 ) Levi lived in all 137 years: i.e., about 88 (137 49) years in Egypt. But (Exo 6:16 ; Exo 6:18 ; Exo 6:20 ) Amram, father of Moses and Aaron, married his father Kohath’s sister, Jochebed, who was therefore, as expressly stated Num 26:59 , ‘the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt.’ Therefore Jochebed must have been born within 88 years after the going down into Egypt. And seeing that Moses was 80 years old at the Exodus ( Exo 7:7 ), if we call x his mother’s age when he was born, we have 88 + 80 + x as a maximum for the sojourn in Egypt, which clearly therefore cannot be 430 years, or even 400; as in the former case x would = 262, in the latter 232. If we take x = cir. 47 (to which might be added in the hypothesis any time which 88 and x might have had in common) we shall have the sojourn in Egypt = 215 years, which added to the previous 215, will make the required 430. Thus it will appear that the LXX, Samaritan Pent., and St. Paul, have the right chronology, and as stated above, the difficulty lies in Gen 15:13 and Act 7:6 , and in the Hebrew text of Exo 12:40 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 3:17-18 . The inviolate sanctity of God’s earlier covenant in presence of the subsequent promulgation of the Law is here affirmed in virtue of the principle established in Gal 3:15 . Had the inheritance been made contingent on obedience to Law, the previous promise would have been thereby invalidated.

The Received Text inserts after . The words appear from the MS. evidence to be a later addition to the text, suggested probably by the previous argument, which associated the promise to Abraham with the coming of Christ, in whom alone that promise finds its fulfilment. The very form of the sentence forbids the acceptance of the addition here: for in the absence of an article does not denote the particular covenant concluded with Abraham, but signifies any covenant in the abstract, if duly ratified by God, whatever its nature. . . The full bearing of the language on the argument can hardly be expressed in English without a paraphrase. denotes not merely a gift, but a free gift bestowed by the grace of God without reserve, and marks the promise as a spontaneous offer, and not an undertaking ( ) based on terms of mutual agreement.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

confirmed before. Greek. prokuroo Only here.

of = by. Greek. hupo. App-104.

in Christ. The texts omit.

was. Literally came to be.

four hundred, &c. See Exo 12:40. App-50.

after. Greek. meta. App-104.

cannot disannul = doth not Greek. ou) disannul (Greek. akurov, Only here, Mat 15:6. Mar 7:13),

that it should = to. Greek, eis.

make . . . of none effect. Greek. katargeo. See Luk 13:7

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

17.] Enthymematical inference from Gal 3:15-16, put in the form of a restatement of the argument, as applying to the matters in hand. This however I say (this is my meaning, the drift of my previous statement): the covenant (better than a covenant, as most Commentators; even Meyer and De W.: the emphatic substantive is often anarthrous: cf. the different arrangement in Gal 3:15) which was previously ratified by God ( . being inserted by some to complete the correspondence with Gal 3:16; the fact was so, it was to Christ, as its second party, that the covenant was ratified by God), the Law, which took place (was constituted) four hundred and thirty years after, does not abrogate, so as to do away the promise. As regards the interval of 430 years, we may remark, that in Exo 12:40, it is stated, The sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. (In Gen 15:13, Act 7:6, the period of the oppression of Israel in Egypt is roundly stated at 400 years.) But to this, in order to obtain the entire interval between the covenant with Abraham and the law, must be added the sojourning of the patriarchs in Canaan,-i.e. to the birth of Isaac, 25 years (Gen 12:4; Gen 21:5),-to that of Jacob, 60 more (Gen 25:26),-to his going down into Egypt, 130 more (Gen 47:9); in all = 215 years. So that the time really was 645 years, not 430. But in the LXX (and Samaritan Pentateuch) we read, Exo 12:40, (., A.) , (., A.) (A. adding ) :-and this reckoning St. Paul has followed. We have instances of a similar adoption of the LXX text, in the apology of Stephen: see Act 7:14, and note. After all, however, the difficulty lies in the 400 years of Gen 15:13 and Act 7:6. For we may ascertain thus the period of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt: Joseph was 39 years old when Jacob came into Egypt (Gen 41:46-47; Gen 45:6): therefore he was born when Jacob was 91 (91 + 39 = 130: see Gen 47:9). But he was born 6 years before Jacob left Laban (compare ib. Gen 30:25 with Gen 31:41), having been with him 20 years (ib. Gen 31:38; Gen 31:41), and served him 14 of them for his two daughters (Gen 30:41). Hence, seeing that his marriage with Rachel took place when he was 78 (91-20-7; the marriages with Leah and Rachel being contemporaneous, and the second seven years of service occurring after, not, as I assumed in the first edition, before, the marriage with Rachel); Levi, the third son of Leah, whose first son was born after Rachels marriage (Gen 29:30-32), must have been born not earlier than Jacobs 81st year,-and consequently was about 49 (130-81) when he went down into Egypt. Now (Exo 6:16) Levi lived in all 137 years: i.e., about 88 (137-49) years in Egypt. But (Exo 6:16; Exo 6:18; Exo 6:20) Amram, father of Moses and Aaron, married his father Kohaths sister, Jochebed, who was therefore, as expressly stated Num 26:59, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt. Therefore Jochebed must have been born within 88 years after the going down into Egypt. And seeing that Moses was 80 years old at the Exodus (Exo 7:7),-if we call x his mothers age when he was born, we have 88 + 80 + x as a maximum for the sojourn in Egypt, which clearly therefore cannot be 430 years, or even 400; as in the former case x would = 262,-in the latter 232. If we take x = cir. 47 (to which might be added in the hypothesis any time which 88 and x might have had in common) we shall have the sojourn in Egypt = 215 years, which added to the previous 215, will make the required 430. Thus it will appear that the LXX, Samaritan Pent., and St. Paul, have the right chronology,-and as stated above, the difficulty lies in Gen 15:13 and Act 7:6,-and in the Hebrew text of Exo 12:40.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 3:17. , but this I say) He shows to what the comparison, Gal 3:15, refers.-) The word is taken here in a sense a little more extensive than that of a testament, for , the party entering into an arrangement, who is referred to here, is the immortal[24] [undying] God. And yet the term testament is more consonant with this passage than covenant, Gal 3:18, at the end. Comp. note on Mat 26:28.-,[25] confirmed before) Confirmed, Gal 3:15, corresponds to this: but , before, is added on account of those four hundred and thirty years. The testament was confirmed by the promise itself, and that promise repeated, and by an oath, and that too many years before: , in Gal 3:18, agrees with this word before.-, after) It will be said: The epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 7:28, note) everywhere prefers to the law those things which were confirmed , after the law; how then is that preferred here, after which the law was given? Ans. Those things are noticed there, in which the new confirmation [thing confirmed, covenant] was expressly derogatory to the old confirmation [thing confirmed, covenant]: but that the law was derogatory to the promise, which is here urged, was added neither in the time of Abraham, nor of Moses. , that which was from the beginning, is preferred in both cases: comp. Mat 19:8. Everywhere Christ prevails.-, years) The greatness of the interval increases the authority of the promise.-, which was, came into existence) This also has the effect of attributing inferiority to the law, and of imparting elegance to the personification. He does not say, given, as if the law had existed before it was given; nor does he add, by God, as he had said concerning the testament or covenant. There is another reason for these words, Joh 1:17.-, the law) He speaks in the nominative case; so that God who promises, and the law which does not detract from that promise, may be distinctly opposed to each other, and the hinge of this antithesis is the personification previously noticed.- , does not make void) A metonymy of the consequent [for the antecedent], i.e. the law does not confer the inheritance.- ) to make of no effect the promise. But it is rendered vain or of no effect, if the power of conferring the inheritance be transferred from it to the law.

[24] Whereas a testament implies the death of the testator; Heb 9:16-ED.

[25] The words following by the margin of the larger Ed. had been judged as deserving rather to be omitted, but by the excellent decision of the 2d Ed. they have been received into the Germ. Ver.-E. B.

DGfg Vulg. and both Syr. Versions support the addition in Rec. Text . But ABC, some of the best MSS. of Vulg., Memph., and Syr. reject the addition.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 3:17

Now this I say: A Covenant confirmed beforehand by God,-This covenant was confirmed by God to Abraham to be fulfilled in Christ. This covenant or promise was first made with Abraham when he was yet in Ur of the Chaldees. (Gen 12:1-4).

the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after,-The law was given by Moses four hundred and thirty years after this promise was made to Abraham. (Exo 12:40). Many interpret this to mean that they sojourned in Egypt four hundred and thirty years. But they dwelt in tents and had no permanent habitation during their sojourn in Canaan and Egypt and in the wilderness from the call in Ur until the entrance into Canaan after the Egyptian bondage.

doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.-This law could not annul or make void the promise made four hundred and thirty years before it was given. The law of Moses did not confer blessings on all nations. It brought blessings only to the fleshly children of Abraham, or those who would enter the family as children of Abraham. It prepared the children of Israel for bringing forth Jesus, and for presenting through him the blessing to the world; but the blessing could be bestowed upon all nations only through the taking out of the way of the law of Moses.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

this: Gal 5:16, 1Co 1:12, 1Co 7:29, 1Co 10:19, 2Co 9:6, Eph 4:17, Col 2:4

the covenant: Gen 15:18, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8, Gen 17:19, Luk 1:68-79, Joh 1:17, Joh 8:56-58, Rom 3:25, 2Co 1:20, Heb 11:13, Heb 11:17-19, Heb 11:39, Heb 11:40, 1Pe 1:11, 1Pe 1:12, 1Pe 1:20

which: Gen 15:13, Exo 12:40, Exo 12:41, Act 7:6

cannot: Gal 3:15, Job 40:8, Isa 14:27, Isa 28:18, Heb 7:18

that it: Gal 3:21, Num 23:19, Rom 4:13, Rom 4:14, Heb 6:13-18

none: Gal 5:4, Num 30:8, Psa 33:10, Rom 3:3, 1Co 1:17

Reciprocal: Gen 17:2 – And I Lev 12:3 – General Deu 5:3 – General Mat 5:17 – to destroy the law Luk 1:55 – General Joh 7:22 – circumcision Act 7:8 – the covenant Act 26:6 – the promise Rom 3:31 – do we 1Co 15:50 – this Gal 3:20 – but Gal 3:22 – that Eph 2:12 – the covenants

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

GODS COVENANT

The covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Gal 3:17

The figurative language, based upon the familiar custom of agreements and contracts among men, is applied to the relation between the Most High and those who are one with Christ Jesus.

I. Its author.God deigns to establish a covenant between Himself and His people. This is a fact most wonderful, and most encouraging and inspiring.

II. Its beneficiaries.It is for the advantage, not of the seed of Abraham only, but of every tribe and nation, upon a condition which is spiritual, and which may be fulfilled as well by Gentiles as by Jews.

III. Its character.It is of the nature of a promise. It differs from human covenants, in which there is an obligation on both sides in this respect, that whilst God can do all things for us, we have nothing which we can pay to Him as an equivalent. On this account, the covenant is termed the covenant of grace.

IV. Its import.Nothing earthly or temporary, but a spiritual and abiding blessing is assured to His people by the faithfulness of God. Righteousness, salvation, life: such is the description given of the advantage secured to those who benefit under this dispensation of Divine mercy.

V. Its supremacy.St. Paul contrasts it with the law, which was given hundreds of years after the covenant of grace was revealed to Abraham; and he points out several respects in which the law given by Moses was inferior to the eternal promise of Divine grace.

VI. Its ratification and fulfilment.This is by Jesus Christ, Abrahams seed, the Mediator, by faith in whom the promise is given to them that believe.

Illustration

The very oath sworn to Abraham by his Maker was, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, designed to show to the heirs of promise, down the whole stream of time, the immutability of Gods counsels. God forbid, cries St. Paul, that any one should think that the lawthe schoolmaster who was to bring us to Christwas against the promises of God! Though the sanctions of the two covenants might be differenta circumstance which does not in the least affect the moral obligationthe terms on which they dealt with man were the same. This development may be more complete, more uniform, more equable, more progressive, under the Gospel than under the law; but the direction of that development was ever, if not consciously towards Christ, at least towards Christianity.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Gal 3:17. -This, however, I say, or, my meaning is. The serves to resume or restate the argument, applying the previous principle underlying a man’s covenant to the point under discussion in the form of an implied inference.

, -a covenant which has been before confirmed by God for Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, does not invalidate, so as to do away the promise. The words of the Received Text are doubtful. They are found in D, F, K, L, majority of cursives, the Syriac version (), the Claromontane Latin, and the Greek fathers; but are wanting in A, B, C, , in the Vulgate, Coptic, and in Jerome and Augustine. The words are therefore suspicious, though Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck, and Hofmann vindicate their genuineness; and were they genuine, they cannot mean in Christ as in the Authorized Version, nor with Christ as Scholefield, nor until Christ as Borger, but for Christ. Jelf, 625; Gal 4:11, Gal 5:10; Rom 2:26; 2Co 12:6, etc. The phrase, however, is quite in harmony with the statement of the previous verse: the covenant was ratified with Abraham and his Seed, or its primary object was Christ-not in Him, but with a view to Him was it confirmed. The covenant was ratified before by God with Abraham, the in the participle being in contrast with the following . The ratification took place when the covenant was made. In one instance there was a sacrifice; in another an oath, when God sware by Himself. If a man’s covenant on being confirmed cannot be set aside or interpolated with new conditions, much more must God’s covenant remain unchanged, unvitiated, unabrogated. The law, so unlike it in contents and purpose, can be no portion of it; and the priority of the covenant by four centuries is additional proof of its validity: the law, that was introduced so long after it, can have no retrospective annulling influence over it. Magnitudo intervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem (Bengel, Koppe, Meyer). The means that came into existence with the act of legislation at Mount Sinai. The introducing the last clause gives the purpose of : so as to do away with the promise-the promise which was so much the core of the covenant, and so identified with it that they are convertible terms. Rom 1:20; 1Th 2:16.

The law came in 430 years after the promise- . The apostle thus puts the interval in specific numbers. If the period from the promise to the Exodus was 430 years, as the apostle asserts, then the sojourn in Egypt could not have been 400 years; or if it lasted 400 years, then the apostle’s chronology is defective by more than 200 years. But in Exo 12:40 the abode in Egypt is said to be 430 years; in Gen 15:13 the time of affliction is predicted to be 400 years, the statement being quoted by Stephen in his address, Act 7:6. There is thus a very marked difference of computation, and the apostle has followed the chronology of the Septuagint. It reads in Exo 12:40, , [ , b -the clause within brackets being found in Codex A, and there being other minor variations. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads similarly. The apostle adopts this chronology of the Alexandrian translators, who might, from their residence in Egypt, have some special means of information on the point. Josephus, Antiq. 2.15, 2, says that they left Egypt in the month Xanthicus . . . 430 years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but 215 years after Jacob’s removal into Egypt. Josephus, however, with strange inconsistency, had announced another chronology in his Antiquities, 2.9,1, and he follows it also in his Jewish War, 5.9,4. Philo adopts it, Quis rerum divinarum haeres, 54, Opera, vol. iv. p. 121, ed. Pfeiffer; so also Theophilus, ad Autolycum, 3.10, p. 215, ed. Otto. Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Hvernick, Ewald, Tiele, Reinke, Delitzsch, and Hofmann support this view, and disparage the Alexandrian reading as a clumsy and artificial interpolation. But the apostle adopted the Hellenistic chronology, and it can be satisfactorily vindicated out of many distinct intimations and data even in the Hebrew Text. There seem to have been two traditions on the subject, and Josephus apparently acknowledged both of them. It is ingenious but baseless to attempt a reconciliation by supposing that the promise may be regarded as made to Jacob just before he went down to Egypt, so that 430 years can be allowed for the sojourn (Olshausen), or by maintaining that the land not theirs of the Abrahamic promise comprehends Canaan as well as Egypt. See Usher’s Chron. Sac. cap. viii. As to the possible rate of increase of population during 215 years, see the calculations in Birks, The Exodus of Israel, chap. iii.

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

Gal 3:17. Four hundred and thirty years corresponds with the terms in Gen 15:13 and Exo 12:40-41, which is the time the children of Israel were in Egypt. The reader is urged to see the comments on this ‘subject at Gen 15:13-15, in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. The present verse also shows that the period of four hundred and thirty years is the time the Israelites were in Egypt. It states that the law was four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was–not first given– but after it was confirmed. Psa 105:9-10 plainly says it was confirmed unto Jacob. We cannot interpret that on the general basis that the name Jacob is used as including Abraham and Isaac, they being two of “the fathers” often spoken of, for in this place the writer mentions the three separately, and distinctly says the covenant was confirmed unto Jacob. It was in the days of Jacob the children of Israel went down into Egypt (Gen 46:1-6), and it was within three months after coming out of that country that they came to Sanai where the law was given (Exo 19:1). So the conclusion is clear; they entered Egypt in the days of Jacob, to whom the covenant was confirmed, and the law was given at the end of their sojourn, which Paul says was four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed. Paul makes the point that the giving of the law even that many years afterwards cannot disannul the covenant, because it had been confirmed. (See the comments at verse 15.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 3:17 contains an inference from Gal 3:15, in the form of a condensed restatement of the argument. It is impossible that the law should cancel the promise which was given repeatedly at least four hundred and thirty years earlier to the patriarchs, and which looked from the beginning to Christ as the proper end, so that the law is only an intervening link between the promise and its fulfilment. The words unto (with a view to) Christ (not in Christ, as in the E. V.), are, however, omitted in the oldest MSS. and critical editions.

Now this I say. What I mean to say is this.

The law which came (so long a time as) four hundred and thirty years after (the promise). This is the exact time of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, according to the historical statement in Exo 12:40. In the prophetic passage (Gen 15:13, and in Act 7:6), the round number four hundred is given for this sojourn. The Hebrew text in both passages implies that the residence in Egypt only is meant, If Paul followed the Hebrew text, he did not include the patriarchal age from Abrahams immigration to Canaan till Jacobs emigration to Egypt, which would make about two hundred years more (630); the starting-point with him was the close of the patriarchal age, during which the promise was repeatedly given to Isaac and Jacob as well as to Abraham (hence the plural promises in Gal 3:17; Gal 3:21). It is quite possible, however, that the Apostle follows here as often the text of the Septuagint which differs from the Hebrew in Exo 12:40, by including the patriarchal period in the four hundred and thirty years, and thus reducing the length of the Egyptian sojourn nearly one half: The sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt [and in the land of Canaan], was four hundred and thirty years. The words and in the land of Canaan are not in the Hebrew text, but are also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Josephus is inconsistent, and sometimes follows the one, sometimes the other chronology. The Septuagint may have inserted the explanatory clause to adapt the text to the chronological records of Egypt. But this difference in the chronology of the Greek Bible and our present Hebrew text, although very serious in a historical point of view, is of no account for the argument in hand. Paul means to say, the older an agreement the stronger is its authority. The Hebrew text would strengthen the argument.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Gal 3:17-18. And this I say What I mean by the foregoing example of human covenants is this; The covenant that was confirmed before of God By the promise itself, by the repetition of it, and by a solemn oath, concerning the blessing all nations through Christ; the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after the date of it, cannot disannul Abolish, or make it void, by introducing a new way of justification, or of blessing the nations, namely, by the works of the Mosaic law; so as to make the promise of no effect: 1st, With regard to other nations, which would be the case if only the Jews could obtain the accomplishment of it: yea, 2d, With regard to them also, if it were to be by works superseding it, and introducing another way of obtaining the blessing. The apostles argument proceeds on this undeniable principle of justice, that a covenant made by two parties cannot, after it is ratified, be altered or cancelled, except with the consent of both parties: who in the present case were, on the one hand, God; and on the other, Abraham and his seed, Christ. Wherefore, as neither Abraham nor his seed, Christ, was present at the making of the Sinai covenant, nothing in it can alter or set aside the covenant with Abraham, concerning the blessing of the nations in Christ.

It must be observed, that the four hundred and thirty years here spoken of are not to be computed from the time when the covenant was confirmed, but from the time when it was first made, as mentioned Gen 12:3, when Abraham was yet in Ur of the Chaldees, and was seventy-five years old, Gal 3:4. From that time to the birth of Isaac, which happened when Abraham was one hundred years old, are twenty-five years, Gen 21:5. To the birth of Jacob were sixty years, Isaac being sixty years old when Jacob was born, Gen 25:26. From Jacobs birth to his going into Egypt were one hundred and thirty years, as he says to Pharaoh, Gen 47:9; and according to the LXX. the Israelites sojourned in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years; for thus they translate Exo 12:40 : Now the sojourning of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years, the number mentioned by the apostle. For Or, besides, this being a new argument, drawn not from the time, as the former was, but from the nature of the transaction; if the inheritance Of the blessing promised to Abraham; be of the law Be suspended on such a condition that it cannot be obtained but by the observation of the Mosaic law, it must then follow that it is no more of promise By virtue of a free gratuitous promise; but that cannot be said, for God gave it to Abraham by promise It must therefore be by it, and not by the law, which must have been given for some other and subordinate end, as the next verse shows.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Let’s read this argument in its completeness: 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.

The promise was first, and then came the law, so how can the law be part of the promise – the promise is the source of salvation, not the law. A very simple logical argument against the teaching of the Judaizers that wanted to make the law a part of salvation.

I don’t know how much clearer Paul could have made it. This is almost a picture drawn with words to refute the intellectual musings of the false teachers.

We might, in our smugness, suggest that this sort of thing can’t happen today – we are too smart to allow ourselves to be drawn into such false teaching yet, just this past Sunday we were visiting an independent, fundamental church and sat through a video presentation that was taking dowry passages from the Old Testament and relating them to how a man should approach a woman today before marriage.

Yes, there might be some application from the feelings, the respect and the approach for today, but to directly start applying such passages to todays youth is nothing less than Judaizing – telling them they have to court as the law tells them to court. Not a far jump to the relating of law to salvation if you are this close all ready.

Just a side note, the term “He” does not appear in the original. It is assumed from the verb. The Net Bible translates this as “Scripture does not” and their footnote states that this is an alternative translation to assuming “He” in the passage. Whether it is God or Scripture the result is the same, for if it is Scripture it is from God – His Word and He said it, and if it is God, then His word is in complete agreement. It was God that spoke it in the first place anyway.

Just some other thoughts on the passage, the verb “confirmed” is in a perfect tense – something that has happened, but the action is ongoing into the future to a completion. It is confirmed by God, so we have something that is kind of like guaranteed I would think.

In verse eighteen the verb “gave” is also a perfect tense.

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

3:17 {19} And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God {m} in Christ, the {20} law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

(19) The eighth argument take by comparison, in this way: if a man’s covenant (being authenticated) is firm and strong, much more is God’s covenant. Therefore the Law was not given to cancel the promise made to Abraham with respect of Christ, that is to say, the end of which depended upon Christ.

(m) Which pertained to Christ.

(20) An enlarging of that argument in this way: moreover and besides that the promise is of itself firm and strong, it was also confirmed by virtue of being in place for a long time, that is, for 430 years, so that it could in no way be broken.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul summarized his point in Gal 3:17.

The 430 years probably began with God’s reiterating the promises to Jacob at Beersheba as he left Canaan to settle in Egypt (in 1875 B.C.; Gen 46:2-4). They probably ended with the giving of the Mosaic Law (in 1446 B.C.; Exodus 19).

The "inheritance" (Gal 3:18; cf. Gal 3:29; Gal 4:1; Gal 4:7; Gal 5:21) refers to what God promised to Abraham and his descendants, including justification by faith implicit in blessing. Reception of this did not depend on obedience to the Law, but God guaranteed to provide it. The idea of inheritance dominates much of the discussion in the following chapters. [Note: George, p. 249.]

". . . the inheritance of Gal 3:18; Gal 4:30 is parallel not with the land promises, Canaan, but with the gift of justification to the Gentiles. This is the major passage in the New Testament used to equate the inheritance of the land of Canaan with heaven, but the land of Canaan is not even the subject of the passage!" [Note: Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 90.]

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

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles